the moops
Footballguy
Unless he means he took a baseball bat to the guys groin, repeatedly, screw him.Apologies if this is old news:
McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"
Unless he means he took a baseball bat to the guys groin, repeatedly, screw him.Apologies if this is old news:
McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"
Pretty sure the general rule of thumb is > 20 minutes old, probably already posted in the thread.From what I understand somebody got a copy of an email McQueary sent out to former teammates. Now regardless if that is an intentional leak or just a buddy thinking he is helping out an old friend, shouldn't potential witnesses in a felony sexual assault case keep their ####### mouth shut? Is it really that important McQueary gets his side of the story out ASAP?Apologies if this is old news:
McQueary clarifies the 2002 incident: "I didn't just turn and run...I made sure it stopped"
Its still weird, but it says they got married and had another kid, so its not quite as bad.As someone who has lived in PA for my whole life except 6 or so months, I always thought 18 was the legal age :homerj:My linkOh, and age of consent in PA is 16. So there's that.link?Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
I agree with this. Grand Jury testimony of several victims + McQueary is enough for me.We're wasting keystrokes trying to break down his answers.OF COURSE he's lying....
Every time we argue about religion, or economics, or politics, we're wasting keystrokes. It's not like anyone else in the world gives a #### what the FFA decides. The only thing that matters is if it's entertaining for us. Yes, of course he's lying. And if you didn't know 28 years ago that Michael Jackson was a freak and a pedophile, you weren't paying attention.I agree with this. Grand Jury testimony of several victims + McQueary is enough for me.We're wasting keystrokes trying to break down his answers.OF COURSE he's lying....
Reminded me of the Nambla guy's voice Howard Stern used to play.His voice was beyond creepy.question was "are you sexually attracted to young boys?"he first said "sexually?" then paused a bit and said "No, not sexually."It was kind of a weird answer.
Never heard the Stern thing, but he sounded creepy as hell in that interview. And his answer to the sexual attraction to boys question by Costas really made me uncomfortable. It was just gross.Reminded me of the Nambla guy's voice Howard Stern used to play.His voice was beyond creepy.question was "are you sexually attracted to young boys?"he first said "sexually?" then paused a bit and said "No, not sexually."It was kind of a weird answer.
Yeah I learnt this from Ruxin in The LeagueWhen asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys he first paused and then repeated the question. To me, repeating the question signals someone trying to think up an answer when the immediate answer should have been "no".
Damn it thought I had a scoop.Well might as well keep the thread running on the same track.Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
His attorney, Joe Amendola, would later suggest some of the other victims in the grand jury’s “finding of fact” would recant their claims. Who is Joe Amendola? According to Pennsylvania court documents obtained by The Daily, in 1996, at the age of 49, he impregnated a 17-year-old girl. The two later married and divorced.
I love how the threads generate outrage about anything and everything. If this was in another FFA thread and was about a 49 yo FBG and an 18 yo girl, everyone would be running around saying slap it high.Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
butshe was 17 ,not 18 . Even at 18 you can't deny the serious creep factorI love how the threads generate outrage about anything and everything. If this was in another FFA thread and was about a 49 yo FBG and an 18 yo girl, everyone would be running around saying slap it high.Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
Its still weird, but it says they got married and had another kid, so its not quite as bad.My linkOh, and age of consent in PA is 16. So there's that.link?Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
A written statement would have been a better idea.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"And yeah, he definitely had to stall when he was asked if he was sexually attracted to boys. If someone ever asks me that and I take more than a few nanoseconds to answer in the negative and potentially threaten you with violence for being so offensive, please lock me away.A written statement would have been a better idea.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
That, and he's a pretty bad liar.Seems like he and his attorneys are banking on the fact that the kids will not actually testify when it comes down to it.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
I'm going to guess that this never goes to trial.That, and he's a pretty bad liar.Seems like he and his attorneys are banking on the fact that the kids will not actually testify when it comes down to it.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
That stood out to me as well. He danced around it, and seemed like he realized he better say "no".And yeah, he definitely had to stall when he was asked if he was sexually attracted to boys.
