Even if he stopped it as he claims (funny how this is ok to believe without proof while admonishing people for believing unproven things), he still didn't do a damn thing about seeing Sandusky with new victims for 9 years. Plenty of blame is well deserved by McQueary.Its too bad we couldnt have waited for the whole truth to be unraveled, but the lynch-mob had already formed. At least the focus is back on Sandusky where it belongs.The presentment is a summary of testimony written up by the Grand Jury. You have no idea what McQueary's full testimony was. None of us do. It's a 23 page report purporting to summarize a TWO YEAR investigation. There's absolutely no way it's a flawless account of such a muddled record."left immediately" doesn't give a lot of wiggle roomThis. Mike & Mike had Roger Cossack (SP?) on this morning and he said the same. That part of McQueary's testimony could have been left out of the Grand Jury finding if it was found to be irrelevant to the testimony. Not sure why it would be but it's a possibility. He also said that his entire deposition could be released to corroborate McQueary's assertion that he did stop what was going on.The indictment isn't a trasnscript of his deposition.No because it is in direct contradiction to the grand jury testimony he gave:Any chance some people here were a little hard on McQueary?Apologies if this is old news:
McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"So I smell someone revising history. Or he lied to the grand jury which is perjury."The graduate student was shocked but noticed both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught."
That reminds me of a scene from a A Few Good Men that goes perfectly with this whole story. Mike and Mike even talked about it!!!!Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
If what the lawyer is saying about the Grand Jury testimony is true, they do have some kind of case. He was saying yesterday that some of these victims don't exist or cannot be found and that the accounts are incorrect. He made it sound like it will quickly go from 8 victims and 40 counts to just 2 victims with accounts that can't be proven.Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.
Where does it say that McQueary saw more victims in the following years?Even if he stopped it as he claims (funny how this is ok to believe without proof while admonishing people for believing unproven things), he still didn't do a damn thing about seeing Sandusky with new victims for 9 years. Plenty of blame is well deserved by McQueary.Its too bad we couldnt have waited for the whole truth to be unraveled, but the lynch-mob had already formed. At least the focus is back on Sandusky where it belongs.The presentment is a summary of testimony written up by the Grand Jury. You have no idea what McQueary's full testimony was. None of us do. It's a 23 page report purporting to summarize a TWO YEAR investigation. There's absolutely no way it's a flawless account of such a muddled record."left immediately" doesn't give a lot of wiggle roomThis. Mike & Mike had Roger Cossack (SP?) on this morning and he said the same. That part of McQueary's testimony could have been left out of the Grand Jury finding if it was found to be irrelevant to the testimony. Not sure why it would be but it's a possibility. He also said that his entire deposition could be released to corroborate McQueary's assertion that he did stop what was going on.The indictment isn't a trasnscript of his deposition.No because it is in direct contradiction to the grand jury testimony he gave:Any chance some people here were a little hard on McQueary?Apologies if this is old news:
McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"So I smell someone revising history. Or he lied to the grand jury which is perjury."The graduate student was shocked but noticed both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught."
If Sandusky had come out and vehemently denied all the allegations and disputed the claims of witnesses, I think there is a segment of the population that would have fallen for it. People like to believe whatever is put in front of them and conjuring up even the slightest hint of doubt would have been better than nothing.He didn't though; he came across sounding extremely guilty, which is what he is. Someone who was innocent wouldn't spin the details of the events to minimize their impact, they'd outright deny them.Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
You'd think that someone would have let us know that before now.'proninja said:I just heard that the Janitor apparently has dementia. Thought you guys should know.
first I heard of it. Did they ever ID the GD assistant?'proninja said:I just heard that the Janitor apparently has dementia. Thought you guys should know.
That disease sucks. Especially for a 28 year old.'proninja said:I just heard that the Janitor apparently has dementia. Thought you guys should know.
So sad, especially at the young age of 22.'proninja said:I just heard that the Janitor apparently has dementia. Thought you guys should know.
