Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

Also, Paterno fell at home today and re-injured his pelvis so he's back in the hospital.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Also, Paterno fell at home today and re-injured his pelvis so he's back in the hospital.

Now he has a little more empathy for those poor children.

 

[slayer666]

Also, Paterno fell at home today and re-injured his pelvis so he's back in the hospital.

Now he has a little more empathy for those poor children.

 

[AmosMoses]

"They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach." Is this really the quote from Paterno outside the stadium? Oof.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

"They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach." Is this really the quote from Paterno outside the stadium? Oof.

I don't see anything in there about protecting a child rapist?

 

[slayer666]

"They ask me what I'd like written about me when I'm gone. I hope they write I made Penn State a better place, not just that I was a good football coach." Is this really the quote from Paterno outside the stadium? Oof.

barf

 

[Dragons]

Sandusky posted his bail. $200K in real estate holdings and his wife came up with a 50K certified check.

Seems like it should still be higher, even for a small town.

Why? Do you think he won't show up for trial?The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant shows up for trial. An arrest is not a finding of guilt requiring incarceration. No doubt he is facing some serious charges, but my understanding is he surrendered passports the first time, he is under electronic surveillance now. I suspect he is under actual surveillance also. Where is he going to go?

I'd want him on suicide watch.

I'd want him on suicide look the other way while secretly hoping he kills himself.

that's the easy way out for him at this point.

Saves taxpayers money, saves the victims from re-living events, gets what he deserves. Win-win-win?

The guy deserves what he gave. In prison. From a big black man named bubba.

Because that would be worse than getting it from a big white man named Lance?

Yes, in prison, big black men named Bubba are far more intimidating than big white men named Lance. Unless Lance has white power tattoos. In that case, I'd call it a push.

 

[Dragons]

Sandusky posted his bail. $200K in real estate holdings and his wife came up with a 50K certified check.

Seems like it should still be higher, even for a small town.

Why? Do you think he won't show up for trial?The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant shows up for trial. An arrest is not a finding of guilt requiring incarceration. No doubt he is facing some serious charges, but my understanding is he surrendered passports the first time, he is under electronic surveillance now. I suspect he is under actual surveillance also. Where is he going to go?

I'd want him on suicide watch.

I'd want him on suicide look the other way while secretly hoping he kills himself.

that's the easy way out for him at this point.

Saves taxpayers money, saves the victims from re-living events, gets what he deserves. Win-win-win?

The guy deserves what he gave. In prison. From a big black man named bubba.

Because that would be worse than getting it from a big white man named Lance?

Yes, in prison, big black men named Bubba are far more intimidating than big white men named Lance. Unless Lance has white power tattoos. In that case, I'd call it a push.

But really, I was referring to rumors about ***** size.Edit because ***** apparently isn't filtered.

 

[Angry Beavers]

Sandusky waives his right to a preliminary hearing...

Why would he do this? Of course the result of the hearing was going to be that there is enough evidence to send the case to trial, but the defense gets a free look at the prosecution's case and has the victim's statements on the record to be used against them during cross examination during the actual trial.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

There would have been no new evidence presented, and it would have just been another round of intense media scrutiny. This was just strategy to try and avoid another several days of the press going through the allegations again. Damage control move. I think it was the right move to make.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

My opinion is that they will be going after credibilities of the accusers and of McQueary and since they couldn't really accomplish that in a pre-lim, they bagged it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Did mcqueary change his story?

