Sandusky/Penn State scandal

[MountieBoyOz]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

You unfortunately get the opposite side when you refer to the Syracuse investigation. It seems that all sides wanted to sweep it under the rug and not believe Bobby Davis. Jim Boeheim even called Davis a liar that was looking for money. It seems that the Onondaga County DA did think everything was credible. Now, you have a guy like Thomaselli saying he was abused and things don't add up. He said his own father doctored the attendance records to show that he was in school on that day was allegedly in Pittsburgh. These cases always bring up the absolute worst in people.

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

You unfortunately get the opposite side when you refer to the Syracuse investigation. It seems that all sides wanted to sweep it under the rug and not believe Bobby Davis. Jim Boeheim even called Davis a liar that was looking for money. It seems that the Onondaga County DA did think everything was credible. Now, you have a guy like Thomaselli saying he was abused and things don't add up. He said his own father doctored the attendance records to show that he was in school on that day was allegedly in Pittsburgh. These cases always bring up the absolute worst in people.

Candidly, I haven't been paying nearly the attention to the Syracuse case as I've paid to the Penn State case. In that, I think I'm about where the majority of us are. Although I agree with you, some of the claims here don't seem to add up. What we need to do (and all I have suggested) is that we get these cases before juries, where witnesses are under oath and cross examined, so we can figure out exactly what happened. I say again, allegations of child sexual abuse (particularly if boys are the victims) are charges that will frequently (usually?) cause staunch defenders of the rights of the accused to rethink their position. Let's just move right from accusation to punishment, leaving out that little step in the middle.

Remember a lady named Ellie Nesler? Her son had allegedly been sexually abused. And the alleged abuser was on trial. Nesler walked into the court room and assassinated the guy. In court. In front of the judge. And many Americans applauded and defended her actions. "After all, that guy had diddled her son". And she was therefore justified in doing it so he wouldn't "get away" with his crimes." Well, he was hardly "getting away" with anything, seeing that he'd been arrested, charged and was in court defending himself. And I assume even dim people can see that applying the "Nesler standard" of justice means we can just do away with courts and judges and juries. Plus, lots of innocent people are going to die. My point is that if the guy had killed her son, she would have had much less support from the public. Somehow sexually abusing the boy was seen as worse than killing him, thus she was far more deserving of sympathy and understanding of her actions. Even if they involved the planned, deliberate taking of the guy's life in open court. "It's the worst thing that could happen to a boy." Not even close.

Think back several years to the guy who was involved in a custody dispute with his ex over their young son. He was losing, so he attempted to kill the boy by setting him on fire. The boy didn't die. He was, however, horrifically disfigured. Burned over 90% of his body. Assuming he lives, he'll face a lifetime of pain, endless surgeries and endless stares from the public. Ask that boy if being sexually abused is the worst thing that could have happend to him.

http://50cases.freedomblogging.com/2...and-flees/749/

[Almington]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

It's a big part of why I got suspended. Guess I still haven't learned my lesson. Let's take another example. How many of us were absolutely, positively certain that SOMETHING had to have gone on at the McMartin day care center in LA? The hysteria surrounding that case, among other things, resulted in a 75-year old wheel chair bound lady being charged with multiple counts of child sexual abuse. Does that make any sense. . .at all? The twin mantras were: "Believe the children," and "children don't lie." No matter how bizarre or impossible the claims were (black jets, levitation, satanic rituals in tunnels underneath the school, abuse in churches, abuse in a grocery store, etc) those mantras were endlessly repeated. And after one of the longest, most expensive criminal trials ever, nobody was convicted of anything. Because nothing happened. For years after that case, parents and supporters dug around the school, looking for those tunnels. No luck. No tunnels. No abuse.

Just to clarify: Are you claiming that allegations of the sexual abuse of children are not serious and should not be fully and properly investigated?

What happened at PSU has 2 parts to it:
1.) What Sandusky may or may have done.
2.) What the people in authority at PSU may or may not have done.

The acts that Sandusky has allegedly committed are horrible, and if he is found guilty in a court of law he will be punished.

Most serial criminals do not continue to get away with crimes because they are masterminds who make no mistakes, but because people fail to put clues togeather in a way that directs them to take action that is obvious with hindsight. The 2nd issue with PSU is that it appears that people in a position of authority at PSU willfully choose to not INVESTIGATE allegations based on the evidence that they had at the time. No if those people actually committed any crimes is a question that will be settled in the court, but the general consensus is that those in power failed in their moral obligations to initiate a formal investigation of what occurred rather than attempt to protect the reputations of the PSU football program in general and Paternio specifically.

The major outrage isn't over what Sandusky may have done, but over what the PSU Administrators appear to have chosen NOT do and why they made that choice.

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

Just to clarify: Are you claiming that allegations of the sexual abuse of children are not serious and should not be fully and properly investigated?

What happened at PSU has 2 parts to it:
1.) What Sandusky may or may have done.
2.) What the people in authority at PSU may or may not have done.

The acts that Sandusky has allegedly committed are horrible, and if he is found guilty in a court of law he will be punished.

Most serial criminals do not continue to get away with crimes because they are masterminds who make no mistakes, but because people fail to put clues togeather in a way that directs them to take action that is obvious with hindsight. The 2nd issue with PSU is that it appears that people in a position of authority at PSU willfully choose to not INVESTIGATE allegations based on the evidence that they had at the time. No if those people actually committed any crimes is a question that will be settled in the court, but the general consensus is that those in power failed in their moral obligations to initiate a formal investigation of what occurred rather than attempt to protect the reputations of the PSU football program in general and Paternio specifically.

The major outrage isn't over what Sandusky may have done, but over what the PSU Administrators appear to have chosen NOT do and why they made that choice.

No fair reading of any of my posts on this subject would suggest I don't take sexual abuse charges seriously. Therefore, you're being unfair to suggest otherwise. Is it your position that the McMartin case was "properly" investigated? Notwithstanding investigative and prosecutorial misconduct that would embarrass Roland Freisler. But you are hardly unique on this thread. The balance of your post proves you have a firm grasp of the obvious. Fortunately, "general consensus" is not the standard we apply in criminal cases.

[Almington]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

No fair reading of any of my posts on this subject would suggest I don't take sexual abuse charges seriously. Therefore, you're being unfair to suggest otherwise. But you are hardly unique on this thread. And your post goes a long way toward proving the points I've been making. The balance of your post proves you have a firm grasp of the obvious. Fortunately, "general consensus" is not the standard we apply in criminal cases.

I just wanted a clarification. You cite examples were people jumped to conclusions based on allegations alone and the subsequent investigation found nothing. It's easy to read a statement like:

And after one of the longest, most expensive criminal trials ever, nobody was convicted of anything. Because nothing happened. For years after that case, parents and supporters dug around the school, looking for those tunnels. No luck. No tunnels. No abuse.

and get the impression that you don't think that investigations are worth the cost or that allegations should be seriously investigated. I (and I suspect that many others here are also) have only the vaguest recollections (if any) of the case that you are talking about, thus my interpretation isn't going to be able to compare what you said with that event.

I wasn't talking about general consensus with regards to a criminal case, only to meeting a standard of moral obligation that exists in civilized society.

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

I just wanted a clarification. You cite examples were people jumped to conclusions based on allegations alone and the subsequent investigation found nothing. It's easy to read a statement like:

and get the impression that you don't think that investigations are worth the cost or that allegations should be seriously investigated.

I wasn't talking about general consensus with regards to a criminal case, only to meeting a standard of moral obligation that exists in civilized society.

You're free to imagine anything you chose. My suggestion? Apply the first rule of holes. I'd also suggest reading up on the day care prosecutions of the 80's and 90's: McMartin, Fells Acres, Little Rascals, Wenatchee, et al. These aren't simply cases where good faith prosecutions were brought against innocent people. They are cases of a legal system gone mad. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ won a Pulitzer for her reporting.

[Almington]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

You're free to imagine anything you chose. My suggestion? Apply the first rule of holes. I'd also suggest reading up on the day care prosecutions of the 80's and 90's: McMartin, Fells Acres, Little Rascals, Wenatchee, et al. These aren't simply cases where good faith prosecutions were brought against innocent people. They are cases of a legal system gone mad. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ won a Pulitzer for her reporting.

You need to remember that many posters on these boards were either very young or not yet born when most of those incidents happened. We all don't have the same experience or fascination with child sex abuse scandals as you do.

