Hmm. Is it rescue or RECUSE? The only way rescue could come into this article is if they were talking about all the people that failed to rescue these poor children.

Thanks, Adam - I was just about to post the same.

rescue herself

SHOULD read: recuse herself.

<sigh> Discouraging.....Come ON, MSNBC, this is not the way to build credibility.

The ding-dong that typed the article has probably never even heard of the word "recuse" in their life. Even sadder is how schools are allowing students to use their slang text abbreviations in essays now. But let's put that soapbox away for now...

CallMeJeef: you really think this is a witch hunt? really?

and people still think that our justice system is not broken and needs fixing ?

I wonder if anyone of us would be out on $100k bail if we were accused of child rape? I don't think so and at this time, if it was anyone of us, we would be worried that we were going to be raped by baba in jail.

I can't believe corruption is still happening right under our noses.

THIS NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!!

I'm glad a letter to the Supreme Court of PA is being sent. Something needs to happen immediately!!! It needs to happen today! All this just makes me sick!

The spelling I see is 'recuse.' Either they already adjusted it since this comment was originally posted or the commentor is nit-picking where there is nothing to nit-pick. That, or it's both. Seriously, the best response you can come up with on this topic is a spelling error? Deep.

Chicken hawk was guarding the chickens.
Thanks Your Honor.

TEA TARDED---Right and whos guarding sunduskys granchildren if he had/has any? Did the very understanding judge that let him out at least check that out before he was let out?

It is who you know that matters. Justice is served in this manner?

My guess is that anyone of any prominence was involved in the charity in some form. If you look at the other judges, you will probably find that they were also volunteers or participated in fund raisers, etc.

However, Judge Leslie Dutchcot freed Sandusky on $100,000 unsecured bail, meaning he’ll only have to pay if he doesn’t show up for court.

His bail should have been at least $500,000. Not only he is at risk for leaving the country, but also his crimes are severe. Talk about protecting your friends all the way to the end.

AND THE PLOT THICKENS...................!!!!

Just like the dark when you turn off the light, this is going to get all over everything!!!

BTW, where is ewent with her judgement of everyone in the "backwards" state of Texas over the judge that beat his 16 year old?????

Some observers are questioning why Dutchcot didn’t recuse herself from Sandusky's case, given her connection.

OF COURSE that judge in prejudice in his favor. What on Earth was she thinking? She put herself at risk big time, ESPECIALLY if he walks away and doesn't show up in court she should be charged with aiding and abetting.

No other judge in their right mind would allow a child sex offender with 40 counts against him walk out without posting any bail whatsoever.

She's a corrupt judge, is the only answer.

TO: wryview who wrote:

"My guess is that anyone of any prominence was involved in the charity in some form. If you look at the other judges, you will probably find that they were also volunteers or participated in fund raisers, etc."

Well that certainly would qualify as "good cause" for a change of venue. However, even if every judge in the county was a volunteer (which I seriously doubt), that's not to say that each and every one of them would allow a 40-count child sex offender walk without posting any bail whatsoever, AND without a monitoring bracelet!

Outrageous!

It is good to know the law, but it is better to know the judge.

Clearly this judge's relationship with Second Mile should have been revealed and she should have recused herself. The fact that she allowed this man charged with multiple pedophile rapes/molestations to walk back into society without paying out a penny in bond or ordering any tether monitoring is alarming...I am sure this would not be the situation for an average citizen under the same felony charges, as it shouldn't be...when enough evidence has been presented to warrant these charges, this creep should be kept in custody or at the very least, tethered. Geez...my brother had to pay out more in bond after being arrested on a warrant for "excessive noise"...his goofy neighbor kept calling the police that he played his radio too loud...and his car was also impounded when he was arrested which required additional money out of his pocket to get it back. The situation ended up an embarrassment to the city and all charges were dropped against him, but just saying...law enforcement puts a lot more teeth into arrest warrants for a lot less serious stuff than raping children. This judge's decision should be revisited.

Yep a no Brainer here. Dutchcot should have reused herself but, then she could not have given her former boss a pass.

"Tight Knit Community" is a phraseology that means:

WE PROTECT OUR OWN!

There was no one in a position of power or authority who did not know about Jerry Sandusky. They chose to look the other way.

Happy Valley is the wrong name for that town.....

Nightmare on Elm Street is more appropriate!

cathee...

LOL...I have to do it...

Dutchcot should have reused herself but...

reused sounds so...so...sloppy!

Sorry, but the original poster was complaining about rescue...not recuse.

I agree with you, though.

40 counts of child sex abuse and he is seen at the MALL two days later. Pedophile heaven. Yeah, that was a great decision, Judge. Hope you are willing to take the consequences. The protection of children should always take precedent over friendships and associations. Too bad that the judge didn't get that what she did is what this whole case is about.

So this judge lets him walk without the need to even jingle the change in his pocket or attach a leash. Was she not aware that this is a high profile case? Did she truly believe this would go under the radar? How brazen has our political sustem become that she couldn't do the simple task of recusing herself from this case? I hope she is now on the list of people being charged. They could also throw Ashton Kutcher into the mix on charges of arrogant stupidity.

I hope this isn't an opportunity for the sick twisted bastard to kill himself because he doesn't deserve to get off that easy. There are people in prison that have committed some brutal crimes but a lot of them have kids and they don't treat people like Sandusky all that well behind bars. As they say, do unto others.......

If he runs I hope there is an international Amber Alert put out so everyone in the free world knows what this scumbag looks like. This is one of those instances when spending tax payer money on a trial is the only proper way to punish.

Sandusky and Lindsey Lohan were out together drinking cocktails at a charity event Saturday night. They wrote a few checks and casually chatted about the plight of the unemployed peasants in America before retiring for the evening. Lohan's Jaguar was given a police escort all the way to the driveway of her mansion (she only hit three cars and two people getting out of the parking lot) and Sandusky dropped by the Bishop's humble estate to play romper room with a few of the young lads from the orphanage. Privilege has it's privileges.

Browns Backer...Way good post. Way good. Right on target. I would be disappointed if this dirt bag didn't have to serve a day in jail because he took the ultimate control and committed suicide. This case screams for justice!!!!

Browns Backer and Colorblind -- You are so right. My blood pressure goes up every time I read about this case. Scumbags, including this judge, all of them. They and Penn State should be sued for all they've got and Sandusky clapped in jail for the rest of his life and let out in the general prison population. His bail should have been 2 million with around-the-clock monitoring. Unbelievable. And they call this justice?

JMB66,

Where do you live that students are allowed to write essays with text abbreviations? Definitely not allowed in any class I've taken, and I'm a student.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!!! 40 counts of child molestation. He needs an anklet and higher secured bail. This sink worse than a can of day old sardines (un-refrigerated).

ADAM77... maybe we read different things but...uh this article absolutely says: 

"the judge, didn't recuse herself" either we read something different or you can't read.

For the rich and/or powerful and/or connected, justice is, always has been and always will be, "just us." The Pedophile and the Judge......sounds like a book title and a match made in hell.

The version I just read was exactly correct to state "recuse". Perhaps you need a new "editor."

Here it is copied and pasted verbatim. I don't see a problem with the spelling, unless somehow they went back and edited it. If not, there seems there are a lot of numbskulls out there who misread the text or just went with the flow of criticism.

"Some observers are questioning why Dutchcot, the judge, didn't recuse herself from Sandusky's case, given her connection to him through the Second Mile."

Anyone remember "Kids for Cash" scandal where the judges sent kids to a privately owned juvicenter to fill their quota. Now we got a judge with personal ties to this monster's charity, being lenient on him.

Seems like PA is not a safe place to raise your kids....

For God's sake, how can you let this sick bast*rd out, wandering around un-monitored. The judge should go to jail too.

Oh joy. Another tidbit for the press...another juicy morsel?

In these United States, one is innocent until proved guilty. But it should be an interesting trial....s-o-o-o-o sordid. Just what the public loves. And there has been a dry spell, what with Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox a done deal.

John: Did you miss your 12 noon medication, or just on a drunk?

OMG!! Really??? This "alleged" judge can not sit on this case. Serious conflict of interest. Since we have covered that part pretty well...here is something to think about.

Sandusky (Sick Pervert) started his little organization for "at risk boys" (his favorite kind) back in 1977. You are actually looking at 34 years (THIRTY FOUR YEARS) of contact he has had with boys in his Second Mile. Does anyone really for a split second think that his sick, twisted perversion began in 1998? HELL NO! Sandusky has probably been doing this crap of destroying innocent children's lives for the better part of 40 years. I think he started the Second Mile with super easy access to young boys in mind. Trust me, this has been going on longer that 15 years and trust me, there are WAY MORE THAN 15 boys attacked/violated/abused/raped. I don't think anyone REALLY wants to know just how many children he has hurt. How in the hell could that judge let him waltz out of the courtroom like she did. He should be behind bars...all boys in the city are in danger!!!!!!!!

Something is not right here!

Uhhh, John, you kind of got off course. By your ranting, a rape against a woman by a man is the fault of ALL heterosexuals. You going to serve time for every rape committed against women?

Sandusky has been getting away with his dirty deeds because has had "inside pull", inside "help from above", someone "using their influence", fear from the "established inner circle", .... there are many names for it all but no one wants to say it, .... especially not in State College, not at Penn State, not in the Nittany mountains & not in Happy Valley. I will be the first to blurt it out. I will be the first Truth Teller. I will say what no one else will say in public, on TV or in writing.

Joe Paterno has been protecting his close friend Sandusky for over 15 years. The Paterno machine will definitely continue to attempt to protect & cover up as long as possible. Everyone is doing only meaningless tangential actions, but no one wants to stand up against "The Man", the Legend, Joe Paterno.

@babmainst

Do you have a source for into on the "Paterno machine" and their alleged cover-up of Sandusky?

BWAAAHHAAAHAAA!
Get outa` church much, John?

Only to be accurate. I looked on the internet for child rape bail and found the bail amounts range from released on no bail, $20,000 $40,000 $220,000, $1.4 million and unreleased at any bail. And a spell checker will not read minds and understand that recuse should be used instead of rescue.

And if you type in recuse here in the comment box, you will find that it is underlined in red meaning that the word was not put in as a word that is acceptable in its spelling.

However since the Judge has a relationship with the charity and with Sandusky, she should have recused herself. As the saying goes. Cesar's wife must be above reproach.

I personally believe that Sandusky should not have been released on any bail. This appears to be on Sandusky's part a well planned out approach to gather children so he could pick and even his mental thoughts were that it was wrong, and he was caught three times, it now appears, after the 2002 episode, he started foot ball camps for children from 8 to 15 on various Penn St. campuses after he was told not to. Definitely a person set in his ways to satisfy his perverted sexual urges. With all that information and the recidivism pedophilia rate in excess of 90% he should not be left to wander in society.

Maybe, just maybe, if this was a Big Time Homosexual pedophile ring, the judge may of had him released so he gits wacked to protect other Big Shots, and we ALL KNOW, Dead Men Tell No Tales.

It doesn't look like he or McQueery are well liked in the community now.

I heard something tonight that Sandusky"s back yard is adjacent to a SCHOOL PLAYGROUND. Coincidental? Convenient?

the way its unfolding, can we start a pool on who's house they will find the deep freeze keeping the body of the missing DA?

Child abuse rings exist within the highest levels of power. They cover for one another and no one believes that such 'stalwart' members of the community would ever engage in such behaviours. They cover for one another, they pull strings and pay off potential whistle-blowers or said whistle blowers suddenly disappear or suffer from unfortunate accidents.

Showering with the boys? A grown adult male getting naked and into the showers with the boys and somehow, this is ok? This is normal? Then you have the foundations and the charities that offer 'homes' to these children. Sick, sick, sick evil perverts.

And the left hand washes the right hand. And there are a lot of dirty hands here. But non of the proven guilty ones will become pres. The American people vote for honest, non rapists and or molesters...Oh WAIT....Maybe they do!!! We shall see in this next election....

Pure speculation but interesting what connection if any would the DA's disappearance have on this case? the plot thickens. why did the CEO's make so much money if this is to help children should the income be a little more modest? don't people donate to these charities to help the children, or is it to help some lawyer and his wife skim a few hundred thousand dollars for their own benefit. what is it about charity that I don't understand, just how much moneydid this charity take in? if this is a example of our nations trusted upper crust of the social do goodoers I am shocked and disappointed, they must have been generating over $3 million dollars to justify even 10% overhead expense I'm curious about their books, I would like to see the money side as well as the other dirt. how much do you want to bet the lawyer is on his way to a non extradition country! I hope they send Sandusky (after his day in court) to a prison full of sex offender's so he can get a taste of what he has been administering, do you think he can still grab his ankles.

No bet RwEvans have you ever herd of a Pennsylvania hog farm! they have them all over Pennsylvania. I'm not sure but I'll bet Penn State has one tucked away somewhere in the State. to late to go sifting $hit now, the Sheriff should have done that the week he disappeared.

Growing up a good friend's dad was the dad everybody wanted. He had 6 kids, was always there when needed, and was the life of the party. His kids adored him. Everybody did. Yup, he molested his daughters and put the moves on a family member once when he helped get her home. When it all came out, many years later, the family fell apart. So the family hid the truth from everybody. It isn't just the Catholic church, or sports clubs, or corporations,etc, it is EVERYBODY.

Another good friend found out when she was about 40 that her dad was molesting her niece. Her dad at least admitted it when confronted, and swore he wouldn't do anything like that again. It was hard on the family, but they kept it together because they really loved him. Again, he was a super dad, always there for the kids, and a good husband. However, he was a child molester and did so many times.

People keep these secrets because they love the person they are protecting. To out them means they are lost to them forever. I would bet every family is protecting at least one family member that is suspected of "not being right".

I am appalled by these allegations and obviously this man is very sick. It is probably nuts of us to think he is going to confess. The sin is just too great. It is time for EVERYBODY to realize that humans are fatally flawed. They might go almost their life doing right, and then fall from grace for a variety of reasons.

As a nation, we elected Bill Clinton knowing he was a sexual predator. We allowed him to make excuses and lie to us and still he is very well liked. We like him. We just do, but he stepped over the line many times, and who knows probably still does. Maybe he is too old now. I voted for him, not realizing back then that the women that came forward with stories of his hunt were used and cast aside. We blamed them. We didn't believe them no matter how many nor what they had to say. And then there was Monica. And there it was. Paula was probably telling the truth as were the others.

We all find it hard to imagine those we love or like are sometimes such loathing creatures.

@ theboys - You've written an excellent post. It is very difficult for most people to think of turning in someone close to them for the crime of child molestation/rape, if they discover the ugly truth. So much is at stake for the individual and for the family of the person involved. I hope I never have to face that choice but am sure that I would do the hard task required, in order to protect children from being abused. I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise.

My grandmother's family had a pedophile who molested family members. It was a dark secret that was kept. Not until my mother and her sister were well into middle age did they discuss it with each other. Most people do not talk about it. There has been a silent epidemic of sexual abuse of children.

This scandal at Penn State will be helpful to our society by bringing the subject out in the open and helping us to understand more about the sexual exploitation of children by adults. We cannot be afraid to discuss it--with other adults and with our children, who need to learn how to identify inappropriate behavior and what to do in those circumstances and how to report it.

Kids are most at risk from adults they know and trust--family members, family friends, neighbors, and aquaintances--as well as clergy, teachers, coaches, etc. in positions of authority. They need to know that sometimes nice, friendly people that you might like or love can be very sick in their mind and keep their sickness a secret from most people, except their victims. They need to know that their parents will believe them if they come to them to report attempts at molestation or actual abuse and that they will be protected from that person.

We found out our nephew was molesting our 2 year old daughter. When we confronted our nephew, who was 10 years older than our daughter, the entire family made lies and excuses for him. We lost a lot of family and some friends over the matter. People who do come forward often pay a heavy price for their honesty. If I had to do it over again, I would. I just hope that when our nephew reaches adulthood he doesn't keep up with his pedophilia.

I honestly don't know how everyone that covered for Sandusky can sleep at night. I cannot imagine knowing such terror and NOT going to the proper authorities. They could have saved a lot of little boys from this disgusting abuse!

McQueary sees himself as a righteous man?....he says he made it stop and yet he left that poor child in the care of his abuser while he went to call his "Daddy"...how could he just leave the kid there?..I mean, he is 6'4" and hefty and could have easily dispatched Sandusky and taken the child to authorities or the hospital--no phone calls needed, no Daddy, no Coach.

Nope, McQueary's actions were lame....and shameful..at 28 you are a grown man and you should act like one..

but it is great that you became an assistant coach to Paterno...wow...wonder if that would have happened if you had done the RIGHT thing in the shower instead of the cowardly thing.

Looks like everybody came out of this better than when they went into it except the children...

how would McQueary feel if that were his 8 year old son being abused by Sandusky?....bet McQueary never let any of his kids any where near Sandusky over the years.............

actions speak louder than words.

Inexcusable...............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

let his story come out. Remember he is the prime witness against Sandusky. Without him, the police would have almost nothing and the Penn St coverup would still be in full swing. What would you do if the man who had been your boss for ten years was doing this and you knew your whole career was going to go down the tubes by confronting "THE GOD" Paterno and the Penn St. machine. You do know that McQueary is dead meat? He will never coach football again in his life.

