Maybe it’s an inapt comparison, but this reminds me of when the Hillary Clinton campaign was found to have taken dirty campaign contributions from phony donors. Their response was along the lines of “we returned all of that money”, and yet, they could not possibly have done so because those donors had phony names and addresses.
In this instance, the attorney is claiming that he has located the supposed victim, who claims that nothing happened. How exactly do you do that, without starting with a specific, named, known victim? Do you ask the perp for the name of the person who he “didn’t” sodomize in the shower, and then contact the victim and get him to agree that he was not a victim? Or do you contact all 10-year-olds who were in the program at the time, and ask them whether or not they were sodomized in the shower?
Something strange is going on there...
“How exactly do you do that, without starting with a specific, named, known victim?”
Excellent point.
Nothing about this caper makes any sense, this victim being the most confusing.
According to the indictment, the witness sees a pretty awful crime in progress, but does nothing. He decidess to call his father (WTF???? The witness was a grown man, 28 at the time), and then both the witness and his dad....call the cops? Call child protective service? No, they have a meeting with Paterno. Who then, does what? Calls his boss and says, well we don't know what he says.
I can actually see Paterno's side of this: if the witness was so sure of what he saw (a felony in progress), why didn't he call 911, even anonymously, from a pay phone, say)????? You wait a whole day to "report" this crime to....the football coach? That makes no freaking sense at all.
Sandusky waas clearly a pervert, and it seems that a bunch of people knew that and at least covered for him, but you have to ask "why"? What was in it for everyone else that they would cover this up, look the other way, and just generally allow this serial molester to just keep adding to the list of victims?
I don't get it.
Exactly. There’s no way, at this point, to be sure of the identity of that victim, except perhaps to get an identification from McQueary, and that’s might be difficult considering the circumstances and how long has passed. I’m not inclined to take Sandusky or his lawyer’s word on this.