 

[Apple Jack]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but WOW. Vet your lawyers, cats and kittens:

http://deadspin.com/5867633/sanduskys-lawyer-if-you-believe-mcqueary-i-suggest-you-dial-1%20800%20reality-thats-a-gay-phone-sex-line

 

[joffer]

Did mcqueary change his story?

a couple of different versions have surfaced since the grand jury testimony was made public

 

[badmojo1006]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but WOW. Vet your lawyers, cats and kittens:http://deadspin.com/5867633/sanduskys-lawyer-if-you-believe-mcqueary-i-suggest-you-dial-1%20800%20reality-thats-a-gay-phone-sex-line

I think Sandusky would have gotten a better defense if he had hired Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland

 

[TobiasFunke]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but WOW. Vet your lawyers, cats and kittens:http://deadspin.com/5867633/sanduskys-lawyer-if-you-believe-mcqueary-i-suggest-you-dial-1%20800%20reality-thats-a-gay-phone-sex-line

I think Sandusky would have gotten a better defense if he had hired Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland

I recommend Bob Loblaw. He's a mouthful.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but WOW. Vet your lawyers, cats and kittens:http://deadspin.com/5867633/sanduskys-lawyer-if-you-believe-mcqueary-i-suggest-you-dial-1%20800%20reality-thats-a-gay-phone-sex-line

I think Sandusky would have gotten a better defense if he had hired Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland

I recommend Bob Loblaw. He's a mouthful.

I am a big fan of Bob's law blog.

 

[Apple Jack]

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but WOW. Vet your lawyers, cats and kittens:http://deadspin.com/5867633/sanduskys-lawyer-if-you-believe-mcqueary-i-suggest-you-dial-1%20800%20reality-thats-a-gay-phone-sex-line

I think Sandusky would have gotten a better defense if he had hired Lionel Hutz or Ted Buckland

I recommend Bob Loblaw. He's a mouthful.

I am a big fan of Bob's law blog.

SAUL

 

[Joe Summer]

Did mcqueary change his story?

He has given partial accounts of the story to different sources. On the surface, the various accounts seem to conflict each other. But since none of us have seen the actual grand jury transcript, we really can't be sure if he's "changed" anything or not.

 

[Not Sure]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9422740-penn-state-sex-abuse-scandal-sandusky-legal-move-raises-questions-about-strategy

Penn State sex abuse scandal: Sandusky legal move raises questions about strategy

By James Eng

Will he plead guilty? Will he go to trial?

Legal experts and observers were left guessing Tuesday after Former Penn State football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky waived a preliminary hearing in his sex-abuse trial.

The move is raising some perplexing questions about his legal strategy.

Criminal-defense attorneys not connected with the case say it’s highly unusual for a defense attorney to waive the hearing if the case is going to trial. One major reason for doing so would be if there’s a plea deal in the works.

“I can’t speak for him (Sandusky’s lawyer), but if it’s going to trial … I’m having a (preliminary) hearing,” says John Kusturiss, a Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer and former assistant district attorney who has handled hundreds of criminal cases. “Conversely, if I think I’m going to plea, there have been many I’ve waived.”

But both sides in the Sandusky case say there have been no plea negotiations.

“It’s actually quite confusing in my opinion,” Pennsylvania defense attorney Michael J. Malloy told msnbc.com.

“Typically it would be a sign that there’s a plea deal going on, but the attorney general has said there are no indications a deal is going on. Secondly, the defense attorney said they were getting ready to go to trial,” said Malloy, who has tried more than 100 jury trials, including sex assault cases, in state and federal courts.

Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's defense attorney, says there will be no plea negotiations. "This is a fight to the death," he told reporters.

Amendola called the cancellation of Tuesday's hearing a "tactical decision" to prevent the accusers from reiterating the same claims they made to the grand jury.

Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo also said there had been no discussions about a plea bargain. He said the move to waive the hearing "provides maximum protection to most importantly the victims in this case."

"It avoids their having to testify for a second time," Costanzo told reporters. "They will of course testify at a trial in the case."

A preliminary hearing would have allowed Sandusky’s legal team to see and evaluate Sandusky’s accusers face to face. Defense lawyers use what’s gleaned from the hearing to prepare for trial. They look for inconsistencies in what’s said by the accusers at the preliminary hearing versus what’s said at trial.

