I wasn't talking about the trial and whether it will be used to convict him, I was talking about Sinn's own personal thoughts that "this could just be a misunderstanding". I might be able to see thinking that way if it was just one eyewitness, or just one victim, but there's many.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PoliSciGuy
- Start date
I don't disagree with this. But you have McQueary already backtracking a little, and making assumptions about what he thought he saw. Maybe it was not sexual - I mean even if you did not see actual intercourse, I did not see testimony that McQueary saw an erection, or anything else indicating sex - other than hearing some slapping sounds.
Again - if I was in Sandusky's situation, and I knew that I did something as horrible as has been suggested, I would kill myself if for no other reason than to avoid the consequences. I get the impression that he really thinks he is innocent - and thus it may be possible that he used extremely poor judgement, but was not a sexual predator. I am not ready to say that is likely yet, but I think it is a more possible outcome today than I thought a few weeks ago.
Doug B
Footballguy
"I made sure it stopped" are weasel words, but can still be truthful.It could mean "I did something physically to make sure it stopped" (shouted out loud, approached Sandusky, etc.). It could also reasonably mean "I continued watching until it stopped." (in the same sense as "I made sure Junior ate his veggies -- I watched him the whole time.").McQueary email: "I didn't just turn and run. I made sure it stopped."
McQueary testimony: "McQueary said he looked away for a few moments, and when he took a closer look the two were standing apart."
Those two statements aren't inconsistent with each other.
McQueary is probably glad to have people interpret it the first way, when truthfuly he meant it in the second way.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Probably gets in under a hearsay exception. I think there are enough witnesses and victims here of varying degrees that Sandusky will be convicted on several counts. Maybe not all 52.The McQueary testimony is probably more relevant to the perjury charges and the reputation of PSU.
Doug B
Footballguy
And for anyone who thinks this case is a slam dunk for the prosecution: details such as this could be the difference between 20 years in prison and five years probation. For instance, I am wondering if "dry-humping" is a legally safer thing to cop to (from Sandusky's persepective) than straight-up intercourse.
Doug B
Footballguy
I think that depends on how the information was conveyed from eyewitness to third party. If someone else heard the eyewitness make an on-the-spot exclamation ("HOLY ****, WHAT THE **** ARE YOU DOING!!!"), the third party could testify to that.But if the eyewitness told the third party a few hours later, then that gets thrown out, I believe.
Dry humping while naked in a shower?
Doug B
Footballguy
I know ... but in court, his lawyer might be able to make an argument like that fly. Or might not -- not saying it's an iron-clad defense. Just the kind of thing we can expect the defense to try.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Are Curley and Schultz going to be testifying in Sandusky's trial?
No idea what McQ really told them, but their story certainly doesn't help McQ's credibility.
If they had been lying, I'm assuming they aren't going to admit to perjury to help the case against Sandusky.
No idea what McQ really told them, but their story certainly doesn't help McQ's credibility.
If they had been lying, I'm assuming they aren't going to admit to perjury to help the case against Sandusky.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Certainly not a new thought, but it would've been really nice, for the sake of this case, if McQ had immediately called the police. Any medical evidence gathered immediately following whatever took place in that shower would be really nice to have.
This starting to sound like something Sandusky could weasel himself out of.
This starting to sound like something Sandusky could weasel himself out of.
no, it's not. at all.
E-Z Glider
Footballguy
Wonder if there's any chance they'd let Joe come back and coach the bowl game (or at least be present on the sidelines). Looking more and more like he got a bad rap.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Doug B
Footballguy
I don't think he can beat the rap entirely, by any means. But I think Sandusky can get a lot less than a many people expect him to get.Would anyone really be shocked if he were only sentenced to 10 years -- or even less?
AmosMoses
Footballguy
Let's hope not.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I thought that was pretty relevant too. There had been some debate on how much he really told Paterno. And McQ also testified that Paterno followed up with him several weeks later to ask McQ if he was satisfied with the result of the inquiry. I don't remember that in the Grand Jury summation.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Agree 100%. Joe is gone and deservedly so. What the trial and under oath statements of today and the future will do is help clarify how much more he did that nothing. I know he had a written statement today but given his health issues I really wish they would do a videotaped deposition under oath, just in case.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Pretty sure Sandusky's getting murdered at this point; the only question is whether it will happen in prison or out.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Two letters. O. J. Criminal trials don't often turn out the way we expect.
Doug B
Footballguy
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Yes, somehow forgot about her. Same thing. I'm just about as convinced of her guilt as I was OJ's and am Sandusky's. But burden of proof can be tougher than people think. Civil cases will sort things out some more.Also: Casey Anthony.
Doug B
Footballguy
Yep. A couple of factors:a) they WILL find people who have never heard of the scandal to serve on the jury. Don't ask me how, but they will. That means ...b) ... that a lot of the stuff "everybody knows" and accepts as fact will NOT be considered by the jury at all. Because it won't even be introduced in the trial in the first place.
AmosMoses
Footballguy
I thought it was pretty revealing about McQueary's sense of priorities than anything. Why tell Paterno anything? You know who you do give detail to? The police. The State investigatory service if there is one. The FBI. Whoever that will listen to keep child rape from happening. The football coach? GTFO. His concerns are with the health of the program, not with the children.
