Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**jaxx** · 12-07-2011, 12:54 PM

Martin Bashir

...meanwhile, former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky rearrested on new child sex charges...

Official PA attorney general release:

HARRISBURG - Agents from the Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Pennsylvania State Police today filed new criminal charges against Gerald A. "Jerry" Sandusky, age 67, of 130 Grandview Road, State College, as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation into alleged sexual assaults of children.
"Today's criminal charges were recommended by a statewide investigating grand jury, based on evidence and testimony that was received following the initial arrest of Sandusky on November 5th," Kelly said. "At that time, Sandusky was charged with sexually assaulting eight victims, all of whom first encountered Sandusky as children through The Second Mile, a organization that he founded to operate programs for disadvantaged young people."
Kelly said these latest criminal charges come following grand jury testimony from two additional young men, identified as Victim 9 and Victim 10, who were allegedly targeted by Sandusky when they were children.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4...7358063295

There is a lot more at Bashir's facebook page. Wasn't sure if I could post it all even though it's a release.

**jaxx** · 12-07-2011, 01:13 PM

For those without facebook....

Sandusky rearrested in Pennsylvania
Wed Dec 7, 2011 1:41 PM EST

<..> Pennsylvania authorities filed new criminal charges against Sandusky, 67, according to a release from the Attorney General's criminal investigation bureau.

<..> Attorney General Linda Kelly said these latest criminal charges come following grand jury testimony from two additional young men, identified as Victim 9 and Victim 10, who were allegedly targeted by Sandusky when they were children.

"As in many of the other cases identified to date, the contact with Sandusky allegedly fit a pattern of 'grooming' victims," Kelly said, "Beginning with outings to football games and gifts; they later included physical contact that escalated to sexual assaults."

<..> When asked if he had comment, Sandusky didn't respond.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/1...nnsylvania

**nativesmith** · 12-07-2011, 09:37 PM

I sincerely hope that all those involved in covering this up are made to pay. I'd like to see the football program suspended for at least a year.

**janedrake** · 12-08-2011, 02:02 AM

I was glad to hear it looks like he will not be able to make bail, and is in jail. If he gets out, he will at least be under house arrest. Every time I see him, I can't help but think, this is the face of a man who rapes children. And so many adults knew it, and did nothing. I thought the first grand jury report was bad. The second one is even more awful, if that's possible. How did the wife not know? Didn't she ever wonder why her husband insisted that all those boys stay in the basement???? And why he spent so much time down there ALONE with them? She had to know... in the second grand jury report the victim says he was in the basement screaming for help because he knew the wife was upstairs... and no help appeared. A seemingly common theme in this series of sickening crimes. (I understand Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty, but with more than one eyewitness to his advances and assaults, the evidence of his guilt is pretty compelling at this point).

**nativesmith** · 12-09-2011, 08:19 PM

Maybe his wife knew the things happening all along

***azmouse*** · 12-10-2011, 10:39 AM

(12-09-2011 08:19 PM)nativesmith Wrote: Maybe his wife knew the things happening all along

It's really looking that way. With the number of young boys involved, it would be hard to believe she didn't have some clue what her husband was doing.

**jaxx** · 12-10-2011, 10:49 AM

I saw an article yesterday that said the wife denies any knowledge of the incidents. Her husband is a wonderful man.

Uh huh.

**Treestar** · 12-10-2011, 12:09 PM

People really can delude themselves. The wife likely has herself convinced.

**nativesmith** · 12-12-2011, 02:19 AM

(12-10-2011 12:09 PM)Treestar Wrote: People really can delude themselves. The wife likely has herself convinced.

Exactly, shes living a lie

**JuniperLea** · 12-12-2011, 01:46 PM

A good friend of mine is a Penn State Alumni, and she is very involved with the Alumni Association. I've not mentioned any of this to her the past few times I've seen her, but I see she's starting to make excuses for JoePa and others on facebook... so sad. She's really intelligent, and a very nice person. That she is blinded by her involvement with Penn State is scary to me.

