There was no reasonable doubt when this started. I expect he will be locked away in protective custody and will never get touched in prison but he will burn in hell.........

The only real justice will come when he's Bubba's bitch.

Rot in jail. It is just a warm up for hell.

it is a shame that it took a new attorney general to actually make this happen. Tom Corbett needs to be investigated as to why he allowed the continued cover up on his watch

frankly, i'm appalled at Amendola's 10 minute diatribe on how Jerry Sandusky is innocent and was wrongfully convicted. he is also a contradiction. he thanks the jury and the Commonwealth for their great service in this matter, and then talks about that there are 'a lot of people in jail who are innocent' - i don't believe he really THINKS Sandusky is innocent, but he has to put on a show. he says they knew this would be the outcome based on the mountain of evidence, but then talks about the appeal process. if Amendola really believed the jury and/or the prosecution made a horrible mistake - he wouldn't be praising them.

Setting case up for appeal for an inadequate defense ?

@Amused123-1848476...are you efin kiddin me??? I am so angry at your idiotic comments!! I don't know a single rational human being that didn't think this man was guilty from the word go!! Jerry Sandusky is the devil wearing a sports coat and I suspect you are a pedophile sympothizer. It's people such as yourself that allow criminals back on the streets to continue their depravity! You should share an adjoining room in prison with Sandusky! SICK SICK SICK!!!

They ought to 'take care' of Sandusky's wife now, too !!!!!

Also, I wish Paterno could raise from the dead and also be locked away in prison !!!!!!!!

BTW, The current Governor Of PA. as a D.A. NEVER ACCUSED Sandusky after investigating him for 3 years.

So, it also says the current governor was in on the scheme !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the victims that came forward can be relieved that this case was prosecuted by the state attorney general and not the incompetent federal DOJ.

But a mother and her son went to police in 1998 which should have nipped it in the bud. People should start listening to CHILDREN.

As far as Penn St., they thought they could save the barrel (Penn St) by keeping silent with their little rotten apple (Jerry Sandusky) in there. Well, the rotten apple which should have been ousted ruined the whole barrel didn't it!!!

Raven There was no diatribe. The job of the defense lawyers is to forcefully represent their clients interest. Anything less is actually unethical. Its the job of the court and jury to weigh the case as presented by the defense and prosecution. Since it is the job of the defense to make appeals, there can be no admission of guilt even after the verdict. Please study how the judicial system works and quit complaining about defense attorneys doing their job. If you ever get arrested for something you didn't do, you will be thankful that the system works the way it does. If the defense attorney incorrectly thinks you are guilty he still has to forcefully represent you. It's not the job of defense attorneys to second guess the guilt or innocence of their clients. All evidence that both defense and prosecution are aware of must be made available.

I agree with you Mark. I actually was impressed with the way he explained things while giving credit to the jury and the judge. I was expecting him to go on about how unfair it was, etc, but instead he praised the jury and the judge. And I never heard him state that Sandusky was innocent, he just never implied he was guilty which, as Mark said, he can not do.

None of you rabble rousers have a clue as to what happened here nor do I. Making rasg statements and being pseudo Macho and doing the chest beat thing would be funny if this was not such a tragic case. You do not know what the jury heard did not see the evidence and look the other way at the fact guilty or not the verdict was always going to be guilty. Blame the community. How something can fester for so long in any community is beyond reason. Now we here less roast corbett because he was the DA in the area. Why? A DA has to have a certain amount of PROOF before he can take anyone to trial and in this case they say he did not but dont let that stop your rants. Get a life move on and find another seed to infest.

really breadex, what evidence is out now that Corbett didn't have available 5 years ago? This is mostly stuff that happened 10 plus years ago, so I think with some investigation there would have been plenty of evidence. I believe that's what happened here. Someone actually did an investigation and the flood gates opened. I don't know that he (Corbett) dropped the ball or what, but everyone along the way that knew anything needs to be investigated. He is no exception.

Maybe this would be a good time to reopen the investigation into the disappearance of Asst. DA Roy Gricar, who investigated the initial allegations in '98/'99. The AG (Corbett, at the time) decided not to press charges...and then in 2005, Gricar is presumed dead when his car and laptop are found near a river, but no sign of him.

Save the Tax Dollars, castrate him and let him go, I figure it will cost serveral hundred thousand to Jail and protect him. Or release him in the general prison population, in some ways he could then feel what his victims felt, hopeless.

I also read the hard drive on the laptop was missing.

who the hell gives a sh./.tr; we have a meltdown in the economy, we are in three no win wars; and we are concerned about a pedophiles at Penn State.

Saxon, you hit the nail on the head. Who gives a crap about this piece of @!$%#!

PennState ( The Joe Paterno Sportsball Cabal ) surely cared about Sandusky's criminality and covered it up until they could not control the information. Sue the school for multi-millions.

If you look at this comment from the juror you get the impression he may have thought he was no guilty or it was not proved. Why was he looking for confirmation of his decision. Sandusky and everyone else in the world knew what the verdict was gonna be. They came back with guilty verdicts on everything but the ones the guy said he saw in the shower but that was supposed to be the clincher. In effec Sandusky got convicted on hearsay which used to not be allowed.

He was convicted because the jury believed the evidence put forth. The 3 "not guilty" verdicts weren't all connected to the shower incident. Only 1 of them was. They believed the shower incident and convicted on all counts except for the actual penetration, because they said there wasn't enough evidence of it. The 2 other acquittals were for different victims, again they convicted on all but one in each of those cases. In other words, they believed he had abused in each case but a few charges weren't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

And as far as confirmation, again, it's normal to have a small degree of doubt, especially since you know as a juror that you don't have all the information.

I hate to break this to all of the armchair psychologists, but lack of emotional response, otherwise known as "flat affect", isn't necessarily confirmation of anything other than depression. There have been many cases where people have attributed guilt where there was none to those displaying such behavior. It really says more about the juror's need to affirm Sandusky's guilt, that he read the response that way.

That said, I think the preponderance of evidence would lead to the same conclusion.

J-stat-

Thank you for mentioning that, since "lack of remorse" is so often interpreted (based on impression, since we can't see inside anyone's head) as guilt or to impose harsher sentencing.

Of course, in a criminal trial, reasonable doubt is a higher standard than preponderance, but preponderance is enough for civil judgment.

I don't think it amounts to reasonable doubt, but I too find it distasteful. Just because the guy doesn't break down in tears means nothing, especially a man of his generation.

I'm sure he's guilty as hell, but that juror's statement makes me wrinkle my nose at a bad smell.

I agree. They should have had no reasonable doubts when they gave the verdict.

One of the dumbest justifications I've ever seen by a juror.

Sandusky may have lacked emotion because he was innocent and knew he was going to be wrongly convicted too.

beyond any reasonable doubt pertains to murder trials.

Philcommander - Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all criminal trials in the USA.

Wrong, PhilCommander. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for any criminal conviction.

In a civil suit, on the other hand, the standard is just whether the jury finds the plaintiff's case more compelling, or the defendant's (respondent's). In a civil suit, there's no prosecutor, and jail time is not possible, no matter what.

The Governor of Pennsylvania doesn't think there's a problem:

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, in a statement:
“First, I want to thank the jury for their willingness to serve on such a difficult case. I also want to commend the multiple victims in this case who had the courage to come forward and testify in court, confronting Sandusky, and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of these reprehensible crimes.”

And this is the guy who might have the power to pardon Sandusky at some point. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon. Good.

Dumbasss This wasn't a Civil Trial!

