Sounds like you have selective, short-term memory on which state has the most surprising verdict returns in high-profile cases. It's neither of the two you just listed that has the top honor.

Did you buy all those apostrophes at Sam's Club? You're using them like they have an expiration date instead of a grammatical purpose.

"It's neither of the two you just listed that has the top honor."

If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, it's best not to delve into broken sentences as well.

LEMANS OWNER - what a total Azzzzzzzzzzz are you grading someone, or do you have any point to make except for being a frakin MEATBRAIN ?

Rlb43 - your comment completely disregards the concerns of the defense attorney: there ARE going to be charges here !!! WTF are you reading ??

The jurors have to corroborate the proper direct testimony, with the proper supportive "evidence", including proper assessments of evidentiary "hearsay" as it contributres to a charge, when and if the evidentiary 'hearsay' does contribute - some charges are going to overlap [in some of these claims] so all of these 'assessments' have to be clearly and properly connected with the 'proper' victim before the aggregate charges can be compiled and fully submitted to the judge.

HENCE "DELIBERATIONS" and read-backs of testimony

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

What about California? They let OJ Simpson go after a double homicide.

Died:

Since you are apparently on the reverse grammar Nazi bandwagon, please explain how Lemans' sentence you questioned is "broken". It has a subject, a verb and a predicate.

I can't for the life of me believe the jury is still deliberating on whether or not this POS is guilty. Casey Anthony all over again, only 100 times worse.

As someone who is living in Pennsylvania, I can assure you, you are wrong.

Let's not judge this fella too harshly. After all, he must be quite the intellectual giant. Where else in the world would you find more d*ck to entertain yourself than in a correctional facility? He ought be quite happy there.

His famous last words .. " Why yes, that does look like my soap. "

@hatchet

He'll never be in a shower at the same time with anybody else in prison. There's no way they can let him ever be in the same room with anybody but guards...even if they did put him in general population...he wouldn't have to worry about dropping his soap...they would just straight up kill him...within minutes...

Guys like him have no real interest whatsoever in grown men, or grown women for that matter. He probably only got married so as to deflect suspicion from what he was really interested in. At this point, I wouldn't be suprised to learn if he knowingly married a woman who couldn't have children of her own so that they could adopt. Since apparently all of his children are adopted, this certainly seems likely.

I was wondering about that. Would it still be possible though, if his son had a change of heart and didn't want to press charges? Can they still file charges without him? I just hope they find him guilty. If your own lawyer doesn't have faith in you, that says something. If it comes back not guilty think about the message that says to other children out there watching that are currently being abused - your SOL since your word isn't good enough evidence, and since no one will believe you anyways, what's the point in coming forward? And the fewer that come forward, the more child molesters are protected and will keep on hurting kids. Anyways, I am hoping what is taking the jury so long is the NUMEROUS counts against him.

I know from personal experience as a juror on a multiple-charge case (although there were not this many and they were not this serious) that it is a long slog, because you can't just discuss "Do we think that he did it?" and then vote on that, but rather must have that discussion for each individual count as if it were a totally separate case. Realistically, with this many counts it is pretty unlikely that the prosecution met the burden of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in 48 instances, so now they are likely voting on which are which and there may be holdouts who want to convict on everything or (maybe) even acquit on everything or most things.

Ever hear of double jeopardy?

@Royce... Great imagination !!! Ever thought your rights were real? Exercise them and then tell me the truth.

Fact is, they can bring it back as many times as they like as long as they have what could be considered new evidence to offer.

Do you really think the list of potential victims stops where it lay now?

Can I sell you a bridge?

I also have some marvelous coastal property along side some little fields in Mexico if you dont mind the squatters. They are just doing some yard work.

Nope, can't ever be tried again once you've been acquited (on the same charge). There are lots of people that have been acquited that they now have DNA evidence of guilt on, but it doesn't matter. As far as it goes, OJ could say he killed Nicole and Ron tomorrow and it wouldn't make a bit of difference with regard to THAT CASE. That's why he wrote that book explaining how "would have done it if it had really been him". Ha ha. Fortunately for the rest of society he was stupid to do something else that they could charge him with and then find lawyers smart enough to know how to get a conviction.

The key witness who is the only witness who actually says he saw a crime sort of is suspect to say the least and the cross by the defense may have proved that. Look at the Syracuse thing. There are too many money grabbers out there to take them serious I have a problem with keeping it a secret for so long and the public shower episode. I mean pervs hide from attention they do not use a public bath to do their sirty work...

wryview, you've been on these forums day after day, supporting Jerry Sandusky....do you actually believe that pedophiles would film their deeds, ask people to witness them abusing children?

There is precious little 'evidence' in cases such as these.

If there was one child making accusations, I'd have to agree with you. Unfortunately, the sheer numbers of boys coming forward makes it difficult to ignore.

