Why did the girl get 99 years while Sandusky got 30?

[NittanyJen]

Mike McQueary walked in on Sandusky anally raping a ten-year-old boy.

 

 

This is O/T, does not in any way exonerate Sandusky, whom I agree was a complete monster, is likely even more guilty than the jury found him, deserves his essentially life sentence, and is nitpicky. I'm sorry for being nitpicky. But statements like the above continue to irk me.

 

McQueary specifically testified that he did NOT specifically see a rape. He said he expected to see sexual activity, and was surprised that he did not. He heard sounds, and that triggered and image in his mind, and thought that what he did see was inappropriate. He testified that the child did not even appear frightened at the time, and that he only had one or two quick glances, but that he definitely did not see any actual sexual activity.

 

Because of the additional issues continuing to affect PSU, it bugs me to see misinformation being perpetuated. We don't know-- McQueary may have walked in on a "grooming session" with the boy, or yes, worse. But what was specifically taking place there is not known, and McQueary did not testify that he walked in on a rape in any of his versions of what took place.

 

Returning to what is otherwise a very good, and I think important, discussion.

[Word Nerd]

This is O/T, does not in any way exonerate Sandusky, whom I agree was a complete monster, is likely even more guilty than the jury found him, deserves his essentially life sentence, and is nitpicky. I'm sorry for being nitpicky. But statements like the above continue to irk me.

 

McQueary specifically testified that he did NOT specifically see a rape. He said he expected to see sexual activity, and was surprised that he did not. He heard sounds, and that triggered and image in his mind, and thought that what he did see was inappropriate. He testified that the child did not even appear frightened at the time, and that he only had one or two quick glances, but that he definitely did not see any actual sexual activity.

 

Because of the additional issues continuing to affect PSU, it bugs me to see misinformation being perpetuated. We don't know-- McQueary may have walked in on a "grooming session" with the boy, or yes, worse. But what was specifically taking place there is not known, and McQueary did not testify that he walked in on a rape in any of his versions of what took place.

 

Returning to what is otherwise a very good, and I think important, discussion.

 

From this link: "Jerry Sandusky was standing naked in the showers behind a boy, slowly moving his hips, Mike McQueary told the jury.

 

McQueary, one of the star witnesses in the child sexual abuse case against Sandusky, said he had no doubt he was witnessing anal sex. He testified that he slammed his locker shut loudly as if to say, "Someone's here! Break it up!"

 

From this one: "Asked by Joseph McGettigan, the deputy state attorney general who is prosecuting the case, whether he believed Sandusky was engaging in anal sex with the boy, McQueary said: "I thought i saw that, yes. No doubt about that."

[tyydae]

This is O/T, does not in any way exonerate Sandusky, whom I agree was a complete monster, is likely even more guilty than the jury found him, deserves his essentially life sentence, and is nitpicky. I'm sorry for being nitpicky. But statements like the above continue to irk me.

 

McQueary specifically testified that he did NOT specifically see a rape. He said he expected to see sexual activity, and was surprised that he did not. He heard sounds, and that triggered and image in his mind, and thought that what he did see was inappropriate. He testified that the child did not even appear frightened at the time, and that he only had one or two quick glances, but that he definitely did not see any actual sexual activity.

 

Because of the additional issues continuing to affect PSU, it bugs me to see misinformation being perpetuated. We don't know-- McQueary may have walked in on a "grooming session" with the boy, or yes, worse. But what was specifically taking place there is not known, and McQueary did not testify that he walked in on a rape in any of his versions of what took place.

 

Returning to what is otherwise a very good, and I think important, discussion.

No worries. I have my own issues that I am rather nitpicky about. Understand your point completely.

 

I will say this, as a parent, I do not have to "see" my children in the act of doing something, to know when they are doing something they have no business. As a adult, a reasonable, mature human being with years of living under my belt, I have come to learn (and trust) to use all of senses, not just my eyesight. If I relied only on my eyesight, I would never have the pleasure of redirecting my babies energy/focus.