In a preliminary hearing, a defense attorney can find out “how sympathetic a witness is, how good a witness is. You don’t know that when you hear them testify for the first time (at trial),” Kusturiss said.

“You have the advantage of listening to the victims testify, which I would think you would want to take advantage of if you went to trial, for any possible inconsistencies as well as help prepare your defense,” said defense attorney Scott Galloway.

By waiving the hearing, "you give up all that info," Malloy says.

“It’s more confusing than anything. It’s nothing that I’ve seen. I don’t really understand it. The general rule of thumb is, if you’re going to go to trial you definitely should have a preliminary hearing.”

Sandusky, 67, has maintained his innocence on 52 charges of molesting 10 boys over more than a decade. Sandusky told reporters as he left the courthouse that he would "stay the course, to fight for four quarters" and "wait for the opportunity to present our side."

Sandusky also will waive his arraignment, which had been scheduled for Jan. 11, Amendola said. He remains under house arrest.

 

[badmojo1006]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

 

[beer 30]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

Agreed, if this is what they have going in it won't end well for Sandusky. On the other hand, I'm absolutely fine with that May he rot in hell

 

[tri-man 47]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

And spooning. Somebody needed to teach them to spoon in the basement bedroom.

 

[Doug B]

In a preliminary hearing, a defense attorney can find out "how sympathetic a witness is, how good a witness is. You don't know that when you hear them testify for the first time (at trial)," Kusturiss said.

"You have the advantage of listening to the victims testify, which I would think you would want to take advantage of if you went to trial, for any possible inconsistencies as well as help prepare your defense," said defense attorney Scott Galloway.

By waiving the hearing, "you give up all that info," Malloy says.

"It's more confusing than anything. It's nothing that I've seen. I don't really understand it. The general rule of thumb is, if you're going to go to trial you definitely should have a preliminary hearing."

Legal Guys: Kusturiss mentions only "a defense attorney", implying that a skipped preliminary hearing hurts the defense more than the prosecution.Is that accurate in all cases, though? Denying the prosecution a chance to evaluate prosecution witnesses by waiving the preliminary hearing ... is that a valid defense strategy?

...

Question 2: what purpose does a preliminary hearing serve that the grand jury phase did not? Didn't the grand jury phase already establish that there's enough evidence to go to trial? I'm reading here and there that the preliminary hearing allows the judge to determine if a case should go to trial. Hmmm? So the preliminary hearing is sort of a double-check of the grand jury phase? Or something else?

 

[scoobygang]

In a preliminary hearing, a defense attorney can find out "how sympathetic a witness is, how good a witness is. You don't know that when you hear them testify for the first time (at trial)," Kusturiss said.

"You have the advantage of listening to the victims testify, which I would think you would want to take advantage of if you went to trial, for any possible inconsistencies as well as help prepare your defense," said defense attorney Scott Galloway.

By waiving the hearing, "you give up all that info," Malloy says.

"It's more confusing than anything. It's nothing that I've seen. I don't really understand it. The general rule of thumb is, if you're going to go to trial you definitely should have a preliminary hearing."

Legal Guys: Kusturiss mentions only "a defense attorney", implying that a skipped preliminary hearing hurts the defense more than the prosecution.Is that accurate in all cases, though? Denying the prosecution a chance to evaluate prosecution witnesses by waiving the preliminary hearing ... is that a valid defense strategy?

...

Question 2: what purpose does a preliminary hearing serve that the grand jury phase did not? Didn't the grand jury phase already establish that there's enough evidence to go to trial? I'm reading here and there that the preliminary hearing allows the judge to determine if a case should go to trial. Hmmm? So the preliminary hearing is sort of a double-check of the grand jury phase? Or something else?

Question 1:The prosecution has access to its own witnesses. For one, they've interviewed the witnesses (and maybe even mocked them). For another, they are allowed to be in the room when the witness testifies before the grand jury (the defense attorneys are not). The preliminary hearing would possibly be the only chance for the defense to see these witnesses (and attack their credibility) before the trial. A grand jury proceeding is not an adversarial process.

