Yeah, I don't expect a very long jury deliberation if this was the core of the defense's strategy. The only thing that will slow down the process will be the amount of charges being sorted out singularly. I'd be surprised if this goes overnight.

I am usually the first to say, "innocent until proven guilty" even for Casey Anthony. But there is just too much wrong with this picture.

This many witnesses do not come up with the same story. Even if the police were encouraging them-how does McQueary-not knowing any of this-come up with a similar story. How did the janitor happen to see the same thing these witnesses described?

And, these are the best things the defense can come up with? If all of these people/institutions/media/police ignored all of the evidence that he was innocent-why didn't the defense bring it up? If there was something obvious that the media was missing-wouldn't you bring it up at trian instead of fucusing on these pointless things things?

By his own admission, he showered with the boys and "blew rasberrys on their stomachs." What? How is that appropriate ever?

Looking for money? There are a lot of people who have money. Not a lot of them have 10 reports of molestation and rape against them. Blaming the victim is a sick game used by defense teams for rape and molestation.

Questioning McQueary's friend and making it seem like he was told that McQueary "only" saw him touching him in the shower and sexual noises. Even if that was all he saw-that isn't bad? Plus, this is what McQueary told him, admitting that he did not go into details. I can see anal rape of a child not something that you go into detail with your friends.

How does a journalist telling a mother to talk to an investigator corrupt anything?

I hope, if something good can come from this mess, that more victims come forward against their attacker.

Sounds like they may be considering a plea. Not sure if the prosecution needs to offer one at this point, but the ubrupt ending is strange.

Maybe the defense threw in the towel . Or maybe they are going to wait for the verdict than file an appeal on some bogus claim and the game will continue.

Just get a rope and hang this low life dirt bag !!!

I say throw him in the general prison population and let nature take its course, so to speak.

Sandusky had better bring his toothbrush on Friday because he won't be going back home again after he is found guilty.

uchusky said "By his own admission, he showered with the boys and "blew rasberrys on their stomachs." What? How is that appropriate ever?" It might not be appropriate, but it isn't illegal. My guess is that he will be found guilty of some charges & not guilty of others. How can he be found guilty of molesting the kid that doesn't even know if he was molested? There is no physical evidence. It's not that I think he didn't molest him, but there is no proof.

Why anyone would ever expect that the defense would put the POS on the witness stand is beyond me. Whatever hope they may have had left would have been gone putting him up there.

There is no "physical proof." There is almost never any physical proof in cases of molestation.

Physical evidence is not needed-especially when you have so many victims with similar stories and 2 eye witnesses.

How can he be found guilty of molesting the kid that doesn't even know if he was molested?

What are you talking about?

fourth quarter. lots of points seem to have been scored by the prosecution. not many, if any, by the great linebacker-based defense. time's running out on this penn state hero.

uchusky - One of the "victims" can't remember ever being molested. His mother pushed this.

I think that Jerry Sandusky is not trying to cover up or get away with anythinghere -- He truly does not think anything he did was wrong. The dnfense had to rest without putting him on the stand --because othwewise he might very well have said something that would have iincriminnated himself ever more. resting @ this point there is still a shread of a chance of "doubt" -- His personal position on this whole sad situation is "but look at all the kids I did NOT molest over the years"-- I almost feel sorry for the sick, old man -- he most certainly will spend the rest of his life in jail.

He won't get much of a sentence. Remember he is a local boy and a sports hero. His kind can do anything they want and the law can't touch them. Here in PA they cover up anything for the local boy. If he would be an outside that was not born and raised here then he would get the death sentence or life in jail without parole.

Really I think we need to lock his idiot wife up too..."conniving" what does she think her husband is... I would love to confront her face to face!!!

Some of these kids reported Sandusky years ago, it's on record and Penn State did nothing but cover it all up. People witnessed him with these kids and tried to tell themselves they weren't seeing what they saw or had others tell them they saw it all wrong. Jerry, you're going to jail - enjoy the weekend while you can. Maybe OJ will loan you his lucky Bronco because anyone fleeing from the law in that thing must be innocent, right?!

What worries me is this switch in jury members, it could leave things open for a claim of a mistrial.

He needs to have done to him what he did to these poor kids.... have fun in prison freak... Lock his stupid wife up with him for knowing what was going on all these years...

I think his wife is a sicko also. All those boys spending hundreds of nights over at their house, spending time in the basement and never hearing a thing. She knew exactly what was going on and decided she'd rather have him getting his rocks off on someone else instead of herself. She ought to be prosecuted along with him. She is an accomplice.

Bizarre ending of testimony. A juror replaced due to illness. The defense taking a recess mid testimony of their own witness.

Strange. I don't know the time-line of the juror alternate and the defense testimony interruption and the subsequent "rest" of their defense but it all sounds like a movie to me. If that juror had been "tampered" with, would that result in a mistrial?? A whole new trial? I'm asking these questions,not saying that is the case. I don't know the legalities of it.

Also, pleading ignorance as I have not followed the case closely. This Hilton guy acted surprised that his Uncle had called the defense team. What do you make of that?

wryview... showering with a child and blowing raspberries on his stomach ARE indeed illegal if they are used in a way for the perpetrator to derive sexual gratification from the act. Its called sexual exploitation of children. You can be guilty of it and never even touch a child.

Sandusky's wife says the "Accusers" are Conniving?

She is as guilty of sexual molestation charges (an accessory to the Crime) as he is, is. What a pair of wicked, evil people; the Sandusky's.

Filth on this earth. He should get the Maximum sentence, Life in Prison; a guilty coward, who could not take the Witness Stand.

It will not take the Jury long to come back with a Verdict---Penn State University is also the guilty 3rd Party in this case.

We can only hope the jury sees the obvious.....unlike the OJ Simpson zoo. I can't imagine him coming out of this with anything other than GUILTY! I agree with a lot of posts here about Dottie...she's a lying sack of evil and should also go to jail. How could she not know and how could she say what she did and sleep at night!? Please see the truth people of the jury....... GUILTY!