[SJHovey]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

It's a big part of why I got suspended. Guess I still haven't learned my lesson. Let's take another example. How many of us were absolutely, positively certain that SOMETHING had to have gone on at the McMartin day care center in LA? The hysteria surrounding that case, among other things, resulted in a 75-year old wheel chair bound lady being charged with multiple counts of child sexual abuse. Does that make any sense. . .at all? The twin mantras were: "Believe the children," and "children don't lie." No matter how bizarre or impossible the claims were (black jets, levitation, satanic rituals in tunnels underneath the school, abuse in churches, abuse in a grocery store, etc) those mantras were endlessly repeated. And after one of the longest, most expensive criminal trials ever, nobody was convicted of anything. Because nothing happened. For years after that case, parents and supporters dug around the school, looking for those tunnels. No luck. No tunnels. No abuse.

As I recall, there was a very similar case, with a similar outcome in the small town of Jordan, MN at about the same time. A big witch hunt that ended up destroying quite a few lives, without any convictions as I recall.

Anyone who thinks Jerry Sandusky will automatically be found guilty is fooling themselves. Rape and molestation cases are hard enough to prove when they happened a few hours or days ago, let alone years ago.

To me, there will be a couple of keys to the prosecution of Sandusky that might possibly separate it from cases like the McMartin pre-school case or the case in Jordan.

First, cases like McMartin and Jordan follow a similar track. They usually involve very young children. It's usually an adult who first suspects and reports the abuse, and usually someone who is very close to the child (like a parent). The police, or an agency working for them, interview the children, and this is where it get's very dicey. As anyone who has questioned a small child knows, it isn't always easy to ascertain the truth, and it's very easy to manipulate the truth.

If Sandusky differs at all from some of these other cases, it might be in the supposed "independent witnesses" who allegedly saw the activities with their own eyes. You also have children who are a little older, in most cases.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

You need to remember that many posters on these boards were either very young or not yet born when most of those incidents happened. We all don't have the same experience or fascination with child sex abuse scandals as you do.

Ignorance is no defense. And passive/aggressive snarks about my "fascination" with child sex abuse "scandals" reveal more about you than me, don't you think?

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

As I recall, there was a very similar case, with a similar outcome in the small town of Jordan, MN at about the same time. A big witch hunt that ended up destroying quite a few lives, without any convictions as I recall.

Anyone who thinks Jerry Sandusky will automatically be found guilty is fooling themselves. Rape and molestation cases are hard enough to prove when they happened a few hours or days ago, let alone years ago.

To me, there will be a couple of keys to the prosecution of Sandusky that might possibly separate it from cases like the McMartin pre-school case or the case in Jordan.

First, cases like McMartin and Jordan follow a similar track. They usually involve very young children. It's usually an adult who first suspects and reports the abuse, and usually someone who is very close to the child (like a parent). The police, or an agency working for them, interview the children, and this is where it get's very dicey. As anyone who has questioned a small child knows, it isn't always easy to ascertain the truth, and it's very easy to manipulate the truth.

If Sandusky differs at all from some of these other cases, it might be in the supposed "independent witnesses" who allegedly saw the activities with their own eyes. You also have children who are a little older, in most cases.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Correct. And frequently the parent who comes forward had some beef with the daycare, unrelated to sexual abuse. In McMartin, the parent who first complained turned out to be severely mentally ill and was fully in the Twilight zone. She ultimately drank herself to death, literally. You raise a key point: advocates repeatedly insist that "kids don't lie." Well, if you mean intentionally telling an untruth, probably not. But kids are highly suggestible. I recall a segment on "20/20" where a little kid was questioned about the time his big brother broke his arm (he had not). After initially denying his brother got hurt, the kid came around to believing his brother was injured AND BEGAN TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THIS IMAGINARY INJURY. "My mother was crying, my brother didn't cry, my dad drove us to the hospital, etc." Not a single word of it was true.

Repeated questioning, badgering, and cajoling of children can get them to say just about whatever the adult wants them to say. Anatomically correct dolls, agenda driven so-called "therapists" with questionable credentials, who imagine themselves at ground zero of huge abuse cases and have visions of best sellers dancing in their heads, credulous prosecutors and cops who were evidently willing to believe anything, no matter how fantastic, all played their part. And even as the descriptions of what occurred tended to become more elaborate and impossible to believe, nobody noticed or cared.