Question 2:

This is a question for the Pennsylvaina legislature. It's pretty unique to that state, where a Grand Jury issues a preliminary arraignment and then there is a preliminary hearing where the judge determines if the State has established a prima facie case. It's a very criminal defendant rule, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing, IMO. I imagine people would find it most problematic in cases like this (or worse, where the abuse victims are still minors).

 

[Dr. Awesome]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

That's a horrible defense but what else was he going to roll with? Flat out denial of everything?

 

[Sinn Fein]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

That's a horrible defense but what else was he going to roll with? Flat out denial of everything?

this.This basic defense also worked for Michael Jackson.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

No, Jimmy, you have to really work up a lather if you want to get clean. Here, let me help you get your back. Oops, silly you dropped the soap. Why don't you pick it up while I get the loofah?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

No, Jimmy, you have to really work up a lather if you want to get clean. Here, let me help you get your back. Oops, silly you dropped the soap. Why don't you pick it up while I get the loofah?

You're terrible and yes I'm laughing

 

[Fat Nick]

"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," attorney Karl Rominger said. "Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body."

This has to be the worst defense ever

That's a horrible defense but what else was he going to roll with? Flat out denial of everything?

this.This basic defense also worked for Michael Jackson.

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear. I'm not saying that I think he's innocent if an innocent verdict be issued, but if an innocent verdict is issued, I'd guess this is why.

 

[AmosMoses]

Not sure if this is news, from ESPN radio reporting: McQueary's testimony says he did nothing to stop any rape. He left the locker room/shower area after witnessing Sandusky raping the boy and left to go call his daddy. Then whatever plan to save program was hatched there.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

CNN - McQueary Testimony

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (CNN) --

Former Penn State star quarterback-turned-star witness Mike McQueary testified Friday that he believes he saw Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a locker-room shower in 2002.

McQueary said he walked into a locker room and felt "embarrassed" as he heard someone in the shower.

"I looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw Jerry with a boy in the shower," McQueary told the court.

McQueary said he heard rhythmic, slapping sounds, like that of skin on skin.

He said Sandusky was behind the boy and that the boy was up against a wall. He said he believes Sandusky was sexually molesting the boy but he did not see insertion and did not hear protests. He said he believes the two were engaged in intercourse but he cannot be sure.

McQueary said he looked away for a few moments, and when he took a closer look the two were standing apart.

"They had turned so their bodies were both facing me ... They looked directly in my eyes," he said. "Seeing that they were separated, I thought it was best that I leave the locker room."

He added that he felt "shocked" and "horrified" after the incident.

"I was not thinking straight," he said.

McQueary was the first witness in a key hearing Friday for two university officials charged with lying after McQueary had described an alleged sexual assault he witnessed in a locker room.

The two -- Tim Curley, who was Penn State's athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a university vice president who oversaw campus police -- also are set to appear in a Harrisburg courtroom to decide whether there's enough evidence to warrant putting them on trial.

They are charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child sexual abuse. It relates to the larger case involving Jerry Sandusky, a longtime football coach at the school accused of more than 50 counts involving sexual acts with 10 boys since 1994.

The two Penn State officials' fate may hinge on what McQueary, now 38, saw on March 1, 2002 -- as well as what he told others about it.

Sandusky, who was Penn State's defensive coordinator when he retired in 1998, met his accusers through a youth charity he founded, The Second Mile. According to prosecutors, he would hug, tickle and wrestle with the then-boys before allegedly crossing the line and sexually abusing them.

In early November, the summary of a grand jury report was released contending that Sandusky sexually abused the boys in the basement of his home, hotel rooms, a high school wrestling room and -- based on McQueary's account -- the locker room for Penn State's football team.