Agreed - he might off himself before that happens.I'm going to guess that this never goes to trial.That, and he's a pretty bad liar.Seems like he and his attorneys are banking on the fact that the kids will not actually testify when it comes down to it.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
Really? The guy was witnessed engaging in sexual activity with kids by multiple adults who have no motive to lie. That seems to be a stronger case than almost any child sex abuse prosecution I can think of. Usually it's just the defendant's word against his accuser.I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
He acted so guilty. Put himself at the scene of the crime and then admitted to everything but the rape. And his lawyer with the "isn't it funny we could find the victim and the state couldn't?" Well duh Jerry knows who he raped, oh I mean "wrestled with".I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"And yeah, he definitely had to stall when he was asked if he was sexually attracted to boys. If someone ever asks me that and I take more than a few nanoseconds to answer in the negative and potentially threaten you with violence for being so offensive, please lock me away.A written statement would have been a better idea.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
This. And with lack of physical evidence, they'll really try to push this angle.Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
If it was just the 2002 case (where it's becoming more and more evident the gov't is forcing PSU to protect McCreary's employment status), I'd agree. However, they still have the initial 2008 complaint that is going to be very hard for Sandusky to skate on and I'm guessing some other boys/men will also start to come forward (I do find it strange that none of the victims have told their story yet...makes me think the AG is keeping all of them quiet for the time being). I do have to wonder when he's going to get his bail revoked. One reading/listening of his interview makes it sound like him and his lawyer are trying to intimidate the victims (and he has a reported history of that from the 1998 case). One other thing that he's going to have problem's with is if he did in fact take some of these kids across state lines and any of them are willing to testify. If that's the case, even if he gets off in a State College PA court, I'd have to think the Feds would come in and try him on conspiracy charges. If they do that and decide to prosecute him, he's not getting off.I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
You know why they don't have any physical evidence?Because no one at Penn State or Second Mile or anywhere else went to law enforcement immediately after so they could gather some physical evidence.This whole thing just pisses me off.This. And with lack of physical evidence, they'll really try to push this angle.Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on? And this won't be an ordinary trial with an ordinary defense attorney that has six other cases to deal with that day.Really? The guy was witnessed engaging in sexual activity with kids by multiple adults who have no motive to lie. That seems to be a stronger case than almost any child sex abuse prosecution I can think of. Usually it's just the defendant's word against his accuser.I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
You don't have to choose just one witness. You can have them all testify.Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on?
No, McQueary will testify that he saw him raping a kid, while naked, in the shower. The custodian will testify that he saw him giving oral sex to a kid, while naked, in the shower. He has accepted part of their story, validating their testimony, he's just denying that pesky illegal part. There is no way that a jury, if he ever sees one, is going to believe one guy already admitting to hanging around naked with little boys over several eyeball witnesses with no apparent reason to lie, particularly after the former has already confirmed part of the latter's story.Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
I don't want to be right in this and hopefully the prosecution has more than what we have seen, but in many ways the case seems to hinge on the hope that more victims come forward and one of them brings something to push the prosecution over the top. Maybe I'm wrong.If it was just the 2002 case (where it's becoming more and more evident the gov't is forcing PSU to protect McCreary's employment status), I'd agree. However, they still have the initial 2008 complaint that is going to be very hard for Sandusky to skate on and I'm guessing some other boys/men will also start to come forward (I do find it strange that none of the victims have told their story yet...makes me think the AG is keeping all of them quiet for the time being). I do have to wonder when he's going to get his bail revoked. One reading/listening of his interview makes it sound like him and his lawyer are trying to intimidate the victims (and he has a reported history of that from the 1998 case). One other thing that he's going to have problem's with is if he did in fact take some of these kids across state lines and any of them are willing to testify. If that's the case, even if he gets off in a State College PA court, I'd have to think the Feds would come in and try him on conspiracy charges. If they do that and decide to prosecute him, he's not getting off.I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.This. And with lack of physical evidence, they'll really try to push this angle.Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
