Really sorry to start yet another Penn State OP, but I have one question:

[OneGrassRoot]

And when it's answered, we can let this drop to the bottom.

Thanks in advance. :)

Is there any reason not to believe the validity of the charges in this PDF document (warning, graphic):

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF


I'm basing my opinions and responses within discussions largely on this document. I want to make sure it's a valid document, as far as anyone here knows.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

4. The kid was 10 or 11.

A pox on your rationalization. Truly. I find your post to be offensive.

[HopeHoops]

6. Okay, to be fair, I thought he was like 16. Point - MineralMan.

[TheWraith]

9. Then should you REALLY be commenting and holding such strong opinions on something...

...when it's clear that you don't have the first fucking bit of real information or knowledge about it?

[MineralMan]

10. I don't think you thought at all, frankly.

Blaming the victim in cases of pedophilia just isn't on. If you don't know the facts, why comment at all? Offensive on its face. You can still edit your post. I suggest a complete deletion of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. So if "he was like 16" it would have been okay? n/t

[librechik]

5. Disgusting. This sort of attitude is what sustained the abuse at PSU for so long. n/t

[TheWraith]

7. WHAT THE FUCK?

Blowing RIGHT PAST your implication that it's somehow not a big deal, or is a distraction...

"Okay, so a kid opened his back door to get a scholarship"

Are you seriously suggesting that a TEN YEAR OLD BOY somehow consented to anal sex with a 60 year old man in a gym shower late one Friday night? And supposedly you think this TEN YEAR OLD BOY was prostituting himself for personal gain?

That has really got to be the most fucked up thing I've read on DU in quite awhile.

[Kber]

8. Well if it makes you feel any "better"

these were poor, "at risk" boys who didn't have anyone to stick up for them. So, yeah, I guess sometimes we do give a shit.

Sheesh

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. At first, I thought I read this wrong...Apparently not. Raping 10-13

year old boys, and then getting away with it, trumps everything else right now in this mom's mind. Shame on you, and I'd delete that offensive piece of garbage you typed.

[JanMichael]

18. That is possibly the most hideous crap I have ever read on DU

I hope everyone alerts on it. It needs to be gone.

[HopeHoops]

20. Jan, as I posted in other responses - I didn't know the kid was that young.

[MineralMan]

22. That does not excuse your post. It simply doesn't.

Without knowing the correct information, you posted something so offensive that I cannot believe I saw it on DU. You still have time to edit your post and remove the offending statement. I strongly urge you to do so.

[JanMichael]

26. I alerted on it

then put the poster on "ignore." I hope to never read that type of vile crap again.

[MineralMan]

29. A good move.

[HopeHoops]

30. Probably appropriate. I fucked up.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. More appropriate if you actually removed it.

[HopeHoops]

56. I don't actually know how to do that, but I just posted a general notice apology.

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. I alerted as well. It's quite disingenuous for the poster to say sorry...

...and then leave that vomit to stand.

[HopeHoops]

49. Well, as I just posted elsewhere, it serves as a testament to why it is important to understand...

...before you post. I thought the kid was a senior looking for a way in to the college. I fucked up. Simple as that. I was wrong. The post stands as a testament to the fact that I was wrong. Okay?

[TheWraith]

24. I for one am noticing a conspicuous lack of apology and repudiation of that bullshit post. nt

[HopeHoops]

28. Well, I said (in several posts) I didn't realize the kid was that young. Yeah, it was wrong.

[MineralMan]

32. Edit the freaking post, then.

[HopeHoops]

53. Fuck. I just wrote a really eloquent reply to apologize for my fuck up and it said my editing

period had expired - how much fucking time do they give you, anyway????

I'll post a new OP.

[TheWraith]

52. Right, THAT was what was wrong, you were just misinformed.

None of the outrage coming your way has to do with suggesting that the victim of sexual abuse was actually a willing prostitute. Or that exposing someone who was raping children, and the people who covered up for him, is a distraction. Or that child sex abuse isn't really that bad, and there are a lot of "far worse crimes" we're all ignoring. Or that you'd decide to form such vile opinions without even knowing enough about the case to know the AGE OF THE VICTIMS, which is one of the most basic things ANYONE with ANY knowledge of the case would learn.

[TBF]

15. You disgust me. nt

[OneGrassRoot]

37. Holy shit n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. This is, or should be, exhibit #1 as evidence in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2277902

Would anyone, DU or elsewhere, defend a rapist based on a 12 year old girl's "decision" to "open (her) back door to get a scholarship"? Would the moderators at DU fail to tombstone anyone who said it?

[MineralMan]

46. An excellent question you pose there...

[MineralMan]

2. Like all Grand Jury reports, they are subject to trial in court.

It's impossible to say what the court will find. The document, however, is indicative of guilt, from my point of view. Certainly, it is enough for administrative action that has been taken.

