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 (3 Viewers)

'timschochet said:
LOL at all the comments about how Sandusky's attorney messed this up or that up or gave him bad advice about the interview, or is doing a poor job now, etc. You could be the greatest attorney the world has ever seen, and there's no way you get this guy off.
Click to expand...
Probably true, but I was merely pointing out how shabby Amendola is at a matter of observation. It's a bit of relief, really.
 
'Billy Bats said:
'Jutz said:
The only point I am attempting to make is, let's not completely dismiss all the good he did. Lets not forget the report did make it to the president And let's not forget hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
Well it was said above, with the trial happening and it being fresh in the minds of everyone, now doesn't seem to be an appropriate time to honor the man, because it was such a heinous crime that was committed under his watch. You have to understand the magnitude of what went on with everyone letting it happen. And that's the frustrating part about the Penn Staters, us outsiders don't think you grasp the severity and magnitude of the situation.
Click to expand...
I can see that and I agree with you thinking it. However I think a lot more PSU supporters understand the severity and magnitude than you may think. They just choose to express it in different ways than outsiders. I think if you saw a lot of PSUers saying things like "it was no big deal", than I'd think you have a good point. I just don't see much of that.
 
Sandusky's wife testified today that the basement wasn't soundproof, and that she heard nothing.

She could be telling the truth about the basement- if so, it makes her look worse...

 
Sweet jesus. I helped more kids than I raped seems like a bold strategy. Sure, everyone is always mentioning all those people Manson killed. But what about the people he didn't murder?

And :lmao: at Jutz trying to take a moral stand on Paterno with an avatar. Paterno made a horrible, horrible decision by burying his head in the sand (probably did so on many occasions). Did he do some good? Sure. Was that good outweighed by the bad? I'd say so. But I get it. We're all flawed individuals, it's not perfection which makes a hero, blah blah blah. Paterno should not be treated as an entity of evil but he sure as hell doesn't deserve any admiration. To promote his picture makes me think you're either trolling or deeply misguided in your bizarre effort to make this of all things your line in the sand. Then again, you were a Santorum supporter so it's clear I don't understand your mindset nor do I care to.

Find someone else to worship. Lots of folks in this country (and the rest of the world) to idolize. All of them have flaws. But I imagine their flaws lead to crimes that pale when measured against sexually violating children.

 
'Dr. Awesome said:
Sweet jesus. I helped more kids than I raped seems like a bold strategy. Sure, everyone is always mentioning all those people Manson killed. But what about the people he didn't murder?
Click to expand...
Not to hijack but even though Manson was tried for murder he himself did not do the killings.
 
'Dr. Awesome said:
Sweet jesus. I helped more kids than I raped seems like a bold strategy. Sure, everyone is always mentioning all those people Manson killed. But what about the people he didn't murder?
Click to expand...
It's akin to suggesting that Hitler provided housing and transportation for the Jews.
 
So has anyone addressed the odds that Penn State is rendered bankrupt due to civil suits from the hundreds of little boys that Sandouchey raped?

 
'[icon] said:
So has anyone addressed the odds that Penn State is rendered bankrupt due to civil suits from the hundreds of little boys that Sandouchey raped?
Click to expand...
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure they'll figure out a way to cover their costs with money from the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of PA.
 
'[icon] said:
So has anyone addressed the odds that Penn State is rendered bankrupt due to civil suits from the hundreds of little boys that Sandouchey raped?
Click to expand...
If Zimmerman can get over $200 grand in donations then I would think someone who with Paterno made people know that Penn State actually exists would get something And no I am not comparing the two crimes. It is more of an indictment on the cult that in that area.
 