Yes there are many witnesses and victims. That's what makes everyone so sure that this guy is a pedophilie. Unless you think there is some grand conspiracy among janitors and grad students and underprivliedged kids to orchestrate a smear job on this guy, you believe he is guilty of doing plenty of terrible stuff with boys.Now, IANAL so hopefully someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this. But in court they have to address each specific charge/instance and find a verdict, right? You can't just be convicted of Pretty Much Definitely Doing Some Bad Stuff But We're Not Sure Exactly What, can you? You have to be found guilty of specific crimes, right? So it comes down to, what evidence and testimony do they have for each victim. Anybody recall how many of the victims identity is known from the GJR? The janitor is no longer sane and McQueary has the fact that he ran away going against his testimony. The high school stuff sounds like it was at worst fondling with clothes on, right? Any other eyewitnesses besides the victims? Hopefully more victims will come out and be willing to testify now that this is so public.Really? The guy was witnessed engaging in sexual activity with kids by multiple adults who have no motive to lie. That seems to be a stronger case than almost any child sex abuse prosecution I can think of. Usually it's just the defendant's word against his accuser.I guess I'll go ahead and say the unthinkable-I don't believe that the prosecution has much of a case base on what has come out. Reluctant and/or not very credible witnesses seem to be the entire case. Maybe there is more that we haven't been made aware of yet, but this looks like a tough case to get a conviction.Note: This does not mean I believe that anyone is innocent, nor is it a defense or an excuse for anyone. Just a rational look at what we have been shown.Sigh. Let's move beyond the childish #### and think about how he could "OJ" his way out of this, if he even could.
I don't think throwing 20 bad witnesses on the stand with the hope that one comes across as believable is a strong high profile case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a court TV junkie. I haven't seen the Peoples Court or Judge Judy or Judge Whoever for a very long time. I was excused from a jury seat just last week by the defense. So I'm not claiming much expertise and maybe those with more - maybe that is you can correct me, but the evidence I see is that the case doesn't has much depth to avoid having doubts rise to the level of being seemed to be reasonable.You don't have to choose just one witness. You can have them all testify.Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on?
Sad but true.I love how the threads generate outrage about anything and everything. If this was in another FFA thread and was about a 49 yo FBG and an 18 yo girl, everyone would be running around saying slap it high.Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49.
You keep saying bad witnesses. However that isn't how the grand jury saw them and I see no reason to believe a trial jury would come to a different conclusion.I don't think throwing 20 bad witnesses on the stand with the hope that one comes across as believable is a strong high profile case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a court TV junkie. I haven't seen the Peoples Court or Judge Judy or Judge Whoever for a very long time. I was excused from a jury seat just last week by the defense. So I'm not claiming much expertise and maybe those with more - maybe that is you can correct me, but the evidence I see is that the case doesn't has much depth to avoid having doubts rise to the level of being seemed to be reasonable.You don't have to choose just one witness. You can have them all testify.Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on?
Creepy as it is, there is nothing illegal about showering in the communal showers (or if there is, it carries a far lesser sentence than the sex crimes). There are multiple witnesses who can definitively place him there. It is 'easier' to argue that yeah, he was there in the showers, but that his activities were misconstrued and/or mis-seen.If you were accused of robbing a convenience store, and many people can attest to you being there, unless you can prove otherwise, you don't argue you weren't there. You argue that although you were there, you didn't commit the crime of which you are accused.Not a winning argument, but a better one.1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.This. And with lack of physical evidence, they'll really try to push this angle.Because McQueary and the janitor will both testify that they saw him naked in the showers with little kids. He can't claim that never happened. His only defense is "sure I was in there but we weren't doing what they claimed we were doing."I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"
I don't think there's a chance he'll get off, but one important difference is that the witnesses will be cross examined in a jury trial. I think McGreary sinks him by himself, but I'm sure Sandusky's attorney has plenty to go at him with also.You keep saying bad witnesses. However that isn't how the grand jury saw them and I see no reason to believe a trial jury would come to a different conclusion.I don't think throwing 20 bad witnesses on the stand with the hope that one comes across as believable is a strong high profile case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a court TV junkie. I haven't seen the Peoples Court or Judge Judy or Judge Whoever for a very long time. I was excused from a jury seat just last week by the defense. So I'm not claiming much expertise and maybe those with more - maybe that is you can correct me, but the evidence I see is that the case doesn't has much depth to avoid having doubts rise to the level of being seemed to be reasonable.You don't have to choose just one witness. You can have them all testify.Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on?
