Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky.
"what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
It was just horseplay.Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky.
"what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
It was just horseplay.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?'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?'Joe Summer said: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."
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.![]()
there's a picture in a yahoo article showing them talking on the sideline at a game earlier this year.Lifelong buddies, working on the same campus...Sandusky sitting at team meetings, going on road trips team diners etc and they didn't speak? wowright, 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.
McQueary never said that he stopped it. He said that he "made sure it stopped". Those two things are not the same.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.
look at your post: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.
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?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.
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?Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky."what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."
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.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.
McQueary never said that he stopped it. He said that he "made sure it stopped". Those two things are not the same.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.
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"And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped."
No, it wasn't. Not even close.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 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.Lawyer just on Jim Rome show railed hard on lawyer and Sandusky.
"what he did last night most likely added years to his sentence."It was just horseplay.
Jerry sure would like you.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 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.
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."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)
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."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.
I know, that's crazy. I mean, young people are incredibly annoying."I enjoy young people. I enjoy being around them."just wow.
'Joe T said:Given the recent news, I'm surprised there aren't more apologies being issued in this thread.

see how careful you have to parse it....McQueary never said that he stopped it. He said that he "made sure it stopped". Those two things are not the same.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.
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.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.![]()
Stay classy.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.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.![]()
Go back into hiding.Stay classy.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.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.![]()
What is the Chewbacca Defense?Sandusky is employing the Michael Jackson defense strategy. Which is just one step above the Chewbacca Defense.
Confusing the jury by with nonsensical ideas that have nothing to do with the case.What is the Chewbacca Defense?Sandusky is employing the Michael Jackson defense strategy. Which is just one step above the Chewbacca Defense.
@ArmenKeteyian: Tonight on [CBS] Evening News Mike McQueary breaks his silence and opens a window for me into his emotions.
Go away.So, was Sandusky born this way or did he choose to be a sexually attracted to young boys?
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.No, it wasn't. Not even close.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.
You serious Clark?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.
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.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.No, it wasn't. Not even close.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.
Costas was on Dan Patrick this morning and said that the lawyer called Costas to propose Sandusky joining the interview.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 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.
Do you really think it matters, Eddie?You serious Clark?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.
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.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.No, it wasn't. Not even close.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.
Don't know near enough to answer this question. First thing I'd do though is have him not talk about showering with boys.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.
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.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.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.![]()
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.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.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.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.![]()
Be careful here. I felt the same way when I learned that Casey Anthony hired Jose Baez.OK, I have to admit that I'm glad this monster hired a fool for an attorney. Is that wrong? It doesn't feel wrong.
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 badAgain, probably old news, but...
Source says McQueary did "stop" the attack, also had "discussions with police" afterward
JFC where did I say that? All I am saying is the police know what was going onnevermind- carry the #### on ... ####### #######s'proninja said:Anything to clear the good name of PSU and Paterno!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 badAgain, probably old news, but...
Source says McQueary did "stop" the attack, also had "discussions with police" afterward
What?Go away.So, was Sandusky born this way or did he choose to be a sexually attracted to young boys?
I'm one of those people that believe that people are born either heterosexual or homosexual. Not sure if people are wired to be pedophiles from the get go. Just asking a question.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.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 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?