Sandusky lawyer says comments misconstrued

Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing on Tuesday in Centre County, a two-hour drive from Harrisburg. From that courthouse's steps, his lawyer Joseph Amendola took shots at McQueary's credibility during a long talk with reporters.

He suggested that had McQuery told longtime head football coach Joe Paterno, Curley and Schultz that he had seen Sandusky raping a boy in the showers, they would have done more than order him to stop bringing Second Mile children on campus.

"If we destroy McQueary's credibility, then we put the credibility of all others involved into question," Amendola told reporters.

According to the grand jury's report, after hearing all the testimony, it decided that McQueary is a credible witness.

Sandusky has pleaded not guilty to all charges, while denying any sexual activity with his accusers. Regarding the 2002 incident in the showers, he has said that he and the boy were just "horsing around."

According to the grand jury's report, McQueary testified that as he walked into the locker room, he saw the lights were on and heard the showers running. He also heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" that he believed to be sex.

As he put his sneakers into his locker, McQueary looked into the shower and saw a naked boy, approximately 10 years old, "with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal sex by a naked Sandusky," the report said.

McQueary -- who was an assistant football coach when he was placed on administrative leave this fall amidst the scandal -- told the grand jury he was shocked, then noticed both Sandusky and the boy saw him. He left the building "distraught," according to the grand jury's report.

What McQueary told people next -- and whether he reported seeing the act of sodomy, as the grand jury says -- is what makes him a key witness in the perjury and failure-to-report case against Curley and Schultz.

McQueary first reported what he saw to his father, and told Paterno "what he had seen" the next day. The head coach himself testified to a grand jury that McQueary told him he saw Sandusky "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature."

About a week and half later, McQueary told Curley and Schultz that "he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy" in the showers, the grand jury's report said.

Both Curley and Schultz deny that McQueary told them the boy had been raped in the showers, according to the grand jury's report. They said he spoke of "inappropriate" or "disturbing" contact that made him "uncomfortable."

Specifically asked if McQueary reported seeing an act of sodomy, Curley responded, "Absolutely not," the grand jury reported.

Schultz testified that he recalled being told at a meeting that Sandusky "may have grabbed the boy's genitals while wrestling" and agreed it would be inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy, the grand jury said. But he also testified that the allegations made were "not that serious" and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred."

Neither man reported what they'd been told to local or campus police.

"The grand jury found that portions of the testimony provided by Curley and Schultz were not credible," the report said.

Curley, 57, is now on leave, and Schultz, 62, retired in the wake of the allegations. Days later, Penn State trustees ousted President Graham Spanier and Paterno, given criticism that they could and should have done more.

Prosecutors were out in force for Friday's hearing before Judge William Wenner. According to the state Attorney General's office, Chief of Staff Bruce R. Beeme will lead the prosecution along with deputy attorneys general Frank Fina and E. Marc Costanzo.

Caroline Roberto and Tom Farrell, the Pittsburgh-based attorneys representing Curley and Schultz, said in a statement earlier this week their clients are eager "to start the process of clearing their good names and demonstrating that they testified truthfully to the grand jury."

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

 

[AmosMoses]

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

That is what it looks like from the article. From what was read on ESPN, McQueary looked at them 3 separate times, only the first time in the mirror. But it's not clear.Why do you ask? You don't like mirrors?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

That is what it looks like from the article. From what was read on ESPN, McQueary looked at them 3 separate times, only the first time in the mirror. But it's not clear.Why do you ask? You don't like mirrors?

It's still damning testimony, but you can see where an attorney will begin to poke holes in it. What was the angle of the mirror, was it fogged at all, etc. He heard something that sounded like rhythmic slapping (sex) and saw in a mirror sandusky behind a boy in the shower. Now, when he turned around he is saying they were separated and looking at him, or did he go in for a closer look at some point that isn't in the CNN article? Being that victims are going to testify, the prosecution should still be OK, but McQueary may not be the iron clad eye-witness we thought he was.