OK, thanks.Off topic, but actually it's pretty common at both the collegiate and pro level. It's one of those things people always joke about (WTF do you guys need to shower for? You've been walking up and down the sideline in 50 degree weather!).Fair enough. The coaches showering together thing seems very odd to me and seems to tie into a possible defense in this case. Thought it was worth discussing.
Exactly. McQueary worked with him, they knew each other. If he said "I wasn't in the shower" and McQueary testified "I saw him in the shower" nobody's going to believe Sandusky.But the "we were in the shower but nothing sexual was going on" story has some advantages. McQueary only saw them for a very short period of time and it was nine years ago. It's very possible that on cross-examination Sandusky's attorney will be able to point out discrepancies between McQueary's trial testimony and his grand jury testimony and what he told Paterno. It's possible that the attorney can persuade the jury that what McQueary thought he saw was just him jumping to an incorrect conclusion.Creepy as it is, there is nothing illegal about showering in the communal showers (or if there is, it carries a far lesser sentence than the sex crimes). There are multiple witnesses who can definitively place him there. It is 'easier' to argue that yeah, he was there in the showers, but that his activities were misconstrued and/or mis-seen.If you were accused of robbing a convenience store, and many people can attest to you being there, unless you can prove otherwise, you don't argue you weren't there. You argue that although you were there, you didn't commit the crime of which you are accused.Not a winning argument, but a better one.1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.
He acted so guilty. Put himself at the scene of the crime and then admitted to everything but the rape. And his lawyer with the "isn't it funny we could find the victim and the state couldn't?" Well duh Jerry knows who he raped, oh I mean "wrestled with".I don't get the point of admitting to some of these things, but then claiming that the rest is made up. Why not just completely deny everything? It doesn't make any sense. Are we supposed to believe him because him admitting to some things makes him more credible?"Sure, I showered with 10 year old boys, played around with them, hugged them, occasionally touched their legs, but no, I never did anything sexual. All those people are making it up! Why? Ask them!"A written statement would have been a better idea.Wow. I just listened to the interview. I'm stunned that his lawyer/people thought this was a good idea.
And yeah, he definitely had to stall when he was asked if he was sexually attracted to boys. If someone ever asks me that and I take more than a few nanoseconds to answer in the negative and potentially threaten you with violence for being so offensive, please lock me away.
Why would McQueary contradict his grand jury testimony? And is Paterno now testifying in this trial?I'm amazed that people think that a single juror would take Sandusky's word over any other reasonably decent human being. Do you guys know something about this defense lawyer that I don't? Is he some sort of magician?Exactly. McQueary worked with him, they knew each other. If he said "I wasn't in the shower" and McQueary testified "I saw him in the shower" nobody's going to believe Sandusky.But the "we were in the shower but nothing sexual was going on" story has some advantages. McQueary only saw them for a very short period of time and it was nine years ago. It's very possible that on cross-examination Sandusky's attorney will be able to point out discrepancies between McQueary's trial testimony and his grand jury testimony and what he told Paterno. It's possible that the attorney can persuade the jury that what McQueary thought he saw was just him jumping to an incorrect conclusion.Creepy as it is, there is nothing illegal about showering in the communal showers (or if there is, it carries a far lesser sentence than the sex crimes). There are multiple witnesses who can definitively place him there. It is 'easier' to argue that yeah, he was there in the showers, but that his activities were misconstrued and/or mis-seen.If you were accused of robbing a convenience store, and many people can attest to you being there, unless you can prove otherwise, you don't argue you weren't there. You argue that although you were there, you didn't commit the crime of which you are accused.Not a winning argument, but a better one.1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.
