How deep did coverup go in Penn State child sex abuse case?

In my opinion, Paterno was treated unfairly.
He was guilty of NOT usurping decision-making powers of his bosses.

The boy in the shower is one of eight who Sandusky is accused of having molested over a 15 year period. The grand jury report said that despite McQueary's eyewitness account, the university did not investigate and "never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower... No one from the university did."

Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, told ABC News that they believe they know the "victim."

"The kid is... now grown up, he's in his 20s. He's adamant that nothing sexual occurred," Amendola said.




The lawyer says he and Sandusky believe they are talking about the correct boy because Sandusky remembered being approached by school official Tim Curley a couple days after the shower.

"In fact, Jerry Sandusky gave Tim the name of the kid and said do you want to call him? He'll tell you nothing went on," Amendola said. Sandusky also told the boy that he might get a call asking about the shower, and the person remembers getting the call from Sandusky.

"This is why he believes very, very strongly he is the young man involved," Amendola said

The allegations, ALLEGATIONS, of the indictment r very alarming

Jerry Sandusky already has been convicted by the media and the public of a series of atrocious sexual crimes against young boys committed over many years. He deserves no sympathy even if one-tenth of what is reported about him is true. He appears to be as bad a sexual predator as there is. We can already imagine how unpopular even the admittedly-provocative title of this piece might seem.

But why has he already been convicted? Is it because he has been formally charged? Probably not, since the Police Criminal Complaint (the Pennsylvania procedural counterpart of an indictment) by itself merely sketched out with very few details the allegations against him. Is it because he has publicly and on the record, so to speak, acknowledged being with children in a compromising setting? Probably not, even though his lawyer surprisingly allowed him to admit far too much in last week's TV interview, i.e., that he "horsed around" with a 10-year-old in a locker room shower.

Rather, Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty because the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has de facto violated his rights. To be sure, in such a horrible case, one is inclined to side with the prosecutor. It is hard to criticize a prosecutor who, after many years of what looks like a cover-up by Penn State officials, has finally been able through a painstaking investigation to acquire evidence and expose Sandusky's serial crimes. The truth, however, is that in issuing the ubiquitous Grand Jury Report (or "presentment"), which ostensibly was used merely to describe the grand jury's "findings" -- the Attorney General has inescapably proven in the public's mind Sandusky's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Can any trial jury selected to decide this case conceivably find Sandusky not guilty given what the public already has learned from the clearly incendiary Report which countless press websites incorrectly identify as the Sandusky Indictment?
.
.
.Defendants, even horrible ones such as Jerry Sandusky, deserve fair treatment from prosecutors. Just as it would violate professional ethics for a prosecutor to publicly state at the time of an arrest all of the incriminating evidence against a defendant beyond what is contained in the four corners of the criminal charge itself, it appears to violate professional ethics for a prosecutor to sneak through the back door to do the same thing: that is, to smear a defendant by disclosing secret grand jury evidence through a one-sided grand jury report which the prosecution alone creates and controls.

The allegations, ALLEGATIONS, of the indictment r very alarming

I have not been paying close attention, but I have heard no allegations of sexual abuse yet,
only claims from officials that there are such claims...

Many times in the past, I have asserted that if the victims had been well armed,
the predator might well have been defeated.

Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy,” the report said. “While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, ‘I’m going to squeeze your guts out.’ Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy’s back against his chest.”

When the boy returned home, his mother noticed his wet hair and “was upset to learn the boy had showered with Sandusky,” according to the grand-jury-report. She reported the incident to university police, the report said.

Lauro said he interviewed both the boy and Sandusky in 1998 and both told the same story: they had showered together. The boy did not accuse Sandusky of assaulting him, so without any other evidence, Lauro determined it didn’t meet the state’s criteria for abuse, he said.

‘Red Flag’

“It raised a red flag, but not to the level of child abuse -- perhaps a boundary issue,” Lauro said. “I knew it was inappropriate, but I didn’t think it was child abuse.”

The grand-jury report describes how Ronald Schreffler, a university police detective, and Ralph Ralston, a State College police detective, eavesdropped on two conversations the mother had with Sandusky in May 1998. She asked Sandusky whether his “private parts” touched her son during the bear hug and Sandusky replied, “I don’t think so … maybe,” according to the report.

“I was wrong,” Sandusky told the mother, according to the grand-jury report. “I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”

Lauro said he wasn’t told about the eavesdropping until after the case was closed. When Costas asked him about the comments, Sandusky replied, “I didn’t say, to my recollection, that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we could reconcile things.”

Many times in the past, I have asserted that if the victims had been well armed,
the predator might well have been defeated.

In the case of the 98 "victim" that would not have helped,
because it appears that he did not feel that Sandusky had done
anything wrong, it was the mother who had the complaint

If he was not threatened, then it was not a predatory event,
and it did not occasion self defense.

If he was not threatened, then it was not a predatory event,
and it did not occasion self defense.

Given your views on childhood I assume that your position is that if the kid did not think that a crime was committed
then the parents did not have the right to make the event into a crime by alleging trespass in his stead ......

Interesting....I never would have figured you to be a guy who approves
of a definition of crime that does not require a victim.

I can't go with you there,,,if the state can not show harm then it has no jurisdiction with criminal law, imho.

Mr. Sandusky, in a nearly four-hour interview over two days this week, insisted he had never sexually abused any child, but he confirmed details of some of the events that prosecutors have cited in charging him with 40 counts of molesting young boys, all of whom came to know Mr. Sandusky through the charity he founded, known as the Second Mile.

Mr. Sandusky said he regularly gave money to the disadvantaged boys at his charity, opened bank accounts for them, and gave them gifts that had been donated to the charity.

Prosecutors have said Mr. Sandusky used such gifts as a way to build a sense of trust and loyalty among boys he then repeatedly abused.

Mr. Sandusky, after repeated requests, agreed to the interview because he said his decades of work with children had been misunderstood and distorted by prosecutors

Interesting....I never would have figured you to be a guy who approves of a definition of crime that does not require a victim. I can't go with you there,,,if the state can not show harm then it has no jurisdiction with criminal law, imho.

So, in your mind, if an adult male convinces a 4 year old boy to leave a store with him, without his mother's knowledge or consent, he just walks out with the boy, is that a crime if the little boy did not mind or didn't complain, or didn't think it was a crime? What about if he rubbed the little boy's pee pee during their excursion?

The idea that children are miniature adults is Davids not mine. According to Davids thinking best as I understood it before I asked if the child does not feel that he is a victim then there is no victim.

The idea that children are miniature adults is Davids not mine.

(CNN) -- Attorneys for alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky lashed out Saturday at a new interview with the former Penn State football coach, with one calling it "another failed attempt to manipulate the public."
Howard Janet, who represents the person identified as Victim 6 in the grand jury report that led to Sandusky's indictment, said Sandusky also attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to "manipulate the future jury pool."
"He's not accomplishing ... his desired goal," Janet said. He called much of Sandusky's interview with The New York Times, which published on Saturday, "uncomfortable to watch" and "disingenuous."
"Every time he opens his mouth, virtually, he puts his foot in it," Janet said.
Among other statements, Sandusky attempted to clarify his relationships with young people in the extensive interview with the newspaper.