The verdict is in.  The man is guilty as sin.  

Some of the details that came out in the trial are just horrifying.  I still don't understand why he went through with a trial.  Forcing the abused to testify on the stand against him.  Getting his wife to testify on his behalf.  DID NOT TESTIFY HIMSELF.  

Anyways, lots of interesting articles out there, but this one struck me right away...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8087426/jerry-sandusky-crimes-failure-stop-hang-penn-state

The mythology of the coach and the hagiography of the institution, the immediate reflex to protect the institution and the fear of crossing it, far more than Sandusky himself, allowed this tragedy to mushroom. Only the permanent destruction of that sort of deferential treatment of larger-than-life figures and trusted organizations will prevent a repeat, whether it occurs in the church, the university or the Boy Scouts.

.......

The question of why will stay with Penn State long after Sandusky is gone to prison, long after the Paterno apologists dwindle in number. And the answer to the question of why -- Sandusky was allowed to exist because no one dared challenge the power of Penn State or Paterno, no one wanted to threaten the legacy of the football powerhouse and the great man himself -- will resonate throughout every powerful institution in the country.

What sure looks like a conspiracy took place at Penn State for at least the past 15 years, and it will repeat itself. It is occurring in different ways at institutions across the country right now. It is the conspiracy of power, and now it is up to us to decide whether once and for all to crush the runaway culture of the coach, the outsized elevation of mortal institutions, and to demand accountability and responsibility. If these institutions are so important, so worthy and vital, they do not need to be protected by their followers from themselves or from the truth. Penn State and Joe Paterno should have been protecting their community, not the other way around.

This is why Joe Paterno matters, why he will always matter, even -- no, especially -- in death. This is the reason he was appropriately fired and held responsible for Sandusky. This is the reason the administrators at the university were and should be appropriately held accountable. This is why Paterno apologists -- who lash out in anger that the old man was targeted unfairly and that he followed the proper channels and that there was no possible action Joe Paterno could have taken to prevent perhaps the worst, most damaging scandal in the history of American sports -- have much passion and love, but little credibility. It is the price of power. Paterno enjoyed it in life and will be defined by it in death, as will all of the people involved for the rest of their lives. It is that power's blindness to Sandusky's victims, and what that means for the rest of their lives. And yet there is hope, for the failed culture of the past doesn't have to be part of the future.

Wow, thanks for the update periol.   Obviously Sandusky is remorseless or he wouldn't have forced those poor children to take the stand. Self-serving to the very end, typical of his type.

Price of Power indeed.

Seems to me people are waking up to "The Price of Power" a little more every day and this is what has TPTB feeling a little flutter.
People are starting to think the 'price' just might be too high.

One blogger pointed out:
"In the coming years, these victims and others who have not yet gone public are virtually certain to hit up Penn State with an astronomical bill for a legal settlement, and rightfully so. But since Penn State is a public institution, it’s the taxpayers who ultimately will be footing the tab. Sandusky’s monstrous crimes are horrifying enough, and the fact that they were enabled for so long by so many people is grotesque. But the fact that taxpayers will, in effect, end up paying for them is what really sticks in my craw."

Just read today that one of his adopted sons (who has stood by his side through all of this) has now come out and said he was abused by Sandusky.

I wondered how long that would take.

Speedy Sundusky Trial Used To Cover Up Large Scale Paedophile Ring?
 
 
 
While the corporate mockingbird media continues its non stop coverage of the Sandusky conviction we must remember that they refused to even look into the much more startling and hardcore claims that Sandusky was pimping out children to the rich and powerful through his charity.
 
Read more:

http://corporatemediaexposed.com/speedy-sandusky-trial-and-conviction-used-to-cover-up-large-scale-pedophile-ring/

i've wondered that myself em - good catch.  there seems to be a distinct lack of curiousity to explore in greater detail what went on.  it's like they went to trial saying they were going to do just enough to convict him for good and leave it at that.  we know there's more still left unsaid, more kids, etc.

this was one of the comments on the link you posted.  hmm....

“The autumn months are never a calm time in America. . . . There is always a rash of kidnapping and abductions of schoolchildren in the football months. Preteens of both sexes are traditionally seized and grabbed off the streets by gangs of organized perverts who traditionally give them as Christmas gifts to each other to be personal sex slaves and playthings.”

-Hunter S. Thompson, page 3 from his 2004 book entitled “Hey Rube”

periol, yeah, I remember Lou picked up on that on LATOC when HST came out with that statement.  I think she maybe tied it in particular to some child who was abducted there?  Johnny Gosch?
 
Anyway given that eventually HST blew his brains out you have to wonder how much of the first-hand knowledge he seemed to have about a lot of very dark things haunted and taunted him.

They are releasing some of the internal emails from the case.  Suffice to say, the truth is not kind to Joe Paterno...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8124100/joe-paterno-legacy-called-further-question

According to CNN, a chain of emails that followed the 2002 shower incident shows Curley and Schultz intended to report the allegation to authorities but then reconsidered after conferring with Paterno.

"After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," Curley wrote in an email to Schultz and former president Graham Spanier.

