Penn State Child Molestation Scandal

His wife's statement is interesting.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7332650/jerry-sandusky-wife-says-not-harm-children

 

it may be time to let the courts decide what did and did not happen. routinely in such cases, there's a cluster of accusations that are plausibly true, but as the hysteria mounts other, more bizarre accusations start surfacing and it's really difficult to sort out projection from memory in such cases.

i'm thinking in particular of the scandal in new england a few years ago concerning the molestation of young boys by priests, which surfaced again recently when cardinal law died (i think---he was held responsible for much of the shielding of the priests who were accused and was rewarded for his obstruction with a promotion)...i wasn't here for the scandal, but find it interesting when it comes up how immediately and viscerally it was experienced by people...there are other cases as well with a similar pattern to them.

over the past week or so, i've been getting a sense of some theshold having been crossed into hysteria-land.

at the same time, i'm really glad that i will not find myself involved with the process of trying to sort out what's real and what's not from within all this. it would be exceedingly difficult i expect. but it'd also be exceedingly important. the press, of course, does not and cannot take on such matters.

 

I feel sure there are many more victims out there. It's a near certainty he was an active pedophile in the years before and after the known victimizations. He didn't start with the first known victim and those he may have molested in the past couple of years are still children and may still be too afraid to come forward. It's unfortunate but probably the case that there may well end up being some accusers who have jumped on the future settlement bandwagon with no real claim against Sandusky. Collateral damage in a case such as this and I could care less if he or Penn State end up paying out settlements to a few Second Mile alumni who don't really deserve it. Sandusky and the culpable parties at Penn State brought the situation onto themselves. Had he kept his filthy hands off children or been prevented from doing so much sooner, none of this would be happening or at least, not to the extent that it is. I only hope any civil rulings provide for those who decide to come forward in the future - because they are sure as hell out there.

 

i get that, joniemack. both parts--the possibility that there are more victims, the possibilitity that there are people who imagine themselves as having been victims, the possibility that there are others who are looking to cash in...sorting that out is a real problem. personally, i figure sandusky is likely guilty of most of what's floating about in the way of accusations, but that's kind of meaningless, really, as it doesn't involve questions of evidence and due process and all that. just an opinion. i get concerned when there appears a kind of lynching vibe setting itself into motion, though. it is simply not the case that the legal process sits outside of such things, and it'd be better for everyone, including the victims, if there was a conviction based on clear arguments rooted in carefully examined evidence that was not pushed along with such a climate. at the same time, i get how these climates can be set into motion. it's really not that different from the diocese of boston scandal that way.

 

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm making the assumption that any accuser coming forward is being properly vetted by the prosecution, if for no other reason than they don't want their entire case blown out of the water over the discovery that one of their accusers has lied about being a victim. To what extent they can vetted be is another question. The scary aspect of all this, from a prosecuting standpoint, rests with the fact that there is no physical evidence - no dna, no photos of injuries sustained, no real way to corroborate each of the victims' stories. I fear the defense attorney will be attacking this lack of evidence in his effort to create reasonable doubt.

If you are correct and it's a free for all, that might set the prosecution's case on even shakier ground.

 

We've all heard one side of the story - the alleged victims'. All the sworn testimony is solely to support that version of events. It may be the closest to the truth, but we haven't heard the rebuttal.

He deserves his day in court, but he's going to be tried in the press long before he sees a jury.

 

I think he already has been. His wife might possibly be the only person who believes he's innocent (which I actually find highly doubtful)

 

Bullshit. He's had an opportunity to defend himself in the media, not in court.

No offense, Borla, but you're the one talking about sworn testimony. I agree that the sworn testimony is damning. But there's no sworn testimony in rebuttal, just what's in the media. And that doesn't count.

 

That's my entire point, Borla. I only have a portion of the information. I'm being asked to form an opinion on the media's portrait of the man along with the legal accusations. There's no defense provided.

I'm pretty much anti-lynch mob. It seems to me that you're asking me to join one. Not going to happen.

 

Dude's guilty. Plain and simple.

He may not be guilty on every single charge, but anyone who goes to the media and stumbles over a simple question of being attracted to young boys and doesn't understand that showering & horseplaying with boys while nude isn't wrong.. has something wrong in their head. If enough people say you did something and records show you were there, it's going to be hard for any defense attorney to counter that.. even by attacking the lack of DNA etc. The defense screwed up by letting him go to the media. It was a stupid tactic that will backfire unless they can somehow keep those statements out of court, which is unlikely considering they set up the interviews and willingly afforded the information for public consumption. The only way they have an out on this is if they can manage to play the prejudicial card right, and based on what I've seen from the defense so far, I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm seriously starting to rethink my position on if he's going to off himself. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he did at this point.

I'm also quite interested in the wife claiming his innocence. Am I wrong in recalling a taped phone conversation with a boy where she admits to doing things with the boy herself and not doing enough to end it? She's going to be bankrupt when this is over. She may want to come clean now and testify against her husband if she really knows he did something. That would be the only way to save her cash I'm guessing.

If nothing else, the dude is guilty of being a sick fuck. If he doesn't end up in court, vigilante justice will eventually prevail IMHO.

 

Ahh ok, thanks for the clarification on that Borla - I tend to get the sick fucks mixed up.

 

Fine, I'll play your game. I think he probably did something to somebody. What exactly that something was and who the somebody was are details that I know I don't have and don't have an opinion about.

The thing about the legal system is that the state is required to provide details we simply don't have. X happened on Y date to Victim Q. There's some of that now, specifically with Victim 1, but I'm not necessarily ready to believe all of the rest of it. It's entirely possible that it did happen - and it's equally possible that it didn't.

I'm not swayed by accusations, Borla. I refuse to join the stampede.

 

my objection, which this is a convenient place to register because it's not like there's someplace you can go in meat-space and say things on the order of "this feels like a creepy lynch mob" or something---is quite apart from questions of actual guilt or innocence.

it's about the presumption people take for themselves in deciding someone is or isn't guilty based on infotainment provided them in the press which is substituted for evidence in a legal proceeding even though it isn't and which is taken as True even though there's been no real investigation of the matter, particularly in situations where the crime is considered to be a socially reprehensible as sandusky's and the context of it--the penn state football program's insularity, they say, which (again) functioned a lot like the catholic church in new england did when a bigger, parallel scandal broke--piss people off without there being fuck all they can do about it and the infotainment becomes an entertainment in which folk get the excitement of Righteous Indignation assess guilt or innocence as a way to act out their frustration with their own material impotence--because what they'd really like to do is administer a bit of rough "justice" themselves.

btw i would not be at all surprised to find that sandusky is guilty. but i'll wait until the trial.

and i would really like to see big-time college football get taken down, and this for any number of reasons--but this is not the situation from which that'll happen.

 

I think it's funny that you two put all this faith in the legal system to find the truth of innocence or guilt. You'll wait to hold your judgement until a jury and a judge tell you what to think. lol. Was O.J. guilty?

Fact is, a lynch mob is exactly what this creep needs. String him up from the highest rafters on campus and let the world see what happens to people like Sandusky.