On a totally different note....does anyone else notice how UGLY the sandusky's are? They even look alike. The media has the most hideous picture on this article.

Because of this sick and twisted individual, a great man (Joe Paterno) was removed unceremoniously. As a Penn State alum., I am disgusted with Sandusky and the light he has put the Pennsylvania State University. Joe Paterno was a caring man and concerned with academics first and foremost. Sandusky needs to rot in a jail cell for the rest of his miserable life!

wryview

uchusky - One of the "victims" can't remember ever being molested. His mother pushed this.

Maybe not. I was molested by someone whom I trusted (won't go into story) but I had blocked it out for years. Thing was I couldn't figure out why I saw things so much different than others, I don't like sex, I don't want anyone to touch me, and obviously with that I have a hard time being in any relationship. So I'm single, lonely, depressed. A few years ago I started to remember what had happened. Not by anyone coaxing me, didn't go see a psychiatrist, none of that, I started dreaming about it. When I was awake I'd think about what I was dreaming about. Never said anything to anyone. I remember giving stuff to him, that I'd prized as pocessions to get him to leave me alone, things that even my parents were astonished that I'd give away. They didn't understand why I'd do such a thing, but I didn't tell because I felt I was part of the reason it was happening. So that was the only way I could figure to stop it from happening. I saw this guy about 3 years ago for the first time in several years. I broke down, started having and anxioty attack, and had to leave from where he was. It was horrible because then all the memories started flooding in my head, everything. I'm 45 years old and since I'd seen him I have told 2 close friends because I needed some sort of relief, I couldn't stand feeling so alone. But I am still alone. So the point is these memories didn't start to surface until I was almost 40 and I had no reason what so ever to come up with this idea. I hadn't seen this guy since I was a teenager. In fact, I had forgotten all about him until I started having the dreams. People do block out memories when they are so horrible they don't want to deal with them. The only way for anyone to understand what this is like is to be in the shoes of one of the children whom is molested. I do not wish that on anyone, I wish that it would never happen. The after effect (for me) is like living in my own personal prison without any way of getting out. I'm free, but I'm not. And no one in my family knows about this, I fear it would destroy my parents. Yet they don't understand why I can't hold any relatioships.

If a person is found guilty of molesting a child the worst the sentence should be is death, the least prison without parole. These people kill the soul of those they molest leaving that person in a personal prison for the rest of their lives.

Throughout this entire story arc, Sandusky has exhibited classic traits of a serial pedophile. And the entire Pennsylvania power elite was only TOO happy to turn a blind eye to it in order to keep the Penn State cash cow going. I have no illusions about Sandusky though. He'll never see the inside of a normal Prison because, as a short-eyes, he would be deliberately targeted by the General Population. Many convicts have children. And some of them love their kids very much

When thinking he will for sure be found guilty .... remember Florida .... jurors can be idiots!!!!

Maybe the abrupt end was a move by Sandusky's lawyer to keep him off the stand. This is one guy who likes the limelight, thinks he's innocent and believes the jury will take him at his word. He showed his showboating side with Bob Costas and most attorneys would probably try to keep the fool from testifying.

Until the jury makes their judgment of this case all we can do is sit and wait. I am very surprised how Sandusky's attorney has handled this case. I do not think he is a good attorney. I would never had Sandusky speak to either the New York Times or NBC before the trial. What Mr. Sandusky said in the press did not help him one bit. The only appeal I see Mr. Sandusky could use is if he would claim that his attorney did not represent him well in court. Mr. Sandusky could demand a new trial and a new attorney.

If Mr. Sandusky tries to work the legal system and appeal his conviction while still out on bail he could stretch the legal system out enough for him to die first before he ever is confined to prison. I just do not know if his bail is revoked upon conviction or not.

Until the jury makes their judgment of this case all we can do is sit and wait. I am very surprised how Sandusky's attorney has handled this case. I do not think he is a good attorney. I would never had Sandusky speak to either the New York Times or NBC before the trial. What Mr. Sandusky said in the press did not help him one bit. The only appeal I see Mr. Sandusky could use is if he would claim that his attorney did not represent him well in court. Mr. Sandusky could demand a new trial and a new attorney.

If Mr. Sandusky tries to work the legal system and appeal his conviction while still out on bail he could stretch the legal system out enough for him to die first before he ever is confined to prison. I just do not know if his bail is revoked upon conviction or not.

Scott, you don't have to be alone in this. I am so sorry that happened to you, and there is help out there...reach for it! You don't have to feel alone...you aren't alone...and you deserve to be free of this and have a happy life. Please reach out...therapy, energy work, both, or whatever feels right to you. Please don't suffer in silence. This was done TO you and if it hadn't been you it would have been someone else. You can get free of this.

" It might not be appropriate, but it isn't illegal"

So you are one of those that need a law to ensure you aren't doing anything immoral. That is pathetic. wryview sounds about right for you, twisted as well.

If the institutional forces were oblivious to the evidence, that means the evidence that he is innocent is obvious...can someone point out where that obvious evidence is?

Saddly, too true.

Has Sandusky ever been accused of targeting little girls? NO? Only boys? Then that makes him a homosexual pedophile. If he targeted only girls he would be a heterosexual pedophile. If he targeted both genders he would be a pansexual pedophile.

Your point?

GL, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is to do with pedophilia. We really don't even know there were no girls involved, although it doesn't look as if there were. Are you trying to score some points for some agenda here?

@GLDM You must not be very popular at the diner table?

Why do you have to say he is a homosexual pedophile?

I am female and was molested by my grandfather. I can assure you that it would not have made a difference to me whether my molester was male or female. Molestation is molestation.

The individuals who engage in this disgusting behavior are sick...no matter who their victims are.

Jane, I am sorry you went through that. You are right. There is no reason to bring hetero or homosexuality into this.

Men who abuse little boys do not do so because they are gay anymore than men who abuse little girls do not do so because they are straight.