Before you start on your 'they only want money' rant....if the courts decide to grant compensation to those who choose to sue, then great. This is their right...it is also the responsibility of the guilty party to compensate those who have been hurt. Thats the way it is, and honestly, if you don't agree, thats fine....but I can't imagine any of those young men opening themselves to public embarrasment just for the fun, can you?

@breadex - I tend to agree with you. McQueary is not a credible witness at all. His story has changed and he has gone back and forth over whether or not he actually saw any sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy. I do not think McQueary actually saw anything and this is pretty much backed up by the testimony of his friend who is the doctor saying that every time he pressed McQueary on what he actually saw McQueary went back to talking about noises. I think McQueary heard something and jumped to conclusions, then presented those conclusions as facts. Then on cross examination he basically hedged on what he actually witnessed. As for Weaver, I think that the reason he did not testify is that the prosecutor did not find him credible. I understand that there was one accuser whose accusations were proven false by travel records showing he could not have been at the aay game where he claimed the abuse occurred. Something tells me that Weaver is that accuser and this is why he did not testify. The prosecution did not want to taint all of the other witnesses with testimony from Weaver that the defense could show to be false. I have a hard time accepting the word of an accuser who is not allowed to be cross examined by the defense over the truthfulness of their statements. In addition, I look at things like the Syracuse debacle where it turned out to be money grubbers looking for a payday and the McMartin preschool mess where is turned out the kids were coached by the parents about what to say. In both cases he charges turned out to be false, but that did not prevent the destruction of the accused people's lives. There is no doubt that Sandusky did things that were completely inappropriate like showering with these boys, but the question is whether or not there is credible evidence that any sexual contact ever occurred. The most damning evidence so far seems to be the testimony that was not presented from the adopted son, although he, like Weaver has yet to be cross examined.

Considering the number of victims, How can the evidence not be there?

Jet - I have NOT been supporting Sandusky. I HAVE been supporting the justice system and how it is SUPPOSED to work. There is a difference.

Robert - For two of the victims, they don't even know WHO they are (one of whom is from the McQueary incident). McQueary testified that he didn't actually SEE anything. He heard noises. The testimony of some of the other victims is more compelling.

I predict he will be found guilty on some charges & not guilty on others. (Jet- I have said this multiple times over the past couple of weeks - so I don't see how you can say I was supporting Sandusky).

No evidence?

- He wrote love letters to these kids (read them, they're creepy at the least)

- He took them on trips, gave them presents and used a charity to sort them out

- Two witnesses to the abuse

- His own adopted son says he was abused

- Ten eyewitnesses to the abuse (and stop with the - they're in it for the money crap. THey could go after a civil suit and still have been abused, the two things are not mutually exclusive. If it was one person making the accusation, that would be a valid argument. Ten boys, now men, are making the accusation and last I heard only six are going after a civil case. Are the other four getting up in a front of a court room and admitting to taking it up the rear for fun?).

This all comes down to our current culture, values and the systems in place. If Sandusky wasn't a successful football coach, with strong ties and control over a large charity, he would have been in prison ten years ago based on this evidence. The problem is people today cannot see past the B.S.

A successful football coach can also be a serial pedophile rapist. A large institution can know about this and act to protect itself. A witness can forget dates. The evidence is clear - 12 eye witnesses, letters and access.

There is evidence to support abuse it all depends if you want to listen to the defense or prosecution. 48 counts is a lot to go through so they do have to take each one and weigh whether guilty or not, I'm glad they are taking their time if found guilty then the defense can't say they had their minds made up before deliberations. If found not guilty there are more accusers waiting in the wings, including at least one of his sons, all these people can not have made all this up to get one man. The sad thing is it is usually just the victims word against the molester and when one is an influential man against some troubled boys Jer sure got that right, "they will not believe you." That is why many victims stay silent. Molesters are banking on just this scenario, you're nobody and I'm the wonderful coach.

"You can only convict if the evidence proves it. It doesn't matter what we "assume" happened. I think he's guilty, but the evidence has to be there."

You are right, our judicial system should work as such. sickdusky will surely fry.

For me, McQueary's testimony is simply backup. This isn't a case of he-said-she-said, not with eight similar accounts. Sandusky's attorney can throw fairy dust around the room all he likes, but the cumulative weight of those victims would be the most compelling evidence to me.

No evidence? My God!The young men were interviewed separately for hours.They didn't get together and concoct this story, at all! Each story is very similar in many respects, showing that Sandusky used the same tactics as his MO with each of them. The grooming behaviors were all similar and are known to be the behaviors of pedophiles. Sandusky's own wife said that he was the one to take them to bed each night "to say goodnight" and that she went to sleep and rarely knew when he came to bed! This is actually corroborating testimony! There is evidence of more than one person seeing Sandusky with young boys in the shower, late at night?? What the hell is that? These kids were raped or "molested" and we know that most of the time when rape happens it is not witnessed.The perpetrators do everything possible to conceal it.Many of the boys were threatened and their families were threatened. They also admitted that they were afraid to lose the things they had been given. Gifting young kids is another grooming behavior.Do you think these young men are happy to expose themselves to this embarrassment?