 

[AmosMoses]

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

That is what it looks like from the article. From what was read on ESPN, McQueary looked at them 3 separate times, only the first time in the mirror. But it's not clear.Why do you ask? You don't like mirrors?

It's still damning testimony, but you can see where an attorney will begin to poke holes in it. What was the angle of the mirror, was it fogged at all, etc. He heard something that sounded like rhythmic slapping (sex) and saw in a mirror sandusky behind a boy in the shower. Now, when he turned around he is saying they were separated and looking at him, or did he go in for a closer look at some point that isn't in the CNN article? Being that victims are going to testify, the prosecution should still be OK, but McQueary may not be the iron clad eye-witness we thought he was.

I could imagine the mirror is close to the sink, where it would not be steamy. Judging from these crazy defense lawyers, I'm hoping they are going to say if McQueary looked at them directly instead of through a mirror, then the boy would be raping Sandusky.

 

[shadyridr]

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

That is what it looks like from the article. From what was read on ESPN, McQueary looked at them 3 separate times, only the first time in the mirror. But it's not clear.Why do you ask? You don't like mirrors?

Guess we can rule out that he is a vampire?

 

[shadyridr]

Am I reading that right; that he saw them by looking at a mirror?

That is what it looks like from the article. From what was read on ESPN, McQueary looked at them 3 separate times, only the first time in the mirror. But it's not clear.Why do you ask? You don't like mirrors?

It's still damning testimony, but you can see where an attorney will begin to poke holes in it. What was the angle of the mirror, was it fogged at all, etc. He heard something that sounded like rhythmic slapping (sex) and saw in a mirror sandusky behind a boy in the shower. Now, when he turned around he is saying they were separated and looking at him, or did he go in for a closer look at some point that isn't in the CNN article? Being that victims are going to testify, the prosecution should still be OK, but McQueary may not be the iron clad eye-witness we thought he was.

I could imagine the mirror is close to the sink, where it would not be steamy. Judging from these crazy defense lawyers, I'm hoping they are going to say if McQueary looked at them directly instead of through a mirror, then the boy would be raping Sandusky.

 

[Doug B]

LegalGuys: strategically, why might Amendola consider McQueary the prosecution's key witness? Isn't the testimony of the vicitims going to cary much more weight? Or is uncorroborated victim testimony easy to wave away?

 

[Doug B]

Question 1: ....

Question 2: ...

Scoobygang, I didn't give you props for your response yesterday. Thanks for contributing to my understanding.

 

[beer 30]

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear.

Can't the prosecution have one of the boys that were raped testify to having ol' Jerry's #### in his ###? That's pretty damning, no? And say they had, I don't know, 10 of 'em testify, wouldn't that go a ways to proving guilt?

 

[Joe Summer]

Not sure if this is news, from ESPN radio reporting: McQueary's testimony says he did nothing to stop any rape. He left the locker room/shower area after witnessing Sandusky raping the boy and left to go call his daddy. Then whatever plan to save program was hatched there.

McQueary email: "I didn't just turn and run. I made sure it stopped."McQueary testimony: "McQueary said he looked away for a few moments, and when he took a closer look the two were standing apart."

Those two statements aren't inconsistent with each other.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear.

Can't the prosecution have one of the boys that were raped testify to having ol' Jerry's #### in his ###? That's pretty damning, no? And say they had, I don't know, 10 of 'em testify, wouldn't that go a ways to proving guilt?

Has there been any testimony to that effect from a victim?

 

[beer 30]

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear.

Can't the prosecution have one of the boys that were raped testify to having ol' Jerry's #### in his ###? That's pretty damning, no? And say they had, I don't know, 10 of 'em testify, wouldn't that go a ways to proving guilt?

Has there been any testimony to that effect from a victim?

Not that I'm aware of but I haven't followed along in the last few weeks. Is there any reason to believe the prosecution won't do this? I have no idea, just asking. Not sure how these cases go.