Well he thinks he's 22, claims to be from Colorado, and honestly thinks (get this!) that he authored a book entitled 'Touched'.That disease sucks. Especially for a 28 year old.'proninja said:I just heard that the Janitor apparently has dementia. Thought you guys should know.
There is nothing he could have said and no way he could have said it that would have changed anyone's mind. The only response would be dissecting his statements to prove the conclusion people have already arrived at.Had he vehemently denied it, the responses would range from "What else is he going to say" to "Can you believe he was so over the top? Of course he's guilty, what a terrible acting job"Frankly, the exercise of hyper-analysing every detail and word choice in every interview and in the Grand Jury report is a little wearisome. Let's settle in for the trial.'LarryAllen said:If Sandusky had come out and vehemently denied all the allegations and disputed the claims of witnesses, I think there is a segment of the population that would have fallen for it. People like to believe whatever is put in front of them and conjuring up even the slightest hint of doubt would have been better than nothing.He didn't though; he came across sounding extremely guilty, which is what he is. Someone who was innocent wouldn't spin the details of the events to minimize their impact, they'd outright deny them.'17seconds said:Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
I should've said potential victims. Sandusky was still around campus and in the company of youngsters. If McQ saw Sandusky raping a child and then saw him for the next 9 years with young kids around him, then McQ deserves everything he's gotten about this.'ClownCausedChaos said:Where does it say that McQueary saw more victims in the following years?'mad sweeney said:Even if he stopped it as he claims (funny how this is ok to believe without proof while admonishing people for believing unproven things), he still didn't do a damn thing about seeing Sandusky with new victims for 9 years. Plenty of blame is well deserved by McQueary.'E-Z Glider said:Its too bad we couldnt have waited for the whole truth to be unraveled, but the lynch-mob had already formed. At least the focus is back on Sandusky where it belongs.'scoobygang said:The presentment is a summary of testimony written up by the Grand Jury. You have no idea what McQueary's full testimony was. None of us do. It's a 23 page report purporting to summarize a TWO YEAR investigation. There's absolutely no way it's a flawless account of such a muddled record.'Brock Middlebrook said:"left immediately" doesn't give a lot of wiggle room'beer 30 said:This. Mike & Mike had Roger Cossack (SP?) on this morning and he said the same. That part of McQueary's testimony could have been left out of the Grand Jury finding if it was found to be irrelevant to the testimony. Not sure why it would be but it's a possibility. He also said that his entire deposition could be released to corroborate McQueary's assertion that he did stop what was going on.'culdeus said:The indictment isn't a trasnscript of his deposition.'NCCommish said:No because it is in direct contradiction to the grand jury testimony he gave:'E-Z Glider said:Any chance some people here were a little hard on McQueary?So I smell someone revising history. Or he lied to the grand jury which is perjury."The graduate student was shocked but noticed both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught."
touche'd'dgreen said:That reminds me of a scene from a A Few Good Men that goes perfectly with this whole story. Mike and Mike even talked about it!!!!'17seconds said:Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
His fellow janitors can testify to what they heard, and their testimony could be considered admissible under the "excited utterance" exception:'Tiny%20Dancer said:The janitor apparently has dementia and will be unable to testify.%26%2339%3Bscoobygang%26%2339%3B said:Hearsay is generally not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted (that the janitor saw Sandusky), but it's not categorically banned. The janitor can testify as to who he told. Those people can corroborate that the janitor told them. It could also come in through a hearsay exception (most likely as an excited utterance).%26%2339%3BDoug B said:You're right about the victims' testimony, but it should be noted that the bolded above will not be admissable (since it is hearsay).%26%2339%3BTodd Andrews said:Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).
I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.
Excited utterances: statements relating to startling events or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. An excited utterance does not have to be made at the same time of the startling event. A statement made minutes, hours or even days after the startling event can be excited utterances, so long as the declarant is still under the stress of the startling event. However, the more time that elapses between a startling event and the declarant's statement, the more the statements will be looked upon with disfavor.