This man is guilty! No question about it. Now the jury just needs to decide how many counts.

Sandusky was so out of control with his sickness or so cocky with it that he didn't care where he fulfilled his sickening desires. After all Joe had to made mention to him of the fact someone saw what he was doing and once he realized nothing was going to happen to him, he continued! He was convinced he was untoucable!

JS in SD I agree with you that McQueary is not a credible witness and you should make the

closing argument. And, no offense, but the witness on Rock Center looked like he was on

drugs.

What about all the testamony from the damn victums !! That alone should be enough !!!!

If the P.nis doesn't hit you must acquit.

It's just that the evidence in toto which makes it seem like such a compelling case. All of these different young men, who were involved in Sandusky's charity at different times and didn't know each other and widely separated by age, so it's not like they sat down together and cooked it up. Weird letters that aren't crimes in and of themselves but suggestive of them. A failure to act as if Costas' questions about "Are you attracted to young people?" were any sort of affront or in any way offensive, but rather mildly humourous and to be laughed off. The now-incapacitated janitor's story, and McQueary's. If only one or two of these things existed in isolation without the others to corroborate them then "reasonable doubt" could credibly be there. But in reality, it's not. The problem would seem to be in matching it all up, and seeing which victims were the most credible. The civil suits to follow, where the burden of proof is "the preponderance of the evidence" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt" will be so much simpler.

This guy is an animal and should be locked in a cage. When I see him on TV with that smug smile, It almost makes me physically ill. This guy is guilty, and we all know it. To debate this is an insult to all his victims. No doubt, there are more out there. He's a methodical predator. This guy adopted 6 children? And his wife didn't know anything. Come on. What was she locked in a closet. Enough said.

Dr....You could be right; Sandusky may walk on this trial. BUT, I don't think he will on the federal trial that is sure to follow. Once that trial starts, the adopted son and the other victim in Ohio will testify, and it will be totally incredible if he walks at that trial.

the prosecutor couldn't call them because they already rested. Besides, there is an ungodly amount of evidence against him. Only another OJ jury could believe this is all a giant conspiracy.

Ever think these two did not prove to be creditable or their stories did not pan out?

It was mentioned in the Rock Center show last night with the riveting testimony of one of the victims who's story held unwavering details. He never once broke eye contact with the reporter, until he was asked if he will ever be "over" this.

Then it proceeded on with the reporter with Brian Williams, explaining that this victim did not testify because they held back his testimony and a couple of others for a second trial if this one ends with a deadlocked jury. That is also a reason that the Sandusky son did not go on the stand. I think bringing him in on the last day was a brilliant strategic move. He was the nail in the coffin. Now depending on the outcome this trial, there are other issues to resolve, but they are on a federal level and civil cases where the ongoing investigations on centering on Second Mile and Penn State. My goodness, this kid's dad worked at Penn State and Very Scary Jerry, threatend to have his dad terminated. He then moved to Cleveland to live with his mother.

When this trial reaches a conclusion...we should look for Dottie to get out while the getting is good, 45 yrs or not!

I guess I asssumed that the children were adopted as infants or toddlers. Nope, this son was adopted at 11! He was adopted for futher perversions under the ruse of being loved and cared for by those loving and caring Sandusky's. Jerry is smart, he does not abuse everyone. Just a one here, one there.

Really, are there any people that do not believe any of this did not happen...considering the extra ordinary details, the football trips to the away game where seclusion was easier, the gifts, the Penn State access. If he was gifting these kids, why didn't he make one GIANT gift to benefit all the kids in the Second Mile program? Not just these select few.

Just because he was good ol-Jerry....he is beyond approach??? I don't care how many character witnesses they bring on, too many kids with the same horror and variations on a theme, different years, different time tables. Same ending! Charm and charisma are part of the MO.

Men do the same thing to vulnerable women, wine, dine woo. They also fit under the same column titled: Predator-Just my opinion.

Sanduskys wife claiming she knew nothing and never saw anything is just unimaginable. She should be charged with aiding and abetting in this. She obviously is lying about this. How can a women not know whats going on in her home for decades. She has been protecting a pedophile for years. How disgusting.