[HopeHoops]

11. Well, to be fair, I missed some of that info. Back me up here - I fucked up.

[MineralMan]

13. I'm not going to back you up in any way. Sorry.

Fortunately for you, I have no authority here.

[HopeHoops]

17. I just meant that I'm admitting I was wrong - didn't notice that, didn't read it closely.

Back me up as in - "oops. I fucked up."

I didn't know the kid was that young. I thought he was like 18 or something. I'm mostly pissed that it took over so much of the front page when far worse crimes are relegated to page 19.

Bias? Perhaps. Still, you know me well enough.

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. "Far worse crimes"....?

:wtf:

The repeated attacks on disadvantaged, defenseless young boys whose parents took them to a charity thinking that it would add to their lives, only to have those lives ruined, is not bad enough for you? Too see as this unfurls just how long and extensive what amounts to a cover up to protect the powerful isn't enough? Really? Just stop...please stop.

[DURHAM D]

16. You should back yourself up, apologize and start over.

[HopeHoops]

19. I sort of did in my last post. I didn't realize the kid was that young. Sorry.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. And yet that vile post remains...within the editing period.

Sure you're sorry.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. The poster could edit it still, but has not, despite several

suggestions that he/she do so.

[JanMichael]

34. that poster is off my radar now

Seriously, do the same; it's much easier. I "alerted" first. Sad.

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Good idea...his further comments were just as stupid, if not as vile.

That said...

...Hey there, how are you?

[JanMichael]

51. OK...we moved

to another city...you know how that goes. About 1/4 of the boxes STILL need to be unpacked...the dog is having a hard time adjusting, and the cat is being totally verbal about the fact that she is displeased with the new location of the litter box, and doesn't get enough food.

It'll come together :)

[HopeHoops]

44. Well, it probably should. It serves as a reference as to why one should not post without more info.

I honestly thought the kid was an aspiring college admission student. If you're saying he was 10 or 13 or so, then that's just beyond wrong. Yeah, I fucked up. The post serves as a testament to that. I'm not ashamed to be wrong.

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. There was more than 1 (8 that we know of), all between the ages of

10 to 13. You should be ashamed enough to remove it. The replies you have received are enough for people to realize that you were wrong. I think you fancy yourself as witty with that post, and the followup replies. Be assured, you are not. :(

[HopeHoops]

58. Look - I admit I was wrong. I started a new thread saying I was wrong. What else can I do?

And I don't know how to remove a thread.

[arcane1]

25. You missed how young the kid was...

yet seemed perfectly confident that the kid was whoring himself out for a scholarship???

:wtf:

[Aerows]

3. That's the Grand Jury's findings

It's enough to have him indicted, and possibly others. We'll see what the courts say.

[OneGrassRoot]

39. Okay, I wanted to be sure it really IS the Grand Jury's findings. Thanks. n/t

[TBF]

14. Here it is cited by the Washington Post -

I think we can safely assume it is the genuine document.

And it is very difficult to read, be prepared.

Truly heartbroken for these families, not ashamed to admit I'd want to cause severe injury to someone if they did this to my son.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/documents/sandusky-grand-jury-report11052011.html

[OneGrassRoot]

33. Holy shit, I just came back to this thinking I'd see a "yes" or "no" answer...

I'll try to find out what kind of shitstorm I started inadvertently, yet again.

:(

[HopeHoops]

36. GEEZE - How many times can I say it - I WAS FUCKING WRONG! Okay?

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. THEN FUCKING REMOVE THE FUCKING POST ALREADY!

Otherwise you are FULL OF SHIT.

[HopeHoops]

57. How?

[MineralMan]

42. No, it's not OK. Go alert on your own post and ask that it be

removed. Since you don't seem able to edit it for some reason, you can still alert on your own post. No excuses.

[HopeHoops]

59. Ah - good idea - I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

[laylah]

47. Then remove your BEYOND

offensive post!

[jmg257]

41. I have no reason to believe that document is not valid.

The guys is a sick fuck. As are those who knowingly let him get away with it for more then 13 years.

[OneGrassRoot]

45. Agreed. Thanks much. I'm going to quit commenting and let this sink. Ick. n/t

[jmg257]

50. I suggest you take a look at a "Timeline" too - it greatly helps with

clarity and explains why those involved like Paterno should get what they deserve....firing ain't enough.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

[OneGrassRoot]

60. Actually, I was just there before coming here. The timeline helps a lot! Thanks. :) n/t

[mmonk]

54. No reason not to unless and until adjudication says otherwise.

[OneGrassRoot]

61. Thanks. n/t