I know this story is upsetting to all of us and if this guy was in the wrong I hope he gets his due, but I hate all the speculation we go thru with every single horror story that hits the news. It reminds me of public lynching.

This may just be the story of the moment but we all know next week something else will take it's place. I've had enough with the news exploiting stories like this and have stopped speculating. Can't we just wait to see what happens in the investigation and pray that these victims will get justice?

We don't know if he did call the police or not, but doesn't he deserve the benefit of the doubt if he's saying that? In light of all the threats he's received, who knows what advise he's getting and why he didn't say something sooner? Or maybe he did and it was conveniently overlooked by the police? And contrary to the belief of the media, just because there is no record of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Life back then was very different from what it is now, records and documentation are lost all the time through negligence, interference or even computer mishaps, even a simple conversion from one system to the next can loose data forever. Truth be told, my initial reaction would trust his word before the authorities that need to cover their arces from public reprimand. Also as I heard someone on TV say earlier, that case where the owners of a preschool were falsely accused of molesting kids, was in the news at about the same time. Who knows what people were thinking back then. I love how easy it is for the media to critique these situations now when a lot of the deciding factors from back then are no longer in play.

Lukkiirish..."Life back then"???? We're talking 2002 here, not 1908.

Something stinks.

this took place from the mid 90's to now. 2002 is still 10 years ago...a lot changes now in 10 years.

And yes, I agree, it all stinks.

Careful Lukki, I was accused of being on the defense team for Sandusky who I barely discussed at all (and think is guilty) because I said people should separate complete stupidity from criminality--by the usual idiots who can't follow anyone else's train of thought. Benefit of the doubt? That's a dangerous notion in this forum.

On the other hand if McQueary is starting to lie and backpedal about what he actually did do, he is even more stupid than I thought. And yet another screw up that the defense could use to question his credibility and get Sandusky, the real villain, some reasonable doubt.

Pal, you're way out of line.

I was told I should be on Sandusky's defense team. That was out of line.

Yes, benefit of the doubt, thank you Pal. I'm so sick of the public lynchings; whatever happened to due process?

I agree, if he is lying he's a fool, but we don't know what's happening behind the scenes and people are making their opinions based on what a media that is not at all deserving of our trust is saying.

And I wasn't talking about you Natal, but come to think of it that vague comment about "what people are hiding" insinuated if they didn't agree with you that perhaps they were pedophiles? Is that what you meant they were hiding?

Oh CRAP!!! I didn't know that the other thread had a huge bickering debate going on. GEEEZE!!!!

Haha, And you missed it, lukk!

I don't understand why Sandusky's lawyers allowed him to do that interview. From what I have read and heard, his responses were classic pedophile speak.

My concern, and it always has been is that all the media attention to the other players in this whole mess is deflecting from Sandusky, who imo is guilty even giving him the benefit of the doubt, and that some defense lawyer is going to work every angle regarding what everyone else did or did not do, and undermine the credibility of McQueary and all the rest as witnesses for the prosecution.

I was told I should be on Sandusky's defense team. That was out of line.

You insulted multiple people multiple times on that thread, Pal. Funny how you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Pal, no that's not what I meant. Interesting that you would assume that.

And I'm fully aware who you were insulting. That's not even allowed on Hot Topics. Although you would get a more of a pass. Maybe you should take it there.

I can take it, I am not complaining. But no one seems to point it out when you do it, and I don't need people to rush to my support either. I said NOTHING in defense of Sandusky, so that statement was just ridiculous and made to provoke.

And Natal, what did you mean because I must have read that remark in a way that it was not intended. Whose faces behind what remarks were hiding what?

And Natal I should not have been so sarcastic when you said you would have called the police, but I was never arguing that that was NOT the right thing to do. But to place McQueary who seems to lack common sense equal to a pedophile just seems wrong to me and not keeping the individual actions separate could weaken the case against Sandusky.