If our PA jury does not find this animal guilty I will have lost all faith in our justice system. Where is the justice for the children? Does any one remember poor little Caylee Anthony?

mike2010-1 as for Dottie Sandusky - when you don't look for something you don't see it. For example, my ex-husband shot heroin and cheated on me for almost the whole 6 yrs we were married. He told me he would never do anything like that to me, so I did not look for it. She could of heard voices in the basement, opened the door and asked if anything was wrong, they say nothing and that's that. So I will not condemn her.

The prosecution had already rested its case when the stepson came forward. They can't call a witness at that point. How can you suggest firing them?

It was smart of them to leave a few charges out for next trial. If something went wrong and he was found not guilty of these charges, the prosecution still has more in their bag. Also, if the jury is hung, they can easily retry those charges with the new ones.

I disagree that he will, as you put it "walk." I think he will be found guilty of some charges and not guilty of others. There are 48 charges.

No! Don't start a new trial let this one run its course, and, as I believe will happen , he is convicted on any one count and imprisoned, file new indictments on new charges with new accusers and start the whole process over again. Pile on as many convictions as possible and as much prison time as possible, and while you are at it, consider just how culpable his wife might be and anyone else that can be linked to having knowledge of what was going on.

uchusky: I didn't say he WILL walk...just that he MAY. I may have learned my lesson from the Casey Anthony case...I was absolutely convinced that she'd be found guilty of something that resulted in her child's death, and it turns out I was wrong.

My personal feelings are that there is WAY too much smoke for there to be no fire. I suspect he is guilty, but will the prosecution prove it to 12 jurors?

As disgusting as all of this is, does anyone else find it disturbing and violative of the principle of avoiding constitutionally-prohibited double jeopardy that someone can be acquited of doing something at the state level and then covicted of doing essentially the same thing at the federal level? I realize that probably would not be the case here as the adopted son would probably be the basis of any new case, or perhaps they would go after him for solicitation for his charity using the mail or interstate wires under the pretense that it was for charitable puposes but was in fact to gratify his desire to have sex with underage victims, or something else sufficiently different as to not be the same thing over again. I would hate to see him tried again for violating federal laws if it was essentially retrying any state charges on which he might be acquited. Understand that I would like to see him convicted of a sufficient number of state charges of sufficient severity that he would in essence be serving a life sentence and that this would obviate the need for any further criminal prosecution even though apparently there were far more offenses than just those with which he has been charged to this point.

I'd argue that it was the sounds he remembers in order to shield himself from actually seeing it.

Thats a lame excuse for a guy who has changed his story repeatedly. If you are a perv you are not going to take your victim to a public shower to accost him or her.

So, you have insider knowledge about what pervs will or won't do...you KNOW nothing about it...this man became more and more brasen because everyone refused to see what he was and he knew that...this went one for decades and it took this long before someone finally spoke up...did you know that the US has the most abused children in the WORLD...that says it all about what we, the people will tolerate, especially when it comes to our beloved game of football

So how do you know so much about perv's breadex? No offense just asking...

You obviously don't quite understand the 'special' treatment afforded to those involved in the football program at Penn State....those people could do no wrong, were given repeated 'free tickets' and not inconvenienced in any way.

God forbid the ticket sales suffered....God forbid Jo Paterno's legacy be tarnished by anything....God forbid ANYONE throw a monkeywrench into that machine.

Oh, and by the way...those showers were NOT "public" as many people have stated....although they weren't quite private. The shower area was ONLY for those given permission to actually BE on school property (and no, regular students were NOT allowed to shower there) at that time, and who were involved in the sports program. Don't forget....it WAS 'after hours'.....hmmm

Still, it is a boring story. Let's get back to Zimmerman and Trayvon. Have you seen the real 17 year old Trayvon with the facial tats?

Taft, are you referring to the Trayvon Martin with "facial tats" who is alive and well, whose only connection to the Trayvon Martin that Zimmerman murdered is that he is also a black youngster with that name? Yes, I saw that picture.

Shame on me for giving your uninformed comment the time of day.

So McQueary saw what he thought was a rape of a minor occuring, yet did nothing directly to stop it, that confuses me. I am not saying that he didn't see what he said he did. But shouldn't he have done more to intervent on behalf of that child?

Mark Taft if you find this story so boring, why don't you move on to a different story? Trolling?

So Nelson, how do you explain all of these boys claiming to be sexually abused by this man. Even his own adopted son. Did all of these kids make this up? They all just want attention? If it was one kid I could have doubts, but more than a dozen?

It is a shame that this man was allowed such access to these young kids because of his status as a football coach and people turned a blind eye to the strange circumstances and behaviour.

Seems all of the kids in the Syracuse case made it up and they did not put the ones they caught in this case making it up. Sandusky is rich that should ring a bell. Also the Penn State university stands to get sued and the vulture lawyers are panting at the opportunity to pounce. If Sandusky is guilty I hope he is punished but this case is going on 20 years plus with no exposure until now. Rumors have surfaced over and over again with no proof. Either he belongs in the perv hall of fame for being able to go this long without being caught or as in the case of the Syracuse incident there is something else to it. The fact the jury is reviewing testimony from the "key witness" and the person he allegedly told. All this talk of him being traumatised by the incident and not being able to describe it are BS. If it trauatised him that bad he would have b-ined it right to the police.

