This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I could have sworn multiple people posted in here that he was in a mental institution now. (James Calhoun) I guess that doesn't necessary mean he's not sane though. Actually now I'm looking at it, seems like there were multiple janitor witnesses. My bad.Edit: Oh you found the link, good to know I wasn't imagining things.
You alreafy have some victims providing credible testimony. The McCreary testimony corroborates the victims' version of events.
Right, in most sex abuse cases there is no McQueary or janitor that witnessed the abuse. The fact that they exist is the reason this seems to be a strong case for the prosecution, not a weak one.
based on what's out now, is there any doubt, reasonabl;e or other that sexual contact took place?
Any chance some people here were a little hard on McQueary?
No because it is in direct contradiction to the grand jury testimony he gave:
So I smell someone revising history. Or he lied to the grand jury which is perjury.
The indictment isn't a trasnscript of his deposition.
Pretty sure there is a big difference between leaving immediately and intervening. Pretty sure the difference would be noted in the indictment.
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 to help clear McQueary's name given the backlash he is experiencing right now.Not sure why it would be left out in the first place and it certainly does sound like McQueary is trying desperately to cover his ### but there is a possibility that he isn't lying and did, in fact stop the act before leaving the scene on the advice of his father without the child.
"left immediately" doesn't give a lot of wiggle room
Pretty sure JoePa immediately informed his superior, the very next day (a Sunday no less).The bias in the grand jury presentment - as evidenced by the verbiage chosen - was discussed earlier.
For the purposes of indicting Sandusky him intervening would have to be noted. There would have had to have been conversation. That would a bit important. So yeah I still smell revision because he looks like he left a child getting raped while he ran away.
To suggest there is bias in favor of Paterno is one thing. To suggest there is bias against McQueary, their star witness, is another.I
I don't see anyway it does not go to trial. He has denied doing it and the prosecution is not going to offer up a sweet plea bargain at the public outrage would be off the charts. If you are Sandusky, and the state is not offering a plea bargain that keeps you out of jail for the rest of your life, you try the case and take your chances that your attorney can do enough to cast reasonable doubt. You are assuming that the victims can all be found and are willing to testify against him. That is easier said than done. There is also no physical evidence here, one witness, the janitor, is not capable of testifying and McQueary seems to have already contradicted himself.While Sandusky has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and rightly so, that is a far cry from being convicted in a court of law, which is a much higher standard.
What makes you think that? Wouldn't shock me if the ******* winked and kept on.
Good point.
Neither am I but nothing I've read or heard about Sandusky impresses me as a deterrent to this monster so far. I'm not sold that he would have given it a second thought to be seen by someone he'd known since he was a kid. Sandusky was above the law at Penn State, at least in his mind.I'm not a child raper but I'd think having McQueary there might kill the mood.
apparently his lawyer had a child w/ an underage girl
Why do you assume there are 20 bad witnesses? There are seven victims that testified before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury found them credible. Their stories are remarkably consistent concerning Sandusky's MO. Any witness can be impeached, but Sandusky has to make a very, very hard case anyway. His own story of being an adult who just takes innocent showers and horses around with kids presents a lot of very serious credibility problems. Add in two eyewitnesses, and as fatguy said, this is an uncommonly strong case for this type of offense. Kids don't immediately report and get rape kits done.
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.
Age of consent in PA is 16.You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.
22What is the age of consent in Colorado?Age of consent in PA is 16.You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.
glad it's not 2822What is the age of consent in Colorado?Age of consent in PA is 16.You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.
No need to be coy or cryptic Joe T. We know nothing more about McQueary today than we knew a week ago.
Or maybe it wasn't the first timeSomewhere in this thread I broached the topic of Sandusky's raping of a 10 year old, McQueary hearing the telltale "slapping" and discovering them... and the fact that there was no screaming bloody murder by this child.Perhaps Sandusky was just getting off simulating the act. (use your imagination)
I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be. Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.
You're right about the victims' testimony, but it should be noted that the bolded above will not be admissable (since it is hearsay).
And he kept seeing Sandusky unpunished with other boys for the nine years since. His little plea of "you know me" and "I made sure it stopped" falls pretty flat considering there are nine more years of victims he allowed with his silence.
As noted upthread, if he made eye contact and Sandusky stopped, that fits his cryptic and coy "I made sure it stopped".
If that is what happened - and we don't know one way or another - and then he ran, that means the coward still abandoned a 10 year boy who was being ### raped.
This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
Or Sandusky is hung like a fly. My son is 12. An average sized male would kill him.Or maybe it wasn't the first timeSomewhere in this thread I broached the topic of Sandusky's raping of a 10 year old, McQueary hearing the telltale "slapping" and discovering them... and the fact that there was no screaming bloody murder by this child.Perhaps Sandusky was just getting off simulating the act. (use your imagination)
One difference here could be that the victims may testify en masse. That could tip the scales.Now, to be accurate in the comparison, it's now been firmly established that the preschoolers' depositions were heavily coached by the prosecution's lawyers. Further -- the McMartin case is now considered to have been an immense sham and the defendants are now accepted to be completely innocent of everything they were charged with.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
No I don't. There is public outcry but McMartin was the culmination of a decade of hysteria that included alleged satanists running day cares and abusing kids.
The only reason I brought up McMartin was to strengthen my point that a large number of witnesses does not necessarily ensure convictions in high profile cases. The burden of proof in these cases is much higher, IMO, than in normal court cases. Or perhaps its that well paid defense attorneys are simply much better at their jobs than public defenders and have tons more money to spend. Whatever the reason, it would be highly premature to consider this case to be open and shut based on history.But I do think that this story has created public hysteria. I think we're well beyond outcry stage. Sandusky's lawyers will no doubt have an argument that it will be difficult for him to obtain a fair trial under the current atmosphere.
Yeah this is nothing like that case (or the even larger Kern County ritual abuse cases of the 1980s). Not even in the same ballpark.
I think we have reached "hysteria" level on a message board. "Outcry" seems to suit the real world IMHO.
I don't recall any of these witnesses saying they saw their abusers flying through the air. So I don't think you really strengthened your point.
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.
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).
The janitor apparently has dementia and will be unable to testify.
Sadly, what you are talking about with a lot of high profile cases has to do with jury nullification, which has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the case, and only about sending some sort of societal message. And I am pretty sure these victims, who are all now adults but werent 2-5 at the time of the crimes, will come across far better than the very young McMartin witnesses.