If he had just walked away and said nothing, his future would have been secure. Lets see how Sandusky spins McQueary's statements.
Anyway you look at it McQueary is another victim of Sandusky.

I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, but remember the Michael Jackson trial with the same alleged charges. He was known to sleep in the same bed with young boys, etc. and he was found not guilty. I think we need to wait until the charges are revealed by the accusers, his (Maybe) victims.

If the charges are founded as true then the whole pyramid should come down. From the president of the college on down. They are all responsible. The police should have been notified IMMEDIATELY.

Some good may come of this. Like the scandals with the Church and the Boy scout leaders, once one group comes out and reports the abuse, more will come out. There are a lot of colleges in the US, and I'm sure a lot of coaches doing things with children they should not be.

To theboys--well written, and I agree with much of what you say. But your lumping Bill Clinton into the discussion of pedophilia is at best grotesque. Adults make up their own minds, and, despite your spin, Clinton never attacked or forced himself on anybody. You are, unwittingly I assume, feeding a gross misconception, that there is a spectrum from philandering to pedophilia--and that is NOT TRUE. Pedophilia has to do with the abuse by adults of CHILDREN, a sickness and a crime, unrelated to the sexual games most adults indulge in, actually or in fantasy, throughout their lives.

@lastonehome, I couldn't disagree with you more. Why should McQueary have the benefit of "letting his story come out"...Sandusky isn't getting this luxury. Why is it ok for Sandusky to be tried in the media, but McQueary should be protected? I think not...

I'm in no way defending Sandusky, but I do question McQueary's actions completely.

How is it that Paterno was fired and McQueary is on admin pay? Why wasn't McQueary charged as an accessory? He should be; he essentially did NOTHING to stop the crime he alleges Sandusky of committing.

I have to question how a man that claims to have seen a young boy being sexually assaulted - first hand, with his own eyes - would allow the crime to continue without taking any further action. He claims he did what he could and advised his bosses, but once it was clear that nothing was coming of that, wh did he not go straight to the police himself?

How is it that Paterno and the others are being held responsible for Sandusky's alleged actions, but the one person that was there, THE ONLY ONE OF ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT SUPPOSEDLY SAW THE CRIME WITH HIS OWN EYES, is not being held to the same standards. I certainly have my doubts with regard to McQueary, and his actions...

When they have a trial the facts will come out. All we have now are allegations and rumors. Look at the Casey Anthony trial, the evidence didn't warrant a conviction. The state had a weak case. Do I think she did it? Sure she had something to do with her daughter's death, but there wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Yet the jurors have received death threats, why? Because the case was tried in the media.

Now we have an alleged child molester arrested and people are being fired left and right for covering up or failing to report the crimes. Yet we haven't even had a trial yet. Let's not ruin more lives until the facts are presented. If the man is found guilty the law will punish him. Until then please refrain from calling for his head.

All you need to look at is the number of supposedly guilty people that have been release because of new DNA evidence. I'm sure plenty of people were calling for their heads as well.

Jerry Sandusky essentially confessed to a mother of one of the boys in 1998 that he had done something inappropriate with her son, that he knew she would never forgive him, and that he wished he were dead. He was overhead saying these things, so it's not just 'he said/ she said'. There are witnesses.

There are too many people over too many years who testified to the grand jury that they saw Sandusky molesting boys with their own eyes for us to hope all the accusations might be false. The pile of circumstantial evidence continues to grow bigger. Ten more boys have now come forth.

The Casey Anthony trial was an example of a jury that failed to use common sense to piece together the facts of the case. Most of the time when a crime is committed, the jury is not going to be able to watch it occur on videotape. The members of the jury need to have the imagination and intelligence to come to a logical conclusion about who might have had both motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

As for Sandusky, his interview with Bob Costas was a terrible choice. In the interview, Sandusky claims that he never discussed any of the allegations against him with his boss, Joe Paterno. How can anyone believe that? It's absurd to pretend that Paterno never talked to him about it.

By doing that interview, Sandusky made himself look even more dishonest, and he further sullied the reputations of Paterno and McQueary by essentially calling them liars. If he cares at all about the damage he has done to Penn State --let alone abused kids everywhere-- he should remain silent and wait for his day in court.

People keep these secrets because they love the person they are protecting. To out them means they are lost to them forever. I would bet every family is protecting at least one family member that is suspected of "not being right".

Fortunately that's not the case with my family, but I do agree pedophilia is much more common than we want to face up to, and that the victims often have mixed feelings about their abusers.

Nonetheless, it's a crime that can destroy many lives and carry on to later generations. The only way to help make this better is for society to make it OK for victims to come forth without shame or guilt. In addition, the pedophiles themselves deserve some measure of compassion. It must be a terrible thing to be a pedophile. We need to find a way to help them too.

Well, interesting point about compassion for the pedophiles. Research into sex criminals reveals that most will repeat their crimes, recidivisim is very high. Our society considers sex with children a crime, however, in other cultures, children are fair game. Marriages of men in their fifties and older to girls as young as eight happens in many fundamental Islamic countries. Other cultures also have children marrying children.

Not too long ago in this country men could marry girls as young as twelve. Once a girl had her first menses, she was considered eligible. It was during the Victorian era that children were first regarded as 'children.' Prior to that they were small human beings and in many cases, they were treated as small animals.

That we now consider sex with children to be a crime is a sign of evolution and progress as a species.

How can you let a guy like this out on bail at all. He knows he will be spending life in prison he is going to try and run. The name Sandusky will go down with the infamy of famous serial killer names because of the unimaginable depravity of his crimes, and yet this judge thinks its ok to let him out on bail...

Can you say dwindling faith in the justice system?

I wonder if she is a member of the board at the charity. I think that she was "trying to help an old friend". As such, she should face a trial herself. Wont happen, total wishful thinking, but still.

This is why I dont have ANY faith in the justice system, so obviously flawed.

More & More is coming out... I'm not sure if I want to hear the rest... It's pretty gruesome now, I have a feeling it's going to get worse...

I hope that this judge gets the same swift justice in the court of public opinion that Joe Paterno did. Let's not have a double standard develop after the fact. What's good for Joe is good for this judge. I feel that what she has done is more reprehensible than what Joe did. She should be off of the bench by the end of the week...

You obviously don't KNOW what JoePa did or you wouldn't make such a stupid comparison. He was aware that Sandusky had inappropriate contact with children as early as 1998, yet he turned a blind eye and let Sandusky use the field and facilities for years without thinking twice. That sounds a lot worse than some judge who had drinks with Sandusky at a formal 2nd Mile function or appeared in photoshoots with him. I'm not saying the judge isn't wrong to be a part of this situation, only that what JoePa did runs much deeper and smacks of cover-up.

I feel that anyone who had knowledge of the abuse and did nothing (i.e. kick the piss out of him, call the cops, save the kid, check to find out his NAME) should be equally responsible. They all knew of it, knew that the cops hadnt been contacted, and turned a blind eye. ALL of them should be accountable, and this judge needs to be excused, she is not excercising an unbiased opinion in letting him out. Anyone else would have been given a proper bond AND ankle monitoring. ESPECIALLY considering he has the potential to flee. Come on, she knew this and still did this. WRONG, and just as guilty.

Amazing the outrage here. From reading the story, there are no facts presented which would require the Judge to recuse herself. You'd think that if the purpose was to provide facts, then some would have been given. What did she do? Show up at a soup kitchen once ten years ago?

In the absence of some specifics, there appears to be no reason for her to pass on the case. The fact is that if every judge were required to recuse themselves because of some connection with a party in the past, then nothing could get done in the courts.

Imagine a law suit between McDonalds and Burger King. The media reports that the presiding judge has had a long term relationship with McD's. The judge rules in the case for McD. Outrage right? Of course, such reporting is totally devoid of any facts. Would the outrage continue if the "long-term relationship" turned out to be that the judge has eaten at McD's for 50 years and preferred their Big Mac over the Whopper? The point is that it is clear that the purpose of this article is to rile people up without reporting any facts.

Given all that, that's not to say that outrage over the bail is or isn't appropriate. Obviously, a different judge easily could have done the same thing. There is nothing in the article showing any bias of the judge, but a lot of vague insinuation. That's not "reporting."

If the judge served as a member of the board at one of the restaurants charities, it is a conflict of interest because she has already deemed it a worthy cause. That makes a biased opinion, and could hinder her ability to render a fair decision. THAT is what a conflict of interest is.

Cletus, how can I say this? You scream about cover up but don't believe that it is continuing in court? The judge certainly knows about her connection to this charity, would be remiss to not know about his involvement in it, then not only does not recuse herself from the case but gives him a sweetheart bail deal. That sounds like justice to you? This came in like a firestorm the past week and no one has been tried or found guilty yet Joe does what he is legally responsible for in this case and he is hung out to dry in about 5 days. Fired. Period. If that is not a rush to judgement then neither is kicking this reprehensible judge off of the bench. Making excuses for the continued cover up on this case will not make things better. With all of the ramifications that are already present, this NEEDS to be a textbook prosecution, not a rubber stamped effort with a string of asterisks following it in the history books.

Witchrunner, none of these comments would even be here if she would have given this guy at least equal treatment as other child sex offenders in similar situations. Essentially no bail and no court monitoring for someone living in the neighborhood of a school? How many counts was it? Your typical peodophile alledgedy committing the same crimes would be under the jail today. It seems that you cannot see the fire because you are fanning the smoke everywhere.

40 counts, Unimpressed. And by the way, you are 100% right!

She may as well have just told him straight out to "go ahead and run" because he IS likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. She knows it, we know it, and unless he feels he has everybody in that City intimidated or frightened, he knows it.

Witchrunner, you're right in the fact that she needn't have recused herself just because she was a volunteer on the same charity. I'm sure that at no time was she ever aware this abuse was happening. But the fact that her judgement didn't come anywhere close to what a normal pedophile would have received shows obvious favoritism. That is the criticism against her, that she in essence 'let him go' because of who he is and their relationship on the same charity. You NEVER let a wealthy man, potentially facing the rest of his life in prison, out on what amounts to personal recognizance. It's already obvious that he can't be trusted.

hope that this judge gets the same swift justice in the court of public opinion that Joe Paterno did.

yet Joe does what he is legally responsible for in this case and he is hung out to dry in about 5 days.

Unimpressed, I am unimpressed with your support for Joe Paterno. The court of public opinion didn't fire Joe Paterno, the Board of Trustees did. It shouldn't have taken 5 days either, but I suspect the BoT gave Paterno a few days to do the right thing and resign with some dignity. Being the stubborn old fool that he is, he decided to hang on and inform the BoT that he would retire on his own terms. Thankfully, the BoT stepped up and did the right thing.

Defending Joe Paterno is sickening to me. If he had spoken up in 2002, think of how many children would have avoided being molested by Sandusky. Instead, many more children were abused by Sandusky from 2002 thru 2008.

It's not the Court of Public Opinion that fired Joe. It's the fact that he did nothing and more children were subject to sexual assault because of him looking the other way. Most everybody makes the connection between Joe keeping silent and Sandusky having another 6 years to molest kids. How 'bout you? It's a pretty easy connection to make.

By the way, I'm a PSU football fan and a PSU alumni, Class of '87.

One thing about sex offenders that has become very clear--they never stop, ever, until they are caught or dead. So, what excuse is this judge going to have when Sandusky is caught or accused of abusing a child while out on (no) bail? That is going to be hard for the judge to explain, I think.

Harold, I am not defending Paterno and honestly I have never been a fan of PSU football. That being said, I don't know how you can say that the court of public opinion did not influence the outcome here. This story stayed on the ESPN ticker all week. Bet if you turn it on now that it is in the rotation still. It was on national news every night. The trustees wanted the story to go away and they felt that offering a sacrifice of a big name like Paterno would do it. Maybe that worked, maybe it didn't. What DID happen is that Joe was ready to answer to critics about what happened at his news conference and the school cancelled it. Why is that? Maybe because they were planning on firing him anyway? Maybe the trustees didn't want the public to hear Joe's side and drag this out more. No one knows enough of the facts about this case yet to make a judgement, however Joe was forced to leave in shame. History may yet prove that what he did was wrong but the only court so far to make a decision about this case is the court of public opinion. Joe deserved better than the "Mob Rules" justice that was handed down. He has showed class for a long time for that school and should have had the chance to defend himself. Please don't mistake my wish for unbiased justice as defense for what happened. Rushing to fire a coach because of PR convenience is just not right though.

Hey Unimpressed you just go ahead and keep taking the side of the pedophile enabler. Makes you look real good. If you know children are being abused and do nothing then you yourself are an abuser. Why is this story on a 24 hour news cycle? Because it is horrific!!!!! If you dont think a college coach raping children is news you have issues. If you dont think another college coach turning a blind eye to it and allowing it to continue is news, then you have serious problems. NO SCHOOL, INSITUTION OR COACH trumps the welfare of ANY child. GET A CLUE!!!!

Wow! Thanks, Dan. Unimpressed has me, well...unimpressed.

Had PSU rushed to fire the pedofile when they were first made aware of his crime we wouldn't be here today. It's not about PR, it's about reporting a crime against a defenseless 10 year old to the POLICE!! McCleary should be charged too....really, at 26, go to your dad and ask what should I do (when you just watched a 60 year old man sodomize a 10 year old boy??) How old do you have to be to know that's a crime??...And even Paterno has said he didn't do enough.

And I believe that MANY in the Court of Public Opinion are more in support of Paterno than in firing him....how sad is that??

Judge should have removed herself from the case. Obviously gave favorable treatment to the perv. Now needs to be removed from the bench. Another person in on the game. People who do far less crimes are given higher bail conditions than Coach Perv.

I'm glad that we have omnipotent people on this case like Dan and MeMe who obviously know all of the facts about it to rely on. McCleary changed his story, didn't he? Which story was Joe supposed to believe? In the tort-happy society that we live in, we have to be careful where we tread legally. What if McCleary made the story up? A distinct possibility if you are changing your story. Sounds like grounds for a law suit in my book if you push things after you go through proper channels. Joe has regrets and much like I said earlier, he may even be criminally involved. It is not up to me to judge him, however. We have courts for that. Be careful about picking up the pitch forks and torches when you want to join in the lynch mob though (and make no mistake, this is the modern version of it). You never know if the next one will be after you. I want justice for the victims, but not mob justice. I hope that the world stays black and white for everyone making the semi-slanderous comments here under anonimity. It must be nice to live in a world that has no grey...

"I don't know how you can say that the court of public opinion did not influence the outcome here."

Easy... the moral crime of looking the other way was the primary influence on the BoT, not public opinion. Maybe you don't believe "looking the other way" is that big a deal, but most people (including the BoT) view it as horrific, given that it enabled Sandusky to continue abusing boys for many more years.

"This story stayed on the ESPN ticker all week....It was on national news every night. The trustees wanted the story to go away and they felt that offering a sacrifice of a big name like Paterno would do it."

The Trustees know darn well this story isn't going away for years. They didn't fire Joe because of network coverage, they fired Joe because he looked the other way, giving Sandusky a free pass to continue molesting young boys at PSU facilities.

"What DID happen is that Joe was ready to answer to critics about what happened at his news conference and the school cancelled it. Why is that?"

Because the old fool was so naive regarding his inaction being a major blunder, that he was bound to say something that would open the school up to even more liability. Victims are going to sue the balls off of PSU... the BoT wasn't going to let a clueless Paterno say something stupid. Paterno's liability in all this had to be explained to him... he honestly didn't get it. He was in front of his house leading fans in the "We Are... Penn State" cheer. That's clueless! The BoT were rightfully scared of a clueless Paterno. This is their mess to manage and they had to do everything they could to limit the damage.

At this point, Joe Paterno isn't a University employee anymore. He can say anything he wants to the media. What's the last thing Joe said to the media over the weekend? "I won't have any comments on the scandal." Imagine that. He's now lawyered-up and someone talked some sense to him (read: personal financial liability $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).

"Joe deserved better than the "Mob Rules" justice that was handed down. He has showed class for a long time for that school and should have had the chance to defend himself."

It really wasn't "mob rules", it was the board of trustees that read a very, very, damning Grand Jury report. Then they saw a foolish old man not acting in accordance with the seriousness of the allegations.

Now.... aside from the BoT, there was indeed a "mob" and if that "mob" had gotten their way, Paterno would have coached on Saturday. So much for "mob rules". Like I said... at this point, Joe isn't going on trial and has the media at his disposal to "defend himself". He has chosen silence instead. Maybe, finally, he's beginning to understand how his INACTION got more boys raped.... for years.

"Rushing to fire a coach because of PR convenience is just not right though."

I don't think the BoT rushed. They should have fired him last Monday but gave him thru Wednesday. PR convenience? Did you even read the Grand Jury report? Joe Paterno has been disgraced through his own INACTION. No one brought this upon Paterno but himself, for failiing to do the right thing. The decision by the BoT was genuinely a "no brainer"... it was hardly a rush to judgement based on PR convenience. They had no other choice, other than firing him a day or two earlier.

