After the second day of testimony in the Jerry Sandusky trial, there are a couple things that are crystal clear to me. The first is that if this guy had an ounce of courage he would blow his fucking brains out. He is one of the most despicable human beings to ever inhabit this planet. And he shows absolutely no remorse for destroying the lives of dozens of young boys. When he is convicted he MUST be put into the general prison population so gets to experience the same pleasure he dished out.

The second thing that is crystal clear to me is that there are at least 10 other Penn State administrators/coaches/police that should also go to jail for these crimes. I see this criminal conspiracy exactly like the Catholic church priest abuse scandal. Anyone at Penn State that knew Sandusky was a child molestor and did nothing to stop him is as guilty as Sandusky and must go to jail. Paterno knew. McQueary knew. The President knew. The athletic director knew. Assistant coaches knew. The head of police knew. They are all guilty. They aided in the destruction of the lives of dozens of innocent boys. They did it to protect the reputation and wealth of Penn State. They did it because they thought their power and wealth was more important than the lives of little boys.

None of their lame excuses and alibis pass the smell test. These MEN are guilty. Not one woman has been implicated in the coverup. Do you think if there were a few women in positions of power at Penn State, they would have covered up the raping of little boys by a monster? This entire episode is a disgusting example of powerful men protecting other powerful men at all costs. It happens every day. It happens on Wall Street. It happens in Washington DC. It happens in the Vatican. It is a cancer that will kill our nation and the world.  

Assistant McQueary takes stand in Sandusky case


BELLEFONTE, Pa. — Former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary told jurors in Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse trial Tuesday that he saw his ex-colleague with a prepubescent boy in an on-campus shower and that he that he heard “skin-on-skin smacking sound.”

His account of the night differed little from his appearance in December at a preliminary hearing for Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. The one difference: He said the shower encounter took place in 2001 instead of 2002.

But the effect of what he saw, and heard, was unchanged, he said, responding to questions from Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph McGettigan.

Sandusky is on trial on 52 criminal counts related to the alleged assaults of 10 boys during a 15-year period. Authorities alleged Sandusky abused boys at his home and inside the football team’s on-campus facilities among other places.

McQueary told the jury that he was at home, in bed, watching the film “Rudy,” when he decided to go to the football team building. He said he walked into the support staff locker room to put away a pair of new sneakers and, as he opened the door, he heard the noise.

“Very much skin-on-skin smacking sound,” he said. “I immediately became alert and was kind of embarrassed that I was walking in on something.”

He said that he turned and glanced over his right shoulder at a mirror that had a 45-dgree angle and saw Sandusky “standing behind a boy who was propped up against a wall.” He estimated the boy to be 10 to 12 years old.

He said that the “boy’s hands (were) up on the wall. The glance would have taken only one or two seconds. I immediately turned back to my locker to make sure I saw what I saw.”

McQueary said he looked directly into the shower and saw Sandusky “standing right up against the back of a young boy” with his arms around his midsection — “the closest proximity that I think you can be in.”

When asked what he saw, McQueary said “the defendant’s midsection was moving” subtly.

McQueary said he tried to think and then put his shoes in his locker and slammed it shut, hard.

“I made the loud noise in an attempt to say `Someone’s here! Break it up!'” McQueary said, adding that he stepped closer to the opening of the shower room and saw they were separated and facing him directly.

“We looked directly in each other’s eyes and at that time I left the locker room,” and went upstairs to his office, he said.

“It was more than my brain could handle,” he said. “I was making decisions on the fly. I picked up the phone and called my father to get advice from the person I trusted most in my life, because I just saw something ridiculous.”

He said he was very vague with his father on the phone, and that his dad, John, told him to leave immediately and come to the house.

McQueary said he went to coach Joe Paterno’s house the next morning and relayed what he had seen, but did not describe the act explicitly out of respect for the coach and his own embarrassment.

He said that Curley called him a week after he talked to Paterno and he attended a meeting with him and Schultz. They “just listened to what I had said,” McQueary testified. About week or two later, he said Curley called him to say they had looked into it.