Is this true? I googled and didn't see anything.The janitor is no longer sane
I'm not sure if you're aware of this DY, but apparently Sandusky is going to have an attorney who is going to, you know, make those witnesses not so good at witnessing stuff.I too have a hard time distinguishing between towel-slapping and anal rape. Bingo, reasonable doubt!I don't see any way this goes to trial. By the time this case ever gets that far, there will be 20+ victims that came forward with more witnesses and more graphic accounts of what happened. Plus on top of that there may be a PSU paper trail, other DCYF documented reports and other investigations, etc. The prosecution will run out witnesses FOR WEEKS for jurors to hear the same types of incidents over and over again.
Oh, I found it hereIs this true? I googled and didn't see anything.The janitor is no longer sane
No report was ever made by Jim Calhoun -- We'll rephrase that statement and say there is no report on file made by Jim Calhoun. We can't confirm or deny whether he made a report by talking to Jim Calhoun because this poor man is considered "incompetent to testify". He is currently suffering from dementia and living in a nursing home.
No. But it is a better defense than "I was never in those showers" and if I were tasked with trying to get him exonerated, and thankfully, I'm not, I would use the same defense they appear to be.Why would McQueary contradict his grand jury testimony? And is Paterno now testifying in this trial?I'm amazed that people think that a single juror would take Sandusky's word over any other reasonably decent human being. Do you guys know something about this defense lawyer that I don't? Is he some sort of magician?Exactly. McQueary worked with him, they knew each other. If he said "I wasn't in the shower" and McQueary testified "I saw him in the shower" nobody's going to believe Sandusky.But the "we were in the shower but nothing sexual was going on" story has some advantages. McQueary only saw them for a very short period of time and it was nine years ago. It's very possible that on cross-examination Sandusky's attorney will be able to point out discrepancies between McQueary's trial testimony and his grand jury testimony and what he told Paterno. It's possible that the attorney can persuade the jury that what McQueary thought he saw was just him jumping to an incorrect conclusion.Creepy as it is, there is nothing illegal about showering in the communal showers (or if there is, it carries a far lesser sentence than the sex crimes). There are multiple witnesses who can definitively place him there. It is 'easier' to argue that yeah, he was there in the showers, but that his activities were misconstrued and/or mis-seen.If you were accused of robbing a convenience store, and many people can attest to you being there, unless you can prove otherwise, you don't argue you weren't there. You argue that although you were there, you didn't commit the crime of which you are accused.Not a winning argument, but a better one.1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.
Yeah he has to go this way. He isn't getting out of the being in the showers thing.No. But it is a better defense than "I was never in those showers" and if I were tasked with trying to get him exonerated, and thankfully, I'm not, I would use the same defense they appear to be.Why would McQueary contradict his grand jury testimony? And is Paterno now testifying in this trial?I'm amazed that people think that a single juror would take Sandusky's word over any other reasonably decent human being. Do you guys know something about this defense lawyer that I don't? Is he some sort of magician?Exactly. McQueary worked with him, they knew each other. If he said "I wasn't in the shower" and McQueary testified "I saw him in the shower" nobody's going to believe Sandusky.But the "we were in the shower but nothing sexual was going on" story has some advantages. McQueary only saw them for a very short period of time and it was nine years ago. It's very possible that on cross-examination Sandusky's attorney will be able to point out discrepancies between McQueary's trial testimony and his grand jury testimony and what he told Paterno. It's possible that the attorney can persuade the jury that what McQueary thought he saw was just him jumping to an incorrect conclusion.Creepy as it is, there is nothing illegal about showering in the communal showers (or if there is, it carries a far lesser sentence than the sex crimes). There are multiple witnesses who can definitively place him there. It is 'easier' to argue that yeah, he was there in the showers, but that his activities were misconstrued and/or mis-seen.If you were accused of robbing a convenience store, and many people can attest to you being there, unless you can prove otherwise, you don't argue you weren't there. You argue that although you were there, you didn't commit the crime of which you are accused.Not a winning argument, but a better one.1) This makes no sense to me - why would he confirm part of their story, thereby admitting to something that automatically makes him a pervert, but then try and go his words vs. theirs on the rape/abuse part? Why not just outright say they're lying about the whole thing?2) The lack of physical evidence is in no way a factor here. There's no reason there would be physical evidence of a rape that happened years ago. Lack of physical evidence in itself is only evidence when there SHOULD be physical evidence.