Breadex - What do you know about trauma? What do you know about sexual abuse, rape, sexual assault? Your assumptions of what you would have done if you had been traumatized indicate you have never truly been traumatized.

Being a victim of child sexual abuse, I can tell you that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a child to say anything about an adult (even if they are abusing them). These sexual abusers "groom" their victims for a period of time prior to any abuse occurring so that by the time that abuse begins, the victim is too scared (often for the safety of their families), guilt ridden (believing it to be their fault) and traumatized to say and/or do anything. IF a victim does get the courage to say something and there words go unnoticed, with no help or protection from the very people who are supposed to protect you, I can PROMISE you that the victim would not say another words about it to anyone. After all, why should they?

I'm getting pretty tired of reading these posts about how these victims are only after money ..... I don't know about you but there is no amount of money in this world that would make it worth putting myself in such a public, self-degrading, humiliating light.

As for the testimony regarding the noises in the shower room ..... as a person in their late 40's, I feel confident that you could blinfold me and put me in a room with people having sex and I would be able to tell simply by sound what is happening around me.

Nelson - You hit the nail on the head. The justice system needs to be able to run its course.

JustmeinKY - If you didn't actually SEE the sex, you can't testify that it was. Have you ever seen "When Harry Met Sally" or "Easy A"?

JustmeinKY, I am very sorry you have been through that.

I know what you are saying is true. For four years I dealt with very bizarre behavior from a woman I loved and at one point was engaged to. She could be the sweetest person on earth who would turn on a dime for no reason into the devil himself.

Then it came out that she had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Google him. A total perv. But she kept it from all who knew her for years due to the embarrassment of the whole thing.

Anyways in discussing the issues with doctors I found that her behavior was typical of those who have been sexually abused.

Men of power often are able to sexually abuse many boys or girls and none will speak up due the the careful grooming and the appearance of invincibility these pervs put out.

I truly loved this woman, but the damage that was done to her made it impossible for us to remain together. It stills tears me apart sometimes.

Funny thing is that Epstein kind of looks like Sandusky.

I encourage anyone who has been abused or being abused to speak out now. You never know who you may save from being abused or the innocent ones who are made to suffer for someone else's perversions.

I know I have never been abused, but I have still be made to suffer greatly because of some pervert's twisted fun.

May you find peace from what you have been through. Again, I am very sorry for what you experienced.

breadex

You are actually still trying to find excuses? "sickdusky is rich that should ring a bell" So only poor pedophiles are guilty, but rich ones are innocent because everyone is just out to get their money?

Your comments make me wonder if you're not some scum bag pedophile that hasn't been caught yet, and is following this case closely to see what technicalities you can get off with if you ever got caught.

In the Syracuse case there was a tape of the wife admitting that she'd had sex with at least one of the purported victims herself, and admitting that "Bernie has problems", but there was no legal case there due to New York's statute of limitations. It's not like nothing at all happened, just no case for a court of law. Note that Bernie Fine is suing no one, and had he lost his job and got all of this negative publicity over nothing, then he would be.

Yes, what a wonderful opportunity, to humiliate yourself publicly on a national scale for the potential of a lawsuit, which Penn State's deep pockets will drag out in perpetuity with a fleet of lawyers, while you struggle to get by and pay one attorney, and that attorney will take a big chunk of whatever you get for your trouble in the end, that sounds like a GREAT idea. I wonder why MORE people didn't jump on this prime business opportunity?

32maniac, why do you think Sandusky chose these boys. He chose them because they were vulnerable because of their life circumstances. He also chose them because he knew if any one of them talked all he had to do was say they were kids from "troubled backgrounds, difficult family situations" and no one would believe them. He knew what he was doing when he created a "charity" as a front to give himself a candy store of victims to choose from.

Brilliant conclusion on your part. And people wonder why sexual assault crimes are under-reported. Did you ever consider that just maybe it was easier for others to speak up once they realized they were not alone? I'm pretty sure if it were about the money, there would be less humiliating accusations that could be made.

the reluctance to believe the victims is exactly why victims don't speak up. They already feel shame and guilt, and already know many people won't believe them. My mother was molested by a brain damaged older brother when she was a small child. because of his threats he made, she told no one about the abuse until she was 80 years old. And when she told her story the pain in her eyes was heartbreaking. The victims are victimized again and again

I've known people who were falsely accused of this sort of thing, too. So if this were just one young person or just a small group of closely-related boys or close friends, I'd be extremely skeptical based on things which I have previously seen in my life. But when it is over this many years by so many young men who didn't know each other or had not ever even met prior to this case being made and them all nonetheless having such similar stories, then the crediblity of that fact alone cannot and should not be ignored.

