What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

'scoobygang said:
'Brock Middlebrook said:
'beer 30 said:
'culdeus said:
'NCCommish said:
'E-Z Glider said:
'Joe Summer said:
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:
"The graduate student was shocked but noticed both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught."
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.
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.
"left immediately" doesn't give a lot of wiggle room
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.
Regardless of what the full testimony is "left immediately" being in the presentment leaves little wiggle room for it tio be true that he stopped it. McQueary's the only eyewitness, so i'm sure the conclusions were based heavily on his testimony. I just have a hard time imagining McQueary testifying that he stopped it and the GJ publishing that he "left immediately" and nothing else. There may be a scenario where this works, but there is very little wiggle room to make it work,Why wopuld a GJ put something in the presentment that seemingly contradicts the sole eyewitness?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to SPORTSbyBROOKS

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.
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.
SPORTSbyBROOKS = Weekly World NewsGreat to see you learned something from the McQ incident. Hurry, lets rally up a mob and get Bradley. :rolleyes:
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.
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'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?
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.
:confused: there's a picture in a yahoo article showing them talking on the sideline at a game earlier this year.
 
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.
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?
i thought the one time in 7 years was something reported somewhere with no collaboration
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.
Lifelong buddies, working on the same campus...Sandusky sitting at team meetings, going on road trips team diners etc and they didn't speak? wow
 
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.
look at your post:
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.
So, because one guy said the two of them didn't speak, it's a fact? But you don't believe McQueary has seen Sandusky at all over the past 9 years despite numerous reports that Sandusky hung around the program during that time period?
 
Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky."what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
That was a pretty good interview/opinion. Still wondering what they were hoping t accomplish last night and afterward, do you think they slapped it high and had some horseplay in a shower to celebrate?
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 can believe it if yo want but I'm not buying it. Dude was on campus with full privileges and an office up until last week. Everybody covered for this guy and even moreso when it became apparent the story grew legs and went national.
 
Regardless of what the full testimony is "left immediately" being in the presentment leaves little wiggle room for it tio be true that he stopped it.
McQueary never said that he stopped it. He said that he "made sure it stopped". Those two things are not the same.
:goodposting:Hadn't thought about it until I read this but McQueary could fall back on the excuse that he stopped it by reporting it to JoePa and focusing the spotlight on it. Semantics, he haz dem
 
Whole transcript of interview even more damning than what was shown last night:http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-i-seeking-young-person-sexual-helped-article-1.977730

"And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped."
 
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 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.
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.
No, it wasn't. Not even close.
 
The comments from other lawyers are awesome.

"I can't believe he just gave up his fifth amendment rights."

"not often you see a guy incriminate himself on national tv like that."

"is his lawyer a real person, or Lionel Hutz?"

(I made that last one up)

 
I couldn't believe it when I learned his lawyer was not only present but set up the meeting. I'd have tackled him when he started talking about showering with boys.
The lawyer was with Costas on TV and Sandusky was on the phone. It was a terrible setup if the lawyer planned to exercise any control over the interview. I have to think that Sandusky insisted on doing the interview over the objections of his lawyer. I can't imagine the lawyer would suggest it.
 
I would like to hear from the resident attorneys what defense they would use to try and get Sandusky acquitted. What will be admissible what will thrown out. Will the current judge be recused? Does the judge have to recuse herself? Man I hope this trial is on tv.

 
The comments from other lawyers are awesome.

"I can't believe he just gave up his fifth amendment rights."

"not often you see a guy incriminate himself on national tv like that."

"is his lawyer a real person, or Lionel Hutz?"

(I made that last one up)
On a similar note, Sandusky reminds me of Troy McClure."What I have is a romantic abnormality, one so unbelievable that it must be hidden from the public at all cost."

 
I would like to hear from the resident attorneys what defense they would use to try and get Sandusky acquitted. What will be admissible what will thrown out. Will the current judge be recused? Does the judge have to recuse herself? Man I hope this trial is on tv.
Not a lawyer, and far from a legal expert, but I'd guess with this interview, they realized there's too many witnesses that will come forward to confirm the "showers with boys" thing and will instead try to play it off as a misunderstanding in some kind of way that insults people's intelligence. "I wasn't raping that boy, he slipped and I tried to catch him."
 
Sandusky is employing the Michael Jackson defense strategy. Which is just one step above the Chewbacca Defense.

 
Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49. :thumbdown:
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.
You really think so, huh? Maybe you are correct and can show me proof to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing that I or everyone else participating on this website would be celebrating what constitutes statutory rape in Colorado. But hey, if you think what the attorney did was cool, don't let me stop you from your rhythmic high slapping.
 
Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49. :thumbdown:
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.
You really think so, huh? Maybe you are correct and can show me proof to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing that I or everyone else participating on this website would be celebrating what constitutes statutory rape in Colorado. But hey, if you think what the attorney did was cool, don't let me stop you from your rhythmic high slapping.
Stay classy.
 
Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49. :thumbdown:
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.
You really think so, huh? Maybe you are correct and can show me proof to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing that I or everyone else participating on this website would be celebrating what constitutes statutory rape in Colorado. But hey, if you think what the attorney did was cool, don't let me stop you from your rhythmic high slapping.
Stay classy.
Go back into hiding.
 
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 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.
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.
No, it wasn't. Not even close.
You serious? You think it was the gloves or people not understanding dna yet?Can we stop posting that all capa sports twitter as a source? He doesnt seem credible.

 
According to SPORTSbyBROOKS

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.
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.
Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)
Stop what, specifically?
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?
You serious Clark?
 