'ConstruxBoy said:
'Billy Bats said:
'Jutz said:
The only point I am attempting to make is, let's not completely dismiss all the good he did. Lets not forget the report did make it to the president And let's not forget hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
Well it was said above, with the trial happening and it being fresh in the minds of everyone, now doesn't seem to be an appropriate time to honor the man, because it was such a heinous crime that was committed under his watch. You have to understand the magnitude of what went on with everyone letting it happen. And that's the frustrating part about the Penn Staters, us outsiders don't think you grasp the severity and magnitude of the situation.
Click to expand...
I can see that and I agree with you thinking it. However I think a lot more PSU supporters understand the severity and magnitude than you may think. They just choose to express it in different ways than outsiders. I think if you saw a lot of PSUers saying things like "it was no big deal", than I'd think you have a good point. I just don't see much of that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and no I haven't seen it get to that point you mention. I guess with all the protection and defense of Joe that some PSers display, it comes off as making less of such a horrible situation. I just don't think the rest of the world outside of the PS honeycomb wants to hear anything about his greatness while such terrible things are still being discussed and sorted out that occurred under his watch. We can get back to loving Joe at a future date, now just isn't the right time.
 
'Billy Bats said:
'ConstruxBoy said:
'Billy Bats said:
'Jutz said:
The only point I am attempting to make is, let's not completely dismiss all the good he did. Lets not forget the report did make it to the president And let's not forget hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
Well it was said above, with the trial happening and it being fresh in the minds of everyone, now doesn't seem to be an appropriate time to honor the man, because it was such a heinous crime that was committed under his watch. You have to understand the magnitude of what went on with everyone letting it happen. And that's the frustrating part about the Penn Staters, us outsiders don't think you grasp the severity and magnitude of the situation.
Click to expand...
I can see that and I agree with you thinking it. However I think a lot more PSU supporters understand the severity and magnitude than you may think. They just choose to express it in different ways than outsiders. I think if you saw a lot of PSUers saying things like "it was no big deal", than I'd think you have a good point. I just don't see much of that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and no I haven't seen it get to that point you mention. I guess with all the protection and defense of Joe that some PSers display, it comes off as making less of such a horrible situation. I just don't think the rest of the world outside of the PS honeycomb wants to hear anything about his greatness while such terrible things are still being discussed and sorted out that occurred under his watch. We can get back to loving Joe at a future date, now just isn't the right time.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. I've generally tried not to do that in here myself, although I have slipped from time to time.
 
'Jutz said:
'fatness said:
'Jutz said:
Paterno did a whole lot of really good things in his lifetime and one really bad thing. Mcquery admitted that he severely toned down what he told Paterno due to his advanced age. Paterno should have done more, but in the end he did follow 'the book' so to speak.
Click to expand...
What book? The one that says "Call the cops when someone reports child abuse to you?" that most people follow? Or the one that says "Pass it off to someone who will bury it?"
Click to expand...
No, the one that says report the incident to the administration so they can pursue a full investigation. You are making the assumption Paterno knew Curly would cover it up with no evidence to back that assumption. He should have done more. He admits he should have done more. But your statements makes it sound like he did nothing, or even actively participated in the cover up which is simply not true. LINK
Click to expand...
The janitor reported abuse. Nothing happened.McQueary reported abuse up the line. Nothing happened.

Paterno reported abuse up the line. Nothing happened.

Yet you feel the need to absolve Paterno, and not the others. Nothing came from what Paterno reported. Nothing.

Here's a good example. In your opinion the problem is with what people below Paterno and above Paterno did. Everyone but him.

'Jutz said:
Reporting the incident to the athletic director, which eventually made it's way to the University president is not the same as turning a blind eye to it, so no, we are not in agreement. Paterno died knowing he should have done more but he should not have to also pay for the sins of the administration.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'roarlions said:
So is it really possible for someone who did not witness a possible crime to report it to the police? Hey, so and so told me he saw a crime so I'm reporting it to you to investigate. Does it really work that way? Serious question.
Click to expand...
Assuming that's a serious question as you say:You hear banging, thumping, crying, and screaming inside your neighbors' house. Can you call police?You see someone lying on the street injured and someone else running away. Can you call police?Of course you can.
 