I disagree. This is a hypothetical but imagine if Sandusky said something in a strong tone like: "I haven't done any of these things. Witness #1 wanted me out of PSU because I kept him from getting a promotion he didn't deserve. Several of the alleged victims don't actually exist. Law enforcement knew of these allegations for 10 years and determined everything was false so no action was taken..."That would have changed the minds of some people, especially people at PSU. Instead he spoke like a defeated and misunderstood man.There is nothing he could have said and no way he could have said it that would have changed anyone's mind. The only response would be dissecting his statements to prove the conclusion people have already arrived at.Had he vehemently denied it, the responses would range from "What else is he going to say" to "Can you believe he was so over the top? Of course he's guilty, what a terrible acting job"'LarryAllen said:If Sandusky had come out and vehemently denied all the allegations and disputed the claims of witnesses, I think there is a segment of the population that would have fallen for it. People like to believe whatever is put in front of them and conjuring up even the slightest hint of doubt would have been better than nothing.He didn't though; he came across sounding extremely guilty, which is what he is. Someone who was innocent wouldn't spin the details of the events to minimize their impact, they'd outright deny them.'17seconds said:Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
Frankly, the exercise of hyper-analysing every detail and word choice in every interview and in the Grand Jury report is a little wearisome. Let's settle in for the trial.
don't forget ColoradoThere is no way he gets off. Even State of Penn messes it up Texas, the Feds and possibly Florida will all have a shot at him.
There is nothing he could have said and no way he could have said it that would have changed anyone's mind. The only response would be dissecting his statements to prove the conclusion people have already arrived at.Had he vehemently denied it, the responses would range from "What else is he going to say" to "Can you believe he was so over the top? Of course he's guilty, what a terrible acting job"Frankly, the exercise of hyper-analysing every detail and word choice in every interview and in the Grand Jury report is a little wearisome. Let's settle in for the trial.'LarryAllen said:If Sandusky had come out and vehemently denied all the allegations and disputed the claims of witnesses, I think there is a segment of the population that would have fallen for it. People like to believe whatever is put in front of them and conjuring up even the slightest hint of doubt would have been better than nothing.He didn't though; he came across sounding extremely guilty, which is what he is. Someone who was innocent wouldn't spin the details of the events to minimize their impact, they'd outright deny them.'17seconds said:Sandusky sounded so guilty in the Costas interview. No strenuous objections, no real explanations of the activity, no questioning of the accusations at all.
I would caution people to realize that if this goes to trial there is always a chance of acquittal. See Casey Anthony, OJ, etc... It happens, because people are stupid and juries are made up of people.There is no way he gets off. Even State of Penn messes it up Texas, the Feds and possibly Florida will all have a shot at him.
OJ is a terrible comparison. As was already mentioned, that was jury nullification plain and simple. Unless Sandusky gets a jury full of pedophiles, I don't think we'll see something similar happen.I would caution people to realize that if this goes to trial there is always a chance of acquittal. See Casey Anthony, OJ, etc... It happens, because people are stupid and juries are made up of people.There is no way he gets off. Even State of Penn messes it up Texas, the Feds and possibly Florida will all have a shot at him.
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
I think Texas is sitting on go here. The laws are not nearly as easy as PA.OJ is a terrible comparison. As was already mentioned, that was jury nullification plain and simple. Unless Sandusky gets a jury full of pedophiles, I don't think we'll see something similar happen.I would caution people to realize that if this goes to trial there is always a chance of acquittal. See Casey Anthony, OJ, etc... It happens, because people are stupid and juries are made up of people.There is no way he gets off. Even State of Penn messes it up Texas, the Feds and possibly Florida will all have a shot at him.