@JerseyJoe,

Your assumption that Sandusky is a homosexual is probably not accurate. A sexual fixation on young boys is not gender specific. For example, there have been female school teachers with a similar fixation. Most likely Sandusky would be classified as a "pansexual." The Oxford English Dictionary defines pansexuality as, "not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or activity." The concept of pansexuality deliberately rejects the gender binary, the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations", as pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women, including pre-pubescent boys and girls." What it boils down to is that to a pansexual the sex or age of the sex partner is entirely secondary to the act itself.

Homosexuality is not considered a marker for child abuse despite the claims of many uninformed people on here. Homosexuals are no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. In fact, homosexuals are slightly less prone to child abuse than the general population on the basis of number of child abuse reports per child.

I'm pretty sure Sandusky has had sex with boys more than he has with his wife. Call him whatever you want ,homo or not I hope he gets life!

The ignorance shown here is appalling. Homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other. You really need to educate yourself before you go running your mouth for the entire internet to see.

Chris, that would all make sense if there were some female victims, but there weren't. This man liked sucking on young boys and having anal sex with them. This exactly what gay men do with other males. There are things I like to do with women that you can't do to men, so that makes me heterosexual. If what you say is true, then there would be some female kids among the victims.

Anyone who prefers a partner of the same sex, makes them a homosexual or lesbian. To be blunt and only to make a point, there is nothing different between a child and adult except a child is just an immature version of an adult. All males have the exact same body parts, just as all females have the same body parts. It is only society that frowns on adults having sexual relations with children. The mental maturity and life experiences being the main reasons. It is possible to have sex with a child in the same manner as with an adult. It's only that their bodies are smaller that would cause an issue. So if a person didn't care about how a person in a civilized society conducts themselves, they would have a relationship with a child just as they would an adult. That would also mean that a homosexual male adult could choose a male child as a partner, and the same with females.

This is why Sandusky is a homosexual who prefers male children. He probably doesn't have sex with his wife because he is gay, which would mean he would not try to have sex with a female child.

Interesting... Thanks for educating us all. By the wyt, how do you know if or how many times Mr & Mrs. Sandusky may or not of had ses with each other? This trial is about the crime of sexual molestation of children -- not about homosexuality. Are you trying to imply that if he made sex with little girls, instead of little boys it would be a OK?

Once he goes to prison..and after the inmates have their way with him. Castrate him and throw him in solitary for the rest of his days on earth. There in solitary he won't even be able to play with himself let alone any further innocent kids...the "Sick son of B---h !!!"

To be blunt and only to make a point, there is nothing different between a child and adult except a child is just an immature version of an adult. All males have the exact same body parts, just as all females have the same body parts. It is only society that frowns on adults having sexual relations with children.

The fact that you only see an issue with this because "society frowns upon it" is scary. I hope you are never around children.

My ex-boyfriend was abused by a male relative. It definitely made him have issues with the physical aspect of our relationship, however a female friend who had the same experience, also with a male relative, had similar issues. Sexual abuse will do that in any case, the damage is the same whether the perpetrator targets the same sex or the opposite sex. My gay friends are attracted to adults of the same sex, not children.

Don't insult the gays/homosexuals. The guy is a sick pervert whose sexual target is young boys. It has nothing to do with him being a homosexual. He is a pedophile.

BP, your ignorance of what homosexuality and pedophilia are is astounding. I see you have an agenda here as well...your post is creepy and your inferences are disgusting. I hope your post is deleted, and I don't say that often. It isn't the same thing at all, and you need some help and to stay away from children.

I agree. What is going on with that?

I also agree...why not expound on why he was nervous and what the Uncle said in that conversation that would have made him nervous...such as maybe there was something that happened and he "blocked it out"... not sure but at some point I truly wish these stories were full of more information when they throw a statement like that in there.

hohum

hmmmm...did the uncle find the payoff he received, or did the uncle demand $$?

Also, I am unclear as to why the defense would ask him if he knew that his uncle called them, the defense attorneys? He's a defense witness, why trip your own witness? Sorry maybe I am just confused...

Interestingly enough, all of that powerful testimony of the victims, was offset just a bit by these contentions of being steamrolled. The journalist appears to have injected herself into the story, it sounds like there has been witness tampering by the prosecution. It sounds like a defense witness has been tampered with. It's enough to create speculation, maybe even doubt, not that he didn't molest the kids, but that he wasn't getting a fair trial. With how much is at stake, I can see that logically. Kind of scary... Pretty sure he will be convicted, something tells me not on all counts though.

Al Pacino in "And Justice For All" is likely to be as close as you'll ever get...

riverman! That is NOT the defense attorney's job! Their "job" is to give their client the "best defense available", it is not the defense attorney's "fault" that there is very little "best" available in this case. It is my impression that this particular defense attorney has gone pretty lightly on the victim witnesses, has not been hammering them on cross, or has not made this a long drawn out cross examination of these witnesses. The defense he has put up, is very flimsey and not particularly creative....it is doing his job, but apparently not with alot of zeal....which is the closed to "see that justice is served" that he can get. If he was YOUR defense attorney, I think you would be a little less self-righteous about the vigor in which he would defend you.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "Son, this is a court of law, not justice".

On the other hand, when have prosecutors been interested in justice? Their job performance depends on getting convictions. How many times have they opposed reopening cases with new DNA evidence? And plea bargaining is a great way to get a conviction without doing any work.

Going hard on the victims risks alienating the jury. The best strategy is to show the inconsistencies, which no doubt exist, and put just enough doubt in the jurors so they don't convict.

I don't think any layer will be able to help him. Not only is the evidence very strong, but after that interview he gave - he basically convicted himself.

That is very true. The defense did not have much to work with in this case. Sometimes less is more and I am sure they are hoping to leave some doubt in the minds od the jury -- instead of allowing Sandusky to speak on the stand (and be crossed-examed) and take away any doubt at all.

RJG, that is the sad truth.

The defense attorney's job is to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial. That is fair. The problem I have is if the defense attorney knows his client is guilty (from what I undestand) he still has to defend him/her. It is against the law to give evidence that proves the client is guilty to the prosecutor. I wonder how many defense attorneys have gotten a client off knowing for a fact they were guilty? And of course there is the flip side, the prosecutor prosecuting someone even if they find evidence that proves they are innocent. It's all about the win for these people, not really justice.