No coach would have survived this. Paterno wasn't dealt with unfairly. Make no mistake... this wasn't a lynch mob. This was justice by the BoT and there ain't a credible University out there that would have handled this differently.

Harold, I don't agree with all of what you say but you do make some good points. The main thing is that I want to see justice for the victims, but the whole point of this article is that it doesn't appear to be starting that way. I apologize for taking the discussion away from that...

Harold, Why didn't they fire McQueery too?

@Unimpressed: I personally agree with much of what you said, and I only post this because I have been almost dumbfounded at how people don't see it the same the way. It does appear that there has been a rush to judgement here, especially of Paterno. Many of the posts I have read here, and on other sites show that people have more or less jumped to conclusions, and have not really tried to give him the benefit of doubt. I think people have approached every article already thinking the worst, so then people end with conclusions that cannot technically be proven with the facts that have been presented thus far. I mean, I didn't even read the whole article because I was anxious to see if anyone picked up on the statement that McQuerry made in his e-mail. How can this McQuerry as a person in a reputable high class football program be so convinced that what he did was right, and write such a letter seeking support from the people who he knew best? I mean, I'm really confused. What changes are to come in the story that we have been given so far that would cause McQuerry to think an e-mail like that would have been appropriate? And how will these changes affect the views we have of the actions that were taken by Paterno. Again, I say this candidly. I'm really confused. Some things need explaining. Details are just not adding up.

I just don't see how people can't see that there is definitely some information missing? And admitting that all of the information is not there does not make someone crazy or incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. It simply is an acknowledgement that if this were a court of law, the case as it stands now would be undecided. There must be an investigation to determine what really happened, what specific actions were taken by which individuals, and what was said in each situation. Only then can everyone really determine what level of culpability each person really deserves. Even if the facts turn up to support much of the anger and disgust that has been displayed, it still seems a little unsettling to me that so many would be so angry at Paterno without all the pieces of the puzzle.

And one more thing....

I personally would like to hear Paterno give a statement of why he acted the way that he did.

Even if we all agree that he should have definitely done more, I think one thing that is missing from the discussion, and the one thing that I think we should truly base our opinions of Paterno on is if there was a moment in this whole debacle where Paterno knowingly acted irresponsibly. In other words, was there a moment where Paterno decided with an implicit intention to put the program and his legacy above rightful prosecution of these crimes, deeming that such prosecution were possible? I don't think that this is clear.

If the answer is yes, we rightfully deem his actions immoral and say that the scrutiny is justified. If the answer is no however, then we must understand that sometimes situations are complex, choices are not always clear. And sometimes things will happen where if we had a second chance, we would do all that we could to see that circumstances turn out differently.

From my perspective, it just doesn't seem like we can say for sure yet that Paterno's intentions were marred. Especially considering the statement he put out, acknowledging that in hindsight he should have done more. It doesn't seem like he was one that was so interested in a cover up. And I think that when you go to judge someone the intention of the action, whether right or wrong, moral or immoral---has to be taken into consideration.

Whether any of us are angry, disappointed, disgusted or defensive of Paterno is irrelevant. The question is, can Paterno look back on this situation and say, "Well, at least I did everything I was legally responsible to do in order to avoid being held liable for damages," or can he say, "I did everything in my power as a moral human being to stop a man from hurting any more children, even if he was my old friend?"

@Mac-101, probably because he's protected as a "whistle blower", his testimony may be prove to be the smoking gun. Not only against Sandusky, but against the others who did nothing after his lame effort to "do the right thing"

McQueery is in far better physical shape than I, then & now. I'm permanently disabled, can hardly walk. But I'll say this: Had that been me to had seen that type of action, I'd have smashed my walker through his skull, & screamed for help. It may would have turned out that my ass would have got kicked, but I would have got the 1st lick in, & a few more. And I would have called the cops.

As far as McQueery's "I did the right thing" statement, I don't buy it. A 28 year old man, not a boy, having to ask his dad as to "what to do"? Yet he broke up a fight involving a knife?

In my opinion, McQueery didn't "do the right thing". Mabye the relationship between Sandersky & McQueery's dad? It's the only thing that I can figure. Still, that wouldn't have mattered to me, I'd rather go down with my teeth kicked in & what's left of my back broken, than to walk away from a 10 year old child who was being sexually assaulted.

Really, just how damn powerful was Sandersky? To be fired, yet still have total access to the place? Even our POTUS has to hand the keys over at the end of his/her term.

The ones who ran this football program really had power, to have kept this under the lid this long. Most likely, one (or more) of this group knows what happened to that missing DA. There was too much power at stake, and that's probably part of the issue here, no one wanted their house to fall.

Cat

I personally have no stake in PSU football or in the university itself. I am interested in the case mainly because I was severely abused myself. I agree that we really need more information before rushing to judgment on every single person involved and blaming them for the continuation of the abuse. For one thing, neither McQueary nor Paterno did absolutely nothing. They both reported what happened. I agree with those who say that they should have called the police, but I also wonder how many of you truly would have called the authorities if you had been in the same situation. Let's not forget that a woman was stabbed a number of years ago in New York and screamed for hours and no one called the cops. Let's also not forget that thousands of kids are abused all the time and no one reports it despite the visible bruises and the faint cries for help. As an abused child I can testify to that myself. There were people who had to be aware of my abuse or at least suspect something. If I look at indicators of possible abuse on a scale used by first responders in today's world, I met a LOT of them. Yet no one said a word or tried to help me. Sometimes we realize things a lot better in hindsight and when it's safer. I also saw siblings abused, but I was too terrified and powerless to intervene. I doubt it was the case in this incident, of course, but sometimes people who observe abuse are literally terrified for their lives.

Incidentally, I was also personally involved in a case of another abused child where the abuse was reported to DCF. You would think that something would be done then, but absolutely nothing was done by the authorities. They never even interviewed the child or the child's family. If the parents had not believed the child and protected her, the abuse would have continued. (After that the CHILD begged that nothing further be done, and the parents did not want to cause any further trauma.) So even reporting abuse to the authorities does not guarantee that something will be done.

Paterno is old school and lives under the old system of protocol, you don't act on your own, you go through the proper channels and report to your superiors, that way every one knows what $hit is about to hit the fan, giving the responsible people a chance to organize and handle he situation in a proper perspective, unfortunately the responsible people turned out to be useless, they did not handle the situation at all Paterno did report and do the proper thing but he should have pursued the outcome, in other words he should have demanded satisfaction. he failed to do that and that makes him a accessory of sorts . same goes to his underling McQueery.

For all of you non attorneys posting that maybe it was okay that the judge did not recuse herself because she may have only played a minor role in the Defendant's organization, the problem is that she did not advise the prosecutor in open court of her links to the organization and let the prosecutor decide for himself or herself whether he would make the request that the judge recuse herself. She hid her connection to the organization and it is only because the media discovered the connection is the issue now coming up.

It is not up to the judge to decide herself if she needs to recuse herself. It is up to her as a matter of law to openly disclose any POSSIBLE conflict of interest and then leave it up to the prosecution or defense to make the request she recuse herself.

Now that you actually know what the law of judicial disclosure is, still want to give her a pass on this? Maybe you want to claim she just "forgot" about her connection even though she bragged about that same connection on her own website?

What say you?

Seentomuch,

I think you know me well enough that I believe in nuance. However in this situation:

For one thing, neither McQueary nor Paterno did absolutely nothing. They both reported what happened.

Unless they removed the child from harm and called the proper authorities (which they did not), they were wrong. But they sought to cover this up. Nobody ever called the proper authorities, or tried to figure out how to help THAT little boy. Penn State failed THAT child, and allowed Sandusky to molest others for the next decade. There's really no way around it.

As far as Paterno doing the proper thing? No. He did not. The only proper thing was to make sure the police were called, and that Sandusky was not able to continue molesting that particular child, or any other child. When he heard about the allegation he became as responsible as McQueary, because he was Captain of that Ship, and the incident occurred aboard.

If you ask me what I would have done? I would never again be able to look myself in the mirror or look at my family if I did what McQueary did. Quite frankly I probably would have been carted off by the police for attempting to bludgeon Sandusky.

At 28 years old, 6'5" tall big strong and athletic he was in little danger. But in that situation, when a small defenseless child is being physically harmed by an adult even personal safety is no excuse not go charging in there and stomping a mud hole into that old pervert. It's not often that I advocate beating the crap out of someone before the police arrive, but this is one of those times. McQueary is simply a coward of the worst kind. If I ever have the misfortune of seeing him in person I will let him know my displeasure. I may get the crap kicked out of me, but it will be worth it. I can't imagine a person who wouldn't risk his life for that child.

@Naomi Reid Watterson: Your statement actually kind of speaks to my point.

By your statement, it seems that you are concluding that Paterno was absolutely convinced that Sandusky was "hurting children"? But how can we truly no this for sure? Maybe Paterno went to the heads of his department because he was unsure what the allegations against Sandusky actually were, and wanted someone to dig further into the situation before making a spectacle? This seems like more of an accurate description of the situation. So then your statement actually seems to jump to a conclusion as if you are somehow aware of what Paterno was thinking at the time, that Sandusky was definitely hurting children, and I'm going to do what I can to cover it up. But I just don't think the claims that you and so many others make that look at Paterno based on an implicit knowledge of what was going on is either fair or balanced.

Then again, maybe in the end, Joe Paterno made a decision that he really didn't want to know the full details of what was going on. Maybe he made a decision that he wanted to pass the buck on to someone else, that he did not want to or did not have time to deal with the situation, this was something others could handle. But to say that this line of thinking deserves his crucifixion in the media, when clearly the actions Paterno took could have quite easily made the situation right, is like saying every car that passes the homeless guy on the street should get a ticket even though they stopped at the light. Our way of thinking about Paterno in this situation I don't think adds up to how we view ourselves. We crucify Joe Paterno, but then give ourselves a pass. I don't think that this is right.

So when you say that the issue is whether Joe Paterno at the end of the day can answer if he did all that he could to stop a man from hurting anymore children, there are complexities to the situation to which your question does not give an account for. Was Paterno indeed convinced that Sandusky was "hurting children", or did he maybe (even in a mistakable denial) think Sandusky had a way of dealing with the kids that rose eyebrows but always eventually was found to be of no consequence? We may never know what Paterno's true intentions were, but one thing is for sure: it seems a little unfair that our conclusions have become so harsh of a man who did what he was legally supposed to do.

*what he was required to do.

Alright Harold were you a PSU bench warmer or water boy during your entire time you were there? Seems you have a great dislike of JP. you have yet to score on Mcqueary that chicken s*** who have moral obligation to report what he saw to the police not to his father then to JP. The fact that McQueary saw and witness it and run home to tell his dad, and hide under bed and his dad told JP, he's more guiltier than JP. Does not make sense that the one who have moral obligation to report the incident to the police is not fired. Common sense Harold is to allert the law enforcement agencies what was happening by the witness who saw it. Could it be that Mcqueary have a thing going on with Sandusky and gotten jealous?

According to grand jury testimony McQueary told Paterno that Sandusky was sodomizing a 10 year old boy in the shower. Regardless of whether he wanted to get involved or not, Paterno had no choice. But he passed the buck and dropped it. He never went to any of the meetings held when discussing Sandusky. However, he was told that the result of what McQueary saw was that he would lose his locker room privileges and that they would notify Second Mile. However, Paterno saw that Sandusky continued to work with the charity until he officially retired in 2009. Paterno saw that there were no consequences to Sandusky's actions - that is where Paterno was morally wrong.

Also, Sandusky, who was next in line to be head coach was forced to retire in 1999. One year before that he was under investigation for showering with a 13 year old boy at Penn State lockers. The DA, armed with a confession from Sandusky, dropped the case. Do you think Paterno didn't know about his pedophilia then? People need to stop making excuses for these very sick people trying to protect a football program and a friend, rather than protecting these poor, innocent children.

I've been in a very similar situation where I had to turn someone in. It was tough and the fallout was immense. But I would do it again and again if it means I am protecting children from a predator.

Frank, THANK YOU! I am so sick of people who have no legal knowledge thinking they know so much. I was told by someone that it couldnt possibly be a conflict of interest, and used Burger king and mcdonalds as an example. Ridiculous. I say it so it must be so...

@cedburn: read the GJR again. McQuery does not say he told Paterno "he was sodomizing a 10 year old boy in the shower". Why so many people are saying this is beyond me. According to the GJR, McQuerry says he told Schultz and the other administrator (I don't remember his name) these details. McQuerry never says he told Paterno. Joe Paterno also made a statement that he was not told "the very graphic details" of what happened. And this is where much of the logic of disgust against Paterno breaks down for me.

Like I said before, maybe Paterno decided he really did not want to know the details. But even if this is the case, he went through the proper channels so that he might conceivably at the time have justified his turning his head, so to speak, thinking that a proper action would be taken whether he knew exactly what went on or not. The charge that Paterno failed to act properly because he really did not want to know the details of what happened is much different than the charge that he with implicit knowledge aided in a cover-up.

But then you say that Paterno was wrong because he saw that there was no real punishment given to Sandusky after he reported the incident. But I have to ask, given the fact that Paterno admittedly distanced himself from the details of the situation, what would have been Paterno's motivation for going against the judgement of those administrators, making a spectacle that a proper punishment had not been given? Afterall, if in 1998 charges were leveled against Sandusky where the DA could not find evidence to convict, why would he think anything were different when he reported the incident to his superiors?

You ask, "Do you think Paterno didn't know about his pedophilia [in 1998]?" But this is unclear. It is unconfirmed whether anyone knew about the confession to the child's mother other than the DA. Matter of fact, the lead investigator at the time, says the DA never alerted him of Sandusky's confession, and this is one of the reasons he dropped the case. Is it possible that if the lead investigator was not aware of Sandusky's confession of inappropriate conduct, that Paterno who would have been much farther removed was not either? How can you for sure know that Paterno was aware?

With all this being said, what would have been the motivation for Paterno to step out on a limb in 2002, when two times people who were given the task of investigation could not come up with any criminal charges? If Paterno did step out, how would he have answered Sandusky, who might have said what evidence do you have to back up what you are saying?

I think at best, the only thing we might be able to say, is that Paterno should have come forward whether he had evidence to back up Sandusky's inappropriate conduct or not. But this kind of fair and balanced evaluation of the situation certainly does not call for Paterno's head on a stake.

S.T.-3384625

The heads of university departments don't employ police detectives. The heads of university departments do things like set schedules, teach students, and finalize budgets. They are not equipped to investigate an alleged crime. I don't care if Paterno told every department head in a university wide faculty meeting. If the graduate student had told Paterno that he saw some guy planting a bomb, do you think he would have called department heads or the police?

Then again, maybe in the end, Joe Paterno made a decision that he really didn't want to know the full details of what was going on. Maybe he made a decision that he wanted to pass the buck on to someone else, that he did not want to or did not have time to deal with the situation, this was something others could handle.

Geez, I think you just made it worse with that. Are you saying that during the offseason Paterno didn't have time to deal with the possibility that someone with access to HIS locker room was using it as a pedophiles playhouse? Are you kidding me? You are excusing people who covered up child rape. It really doesn't get any lower than that. And you give Paterno a pass because he might have been embarrassed if he had been wrong? When I first heard this story, I thought "why are they blaming Joe?" But then I read the Grand Jury transcripts. The guy was told that something occurred. The first group to notify at the very least the was the University Police. He didn't even do that. Paterno got of easy.

The bottom line is this:

What would you want McQueary and Paterno to do if it had been your child, alone and pushed up against that bathroom wall being used by some old pervert?

@MarineDoc: First of all, are you aware of the fact that one of the administrators (I can't remember which one) that Paterno had McQuerry sit down with was indeed head of the University Police at the time in 2002? That's why some in Paterno's defense are saying he indeed contact the police, by contacting the head of the police department in his district--the University Police.

Also, you and so many others speak so generally of what happened, and a case of this magnitude must be spoken of with specifics--many of which we don't have now or are not for sure of.

For example, you say "Paterno was told". What exactly was he told though?

Read the GJR and you'll see McQuerry's comments under oath specifically point to the fact that he told Paterno's superiors the details of what happened, not Paterno. In fact, its been reported that Paterno stopped McQuerry mid drift after he understood the claims were sexual harassment charges, and at that point chose to set up the meeting for McQuerry without being briefed on all the details.

People don't always go so far to see that justice is demanded. Even if someone gets caught in a situation like this and immediately acts like Paterno did, what other decisions need to made down the road that involve steadiness, patience, and true resolve that people so many times give in to?

Paterno alleges that he did not know the details. The GJR seems to support this. So then, I guess my beef is that many people aren't asking the important questions, for example, how could Paterno not have known, how could he have been fooled?

People are almost too quick to judge, and a valuable moment is lost. People seem to have disassociated themselves from Paterno. But the evidence seems to suggest many are just like him, and may have gotten taken adrift if the same circumstances were to arise for them.

I'm not trying to defend Paterno. I'm just pointing to the fact that we all, when we don't want to believe something may make excuses or start seeing the situation in a way where things are really not that bad, where things did not really happen as they did. I don't think this is exactly what happened to Paterno because as I stated before McQueery makes a distinction between what he told Paterno and the details he told the president and athletic director. But I do think this is probably a pretty close assesment. So then, just throwing up our hands and saying he is someone that covered up child rape does not adequately address the complexities that are usually involved in situations like this.

