Looking at the Jerry Sandusky trial

[LSN80]

I know I touched on this in the Sports Stadium, but that became more of a discussion about Joe Paterno and the tumultuous end to his tenure as head coach. With the trial for Sandusky beginning yesterday, I felt inclined to revisit the subject matter. Arguably, this is the most publicized and scrutinized trial of child sexual abuse since Michael Jackson.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/1...to-know-about-allegations-how-case-unraveled/

For those not aware, Jerry Sandusky was the former defensive coordinator for Penn State under Joe Paterno from 1977 until 1999. In 1977, Sandusky founded a charity for at-risk children known as the Second Mile. Sandusky, now charged with 52 counts of child sexual abuse, is alledged to have used Second Mile as a way of developing relationships with these young men and taking advantage of them sexually. In all, Sandusky is alledged to having sexually abused at least 10 boys over the span of 15 years. On November 11th, 2011, after a three year investigation into Sandusky, a Grand Jury indicted Sandusy on 40 counts of sex crimes against children, with 12 counts being added in December. Of the 52 indictments leveled at Sandusky, 20 of them alledgedly took place while Sandusky was still coaching at Penn State.

On November 14th, 2011, against the advice of counsel, Sandusky conducted an interview with Bob Costas on national television. The following is what I believe to be the most pertinent portion of the interview:

COSTAS: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"

SANDUSKY: "Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?"
COSTAS: "Yes."

SANDUSKY: "Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

While Sandusky may claim to have no sexual attraction to young boys, There is seemingly damning evidence against Sandusky. Along with the testimony of several of the alledged victims, former Penn State WR coach Mike McQueary is said to have witnessed Sandusky molesting a young boy in the shower in 2001. McQueary's credibility is being called into question, as he initially stated that the incident took place in 2002. McQueary is also the key to the case against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz. Both are being charged with intentionallt making false statements to police, and failure to report the alledged child molestation to the police. Curley initially stated that he was told that Sandusky was just "horsing around" with an underage boy, but has later stated that he did not report the allegations because he believed it was the "humane" thing to do with regards to Sandusky. Concerning McQueary's testimony, Caroline Roberto and Tom Farrell, laywers for Schultz and Curley, issued the following joint statement:

"Now, it is clear that Mike McQueary was wrong in so adamantly insisting that the incident happened the Friday before Spring Break in 2002. Whether or not Mr. McQueary's insistence was the result of faulty memory, or questionable credibility, there is no dispute that the statute of limitations has expired on Count Two, and it will be dismissed.”

While McQueary's testimony may throw a wrench into the case against not only Sandusy, but Curley and Schultz as well, the testimony of the victims are especially damning. Today, an 18 year old teenager known as "Victim #1" testified against Sandusky. The following are some of the highlights of his testimony:

"At first he would kiss me on the forehead goodnight. Then it was kissing me on the cheek, then rubbing my back and cracking my back. His(Sandusky's) roaming hands would later move to rub underneath my shorts, The next time, he put his mouth on my privates. He performed oral sex on me on a number of occasions and had me perform oral sex on him on at least one occasion."

This is just one of the testimonies against Sandusky. Another victim spoke of similar acts performed by Sandusky, and noted that the only reason he didn't come forward was because he didn't want to lose the gifts and priviledges Sandusky afforded him, inclusing buying the then 16(now 28) year old cigarettes and marijuana. Sandusky's lawyers have attempted to use this testimony against all the victims, noting that they are simply after a payday. Plausible, I suppose, if it were not for the testimony of McQueary, who witnessed Sandusky showering naked with a young man.

How does something like this happen? Say what you will about them, but everyone from then President Bush, Rick Santorum, actor Mark Wahlberg, former Steelers running back Franco Harris and Eagles head coach Andy Reid have presented Sandusky with awards for his work with underpriviledged children or have volunteered their time and money to work alongside Sandusky at some point. Cover up or no, how does one receive such public attention for the good he's done without ANY light being shed upon the alledged 15 years of abuse? This truly baffles me.

There is so much more to this story, and the article, somewhat long, does a nice job of summarizing all the major events and players here. Off to you with the following:

Will Jerry Sandusky be found guilty of the charges of sexual abuse?

What should happen to those involved in the cover-up, specifically Tim Curley and Gary Schultz?

When people think of Penn State 20 years from now, what will be first and foremost on their minds? The elite football program, or the Sandusky scandal? Has this painted a permanent black eye on the program?


Any other thoughts or discussion of this topic are welcomed and encouraged.

 

[Davi323]

Will Jerry Sandusky be found guilty of the charges of sexual abuse?

My gut reaction is that it's a 50/50 proposition at best. In any other state, I would be much more confident that he would be, but given that the trial is in Pennsylvania, and involves a lot of Penn State fans, backers and alumni, I don't think this can possibly be a 100% fair trial. Sexual abuser or not, Jerry Sandusky's relationship with Penn State may skew the jury's perception of him. Will they look at just the facts, or will they let their fandom of the Nittany Lions get in the way? I don't know. Sometimes sports/college allegiances can bias people beyond the ability to be truly fair. Frankly, I don't trust the jury to be unbiased. Call me skeptical.

What should happen to those involved in the cover-up, specifically Tim Curley and Gary Schultz?

Obviously, if what they are accused of doing actually violated Pennsylvania laws, they should not only be fired, but charged with attempted obstruction of justice. I don't know what Pennsylvania's laws are, so I am not going to completely condemn them right off of the bat...but, it seems to me that a case could certainly be made against them.

When people think of Penn State 20 years from now, what will be first and foremost on their minds? The elite football program, or the Sandusky scandal? Has this painted a permanent black eye on the program?


I hope to God that it's the football program. Not that people should forget about Sandusky, but that Penn State can return to some semblance of normalcy. I am a Michigan fan first and foremost, but as a fan of college football in general, I know that I would rather remember PSU as a football powerhouse with the ridiculously simple yet brilliant uniforms than as that school with the child molester.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Cover up or no, how does one receive such public attention for the good (Sandusky's) done without ANY light being shed upon the alledged 15 years of abuse? This truly baffles me.

It baffles me, too. Dimensions of uncertainty are injected into cases like this when it comes to light that:

-It sometimes takes the alleged victims years.....sometimes decades.....to come forward. Yes, there have been many explanations for the individual cases, including fear of reprisal from the accused, fear of the authorities to whom the misdeed is (or isn't) reported..... and the one that bothers me the most; the alleged victim's claim that they didn't remember what had been done to them.....until recently. In the Sandusky case, only the first two might apply, but in many other molestation cases, the third possibility sometimes comes into play.

-The fame of the accused interfering with the legal process. In other words, some people are going to presume Sandusky's innocence because of his position at one of the nation's great institutions of learning. ("Such a great coach just couldn't have done this!") Of course, many other folks will presume his guilt for the same reason, but one thing is for sure: the public loves its celebrities and looking at some of the garbage they've gotten away with over the years, the combination of their fame and the fact they can afford top-notch legal representation has often resulted in their being declared innocent for crimes of which you or I would surely be convicted.

What will be the verdict in Sandusky's trial? Depends on how well his attorneys can smear the reputations of the victims, a practice that seems repugnant, yet one commonly used by the defense team. (That's legal defense, not Penn State's defense ). In the end, it might wind up not mattering whether Sandusky molested those guys; the deciding factor will be which side can win the pissing contest.