This was a criminal trial. The civil trials don't end up in prison terms but cash rewards.

I believe the world is round, but every time I see a photo of it from space, it serves as a confirmation. That doesn't mean I had reasonable doubt.

Jurors are not to believe anyone is guilty or innocent when they go into the court room. I believe some people want to think the defendant could be innocent and thus this man's comment. I don't think the comment reflects on anything but how Sandusky appeared to them when the verdict was read and I don't read anything into the comment. I'm sure if it was a gang member who was found guilty of some horrible murder, who had the same blank look on his face, the same feeling of giving the right verdict would have been in their minds as well. I can understand the feeling, but saying it makes people uneasy.

The key flaw in your argument for having the verdict thrown out is your interpretation of 'doubt'. It would be very rare for a jury to come to a verdict without some doubt in someone's mind. The standard, of course, is 'reasonable doubt' and it is the job of the jury to make the call.

I'm elated that you were not on the jury. Your rational is insane!

Before judging what the juror said when he used the word "confirmation," I'd like to see the full context of that statement. It appears the press selected that word out of his statement, so it is out of context. It is the only word they put in quotes. It's important not to put too much emphasis a single word that may not have been the best choice to use. Not everyone is capable of expressing themselves appropriately. There were also 11 other jurors who convicted this man, but we've only heard from one at this point.

Tinycowlady, the juror I think wanted to see some emotion from Sandusky, maybe even remorse, but he had no doubt that the jury's decision was the right one. I would want to see some remorse or even sadness from the defendant when he is found guilty. All of the evidence, testimony and others corroborated the stories of these young men. I think now the flood gates will open for all of the other men who were abused by this rapist. The police are not done yet in this case, there will be others taken to court. For a man who was supposed to care for these kids, he has no heart or conscience, if he did, he would have reacted.

@amused123-1848476, don't you have a NAMBLA meeting to get to? You can't be serious with this. Him saying it "confirmed" just means that they already knew he did it, but he just solidified their decision. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean he had doubt, reasonable or otherwise. The fact that you think the verdict should be thrown out says a lot about you. And, what it says is quite disturbing.

the juror I think wanted to see some emotion from Sandusky, maybe even remorse, but he had no doubt that the jury's decision was the right one. I would want to see some remorse or even sadness from the defendant when he is found guilty.

Sorry Kate, men just don't wear their emotions on their sleeves like women. A lack of emotion means absolutely nothing. In fact, if I were convicted of a crime I committed, I'd be more emotional than if I was wrongly convicted. If I were wrongly convicted, I'd probably just blank out emotionally feeling like the whole world was against me and I was powerless to do anything...be resigned to my fate. Not that I'm saying this guy is innocent...just that you can't read people that way.

There is a very high standard in this country leading to the conviction of a person in criminal cases. Words do matter, even if taken out of context it is how we communicate one to another. Reading some of these comments could lead one to believe that the flaws in our jurisprudence system convicts more than we actually should. Classically, in our 24 hour news cycle nearly everyone is exposed to at the very least some aspect to high profile (and locally low profile) crimes. It is from this exposure that we begin to (if not fully) draw conclusions based on these reports. This virtually eliminates our guarantee of innocence before trial and thereby lowers the bar for prosecutors to get "guilty" verdicts. Further, prosecutors are well aware of the lower standards required to finish high school (the average person reads and understands at an 8th grade level) This knowledge also is used to achieve "guilty" verdicts as they often load up the charging counts against a particular defendant with the expectation that reasonable jurors will conclude that if a defendant didn't do everything charged he/she did something. It is perfectly understandable that this juror used the word "confirmation" when relaying what he "felt" when the verdict was read. Again a failure of our standard of living. We "should" convict on facts and report on these facts. Applying an emotional component such as "no emotion confirms his guilt" only serves to further sell this story to a softer more effeminate society.

Sorry Kate, men just don't wear their emotions on their sleeves like women. A lack of emotion means absolutely nothing. In fact, if I were convicted of a crime I committed, I'd be more emotional than if I was wrongly convicted. If I were wrongly convicted, I'd probably just blank out emotionally feeling like the whole world was against me and I was powerless to do anything...be resigned to my fate. Not that I'm saying this guy is innocent...just that you can't read people that way.

But, remember, Jerry Sandusky is supposed to have histrionic personality disorder, right?

I think he just simple meant it confirmed what he aready knew, just to be phsyically able to try and read his face. They did a good job. He also said they we're an the same page from the beginning so there didn't seem to be any reasonable doubt at all. What did adults think of this predator all these years? How could he even offered to adopt on of these kids so long ago, (the first one the Grand jury interviewed). Crazy to even bring something like that up. On the surface he must have been a nice guy but in the intervies he sounds very child like...Makes it sound simple but I think the whole trial went along at a reasonable pace. There was just a lot of evidence that was not even disputed by the sac of sh** lawyer. Glad it's done. What the hell was his wife thinking...

This juror is an idiot trying to get his face and comments in the news like most people who are not very intelligent and desire their 15 mins of fame. The jury members should shut up and say nothing. There is no doubt in my mind that Sandusky is guilty, he is deserving of a harsh sentence as well. I want to see all the people called out and named who had knowledge and did not speak out to end this sooner. Those people are all dispicable to me. Something should have been done a long time ago...that assistant coach, the idiot wife, the janitor, everyone who knew and did nothing, how do you live with that?

Z,

"Sorry Kate, men just don't wear their emotions on their sleeves like women. A lack of emotion means absolutely nothing."

I agree. Any pschologist will tell you that different personality types display emotions differently. Some display there emotions readily and in great abundance through there facial expressions and bodily movements, others are very reserved in showing any emotion at all even though they feel it inside. I am one of the latter. I show very little emotion and, in fact, I even feel embarrassed when I see others showing emotion, but I feel very deeply. That's just my personality type. So I think this juror is mistaken in his belief that Sandusky's failure to show emotion is an indication of guilt. But that is the way juries are. They often look at the defendant for any sign of an emotional display. Every defense lawyer know that, too, and they council their clients accordingly. I'm certainly not suggesting that Sandusky is innocent. I am only saying that the lack of an emotional response in itself is not a good reason for finding him guilty.

I agree that you can't tell a person's guilt or innocence by the emotion they show (or don't show). We've all seen people who can use a show of emotion to manipulate others. However, I think this jury did a good job. They clearly went over each count and, although I'm pretty sure they believed he was guilty of all, they knew the evidence wasn't strong enough for the 3 charges that they acquitted him on. Shows me they really took it seriously. And like others have said, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is aware they are not hearing everything that we hear on the outside, so I think there's always a twinge of doubt that maybe they weren't allowed to hear something the rest of us were. If you had to have no doubts whatsoever, there'd be very few people in prison.

LA,

"If you had to have no doubts whatsoever, there'd be very few people in prison."

Right! I think all evidence is circumstantial evidence even in most murder trials. Even eye-witness testimony is suspect these days.

Right Mickey. If it was beyond any doubt, there would be no innocent people in prison. We know that's not the case. The jury can only take the evidence shown to them (which is far from everything) and use their best judgement.

LA,

"The jury can only take the evidence shown to them (which is far from everything) and use their best judgement."

That's true. I served on a jury once myself, and I think that was the thing that bothered me the most. You are required to render a verdict that may end in sending a man to prison while knowing all the time that you have not been hearing the whole story; that a lot of the evidence has been withheld from you. You always have to wonder afterward if you made the right decision.

Fortunately, they didn't convict based on his perceived lack of emotion. As they also state, they only convicted based on cases where there was proof that abuse had happened-- they threw out the one where it had been 'heard' but not directly seen.