"....because I said people should separate complete stupidity from criminality--by the usual idiots who can't follow anyone else's train of thought. Benefit of the doubt? That's a dangerous notion in this forum."

I think this is nasty, insulting and unwarranted. There is certainly room for disagreement and spirited discussion but calling people who disagree with you idiots is unacceptable IMO.

Please include in the quote the entire quote where I said I was accused of defending a pedophile.

I am not talking about the individuals who disagreed with me many aspects of the case. I am talking about specifically being accused of supporting a pedophile. There was absolutely no basis in ANY argument that I made supporting Sandusky in any way and that remark was made solely to provoke and insult

Still you are right, it was nasty, but so is saying that I support a pedophile. But I am NOT including people who had differences of opinion, only the individuals who accused me of supporting a pedophile.

And please, this thread is about something else.

Yes, I was nasty and called some individuals, (not everybody) who disagreed with me idiots.I should not stoop to that. But I was also called stupid (with a clever crossout), illogical, reprehensible, and accused of being on the side of a pedophile. Those aren't insults? Especially when I said NOTHING that could be construed in support of Sandusky at all. So I responded in kind. I should not be baited into that, and apologize for that Reaction.

But this thread is supposed to be about something else.

palimp, I'm not going to get involved one way or another about the PENN STATE debate here, BUT, I wil come to your defense and while I was reading the previous post, those mentioned were calling you names, etc.

You are right, for some reason, people think that Natal is GOD around here, and even if they disagree, they don't stand up to her. Gotta give her Kudos for that though, she's good! Oakley said it correctly when she said Natal doesn't comment much about a post, but can sure make "one-liner" snarky comments to others.

Olliesmom, maybe you need to reread part 1. I wasn't the one being nasty and insulting. As to the rest of your post, have no idea what you're talking about except that you have a history of aligning with Oakley whenever she doesn't agree with something.

What do you call nasty and insulting then??? Boy, I'd hate to hear what YOU call nasty and insulting! I gave up defending you against Oakley a long time ago, she's a big girl, I just happen to agree with her on that part, AND she is one of the few who call you out. I don't just see it with Oakley, but she does seem to be your target most of the time.

And, funny how you picked up on only Oakley.

I think we are all in desperate need of a group hug. I've been feeling the crappy vibe whenever I come over to this side, and I'm not saying that I didn't contribute to it or further it along - I'm just saying I'm sick of it.

In light of the upcoming holiday season and the whole "peace on earth, goodwill to wo/men" thing, I'm all for turning this around and really attempting to treat one another with respect and dignity. (Even if we don't agree.)

agree, jen. I felt like I should say something since I was the thread poster, but I didn't know what to say!(Plus, I'm newish, and I don't know the histories) Thank you.

That's nice and level-headed of you, Auntjen. I really don't understand the point of bickering. Expressing opposing views, sure! Bickering and nastiness...why?

Nance, it seems you've been around here forever! You do start a lot of threads, so maybe that's why. You have a gift for coming up with conversation starters...that's for sure. You must be a wonderful hostess when you entertain!

SG, you're always so nice to me! Thank you. I was hoping you would chime in on this thread. You're always a voice of reason and kindness.

lukk, I had read an article on Sprot's Illustrated written by a lawyer. One thing I found interesting was his point that what we know of McQ actions is what was stated in the grand-jury testimony and that testimony was likely a reflection of the questions asked of him, they were framed and the focus of those questions was Sandusky, not McQ.

I liked what Peter King has said in his football columns, it is simply to soon to make a reasoned assessment of the secondary players in this. Everything we know right now has been shaped by the media's handling of this story and is too early to crucify the secondary players. McQ may be a coward but we likely do not have all of the information right now.

As far as Sanduksy, well, my opinions are probably not fit for print.

tish, that is interesting, thanks for sharing. I think you understand the point I was trying to make and I appreciate that!

I'm with you my opinions about Sandusky aren't fit for print either, but my prayers go out to the victims and their families.

