what do we do if that is all that is ever proven?
We take the twenty or so victims at their word and regard Sandusky as a pedophilic predator.
I suppose you think we should do the same for those caught up in the daycare cases? Wikipedia actually does nice job summarizing those:
actually this a lot unlike the duke rape allegations.
its massively unlike the duke allegations.
in fact, other than both being allegations of a sexual nature, there is no further similarity.
Sadly, what they are really doing is forcing the kids to come forward and talk, while betting that they won’t. I think that is about as heinious as the crime itself.
If Sandusky is maintaining that the 2002 rape to which McQueary testified did not happen, what is he supposed to do? So far there is no victim prepared to testify to McQueary’s version of events. So many people are prepared to take the allegations as true … not unlike the Duke rape allegations. And while there are more indicia of truthfulness with respect to these allegations, they remain allegations.
Are you suggesting these are comparable cases?
Are you suggesting these are comparable cases?
I am saying that allegations sexual abuse were leveled and lives were ruined before the allegations were proven false or remained unproven.
Here we have an admission to showering and horseing around … which is creepy enough for me to suggest he should not be around young boys … but if the allegations of rape and molestation either remain unproved or are disproved what do we do then?
What will we do or say if he is acquitted?
I’ll assume that people of immense status and power were involved and brushed it under the carpet to protect themselves.
The interview was slightly less creepy and disturbing than a sit down with Hannibal Lecter.
Only slightly. Not sure why his lawyer would allow him to speak at all.
The interview was slightly less creepy and disturbing than a sit down with Hannibal Lecter.
Only slightly. Not sure why his lawyer would allow him to speak at all.
They need to spin it as one lone whacko.
The cases are completely different. If the DA had gone full tilt on the 1998 allegations, there is a degree of probability that the charges wouldn’t have been proven, which is why, although they believed the victim, they didn’t file any charges. Then we could maybe be comparing the cases.
This doesn’t appear to be a case of false accusation. In pre-trial procedings (granted there’s still lots of time in this case) the defense was able to demonstrate the accused weren’t even at the party any more, the dna evidence didn’t hold up, etc but the DA tried to ram that case through, to his own detriment. Those defendants weren’t just deemed not guilty, they were declared by the court innocent!
The lives that have been “ruined” have been so, not because of the validity of the case or the lack there of, but because of their own failure to act, both as required by law and as agents of the university. Had they turned it over to police, they would be sitting pretty now. Well, that and not perjuring themselves, if those allegations are correct.
I get that he deserves and will get his day in court. The legal process has to continue. He could be guilty as sin and not be convicted, that is a risk inherent in our legal system and the burden of proof required. If the allegations don’t hold up in court, he will be a free man. Hopefully, he won’t be able to gain access to children because his face and name are all over the place and as you say showering and horsing around is enough for any reasonable person to deny him that freedom.
Is your point that he is innocent until proven guilty? Not so. He is to be PRESUMED innocent by the legal system until judged guilty. We the public, can come to whatever conclusion we see fit, given the facts provided to us. The jury will have to decide based upon the evidence provided at trial. The government cannot lock him up until proven guilty, but even that isn’t true, he could have been kept in custody pending trial.
This does not appear to be a case of false accusations. Neither did the Duke rape case. There were plenty of people, professors, university president, members of the public who did as you suggest we are free to do and came “to whatever conclusion fit, given the facts provided to .” And, by doing so, they ruined lives.
Here the public is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish, given the information provided, and they are free to ruin lives in the process. We can all rest comfortably knowing that the public did the same thing with the daycare panic and ruined a number of lives in that process too.
Tell me, do you hope that the allegations prove to be unfounded? Do you hope that Sandusky is telling the truth and all he did was shower and horseplay?
“all he did was shower and horseplay”?
All he did? I dont know about you, but a 55 y/o man showering with 10 year olds in a school gym just doesnt sound right to me…Take a long look at this turds history, his actiions and his reaction. CLASSIC PEDOPHILE…Cant be saved! He is a pervert!
This does not appear to be a case of false accusations. Neither did the Duke rape case.
Actually the Duke case had a number of glaring red flags. The “victim” had a history of questionable accusations. The associate stripper contradicted the “victim’s” story right from the beginning. There was only one accuser and no corroborating witnesses.