PhilCommander

beyond any reasonable doubt pertains to murder trials.

case in point why the justice system is failing in America.

This juror scares me. Did he need confirmation of his vote? Did any of the jurors base their impressions off the reactions of the defendent during the trail? Very scary.

Sandusky's facial reactions and expressions before, during and after the trial mean NOTHING. I've seen people stone faced and non-reactive while experiencing the greatest losses of their lives. I've seen people laugh at funerals when they were broken inside. There are all sorts of ways our emotions come out (or don't come out) and you absolutely cannot make any judgements whatsoever about what you think someone is thinking and/or feeling without much more information. To think you can is the height of ignorance and arrogance.

I do neuroscience research, and it's an interesting notion - but you're walking a tightrope on that one. My worry is that defense lawyers could argue that pedophiles were born/predisposed with a psychological condition, and shouldn't be criminally liable for their actions.

You can have a lack of empathy (schizoid) and not be a sociopath. People without empathy still know right from wrong even if they don't feel the emotional consequences of their choices.

These guys don't care about anything but their sick pleasure. More and more high profile people are beginning to be found out and it is because of their position in life that they don't get caught right away. It is also the other people around them that protect them, whether or not they intend to do so because they want to protect the business (in this case the university) they are working for. The only thing I have ever heard is that you can never stop these people from doing this. There is no medicine, no psych talk, they will continue to do it. What angers me is that his wife isn't held as well for allowing this to go on for years and years. I absolutely do not believe she knew NOTHING about what went on in her own home.

I don't think it's a neuro thing, but what society has caused. For too long gays had been forced to stay in the closet. At 68 years of age, you know he could never have come out and be a coach for young men when he was younger. I think it is more of a pent up frustration with his own sexuality. But, of course, doing this to children is absolutely not acceptable and there can be no excuse. He knew what he was doing was wrong as do all of these perverts. But, their excuse is that they love the children they abuse. What a bunch of bunk.

BS.....I firmly believe that there are abnormalities is some people's brains that just makes them 'wrong'....unable to conform to our society's rules, unable to fully fit in....in other words, unable to be truly 'human' as we understand it.

I believe that pedophiles are in this group....they are incapable of understanding that what they desire is socially unacceptable; they cannot be rehabilitated or 'fixed'.

They belong locked away from other humans, not unlike serial murderers, rapists, etc.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Personally I do not understand why we allow the sociopaths of this world to hold so much power. We praise them for their "business sense" which is actually their lack of empathy and willingness to compromise their own belief structure for a quick buck. Thats the reason that its so hard to move up in this world because we think that this is what is good for business instead of ethics and morals. I guess the bottom line is the bottom line and as long as its in the black who cares.....lame

Tinycowlady, Jerry Sandusky is not a homosexual but a pedophile. There's a difference. Just because he chose boys as his victims doesn't mean he's a homosexual. This notion that people have that gay men will assault little boys is what is pure bunk.

Deb, what Sandusky did, for the most part, was sexual relations (forced) with males. That is the very definition of a homosexual. Not that it matters, criminally, but what definition would you use for describing Sandusky's behavior? To put it bluntly, he is a homosexual pedophile.

Dasvet, forced sexual relations with anyone is rape. Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children.

That does not alter the fact Sandusky is a queer. Have you read of any female victims? I have not. Why dance around the fact, the guy was a homosexual predator ?

@Dasvet - do some more research.................please do some more research! LMAO!

Research what is totally apparent? Why don't you research where the sun is located?

"That does not alter the fact Sandusky is a queer. Have you read of any female victims? I have not. Why dance around the fact, the guy was a homosexual predator?"

This was answered on another thread. The reason there were no female victims is because there were no females in his football or troubled boys program. A homosexual male is only a male who loves other males. A pedophile is a predator who preys on children...of either sex that's available. The most available to Sandusky were boys. Showering with girls might have been an unavoidable tip-off, I am thinking.

I am also thinking you were suckered in by all his talk about how he "loves children". Make no mistake about it, love had nothing to do with it. Just power, dominance, control and getting his jollies.

One difference between gay and pedophilia is that you are born gay. Pedophilia is usually if not always brought on by having been abused as a child. That is why these things go on and on. And as far as I understand it, pedophiles prefer boys or girls. It isn't a matter availability. But it also doesn't mean he is gay because he preys on boys. It usually stems from the type of abuse he (or she) saw. This is in no way an excuse for these people though. I think Sandusky is scum and needs to rot in jail.

Let the research begin with how much empathy Sandusky gains for victims of sexual assault after a few showers in the joint.

I suspect that Sandusky may indeed be gay or at least bisexual. I also suspect Dottie was a cover wife to distract from any hints of gay or bi behavior. Only they know what their private life was like; whether there was any sexual attraction for each other.

I have a hard time understanding how any wife would consent to "adopting" an 18 year old man.

Just curious, are any of their six adopted children girls? I shudder to think what those kids must have seen while growing up in that house.

I don't know for sure, but I believe several were girls. I imagine by the time Matt was adopted, the abuse had stopped, as he would be too old for a pedophile. I wonder if the adoption was the Sandusky's way of "rewarding" his silence.

Wouldn't it be fitting if Dottie were sent to share a cell with Jerry, and the only one he had to have sex with was his wife? HaHa. He'd probably go without.

TO HopeyChangeyFeely: I suppose they could argue that it is a pre-disposed condition, but I also think the prosocutor could argue that it was a learned behavior if it was evident in their past they were exposed to it either by being raped or seeing another family member (older or younger sibling) being raped by an adult whilest they were a child, it could also be argued that say a Vietnam Vet who is now a phedophile learned it because he was in war in Vietnam and exposed to it because children were sold as sex slaves or prostituted during that time I'm thinking it could be argued either way, but it is interesting concept I truely believe Jerry was a victim himself of abuse and he is only purpitrating what is a learned behavior, he knows it's wrong but is powerless to correct his urges, could Depo-proveria cure him of those urges? I think Jerry is a perfect canidate for drug trials and medical studies that is if he admits his guilt, if anything positive could come out of it it is knowledge of how to prevent it in the future.

Ashey...Drug trials with Depo have been going on for some time. It has been proven to reduce the libido of the non violent pedophile, however, there have been some problems with the drug. It has been seen to cause diabetes and the FDA has not approved the drug for that particular use....Therefore, whoever chooses to administer the drug is putting their license to practice on the line if the side effects prove to cause death or harm to the inmate. It is mandaorily used in Fla. and Ore. and some inmates volunteer to use it in other states for a lighter sentence. Another problem is that there is an underground for testosterone, which negates the effects of the Depo...like growing breasts and increase in cholesterol. They didn't do drug trials in Fla. before they decided to use it. I called the governor's office and asked (for a term paper) what studies they used to make their decision--His assistant said that they read magazine articles. In Walla Walla, I was trying to set up an interview with a man that was on Depo--Couldn't do it because he was in isolation for cutting the throat of another inmate. It does not work for violent rapist...They will rape by instrumentation if they can't do it themselves. Depo is not the answer--yet.

Sandusky is a casebook classic pedophile in every single way. Someone need to write a book about Sandusky and his pedophile ways; it would certainly be a tool to teach America about pedophiles. Pedophiles only care about them selves; they are narcissistic, so self absorbed, so emotional immature that they believe that the children are perfectly happy in this situation of being sexually abused, to the point that Sandusky most likely thought they had a “relationship”. When a pedophile is confronted they go into a self protection mode of operations; they do not and will not care about the victim(s), they are far too narcissistic, self absorbed and emotional immature to care about anything but themselves. You will NEVER hear come out of any pedophiles mouth any sort of empathy, compassion or concern for the victim; no emotion, a blank slate.