McQueary’s testimony came after a teenager told jurors that a school district guidance counselor initially didn’t believe his abuse claims because the former Penn State assistant football coach was considered to have “a heart of gold.”

The teen, labeled Victim No. 1 by a grand jury, tearfully recounted for jurors repeated instances of abuse, which he said included kissing, fondling and oral sex during sleepovers at the coach’s home.

A social worker who spoke to Sandusky about the boy’s claims testified that the coach denied having sexual contact with the boy but did acknowledge lying on top of him and blowing “raspberries” on the boy’s stomach. The social worker, Jessica Dershem, also said Sandusky told her he couldn’t recall whether he had ever touched the boy below his waistline.

The charges against Sandusky — and two university officials accused of perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse — touched off a massive scandal that led to the firing of Paterno and the departure of the university president. Paterno died in January of lung cancer, just over two months after his ouster.

Now 18, the accuser known as Victim 1 recounted an early encounter that escalated to oral sex.

“I spaced,” he said. “I didn’t know what to do with all the thoughts running through my head, I just kind of blacked out and didn’t want it to happen. I froze.”

As he choked back tears, the sobbing teen recounted another time Sandusky forced him to perform oral sex, after saying it was his “turn.”

“I don’t know how to explain it. I froze, like any other time,” he said. “My mind is telling me to move but I couldn’t do it, I couldn’t move.”

The witness said he stayed quiet about the abuse, in part because his mother thought Sandusky was a positive influence in his life, but he began trying to distance himself from Sandusky.

At one point Sandusky became angry with him because they’d drifted apart and the teen became involved with his local Big Brothers Big Sisters organization, the teen said.

“I got extremely, extremely scared,” he said, recounting how it escalated into an argument between Sandusky and his mother.

Eventually the teen asked his mother if there was a website used to track sex offenders because he wanted to see if Sandusky was on it. That ultimately led to a meeting with the guidance counselor, where he reported being abused.

At first, the counselor didn’t believe him and questioned the wisdom of going to authorities, the witness said.

“They said we needed to think about it and he has a heart of gold and he wouldn’t do something like that. So they didn’t believe me,” he said.

School officials referred the case to the county’s child-welfare agency.

Dershem, a Clinton County Children & Youth Services caseworker, said the teen was initially uncomfortable talking to her but soon began to open up about his encounters with Sandusky.

She told the jury she had enough evidence by the end of her second meeting with the boy to determine that he had been abused by Sandusky.

He denied sexually assaulting the teen, saying he “he viewed (the boy) as an extended family member, kind of like a son,” Dershem said.

During cross-examination, defense attorney Joe Amendola asked the teen whether he had financial motives for bringing his accusations.

The teen denied that. “All I know is I’m here to tell the truth about what happened to me, just like everybody else,” he said.

Sandusky didn’t visibly react to the teen’s account and looked straight ahead during his testimony.

Another of Sandusky’s alleged victims testified Monday, the trial’s opening day, telling jurors that the coach sent him “creepy love letters.” The man said he began showering with Sandusky in 1997 and what started out as “soap battles” quickly escalated to sexual abuse, including oral sex.

Lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan III has described Sandusky as a “serial predator” who methodically used his youth charity, The Second Mile, to zero in on fatherless children or those with unstable home lives, buy them gifts and take advantage of them sexually.

Amendola has countered that the case is flimsy and that some of the accusers apparently intend to sue and have a financial stake in the case.

22 thoughts on “ONLY ONE SOLUTION”

  1. Penn State has done everything possible to cover up the rape and molestation of boys by one of their own. They did this to protect the football team and the money it brings in. The fact that the president of the university decided not to report the crimes leads to one question: what kind of university has as their leader a man who decided not to report the abuse of a child?

  2. What is really sad is that this whole sordid affair has not resulted in a significant reduction in enrollment at the university.

