Anonymous wrote:I am a Maryland alum who has followed the case closely and I just wonder how you draw the conclusions that you claim. You say, "the admin and coaches covered up the rape of young boys." Really? The 1998 situation was investigated by the District Attorney and the case was dropped for lack of evidence to convict. And, the mother of that boy never claimed he was raped or sexually assaulted. Furthermore, the boy (now adult) involved in the 2001 situation reported by the Grad Assistant claims that nothing happened in the shower that night and the jury, after listening to testimony, found Sandusky not guilty of that specific charge. This is not to say that Sandusky is not guilty of sexual assualt; but to claim that the "admin and coaches covered up the rape of young boys" is so far over the top that I wonder what evidence you are drawing that from. Hopefully, we will learn more of the real details of the degree to which Spanier, Curly, and Shultz were complicit during their trials.But, at this point in time, you cannot make any assertion that they covered up the rape of young boys? And, it is inflammatory slander to do so.
First of all several top administrators at PS were indicted for lying under oath about their actions, if true, thats pretty much the definition of a cover up. If you read the report of the investigation A committee appointed by the replacement President and headed by the former head of the FBI) it recounted numerous occasions when sexual assaults were either witnessed or discussed by administration and coaches. Its not inflammatory slander to accuse people of doing what they've been formally accused of doing by a grand jury. God love you for being a true believer but dial it down some. With all the evidence thats out there you really can't truly be outraged that most people reached this conclusion.