While Witch Hunting it's always best to try to justify your blind hate with a pseudo-scientific affirmation like this.

To Z-933870 -

Do you really consider this trial was just a witch hunt?

I was appalled the day the media (more than one channel) told how Sandusky sat there during one of the vitcim's testimony with a smirk on his face.

@J. Howard, Not at all. But the hysteria people show toward pedophiles scares me. If you read any history at all, you can see comments exactly like this written by people demonizing american indians, or jews, or homosexuals, or communists, or marijuana users (remember reefer madness?). Pick your bogey man, and you'll find this kind of post. They make the target of the comment into something less than human, and then that makes it excusable in the eyes of many to totally forego logical reasoning and civility and law to hunt down these people and deliver their own brand of justice. So what problems are we having now because of this hysteria? We have people who get on sex offender lists for urinating in public, but everyone perceives the sex offender list as a directory of pedophiles. We get Orwellian computer network surveillance laws that are passed ostensibly to protect children or find terrorists, but they're primary used for some other purpose like enforcing copyright laws. We get indefinite seizure of property based on accusations from a neighbor. Search warrants are a thing of the past. Our hysterics are ruining the constitution.

Z933870 - Hysterical Kim here!!!!!! Walk for only a brief moment in my shoes……..

I was sexually abused as a kid, by countless men and boys. The first time I was abused I was five years old. It was an “old Grandpa type” neighbor. He was abusing girls and boys. I was abused at 10 by neighbor teenage boys; two of them together. Then at 11 by my dad and moms best friend that had know and lived by me my entire life. Then the summer between sixth and seventh grade I was gang raped, by six boys of all different ages, but older than me. Then in eight grade I was raped by and older boy in the chapel of a Mormon church. When I was in high school, it was my English teacher (my entire sophomore year), who also happened to be a Mormon Seminary teacher. Then I was date raped in high school, also.

I grew up in a very nice middle class neighborhood in Salt Lake, high east bench. The common thread was the neighborhood. These people were all my neighbors. They were kids I went to school with and their siblings and their friends.

For years I had a secret bag packed, because I knew in my mind, if my parents ever found out what I had done, they would kick me out of the house. I also believed that I should run away, because I wanted to save them from the embarrassment that was me.

When I got gang raped I was so mad that they had ripped my brand new out fit that I went to talk to the parents of the all the boys, because I thought they should buy me a new outfit. The parents all laughed at me.

I would black out when a lot of this would happen. I believe it was because I was so emotional and physically over loaded that could not handle it. I would sit in the bath tub for hours with tons of soap, hoping the sticky would all go away. I had evil, vile, nasty nightmares.

My mom new about “the coach” (the English teacher was also the coach), and she told me once she thought it was what I wanted to do. A couple of my friends thought I had been date raped.

You do not tell anyone because you had a child’s mind, a young teenagers mind; you do not have an adult mind. You believe it is only happening to you. You believe you have done something very wrong to deserve this. You are horrifically embarrassed. You are bullied and torment by these people; they think you are a slut.

I could go on and on about what it does to you, how it happens, why it happens, and all that you live with for the rest of your life.

I do know one thing, once I figured out a few things I have never stopped talking about it. I tell everyone. I can not being to tell you how many times I have hears: “I have never told anyone this before…….”

Kim, I'm not attempting to defend child molesters, rapists, or any kind of sexual predator. And what happened to you is horrible and I'm sorry. But it doesn't justify your comments. First, pedophilia is not a crime. Child molesters, and rapists, and their accomplices are criminals. When you make bold pseudoscientific claims that pedophiles are somehow less than human, that's where we have issues. That's a slippery slope we shouldn't go down...and that's exactly the place you were going with that post. The hysteria is bad enough right now without you throwing more gas on the fire. I urge you to go read some anti-Jew literature and then compare it to your own post...keeping in mind that the word pedophile does not imply a criminal act has been committed, or that it necessarily ever will be.

There is NO “scientific” claims made here by me. There is life knowledge and experiences made here by me. I am a simple woman that has been sexual abused and I finally found my voice 28 years ago. I talk and listen to people, because I share my story. I have heard hundreds of stories, because I tell my story. I am no therapist, no teacher, just a story teller and I can not tell you how many times I have heard, “I have never told anyone this before……..”. I have seen it during this entire Sandusky trial, people finally opening up and talking about sexual abuse.

Parents need to learn about sexual abuse and Sandusky is a classic casebook pedophile to learn from. NO!!!!!!! Every single case is not the same!!!!!!!! This Sandusky issue is about a case that had so many huge gigantic red flags happening over and over and over again for years and years and years and not a single person caught it and stopped it. People need to learn and if one good thing comes out of the pure torture and hell all these boy’s, now young men went through, is that we out to see and learn for once all the gigantic huge red flags Sandusky was sending and these boy’s were sending that everyone failed miserably to see. The entire Penn State community failed these boy’s and it is because they did not know what to look for, what to see and what the red flags are. If I have ever seen a case to learn from it is this Sandusky case; totally casebook in my layman sexual abused eyes.

Very well then. Go on with your witch hunt. But you'll get no sympathy from me if you can't see the misinformation and spite you're perpetuating. And you'll find no peace on this road either.

Kim if from fr'ck'n Utah.

That's all I need to know.

One in 4 girls is sexual abused and one in 6 boys are sexual abused. The likely hood of sexual abuse crossing someone path in their lifetime is really very great. It might be your kid, your grand child, your niece or nephew, your best friends kid, your step kid, but it will cross. Most people change their tune when it hits home and is in their back door. People just simply need to learn about sexual abuse and that is not a witch hunt. Just take time to learn for the sake of all children. Wouldn’t it be nice to make the statistics change?

Z, I get what you are saying, but are you really trying to compare pedophilia to hatred of Jews, Gays, Japanese Americans, Blacks, etc. You're right in that pedophilia alone is not a crime, but acting on it is. Being a Jew, being Black, being Gay (this is questionable in some states) is not a crime.

I have a tendency to try to excuse bad behaviors (co-dependent here), and yes I even do it here with pedophiles. But that does not mean they deserve our understanding. And there is absolutely no way you can compare pedophiles to the groups you mentioned who have been discriminated against. And if Kim needs to rant about her pain and experiences, it is therapeutic for her. She has a right to have her voice heard. You can defend these abusers if you want, more power to you. But you don't need to condemn Kim for letting go of some pain and anger. If you can justify the abusers, why can't you understand where she is coming from?

Z...No, pedophilia is not a crime....but acting on those urges...IS. It isn't about hysteria...It is about evil. Anyone that harms children for their own sexual satisfaction, is just plain evil. No hysteria involved...Just the truth. You can call this a witch hunt if you choose...You have a right to your opinion. I call it justice...delayed, but not denied. This man is so self-centered that he actually feels betrayed and entitled to the satsfaction he received from these boys because of all the good he did for them and others. He will always feel that way and never admitting to harming these young men. It is something the victims need that they will never get. You worry me...Defending an active pedophile's trial as a witch hunt? Not...a good sign regarding your character.

Mormon seems to be a key word for Utah. And you still want Mitt? You might do well to do some investigating about Mormon habits.

sigh...guys, I didn't get through at all. It's not about this trial, or Sandusky, or rapists. It's about creating an atmosphere of hysteria over protecting children so that you give politicians a blank check to do anything, and about labeling a people who have committed no crimes whatsoever as child rapists and something less than human. It's a distinction few hear seem to be able to make. That is not a defense of child rapists. Put on your reading comprehension caps and go reread.