"None of them do. No amount of money..."?

I expect to see multiple, individual civil suits against the deep pockets of Penn State. What planet are you from?

RRuin, I couldn't agree more with your statement about McQueary. He reported it and, being as young as he was at that time, probably thought it would be taken care of by the property university and/or law enforcement authorities. He has probably been carrying around this image in his head for years. I would tend to believe him over some of the alleged victims because he, as you said, has absolutely nothing to gain from any of this.

What price do you think is suitable compensation for their suffering, 32? No check Penn State, Second Mile or Sandusky can write will undo the damage to these kids, now young men.

32maniac, there will be lawsuits because many of these victims would have been spared if Penn State officials reported what they knew. But if you really believe that the money they might get from lawsuits can restore the childhoods they lost then I have to ask what planet are YOU from?

I hope and pray that PSU gets sued into right into Hades where it belongs. A lot of "leaders" covered up for this perv for many, many years.

AND, it is my firm belief that there were a LOT more men involved in not only the cover up, BUT also was doing what Sandusky was, with Sandusky's help...I believe that charity was a club for pervs...

. He has nothing to gain

He is in it up to his ass and if he does not testify he is going to jail himself I would call that a 100% something to gain oppoortunity. Go back the Joes testimony and read it. He says when he got the call from Mc he thought he was calling for a job abd he started to blow him off because he did not want to talk to him. Then the guy blurts on about something he thought he saw and Joe passed that on to his superiors like he was supposed to do. After Mq gave a statement he was in it and could not back out. He changed his story and also told deifferent people different versions. Has nothing to gain ? The hell he does not.

32 - as well they should be sued. It would be one thing if no one knew but it was reported years ago and it was ignored. Why are you so anti-civil suit? Accidents are one thing, pure negligence is another. The fact that the school turned a blind eye because of the big bucks tells me that the school is more guilty of being greedy than any of these victims. They should be compensated for their suffering and if the school didn't want to be sued, I guess those in charge should have addressed this issue when it was first reported.

You also have to remember that abused people repress details and even whole events. We do this as a coping mechanism. A lot of these boys, now men, may be husbands, fathers, etc. and may not be comfortable coming forth now. This kind of event makes one question ones sexuality. Even if they are not attracted to men and were obviously taken advantage of. Also, a lot of abuse victims end up with drug habits, run ins with the law, suicide attempts, etc., which would make them not the best person to put on the stand. It's a very difficult situation, that revicitimizes the victem over and over again.

Breadex

I'm not saying Sandusky is innocent or promoting that opinion. But I agee with what you say. McQueary got himself tied up in this like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. His parents must not have read Uncle Remus to him when he was a child. Now that there are several accusers, he is under a lot of pressure to back up their stories. If you don't think he is under any pressure, just check out the emotionality of the majority of the posts to this article. His back-up is the testimony of Dr. Dranov who heard the story from him in close proximity to the event in the shower and his reporting it to Joe Paterno. The meeting with Dr. Dranov and his father was supposedly to get advice on what he should do, since he didn't know or hadn't decided. (This implies uncertainty on his part as to what the experience that he had meant.) Dr. Dranov is a very creditable witness. He is experienced in primary care medicine as a Board Certified Internist and trained to know and enforce the laws and procedures surrounding child abuse/molestation and the manditory reporting requirements of physicians. But his testimony doesn't support McQueary saying that he actually saw rather than heard sounds he interpreted as a sexual act. And Dr. Dranov did not personally report anything. So it can be assumed that he didn't feel McQueary's story had enough to it to necessitate reporting. And this is the story that Joe Paterno heard. But Joe Paterno, who was a football coach and not trained or experienced in evaluating or reporting child molestation, did report the incident to the Director of the University Park Police (the "real police" who had jurisdiction) and to his superiors at the top of the University Administration who had the power to do something which he did not have. It's not clear to me why McQueary was not given an audiometric test to see if he could actually tell the difference between the sounds of sex being performed and just splashing around in the shower. Perhaps the Judge wouldn't allow it, since I doubt if there are any standardized, vetted tests of this sort.

Make excuses... shower us with sympathetic comments. Talk about what ifs... WATCH and LEARN after the Sandusky trial is over. This is the real world folks. The real world doesn't care about victims. It is all about money.

Geez... some of you people need to buy a clue.

Breadbox

Don't you think dranov may have been hiding he did from everyone else. Sandusky was just the person caught. What with his connection to 2d mile, he may have been provided boys to the upper layers of the Administration.