The DA would have turned Sandusky into a plate of kimchi -- shredded, fermented cabbage.

tim 1602 ' ' hope the judge goes Al Pacino on him...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVQ8byG2mY8

not against the law for a defense attorney to provide evidence to the prosecution, nor is it against the law for the prosecution to provide evidence to the defense. In fact they do this before every case during the discovery phase of the court proceeding. The prosecution withholding evidence from the defense could lead to a rehearing and disciplinary measures.

Cincha,

Exactly. The defense calling those who encountered Sandusky but were not molested or raped is absurd. He took advantage of the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, his decisions made entirely on how safe he felt in getting away with it, how much power and manipulation he could exert on his victims to assure his safety.

The defense calling these types of witness to the stand is absurd and moot. It's like having a bank robber on trial and calling to the stand the managers of local banks in an area that weren't robbed and making the case that, Well, these other banks weren't robbed. Why didn't he rob all the banks if he is a bank robber? Or expecting that a rapist of adult women somehow will rape every single woman he comes across. It's about finding the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and taking advantage for your own sick purposes.

That could very well be the case here. Every bank robber does not attempt to rob every single bank they see, every single day. --Time and opportunity comes into any situation. There were lot of little boys around over the years -- clearly he did not molest every one of then.

Joe Paterno was NOT being investigated. There is nothing for him to be prosecuted. The PA State Attorney General's office said that he did exactly as he was supposed to do. He was NOT under investigation. He was a cooperating witness.

Thank goodness what you "think" isn't evidence. It doesn't even come close.

You really are defending Paterno?

He did what he needed to do LEGALLY. Not by any moral standards.

Yes. I am defending Paterno with the facts that are in evidence. And he did what was moral as well. What else could he have done? He reported it to the highest police authority campus. He had no standing to follow-up. He had no standing to question his boss. He wasn't even given the fact that an assault had taken place. He had no idea who the "victim" was - and no one, to this day, knows the identity of that person. So, what, exactly, was he supposed to do above & beyond what he did (that would have been legal & ethical)?

"The PA State Attorney General's office said that he did exactly as he was supposed to do."

Good for them. Legally you are correct. Still doesn't change the fact that Joe's RIGHT HAND MAN was a known (to many) child molestor. If you can convince yourself that Joe didn't know any better.....you truly are delusional. Joe knew. The president knew. THEY ALL KNEW. They kept it quiet to protect the good name of their silly football program. Bastards, all of them.

Joe Pa was definitely knowledgable of the going-ons in his athletic department. To think otherwise is absurd. He did exactly as he was asked at the time of the original investigation process. As the investigation proceeded farther and more witnesses have emerged, Joe would have definitely been pulled in to corraberate stories, either for the defense or for the prosecution. If his assistant coach has known for years, then Joe Pa definitely did as well...

Sure he did what was legal, but morally, he didn't. I would even say that McQueary should have done more at the time the incident happened. If I had seen something that clear and obviously wrong to a child, I would not have STOPPED until someone arrested the perpetrator. Paterno could have done more. He didn't.

Sandusky was NOT his right hand man. They didn't even LIKE each other.

I love how people think they can proclaim something because they "know" without ANY facts to back it up. I just shake my head - and pray you NEVER get put on a jury.

Joe Paterno was legendary (and he even stated so himself on several occasions) for his knowledge about what went on in 'his' football program.

You cannot begin to tell me that he didn't know anything, and you cannot tell me that even if he did what was 'legally' the correct thing to do, he was dead wrong by not stopping his 'right hand man' from doing what he knew was going on. Its sheer madness to think JoPa was blameless.

I believe that Joe Paterno (and Penn State officials) made a conscious decision to NOT say anything, because Jerry Sandusky was so important to 'his' football program - he was still producing positive results on the football field and in the box office. They very clearly put the University's needs above the victim's right to be protected from a sexual predator.

wryview...you are creeping me out..perhaps you have something in common with sandusky...

Joe Pa was all about himself and nothing more - he was a selfish douche...ever wonder why none of this came out until AFTER he got his 412 win as a coach (or whatever the number was) - because he knew it was coming but wanted to get his record - he is a scumbag too... what else could he have done?? How about call Sandusky and confront him about the allegations...Jeez -- he was the Assistant Head Coach when all this started - Jo pa couldn't have confronted him and made him stop - who was more powerful than JoPa??? - no one - he let it all go for some reason...why... he didn't want his legacy tarnished - and for that shame on him and shame on all the others - at least 10 if not more young boys would not have had their lives ruined if this old @!$%# just did the right thing - he should burn in hell...

"I think"; "I believe" Where are your FACTS? And redshoes - just because I refuse to JUMP to conclusions doesn't mean that I have anything in common with that man.

Mac - Joe Paterno selfish? Really? Then you obviously know NOTHING about the man. Do you really believe he had control over the release of the grand jury presentment? Because that is what you are saying. Can't you see how absurd that is?

So, what, exactly, was he supposed to do above & beyond what he did (that would have been legal & ethical)?

Go to law enforcement. Yes, he did not see the rape directly, but he had very good reason to suspect that children were being abused (especially because this was not the first time he knw Sandusky had been accused of something like this.)

Would that have been enough for a conviction-of course not! But if he had gone to the real police (your "highest police on campus" comment was laughable) they would have questioned McQueary (who also should have gone.) An investigation would have happened. Maybe they would have been able to find the kid. Maybe, coupled with the past evidence, they could have put the pieces of this case together then. Maybe all of the victims since then would not have been abused.

"No standing to follow up?" What? "Hey, you know that rape of a kid we reported. Whatever happened with that?" This LEGEND didn't have the standing to ask?

In terms of questioning his boss...KIDS WERE BEING RAPED!! This is not the time to worry about what your boss might think!

Mac - Joe Paterno selfish? Really? Then you obviously know NOTHING about the man

Based on what? His football career. He was a good football coach? really? That is what we are basing this on?

HE KNEW KIDS WERE BEING RAPED AND DIDN"T STOP IT. That is is character. Period. I don't care how many games he won or how "unselfish" he seemed on the field or taught his players to be.