Kim from Utah

Evil? How about diseased or broken brain? This isn't the 7th century. Calling a person evil solves nothing. Recognizing reality can lead to solutions. We need scientific answers as to why some people lack empathy.

As an aside, relishing that someone might have their flesh melt for eternity in a mythical hell is disturbing in its own right.

Support science to find a cure.

Juneau, I agree. Religion is one of those things left over from a time when everything was explained with superstition. Just don't be too hard on folks who still make these kinds of statements, especially if they come an area of the country where religion controls almost all everyday activities. Evolution will eventually catch up to them, even in Utah.

Sorry, I am just a simply woman that was sexual abused for years by my neighborhood, church and school. I guess in my old brain, my inner child is still a live and well, because she thinks these people are evil, vile, nasty, cruel, viscous, and very hurtful. I am no trained professional, I am just a woman that walked around for 45 plus years believing that I had a tattoo across my forehead that said, “I am sex” and that every man could read it.

Kim from Utah,

Well, discussing our strongest thoughts in forums like these helps many to be exposed to alternative ways of understanding issues. Thank you for your reply.

Science is not an answer to people like Sandusky....do you actually believe that they can be 'cured'? Why would you consider it correct to force YOUR 'cure' on someone that does not believe that they have done anything wrong?

Does your science support mind control? Is this what you're suggesting?

You can't 'cure' these 'people'....they inherently believe that there is nothing wrong with them. That's the whole point, I believe, behind the statement that Sandusky is 'evil' and I agree.

You can't 'fix' them....you can only lock them away for the safety of others.

Paduki - My parents never took me to church; I have never joined a church. When I was a kid I sometimes went to different churches with my friends. When I was 12 years old I went to a “Ward Show”, the church showed movies in the gym. I was raped in the chapel of the church by an older boy. I have a pretty bad case of PTSD when it comes to churches. Do not assume that everyone from Utah is a Mormon, or that people in Utah are not the same as everyone else in America; what would make you think we are backwards in Utah, you should read some statistics, this is a great place to live and it is very beautiful and culturally diverse.

well Renee - it is said that being homosexual is not a choice, you are born that way. pedophilia would have to be looked at the same way. i don't believe someone grows up and says, "hey, i want to be a pedophile!!"

Sandusky is a text book case as far as how he groomed the boys, starting out with the guise that he was 'helping' these boys have a better life, gifts, etc. this endeared the boys to him, made them dependent on him, so then he is able to do what he wants to them and they feel 'obligated' because of all he's given them.

i honestly don't believe that there is a revelation that they are "attracted" to children and therefore, could stop themselves. there is sex offender treatment, but most say that while the offenders learn their triggers and find ways to cope with their deviant thoughts, there is no cure.

i think your suggestions are great - and in a perfect world, if that would work, that would be great. but the problem is if someone were to identify themselves as a pedophile, the network of support from family and friends would diminish.

And when a pedophile is found out, lock him up for the security of our children. Raping a child should be grounds for execution, since there is no hope for rehabbing them. Children must be protected.

jet-1017207

Science is not an answer to people like Sandusky....do you actually believe that they can be 'cured'?

Science is a tool that may help find the answers as to why people have broken brains. I am not aware of a better method for discerning facts about reality. I don't believe Sandusky has been officially diagnosed but there are disorders for which science does not have answers.

Why would you consider it correct to force YOUR 'cure' on someone that does not believe that they have done anything wrong?

Participating in a civilization entails following rules.

Does your science support mind control? Is this what you're suggesting?

I'm not sure how you pulled those questions from my reply. Science is not a self-directing consciousness.

You can't 'cure' these 'people'....they inherently believe that there is nothing wrong with them. That's the whole point, I believe, behind the statement that Sandusky is 'evil' and I agree.

It's not impossible to learn empathy, remorse, and compassion. Neither you nor I know if people like Sandusky can be taught to learn and adhere to those virtues. Evil is a useless word to me, a cop out. People are either healthy or not healthy.

You can't 'fix' them....you can only lock them away for the safety of others.

I can't, you're correct. And you're correct that locking them away for the safety of others is really all we can do today. Therefore, I say support research into applicable neuroscientific fields until cures can be found, or if cures are deemed impossible, we will need scientific evidence for the latter as well.

Did Kim really owe you an explanation? From a scientific level, what makes you believe what you do and say what you say? From a scientific level, what makes you believe what you believe and makes you mock what others believe? Where is the scientific proof that evil does not exist? You stated that "recognizing reality can lead to solutions". Well, from a scientific level, what is "reality" ? These are not religious questions, these are science questions. Science is fascinating. Like you said yourself, "forums like these helps many to be exposed to alternative ways of understanding issues". Well, you are being exposed to alternative ways of understanding issues as well.

Paduki, I am sure you recognize life is made up of both the tangible and intangible. To many, religion is not superstition but the recognition of the unseen order in both life and death that exists outside of a human's ability to fully comprehend it (though we try). Science attempts to explain life through the lens of a human's five senses. Science then is a natural part of the overall order in life and both concepts can co-exist.

That said, it would appear you like to rely on science to explain things. So it makes logical sense that things that are tangible - that science shows does exist - must fit into your belief system. If so, spend a few minutes reading about the life of Padre Pio, a 20th century priest. If you fairly assess his story, and the tangible and credible scientific puzzle posed by his medical condition and life, you can come to no other conclusion than your belief system must change to account for the possibility that there is something more out there for you to find. Have fun with the journey.

@Juneau.....disorders of the brain can't be diagnosed like, say....warts on one's hand. As has been shown in this trial, some 'doctor' or 'psychologist' stated that Jerry Sandusky suffers from what has been coined 'Histronic Personality Disorder'...a skillful wordmaster might very well apply this to someone whose behavior mimics this so-called 'disorder', and the fact might be that the person does not suffer from anything of the sort.

While I agree that there exists disorders of the brain, I highly believe that this 'diagnosis' was simply for the benefit of his defense.

Studying Sandusky's brain for evidence of some real or imagined disorder is like cutting up someone's heart looking for evidence of 'love'.

Do you find it all that hard to believe that he could simply be 'a bad seed'? These things happen in nature - and its not unreasonable to think that it might just be a failed experiment in evolution.

I do believe strongly that it is impossible to 'learn' empathy, remorse and compassion. Those are emotions, and they are 'felt' not 'learned'. One can learn to mimic the behaviors that suggest those emotions, but one can never be taught to feel those emotions.

jet-1017207,

It's one thing to say answers don't currently exist for all broken brains. It's another to insinuate they can never be found, or for that matter, lack in principle, a reason for pursuing them with critical thinking.

Studying Sandusky's brain for evidence of some real or imagined disorder is like cutting up someone's heart looking for evidence of 'love'.

Do you find it all that hard to believe that he could simply be 'a bad seed'? These things happen in nature - and its not unreasonable to think that it might just be a failed experiment in evolution.

These are emotional positions but I do not deny that such concerns may motivate qualified people to seek answers, but in and of themselves aren't very helpful to the discussion in my opinion.