 

[identikit]

Some great (warning: semi-graphic) play-by-play of the McQueary testimony in this guy's twitter timeline:

https://twitter.com/#!/NateBauerBWI

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear.

Can't the prosecution have one of the boys that were raped testify to having ol' Jerry's #### in his ###? That's pretty damning, no? And say they had, I don't know, 10 of 'em testify, wouldn't that go a ways to proving guilt?

Has there been any testimony to that effect from a victim?

Not that I'm aware of but I haven't followed along in the last few weeks. Is there any reason to believe the prosecution won't do this? I have no idea, just asking. Not sure how these cases go.

I have no idea - but call me crazy, but this is beginning to feel like a case where there has been inappropriate contact - i.e. man and child at that age should not be naked in the shower - but no actual sexual assault or contact.I am just not seeing Sandusky's play here, unless he really believes he is innocent of any legal wrong-doing. Maybe its a delusional belief - but the longer this goes without testimony from a victim that he did something sexual, the more I am inclined to accept that Sandusky really thought he was being a proper role model, rather than a child molester.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Some great (warning: semi-graphic) play-by-play of the McQueary testimony in this guy's twitter timeline:

https://twitter.com/#!/NateBauerBWI

Hopefully we can get a full transcript soon.

 

[Joseph]

Yup. That's what sucks here...he can just sit there and say, "I know what it looked like, but that's not what happened." Unless the prosecution can truly PROVE what happened, he walks. The burden of proof is (always) on the prosecution, no matter how cut and dry the case may appear.

Can't the prosecution have one of the boys that were raped testify to having ol' Jerry's #### in his ###? That's pretty damning, no? And say they had, I don't know, 10 of 'em testify, wouldn't that go a ways to proving guilt?

Has there been any testimony to that effect from a victim?

Not that I'm aware of but I haven't followed along in the last few weeks. Is there any reason to believe the prosecution won't do this? I have no idea, just asking. Not sure how these cases go.

I have no idea - but call me crazy, but this is beginning to feel like a case where there has been inappropriate contact - i.e. man and child at that age should not be naked in the shower - but no actual sexual assault or contact.I am just not seeing Sandusky's play here, unless he really believes he is innocent of any legal wrong-doing. Maybe its a delusional belief - but the longer this goes without testimony from a victim that he did something sexual, the more I am inclined to accept that Sandusky really thought he was being a proper role model, rather than a child molester.

So, one eyewitness seeing what he thought was anal sex, and hearing slapping sounds that he immediately thought were sex, and a second eyewitness seeing him giving oral sex to another kid, along with 10 separate victims all claiming various levels of sexual inappropriateness makes you think that this might just be a misunderstanding? I get that nothing has been proven to this point, but I can't get anywhere near the point you are. If he really thought he was being a proper role model, then he was completely delusional.

 

[AmosMoses]

Not sure if this is news, from ESPN radio reporting: McQueary's testimony says he did nothing to stop any rape. He left the locker room/shower area after witnessing Sandusky raping the boy and left to go call his daddy. Then whatever plan to save program was hatched there.

McQueary email: "I didn't just turn and run. I made sure it stopped."McQueary testimony: "McQueary said he looked away for a few moments, and when he took a closer look the two were standing apart."

Those two statements aren't inconsistent with each other.

Yeah, it looks to me like this coward tried to recover his reputation by saying he stopped the rape instead of just running to daddy, but ultimately that exactly what he did. What's most heartbreaking is that his testimony said he looked the child right in the eye, and left him to get raped. What a POS.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

"I gave a brief description of what I saw. You don’t go to coach Paterno and go through great detail of sexual acts."

 

[Doug B]

... a second eyewitness seeing him giving oral sex to another kid ...

If I'm following this correctly, this particular eyewitness now suffers from dementia and will not be able to testify.I don't know if it it's admissable for another person to testify that this eyewitness told them what they saw some years back. I would think that is hearsay, and would be thrown out.