@S.T.-3384625

Thank you for putting into words what I have felt for over a week. I have been too busy at work to really elaborate. Joe has been a class act for so many years. Not just for PSU, but all of college football. I just think that the decades he gave the school should have been repaid with some respect and the benefit of the doubt in his final days at the school. The Big Ten took his name off of the trophy. Yet another rush to judgement. Why does everyone want to act before all of the facts are known? Instead of hanging the people who tried to report the problem, let's try to concentrate on the offender.

One last question to ponder. Many are saying that the people who knew about the offense and didn't stop it are just as guilty as the one who did it. Millions of people know about this now. Are they (we) all just as guilty as Paterno or McCleary if Sandusky does this again while he is out on bail? Are we going to have a drumhead court-martial in the days that may follow that? Innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche for a lot of people now.

ST,

No, Paterno did not "contact the Police" by calling Shultz who was Senior Vice President for Finance and Business NOT a University Police officer. The Grand Jury indictment even states that he never notified University Police or any other police entity. Nice try.

If the coward McQueary merely mentioned the words: naked, child, Sandusky, and locker room that's enough for any reasonable adult to get the proper authorities involved. Shultz and Curly No effort was made to make sure that child was taken to safety that night. Not by the coward McQueary, not by his father.

On page 7 it states:

The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers.

Now, are you trying to say that the coward McQueary told Curley and Schultz but not Paterno (because it does not explicitly state those words in the section regarding his conversation with Paterno)? Not likely.

McQueary FAILED to secure the immediate safety of a child from a pedophile after stating that he heard and saw the assault. He ran away crying like a bitch, and that's unforgivable in itself.

McQueary's father FAILED. First for raising such weak son. Second for not demanding that his son immediately rectify the situation by calling the police NOW. Not the next day, not after sleeping on it. Immediately, and go back to find the kid or Sandusky. NOW.

Pateron FAILED to not make sure he knew all the details. As Head Coach of Penn State and the huge public figure that he is, he was Captain of that ship and the responsibility falls on his shoulders to know what goes on aboard.

Penn State Administrators FAILED for "calling a meeting" a week and a half after the fact (a freaking AMBER ALERT should have been in place within an hour after it had happened--had it been reported).

Specifically Schultz, whose office oversees the University Police Department FAILED. He never notified them! That in itself should be a criminal offense.

Curley FAILED. By "taking Sandusky's keys", essentially gave that old pervert his blessing because he essentially said, "I don't care if you molest children, just don't do it here". He reported the "incident", the RAPE of a child to Second Mile, but NOT the police?

OK, so Curley says he never heard "anal rape". There is no such thing as naked horsing around between an old man and a child who is not his own, in a University shower without any other adults around. Sorry, not buying that so many grown men with positions of power could be so callous.

A 10-year old boy was molested and raped that night, not just by Sandusky, but by men who should have protected him from further rapes. That kid could have been subjected to much worse over the course of the next few days or years.

They failed as men.

This is indefensible. I tried to find a way absolve Joe Paterno of responsibility the first time I heard this. I tried hard. I wanted to believe he wasn't at fault. I'm sad he ended his career like this. It breaks my heart.

But this isn't an emotional response. Paterno got off easy by merely being fired. He should count it as a blessing...as should everybody else who thinks highly of him.

Sheesh! I never said Paterno did the "proper thing." Nor did I say he or anyone at Penn State protected the child. I just said he didn't do "absolutely nothing" and that he reported what he was told. I didn't say who he reported it to. I did say I thought he should have reported it to the police. I really hate it when my words seem to get twisted like that. Why attack me? I was severely abused myself. I'm obviously strongly against abuse. And why be so adamant about how you would protect the poor boy? I only said what I did because I want to point out that despite all the outrage exhibited here the statistics show that large numbers of kids get abused every day and no one reports it. If someone did perhaps those kids could be saved-though I admit to a bit of cynicism and belief that you have to keep following up and following up for anything to really get done. I know lots of people who have been abused, and most of them exhibited signs of abuse, myself included-why did no one look into it?

I'm not saying you are this way, MarineDoc, but generally speaking, people often talk big when there is nothing to do; but when the time comes to act, they find themselves paralyzed with indecision or fear or making excuses or in denial. I honestly don't know how I would react to Sandusky. I've been abused, and he's a perpetrator-I don't know what I would do. If there was a child with him, I hope to God that I would be able to beat him or kick him enough to save the child at least. Right now at least I can say that I would be willing to sacrifice my life to save a child. Additionally, I am not saying this to you, MarineDoc; but people also tend to talk big when they are guilty themselves. For example, have you noticed all the politicians who trumpeted family values then subsequently fell in sex scandals? I've seen a lot of abused people who will not see justice-most of us have learned to pursue forgiveness for our own health whether justice is served or not.. That's not to say that justice should not be served in cases where that is possible. Until we know ALL the facts, I don't think full justice can be served in this case-let the facts come out then let it be served.

Seen too much,

Nobody is attacking you. I'm answering your post..and perhaps pointing out a couple of flaws in your thinking. But they may have well done absolutely nothing. A child was in danger that night, and nobody did anything to rescue him, nor did they do anything to find him. What if he had been kidnapped child who was being passed around between perverts?

Why be so adamant about how I would protect the boy? Simply because I believe myself to be a thoughtful human being. A child was in danger. If there is ever a time to do something significant, that was it. He failed as a human. It's that simple.

Stating that alot of kids get abused everyday does not excuse their lack of action on THAT day. Running into a shower room and getting a 10 year old boy away from a sexual assault is not talking big. That's the least any real man could do, whether he's 6'5" and strong as bull, or 5'6" and frail.

I am the father of a 14 year old, and the uncle of 11 and 9 year old boys and a 5 year old girl. I'm the oldest of 4 siblings and 36 grandchildren in total. I have known how I should react in a situation like that since I was a child. Protect those weaker than yourself. I've gotten my ass kicked defending my siblings on more than one occasion. It's part of my job as a man. Self preservation should not and does not enter into the equation when a child is at risk. I've seen more courage from children on the playground than was demonstrated by McQueary, Paterno and the Penn State Administration.

There are no more facts that need to be known about how Paterno and his staff acted. They didn't do what was necessary at the time.

@MarineDoc

How are the judges actions in this case "doing what is necessary"? That was the initial title for this article. Has anyone else noticed that it has become a by line? Completely shoddy reporting from "rescuing" herself from the case up to changing the point of the article.

I have no problem with anyone demanding that the judge RECUSE herself from this case (actually in her case rescue may be the proper word, as nobody wants to have this thing stuck to them for the rest of their life...). Even if it's not truly a conflict of interest, even the appearance would tarnish her reputation. I don't think a judge with a possible conflict of interest wants to be "out in front" of this case if it turns into being some sort of Catholic Church slap on the wrist for Sandusky.

We share common ground there, that is good. Where I go the extra mile is that this judge has already "tarnished" her reputation by having that association and putting him back out in public without a real bond and without monitoring. Both of these situations can still be corrected but no one chooses to. If this guy does something to a child while he is out, there will be a list about as long as my arm of people who would need to be punished worse than anything that has happened to Paterno. The WORLD knows that there is something not right with this guy but our system does nothing to protect society from him EVEN TO THIS DAY! How is Paterno allegedly turning a blind eye to this any worse than the judge, the person we trust to protect our society, giving him a get out of jail free card? The outrage is pointed at the wrong individuals here people.

@Marine Doc: I just simply don't agree with you on certain points. I understand your outrage at the crime, but your being angry is no reason to dismiss and objective assessment of the facts. Outrage does not justify saying each person deserves equal blame.

First of all, let's get the facts straight. Schultz was indeed in charge of the University Police at that time in 2002 as well as the VP of Finance and Budgeting. Just ask yourself, why would Paterno set up a meeting with the athletic director and VP, if the VP did not have some other relevant involvement? After others find out that Schultz was head over the campus police, it may or may not change how they view Paterno's actions, but it does help to prove my point a little that many have jumped to conclusions without knowing all the facts.

Secondly, in your reponse, you pose a question based on my take on the GJR, asking If I really believed Paterno did not know all of the details of what went on. But I don't see how this can be any more clear seeing how all the men's statements involved suggest this is the truth. For one, Paterno has said that he was not aware of the "very specific details". Two, McQueery omits Paterno from the names of who he told the specific details to.

As I said before: What reason would McQueery have to leave Curley and Schultz out to dry saying that he told them specific details, and then omit that he told Paterno specific details also? Why would Paterno make a statement that seems to go in line with this omission, saying he was not aware of the "very specific details"? Are you suggesting that McQueery is trying to cover up for Paterno? I don't think this is what you are saying. But even if you are, it's speculation. Can you not see how you are drawing your own conclusion that contradicts what each men are saying in their statements? You might ask what would have prevented McQueery from explaining to Paterno at the time. But this again we will not know until we hear more details from the men themselves. The fact is you have no idea on the specifics of how the events transpired.

My question is: how do any of the facts implicate any lack of resolve in Paterno to see that the matter was handled correctly, even if we can all agree now that he should have done more?

But this is exactly what all the hate toward Paterno is about, right? People are not mad because they think Paterno made a mistake in how he handled the situation. They are angry because they think he did not WANT to handle things correctly. But drawing the conclusion that Paterno did not have the desire to handle the situation correctly versus he made a mistake in not doing more with the knowledge that he had (and again I would argue, the report suggests he did not have the full details) are totally different.

Again, my beef is not with those who say that he failed. Obviously, he makes a statement saying he wishes he had done more, and the mere outcome of the circumstances warrants that we all agree. But the situation concerning Paterno must be put into context. Do we really know if he wanted to put the football program and the University above justice for the victims? This we do not know, and I don't think anyone who says that they can draw this conclusion from the facts that have been stated thus far are justified in doing so.

ST,

It's apparent that you want to find some wiggle room that would absolve Paterno of wrong doing.

There is none. He did not go to the police.

First of all, let's get the facts straight. Schultz was indeed in charge of the University Police at that time in 2002 as well as the VP of Finance and Budgeting

Yes, let's. Saying Schultz was in charge of the University Police (and implying that he was an actual officer of the law) is like saying he's the head janitor, the head human resources officer, etc., etc. http://live.psu.edu/story/54324

You may want to stop saying Paterno went to the police. He did not. End of story.

My question is: how do any of the facts implicate any lack of resolve in Paterno to see that the matter was handled correctly, even if we can all agree now that he should have done more?

Who does one call when a crime or possible crime is taking place? The police or a university finance and business executive?

Yes or no question. Did Joe Paterno call the police?

The answer to your question is obvious. Perhaps you are experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance?

People are angry because they realized that whoever Joe Paterno was on the field was not who is in real life. He's a man who cared more for the reputation of his football team than the well being of a child being raped in the showers by one of his former assistant coaches, witnessed by one of his current graduate assistants. Simply, a child was in danger that day, and he didn't raise the alarm. He didn't do the right thing, which was notify the proper authorities, who could perhaps search for the child and insure his well being. He thought first about Penn State. I don't care what his desire was. I care what his actions were that day, when a child was in danger. Does anyone know what happened to THAT kid? Is he dead and buried? Is he one of the kids who went missing? We don't know, because McQueary, his father, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz didn't alert anyone to investigate.

This we do not know, and I don't think anyone who says that they can draw this conclusion from the facts that have been stated thus far are justified in doing so.

As I've stated, his actions that day tells us all we need to know. Like an old football coach once told me, "...nobody cares what you woulda, coulda, or shoulda done".

MarineDoc,

You continue to beat a dead horse about events that happened years ago (and about which you have no genuine facts) but choose to not use that energy to voice outrage about how the judge is handling things now. You don't because there is no defense. My conclusion is that you have an unvoiced adjenda here. Protect the children Sandusky has access to now. Give the parents and victims some peace of mind. Make Sandusky put up a real bail, if he does keep track of where he goes. Let the people like you talk about this until you are blue in the face after the trials are over. If by some reason/miscarriage of justice Sandusky is found not guilty, do Paterno or the others get absolved in this court of public opinion? I think not. People like you are part of the problem, not the people commenting here that we still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Actually I do have a question though:

Unless your suggesting that Paterno was calling the head of campus police to try to cover up the crime, who else would you have had him call? Don't you call the campus police when something happens on campus? If this is the case, and Schultz is the head of campus police, where else do you think the case would have finally ended up anyway?

And by the way, if Schultz actually was head of campus police, does that change your argument? I'm not sure that it will, but if it would then we can put this argument to rest with the facts:

Dead horse? No a raped boy, which is the real story here. The kid who was having his anus and rectum violated by an old man, alone in some locker room. But for some reason you think this story is about some sports hero and a judge.

Do you want me to say the judge should recuse herself? I already said that. Sandusky raping little boys has NOTHING to do with Paterno's behavior. Even if Sandusky really was only "horsing" around, Paterno, grad assistant, dad, athletic director, and director of finance STILL did not call the proper authority to make sure there was nothing untoward going on in that locker room.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I also believe in doing what's right at the right time. Paterno et. al. still failed to act. It's people like you who are willing to give cover to celebrities that is the problem. Get over yourself.

ST,

What's with you and conspiracy theories? Paterno did not call the POLICE. Whomever else he called is not the issue. And for the LAST TIME, Schultz was not, and in no way "Head of the the campus police". Schultz never informed the Campus Police. Stop suggesting it.

If Paterno called the actual Chief of the Campus Police, and said he wanted to report an alleged crime and the Chief failed to file a written report, he may have some cover. But that's not the case, he called an administrator who was not an officer of the law, who failed to notify the police. Give it up. Paterno failed to act properly and was justly fired.

Well, putting your graphic sensationalist words aside, Joe was not there to stop it and only knew about it after the fact. So why don't you save your anus and rectum comments for your next party. I'm sure that they are a real hit! Again, I say that Sandusky is free to do the same thing right NOW and you could care less. Where are your priorities? Get over myself? You are the one wanting to crucify people disconnected to this thing by two or three other parties instead of worrying about what can be done today. Why don't you get over yourself...

@MD: Conspiracy theories? This is just too funny. I thought you would have looked it up by now:

www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142085416/curley-schultz-step-down-amid-penn-state-scandal

Fourth paragraph from the top:

"Curley and Schultz, who oversaw the campus police force...."

Need I say more.

Even if you're right and Paterno should have contacted someone else, say the actual Chief of Campus Police instead of the administrative head of campus police, how do you know that Paterno didn't think he was taking the proper actions? I'm asking you to prove his ill intent on which your vitriol of him seems to be based, and which you have failed miserably in doing.

Anything else?

Or should I ask:

Still not convinced?

Well, putting your graphic sensationalist words aside

Sensationalist? I'm sorry, please excuse me. Let me rephrase.

Dead horse? No an allegedly raped boy, which is the real story here. The kid who was alleged to having had his anus and rectum violated by an old man, alone in some locker room. But for some reason you think this story is about some sports hero and a judge.

Feel better? No? You don't like hearing words like anus and rectum and rape? Well imagine being 10 years old, an instead of "hearing" those words, you are being subjected to the real thing. Sorry to have hurt your delicate sensibilities. I'm sure the ordeal I put you through was worse than what that kid experienced...

I haven't called for crucifixion. I'm calling for all of them to stand up and explain why they did nothing while a little boy was suffering. I'm particularly interested in hearing what McQueary and his father have to say.

I'll get over myself when you stop defending cowardly inaction. Serious question, does it make you feel as slimy as I imagine?

ST, Schwartz was not a police officer. He didn't file a report. Give it up, the guy was not the Police Chief.

Police Chief King tells NBC that the only time police were notified of additional allegations against Sandusky after the 1998 incident was when the recent grand jury investigation began.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/133980738.html

Are you going to continue to insist that they were notified?

Like I said before:

"Even if you're right and Paterno should have contacted someone else, say the actual Chief of Campus Police instead of the administrative head of campus police, how do you know that Paterno didn't think he was taking the proper actions? I'm asking you to prove his ill intent on which your vitriol of him seems to be based, and which you have failed miserably in doing." (I'm qouting myself...can I even do that?)

Obviously if I say Paterno didn't contact the "actual Chief of Campus Police", then I know the actual "Police Chief" has said that he was not notified. But you still didn't address my question. How do you know Paterno didn't think he was taking the proper actions, if Schultz indeed oversaw the campus police? The answer is you don't.

I'm glad to see you are interested in hearing all of the explanations from all parties because I am too. As far as Paterno is concerned, I am willing to bet that he was told by the higher ups that the problem was being taken care of, and essentially he didn't have to worry about it anymore. We don't know how forceful this explanation might have been, but if your boss told you something like that, you wouldn't believe him?

When it's all said and done and all the facts are out, (of course deeming that all the allegations are true) I'll be willing to bet that the people who will be held most accountable for this will be McQueary, Curley, Schultz, maybe Spanier, and the Second Mile Program.