Renee,

What you have been told is correct: there is no existing, effective treatment for pedophilia. With current knowledge, containment of the perpetrator is the only effective means of stopping them. Even castration has been ineffective. I could give you numerous clinical examples, but that would take a great deal of space in this limited forum. And yes, I've read the calls for the death penalty; however, that has been deemed unconstitutional. If we are to seriously address this very real problem, we must employ the tools that we possess in reality. As difficult as it is with this highly emotional issue, we must proceed with logic and reason if we are to discover and implement truly successful methods and policies to eradicate or, at the very least, reduce the number of these tragedies. And yes, this is a tragedy for the victims, their families, and our society.

I see references here to Sandusky being a classic casebook example. In a sense, that is true. He has been reported as exhibiting many of the general traits, habits, and behaviors that are seen in pedophilia. However, there are more than one type of child molester, so there are other variations. Above all, the pedophile is driven not by the sex act itself, it is a mechanism, but by the need for power and control. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles that have been studied in depth have suffered some type of abuse themselves in childhood, be it emotional, physical or sexual. This is NOT an excuse, but may be a trigger. Of course, there are exceptions to every generality.

In my years of study and work in this area, I have not interviewed a single pedophile that believed they were doing something "wrong." That would imply that further brain studies might reveal clues to either a cure or an ability to predict the onset of pedophilia. Far more research should be done in this area, truthfully. Absent the development of any meaningful treatment, a true pedophile is an absolute danger to our children. I have advocated for many years for harsher penalties in cases of conviction. Even when convicted, far too many are released back into society still posing a danger.

Pedophilia is not a recent phenomenon. Yet, at least we are now talking about it publicly rather than confining the topic to hushed murmurs of embarrassment. If anything should arise from this current tragedy, I would hope that it results in a more enlightened public discourse and awareness, leading to the realization that more education is required, and ultimately resulting in better preventative measures. Just reading through these comments, it is apparent how few people truly understand pedophilia and the risks it presents to our children. I see many repeated myths and fallacies, regarding not only the perpetrators but the victims/survivors as well.

Knowledge is power. An honest, open and educative public discussion would be a very helpful tool towards eliminating this scourge. Our children are our most vulnerable and precious resource. We have a moral and legal duty to protect them with our best efforts. We simply are not doing enough in this regard.

Perhaps we should strive for prevention as a first step. It seems likely that some incident(s) or person in Sandusky's (and other predators') formative years resulted in the perverse behavior of pedophilia. So this latest case that has ruined the lives of so many could be the start of education programs helping all kids learn to say no and report deviant behavior. Unfortunately we have people in this country with religious-based politics that just this week caused a state lawmaker in Michigan to be censured for saying 'vagina' in a legislative session. That kind of repression is also sick and dangerous.

My own experience has been with presenting 2-part lessons to first graders, teaching personal safety. The problem is that this info causes some people to be troubled because it falls into the realm of sex education; however, in my experience, parents with initial religious objections did not opt out when they understood how their child would benefit.

Children should understand that the wolf in Red Riding Hood is not a model of good behavior. Then expanding on that, they should be made aware that there can be an Uncle Oddball who may try to play and touch them on their private parts, those we cover in public with swim suits. But they should also understand that at age six they are responsible for washing those body parts - and that touching them is a no-no, even for parents and doctors (except in the presence of another adult). Any breaking of the rules should be reported to an adult they trust at home, school, church.

Let's give all kids permission to defend themselves by arming them with the information that means deviant behavior will be reported and monitored. The Sandusky and Catholic church victims didn't know their rights so they lived with shame, guilt, physical pain, and isolation; they are forever scarred by their experiences. And then, unfortunately, we have medieval thinking among religious and political leaders that keeps us from dealing with a problem in a 21st century manner.

Remember, if in every case the first kid had reported the problem it would not have become a cancer that spread. Now it has brought down a university's administration that protected a football program and Catholic priests and parishes around the world. That should be reason enough to teach all children to protect themselves - and society.

As a survivor of insest and a psych tech who worked with pedophiles for over 20 years, I have never heard one take ANY responsibility for the harm they caused. The state spends millions$$ to house and rehabilitate these guys. There is no cure, sadly. Thier sexual otientation is towards children and there is no changing that. It would be like the state saying you had to change your sexual orientation. You might say you changed but the mind does not change. In Europe, castration has helped. America would never go for that. We are too puritanical. I did have to stop watching the trial because it was triggering me, but I cried in relief when I heard the verdict.

There has to be such a thing as "just plain evil" even if you don't believe in religion. Why? Because there is no other current explanation to describe those who use children to satisfy their adult sexual urges. There are as many theories as to why people commit crimes as there are criminals. They have been trying for centuries to find the scientific answers you people are seeking and they have not been successful. Why? Because they have not been able to explain why people raised in the same circumstances by the same parents--grow up to be productive citizens that DO NOT commit crimes. Until we can explain that--we have to have some word for these scumbags and evil fits as well as pretty much anything. Broken minds, by butt. They are narcissistic, self-absorbed, evil jerks. I'm not a religious person, but, evil works for me--until they can come up with a scientific explanation and a term that is more accurate.

Beachjill,

In reality, chemical castration has been tried here and it is not effective. You state that it is in Europe, yet I have seen no studies that bear out your assertion; to the contrary, every study that I am familiar with states that there is no measurable rate of effectiveness in castration. There is one clear reason that castration is ineffective; this is NOT a sexual issue, sex is the mechanism rather than the end. The perpetrator's issue is one of power and control. Castration merely lends them to abuse with instrumentation, unfortunately. They still seek power and control over the innocent and vulnerable victim and will continue to abuse as the means to achieve that goal.

I know of one high profile case dating back many years. The perpetrator was finally convicted and imprisoned. He was paroled as an elderly man confined to a wheelchair with paralysis. Subsequently, he was arrested as he attempted to purchase a young child to abuse. His physical limitations proved no deterrent, and neither does castration. Absent some future discovery of an effective treatment, these predators are a danger to society throughout their lifetime. There is never an end point where they may be considered "safe."

That's interesting about physical castration being ineffective, Ro-Mar, as it was clearly effective with 5 pts. I've worked closely with thru the years. They all stated the relief of not fighting the urges was immeasurable. The recitivism rate is much lower than those who haven't. Chemical casration is another thing...causing thinning of the bones, and other side effects that have these predators suing the state. Plus they can always stop the injections. It cost me $50 to nueter my dog which is cost-effective. I continue to hear that castration doesn't help, but I have yet to see it not work. (Those 5 pts. were released from the SVP law and are living crime-free lives.)

In Europe they have had many studies re: physical castration (notably Germany in the 60's headed by Br. Langeluddeke),plus The Czech Republic and the Danes in the 80's. Over 1000 offenders were studied and all three countries found castrated offenders had a 2.3% recitivism rate, compared to an 80% recitivism rate for uncastrated offenders. Many claimed it was the best decision they ever made as it completely stopped thier obsessional thinking. It costs my state $245,000 a year for each sexually violent offender we house and 'rehabilatate'. It costs the state $40, 000 a year for each state prisoner. The SVPs don't require psychotherapy, art therapy, cell phones, meal choices (blue cheese crumbles in the salads!), state of the art immediate medical care, etc, etc...while a third of Americans don't have that and they have followed the law and didn't give kids a life sentence of thier own. Try castration...because many of these guys do get let out to move next door to you.

Ride what?