When kids are being abused, any respectible person does everything in their power to stop it. At the end of the day, he stood by and did the bare legal minimum to stop kids from being raped. I know all I need to know about the man.

@wryview

I was born and raised in PA. I have followed PA college and pro football my entire life. Over the course of my life up until November 2011 there was one constant that every Penn State football fan agreed with and boasted- Joe Paterno is Penn State. I have had to hear all these years that PSU would not be where it is without Joe Paterno, Joe Paterno runs PSU.

When there was talk of the game passing him by and being nothing more than a figure head Joe Paterno boasted loud and often that he knows EVERYTHING that goes on in HIS football program.

The campus police were notorious for keeping player incidents under wraps and letting Paterno administer his own punishment. The local press also often kept these incidents under wraps for fear of being "shut out" by Paterno. It was not until the rise of the internet and the 24/7 coverage that stories about player behavior started to leak from Happy Valley. The football players under Paterno were also not subject to University discipline rather a separate authority and discipline meted by the head coach.

Now that something has gone terribly wrong in Happy Valley Joe Paterno fans do not get to excuse him and pull the "old humble Joe" did all he could card. He had no superior at PSU. That ended when he told his superiors to get off his porch when asked to resign as head football coach. Those same men you claim were his superiors had zero authority over Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno's past actions prove he had no superior at PSU. He was top dog as they say.

Face it your sacred cow has turned out to be nothing more than human.

uchusky - Joe DID go to the police. He reported it to the head of the University Park police (who are real police with full municipal authority). Next suggestion....

King - the only people who claim that Joe was a god are those who are slamming him. Joe did not run Penn State. Of course, people like you claim he did. But you are wrong.

wryview

You are the typical PSU fan that has conveniently changed your tune since November 2011.

Again I was born and raised in PA. I have family and friends who are graduates of PSU and many more friends who are PSU fans. I have not imagined what I have heard and what has been said over the past 30+ years.

I have heard many Penn State fans call Joe Paterno a god. I always hated to hear that bu it turns out though Joe Paterno and God were alike in one way.

They both sat back and allowed kids to get molested by Jerry Sandusky.

Paterno did not report it to the police. He testified before the grand jury that he told Tim Curley, the athletic director.

redshoes4, Jet and others, you're creeping me out. You seem to have a lynch mob mentality. The emotionality of your comments suggest you have other axes to grind. Do you have something in your history that makes you respond this way or perhaps you are affiliated with one of the teams/universities that Joe Paterno beat. Perhaps jealous because he won the most games while having one of the highest rates of graduation of his players, no criminals as players, no NCAA sanctions, etc.(e.g. an offensive guard on the team just graduated with a Degree in Math and a 4.0 GPA). And you seem to somehow know what the motivations were for the people you have chosen for debasement.

Information that is not subject to opinion or conjecture: The State College Police and the Centre County DA knew of allegations against Sandusky in the 1990s. They did not pursue them. It's not clear why they didn't. Sandusky was removed from the Penn State football coaching staff many years before McQueary heard Sandusky in the showers. Jonathan Dranov, M.D. heard Michael McQueary's story and questioned him about it within 24 hours of when McQueary told the story to Joe Paterno. The testimony of Dr. Dranov was that it was not entirely clear to him from what McQueary said what actually happened in the shower. (I'm not saying this means Sandusky is innocent.) Dr. Dranov who graduated Phi Beta Kappa in the top of his class, graduated from an Ivy League medical school, and is a Board Certified Internal Medicine specialist, certainly is qualified and trained in obtaining information from people in order to make diagnoses. If he was not convinced, then how can Joe Paterno be assumed to know. Joe Paterno acted reasonably and ethically by reporting the incident to the administrator in charge of the Campus Police and his superiors. Please read the written statement he made prior to his death.

One can only speculate as to the motives of the administrators. From what is currently known they apparently needed a scapegoat to deflect attention from their responsibility in the matter and the media provided them with Joe Paterno. Hopefully the Board of Trustee's and Pa. Governer's (the Pontius Pilate to the media's Sanhedrin in this story) roles in this will eventually come out. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Luka Magnotta would love to rape and chop up Ol' Sandusky...

or a public school teacher. media needs to pay attention to how many public school teachers molest kids and are then allowed to simply transfer or resign quietly without police intervention

Okay....fine...myself, my sister, a few of my female cousins and a couple of the neighbor girls were all attacked by a heterosexual pedophile.

I still say that molestation is molestation. It leaves scars no matter who the dirt bag, pervert loser chooses to victimize.

Be they hetro/homosexual, white-black-yellow-orange or blue the destructive-vicious and life changing acts are committed by a Pedophile.....his/her origin make no difference to the souls victimized...

Rich, you talk like a boy w/ a paper ass... molestation, rape, etc are not about sex or sexual preference... have you never read a newspaper, mag, watched a news show... amazing you are that stoopid

Sandusky is a pedophile who acted on his urges and assaulted little boys. If he were just homosexual, he would have consenual sex with other males.

Next time you're around children...look at the stature of a 10 yr old boy, a 10 yr old girl and an adult female. Notice the similarities? For a pedophile, the victims are children. Sandusky wouldn't be able to spend alot of time with little girls without raising suspicions of those around him...and he certainly wouldn't be able to take showers with them without raising serious alarms. No one questioned him when he hung out with boys...pulled them out of class...was found rolling on the floor with them...or was showering with them. He's given sainthood for his caring for underprivileged little boys.

Pedophiles work very hard at their public persona...they choose victims that will 'fit' that persona.

it was molesting a child. preference is not really the point here. Maybe he would have liked little girls, but who would give him access to dozens and dozens of little girls? it's not about sexual preference, it's about abuse of power . . . she's, would all the homophobes and haters quit focusing on the wrong part?

a pedaphile is a pedaphile, doesn't matter if they are homosexual or straight! They are the worst of society. So why is anyone even wanting to argue this point? All pedaphiles should either get death or life in prison without parole. End of story.