[Murphy101]

I don't have even a tiny bit of pity for her. If she was abused, then she knows it hurts and is awful and sick and chose to perpetuate that on her own children.

 

This has nothing to do with potty training. (and I've had tow kids with encomprisis, so I know how awful and brain fried it can make a person.) If the baby had tripped, she'd have beaten her for being clumsy. If she was well potty trained and quiet, she'd have beaten her for not responding when spoken to. There is no comparing that woman to a frustrated loving mom who givesswanson injurious punishment she normally wouldn't or says something she regrets. It took thinking and effort and premeditation to do what that mom did repeatedly and she had absolutely no remorse.

 

I hope wherever those children end up, it's a place of love and peace and safety.

[LibraryLover]

 

I saw she might have been abused, but I didn't see where they said her mother was the abuser. I did read that the mother is the one who found the two year old and got her help. The mom also testified.

 

My hope is that the grandmother was not the abuser, and now has the support and ability to protect the grandchildren (who have suffered greatly) from the abuse and trauma the dd/their mother experienced.

 

I don't think it looks good. They watched their mother beat their sibling, and who knows what else. She is 23 and has 5 children. Was the mother every truly cared for? I don't know that these children have a chance. How much has the environment changed? They have lost their mother, who may or may not have had good days. They may, or may not love her. Either way, she is gone forever. Losing your mother, as terrible and sick as she may be, is a terrible thing for a child. I hope the grandmother is up to the challenge of their needs, can protect them from other abusers, and gets the help required to see they grow into emotionally stable people.

 

Tragic. That's the only word I can manage.

Edited October 14, 2012 by LibraryLover

[ChocolateReignRemix]

From this link: "Jerry Sandusky was standing naked in the showers behind a boy, slowly moving his hips, Mike McQueary told the jury.

 

McQueary, one of the star witnesses in the child sexual abuse case against Sandusky, said he had no doubt he was witnessing anal sex. He testified that he slammed his locker shut loudly as if to say, "Someone's here! Break it up!"

 

From this one: "Asked by Joseph McGettigan, the deputy state attorney general who is prosecuting the case, whether he believed Sandusky was engaging in anal sex with the boy, McQueary said: "I thought i saw that, yes. No doubt about that."

 

 

It should be noted that is one of the only counts the jury did not convict on.

[Ravin]

It's pretty much a guarantee that CPS was involved in placing the children with the gma (did the article even say maternal gma? Could be paternal gma, and who knows where the father(s) is/are.

 

Most likely if none of the kids have a father who can step up and actually parent, they'll be adopted, probably by gma, and likely with a long term stipend for a "special needs" adoption that will help defray the cost.

 

Something no one has mentioned is that the Sandusky thing is not in Texas. Every state has it's own criminal code and body of precedent for common law. Different states have different sentencing schemes.

[Mommy22alyns]

To me, the problem with Sandusky's sentence is the message it sends. 30 years for what he did? It just sounds light--and I think that sends a message to our society that what he did wasn't really all that bad. Yes, he'll likely die in prison, but I do think the number of years makes a difference to the victims and to the rest of us. It's like the weight of his crime isn't all that heavy. (I view it like something that is sold for $99.99 sounds significantly cheaper than something sold for $103.99. There is little difference, but the numbers impact us differently psychologically.)

 

I definitely see your point.

[Mommy22alyns]

The child in question was TWO YEARS OLD. TWO.

 

Not nine.

 

Not five.

 

TWO.

 

She beat her with a lamp.

She superglued her hands to the wall.

She kicked her in the stomach.

Bones were broken.

The child barely survived.

Other children witnessed this while it was going on.

This is beyond egregious.

It is evil.

It is torture.

The judge was right.

 

 

I believe that poor girl even had bite marks on her. :crying: