Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by freestoneangler, Nov 8, 2011.

  1. I read the report. First it made me sick then it made me angry then it made me very sad that everyone who had any knowledge or hint that these young vulnerable frightened boys were being abused didn't do everything in their power to expose the truth and make it stop.
  2. And don't be surprised if he tries to act as his own lawyer in his defense of charges (yes, I know,they are charges, he hasn't been convicted in the courts of any criminal acts yet).
  3. Well this seems fitting:

    "Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer, Joe Amendola, got a 16-year- old client pregnant and later married her "

    It should be noted that the article also says that the age of consent in PA is 16.
  4. I am so glad to see that most folks think he should be thrown out at least. For those who think he did enough, what if that boy, or the next, or the next, had been your son, or your little brother. I mean god forbid,...but If I found out some one was abusing a child like that...
    In life there really are defining moments and you may never see them as such until its too late, but I would like to think that all of us understand if we have a chance to get a FUCKING CHILD MOLESTER off the streets and we failed to do everything in our power, (call the cops, call the papers, smash his fucking head in) that it defines us as, at best, cowards.
  5. Wow, I made it through the entire Grand Jury testimony last night. The poor boys; my heart goes out to them and their families as no child should have to endure what those boys did. I hope that if nothing else, it helps lift the veil of secrecy around the abuse of boys and helps male abuse victims feel more free to come forward, hopefully free of shame and stigma. Read the Grand Jury testimony if you haven't; the insight you gain might help you prevent this happening to a child in your life and is the least that we can do for these poor boys who were surrounded by adults who did nothing for so many years.
  6. I can't believe any competent lawyer would let him give an interview like that. He essentially just cut the prosecution's casework in half. They don't have to prove that he was in the shower or had physical contact with the kids, he straight out admitted it. They just have to prove that he was abusing them and not just "horsing around" or whatever he calls it.

    I guess that's what you get when you hire a lawyer who knocks up his 16 year old client/employee.
  7. I think he's just trying to spin stuff.

    Thus far, the story has been that he went to paterno, then paterno went to the two guys at the university, then McQueary met with those two guys. The two university guys are Tim Curley (athletic director) and Gary Schultz (senior vice president for finance and business). Schultz is not a police officer but his position at the college gives him technical oversight for the police force. You know, in the same way that a city council has oversight. But he is in no way a sworn law enforcement officer. He's not even a security guard. However, the quote from McQueary's email says:

    Now, he does claim directly to have talked to "the police" in that quote. But I wonder if he's fudging "the official at the university in charge of police" into equaling "the police". Now, I have no way of knowing anything like that. After all, this is such a weird and terrible story that it could easily come out that the police were in on the whole thing and didn't do anything. But I tend to doubt that. It's one thing to get a bunch of people to cover up some athletes getting free lap dances and do nothing jobs. It's another thing to get a bunch of people to cover up child rape. That sort of thing tends to cross over just about everyone's "look the other way" line. Sure, one or two morally corrupt people I could see. But as the number starts to climb, I get suspicious.

    Still, stranger things have happened in the world.
  8. Oh, well that makes me feel better. :beathead:
  9. I would not be surprised if the police knew about this. Of course their records are not public. . .PSU admin made sure of that,

  10. Many here seem so confident with their opinions but there is still so much that isn't firmly known at this point. If all Grand Jury work was 100% watertight, everyone subject to them would be convicted and that's just not the case. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of those involved here, who have already been tarred and feathered in public opinion by a hyper-speed march to judgement by the media and others, get a different review once the deliberations from the pending court case and other investigations are made public. The Duke Lacrosse Players case is a marquee example of zealous run to judgement without the facts. We'll see what ultimately happens here when all is said and done.
  11. Sorry, but the Duke case is hardly a parallel. There you have a single "victim" with an agenda and a pretty wacko history of similar events and here you have a large group of victims, at least two eye witnesses and a long period of time in which reports of the crime never made the light of day.

    I am usually the first to say don't rush to judgement but the facts as presented here are really quite damning.

    The entire thing is utterly sickening.
  12. Unless the Grand Jury report is a total work of fiction (which I don't believe), here's what we do know.

    1. Sandusky was sexually molesting little boys.
    2. Several adults knew about this and did nothing to stop it.
    3. It went on for years because no one who knew had balls enough to stand up and say to hell with Penn States reputation, I'm going to do whatever it takes to help those boys.
    4. As a result of that inaction other little boys were victimized.

    What else do you need to know? That's enough for me.
  13. I didn't say Sandusky isn't guilt nor did I say others won't be found at fault but everyone in the least bit involved has already been all but convicted in public opinion. I merely said what's out in public at present and the truth MAY be quite different. I'm also not saying the Duke Lacrosse case exactly mirrors this case either but that case ended drastically different than how it started. But I'm glad you guys are so certain as to what exactly happened in this case and can measure out the proper punishment at this point in time. I'm not there yet.
  14. I suspect the scope of this offender is massive given the reported pattern that's been established and the lengthy timeframe during which the events took place. Seriously. . .how many molestation cases come up where you have two credible eye witnesses and that many victims who are willing to step forward over that many years? I bet we're seeing the tip of the disgusting iceberg.

    This is/was bad,

  15. Who exactly is it that you consider to be "the least bit involved"?
  16. Just one example and could continue list a few other examples just as stupid in my opinion, I was listening to ESPN radio yesterday morning and one of the hosts of the show was adamant that the entire coaching staff including the current interim coach be relieved of their duties when it entirely appears at this point that none of them are in the least bit involved.
  17. Ok in that senario I would agree with you, breathing the same air doesn't make you guilty or involved at all.

    But the folks that knew about it and didn't stop it IMO are guilty, from the first janitor that saw it in 1994, to his boss, who he reported it to, yet they both did nothing, to McQueary to Joe Pa to senior leadership at Penn State.

    There is already significant evidence via sworn Grand Jury Testimony. So yea it's a good thing for them I can't sit on that jury. And a really good thing for them that I can't determine their punishment.
  18. Brookie Hunter, I understand what you are saying and I'm with you one this one. As I said before in the begining of this post. I'm not ready to throw all in to the fire. There is still more to come out. And yes I have kids, TWO. And I would want to be damm sure I knew all of what happen so the one or one's could get what is do to them. And we still not know yet.
  19. Knowledge of a crime and taking no action will get you charged as an accessory at least and in most jurisdictions you can be charged the same as the principle offender in the case. I hope Penn State is such a jurisdiction.

Share This Page