Dranov testified that MM didn't mention anything sexual.
But not illegal? I’ve just never really understood that part of the whole thing. And being a “father figure” is not being a father. For that matter, if an 11-year old boy told me his father got in the shower with him and hugged him I would call social services.
It makes no sense that MM told different stories to everyone he spoke to. I can bite that he may have spoke in general terms with Joe. But as Sue said, he wasn't even in their home long enough to say much. The different stories to GS and TC, just fit into the bullshit story that Fina concocted.
Dranov said he asked McQueary three times whether he saw anything sexual, and each time McQueary said no.
Wasn't Dranov's actual quote. "did you see anything sexual" and Dranov's. response was "he said no but was so upset he gave me the IMPRESSION something sexual had occurred" If my quote is correct I wonder what gave me the impression means?
What would the crime be then? It can’t be indecent exposure if you’re in a shower.
Well if MM's report gave Dr.D the impression he witnessed a sexual assault....why didn't Dranov call the proper agency and report? Since we know he didn't, why wasn't he prosecuted?
We've beaten the shower scenario to death.
I think you could make the argument that you were assaulted. I'm simply arguing that without sexual intent, it isn't sexual assault. That doesn't mean you weren't a victim of a crime.
And I’m saying the opposite should be true, while understanding that talking about adults is a completely different situation from an adult and a child. I don’t understand why it would be up to person taking the action to determine if there is sexual intent or not. Wouldn’t it make more sense how the person being acted upon was made to feel? And in all honesty, it’s damn near impossible to argue that a naked shower hug is not sexual. Reasonable doubt and all that. Possible? Maybe. Reasonably possible? No, not really. I struggle with why he wasn’t charged with a crime in ‘98. Just too hard to prove I guess?
If a person inadvertently touches another person inappropriately, is that a crime? I'm no lawyer, but I'd think this is where you get into the distinction between a criminal matter and a civil one. IOW, you could be harmed by what someone does, but unless that person intended to harm you, I don't think assault can be proved. That doesn't mean you don't deserve to be made whole in civil court.
We’re certainly not talking about anything inadvertent. A naked hug doesn’t happen by accident. The kid in ‘98 said he didn’t feel what Jerry did was sexual. All well and good, but it’s not up to 11-year olds to determine what is sexual and what is not. Hugging an 11-year old in a shower would seem to me to be clearly sexual. To this day it doesn’t make sense to me why he wasn’t charged. Then answer certainly can’t be because an 11-year old boy didn’t think it was sexual. I’m sure they explained it somewhere along the line. I guess I’ll search around for the reason they didn’t press charges. That really is where the authorities missed their opportunity with Jerry.
I think you would have to look for a clue in Harrisburg to determine why that case was closed. I don't think that was a local call.
+1 same time period. We never had an issue nor do I recall any leering or horseplay going on.
A hug can be just a hug, just as a shower can be just a shower. I agree that when genital contact becomes part of the discussion, it gets problematic, but I disagree that it can't be inadvertent.
You hit on the point indy. A shower can just be a shower. I don’t think anybody would argue that. A hug can just be a hug. I don’t think anybody would argue that either. In a vacuum either is understandable. A hug in a shower is close to impossible to explain away innocently. Of all the people in here that say their gym teacher showered with them I wonder how many of them did so alone and had the teacher hug them while doing so?
The judge wouldn't allow it. Rominger was clearly frustrated and the judge told him the witness doesn't remember and he was ordered to move on. Rominger requested to approach the bench to discuss and was denied.
As I recall, the boy in the shower claimed nothing happened. That sure seems like evidence that there was no rape.
The media induced public outrage was huge. It would have been political suicide for any judge/jury finding Sandusky not guilty. It would have been like killing Santa.
Forget C/S/S. Why do you think Sandusky was in the shower with these boys alone? What logical reason would there be?
Nope.
Mike had such a great look he couldn't tell what color the kid's hair was or even if there was arousal. The insertion question was taking a big leap.
Difficult to see looking in a mirror around a corner
It's not up to the person, it is up to a jury. Does the evidence point to this person being gratified (e.g. did they have an erection? Did they say anything sexual or inappropriate while this was occurring? Have there been other instances where gratification was evident? Does this individual have pornography that suggests they are attracted to the demographic of person who was assaulted?)
If anyone touches you without your consent, it is assault. So yes, they could be charged with a crime, but the fact that you are naked and in a shower is not the deciding criteria for assault.
And the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt to think that it was not sexual. Because, why else would somebody initiate a naked hug with another?
I was answering your general question about the difference between assault and sexual assault and who the "decider" was in terms of whether it was sexual or not. Having said that, I am not convinced that the jury made the correct decision on that point
You don't like my answer. Jerry was like a father figure to these kids. He adopted several of them. He could have viewed it like spending quality time with his kids. C & S might have seen it the same way.