Go ahead and collapse my post. The truth hurts, doesn't it!!!!

My sneaking suspicion is that Sandusky's defense team decided very early on that Sandusky was guilty and needed to go away for a long, long prison sentence

I can't imagine any attorney on earth, throwing a high profile case like this based on some kind of moral obligation to the victims. Attorneys just don't do that, it might happen in a movie every once in a while but it would be career suicide. If these guys could get a not guilty on a case like this it would be a windfall. Check out Casey Anthony's attorneys and OJ's attorneys, it's the best thing that ever happened to those people. Attorney's aren't in business to see "justice served" they are there to get judgements in their favor, period.

Actually thanks for this, it had so many details I was unaware of. It's so very clear that there was knowledge of this at many levels and I am so disgusted and appalled that anyone would allow this to not only continue, but allow it to go on for so long. I believe in the death penalty for child rapists- and perhaps obstruction charges against those who covered it up.

Wow. Excellent synopsis. Thanks for posting!

Wow. Excellent synopsis. Thanks for posting!

How do you know who the emails went to and what they said? I can't find this anywhere. When did Joe figure out the email thing?

dinisimo--- they get paid not matter what the verdict is...these attorney's mounted the "best defense" available to them....their client is a very very sick and distorted man....who I'm pretty sure is telling them what he thinks will work for him for the most part, and they aren't disabusing him of these delusions to vigorously..that is all that is required of them.

Chris - I call B.S. on the following statement "The best thing that happened for the defense was the death of Paterno. According to e-mails between Spanier, Curley and Schultz, Paterno was an integral part of the coverup. And it is simply a fact that Paterno continued to sign off on office space for Sandusky in a school where office space is bizarrely short and continued, as late as 2010 to sign off on allowing Sandusky to con tinue to have sleepover three-day football camps for young boys on Penn State athletic department facilities"

First of all, it has NOT been determined that there was a cover-up. Second of all, Paterno is NOT implicated at all. Third - It was the Penn State Board of Trustees that created the agreement with Sandusky for use of the facilities. Joe had NO authority over the facilities.

@dinsmo,

In a place like College Station, probably a majority of lawyers would rate protecting Penn State's name against scandal is a kind of "higher calling." I live in Tuscaloosa, similar sized town, similar university. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that lawyers can and do act against the interest of their own clients if it means protecting the university in some way.

My firsthand experience was being on a jury where this happened and know of a couple of others. The guy I was seated on was accused of armed robbery and maiming for robbing a older women's dress shop at knifepoint and cutting off a woman's finger to get her ring and slashing up another woman. There were plenty of witnesses and it was quite cut and dried. But the lawyer put his own man on the stand and, among other things, asked him where he had been living for the past several years. The defendant told us he had been in prison for armed robbery and manslaughter and was just paroled 4 days before the robbery. This pretty much sealed his doom. Needless to say we convicted quickly. Then the judge sent us back to deliberate on a 'habitual offender" charge that we did not know about so he got life without parole out of it. But after the trial the prosecutors came over and I asked him if it was normal for a defense lawyer to introduce evidence that was inadmissible and so detrimental. He told me that he had not noticed it, but then smiled and said that it does happen more than people think.

Sometimes prosecutors or law enforcement will "speed things up a little" and create or withhold evidence illegally. It happens. But also some lawyers want to make sure that they are not identified with a sleazebag that they believe to be guilty. It happens.

Minor correction but major annoyance for us in Happy Valley......College Station is in Texas while State College is in Pennsylvania.

College Station? You do know that Penn State is NOT in Texas, don't you? Penn State isn't even really in State College. It is in University Park, which has its own zip code.

@wryview,

Probably being an apoplogist for Paterno doesn't have much of a future. He is pretty much going to catch a lot of tar and feathers because as future criminal and civil cases develop, he will be the major player involved who will not be able to defend himself.

But the idea that Paterno did not know about Sandusky from 2002 until 2010 is something that I just can't swallow. And that idea that he did not know that Sandusky was still on campus and using campus facilities is a stretch that I cannot make. A significant part of large football program's head coach is squashing those sandals that keep coming up with so-called student athletes. To assume that Paterno say nothing, heard nothing and knew nothing about Sandusky for eight years is to assume that Paterno was an idiot way in over his head. I doubt that many people would agree with the latter.

And actually the Second Mile agreement was with the Penn State Athletic Department. Like most big universities, Penn State's football probram is "self-supporting" which means keeping entiorely separate sets of books. A Board of Trustees would never concern itself with something so trivial as three-day summer footbal camps mostly at outlying campuses. I figure you just "assumed" that the Board of Trustees signs off on much at all.

but the only other assumption is that they are such poor lawyers that they are abcolutely clueless.

I think you nailed it with this statement. The lead defense attorney has proven time and again that he is incompetent and should be disbarred (getting a teenage client pregnant isn't exactly high on moral standard lists). I just hope their incompetence does not mean that an appeal is possible.

Just because you can't swallow it, doesn't make it true. That's your own imagination at work. How would Paterno have "special knowledge" that no one else had? Oh - wait - I guess he could have looked into his crystal ball or used his "spidey-sense"? Ridiculous.

@wryview:

What made Joe Paterno so successful, was that he knew what was going on around him (you obviously do not understand what a head coach's job entails); he boasted many times to that end.

He also boasted that he liked to make good men, not just good football players.

How interesting that he would be so concerned with the moral character of his players, and be so devoid himself....that he only did what was 'required'......

I have wondered as the trial went on how much Paterno's knowledge of Sandusky's "dirty little secret" - and how much he may have been able to prove Penn State knew about it - was how Paterno could resist any and all suggestions he should 'consider retirement'. Hell, didn't the AD go to Paterno's house at some point to discuss retirement and get shown the door by Joe Pa? Were they perhaps reluctant to force the issue because of what Joe Pa could say about what he knew?

But what Sandusky was doing had NOTHING to do with the football program. Joe had more character in his little finger than you and 99.9% of the people in this country have in their whole bodies.