If it was one child describing questionable “touching,” I would probably hope it was a misunderstanding but in my heart believe the allegation. This case, however, has multiple victims describing unquestionable sexual acts.
I won’t coach girls athletic teams for the simple fact that one accusatioin can be devistating, even if later proven to be completely false. There was one a few years ago where a high school girl was mad at a coach or teacher and completely made up the story. I get that, but I can’t make the connection in this case. The amount of testimony we have seen, and we’ve only seen a fraction of it, is too overwhelming to me. This isn’t a case of just suspicious behavior (which, by the way, prompted the investigation), actual victims have testified to actual sexual contact. Do I believe they have all been tricked into believing something that didn’t happen really did? No.
If there was dna evidence that showed someone other than Sandusky molested a child, yes I would believe the DA was on a witch hunt. But, unlike the Duke case, no such evidence exists.
Point blank, do you believe he is innocent? Is this just an argument for due process? Do you believe this is like the day care hysteria? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there’s huge differences between getting a pre-schooler to say what you want them to say and adults testifying about what happened to them as pre-teens.
Point blank, do you believe he is innocent?
The best I can say is that I would be surprised if he is innocent. I hope he is innocent for that would mean no one was molested. But I fear that it is what it appears to be.
“all he did was shower and horseplay”?
All he did? I dont know about you, but a 55 y/o man showering with 10 year olds in a school gym just doesnt sound right to me…Take a long look at this turds history, his actiions and his reaction. CLASSIC PEDOPHILE…Cant be saved! He is a pervert!
See post #24.
.
Whats with all the talk about showering AND horsing around being a problem. I’ve showered with lots of kids in the same shower at the YMCA. Stop being such prudes. Now horsing around sounds pretty liffy as who does that nude in a shower with a child, unless it is 2 kids horsing around with each other.
Though I don’t think horsing around is really what went on. And if he is somehow innocent, he really does not understand appropriate boundaries for being with children, kind of like Michael Jackson did not understand.
You guys keep talking about the Grand Jury evidence, and all I’ve seen is a summary written by someone on the Grand Jury regarding what they heard. I did not see a link to any witness statements, so I would think if that is what you have read, none of us has seen any evidence yet.
Although conventional wisdom says the accused should shut up, sit back, and wait, Sandusky answered questions posed by Bob Costas. I haven’t heard the whole thing, but it doesn’t sound like he made any missteps. Although risky, I don’t think it was a bad idea for the defense.
In the end, it did nothing to sway my perception.
You don’t think it was a bad idea!
Are you nuts.
This guy just admitted he showered and touched little boys.
He has given up his 5th Amendment right, as all of that will be used at trial.
His lawyer is a fucking fool.
I don’t think Sandusky’s lawyer can do anything for him anyway. So he may as well prolong the legal precedings and make as much $$$ as he can. He’ll probably start showing up on TV too which will help his marketability. Yes, making a profit from a Pedophile stinks, but these are lawyers and what won’t they do for $$$?
I should have chosen my words more wisely (which is exactly why he shouldn’t have done the interview), I think it’s a bad idea, but with the benefit of seeing the end result (ie, no major missteps) it won’t have hurt the defense as far as I can see. Even in the comfort of my living room, I worded something that makes me look bad, or nuts to use your word. The potential land mines he could have stepped on are immeasurable.
It addresses the argument of if he’s innocent he should be saying that. People judge based on the lack of response so he’s given that crowd a response. Hard to imagine anyone saying “gee, now that he’s said he didn’t do it, I’m convinced” but who knows.
He was (in what I heard, part of the interview wasn’t aired but is available) only admitting to what he’s known to have acknowledged in the presence of police investigators. To some, this will support the defense of it’s a misunderstanding since he was willing to acknowledge this in an interview He might appear honest, but only a bigger fool than he would lie since he knows the police and a mother can testify to what he told them directly. He will likely deny any of the accusations beyond that.
I don’t think he’s given up any rights, he only acknowledged what can be presented by investigators.
Just my Monday morning quarterbacking and I don’t think it did any further damage, but maybe some are more convinced of his guilt now. If I was his lawyer, no way in hell he does this interview. Costas was on Dan Patrick this morning and apparently the tool lawyer said “How about I get him on the phone. You want to talk to him?” He frickin offered! This case gets weirder every step of the way.
Just heard on the radio here in Philadelphia that they found the rape victim from the shower and he denys that a rape ocurred.