Remember, the meeting between the administrative officials happened 10 days after the incident, so it wasn't like the officials even knew where the child was. In other words, the natural response might have been to call the program first. It seems like between Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and the Second Mile Program itself, there was either a lot of "not wanting to believe what was actually going on", or a lot of responsibility being passed around, none of which each party wanted to be accountable for.

I am willing to bet also that the Second Mile Program did not have as many ties to the University Football Program as many people may think. In other words, just because they were using the Football Program's locker room, does not mean they had a great deal of association with the football program. This may be why Curley and Schultz are trying to maintain their innocence, arguing that the Second Mile program was notified, and that THEY should have made sure Sandusky was dealt with. I'm not sure how the court will handle this argument though, because the alleged crime happened in PSU's jurisdiction. If anything THEY, like I said before, should have held the Program's foot to the fire, making sure something else was done or called the authorities themselves. But even in all of this mess, how far can we say that it seems Paterno may have been removed from any of the activity?

Just asking.

Yeah, quoting yourself is kind of weak...

Why are you attempting to shift the goal posts? I don't care about Paterno's intent. I'm pretty sure I made that clear.

How do you know Paterno didn't think he was taking the proper actions, if Schultz indeed oversaw the campus police?

Are you suggesting Paterno's defense should be that he's a @!$%#ing moron? Are you trying to say that poor Joe Paterno doesn't know right from wrong? Are you really trying to argue that Joe Paterno didn't know that the alleged rape of a child was a crime and that ACTUAL police officers should be involved? Is THAT what you are arguing? Are you acquainted with the word absurd?

I am willing to bet that he was told by the higher ups that the problem was being taken care of

To that I say "so what"? What does that have to do with his actions in the first 5 minutes after McQueary told him what was going on? Nothing.

Remember, the meeting between the administrative officials happened 10 days after the incident, so it wasn't like the officials even knew where the child was.

Exactly my point. McQueary, dad, and Joe Pa did nothing in the first few minutes to hours after the incident. If this was your missing child...do you think Joe Pa's actions would be "adequate". I really, really, really want you to say yes to that. Joe Pa is guilty of dragging his feet and not giving this the importance that it deserved, like we would expect from normal human beings.

Here's how it should have gone:

"Ring, ring. Hey McQueary how are you? What? Sandusky doing WHAT?? Why the hell didn't your big coward ass do something?? Huh, your dad? You called your dad and not the police? McQueary pack your @!$%#, you are fired! But first use my phone to call the police right now and don't move until I tell you! I'm going to ask Sandusky to come over for a beer. Dear...could you get my baseball bat? Yeah...just set it by the door...and call an ambulance as soon as you see Sandusky coming up the driveway"

Your last paragraph doesn't interest me in the least, so that's why I'm not addressing it. That and the fact that nobody cares.

MarineDoc, calm down. I made it clear that I was not specifically talking about you when I spoke of people who were talking big about what they would do.

I'm not saying you are this way, MarineDoc, but generally speaking, people often talk big when there is nothing to do; but when the time comes to act, they find themselves paralyzed with indecision or fear or making excuses or in denial.

You don't have to point out what you see as all the wrong thinking in everyone's posts. We are entitled to our opinions, aren't we? Besides, I really couldn't see how you and I disagreed so much anyway in the matters we discussed. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I applaud you for being able to stand up for those who needed your protection and for your determination to protect those in your care. Make no mistake that if an adult had attempted to hurt my daughter in a situation where I could get to them I would have hurt them. But-just asking-what do you do if another child hurts your child? Do you hurt that child as well? (This happened to someone I know.)

Please understand that there are some who will stand up and report but there are others who will not-even though everyone certainly SHOULD report to the police and take immediate action. I, like you, don't understand how anyone can live with themselves if they don't. However, should a woman put herself at risk of rape and abuse herself to stop a crime? SHOULD everyone be expected to risk their lives to physically stop a crime? The cops would say no. Some would say yes; others would say no. Perhaps if you had been around in my childhood, I would not have been abused-but there were times when you would have had to take on an entire group. Would you have been up for that? You can't necessarily generalize your experience to all others'. I only offered mine because it was different from all the outrage being expressed and because I know that, despite the fact that there is no excuse for not reporting abuse, it goes unreported all the time. I agree with you that in this case, as in any case like this, the abuse should have been reported to the police, just as I said in my first post AND in my second post. In no way was I trying to excuse anyone or let them off the hook. Abuse of any kind should never be tolerated. I don't have to scream and cry for blood to despise abuse. I am certainly working against it and working to help others who have been abused.

@MD: I think your post is absurd.

ST,

But there's proof that you are...it's called your post, and the great thing is that it's immortalized for all to see for as long as the Vine exists. Enjoy that.

Seen,

I would not have been abused-but there were times when you would have had to take on an entire group.

To answer that question, I only need to ask myself if I could ever look in the mirror again if I did nothing. If I were an adult at the time, yeah if that's what it took. If I were a child at the time, I'd at least call a reasonable adult, tell a teacher or do something. Inaction while watching a crime is in itself a crime, but silence after inaction is a moral failing.

In my opinion, everything else about administrative investigations, judges, etc. is irrelevant in this case.

MarineDoc, I think that you can see that child abuse accusations are nothing to be taken lightly based on what happened so far. Look at the line of people like you who are anxiously chomping at the bit to execute anyone remotely involved with this case just because of the accusation. No trial, no conviction, just the media mixing up the Kool-Aid and superstars like you holding out their cups. False accusations can ruin a person's life and do-gooders like yourself feel totally justified in reacting instead of trying to figure out the facts. Look at how complicated this case already is. Do you think that Joe, how about anyone, can figure all of this out in the 10 seconds between when he was told and the time you said that he should have called 911? We live in a counttry where you are innocent until proven guilty. You would like to change that to "The hell with anyone's life or reputation, I am more worried about what MIGHT happen to a child" And before you start with your anus and rectum again, no one is saying that it was not awful what happened to any of these children. I won't make public what I think should happen to Sandusky if he did this because the justice system and what I believe are really far apart and similar comments have been closed on here. Really though, who had the most to lose in all of this? Joe wasn't going to be coaching much longer. Sure his reputation has taken a hit now, but if he would have addressed it then what kind of fallout would he have taken. Sandusky's charity would most certainly have been affected, but in the grand scheme of things if the charity just went belly up because of it the impact to the community would have been minimal. That just leaves PSU. What did it have to lose if this came out? Millions to lawyer up. Millions in lawsuit sttlements. The possibility of other victims coming out. The wrath of people like MarineDoc who will say that the school should have known about all of this because it happened on school property. Possible NCAA investigations. Possibly losing all of that football revenue. I hear all of the time that if you want to know the cause of a problem to follow the money. PSU has the most invested and the most to lose. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to light that a huge coverup inside the school has been going on for years and no matter who knew about it and wanted to correct it, it was going to take a media strom like this to bring it out. Time will tell but I am content with letting things play out in due course instead of rushing to judgement and hanging anyone that shows up in the crosshairs. That is where you and I differ, MarineDoc. If you were indeed a Marine, thank you for your service. However, the rest of the country does not have the same structure as you were used to in the Marines and often the reaction to something is more harmful than the original action. I won't say that in this case but it is getting close. Time will tell...

Unimpressed,

Wanting someone to call the police when a child is potentially in danger isn't "chomping at the bit for an execution". If you can't understand that, you are the one with the problem, not me.

Save the crocodile tears for someone who doesn't recognize an apologist when he sees one.

Do you think that Joe, how about anyone, can figure all of this out in the 10 seconds between when he was told and the time you said that he should have called 911?

They can't. That's why you call someone who has the resources and authority. I think we call those people...police, and yes they may be reached by dialing 9-1-1.

"The hell with anyone's life or reputation, I am more worried about what MIGHT happen to a child"

You are goddamn right, especially if there is a credible eye witness. This isn't some some 20 something kid who imagined abuse after some therapy session and decides to drag someones name through the mud.

So what YOU are saying is that if you happened upon some old man naked in a shower with a child who was no relation and it appears the child is being abused you would not interfere...because it might ruin his "reputation"? Did I get that right? If someone told you about a similar situation, you would not call the police? I think I know what sort of person you are. Not much different than Paterno, McQueary and the rest.

Really though, who had the most to lose in all of this?

The children getting raped. @!$%# the NCAA or the football team. They don't factor into this equation at all. This isn't rush to judgement.

Did they remove the child from danger?

No.

Did they call the police?

No.

Their excuses about why they didn't act are irrelevant. They failed that child.

McQueary is now credible? Could have fooled me. That he didn't call the police himself is enough of a reason to question his credibility in my book. Much less how he has changed his story since.

As to the rest, you are again extrapolating a conclusion from the limited information that you can get from the media. I will not question your passion for this case though...

...and if I would have gotten the story second hand after the fact from someone who didn't have the sense to call the police themselves I don't know what I would do. I know nothing as a fact at that point and would question why they would want me to stick my neck out in this situation when they obviously wouldn't. I hope I am never in that situation. I hope that you aren't either...

You keep creating hypothetical situations where someone would be the witness yet the people that you want to crucify were not in those positions. They have a second or third hand account to go on. Apples and oranges.

MD,

What is absurd is the fact, that after all of this, you still don't seem to understand the overall sentiment of the posts. Whether Paterno was right or wrong is not the issue. The overall sentiment rather is about the how society has reacted toward Paterno, how no one is really interested in hearing why Paterno reacted the way that he did, or interested in acknowledging the complexities of the situation that might have caused some of us to act in the same way. On the one hand, Paterno was wrong. On the other, our refusing to acknowledge all the details causes us all to fail.

Even after a thorough look at GJR, and understanding that Paterno said he was not aware of the "very specific details", even after I had made this point in the earlier posts to which you did not refute, you insinuate again that McQueary told Paterno he saw a child being raped. This kind of willful distortion of the facts is upsetting and as I said before, yes absurd.

Your disconnect here prevents you from asking a valuable question. What kind of pressure would have caused Paterno to not want to know the "very specific details"? You might say that you don't care. But this is exactly my point. This kind of question is important because rather than creating distance from Paterno it seeks to understand what went on. And only by our desire to understand will our own imposed punishments and judgments have the capability of meeting restraint.

What this willful distortion of the facts really shows is that you have an agenda, that your main objective is to eviscerate Paterno. But if evisocrating Paterno becomes your sole objective than where goes the ear that helps discern when any punishment has gone too far. The overall sentiment of all of these posts, is that you and so many others have lost that ear. Instead of saying Paterno was not the man that you thought he was, why not ask what exactly was it that made a man like Paterno act take the actions that he did. We can be outraged at the situation, and still take an objective view of the details so that we might learn something about ourselves.

If you don't understand that sentiment, which seems to be the case, than I really don't know what else to tell you.

You two have put in quite an effort to give cover to Joe Paterno. I'm pretty sure it's been made clear to you several times that my disgust with Joe Paterno centers around his inaction.

Did Joe Paterno call the police. No. Let me repeat, he did not call the police. There's no excuse in the world that makes his lack of action OK.

In light of an alleged crime as heinous as the rape of a child, society is right to be disgusted by his inaction.

ST, first pretends that Paterno called the police (acknowledging that a serious crime has taken place), then backs off and says Paterno wasn't aware of the details suggesting he did not know something seriously wrong had occurred. So, which is it?

And Unimpressed has continued to pretend that the child having his anus and rectum sodomized by an old man is the least important character in this tragic story.

I don't get it guys. What's wrong with you two? Why are you expending so much effort to give Paterno cover? Do you really just not want to believe your hero could do something so out of what you thought was his character?

@MD: If I'm not mistaken, I believe I recall you suggesting that Schultz was ONLY the VP of Finance and Business as supposed to also being head of campus police in one of you earlier posts. And I believe it was you who commented that McQueary told Paterno he saw a child being raped, which we obviously know now is not the truth. Is that accurate? Or am I just making that up?

Understanding the facts is important. A willful ignorance of the facts as well as a lack of desire to understand is what you seem to be holding on to. It's like you and so many others don't really want to know what Paterno was thinking, what was the cause of his inaction, what considerations did he have that may have slowed his initial reaction.

Is it possible that these considerations would cause many of us to look in the mirror?

Again, it's not about saying whether Paterno's or McQueary's actions were right or wrong. I'm simply, so to speak, focusing on how the parent's reaction to the child's wrongdoing should have been better.

I am simply saying the desire for individuals to put themselves in Paterno's (and for that matter McQueary's) shoes is just not there on this one. And the fact that so many people have pounced so quickly without wanting to know exactly what happened is evidence of the fact that people were not and still may not be asking those valuable questions that help us maintain objectivity and balance.

ST,

I don't believe you understand the facts. At all. I'm actually starting to question whether you understand the definition of the word fact.

Schultz was VP of Finance and Business. Perhaps he holds sway over the Campus Police budget, but let's be clear, he is not a police officer. That's been made clear in multiple posts. Why do you keep coming back to this point? Are you trying to mince the words "head of"? There was no record of a police report filed. An ACTUAL police officer would have filed a report. What don't you understand?

Yes I do recall typing this:

"On page 7 it states:

The graduate assistant reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building showers."

If McQueary went to Joe Paterno upset and merely said the words: Sandusky, 10-year old boy, showers, and naked. A reasonable person would expect that he notify the proper authorities...which are in this case (no say it with me...) the police.

ST, stop giving them cover. They @!$%#ed up. If it was your kid in that shower with Sandusky, you would have expected more from McQueary and Paterno.

I have known how I should react in a situation like that since I was a child. Protect those weaker than yourself. I've gotten my ass kicked defending my siblings on more than one occasion.

If I were a child at the time, I'd at least call a reasonable adult, tell a teacher or do something. Inaction while watching a crime is in itself a crime, but silence after inaction is a moral failing.

Marine, I'm not trying to hurt you with this and I do applaud your sense of justice. It is admirable that you care greatly for these young men who were harmed so badly by someone who by all appearances was a monster. I'm truly sorry about what happened to your siblings and you. It is really to your credit that you stood up for them at the risk of your own skin. Not many people are able to do that. Did you tell a teacher or responsible adult that they were in danger? Why did you continue to have to defend them? Do you see now that sometimes there are circumstances where horrible things continue even if we desperately wish for them to stop? Sometimes even if we take action? As for me, my memories where my siblings were involved are somewhat blurred because I was being raped at the time. Not only was my physical life threatened if I told, I'm pretty sure something worse than death to me from a pure terror perspective at that age was also threatened. The level of trauma also caused my memory of the events to blur to the point where I questioned whether they were real until a friend later provided confirmation.

Obviously, the situation is quite different when one is an adult and observes abuse. One has much more power and ability-and more responsibility. Again, I am not suggesting that in the Penn State case ANYONE be let off the hook. ANY abuse should be reported to the proper authorities-ie, police or DCF or the equivalent. As a healthcare professional I have known all my adult life that I am required by law to report any abuse to the authorities, and I would have and certainly would now.

I did not know that I was obligated to report abuse as a child, however, though I would have grieved horribly. I saw abuse almost every day-it was like a normal thing to me. Every night at dinner my dad threatened to hit my sister at the dinner table. I saw my dad hitting my mom when I was still a toddler-they were both laughing, but my mom was trying to keep us from being scared. (I still knew it was wrong.) This is not to say, "Oh, poor me," because I know others had it worse. It's just to ask: do you see that when abuse is the norm, you don't automatically know to report it? It's just a normal evening at dinner. You hate it and you're terrified, but you don't even realize that such things CAN be reported. No adult has attempted to help you; your own mom just takes it like there's no way out or even disappears. You are shown all your life that your family lives one way in the home and presents a different face outside and that you must never, ever show your feelings-you must always pretend everything is great. You just assume there's no way out and pretty soon you become numb. If no one corrects that helpless idea from your childhood, then you might not know to report abuse happening to someone else either. Fortunately, the idea was corrected for me.

I'm NOT saying that is what happened with Penn State. I'm only telling this story from my life so that people will see that some grey area can possibly exist with reporting regardless of what should happen from a moral perspective. For someone who experienced abuse, Marine, you seem incredibly judgmental and unwilling to give anyone in this case the least bit of what our Constitution requires-a trial by a jury of their peers. Since when do we convict people before their trials? That sounds an awful lot like the witch hunts of the 1600's, when all it took was hearsay (ie, the media) to convict someone of being a witch and getting them burned. That's why I always say to wait until the trial. I would be for mandatory reporting laws as long as exceptions could be made in cases that warranted it and as long as the laws were clearly evident and the public well educated about them.

Damn MD: It's like I'm beating my head against a wall. The point is not that the person Paterno called was an ACTUAL (as you seem to like to express it) police officer. The point is that the knowledge that Schultz was the head of campus police will surely give a different perspective. Matter of fact, the whole point of all of these posts is that more information always gives a different perspective--a more informed one. So your refusal to acknowledge that the reaction to this situation in the media, on blogs, and on posts like these have lacked some objective balance or some desire to know more before ripping each parties head off is a crock of ****. And I would appreciate it if you would take a moment to stop and think that I'm not trying to give Paterno cover. How many times do I have to say it for someone like you to understand it. The intention is to make individuals aware that when looking at a situation no matter how ugly it is we can not lose our objectivity.