  3. The worst part about it, this guy was running a charitable organization to help troubled youths. And then taking advantage of them. Seems even lower than a normal pedophile. If that’s possible. I also noticed when Sandusky was first arrested he had a Penn State jacket on. Even though he hadn’t worked there for 10 years. Perhaps a subtle way to send a message to the University?

  4. he needs to go to prison so that the real justice system can work

    it didn’t take long for the inmates to take care of jeffrey dahmer

    jerry shouldn’t last long if a broom handle is available

  5. Admin – are you inferring that guys who like blowing other guys shouldn’t be leaders of groups of little boys? If so, we are appalled at your bias. Just because 75 different people saw Jerry Sandusky with a few pre-teens staying in his room at the Alamo Bowl and looked the other way and then, shockingly, crimes were committed against those boys, well, that doesn’t mean you should draw shockingly easy conclusions that we should keep gays out boys’ sleeping bags.

    1. Robmu1

      You know I’m all about diversity. Anyone who has read my 30 Blocks of Squalor series knows I’m not judgemental in the least. If two guys want to stick their cocks up each other’s asses, more power to them.

      If they want to lead my son’s boy scout troop and spend a week away at a camp with hundreds of little boys, I gots a problem.

      When the Boy Scouts refused to buckle to the diversity police and Democrats pulled their funding in Phila, I immediately wrote a $500 check to the Boy Scouts of America.

    2. Sandusky trial illustrates football’s frightening power

      June 12, 2012|By Phil Sheridan, Inquirer Columnist

      And it all revolved around football.

      That is the sickening thought that keeps creeping to mind with each update from the Jerry Sandusky trial in Bellefonte, Pa. On the day Mike McQueary finally testified in open court, and with fresh revelations shedding more damning light on the entire Penn State hierarchy, that fundamental truth seemed more absurd and unforgivable than ever.


      Sandusky had power and access to these kids because of football. Adults didn’t believe accusations because of a reputation he created through football. McQueary didn’t rush to the proper authorities upon seeing Sandusky with a child in the shower; he went to the head football coach. It seems ever more clear that PSU president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, and administrator Gary Schultz took no real action against Sandusky in order to protect the football program.

      Football. When weighed against word that a child had been molested, and the possibility that others would be, these men decided football was more important. Football.

      After Tuesday’s testimony, we have to rethink our definition of manliness. We apply words such as courage and fearless and macho to guys who put on pads and helmets and run around a field. But the man known as Victim 1, who wept and squirmed while telling his horror story on the witness stand, is 100 times more of a man, displaying a million times more courage, than anyone connected to this case by way of the Penn State football program.

      Spanier and Schultz reportedly exchanged e-mails in which they discussed whether it was “humane” to report Sandusky to outside authorities. It never occurred to them, apparently, whether it was humane to allow more children to be attacked by him.

      Schultz reportedly kept a file on Sandusky that he declined to provide to investigators once the case slipped out of Penn State’s jurisdiction. Stopping a child predator was not as important as the almighty football program.

      McQueary testified he slammed a locker door to break up the attack he stumbled upon, but never said a word to Sandusky or even followed up with questions about who the kid was, what was done to protect him or to punish Sandusky. He kept his mouth shut and was rewarded with a better job in the football program.

      As tragic as Joe Paterno’s final months turned out to be, it must be said that he also chose to let the shower incident pass without a single follow-up. He hoped it would all go away, and instead it wound up festering for another decade – with more alleged victims – and then erupting into a conflagration that consumed Paterno and the program he built.

      All that talk about honor and integrity, all that pride in a football team, and then all that cowardice and inaction and failure when it mattered most.

      All in the name of football.

      That’s not to mention Sandusky’s attorneys, whose strategy of attacking the accusers seems certain to backfire. Sandusky is entitled to a vigorous defense, but victimizing the victims all over again is a despicable tactic. You can only hope the judge and jury make Sandusky pay somehow for choosing this brutality instead of a plea deal.

      But then, why would we expect honor from this man now?