These cases are not directly analogous. I'm only pointing to the moral panic that child sexual abuse charges raise in otherwise sensible, fair minded people.

You mention witnesses. An important aspect of successful prosecutions. In the day care prosecutions, the abuse allegedly involved many perpetrators and dozens of victims over long periods of time. Yet nobody saw anything, in a place of business, with parents coming and going all the time.

In McMartin, the cops actually sent letters to parents, advising them of the alleged abuse and suggesting that they (the parents!) question the kids. So mom and dad invite the kid into the living room and they have "that look" on their faces. They assure the kid he isn't in any trouble. Instinctively he knows he IS in trouble, because the only time they talk to him that way is when he's done something wrong.

They ask the question: "Did Mr. Bob touch your doop?" The kid says "no". They ask the question again. Again, the kid says "no". At some point the helpful parents point out that Jimmy says Mr. Bob touched HIS doop and you don't want to be the only one saying "no" do you? So the kid figures "no" isn't working too well, let's try "yes". And what do you know: praise, strokes, hugs and cookies ensue. So "yes" it is. And just to make sure he isn't unfavorably compared to Jimmy anymore, the kid adds some details. It's as easy as pie.

[Twitch Boy]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

Oh Lordy.

You know, I'm buying the "screw up as much as possible so Sandusky can appeal on incompetence of counsel" theory more and more. This Amendola guy might be dumb as a fox.

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

Oh Lordy.

You know, I'm buying the "screw up as much as possible so Sandusky can appeal on incompetence of counsel" theory more and more. This Amendola guy might be dumb as a fox.

As SJHovey pointed out, this prosecution may be very difficult. Especially now that there are reports McQueasy is saying he didn't actually "see" anything. He "heard" sexual sounds. Assuming that's how he's going to testify, that would seem to complicate matters a bit.

[unofan]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

advocates repeatedly insist that "kids don't lie." Well, if you mean intentionally telling an untruth, probably not. But kids are highly suggestible. I recall a segment on "20/20" where a little kid was questioned about the time his big brother broke his arm (he had not). After initially denying his brother got hurt, the kid came around to believing his brother was injured AND BEGAN TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THIS IMAGINARY INJURY. "My mother was crying, my brother didn't cry, my dad drove us to the hospital, etc." Not a single word of it was true.

Oh horse hockey, kids intentionally lie all the freaking time. Anyone who says "children don't lie" is either lying themselves or a naive idiot. If anything, children are probably more likely to lie than adults, frankly. Adults are better at telling half-truths, lies of omission, and steering conversations in ways so they don't have to tell a lie. Children will respond to a direct question with a bold faced lie.

That said, they usually have a reason for doing so, and more often than not it's either due to pressure from others or to prevent themselves from getting in trouble. I guess when we're talking about people who were 10-15 at the time and are now in their late teens or 20's (or older)...I'm not seeing the parental persuasion part. And outside of the financial motive which is present in any case like this, I'm not seeing the self-motive; none of these people would've been in personal trouble

[Old Pio]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

Oh horse hockey, kids intentionally lie all the freaking time. Anyone who says "children don't lie" is either lying themselves or a naive idiot. If anything, children are probably more likely to lie than adults, frankly. Adults are better at telling half-truths, lies of omission, and steering conversations in ways so they don't have to tell a lie. Children will respond to a direct question with a bold faced lie.

That said, they usually have a reason for doing so, and more often than not it's either due to pressure from others or to prevent themselves from getting in trouble. I guess when we're talking about people who were 10-15 at the time and are now in their late teens or 20's (or older)...I'm not seeing the parental persuasion part. And outside of the financial motive which is present in any case like this, I'm not seeing the self-motive; none of these people would've been in personal trouble

Well, which is it? Did the McMartin kids lie or not? And how do you define lie? The McMartin children were much younger, this was a pre-school. Much has been learned since that and similar episodes. I recall seeing a McMartin "victim" on the tube. He was by then 17 or 18. Nice looking kid. Articulate. And he spun a horrific yarn about what had happened to him. But he had not been called at the criminal trials. Why? Because his narrative also included flights in black jets, satanic rituals in tunnels underneath the school, blood sacrifices and on and on. And that's the pattern in these day care cases: the stories told by the kids tend to become more elaborate and impossible to believe. Prosecutors claim THIS part of the story is true, THAT part doesn't matter.