You keep asking me how would I react if that was my kid. Obviously, I have already told you the actions Paterno took fell short.

The problem is you don't want me to extend the same courtesy to Paterno and others. Yes courtesy (meaning desire to understand) so that in the end my judgment may be right and assessment of accurate punishment or penalty could be balanced. Please get over yourself MD. And while you're at it make good on a ****ing clue.

Seen,

Your opinions are yours to have, I don't hurt because of anyones feelings. I think you misunderstood. Back in 70's Boston, I was protecting siblings against older kids at school. There was no abuse in my family.

The fact that neither you nor your siblings/friends told an adult definitely put your life at risk. But, children can't be held accountable for poor decision making...they are children. A 28 year old is definitely an adult.

ST,

It's not like you are beating your head, it's as though you have spent a life time beating it against the wall, and this has resulted in brain damage.

The point is not that the person Paterno called was an ACTUAL (as you seem to like to express it) police officer.

Actually, that is the main and only point. Notifying the police was the only proper course of action. Anything else is passing the buck. If there was a fire in the locker room, would you call the VP of Human Resources? Schultz did not have any police training, police knowledge, police resources, or police authority. What @!$%#ing planet do you live on? What part of NOT A @!$%#ING POLICE OFFICER don't you get? Are you dense? He may as well told the financial analyst who was taking care of the Campus Police pension fund. It would have had the same effect.

ST all you have done is attempt to give Paterno cover. Have you not read your own posts? It's written in black and white all over this thread. It doesn't matter that you say you aren't giving Paterno cover when everything you've written leads the reader to that conclusion.

Why do I need to give Paterno any courtesy? Unless you have a time machine and can go back to that night and whisper into Paterno's ear to call the police there's not much that can be done. It's never been about what Paterno did do, it's about what he didn't. No police report was filed by ANYONE about that night, so the entire group is guilty of inaction. What don't you get about that?

ST, you seem to be delusional. Seek help.

But in the mean time answer my question:

ST, first pretends that Paterno called the police (acknowledging that a serious crime has taken place), then backs off and says Paterno wasn't aware of the details suggesting he did not know something seriously wrong had occurred. So, which is it?

*My* point is not that the person Paterno called was an ACTUAL (as you seem to like to express it) police officer. *My* point is that the knowledge that Schultz was the head of campus police will surely give a different perspective.

Qouting yourself is what you do when people don't get the point.

Why do I need to give Paterno any courtesy?

Just answer this: if we do not extend the courtesy of understanding the details of certain crimes, how then would we be able to distinguish those who deserve life in prison from those who should receive 10 years? Is this not the courtesy of due process by which the judge finds out exactly where the criminal erred. Outrage for the crime is not an excuse to dismiss objectivity.

Just because a judge understands that one person should receive the lesser penalty does not mean she is necessarily giving that criminal cover. It simply means she has details that help distinguish one crime from the other. In this case with Paterno, the penalty is outrage.

Are you suggesting that the question of how much penalty we deem appropriate is irrelevant?

The idea that Schultz was head of campus police, or the idea that Paterno called his immediate superior "the very next day", or the idea that Paterno was confused explaining what happened to his immediate supervisor when they did talk are all details that will help to distinguish how we view the situation--it will help determine the penalty we give and the way we might react to the wrong doing.

Simply observing that objectivity and balance is missing from many of these discussions (which you seem to have readily proved from your own statements) is not cause to conclude I am seeking to justify any wrongdoing. It is a simply an acknowledgment that there needs to be more understanding of the facts so that people can make a rational determination for the penalty.

2+2=4. I don't know how else to add it up.

And with that, I think I will have to end this, excusing myself from this discussion that has gone past what seems to be any reasonable purpose of continuing. Thank you for your comments that have now caused me to question whether for the moment I really have suffered from delusion. Thinking I could have possibly had rational dialogue with someone who purposely misunderstands and completely ignores points that individuals make to justify his/her own positions is unfortunate. I think I will go shoot myself.

MD, I knew you had at least one anus and rectum left in you. If I would have heard second hand about this and had told the head of campus police about it, in my mind I feel that I would have done the right thing and have a clear conscience about it. the head of campus police has the pull to get this investigated if the allegations have merit. I am not a law enforcement officer so I would have to defer to the experts in this situation. And lastly, my comments were questioning who had the most to lose if all of this came to light. A reason for a coverup. You are saying the victims have the most to lose there? No, me thinks that you just wanted an excuse to say anus and rectum. Sensationalist yet misplaced. SOP for fearmongers like yourself? I am not defending Paterno. I am trying say how things would look to anyone in his position. I see that you would go in with guns a blazing without trying to determine the facts. I would show more restraint. People will line up to argue either side.

MarineDoc, I must admit that I did misunderstand; but my questions and comments are no less valid. You were still speaking of abuse-and I consider bullying abuse. I was bullied, my daughter was severely bullied, and numerous kids have committed suicide as a result of bullying. Bullying can even extend to rape and sexual abuse. You admit to getting your rear kicked because of it. My questions do not ask specifically about abuse within a family, and your comments do not refer specifically to abuse within a family.

I agree that it is different for an adult, and I made that point clear in my second paragraph. Incidentally, I personally find your actions admirable, as I said. There are not many kids who would have the guts to stand up to others at the risk of their own skin. In fact, not a lot will even stand up to teasing. When I was being bullied, I was told by a sibling that I was an embarrassment. Now perhaps we should agree to disagree.

*My* point is that the knowledge that Schultz was the head of campus police will surely give a different perspective.

Kind of the same way that the VP of Human Resources could give a different perspective if the place burned down by an arson's hand--as in NOT RELEVANT. The real point is that you don't have a point.

There is no more to understand about inaction. His excuses for not notifying the PROPER authority aren't relevant to this discussion. The mere fact that he did nothing is the only thing that matters. You see it's a yes or no question: "Did you notify the proper authority when you heard the allegation?". His answer is no.

So, what are you trying to say? That he trusted Schultz to do it for him?

It simply means she has details that help distinguish one crime from the other. In this case with Paterno, the penalty is outrage.

There are no more details needed. Again, yes or no question...everything else is an excuse.

The idea that Schultz was head of campus police, or the idea that Paterno called his immediate superior "the very next day", or the idea that Paterno was confused explaining what happened to his immediate supervisor when they did talk are all details that will help to distinguish how we view the situation--it will help determine the penalty we give and the way we might react to the wrong doing.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. The situation required that the proper authority was notified. Nobody notified the proper authority. Emphasis on the word proper. His immediate superior, priest, personal attorney, wife, best friend, or the neighborhood gossip do not qualify as proper authority. I'm not disputing or damning his action...just his inaction. Therefore any further details are irrelevant.

I believe your equation should be this: 1+(-1)=0 meaning proper action + (lack of action)= nothing.

The delusional never know...

If I would have heard second hand about this and had told the head of campus police about it, in my mind I feel that I would have done the right thing and have a clear conscience about it.

If you told the ACTUAL head of Campus Police, meaning the Chief of Police, then yes, you should think that you did the right thing. But, if you were dumb enough to think the VP of Finance and Business was the actual "Head" of the campus police then you shouldn't be allowed to walk around a college campus unsupervised.

the head of campus police has the pull to get this investigated if the allegations have merit.

He was the VP of Finance and Business...and also the "head" of the janitorial service too. Stop pretending (are you?) to be naive. It doesn't suit even you. The fact remains there is no report, or paper trail AT the actual offices of the campus police.

I am not a law enforcement officer so I would have to defer to the experts in this situation.

I guess you probably didn't mean to write this sentence, since it's what I've been screaming the past couple of days. You are not, Joe Paterno is not, and Schultz is not a law enforcement officer and should have deferred to the experts in this situation. They did not.

First of all, there is nothing wrong or disgusting about saying anus and rectum. Unless you've had an abdominoperineal resection you have one. I have. That kid was having his violated (allegedly). I think it's important to have the visual in your head so as not to easily confuse it with "horse play" or "an incident". I don't need an excuse to say anus or rectum. The kid has the most to lose STILL. What do you think would happen when this now 19 year old man has his picture plastered all over international news that HE was the guy being raped in a shower? Not everybody wants that sort of notoriety. (And saying "me thinks" makes you sound like Jeffrey Albertson...you aren't Shakespeare). What is "fearmongering" about saying anal rape? That's what's in the grand jury transcript. I added rectum because I happen to understand anatomy.

So, if I saw your 10 year old son being sodomized--anally, I should tip toe out, and give my dad a call for advice? Then maybe instead of telling you, my neighbor that little Timmy was being brutalized and calling the police, I should call my broker who has a brother in law who has watched the entire series of Police Academy movies. Because he'll know what to do.

Got it.

There are not many kids who would have the guts to stand up to others at the risk of their own skin.

It was required in my neighborhood. Anyone who wouldn't stand up for his younger siblings was an outcast...and rightfully so in my opinion. The Marine Corps taught me what I already knew as a child.

MarineDoc, you didn't say that you were a math genius. Let me get this straight: ought plus ought equals ought. You even had negative numbers in there Mr. Bodine, but you still ended up with ought. By tring to say this is a math equation it only shows that you are the one who is delusional.

So you did get the Albertson inference. I'm impressed! How about the Jethro Bodine one? You could have said abused or even sodimized but you decided to go with "having his anus and rectum violated by an old man" after just saying that we were talking about a raped boy. Not sensationalist? Or with the amount of times you felt the need to say it, maybe you are just perverted yourself. Allegedly, of course! See, I can get this discussion off track too. This whole problem is about what Sandusky allgedly did. But that isn't enough for people like you...

Do the brother and brother-in-law and the writers of Police Academy deserve to be crucified in the quasi-humorous situation that you describe?

Seems like you and Jethro were in the same math and english class. I believe the term is naught, or zero, not "ought".

But it is interesting that you chose that word, as one of it's meanings is moral obligation. It seems Paterno and his staff were equally unfamiliar with it's meaning as you appear to be.

So, you are forgiven if the parentheses threw you off. I'll put it in terms you might understand

1=ought (moral obligation), 0=naught, -1= willful inaction. Not hard. If you like, I'll have my 14 year old explain it to you when he gets home from school.

Thanks for the segue, it was beautifully timed.

Unimpressed,

By the way. The boy was allegedly raped by an old man, who sodomized him, by penetrating his anus and rectum with his old erect penis. I want that image in your brain every single time you mention this case. I want the gravity of the situation to sink in and make you feel queasy, and on the verge of vomiting. Because we should feel disgusted and horrified by what happened to that little boy and many others. Let's not sweep this under the rug and discuss football programs and firings and famous coaches. None of that matters. It's not sensationalism, it's what is alleged to have happened.

MarineDoc

The worst is that these young boys, now men, have had their innocence stolen from them and have been emotionally wounded for life, if the allegations are true. We must get our priorities as a nation together and make sure our children are protected. Jesus, what is more important then our children? I hate to think of the answer that is the reality for some and what they would protect first, before anything or anyone else.

Jennifer gets it. Those boys should be the focus.

My bad, thanks for the lesson. Oh, and thanks for bringing in the old erect penis. Classy! Boys should be the focus, but you want to focus on minute details of the case that the public doesn't know. Here are the most relevant current facts of the case. Sandusky allegedly committed these crimes. Sandusky had a bail hearing. The prosecutor wanted $500,000 bail and court monitoring. The judge set him free essentially without either. Pictures show up later of Sandusky walking around a mall. Possibly trolling for the next victim?

MarineDoc, Jennifer, whoever else that wants to chime in: IF YOU ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN, WHY AREN'T YOU CONCENTRATING YOUR ENERGY ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY THAT IS COMING TOGETHER AFTER EVERYONE KNOWS SO MANY FACTS ON THIS CASE? YOU WOULD RATHER VOICE YOUR OPINION ABOUT WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN, THEN SENSATIONALIZE OTHERS LIKE YOURSELF INTO A FRENZY THAN BE THE VOICE OF REASON THAT SAYS "You know, it is obvious that something isn't right about Sandusky, why did he get out without bail? Why aren't we monitoring where he goes?" AS MUCH AS YOU SCREAM ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN, IT IS THE EPITOME OF HYPOCRISY TO BRUSH ASIDE THE MOST CURRENT AND MOST RELEVANT FACTS AND GO ON YOUR WITCH HUNT. People like you disgust me. If you didn't have an agenda, you would be putting energy into what needed to be done today, not playing wannabe Columbo on blogs with your doctorate degree in being a media lemming.

Why don't you stop pounding your chest and talk about how you would have been the savior if you would have known about things back then and voice some concern about why this guy needs to be behind bars until his trial? HE is the danger still walking around the streets in PA. EVERY other person you want to crucify in this case doesn't even get a trial (because, big surprise, they have not broken laws as of yet. Different story on the purgery cases though. Let those guys fry if they did lie), yet Sandusky is free to do what he wants. What is wrong with this picture? How did the protective zealots let it get this way? MD, you and the people like you want a snap judgement and immediate consequences for the fringe participants yet you are perfectly content to let the Monster that caused all of this mess to walk around with all of our children. Why is that? How is that protecting them? How can you be silent about this and have a clear conscience if he attacks someone else? Who is the real coward here? I say the judge and everyone who silently argrees with what she did (sound familiar, not their action but their inaction). Like I have said for days now, the outrage is misplaced in this case at the moment.

Wow Unimpressed. That actually was a really good post. So what your saying is, now that MD knows that Sandusky is out on bail, he has a moral responsibility to act with in the first 5 minutes (according to his own standard of morality) to protect any other potential victims? And if he doesn't we should give him an AUTOMATIC FAIL regarding his integrity? Yeah that actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up! It's seems we might not be hearing from him again, as though it appears more pressing matters have come to light.

LOL, thought you were gone. I thought it was up to me to have the last word =)

Unempressed.

I don't think I was attacking you, I was expressing my own views. So you deciding that I am disgusting is your right, I guess.

This subject is very important to me. At the age of 12, my uncle tried to rape me. What saved me was that I told him I was going to tell his sister, my mother and my father and brothers and the bastard stopped and left me alone but I was totally traumitized by it. The funny thing is I never told my mom, I was afraid to tell her. I did tell my brother when I was much older after my parents and my uncle had passed away. I know first hand what it feels like to be put into a situation with someone everyone trusts.

The other thing that happened was when I was in my twenties I heard a child screaming from a vacant lot next door to my husband's parents home. I ran over and found a naked little girl in the bushes and what turned out to be her thirteen year old brother jumped and ran off. She was afraid to go home so we went to the neighbor's house where she said she trusted the people. Those people did not want to call anyone because they rented from her father. I called the children's aid and the police and waited until they came. This little girl had no mother, she had run off or something, only her father and brother. I was told by some in my own family to stay out of it and to not get involved. I do not know how to not get involved.

I was lucky when I was twelve, but many children are not. I am a parent first and I will error on the side of protecting the children, every time. I have said over and over that if the allegations turn out to be true and even if you think there is no truth to 8 or 9 young men and McQueary's statement, you must admit that something must have happened. I repeat, children need to be protected in our society first and foremost and sticking our heads in the sand or protecting "the family or the institution" is not what we should be doing.

Jennifer, my apologies for lumping you in with MD. I too have experienced something similar to this with one of my stepchildren and it was all that I could do to restrain myself from doing something really stupid to the guy when I found out about it after the fact. Children should be protected, but the case from my history was basically not even prosecuted. Like MD said earlier, the victim does not want to ever be the poster child for something like this and that makes prosecution difficult. I think that there is no place in our society for people who do these crimes. But we have become a live and let live society and we need to "be more tolerant" of the people who "have problems". I have only experienced this second hand myself, but I know how much damage these monsters can do.

My question to you is this: Having so much vested interest in this yourself and being an admitted protective mother, why are you more worried about how Paterno handled the information that he was given as opposed to why Sandusky is walking the streets with our children today? We have no control over the first one and since it has been brought to light future implications are irrelevant. Sandusky could be attacking someone right now for all we know. What is the immediate danger?

Unimpressed.

I am not more worried about how Paterno handled the situation then Sandusky walking the streets free. I am trying to make the point that Paterno and all who knew should have put the children's welfare first before protecting their self interest first. If the aligations against Sandusky are true or even partially true, he should not be out on bail, that is for sure. The whole thing has problems. I was trying to say, in telling my sordid stories, that family covers for family sometimes. Penn State and Patrerno and those who knew where like a "family" and had a vested interest in protecting themselves from scrutiny (money, prestige and so on). The kids were afraid no one would believe them and were just kids with no power to protect them. That is why it offends so many I believe. Predators preying on children and Indifference to anything but self interest is really not what our society should be about but it happens, I am afraid.

Jennifer, I agree that there is a family mentality at the school and the main ones who attempted to cover this up should have to answer to it, whoever they are (Most definitely if it is Joe!). We do not know who that is at this time. If it was Joe, he deserves what he is getting. Do we know that it was him yet? Not in my book. I think that it is just as likely that Joe was a pawn in this to people higher than him, not that he is the ringleader. But I will keep an open mind until all of the facts come out in this case, not just what the media wants to feed us at the moment.