And Joe resisted retirement because he liked to coach. It kept him young & active. Period. He always said that he didn't want to retire & die like Bear Bryant. And in the end, that's what happened to him.

wryview - have you no common sense at all? Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

Wryview - There is just no way on God's green earth that Coach Paterno did not know! No way! Didn't I read somewhere that after McQueary's report, be it 2001 or 2002, they - the college, Coach Paterno, went to greath lengths to make sure Sandusky was not allowed in the locker rooms anymore? Restricted his access to the campus? Also, if he was once considered Paterno's successor, what happened to make that not happen. That was in the late 1990's. JoePa knew. Don't kid yourself.

Yeah, the difference between Joe Pa's character and mine is he did the absolute minimum he could do, and I'm a Court Appointed Special Advocate. You're welcome to think he has 'more character' than me if you like. If that's what "character" does for a defenseless child, I'd rather not have as much as Joe Pa has.

Third - It was the Penn State Board of Trustees that created the agreement with Sandusky for use of the facilities. Joe had NO authority over the facilities.

So, you are saying that your beloved Joe Pa says to the Board of Trustees, "hey, we have had reporst of this guy raping kids in the showers. Maybe we shouldn't let him be here." he would not have been heard?This is not even getting into had he gone to the real police and reported what he had been told.

We need, as a culture, to get very far past the idea that it is ok to look the other way when kids are being abused.

• We need to be proactive to protect them. We need to report what we see and hear-especially if something come up more than once.
• We need to follow up.
• We need to hold everyone-even coaching "legends" to this standard. Priests, teachers, coaches, garbage men...it doesn't matter. Kids are being abused, you bring it to the police for an investigation.
• This is America. They aren't going to put them on trial unless they find evidence. Look how much evidence they had befoe they came forward with Sandusky.
• You don't worry about your job.
• You don't worry about the accused's reputation.
• You don't worry about your sports program.
• You protect the kids. If you do not, you are not worthy of respect no matter how many games you have won.

Are you related to the guy or something-looking at your past posts, you seem to spend a lot of your time defending the guy.

Hope - Prove he knew something. Cite your sources. Just because you THINK he knew something doesn't mean he did. Molestors are very good at hiding what they do. That's why they get away with it for so long.

myBironas - Then, as a court appointed advocate, you should know that if you reported something that you would have standing to follow-up. Joe didn't.

uchusky - There you go again getting facts wrong. Joe was NEVER told that there was rape. Heck - even McQueary testified that he didn't actually SEE rape. So, the rest of your comments are moot.

Wryview - no sources. Common sense. I am from Oklahoma and you better believe our college football coaches know EXACTLY what is going on at all times. With their players, with their staff, with the college boards. I'm sure JoePa was not a stupid man. In fact my common sense tells me for certain that JoePa was not a stupid man who did not know what was going on.

Also, can anyone address my question as to what happened in the late 1990's that Sandusky evidently fell out of favor and was no longer the "heir apparent" to follow Coach Paterno. Thank you.

What he did, while morally wrong, was not illegal.

All he was legally required to do was tell his supervisor-this was because of his job. He met his legal obligation by telling Paterno and the campus police. He had no legal need to follow up.

I agree that what he did was terrible. How do you not follow up? How do you not ask, "Hey, whatever happened with that kid I saw getting raped?" I will never understand.

However, nothing he did was illegal. He did not lie to the police. He told the campus police that is why he is not in jail.

My question- how did he walk out and leave that child in that locker room with that S.O.B.? For that alone, he should do time. I'd have knocked that pedophile on his ass, tried to comfort the child, and dared that dirty old ba$tard to get up off the floor before the REAL police came.

I'm with you machspeeddemon! even if I did not know him OR the kid, the only thing I needed to tell Joe was there a dead body in the locker room!!!

Don't you think police records can be altered/deleted if the "right people" (i.e. Penn State) ask for it. "...Uh, we'd like to handle this internally please..." A big old handful of season tickets, automatic admission of some Chief's kid to the university..........

Money talks. If he did make a report, it does not surprise me in the least that no one can produce it today.

I also expected McQueary to have done more than what he could. However, you have to remember that different people have different ways of handling situations. For example, that father who killed his daughters "alleged" molester. He was not prepared to be in this type of situation, no one is ever prepared. I would like to assume and hope that if I am in this type of situation that I would do more and kick Sandusky's butt. Also, McQueary's decision to not do anything will stay with him forever, no amount of jail, pain can ever take that away....

That my friend is called football politics. When the football program at a university becomes more important than its academics, it leads to corruption at the highest levels. Paterno and all the adminstration knew what Sandusky was doing and chose to look the other way. The money that the football program was bringing into the university was more important than exposing a pedophile in the football staff. That's it. The football dollars outweighed the needs of Sandusky's young victims. McQueary is the only person at the university who did the right thing. Don't blame him for the failure of all the others.

Olde Sarge, you had me right up until the last two sentences. This debacle has exposed the corruption to those of us who aren't college football fanatics. I never would've believed the sports program would be the priority. But I don't think a grown man should be able to look himself in the eyes after leaving the scene of that crime in progress. He was the only one there to stop it, and he chose to leave that child there. He gave them privacy, as if they were lovers. I'm glad I'll never be face to face with him; I'd be arrested for the punch I'd throw.

The college should have had to report this incident on their Clery Act reporting as well - it requires reporting of crimes on or near campuses. If the VP doesn't bring it to the college security office's attention, they don't have a record of it, so they can't report it, so they avoid the scandal and they don't jeopordize their eligibility for federal student financial aid programs.

There's more than one reason this whole thing got covered up for so long.....well, maybe not, it all boils back down to money in the end....just not all of it was athletic funds......

@uchusky

He didn't report it to campus police......at least they don't have a record of it.....neither does State College PD!!

Coverup anyone?

He did report it to the head of the campus police, who for whatever reason never filed a report. He couldn't report it to the State College police. They don't have jurisdiction. University Park is its own zip code, with its own municipal police department.

Paterno did NOT REPORT TO THE HEAD OF CAMPUS POLICE. He did not report it to the head of the State College police. He reported, by his own words in grand jury testimony, to Athletic Director Tim Curley - and he isn't sure if he reported it the same day or not because he didn't want to ruin his weekend. He stated he reported it "within the week".