One of these hysterical prosecutions was in MA involving the Fells Acres day care. Among the allegations: that a "victim" had had a butcher's knife inserted in his rectum (which mysteriously left no scars) and another had been tied to a tree and sexually assaulted outside the day care in broad daylight. These kinds of allegations and worse, were quite common in these cases.

The phenomenon I described earlier, where kids initially deny they were abused, then come around to "admitting" it while providing lurid, impossible details is (now) well understood. And has been discussed in articles, books and movies. Child advocates explain away "victims" denying they've been abused by claiming an abused kid naturally would deny such horrific abuse. Trouble is, a kid who HADN'T been abused would similarly deny it. So we have an absence of evidence situation.

Another of these big cases occurred at the Little Rascals day care in Edenton, North Carolina. Local therapists found dozens of kids had been "abused," applying the customary coercive techniques (kids quickly learn the "correct" responses and will provide them in order to get the h*ll out of the room). Many of the kids and their families had moved out of town. And after local authorities notified them their kids had been "abused," their parents naturally took them to shrinks in their new communities. Funniest thing, the out of town therapists determined none of these kids had been "abused." Therapists, who presumably came to those diagnoses with no prejudices. Hmmmm, but the local shrinks found plenty of abuse.

In a Front Line documentary on Little Rascals I recall an interview with a woman who worked there (who was not accused) and whose son was allegedly abused. She looked at the camera and said: "I don't understand how all of that abuse could have happened, I was there every day." Exactly. Perhaps a timely application of Occam's Razor was called for.

As to your "reason" for kids providing untrue recollections of alleged abuse, part of it is the coercive, repeatitive interviews by "social workers" and other amateurs. In the case of kids questioned by their parents, I believe the experts will now say parents are the worst possible people to question a kid about these matters. These kids have their memories altered. They actually think the bizarre stories they're telling are true. All of it: the abuse, the sacrifices, the tunnels, the black jets, abuse in places of business and churches, all of it. Parents especially will make it clear to kids what the desired answers are (perhaps unintentionally) and the kids, over time, begin to provide those answers after initially denying anything had happened. There's nothing a kid wants to do more than please his parents.

We had a genuine moral panic in this country that lasted for years and ruined the lives of dozens of people who had committed no crimes. Think about the basic premise of these cases: you had "nests" of peodphiles infesting day care centers, abusing numerous kids, day after day, for years--and nobody saw anything. Parents coming and going, dropping off and picking up kids, prospective customers dropping by to take a tour, state and city inspectors occasionally showing up unannounced, plus normal delivery people stopping by. And yet, nobody saw anything. Is that even a little credible?

In Wenatchee, WA a cop by the name of Bob Perez rotated into sex crimes (they didn't have SVU types) and shortly thereafter his troubled foster daughter began to make lurid allegations about sexual abuse. She took her father on what came to be known as the "Sexual Abuse Tour of Homes," during which she literallly pointed to homes where she claimed she and others had been abused. Prosecutions were brought against totally innocent people, who were eventually found to have done nothing at all.

Nobody (including me) wants a pedophile to get away with his crimes. However, none of us should be supportive of ignorant, fearful, superstitious, headline grabbing, voter impressing, moral panic prosecutions either. Interestingly, after dozens of these prosecutions in the 80's and 90's we don't see them anymore. I wonder why.

[unofan]

Re: Sandusky/Penn State scandal

I'm agreeing with you to the extent that children (and anyone else with diminished mental capability) can be manipulated. Especially given prolonged interrogation or through the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

I'm disagreeing with your assertion, and that of certain advocates, that kids don't intentionally lie. That's pure bull ****. Not only will kids lie, but they'll do so more often than adults.

And I was referring to Sandusky's accusers and what the hell they have to gain out of all this. While I've read a bit about the whole day care satanic cult thing, I don't exactly know every detail about it off the top of my head, since it happened well before my time.