      A lot was said and many assumptions were made in the immediate aftermath of the shocking grand jury report. It looked bad – for Sandusky, for McQueary, for Paterno, for Spanier and his staff, for Penn State.

      Seven months later, with witnesses finally testifying in open court and various investigations beginning to bear fruit, it looks worse. The stain is permanent and has spread to the board of trustees, whose obliviousness borders on negligence, and even to the governor’s mansion. Gov. Corbett was attorney general during much of the grand jury investigation. It is fair to ask whether Sandusky added victims while that investigation dragged on for almost three years. It is also fair to wonder what other considerations were at work, whether political football was as much a factor as college football in shielding Sandusky.

      So far, only one person has really wondered aloud whether his inaction allowed Sandusky to attack innocent children. It wasn’t any of the tough football men or distinguished educators or empty-suit lawyers or politicians.

      It was the man known as Victim 4, the first to testify in court Monday. He is 28 now.

      “I spent so many years burying this in the back of my mind – forever,” he testified. “I thought I was the only one, and I was OK with that. I feel responsible now for what happened to the other victims.”

      He is not, of course. If all this is true, Jerry Sandusky is.

      But if all this is true, Sandusky was allowed to operate for years because other men decided there was something more important than innocent children.


  6. Why is this guy still alive? Somebody did what he did to my kids, and he’d be dead. I suppose the moral relativism of today allows for that shit, but I don’t.

  7. The only thing that matters to Penn State is the big Ohio University game on September first and the money they’ll get from the 110,000 drunks that day. Sorry kids.

  8. Another casualty of the “moral relativity” movement. And, no Administrator, I would not trust female Moral Relativists any more than male ones. Equally bankrupt. Remember that the National
    Organization for Women (NOW) supported President Clinton vs the whole host of women he abused, including his wife, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones et al. Why would a feminist organization for women who had made it their FOCUS to stop “sexual harassment in the workplace” and who had worked so hard to change ethics guidelines to prohibit teacher/student, boss/employee sexual harassment side with the male sexual harasser over the numerous female ‘victims’? Moral Relativism. Everyone is agenda-driven and morals are selectively employed to fit the predetermined agenda.

  9. In the last day or two I read where a father beat a man to death recently in Texas when he caught him sexually assaulting his daughter. So far no charges have been laid. We can only hope that that remains the case.

    SAH – Sexual harrassment means UNWANTED sexual advances. For instance, Monica wanted it bad, baby. Women are drawn to power and money like shit draws flies. Was he unethical in taking advantage of this fact? Maybe. Was he abusive? No way. If they wanted it, it isn’t abuse. And they surely wanted it. Did he abuse Hillary? Unclear. He betrayed her, but that isn’t quite the same as abuse.

    SAH really has a hatred for men, especially older men, it seems.

  10. llpoh says: In the last day or two I read where a father beat a man to death recently in Texas when he caught him sexually assaulting his daughter. So far no charges have been laid. We can only hope that that remains the case.

    SAH – Sexual harrassment means UNWANTED sexual advances. For instance, Monica wanted it bad, baby. SOME women are drawn to power and money like shit draws flies. Was he unethical in taking advantage of this fact? Maybe. Was he abusive? No way. If they wanted it, it isn’t abuse. And they surely wanted it. Did he abuse Hillary? Unclear. He betrayed her, but that isn’t quite the same as abuse.

    SAH really has a hatred for men, especially older men, it seems.

    Queceracera says, There llopoh, fixed it for ya.

  11. [email protected] says:

    @Q: The female involved in the Texas case was FOUR FUCKING YEARS OLD. The girl’s father responded to her screams and beat the offender to death with his bare hands. There isn’t a jury in Texas that will convict this guy. Sheeit, if he runs for governor, he will probably be elected. I would vote for him myself.

    You are assuming that in SA, somehow the woman somehow “wants” this abuse. You are a fucking douchebag moronic asshole. It isn’t about the sex, it is about the POWER. Guys like Clinton do that shit because they want to assert their power over somebody (and get their rocks off, a real two-fer) AND be so powerful they can brag about it to their buddies without fear of retribution. (Plus being married to Hilliary must be such a joy.)