That's character, all right.

He is under no obligation to testify. He doesn't have to PROVE his innocence. The prosecution has to PROVE his guilt.

Sandusky would have convinced the jury that he is indeed a pedophile. Watching Costas face during his interview was priceless...even he couldn't believe the answers 'Jer' was giving!

I have sat on a couple of juries. Throughout the trial, many of us were looking for the defense to give us that 'reasonable doubt'. Each of us even wrote out on our note pads what we needed to hear.

The defense in this case didn't counter or create serious question for each victim's testimony or all of the witness testimony presented by the prosecution. They dabbled at possibly leading a victim and attacked the reporter who suggested a private investigator to a parent of a victim. They spent alot of time on his 'character'. Did they give the jury enough to ease their queasy stomachs? I don't think so. I think they gave enough to hope for one hold out. We had a holdout on our jury...we were able to use logic and reason with that juror. We didn't tell them they were wrong...we wanted to know what we had wrong.

Logic and reason...if they can ever get over the EWWWW factor.

I've watched a lot of trials on CourtTV and TruTV over the years. Not many defendants testify

I almost understand why his wife did it. She (like him0 are from a generation that supports each other -- no matter what. And she from her point of view there is no way to concieve of her husband doing anythginh like the acts he is accused of. She can not undrstand or imagine it so it can not be true.

Totally agree, she should be out in jail as well

I think it is quite possible that she didn't know. How many times have you heard of stories of abuse & those closest to the accused have no idea? These perpetrators are quite good at hiding what they do - that's how they get away with it for so long.

How is he hiding anything if he is doing it in the home he "shares" with his wife? To be hiding, he would have to be doing his molesting away from his home. To do what he was doing to those boys had to take 30-60 minutes to put his moves on them. His wife had to be aware he was down in the basement for an excessive period of time. And if they were doing this "Help the Children" thing together, she would have had just as much active role in helping the kids that he had. So it's strange that she never came down into the basement with him to tuck a boy into bed that didn't require any tucking. And there should have been some young girls coming over to the house. Did he keep the doors to the bedroom locked so she couldn't witness anything? Or did she know, but didn't want to see what was going on?

I would love to see anyone try to conduct some activity in their home without their wives finding out about it.

Totally agree! There is NO way Dottie didn't know what was going on unless the woman is just totally stupid. She should also be charged as an accessory and do some jail time of her own.

BP the grape - Do you really think Sandusky said to his wife - "hey honey, come watch this". Men like this are usually good at hiding it. They wait until everyone else is asleep; or they wait until others aren't home; or they put distance between their "spot" and the rest of the people in their house. It's classic behavior.

Hey...he wanted to! His defense attorneys said no.

I am disappointed that he didn't take the stand. I firmly believe he would have fried himself up there. His interview with Bob Costas was pathetic and he appears as someone with not much going on between his ears! Any normal guy who was being accused of this molestation - and did not do it - would be angry and very upset about the whole matter. Sandusky sounds like he's talking about the weather or maybe deciding what he might have for lunch!!! Sorry, but I think he has a real mental problem and perhaps his wife does too. No way could she not have suspected that there were nasty things going on in their house! I'm the parent of a son who was molested as a young boy, and we did not find out until he was 30 years old. I'll bet there are way more young men out there who were molested by Sandusky but just didn't come forward. In fact, I'm sure of it!! This man is a disgusting, spineless predator who picks on little boys. What more can be said!

Mrs. Sandusky was under the impression that SHE ran the show for all of their marriage. This indicates she didn't have a clue. She has chosen to attack those who are attacking her perfect little world.

I agree. On top of that, she said that Jerry "was always the one who put the kids to sleep and say goodnight". Really? And they are saying he is too busy to do anything like that, well to me that statement his wife made shows that he did have the windows of opportunity to do such things. Also, I would like to know how long would Jerry would typically take to "say goodnight" to his victims? Wouldn't Dottie know if her husband is gone for a loooong time and assume that he was only saying goodnight?! *Sigh

Maybe in your make-believe, the-world-is-mean-to-men court room...but he isn't, is he? (Sorry some mean lady distorted your sense of reality...)

the FACT is these crimes are pretty much ignored if a women commits them. A slap on the wrist.

I will concede your point if we travel back in time 15-20 years. I couldn't name them all, but Mary Kay LaTourneau was not alone in being exposed as a pedophile. Things have changed dramatically regarding the culpability of women in these cases. A woman perpetrator was just un-heard of in the 1970's, even when factoring in the current 24-hour news/information age. (I think it will be practically impossible to change the fact that it's every 15-year old boy's fantasy...)

You don't hear much about them ... here's an article about one of them.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-state-scandal-mother-sanduskys-adopted-son-speaks/story?id=14970402#.T-ICxxee6aJ

the wife of one of his sons has accused him of molesting her son. She no longer allows him to have any contact with Sandusky. There is a criminal investigation being conducted.

Really! Surprise, surprise!

The Bob Costas interview was Amendola's idea though wasn't it? Costas was interviewing Amendola and Amendola suggested they give Jerry a call if I recall correctly......

So, you condone anal sex?

get a room you two...

Actually, I wont be surprised when I read about his sudden fatal heart attack or stroke. Perhaps he'll overdose himself on sleeping pills and alcohol. Yeah, suicide, that is more likely, unless the Team Doc drops by to administer an air bubble.

What business is it of yours if she does, Big Joe? You gonna try to tell us you never asked your wife or girlfriend for that before?

" You gonna try to tell us you never asked your wife or girlfriend for that before?"

If I said no, I'd be lying...

He wasn't charged with anything in 1998, so you can't legally hold it against him - Gricar said there was nothing to it.

What will really condemn Sandusky are the kids who reported him years ago only to have the school tell the kids that it didn't really happen so they could cover it up.

TheKhan - There was ONE kid who reported him. ONE. Not MANY. And it was not Penn State who said it didn't happen. It was the DA's office in 1998 & a high school in the 2000-something.