I don't know about that, but the guy does come across as the Jackie Chiles of Pennsyltucky, which I don't see as benefiting his client.Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky."what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
What did we learn from McQ? That he claims he stopped it (unproven) but let it slide for 9 years (proven)? Sorry, but McQ's leaked email defense doesn't add up and it's definitely not something to "learn" from yet.SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
"You put the balm on?!?"I don't know about that, but the guy does come across as the Jackie Chiles of Pennsyltucky, which I don't see as benefiting his client.Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky."what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
Im glad to see you are at least using words like "if" and "yet". Maybe the outrage is finally waning. All Im saying is give people a chance to speak and then form your judgments.What did we learn from McQ? That he claims he stopped it (unproven) but let it slide for 9 years (proven)? Sorry, but McQ's leaked email defense doesn't add up and it's definitely not something to "learn" from yet.SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
What's McQ going to say that will change the fact that he saw Sandusky rape a kid and then stayed in the program and watched Sandusky hanging out with more kids?Im glad to see you are at least using words like "if" and "yet". Maybe the outrage is finally waning. All Im saying is give people a chance to speak and then form your judgments.What did we learn from McQ? That he claims he stopped it (unproven) but let it slide for 9 years (proven)? Sorry, but McQ's leaked email defense doesn't add up and it's definitely not something to "learn" from yet.SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
Not until you clean your plate and finish your chores young man.but I want to judge now
Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.What's McQ going to say that will change the fact that he saw Sandusky rape a kid and then stayed in the program and watched Sandusky hanging out with more kids?Im glad to see you are at least using words like "if" and "yet". Maybe the outrage is finally waning. All Im saying is give people a chance to speak and then form your judgments.What did we learn from McQ? That he claims he stopped it (unproven) but let it slide for 9 years (proven)? Sorry, but McQ's leaked email defense doesn't add up and it's definitely not something to "learn" from yet.SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
if you know how often Sandusky and Paterno spoke and the specific conditions of that conversation, why don't you know more? what are you hiding from us?Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.
You don't know what McQ did in that locker room either, but its ok for you to draw the conclusion you want I guess. Sandusky had access to everything he had before the shower incident. If McQ saw him ONCE, that's enough.Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.What's McQ going to say that will change the fact that he saw Sandusky rape a kid and then stayed in the program and watched Sandusky hanging out with more kids?Im glad to see you are at least using words like "if" and "yet". Maybe the outrage is finally waning. All Im saying is give people a chance to speak and then form your judgments.What did we learn from McQ? That he claims he stopped it (unproven) but let it slide for 9 years (proven)? Sorry, but McQ's leaked email defense doesn't add up and it's definitely not something to "learn" from yet.SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
On itHurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley.
Ummmm, you realize that's just a figure of speech, right?C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
i thought the one time in 7 years was something reported somewhere with no collaborationif you know how often Sandusky and Paterno spoke and the specific conditions of that conversation, why don't you know more? what are you hiding from us?Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.
right, but he's treating that as fact while saying that we can't possibly know that McQueary saw Sandusky hanging around the program over the past 9 years.i thought the one time in 7 years was something reported somewhere with no collaborationif you know how often Sandusky and Paterno spoke and the specific conditions of that conversation, why don't you know more? what are you hiding from us?Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.
In Texas you can shoot a guy for looking at your lawn the wrong way.I think Texas is sitting on go here. The laws are not nearly as easy as PA.
Umm, I got lost somewhere along the way in this conversation.Ummmm, you realize that's just a figure of speech, right?C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?Stop what, specifically?Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)According to SPORTSbyBROOKS
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.Source close to current Penn St Trustee told me today school may have no choice to keep Bradley on b/c he knows where bodies are buried.
Im treating it as fact because Im the one who reported it here with no collaboration and I have no reason to believe its not true since it was posted 4 years ago by someone with an agenda against Joe. You dont have to believe it, but that doesnt change what aaron is saying anyway. It just adds support to it.right, but he's treating that as fact while saying that we can't possibly know that McQueary saw Sandusky hanging around the program over the past 9 years.i thought the one time in 7 years was something reported somewhere with no collaborationif you know how often Sandusky and Paterno spoke and the specific conditions of that conversation, why don't you know more? what are you hiding from us?Paterno spoke to Sandusky once in the 7 years after he retired and it was a chance encounter on campus. I dont know how much McQ saw Sandusky since the incident and neither do you.