You know, all this "Bubba" talk is wrong and inaccurate. The people that are raped in prison generally fit a certain profile and Sandusky isn't it. He has a chance of being assaulted or even killed, if someone is given the chance, but raped...not really likely. No one deserves to be raped in prison. They deserve to lose their freedom. They deserve to be controlled. They deserve basic medical care. They deserve only what the law provides for them and nothing more--or less. Rape isn't part of the deal. It happens, but, no one deserves it and the vast majority of the men that are are in for non sexual and non violent crimes. Get off the rape mentality!! He will lose control over his life, which will be the worst punishment you could possibly give a narcissist...Much worse than any sexual abuse. He will be told when to get up, when to go to be, what he is going to eat, and what he is going to wear. That will be his own personal hell--his pedistal just crumbled...and so did his wife's.

what you another expert? You weren't on the jury!

NEXT

It is hard to see how a person can be convicted of a crime against an unknown person when the only evidence is heresay from a non-witness. The judge should have tossed those counts on victim #8 as an appeal may do. As to victim #2 the verdict on "rape" was "not guilty" but the jury apparently believed McCreay on the other charges which is their prerogative. But, it's academic since the guilty verdicts on the counts with solid evidence will send him to jail for life.

Sandusky was not convicted on McQueary's eyewitness account. The jury didn't need that one, as you say, they already had 45 others to judge him guilty.

I think it said the jury DID believe McQueary and they did convict on all the charges involved in that case EXCEPT the intercourse charge. They did believe he saw and heard a sex act and they probably believed it was anal sex, but because McQueary said he didn't see penetration the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict on that one. I think it makes perfect sense (although in my mind, you don't have to see penetration to know it was anal sex. I think the positions he saw and the slapping sounds he heard is evidence enough to convict on it). But, they got the 45 charges and Sandusky will never see the light of day again, so I'm fine with it. The jury did a good job.

Tim, you can have a murder conviction without a body. Why can't you have an abuse conviction without the victim? Just because it is unusual doesn't mean you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I imagine if that were the only case and there was no victim coming forward, he wouldn't have been convicted at all. But with all the evidence piled on, clearly McQueary witnessed abuse taking place. Don't forget there was an investigation at the time. This wasn't a case of McQueary coming forward at the last hour to get involved. He reported it at the time, and there are records of the investigation. That with all the other accounts are what convinced me and others of his absolute guilt.

everyone now days is a friggen expert. " NOT"

First thing I noticed when they led him away last night was they finally wiped that smirk off his face. I think each time he was investigated years ago and got away with it, it just made him feel that much more invincible. I imagine he knew there was a lot of evidence against him, but he still felt he would get away with it again. He's not smiling now!

ironic that "mcqueery" had no reason to make up the story, yet has about 5 different versions of the "story" of the same night. less than reliable....(if you actually have functioning brain cells, that is)

I agree that Mcqueary wasn't the best witness, but he was an important one. He did seem to change some details, but he never waivered on the fact that he witnessed this act. Add to that the admittion by Sandusky that he showered with these boys on a number of occasions, add to it the information obtained in the investigation at the time, and I absolutely believe he witnessed an assault.

I think that Matt Sandusky would also have been a poor witness as he denied everything up until last week, and the fact that he allowed them to adopt him at the age of 18. And the prosecution couldn't present any experts to explain why. But I would have used him if I felt I needed to in order to add to the other evidence already presented.

The prosecutors in FL dropped the ball and allowed Casey Anthony to be acquitted. The jury could do nothing else (despite what you believe to be the 'proper' verdict, the jury reached the only conclusion they could)>

At least the District Attorney's Office did a good job with the Sandusky trial, and a favorable verdict was reached.

The two cases have no similarities, period.

Wonder why there isn't any previous posters commenting after the guilty verdict? There were many who ranted that a State College resident jury would never convict Sandusky because of their loyalty to Penn State. Surprise, those PSU people were just like 99% of other Americans when it comes to a pedophile, queer or otherwise.

Seriosly Dasvet, your biggest issue with this whole case is that he preyed on boys? If it had been 10 year old girls, would you even have an issue with it? Are you that afraid of homosexuality? Quit with the "queer" stuff. There's no place for it here.

LA99999, Read the last sentence again, please, then get back to me.

Dasvet: As a PA native and PSU grad, I fully expected Sandusky to be found guilty in his home county. Honorable people who are or have been associated with PSU wanted the truth, not a repeat of the travesty that occurred in the 1998/99 investigation.

It would have been hard for me to accept if the jury had acquitted him. Now that the major cancer has been removed, it's time for the healing to begin...for the victims as well as the university, and the commonwealth as a whole.

Hadenough, I never had any doubt that the jurors of State College, Pa. would nail the guy, without a thought of how it affected PSU. No sane person would protect a serial child molester, whether he lived in Tennessee, Pennsylvania,or any other state.

Ok, so I read it again. My point still stands. I'm not saying you are ok with what happened, but it was at least the 3rd post I read from you that you were calling Sandusky a queer, a homosexual, whatever. That seems to be your biggest argument, and as others have pointed out it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Sandusky is obviously both.

completely agree somagic. i was saying that yesterday.

one of the witnesses who came forward in the media in the last two days said on several occasions his abuse was happening in the bedroom across the hall??? if Sandusky feared being caught - WHY would he do that right across from where his wife was??!! because she KNEW what was going on. she turned a blind eye and let those boys be molested. all these years and she didn't suspect ANYTHING? i call BS on that for sure.

she just didn't want to lose her stature in the Penn State community, her pseudo-celebrity status AND the giant paycheck that Jerry brought home. i agree that she is complicit in these crimes and should also be held accountable.

I also agree. She should, like the rest of the people associated with this and awaiting trial, be charged with child endangerment. Far to many of these types of enablers are allowed to go free and not pay for their willingness to allow crimes to occur for their own comfort. Hey Dottie, I hope your blind eye was worth it

This is what I call the typical pedophile wife attitude: “better you, than me, having a blinds eye to everything because it makes life easier, and claiming to know nothing to save face and her meal ticket”. This happens so much, because the woman does not know how to live on her own, she fears what people will think and say and in her mind it is just impossible. I had a friend years ago that was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, in the very same bed her mother and grandmother were sleeping in. Both women went to their graves claiming to never know what was happening right next to them. The mothers, wives, grandmothers are as sick as their men!!!!!!!!

If my husband were coming home with young boys every weekend and sleeping with them in the basement rather than me I would certainly know this was not normal. Did she not think it odd that none of her friend's husband brought home young boys for the weekend? O YA! the wife knew. She also knew that she had a grand place in PSU society as a coach's wife. She chose to alow her husband to sexually abuse and rape young men for 15+ years to keep her place in society. How's that place now Dottie? I hope they prosecute you and your new place in society is a women's prison.

What I REALLY do not understand is how she went along and promoted adoption of the young boys. Did she honestly think this would make them look like a normal family? Hello!

There's no doubt she at least had suspicions. I think she probably knew. She is the classic pedophile wife. You can't tell me that all the years he was bringing boys to the basement, that she never had any reason to go down there, maybe to let them know dinner's ready, to take them a snack? She knew not to go down there. Not to mention, there had been several investigations years ago. She had to know about them. Didn't that put suspicions in her head? Wouldn't she question some of his choices, if only to prevent another investigation in the future? And did she know that they were adopting boys it was really toys for her husband? She did him no favors by allowing it to continue.

However, I don't see her being convicted. I'm afraid it would be a waste of money taking it to trial. I'll be quite happy when she loses her money to lawsuits, and her status in the community, and her pride. That's enough for me.

So, we know Jerry is sick, but is his wife? I mean, since Pedophilia is a disease, he is sick. But as an accomplice/enabler/denier is she ill also? If charges were brought against her, would her defense be as a 'broken' woman, fooled and manipulated by a controlling husband?