I think that if everyone would take a deep breath and not take every post so personal - even if there was a snarky comnent here or there. If you don't agree with what someone posted, state your reason, but let the discussion continue. Posting comments about the logic of another's post is really infringing on free speech in my opinion. So I guess I'll annoy some of you by saying that but really, it's not that important who's right - it's a discussion.

Anyways, to get back on topic, I think, and I may be wrong, but I think McQueary is referring to the administrator who's in charge of the Penn State police when he says he told the police. So, no I don't believe he called 911 and had a conversation with the police department in State College, but he probably feels he "notified" the police with whom he did talk too.

Carol, you're comment about the School Police vs calling 911 brings up a question because wouldn't they be one in the same? One of the two women who found Elizabeth Smart and rescued her from her kidnapper worked w/in the School Police department. Watching interviews at the time, I just assumed they were one in the same now I wonder if that's true.

I work at a university. We have campus police but there is also city police and Sheriff's Office (county). Being as our school is in the city, if 911 was called, I believe the call center would alert city police. Calling 911 would also bring in the fire department or first responders, if there was a need (medical).

We do have a campus emergency number, which goes to campus police. Personally, for something as serious as rape, I would want city police vs. campus police.

tina

tina

Thanks for clarifying Tina, but that creates another question for me, if you call the campus police about an issue (even something less severe than a rape) but still illegal, aren't they required to call authorities anyways?

Certainly for something serious, I'm not sure about less serious issues. I think they handle things like DUI, brawls (many times involving drinking), traffic violations on their own. Not sure where the line is drawn . . .

Well thanks for clarifying again. :c)

another thing that seems odd (and I know this is speculating) is... how could Sandusky's wife not have known? She had to have known. He was allegedly being inappropriate with kids in a basement bedroom. She must have been in denial.

Hey all! It's been awhile since I've been on but I have been absolutely sick about this. I usually don't follow the news because I like to shield my brain from the negativity but somehow the details have been so revolting I want to make sure it's followed through.

It's refreshing to come here to get a good discussion of the issues. I'm sorry there has been so much controversy between GW'ers. The only silver lining in all of this, media circus included, is that hopefully people will start speaking up more about sex abuse. Isn't it hard enough for two grown adults to get together without having horrific baggage from a childhood incident burned into the mind? Now...who wants to talk about Occupy Wall Street...(dare I) lol?

Here in Columbus, the Ohio State campus police take care of anything that happens on campus grounds - and I think the Columbus police get called in if its something really serious - which a rape would be. But, I think where the ball was dropped was the administrator (can't remember his name)who is over the campus police was called into the meeting - but he never did anything with the information so no charges were ever filed - I believe that is why he was fired.

When you are on a college campus the size of Ohio State or Penn State - they're actually mini cities so campus police are "real" police officers with guns etc. Penn State police should have been involved, questioning etc. at a minimum and that didn't even happen.

I've never posted over in conversations before, but I did want to chime in to add that I've read that cover-ups of campus rape are not a new thing and that this is a major problem with many colleges trying to handle proceedings quietly "in-house" so as not to get a bad reputation, upset alums and parents, etc. While this Penn State story is making headlines because it involves kids, a school's closing ranks to protect its reputation in the face of sexual assault is not a novel or unfortunately unusual occurrence:

USA Today Report on colleges covering up rapes

Rape (especially date rape), attempted rape, attempted suicide and various types of assault were all silenced and dealt with internally on my college campus. I can't imagine it has changed completely.

My nephew was accepted into the Second Mile program at Penn State. My sister did not have a good vibe from it for some reason so she kept my nephew out of it and was given a lot of ---- over it for some reason, and pressured by some people to put him in.

I actually couldn't remember whether he did it or not. This may explain my agitation in the forum, but I did not want to bring it up, really. I am glad that he did not do the program, he already has enough problems.

I'm glad to hear that your nephew escaped this program (needless to say). Very interesting that your sister got a bad vibe from it.