Back to Sandusky. You said that IF the allegations against him were true or partially true he shouldn't be out. We won't know those answers until we go to trial. So are you saying that since you do not know that for sure, his current disposition in the community is acceptable? If we are going to break out the big IF, then the other side of that coin is that he did not do them. If he did not do them then Joe didn't do anything wrong (these are BIG ifs for me too, the evidence that has been presented so far says that he did). Either way, if it turns out that he did not do them, has Joe been treated fairly? Will his name go back on the Big 10 trophy? Will his statue go back up at the stadium? Probably not. But we cannot undo anything that happened to Joe after the fact.

So what I am hearing from you is that: A) Sandusky may not have done this so it is Ok for him to be out in the streets without monitoring and posting bail. B) Joe was trying to cover it up, so he deserved what he got.

It is Ok for you to assume that A is true but not Joe? No one likes how Joe handled things, I really don't either. But no one knows where the pressure for this came from. I want to know the truth, not to shoot everyone involved. If ANYONE feels that strongly about this case, they need to be screaming to get this guy in jail until his trial. The rest will come out and can be addressed in due time...

Let me put this simply, since you two have demonstrated that you aren't the quickest guys in the room.

I take issue with the inaction of McQueary, McQueary's father, Joe Paterno, Schultz and Curley. I take issue with whomever decided not to call the police during and in the immediate aftermath of the commission of a crime. I'm not interested in any of the other drama.

What is this witch hunt you are talking about? I don't care if charges are pursued against Paterno et. al. They mean nothing to me. They didn't act when they had the chance. That is simple and has been clearly demonstrated. They can slink away in shame for all I care.

ST and Unimpressed, when you are finished masturbating to your shrine of Joe Paterno, you may want look in the mirror and ask yourself why you would excuse his inaction...but please do wash your hands first.

MD, yet another chance to voice concern over Sandusky being out in public and potentially victimizing more of our children yet instead you make another vulgar, misplaced sexual reference. You are truly sounding like a pervert. I retract my previous appreciation for your service to our country. Instead, I think that someone needs to be checking your history for similar activities as Sandusky. You don't want his "bail", or lack thereof, revoked because you would want to be out and victimizing children if you were in his shoes. Keep talking, "anus and rectum", we are finally getting to the truth about you. Consider it a therapy session that is probably long overdue...

MD, speaking of "slink away in shame", why don't you do everyone on here a favor and do it yourself...

Nice segue, huh?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...

AUTOMATIC FAIL for MarineDoc's integrity for having the perverted need to make unwarranted sexual references instead of voicing concern over the safety of our children. Live by the sword, die by the sword, pervert!

What part of I agree with you about Sandusky didn't you quite understand? You are so focused on protecting Joe Paterno that you've become blind.

But, my persistence has paid off with this:

You are truly sounding like a pervert. I retract my previous appreciation for your service to our country. Instead, I think that someone needs to be checking your history for similar activities as Sandusky.

And this:

Keep talking, "anus and rectum", we are finally getting to the truth about you.

I call it the last cry of the defeated. You can't win in a debate, so you turn to dishonest discourse, foaming at the mouth and wildly hurling any insult you think will stick to vent your frustration at being utterly defeated and totally embarrassed for all to see.

My anatomically challenged friend, anus, rectum, sigmoid colon, all the way up past the pylorus and on into the oropharynx are the proper terms for those body parts. What the alleged pervert Sandusky did was horrible. I purposely have painted a repulsive picture, because you should be horrified. You should be angry at Sandusky. You should be angry at Paterno for not doing anything when they found out about it. Why sanitize it? Why clean it up and call it an "incident"? An incident won't give you nightmares. An incident will allow a person to continue on with their football coaching career as though nothing happened.

We talk about "collateral damage" or "friendly fire" instead of a 6 year old Iraqi boy getting both of his legs blown off or the 19 year old Lance Corporal who was eviscerated by schrapnel from a bomb mistakenly dropped by one of our own drones.

Nobody loses their dinner and people easily flip to another channel after mutter some platitude like, "that's a shame" before delving into what some drunk celebrity did the night before.

Rape is even too clean of a word. You should not forget what happened to that boy. You should see it every time someone mentions Joe Paterno, Sandusky, McQueary or Penn State. I want the image of that child in your head, so you won't forget the horror he suffered.

Your segue left me "unimpressed". The only person who would benefit from me leaving would be you, since you seem to have been getting your ass handed to you for the last couple of days.

Unimpressed, you have demonstrated that you don't understand the word integrity. But like always I'll help you out.

In this instance it means adherence to a moral code or incorruptibility. Attempting to assert that someone you've never met is perverted demonstrates a lack of integrity. I believe some people call this bearing false witness.

I don't know why your computer doesn't seem to have access to Google or an online dictionary. You should get that checked out. It might help you in these sort of "spats".

You tell me to masterbate on a statue of Joe Paterno and you have the gall to think that you are taking the moral high ground? Yes, you are delusional. Say that once in the workplace in America and you are warned. Say it twice and you can be fired and have a lawsuit on your hands. You have shown your true colors, MD. Don't give everyone some rose colored glasses now and say you were misunderstood. In my book, for you to make that comment in a public forum makes you a pervert. Again: AUTOMATIC FAIL!

Speaking of online dictionary, I am finally home and was able to check mine. Jethro Bidine did say ought, not nought. Your comments earlier caught me by surprise until I remembered my hunting days and using double OUGHT buckshot in my shotgun. Didn't want you to get away with that one. I don't see you as having a sense of humor though. Does make me wonder about that Simpsons reference though. You are complicated if nothing else.

MD, don't try to squirm away from your perverted comments. It is unbecoming an officer of the military. Like I said earlier, pervert, why don't you do everyone a favor here and just slink away. Yes, that was you having YOUR ass handed to YOU again. So much delusion, so little time to deal with you....

"I purposely have painted a repulsive picture" At least you are finally admitting to being sensationalist. The more you talk, the more you prove my points. Thanks for that!

Actually I said when you are finished, which implies you'd already, of your own volition, begun. And it's mastUrbate not masterbate (that's not a word). It's obvious you are feeling a bit embarrassed... Don't give in to those feelings.

What some fictional hillbilly said is of no concern to me, since I was correcting you, not quoting him. But as a person with access to broadband internet service there's really no excuse for poor vocabulary. But again, since you seem to be helpless I will assist you. How about something from the New Yorker?

The use of "aught" to mean "nothing," "zero," or "cipher" is a nineteenth-century corruption of the word "naught," which actually does mean nothing, and which, as in the phrase "all for naught," is still in current usage. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/01/04/100104taco_talk_mead#ixzz1e6Mq7vYn

And this is a nice review from UPenn:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2013 Enjoy.

Unimpressed, the foam is starting to drip down your chin...you may want to get a napkin.

I would hardly need to "squirm" away from anything you have to offer. I mean, you haven't won one round here. Actually you haven't laid a glove on me. I contrast I have helped you with your vocabulary, spelling, anatomy, and math. And you haven't even thanked me. That's rude.

But I'm a gracious person. Would you like the last word? If that's what this is all about, I give you the last word. Enjoy your hand-out, and make it count.

That isn't foam on my chin, will be BBQ sauce soon though. i don't have to get any last digs in on you. You have already proven my points. As far as thanking you, you should be thanking me for helping you avoid those sexual harrassment lawsuits in the workplace. Who had the advice with the greater monetary value? ST was right, there is no debating a wall. Even the perverted ones.

Well, maybe I did want last dig. TTFN

sanduskey definitely doesn't know what morality is. The kids are the victims here. This has nothing to do with what is taught at Pstate.

Just some connected pervert who thought he could get away with it.

rj -- You're talking total nonsense. What does teaching kids morality have to do with this. These kids were the victims. I would imagine they were afraid to say "no" to the scumbag and just as afraid to tell their parents who, no doubt, thought this was a wonderful program and encouraged the kids to participate. They all looked up to "the coach." A good number of these kids will need considerable therapy to restore their faith in similar authority figures. It is a very sad world that this thing was allowed to continue as long as it did due to the fact that so many people turned the other way without any regard for the victims.

rj:

You're blaming the victims? The parents might have done a better job in teaching their kids self esteem and to be aware of inappropriate advances from anyone, but other than that, the kids are the ones harmed; not the school or coaches.

Sports have become a sort of religion and the coaches with winning teams, both in school and professional, have become god-like. There is no emphasis on learning, knowledge or critical thinking. Sports and their gods have done considerable damage in this horrific instance and in the dumbing down of America.

bw

"sanduskey definitely doesn't know what morality is. The kids are the victims here. This has nothing to do with what is taught at Pstate.

Just some connected pervert who thought he could get away with it."

Don't forget about the many PSU officials who looked the other way and allowed this pedofile to continue his crime....

Just saying

If this can happen at what we thouhgt was a noble institution like Penn State ( and the Catholic church ) where does this leave the rest of the world? Educate your children talk to them.

DBuck...Educating your children helps. But educating adults to take the consequences of their actions helps more. This entire case is showing Americans something they don't like to see much less admit: This is all about the wrong kind of protection.

Protecting people in power is a two-edged sword. It can be destructive or constructive. It's entirely up to those who place these people in power positions to know where to draw the line and evaluate regularly where and how that power is affecting others.

The bottom line all Americans thankfully agree on is that pedophilia is absolutely a soulless, destructive form of power of innocence.

No matter what any pedophile may try to convince themselves to the contrary, they are destroying the purity and innocence of a child forever.

McCreary didn't punch Sandusky in the face when he saw that child being abused which is what any other man or woman of any level of common decency would do to protect the innocent child. So, count McCreary as much a coward for all that brawn and bravado as Sandusky.

McCreary failed to honor his own sense of duty to an innocent child as well as compromising his own morals and all for what? To protect a famous football coach and the university football team.

A more disgraceful commentary on morality I cannot imagine.

Which black tie event do I have to attend to get the opportunity to buy a judge? I have money. I like crime. Anybody?

Thanatos...First, you need to get into politics so that you can do some insider trading with a free pass, like Pelosi. Then you need to run a charity and get $130,000 in 2010 like the Second Mile guy who just resigned. I don't know what Paterno or MQ's salaries amounted to for the last decade, but I bet it was a hunk of change. All you have to do is look the other way and cya when a child is raped in your locker room....Now that isn't so hard is it? Then you could become a judge and allow a pedophile with 40 counts against him to move without restriction on (no) bail. In essence, you have to completely lose your moral compass to get that invite into that special world.

Thanks, blind. I'm going to get right on it. I'm sick of being the only one with his pecker in his hand when the lights go out!

This makes me so afraid of how many other "storied" sports people and donors have turned their heads on the youth of our society. Is it any wonder we are becoming an apathetic society. Yet, if it had been one of her brothers, sons, nephews and family friends who was vicitimized, you can bet the pathetic bastard Sandusky would have been in shackles and in jail until his court date. I still believe that the majority of humans are good although it gets harder to keep that belief as stories like this continue to unfold........

Michelle...Many parents of abused children, especially boys, keep quiet to protect their children from the insensitive school bullies that will call them fags or whores. It happens when the incidents are made public and the child often begs the parents not to tell anyone. Suicides are high because these children are made the school yard scapegoat and are terrorized because they are seen as sissies and "different." I wish it were not so, but this is a heavily unreported crime. Because of the statute of limitations, those that do come forward are often older and can do nothing to stop the crimes. It is the hidden young children that are afraid to come forward. And they have a right to be. We don't always treat victims well in our society.

Colorblind: and the the vicious circle continues.......

Going to have to go with both of them, sorry.

I report a guy for something like that, then I still see him hanging around the gym? And I do nothing more about it?

You all are saying JoePa did his duty by reporting it? And later, when this guy didn't disappear, he didn't think something was wrong? JoePa couldn't demand that this guy leave his establishment and never show his face again?

No, boys and girls, this thing stinks and everyone is gonna get it on them.

since you asked in order of greatest to least moral failing:
mcqueery
mcqueery's father
paterno
the ad
the president of penn state
each one of these disgusting humans should have reported the rape of the child to law enforcement after beating the evil out of the pedophile sandusky.

And that, Adam, is the truth of the matter. That, IN ORDER, is exactly right, the moral failings are WAY too much for this girl to handle. That McQueery dude should have got the kid out, kicked his ass, then called the cops. They are all equally responsible for this. At any time any one of them could have done the right thing, but instead chose to wait for someone else to do it, and that is wrong, especially when dealing with a "MAN" sports program like football. They did not act like men when they failed to be protectors for the underdog, and should be treated as such, STOP PROTECTING THEM!

Adam Henry, add the policy dept. to your list. The police back in 1998 were aware of this and did nothing.

It saddens me to read the comments on here by those who have not evolved beyond the neanderthal thinking of beating people to a bloody pulp, etc. That never does any good, other than hopefully land the beater in prison. This article brings to mind, years ago when I thought I was somebody, I used to party in the hollywood hills with a crowd that included some judges and prosecuting attys and how appalling it was to hear some of them yukking it up about the folks they were going to put away for drug related offenses as THEY were doing drugs at these parties. What a great system.....IF you are in with the IN crowd.

Now I only know Joe from hearing his name for as long as I have been around, and dont even watch football.

From what my friends who are " in the know " with this area, Joe was in a no win situation. The board hasn't liked Joe for many many a year, and have been looking to get rid of him for a long time.

On one hand, I can agree with everyone here. Joe had more real power then anyone else at that school. If he wanted this guy gone, he would of been gone. HE could of done something else besides what " The Rulebook " said to do. AKA pass the information to the AD, and leave it in his hands.

On the other hand, He did exactly what his rulebook and guidelines say to do. Should he get fired for doing exactly what the rulebook said to do, when the guy who saw the rape happen walked out of the showers, called his dad first, then Coach Joe?

The only thing I know for sure, is that this entire thing sucks, and I could really careless about any of the adults involved. I just hope the kids are identified ( the names not released to the media ) and Penn State has to foot the bill for medical bills so these kids can get the help. I would demand that the doctors do not have any ties to Penn State either.

Yep, I was arrested one time long ago for cultivation of a small amount of pot that at the time would have been a felony. My lawyer said don't worry, we just bought a pool table for the judges boys club. I got off with a slap on the hand.

By the way, I quit that stuff 30 years ago. It turned me into a worthless bleeding Liberal. It took years to come to my senses.

Old Dude-2562014

It saddens me to read the comments on here by those who have not evolved beyond the neanderthal thinking of beating people to a bloody pulp, etc. That never does any good, other than hopefully land the beater in prison.

IF,whatever the assistant coaches name is, would of stepped in and beat Sandusky to a pulp stopping the rape. I would bet if you asked the kid if it did any good he would have a different answer then what you gave.

Sandusky should of gotten is arse whooped, and I will call anyone a coward for not stepping in to protect the child. Two wrongs do not make a right. BUT in the case of protecting a child, I can make an exception.

ACTUALLY, beating him to a bloody pulp would have done wonders I am sure for the child in question. I have heard from some abuse victims, in fact one of those made an interesting subject for this article, should read it-

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45283472/ns/sports-college_football/page/2/

and they say that it would have made them feel better knowing someone knew, did something, and that person would never be able to hurt them or someone else. Not to mention, it probably would have made him think a little more before he did it to the next one. I am one to think that prison general pop. is the best place for a moe. So does my man beast, who was one to "take care of" the people who hurt children and women. Even as a reformed person, he would still do it. In fact, he almost went over to my neighbors house when he saw her son in law that did things to his kids show up over there. Dude took one look at him and skirted, hasnt been back around his kids again. Apparently it does make them think.

TO: a---rand who wrote:

"By the way ... that stuff ... turned me into a worthless bleeding Liberal."

So now you're "a worthless bleeding" what? Republican?

I'm willing to bet that you were a lot better person back then, rand.

Adam...I think you forgot someone...I think that Sandusky should be at the top of any "moral failing" list. So far, I haven't found anybody connected with this case that had a moral compass.

I was hoping someone other than myself would comment on this...Sandusky is the top moral scumbag here.

tyler...I am confused. It was my quote that you sited. Was it incorrect in some way? Is it I that should be banned or censured? I don't want someone to get in trouble for something that I said. Mr. Turchetta should have done more than ban Sandusky from the campus...A pedophile will continue to find victims regardless of being banned from Penn State. I think my opinion has merit, but I still don't want anyone to get in trouble for something I wrote. I guess I fail to understand what "rereg" is?

#5.17: tyler...I am confused. It was my quote that you sited.

Tyler wasn't on your case - he was responding to your comment regarding who does/doesn't have a moral compass. He will sometimes ban or suspend someone and then, in the same comment, respond conversationally to someone else's comment.

As to what a rereg is, it is someone who re-registers second, third, or more Newsvine accounts. We are allowed only one. Period. Some individuals seem to make a game of re-regging after being suspended or banned; others create second "parachute" accounts "just in case" the main one gets suspended or banned.

But, in this instance, Tyler was simply responding conversationally to your comment. You might want to check out the link he included... his links generally lead to interesting stories.

bitemore...Thank you very much for the explanation. It was very nice of you to take the time to explain it to me. Very thoughtful.

#5.19: .Thank you very much for the explanation.

No problem... you were so respectful, I just couldn't let you go with no response, and I know that Tyler gets so busy he might never have seen your question.