    In about 99.9% of all business relationships, the men still have significant power over women. A woman may “go along” with it, not because she really wants it or believes that it will bring her fame or fortune, but because they are too scared to say no.

    I have been a woman in a man’s world since 1985. I have seen both sides of this. I myself have never had to deal with sexual harrassment because: 1) I come to work to work and behave/dress accordingly. 2) I am smarter and a better worker than 99% of the men and for most men, merit trumps nooky, cuz the last thing a successful man wants is to have their bimbo d’jure embarrass them in public, 3) I can out “man” the men in terms of dirty jokes and dirty tricks, and, 4) I am heavily armed at all times and make no secret of the fact.

    Sorry to say, but most of the so-called “sexual harrassment” I have seen is when woman of (usually) inferior peformance play the “sex card” to hustle their way into a job/promotion where their performance record would not otherwise allow them to go.

    And WTF does”queceracera” mean? Is that some kind of Doris Day thing? Just call yourself “What the Fuck” cuz that’s what it really means and be done with it.

    I’m sure I will be flamed unmercifully for this by whatever NAGS populate the board, but WTF, oops, queceracera, flame away.

  12. Queceracera – you have altered one of my father’s favorite sayings. I have yet to see a rich, ugly guy that could not surround himself with gaggles of beautiful women. He was right in this.

  13. Hope – Que was largely quoting me above. But if she took a flamethrow that may have been aimed for for me, all the better!

  14. [email protected] says:

    @LLPOH: Dude, you are a business owner/manager, right?

    You have undoubtedly seen your female employees playing the sex card to advance their careers. For those wimmins, they deserve what they get. Please note that almost no woman who engages in this tactic ever ends up with fame or fortune. They are usually dumped for the next more compliant/youthful bimbo that comes along.

    What is Monica L doing these days, I ask you?

    Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? My Dad had this little talk with me when I was about 12 and it was damn good advice, I’m tellin’ you.

    BTW: I would never aim a flamethrower at you, llpoh, maybe a few MD80s or a few sparklers, just to get your attention and give you the opportunity to see the error of your ways, heh.

  15. Hope – I am blissfully oblivious to this kind of stuff at work. I do not involve myself, and do not allow any of my employees to be interfered with by anyone – ever. It is why, I think, I retain employees. Anyone caught harassing anyone in anyway is unceremoniously shown the door.

    Thee is hanky panky between the employees – consentual to the best of my knowledge. Best way to get ahead around me is to do your job well. Nothing else matters. Age/race/sex/sexual orientation/religion/et al are of no consequence. I do expect people to look and act suitably to their position. Common courtesy is nice, too.

    Despite my linguistic abilities around these parts, I never curse or abuse my employees in any way. That would be an abuse of power, and is patently not right. I am brutally honest with them, though.

    BTW – I LOVE M80s. I left a mighty tail of sestruction with those things in my younger days. I really loved to flush them down toilets at my high school. Good thing I was never caught – the secret being never to bring more than 1 to school at a time, and flush the matches as well. What fun.

  16. [email protected] says:

    @llpoh: All is forgiven.

    I, too, have zero tolerance for any kind of SA in our workplace. I have fired several patients recently over their inappropriate remarks made to my staff. Besides this behaviour being totally offensive to the staff and anybody in the immediate vicinity, it puts me, the employer, in the position of having a “hostile” workplace – with all THAT implies.

    Growing up in The People’s Republik of Kalifornia, I did not discover the joys of the MD80 until I moved to Texas. Sheeit, you can practically buy grenade caliber fireworks here around the 4th. Last year our drought was so bad that fireworks were banned, through most of the state, hopefully we’ll get some this year.

    Although, as I get older, just waving some simple sparklers seems to do the trick, sigh.

    Anyhoo, gotta crash.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.