**jaxx** · 12-12-2011, 01:51 PM

(12-12-2011 01:46 PM)JuniperLea Wrote: A good friend of mine is a Penn State Alumni, and she is very involved with the Alumni Association. I've not mentioned any of this to her the past few times I've seen her, but I see she's starting to make excuses for JoePa and others on facebook... so sad. She's really intelligent, and a very nice person. That she is blinded by her involvement with Penn State is scary to me.

That is sad. Allegiance to the school instead of the wronged kids.

**JuniperLea** · 12-12-2011, 02:07 PM

(12-12-2011 01:51 PM)jaxx Wrote:
(12-12-2011 01:46 PM)JuniperLea Wrote: A good friend of mine is a Penn State Alumni, and she is very involved with the Alumni Association. I've not mentioned any of this to her the past few times I've seen her, but I see she's starting to make excuses for JoePa and others on facebook... so sad. She's really intelligent, and a very nice person. That she is blinded by her involvement with Penn State is scary to me.

That is sad. Allegiance to the school instead of the wronged kids.

Yep, very sad indeed. She also defended McQueary by saying that non of us know how we would react to seeing a young boy mistreated in that situation. To which many of us said, oh hell yeah we know how we'd react! It's painful to watch otherwise intelligent people show how external factions can cause us to miss the main issue to the degree of actually defending people who should be in jail for compliance with sexual child abuse.

**jaxx** · 12-12-2011, 02:09 PM

(12-12-2011 02:07 PM)JuniperLea Wrote:
(12-12-2011 01:51 PM)jaxx Wrote: That is sad. Allegiance to the school instead of the wronged kids.

Yep, very sad indeed. She also defended McQueary by saying that non of us know how we would react to seeing a young boy mistreated in that situation. To which many of us said, oh hell yeah we know how we'd react! It's painful to watch otherwise intelligent people show how external factions can cause us to miss the main issue to the degree of actually defending people who should be in jail for compliance with sexual child abuse.

Walking away and leaving that boy with Sandusky is unforgivable.

**JuniperLea** · 12-12-2011, 02:15 PM

(12-12-2011 02:09 PM)jaxx Wrote:
(12-12-2011 02:07 PM)JuniperLea Wrote: Yep, very sad indeed. She also defended McQueary by saying that non of us know how we would react to seeing a young boy mistreated in that situation. To which many of us said, oh hell yeah we know how we'd react! It's painful to watch otherwise intelligent people show how external factions can cause us to miss the main issue to the degree of actually defending people who should be in jail for compliance with sexual child abuse.

Walking away and leaving that boy with Sandusky is unforgivable.

That's what I said. I would have made so much noise! I would have taken that child and marched him to the nearest police station. I have no doubt that the adrenalin surging through my veins would have been sufficient to blast right past Sandusky and anyone else who tried to stop me. Cell phone, 911, pictures... whatever it took. To leave a child under those circumstances without at least going to the authorities and reporting it, is being part of the enablers who let this happen so many times over the years. Even if the guy was afraid of Sandusky, he should have gone to the cops and not ever let them rest until something was done. There were many right choices to choose from that day.

**RoyGBiv** · 12-12-2011, 03:22 PM

(12-12-2011 02:15 PM)JuniperLea Wrote: There were many right choices to choose from that day.

That's a very good way to put it.

A lot of the apologists for this do make the claim that "none of us knows how we would react" and then go one to assume the only way to react was direct intervention, i.e. running in there and pounding Sandusky into a bloody pulp. The idea is that this is an extension of the truism that we're never quite sure how we'll react in a "fight, flight, or freeze" situation. The fallacy of this is that this was not such a situation for the *observer*. The child was the one in the situation that is most commonly associated with this. When assaulted, you can't say, "Well, I would have ..." done something to prevent the assault.

But, for the observer, this was not such a situation. It might be too much to expect someone to see what was happening and instantly turn into a superhero to make it stop. However, as you say, there were a lot of "right" choices that could have been made, most of which did not mean physical intervention. Somehow, every single person involved manage to avoid every right choice that could have been made and sought out the wrong ones.