Always happy to be helpful! :-)

bitemore & Colorblind- thank you both for being adults! So many others on here have an issue with this. Also, in regards to Turchetta- I am on my way back to read again, but I was under the impression it was someone else who had gotten him banned? It seemed to me that he hadn't really seen anything other than him being very controlling and needy with his Second Mile kids. On my way to re-read, but wondering.

Ok, re-read, and I was kinda right I think, Tyler. He was only barred after the mother contacted the school over his need to discipline her son, and the principal asked him what was wrong, the boy broke down. THAT was what got him barred, and the same principal never contacted police. The mother went to Child Protective Services. The mother seems to be the only one who took correct action. That seems to be what started the investigation.

#5.21: thank you both for being adults!

Not too hard when you're a fossil, like I am! :-)

I agree with your assessment of Turchetta - but wish I knew why no one seems to want to involve the police, unless it is because they already know that most of the police have been bought (I am merely supposing here, as I don't know for sure, but you really have to wonder why it took so long for this thing to explode as it has). The more I learn about this case, the more disgusting it becomes.

Rocco, I think the whole case should be moved out of that City completely. If they have corrupt judges there, they're probably going to have corruption in the jury also.

My guess is that he will cop a plea and be out in five.

When this finally goes to trial, it should be moved out of Centre County. So where to go? If you eliminate the counties that border Centre County and the counties that have Penn State campuses (19 campuses, in addition to University Park), close to 1/2 of the state gets eliminated.

They'll have to go to a remote corner of PA for trial...if it does come to a trial.

The part that seems to be overlooked is that Sandusky lives in the immediate vicinity of an elementary school; all the more reason for an ankle monitor. What's the matter with the brain cells of this judge??

And someone should break their foot off in McQueary's backside, what a gutless piece of crap.

Good point, Bubby, but seeing as how the media has alerted everyone, I doubt anyone is letting their kids near the guy. No one with half a brain, anyway. I would hope that if he's seen lurking, a teacher or student will alert an authority figure with morals and a backbone, unlike McQueary and JoePa.

Cletus, what if he slips through all of your community "protection" and does it again? ANYONE who would do what he allegedly did, essentially in public, without fear of consequences is certainly someone who would try again. This judge could have protected the community in this case but chose to turn a blind eye. THAT is what the outrage is about here!

What happen to innocent until proven guilty? Why don't we just let people with pitch folks and torches seize him and hang him already.
Everybody just chill the F.... out already.

Cletus...He was seen at the mall with a Penn. State T-shirt on yesterday. Saw the picture. Trolling??

And you, CaballoJoe, know that the judge was a personal friend? Volunteering means many things. Free legal work, free work at a camp. Free work at an event in her town. Did she even meet any of the people involved? Doubt it.

With the media following every move he makes, I doubt if he can go to the bathroom without 7 or 8 reporters following. Sanduskey will be cleared of most of the charges. No evidence. The missing prosecutor even stated in his interview notes. " Not enough evidence to prosecute". I hope he does get the maximum sentence for the one with the witness. That would probably turn into life at his age. Bet some cons will love to shower with him.

Hey... recuse herself? Ha! It's the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.. What do you expect from PA judges in cases that involve kids??

Pennsylvania judge gets 28 years in 'kids for cash' case

SEAN3005080: What we are saying, is not kill the rapist, just watch out for the children around him. And to do that, he needs to be behind bars. Then if found innocent, STILL watch the children. He will get to them. Just because he is found innocent, [The witness will probably reneg on his account of what he saw. Rather a perjury charge then a coward. if by judge], we all know why. Dirty dirty hands high up on the bench. Where the hell is Judge Judy when you need her. She would get to the truth. He would pee his pants.

callabojoe in answer to your question Pennsylvania does have a board of misconduct but I have first hand knowledge that they will do nothing when a child is abused by a judge. Judge Rick Williams of Mifflin County is such an abuser and the board of misconduct knows it and have not removed him.

(heard in a whisper ) pssss- the white house!

Nope.

I believe there is...........In the hearts of everyday down to earth people. I am at least glad that the posts I have read so far are standing up for the rights of these poor children instead of defending these desensitized, immoral, empty shells.

Now is the time for everyone to stand up together and demand justice and equal treatment for all not just few....My whole heart goes out to the victims. I wish for them and all people a future where this will never be......

I am an Instructional Aide in an elementary school. If I EVER even thought I saw someone abusing one of my students, I would definitely take "matters" into my own hands ( I don't care WHO they might be )...immediately...and painfully...and I am not a violent person!

Salsa, your perception of justice is freaky. Sandusky hasn't (yet) been convicted of anything.

There were eye witnesses, so he is guilty.

Neither should she.

At this point it doesn't matter, the Judge should have stepped aside due to conflict of interest. Plain and simple. Whether he is guilty or not is not what this article is about.

Matters not whether he was found guilty. If I had done the same thing, I would have had to pay a large bond, or sit in jail. That is how it goes, familiarity matters not. He should have had to post bond, get a bracelet, and deal with this the same way that anyone who has raped a child should. Make him sit in jail with bubba the way he was meant to. There is a thing called "conflict of interest". You cannot preside over something you are this close to, it makes others feel as though you are biased. Which, apparently she is. Kick her off the bench. She should have at least given a large bond. My brother had a 100,000$ bond for accidentally running over a kid who grabbed onto his car. He was innocent until proven guilty too.

No, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty like every other American would be. That doesn't mean the judge should not have set his bail so high he would have to sit in jail until trial.

This whole episode has been whitewashed for so many years to the point it is going to be difficult to convict Sandusky without providing amnesty to others who don't deserve such a priviledge. Realize the first prosecutor to look at the case essentially threw it out. And Paterno is going to look really bad in hindsight. Does anyone really believe McQuery didn't tell him exactly what he saw in that shower? From there Paterno doesn't have a leg to stand on. He will contend he told his superiors but doesn't he have an obligation to follow up on his report? Make sure it doesn't get filed away as nothing? Because a grown man raping a young boy is a very serious incident. Especially when this wasn't the first report on the perpetrator.

$500000 is not that high when you are considering all of the other factors that decide bond. 1)It is to ensure it is a high enough amount that they will stay here and attend court. 2)It is to ensure that they do as they are supposed to until court, because they are still considered in state custody. Any other offender would have been required to wear an ankle bracelet until court to ensure that they were where they were supposed to be. 3)He has money to pay that $500000, especially after a bondsman is brought in. That is only 10% of the bond. There are not many places that disallow bondsman, and I doubt highly this is one of those places. I was unlucky enough to have been incarcerated in one of those places, and they get more guilty pleas because of this. 5)Why didnt she make him wear a bracelet? If she is truly unbiased, she would have put that in the order.

If Sandusky makes a run for it, whether it succeeds or not, this judge should be made into a severe example for the rest. If the State doesn't, the People must!

Pedophiles don't run. They try to talk their way out of it. They were misunderstood. The children came on to them. They couldn't help themselves. They just want to die. They love children and would never do anything to harm a child--it was an expression of love. Yeah...That is what they tell themselves and that is what they tell others when caught. I would imagine the investigators would have to take Dramamine just to sit and listen to their cr@p.

Colorblind you are oh so correct. Had to deal with a sexual predator and that is exactly their mo. It is always someone elses fault, they love and would never hurt a child. The best excuse the perp used was I was already going to get into trouble so it didn't matter I just went ahead and did it. The perp acted to penetent and remorseful. He actually believed his own lies even with the truth staring him in the face.

NotLaughing...Oops...I meant to give you an up arrow and hit my own...I don't give myself votes and am sorry. You are also right on target. It must have made you sick to your stomach to listen to that perp. I worked in a prison for five years and have heard every excuse in the book--none had an ounce of validity.

Absolutely!

Please make an example of them.

It's time to take this country back from this ridiculous fraternity of the overly powerful and untouchable.

NV & doo...Well said. Doolittle, after reading the news about insider trading allowed by politicians, now this judge...It makes me sick also. We DO need to take back our country and stand up for what is right and good. These jerks are scum....

You are right Ross, anyone else would be thrown in jail, but is it right to jail someone before they are tried and found guilty?

Bail is a cash assurance that the not yet tried person does appear for his court appointments, not as a punishment for an as yet not determined accusation.

I can accuse you of some crime, should you have to spend an undetermined period in jail just because I accused you? I don't think so. Are any of us so guiltless of any impropriety during our lives that we couldn't be accused of something? I doubt it!

Is there anything to determine he will not appear in court at his appointed time?

When you have admitted to the crime, and someone else has witnessed the crime then you are guilty of the crime. It is very different than if you were ACCUSED of a crime blindly, which would warrant a lesser recognizance bond, and put on a GPS unit to monitor them if they are a flight risk. That is the difference here, and the judge should have stepped aside because she had a conflict.

Sully.

Correct, but the court also has to take into account the public's right to safety, which is why bail is denied frequently to people accused of hanious crimes.

That being said, this guy would have posted a bond either way, but he should be monitored with GPS. We don't need him living is up with boys before he gets put into the slammer. Not saying he is guilty, but 8 kids with 40 counts, it's going to be hard to disprove.

And Rose, I think the phrase you are looking for is "Different Rules for Different Fools". Nothing new, the whole 'justice is blind' is something we tell ourselves, but the reality is people with means experience criminal justice from a whole different angle then people without means.

And for the record, he only admitted to showering with a boy, not raping/molesting anyone.

I know where I live he'd be alot safer in jail than out walking the streets.Accidents do happen!

Cooch - this is Happy Valley. The students will form a human shield around him! They will lay down their lives for this guy. He's their hero and their idol. Say what you will about the students of PSU, but they love pedophiles.

I knew a guy in Texas who was falsely accused of child molestation. The charged were dropped 8 months later when it came out that the mother of the child in question put her up to making the accusation out of spite. However, in the course of those 8 months, he was denied bail and had to sit in the prison until the charges were dropped.

It's all about who you know... or who you are known by.

Yet we go in an bomb other countries for their lack of civil rights toward their citizens--and we let our offenders walk the streets. You are right, Lone, it is all about who you know and what you know, and how much money you have, and how much power you have. None of this is about the children.

And this is news why ? Congress itself has been doing this kind of thing...being above the law for years...and us voters have allowed it...colleges and their sports are not really much different..its all about winning...laws take some place way down the line. Today, we have coaches and professors that are paid way more than they are worth..and doing little for it...like our politicans.

Mr. Thanatos, how dare you sir! You have no business speaking of PSU students this way. You don't know them at all. Not one person that I've spoken to here in Happy Valley has 'shielded' Jerry Sandusky since hearing of his alleged atrocities. Heck, many of the students here had never even heard of Jerry Sandusky, as they were merely 6-10 years old when he resigned from PSU. A hero and idol, I think not!

You seem to be confusing many, many facts here. Most importantly, there is certainly no love here for pedophiles.

The students, staff and faculty were, by an extremely large majority, completely shocked, appalled and disappointed when this horrific news was brought to light.

Please keep your ignorance and uninformed opinions of a community, that you clearly have no knowledge of, to yourself.

Dangit, GottoSayIt! You beat me to it! As a PSU alum (class of '75) I take great offense to Thanatos' remarks. In fact, I am probably even more appalled and disgusted with this scandal than the average guy.

My opinion of the university hasn't changed...I now have less than zero respect for the athletics dept and administration, though.

My point was that there are various people who have know about this for some time. He got a bye from all of them because he was powerful. I'm not saying that a poor person would be in jail since the time he was arrested (although that's true to, because they couldn't make bail) but that this guy had people covering for him for a long time due to power. That would not have happened to a poor person. We have two levels of justice, one for the rich, another for the poor.

Go Blue! LOL!

Unfortunately though, that's probably the exact thing he is going to do and his supporters will turn him into a martyr.

Hey! If he offs himself, we won't have to put his victims through a trial, we won't have to feed and medicate him for years, and he will have accomplished what could only be described as justice.

Win - Win for everyone involved.

forget the suicide watch, leave a rope in there.

You're absolutely right about Sandusky and suicide watch - he's already spoken the words "I wish I was dead". It's impossible to understand how all these years have passed and no one has done anything of significance to stop this pedophile but clearly, this judge should have recused herself for sure. This whole thing is a mess and getting worse. Wonder how she'll feel when they start finding kids in other states who've been molested by this sicko.

For most sex offenders it is all about power and control and sometimes they choose to commit suicide as the final act of defiance and a show of control. You are actually right, Ed. He would definitely be a suicide risk IMO. But, he probably wouldn't do it until he was confined. Right now he has other interests on his mind. You make a good point. I hate to see them commit suicide...They get the final word and do not have to face justice. I don't agree that we should just let them do it. I want to see him do jail time like any other perp. Good post, Ed. Short, but shows some knowledge of what you are talking about. What will the judge do if he kills himself while out? Or, worse, commits another crime? How will she explain that when the last time he was caught, he said to the mother of the child, "I wish I were dead."

How bout we put him on TELEVISED suickde watch so we can all see it?

This clown needs waterboarded until he either confirms or proves their was no pedophile ring.

I agree with Ed that he should be in jail on suicide watch for sure and he should not be allowed to escape facing charges. Also I too can not imagine why he was let go and not even be monitored!

Sandusky is a real coward for all of his brawn. Stand by. He's planning to force his victims out into the open according to his phone call yesterday with his lawyer in on the conferencing.

He claims he's innocent but oh my God if you listen to his blase way of exonerating his showering and "horsing around" with children he says he "enjoys", it's enough to make a grown woman want to throttle him in public.

All pedophiles claim they "love" children and don't ever "hurt" them. All of them do this because they dare not admit their sexual proclivities and fantasies with children are a heinous crime against innocence.

Americans are now having to take a much closer look at all of that "in your face" sex children today are exposed to at too young an age.

When I see an 8 year old wearing a "Hottie" T-shirt, I am outraged by parents who would broadcast their own daughter's sexuality or even for a minute allow it.

Then, there are the nut job McMommies and McDaddies proselytizing their young children in those idiot pageants. Take a good look at the expressions on the male judges faces while a 3 year old is painted up like a sexy Barbie doll.

Sorry, children are supposed to enjoy their childhood. They are not supposed to be sexually oriented commercials for their grossly insecure McMommies and McDaddies.

This judge didn't "HEAR" his case she only held an listing of charges handed down by the Grand Jury, and bail hearing, no determination was made, other than whether or not the prosecutor thought he might be a flight risk, and would not appear in court when he was demanded to be there.

His guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury trial.

Sully, you are right up to the point of saying all that is considered is whether he is a flight risk. They also consider the danger to the community and the heinousness of the offense. I think the judge overlooked the chance of further victims in this case.

Do you honestly think he would even attempt to do such a thing, when he is trying to convince the world he didn't do it in the first place? He may be sleaze but he isn't stupid!!!

I do not believe that. It is more likely that it was a cya "dirty little secret" that everyone knew and no one wanted to put their job on the line to uncover it. This case is like a cat litter box--It got so full because no one had the guts to empty it that it started to stink--and we all know that gets everyone's attention.

Ooooh dear ! Corrupt judges in Pennsylvania? How about a corrupt Senator named Specter ? He has a history of being on the wrong side of right.

Thankfully he is not involved.

Oh, oh, wait, his son now a lawyer has been retained by one of the Paterno boys. How about that ???

Now we see corruption at its finest.

Paterno should ask for immunity and tell the entire gory story.

Well, I assume this judge is a republican, because they take the cake when it comes to hipocrisy. Anyone know her political affiliations? Was she appointed or elected? Judicial elections in many states are non-partisan. Are they in non-partisan in Pennsylvania? (Still, the parties still give finacial support to the judicial campaigns, even if they run on non-partisan tickets. I know. I received such an offer from the Republicans in Michigan to run for judge. I turned them down. They would have expected favors. Is there is Pennsylvanian that can answer my questions? What was this judges party affiliation?

I personally don't give a damn if he was abused or not he needs to be castrated and put in general population wearing a skirt

So was JoPa too. I'm pretty sure he was raised roman catholic and well we know his part in the case. Maybe not all of his part in it but for now its enough to get him out of there.

cabollojoe. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the judge is a registered democrat, as is Sanduskey. As is Joe Pa. as is the DA. As are 80% of the police investigating. Wow, seems like a big conspiracy.

You seem to let your mouth overload you brain quite a bit. Slow down, research, and think.

Thanks for notifying the NCAA about falsifying grades for footballers. We'll be starting our investigation of Michigan in morning.

Oh, by the way dolt, are you saying sex offenses are taking place at Michigan also. Wow! the Big 10, 11 or 12. You'll never hear anything like that coming out of the SEC.

That won't be the mantra, because they did nothing, nothing. It should be I should have done SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

If my career meant more to me than intervening in a child rape, I hope someone would have the good sense to just end my life. Would I deserve to live after that? Not in my book.

she volunteered for the charity. That could mean free legal work, attending a local event and helping. Did she ever meet Sanduskey? Doubt it. How mant y of you have volunteered for the democratic or republican party? ever meet the president in person? Congress men/ women? Senators? Representatives? They are all corrupt, so that means you are too, right?

I would turn them into "castras"!! making certain they can NEVER do this again!!!