My reading of this CNN report says that Paterno's legacy is no longer merely complicated, but a flat-out fake.

I don't know whether we'll ever receive a definitive answer on how Paterno may have used his influence when Sandusky's dark side came to light, but, at the very least, enough has surfaced to seriously question this naive idea that Paterno was steamrolled by the evildoers in the university's chain of command.

And STILL no one dares ask about the alligation of them selling kids off to rich Alumni.

So at this stage it looks like Joe Paterno might have been, at the very least, covering up for the big wigs?

depends who the big wigs are.

this means people were covering up for joe paterno.  paterno claimed he had never heard of, had no idea how to have sex between men.  but this new evidence says the university wanted to report sandusky, and paterno somehow talked them out of it.  

so my question is - what did he tell them to keep them from reporting sandusky?

Well I'm guessing the best thing you could say about him is he had REALLY lousy judgement and was naive.....but I'm not much inclined to believe that.

Paterno was the defacto president of the university.  He basically ran everything.  He knew everything.

He knew everything.

Paterno was the defacto president of the university.  He basically ran everything.  He knew everything.
He knew everything.

-mtlouie

Like Jack Ruby, he got that terribly useful type of cancer that shows up suddenly and kills within days.

Ooooo TLR, now that's some "good tin" right there.........................the timing of his demise does seem strangely "convenient" and he went pretty quickly didn't he?

Well, freeh's report is out and it is beyond excoriating.

Fox news is calling for the death of the penn state football program!

I guess we can all be a bit surprised that freeh's chose not to cover this one up, eh?

Get this!  When the televisions in "the hub" (the student union) started to report the freeh's findings THE SCHOOL CHANGED THE CHANNEL!

Kinda like Russia in the dark ages.  Gawk. What a hell hole that place is.

Although our illustrious U is going through something quite similar with the justice department here and everything.  It concerns the coverup of rapes by the WINNING football team.  I have very little good to say about sports and higher academics and what a benighted pile of sh!t it is.

The Marx Brothers summed up the absurdity of college football in "Horse Feathers" -

"Have we got a college? Have we got a football team?....Well we can't afford both. Tomorrow we start tearing down the college."

The more I think about this, the more I think there's still much more to the story.  This was a bit of refreshing honesty from an alum of the college (I'm quoting the article itself is longer):

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/07/13/what-the-freeh-report-does-and-does-not-tell-us-about-child-sexual-abuse-at-penn-state

What the Freeh Report Does—and Does Not—Tell Us About Child Sexual Abuse at Penn State

As scathing as the Freeh Report is, its scope is also relatively narrow.  It is limited to the years that the public already knew about: 1998 to the present.  The grand jury report that led to the trial of Sandusky, at which he was convicted on 45 of 48 charges for child sex abuse, covered these years alone.  But we know from both the Sandusky grand jury report and the evidence that came out at trial that the elements of Sandusky’s victimization of children were in place well before 1998.

Sandusky started coaching at Penn State in 1969.  His charity, The Second Mile, from which he plucked boys who were in precarious family situations, was established in 1977.  One victim after another testified at Sandusky’s trial how they had been identified through the Second Mile, and then groomed, and ultimately abused by Sandusky.  Freeh knew all of this, which is confirmed in the Report.  And yet the Report is conspicuously silent on the years of 1977-1997, making no findings and drawing no conclusions regarding Sandusky, and his involvement with children on campus or otherwise.

Nor is there mention in the Freeh Report of The Second Mile’s activities on the campuses of Penn State, or its involvement with the football program, from 1977 to 1995.  The Report does establish that Penn State changed its policies regarding children on campus several times.  In 1992, Penn State adopted a new policy regarding “minors involved in University-sponsored programs or youth programs held at the University or housed in University facilities,” which is telling.  Furthermore, that new policy was revised several times, and was conspicuously revised yet again in April 2012, to include the phrase “at all geographic locations.”

Freeh also knew, through the criminal trial of Sandusky, that the modus operandi that had occurred at Penn State had continually repeated itself.  Why would Freeh’s team think that Sandusky suddenly started behaving  this way 30 years after he started working for Penn State?  I sincerely doubt that the team did.  After all, Kenneth Lanning—who was the FBI’s premier child sex abuse expert for 30 years, including when Freeh was Director—documented that abusers typically have many victims, over many years, and abuse over the course of their lives.

Moreover, Freeh also must have known, when he took on the task of researching and completing his Report, about the well-documented patterns abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, the ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish faith, the Boy Scouts, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints—not to mention in the Fundamentalist LDS—the Citadel, Syracuse University, and many other institutions.  Surely, he put two and two together to conclude that 1998 did not initiate Sandusky’s reign of abuse.  Therefore, perhaps the fault for the limited scope of the report should be laid at Penn State’s feet.

In the end, the Freeh Report interprets the data available to date, and tells the story that was already emerging through the criminal justice system.  It was important for that story to be told in the way that Freeh told it, bluntly and unforgivingly.  But that still leaves a grave and important question to pose to Penn State, my alma mater: What happened between 1969 and 1998?