Just wondering...charges against her might not be easy to prove or worth it to prove. She is certainly suffering a lot now. Maybe being out in the world needing to fend for herself is her punishment.

magic...I actually disagreed with you and believed that she just lived in denial--Until I learned of the restraining order that Matt's wife filed against Sandusky. He was not allowed to see her kids unsupervised. Any grandmother would have to wonder why....Or they would know why. If that isn't a red flag then I have never seen one. She had to have known. She had to have known that Matt's wife knew that Matt was abused as a child. Matt held out to the end....After all, he owed Jer. That is what Sandusky...and his sick wife...banked on.

ya some folks need killin. you being one of them. Do the world a favor and commit suicide. non thinking people like you are almost worse than rapist.

Shame shame "billydog". You dare to compare a comment by someone who is outraged at what this puke did with being almost worse than a rapist...sounds to me that killing the SOB is really the true justice..and I bet most agree..

i don't think the jury doubted their decision - i believe what he was trying to say is that he was looking for some kind of remorse from Sandusky and when there wasn't - he took that as confirmation that Sandusky knew this was coming. i think he may have just expressed it in a different fashion.

the jury definitely knew what they were doing as far as weighing the evidence. if they didn't, they would have convicted him on ALL counts. the fact that they didn't convict on the count for the victim that McCreary said he "heard" ... because Mike didn't SEE the abuse happening, tells me they were very deliberate and intelligent about their decision. if not, they would have convicted on those other charges as well and would have been acting out of emotion.

This is a good example of why when the case is over the jury should not say ANYTHING! There is always the element out there that will twist what they said or put their own interpetation on what the juror meant. How do you really know what he meant? YOU do not.

I was on a jury for a stabbing. No one on the jury said one word to the media ever.

CoCo...and that's the way it should be! But too many people crave their "15 minutes of fame", no matter how it comes.

I don't agree, rad. I believe that it just made him go from beyond a reasonable doubt to NO DOUBT AT ALL. He knows now that their decision is completely correct. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not beyond any doubt....After learning that Matt was going to testify and seeing Sandusky's demeanor, the juror went from reasonable to certain. No harm there.

JUSTICE WAS SERVED~

Coco

Was the trial you sat on a major high profile trial? If not I am sure that the media wasn't even around to talk to any of the jurors. I sat for a child abuse trial and not one single reporter was there after the verdict was read to speak to any of us jurors. No one really cares about those little local trials where the person is unknown and/or there has been no media frenzy over. I can almost bet that if your case would have been a high profile case that at least one of the jurors would have spoken to the media.

re:posted - i don't think the jury doubted their decision - i believe what he was trying to say is that he was looking for some kind of remorse from Sandusky and when there wasn't - he took that as confirmation that Sandusky knew this was coming because despite his continual declaration of innocence, he knew what he did was wrong and he was guilty. i think the juror may have just expressed it in a different fashion.

the jury definitely knew what they were doing as far as weighing the evidence. if they didn't, they would have convicted him on ALL counts. the fact that they didn't convict on the count for the victim that McCreary said he "heard" ... because Mike didn't SEE the abuse happening, tells me they were very deliberate and intelligent about their decision. if not, they would have convicted on those other charges as well and would have been acting out of emotion.

WTH Steve? Even the defense atttorney thought the jury did a good job...He was convicted and all the appropriate decisions had been made before the juror said anything. This was an after the fact take on his part and he has a right it--so long as he did his job during the deliberation stage...and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Yes, as a matter of fact, Marcia Clark mentioned that last night. Pedofiles will not or almost cannot admit they did something wrong. These are sick individuals.

Listening to Marcia Clark on CNN made me laugh. She is the washed up former high profile prosecutor who lost the stone-cold-lock O.J. Simpson case. Now she has become a shoot-from-the-hip TV legal analyst. Her comments demonstrated how little she knowns about pedophilia. It is an incurable disease, people! Sandusky's conviction has turned the page for the legal system and it will now be in the hands of mental health specialists for determination of proper incarceration. If Sandusky is a pedophile as claimed by law enforcement, he is sick and not responsible for the behavior driven by his disease. There is no rehabilitation for pedophilia, so the best situation for Sandusky is a remaining life of cooperative research into his wiring. Sandusky may be viewed by psychiatrists as a golden opportunity to have a research subject for the next 10- 15 years. Someday, Sandusky research might be credited with turning the corner on understanding causes and rehabilitation for this reprehensible disposition.

raddbrad - yes he is sick .. but he IS responsible for his behavior. just like an alcoholic or drug addict (both diseases), he had a choice.

raven: Those afflicted with the pedophilia predisposition know that current law does not allow or accept their behavior, but that doesn't mean they consider their behavior immorally wrong. There was also a time when only heterosexual relations between consenting ( married) adults was considered legal, but that didn't stop people from pursuing sexual relationships outside the law that are now considered legal. Gay and lesbians were once considered immoral and mentally defective, but are now accepted to the point that same sex marriages are growing in acceptance. Who would have guessed that acceptable trend 30 years ago? In my opinion, I think the court has provided a 90 day window for sentencing so that they can consult with mental health experts on a fair punishment for this high profile case. If pedophilia is considered a form of mental illness, then the court should treat him accordingly rather than as a 'monster'. Making an example of Sandusky through harsh punishment will not deter other pedophiles. Given that there is no cure or rehabilitation/effective therapy for pedopilia, do those afflicted with this disease really have a 'choice' as we normally consider free will? The court will have to make that determination.

raddbrad,

"Those afflicted with the pedophilia predisposition know that current law does not allow or accept their behavior, but that doesn't mean they consider their behavior immorally wrong."

Yes, and considering that the age of consent varies from state to state, you can be sent to prison in one state for doing what would be perfectly legal in the state right next door. So you end up in prison by virtue of geography.

Rad....Pedophilia is considered a personality disorder. It does not interfere with that person's ability to know what they are doing or knowing that what they are doing is wrong. That is the legal definition and there is evidence that Sandusky clearly knew what he was doing and he knew it was against the law--or he would not have tried to cover up his behavior. He rationalized his behavior...but that doesn't make him, by any legal definition, insane or "sick". He is not a psychopath...He is a sociopath. No conscience and not remorse. If he wants it, it is his right to have it...after all the good things he has done, he deserves a bit of sexual satisfaction. That is the story he believes, and apparently so do you...Have a legal problem that you might like to share here?

Yeah, so creeps who diddle kids should walk, right? Please, let them all live next door to you!

having worked for criminal defense attorneys, none that i ever worked for EVER asked the defendant if they were guilty or not. their job is to provide a proper defense.

that would be because regardless of guilt, people are entitled to a defense, lest this be the 1500's.

If the administration allowed rapes and blood baths in prisons, there would be a lot of chaos and the paperwork would never end. They just don't do that in America. The prison officials are "keepers" and the inmates are the "kept"...some days it is hard to tell which is which, but that's the deal. The loss of freedom is the punishment...not rape and bloodbaths. Can't sell me on that. The loss of control over one's life has more of an effect than you know....especially, if you know that you will never come out of there alive. Sad life. Dangerous place. Ask Dahmer, eg.

Are you delusional are what? Rape is a fact of prison life and if an adminsitration didn't look the other way, it wouldn't happen.

I don't have much, if any sympathy for murderers or rapists, but people convicted of non-violent crimes DO NOT deserve to be raped in jail. That is NOT part of the prison sentence, nor is getting AIDS and dying, but the fact that it goes on in prison and prison authorities can't stop it means dthey need to take responsibility for their failure and acknowledge that it HAS become part of the sentence.