32maniac, do you think the victims should not be compensated? Money is the only recourse they have. Just like a wrongful death suit. It does not bring back the deceased but it the only recourse left. Jerry's behavior was classic pedophile grooming behavior. Right out of the NAMBLA manual. He did the same thing all those priests did. Find a kid from a home with no dad (because let's face it the perv could be dead very soon if there was a responsible male around, just like the case in Texas) , step in as the father figure, win the child's and mother's trust thru gifts and trips and attention and then have sex with them. Afterward they theaten the child so he is too scared to tell. The behavior is classic.

Joe,

You interpreted my comments to suggest the victims should not be compensated? Never said that. I simply implied that they will tap the deep pockets of PSU. That IS what will happen. I simply offered a response to RRuin's comments.

McQueary's life, at least as he knew it, is pretty much over and he must be aware of that by now. He will constantly be dogged by the feeling of many, including possibly himself, that he could/should have done far more than just report what the thought was happening in the shower that night. He stayed at PSU all of those years afterward until the entire JoePa staff was dismissed. He has a very memorable, unusual name. He is also of a rather unique appearance, being tall, thin, and red-haired so more people will know for far longer who he is and what his role in all of this was than had his name been Smith or Jones and he were brown-haired and 5'11" and 215 lbs. I can't imagine him getting another job coaching football anywhere for anytime in the near future, and he is on the cusp of middle age and has never really done anything else. On some levels, I really pity him, but not nearly to the extent which I do the actual victims, who will never really be truly "made whole" by any amount of money.

Once the defense said that Sandusky has a histronic personality mental disorder, only a fool or somebody getting paid under the table would believe he is innocent. Our legal system is in shambles because the Federal Reserve international banksters have been in charge since 1913. Our government is just a bunch of lap dogs for war profiteers and banksters, especially the supreme court with Infinite Greed United v. FEC and Eminent Corporate Domain v. American People's Homes decisions. It is long past time for the American people to give it to our government "up the ol' Sandusky" Vote independent this fall; anybody but a Republicrat or a Demolican! I don't know about you but I want to see actual penetration in November 2012.

That only related to the letters they tried to use to prove he was devious. Many people suffer from the same condition.

But most of them are neurotics, not criminals. This guy does a huge disservice to those who legitimately suffer from that condition, just as he is to all sports coaches and all men who truly desire to mentor rather than sexually abuse fatherless boys.

You just had a Nancy Grace moment.

For once here I agree with Breadex: Article 3, section 3, clause 3: USC:

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So to translate for workingmiddleclass and legal expert Nancy Grace; "corruption of blood" means going after the entire family instead of just the perpetrator of a crime. So unless Sandusky's wife partook in the accused criminal acts she is not criminally liable. Although the victims can go after their joint (married)property in civil court.

Have agreat day

and for perjury

She covered up for him; whether that rose to the level of "conspiring" with him would be the question. With the marital privlege neither could be compelled to testify against the other so it would have to depend on proof provided by others. There is little doubt that she knew things were amiss but did nothing to undermine her position as a leader in the community with a well-respected (in public) husband with a well above-average income; many women have been known to turn their heads to a whole lot under those circumstances.

She certainly could be sued in a civil suit. She knew or should have known that this crime was occuring in her house. Kinda like you can be sued for not shoveling your sidewalk and someone slips and falls. You knew or should have known that someone could get hurt due to your negligence.

She's an accomplice if she knew and did nothing. Child engangerment, for starters......

You are wrong...if she was there AND knew what was going on and didn't stop it or report it, she is an accomplice...she would NOT have had to touch any of the children to be charged with being an accomplice...that's the law...and, she is even worse because she got on the stand and effectively called these boys liars...there are special places in H*ll for people like her...she cares more for her nice, cushy life than those children's pain and suffering

Sandusky's wife must have suspected something, just based on what Travis Weaver said about how he spent the night at their house at least a hundred times, and Sandusky abused him on every visit. His wife would have to have a screw loose not to wonder what her husband was doing having all those boys sleeping over and spending so much time alone with them in the basement.

He probably married her because he knew he could manipulate her and carry on as a pedophile right under her nose. My guess is that she couldn't face the reality of what he was doing so she stayed in deep denial where she remains to this day.

What is even more telling is that their adopted son Matt has come forward saying he was abused as well. It doesn't look like Dottie helped protect him either.

ANYBODY can be sued in civil court. And of course there is no burden of proof required in a civil trial. Did she know or suspect? I think she suspected but its possible she did not know as absurd as it might seem.

The almighty dollar will rule in the end.

There is a burden of proof required in civil cases, but it is the lower standard of "perponderance of the evidence" so it's easier to show liability than in a criminal case.

Where in the world did this occur? It sounds like a Lord of the Files urban film noir dystopia.

Eww! Don't insult Leslie Nielsen like that!

stug, I think he looks more like bugs bunny !!