I don't remember any victim testimony in the OJ or Casey Anthony trials because they were dead. What are you people talking about?
Last edited by a moderator:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Can't really argue that although it seems like maybe his father and that Dr friend could have talked him into that as well. Anyway, I try not to be too tough on him because I really think it's easy to say what all of us would do in the exact same situation and it's amazing how we would all be the most perfect, heroic people. Real life doesn't tend to work that way.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I'm not sure if you're being serious but I think there is an obvious connection with a big, famous case in which most of the people hearing the testimony thought they were clearly guilty. Yet OJ and Casey got off. I don't think anyone hopes Sandusky walks free, but the point is that it's possible.
those were murders with no eyewitness testimony. the victims were dead so they could not testify against the accused.this is not the case here. there is a line of victims waiting to testify against Sandusky. McQueary is not the end all and be all of the prosecution's case here.of course I'm serious.much easier to establish reasonable doubt when nobody saw the crimes being committed. getting a jury to believe all these victims are lying is not going to be nearly as easy as some of you are suggesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
Of course he's serious. OJ and Anthony got off because there weren't any witnesses to testify against them. Just because they're all "big famous cases" doesn't mean they're at all similar.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Sigh. OK. I don't think it will happen. I don't want it to happen. But it has happened before and could happen again. Am I incorrect?
mad sweeney
Footballguy
It would be really nice, for the sake of being a man and a human being, if McQ had done pretty much anything other than run away and call his daddy.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I guess my point is that if Sandusky goes free, it will be similar in being a big famous case in which most observers thought the defendant was guilty but he/she was found not guilty. I really don't understand why this is such a controversial statement?
I hope he ends up like Scott Pederson.
Doug B
Footballguy
I have a suspicion that victims' testimony alone, uncorroborated, will not be enough to get the maximum penalties. Even with 10 victims testifying.Could be wrong about that. Don't know, in a real trial involving real-live people, how "preponderence of accusers" will affect the likelihood of a guilty verdicts.
...
Aaron -- keep in mind that no one's saying Sandusky skates totally. The thought is that his penalties may end up being relatively light.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I guess my point is that if Sandusky goes free, it will be similar in being a big famous case in which most observers thought the defendant was guilty but he/she was found not guilty. I really don't understand why this is such a controversial statement?
AmosMoses
Footballguy
Ohh sure. His father is a double ####### since not only did he fail to train his son to do the right thing in general, he gave him bad advice in this specific situation when he was called. I'm not a hero, but I can sure as hell call the police. I think there is a pretty broad area between a hero and a coward. Most people are in the middle. McQueary is most definitely not in the middle.
Sure, anything is possible I guess. But the cases are not very similar at all apart from the fact they are high profile, IMO.Ever since this thread has started, people always seem to forget that there are living victims who are going to testify. It's not all about McQueary and what he saw. That's a key piece of info as relates to Paterno and the Penn State connection but it doesn't seem as critical to the Sandusky case.Sure, maybe I'm being optimistic but I think the victim testimony will be powerful and convincing enough to get the conviction.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I agree with that. I think most people would have called the cops. I think some would have done noting, some would have beat up Sandusky and some would have done what McQ did. I sure hope I would have called the cops. I honestly doubt I would have physically beat up a naked 60 year old man. Hell, for all I know I might have run to the toilet to throw up. Sick, sick stuff.
the comment I initially responded to said it sounds like Sandusky will be able to weasel out of this. That sounded like an acquittal, no?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
OK, I agree. And I hope so too. I think 8-10 people testifying is enough for a reasonable jury. But I do think that the Prosecution lost a little bit if McQ isn't an iron clad eyewitness. That's what I believe some people are referring to here.
Doug B
Footballguy
I see that comment now ... yeah, I wouldn't expect a acquital....
Don't won't want to speak for Construx Boy. But I think what some of us are driving at is that when the bright lights are on, the American justice system -- in general -- has a way of disappointing the public. Not every time (Scott Peterson), but often enough to make it so that you don't want to assume anything.
What is the victim's testimony going to be in this case? If it only amounts to inappropriate contact, but no touching of penises or anal penetration, or oral stimulation - then the guy is probably a freak who lacks a sense of basic boundaries, but may not be a child molester.I don't know what the victim's testimony will be, or whether the contact could be construed in a non-sexual manner. I am just leaving open the possibility that an interpretation that is less than child molester is still possible based on what I :know: right now.Even under the best light I can imagine now, he needs to be kept away from unsupervised visits with children. But he may not be the monster that some evidence would point to.
Doug B
Footballguy
Great point."Everyone knows" that it will be "ten kids testifying to clear rape". But is it?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
That was my point as well, esp after hearing that McQ's testimony isn't as strong as expected. I don't think there will be an acquittal, but I do worry that the "fame" of the case could cause something to screw up.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Is that from his grand jury testimony?
dgreen
Footballguy
Ahh, yes, just saw this from earlier:
pantherclub
Footballguy
woah
AmosMoses
Footballguy
Wow, that's ####### callous. How do people think like this?
CrossEyed
Footballguy
That's highly unlikely.