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 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.
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.
No, it wasn't. Not even close.
You serious? You think it was the gloves or people not understanding dna yet?Can we stop posting that all capa sports twitter as a source? He doesnt seem credible.
The jury distrusted the police. It wouldn't have been even close to the first time police had manufactured evidence to obtain a conviction. The broken chain of custody for the evidence as well a lead investigator who was racist really solidified the strategy.

 
I couldn't believe it when I learned his lawyer was not only present but set up the meeting. I'd have tackled him when he started talking about showering with boys.
The lawyer was with Costas on TV and Sandusky was on the phone. It was a terrible setup if the lawyer planned to exercise any control over the interview. I have to think that Sandusky insisted on doing the interview over the objections of his lawyer. I can't imagine the lawyer would suggest it.
Costas was on Dan Patrick this morning and said that the lawyer called Costas to propose Sandusky joining the interview.
 
According to SPORTSbyBROOKS

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.
This makes no sense to me and will kill any chance PSU has of recovering from this any time soon.
Can we please just stop?(I'm speaking in general terms, CrossEyed, not specifically to you.)
Stop what, specifically?
C'mon. Now they're talking about bodies?
You serious Clark?
Do you really think it matters, Eddie?
 
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 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.
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.
No, it wasn't. Not even close.
You serious? You think it was the gloves or people not understanding dna yet?Can we stop posting that all capa sports twitter as a source? He doesnt seem credible.
Very serious. I've been to a half-day CLE on the trial with Dr. Henry Lee as a guest speaker. The defense exposed through expert testimony that the police planted evidence. Combine that with the defense exposing racist cops and the glove thing (horrible, idiotic move by the state) and a juror is faced with convicting a man in the face of evidence that the defendant may have been framed. They could have done this if they chose, but they didn't. Instead, they found this evidence amounted to reasonable doubt. Since nullifcation means that a jury acquits despite the evidence not providing for reasonable, the OJ jury didn't nullify because there is evidence on the record that there is reasonable doubt that he didn't commit the crime.**I think he did it. But that's not what was claimed - Rud claimed it was clear nullification when it absolutely wasn't.

 
I would like to hear from the resident attorneys what defense they would use to try and get Sandusky acquitted. What will be admissible what will thrown out. Will the current judge be recused? Does the judge have to recuse herself? Man I hope this trial is on tv.
Don't know near enough to answer this question. First thing I'd do though is have him not talk about showering with boys.
 
Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49. :thumbdown:
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.
You really think so, huh? Maybe you are correct and can show me proof to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing that I or everyone else participating on this website would be celebrating what constitutes statutory rape in Colorado. But hey, if you think what the attorney did was cool, don't let me stop you from your rhythmic high slapping.
As I recall, there was a thread around here counting down the days until the twins were legal. Numerous threads with references to one of our favorite posters tendencies to like younger girls. At 18 yo pictures get posted sans clothes, 17 yo and 355 days it's considered porn and a no-no.I'm not judging one way or another, just found the outrage interesting when generally the trend around here would be in the other direction. I don't have the answer where the line should be...16, 17, 18, 21, x-y age difference. I didn't mean to point a finger specifically at you because I don't know your beliefs, just picked your post...so my apologies if this came off as an attack against you. My point was that the age of this guys wife isn't really that relevant.
 
Sandusky's attorney is a piece of work too...guy impregnated a 17 year old girl when he was 49. :thumbdown:
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.
You really think so, huh? Maybe you are correct and can show me proof to the contrary, but I have a hard time believing that I or everyone else participating on this website would be celebrating what constitutes statutory rape in Colorado. But hey, if you think what the attorney did was cool, don't let me stop you from your rhythmic high slapping.
As I recall, there was a thread around here counting down the days until the twins were legal. Numerous threads with references to one of our favorite posters tendencies to like younger girls. At 18 yo pictures get posted sans clothes, 17 yo and 355 days it's considered porn and a no-no.I'm not judging one way or another, just found the outrage interesting when generally the trend around here would be in the other direction. I don't have the answer where the line should be...16, 17, 18, 21, x-y age difference. I didn't mean to point a finger specifically at you because I don't know your beliefs, just picked your post...so my apologies if this came off as an attack against you. My point was that the age of this guys wife isn't really that relevant.
I hear what you are saying, but I think its one thing to ogle at 18 year old girls from a distance and quite another to knock-up a 17 year old when you are nearly 50 years old. The fact that Sandusky picked this guy to represent him is curious, IMO. Seems like neither one of them are big on boundaries.
 
'proninja said:
if true, why didn't the police do anything? I have a feeling lots of these tidbits of info will be surfacing and the local and state police are going to look very very bad
Anything to clear the good name of PSU and Paterno!
JFC where did I say that? All I am saying is the police know what was going onnevermind- carry the #### on ... ####### #######s

 
Really. Which of these witnesses would you want to base the trial of your career on?
You don't have to choose just one witness. You can have them all testify.
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.
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.
I stand by the "20 bad witnesses" in that I meant McQuery, the janitors, the high school coach who didn't really see anything, all the second hand parties who did nothing, those who investigated in the past and found nothing for whatever reasons, etc., etc. I think they all have issues.However, where I have messed up is that somehow I came to believe that the victims would not testify. Not even sure why I thought that now. Yes, victim 1 at least should be pretty strong. I don't think there are 7 though, but one good one should be enough.Anyway I think without any victims testifying what I said this morning is the case, but adding them in to the equation nullifies it. I stand corrected here.
 
If I've learned anything this year it's reasonable doubt is an easy thing to get into the minds of a jury. Unless someone has video evidence of him raping these children all the defense has to do is say, hey it was just horse play and people don't know what they saw...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top