Looks more like Jeffrey Epstein. Acts like him too.

I think it's the more counts against the defendant the longer the deliberation. I think he will be found guilty of most counts...I think they have to go through all of them.

There are 48 counts. Even if they only spend 15 minutes on each-that alone would be 12 hours of deliberation.

After reading about this for months, and read what many have written about this, I have come to the conclusion that this is a guy thing...it would seem that guys have a lot of trouble addressing this issue in a straight-forward manner, especially as it has to do with football and a popular university football program...I KNOW what I would have done and I also know what most women would have done if they had been in McQueary's shoes...we would have jumped on him and started screaming and biting and then rushed that child to the hospital and THEN called police...with NO second thoughts...men seem to think about the repercussions to Sandusky, the football program and to Penn State...NO thoughts about the children...is this a guy thing? I don't know what else to call it

I beg your pardon I am a "guy" and if I witnessed something like this I would have kicked the crap out of this guy. I have children as do most "guys" and unless they have the same inhibition as do the pervs none of them would ever permit the harming of a child. That is so off based it is almost unbelievable

There could be more to it than that...When McQueary called JoePa to report, JoePa didn't want to talk to him because he thought he was calling about a job ad. What if McQueary, an unknown graduate assistant on the coaching staff, saw this information as leverage for him to land a permanent job on the coaching staff of a (then, anyway!) very prestigious football program in exchange for his silence? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it seems strange to me that a more experienced coach didn't get that job over McQueary.

There could be more to it than that...When McQueary called JoePa to report, JoePa didn't want to talk to him because he thought he was calling about a job ad. What if McQueary, an unknown graduate assistant on the coaching staff, saw this information as leverage for him to land a permanent job on the coaching staff of a (then, anyway!) very prestigious football program in exchange for his silence? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it seems strange to me that a more experienced coach didn't get that job over McQueary.

McQueary sold himself out to the biggest bidder - Penn State football ! He sacrificed a boy for a career!

Our wonderful governor was the DA for the state when these charges first came to light...he could have stopped many of these young men from their horrible experiences in the future and didn't...don't expect him to act now

well he may not have a choice when an all out riot ensues...what a black eye for PA

he could have stopped many of these young men from their horrible experiences in the future and didn't...don't expect him to act now

Please read my past posts on other subjects if you don't believe me, but I am a big liberal and have no reason to defend Corbett.

However, he started an investigation and when the evidence was found, which took a while (as it was not in one place and had been covered up by Penn State) he put together the grand jury and moved forward. He could not have done more.

People who say he could have gone public do not understand how investigations work. You don't go public until you have the evidence-especially when there is a cover up! You can't arrest the guy until you have enough for a solid prosecution, and even then, he had to go through the grand jury (though not for an indictment, but something close as per PA law.) With a high profile case and a defendant who can afford the best defense, you need your ducks in a row before you do anything public.

Based on this-how could he have stopped it? Also, none of the victims who testified said they were abused at the point after Corbett got the case.

Again-look at my history-I have no reason to defend Corbett, but it seems as though the people who are against him are mostly Paterno defenders or people who somehow think that Corbett somehow believed that prosecuting Sandusky would have hurt him politically (I haven't figured out how it would have done anything but helped him as a Sandusky guilty verdict is an all but unanimously supported issue.)

uchusky: I think the remark that Corbett could have done something to prevent terrible future experieinces refers back to the original investigation against Sandusky in '98/'99....when the DA's office (of which Corbett was a part back then) declined to press charges, allowing the coverup to succeed for the three years before the now infamous shower incident.

Why does it have to be "white america"? What is your point?

It's sad to read how many abused posters have not moved on with their lives. It seems that more therapy is needed to help overcome past trauma.

That's a helluva lot of trauma to have to get through especially if it happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Think about having to endure something like that for years and years and years and years. Kind of a narrow minded view, doncha think?

Then there are the victims who never had anyone to believe that they were being abused in the first place. In the past, children were not believed, they may have been told they it was their fault if it happened and that they were saying something like that to try and gain attention. "How dare you say something like that about your (insert anyone here)! He's a pillar of society and would never, ever do something like that! Now go run and play and don't lie about something like that again, or you'll be in trouble!"

does "move on with their lives" mean forgetting? I don't think so. Most abuse victims DO move on with their lives, but it's always there. and high profile cases like this bring it back to the surface

reaj,bend over and lets see how long it takes you to move on with your life !!Damn bozo !!

Penn State Adminstration-yes. They knew and did nothing.

Corbett led the investigation and put together the grand jury. What is he supposed to be accountable for?

See my post 18.3...he couldn't have gone public or said anything to anyone as it would violate the investigation.

Uhhh....What does Pitt have to do with this, other than being in the same state?