'ConstruxBoy said:
'Billy Bats said:
'Jutz said:
The only point I am attempting to make is, let's not completely dismiss all the good he did. Lets not forget the report did make it to the president And let's not forget hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
Well it was said above, with the trial happening and it being fresh in the minds of everyone, now doesn't seem to be an appropriate time to honor the man, because it was such a heinous crime that was committed under his watch. You have to understand the magnitude of what went on with everyone letting it happen. And that's the frustrating part about the Penn Staters, us outsiders don't think you grasp the severity and magnitude of the situation.
Click to expand...
I can see that and I agree with you thinking it. However I think a lot more PSU supporters understand the severity and magnitude than you may think. They just choose to express it in different ways than outsiders.
Click to expand...
This is not a personal shot at you. To be honest, if the problem had been handled correctly by insiders, there would be no worry about outsiders. Or about insiders.
 
'fatness said:
'ConstruxBoy said:
'Billy Bats said:
'Jutz said:
The only point I am attempting to make is, let's not completely dismiss all the good he did. Lets not forget the report did make it to the president And let's not forget hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...
Well it was said above, with the trial happening and it being fresh in the minds of everyone, now doesn't seem to be an appropriate time to honor the man, because it was such a heinous crime that was committed under his watch. You have to understand the magnitude of what went on with everyone letting it happen. And that's the frustrating part about the Penn Staters, us outsiders don't think you grasp the severity and magnitude of the situation.
Click to expand...
I can see that and I agree with you thinking it. However I think a lot more PSU supporters understand the severity and magnitude than you may think. They just choose to express it in different ways than outsiders.
Click to expand...
This is not a personal shot at you. To be honest, if the problem had been handled correctly by insiders, there would be no worry about outsiders. Or about insiders.
Click to expand...
Oh, completely agree with you. No offense taken at all. I think most rationale "insiders" are pissed at what the administration appears to have done. Let Paterno coach on even longer than he should have when he was in the midst of a down spell in the early decade and you could saved victims and the school's rep by just exposing it then? What jackass decided against that? And yes, I am aware it may have Paterno himself.
 
'fatness said:
'roarlions said:
So is it really possible for someone who did not witness a possible crime to report it to the police? Hey, so and so told me he saw a crime so I'm reporting it to you to investigate. Does it really work that way? Serious question.
Click to expand...
Assuming that's a serious question as you say:You hear banging, thumping, crying, and screaming inside your neighbors' house. Can you call police?You see someone lying on the street injured and someone else running away. Can you call police?Of course you can.
Click to expand...
Well both of your examples are types of first hand observation or witnessing.
 
Don't take this for me defending Sandusky, but is there any evidence that he committed these alleged crimes aside from witness testimony? If not, is that enough to get a conviction?

 
Jerry Sandusky decided not to testify in his child sex abuse trial after his lawyers were warned that prosecutors would call a surprise new witness — one of the defendant’s own adopted sons — who was prepared to deliver damaging testimony about his father, sources tell NBC News.
Click to expand...
link
 
'fatness said:
Jerry Sandusky decided not to testify in his child sex abuse trial after his lawyers were warned that prosecutors would call a surprise new witness — one of the defendant’s own adopted sons — who was prepared to deliver damaging testimony about his father, sources tell NBC News.
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
The prosecution couldn't call him as a rebuttal witness to anything the wife said at least?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Rick%20James said:
Don't take this for me defending Sandusky, but is there any evidence that he committed these alleged crimes aside from witness testimony? If not, is that enough to get a conviction?
Click to expand...
I think the only non-victim eyewitnesses were Mike McQueary and Ronald Petrosky, one of the janitors who saw Sandusky exit the gym showers with a little boy.
A short time after that, [Petrosky] said a fellow janitor came out, shaking and white. "I could see that he was upset. His face was white. His hands were trembling."

He said that man, Jim Calhoun, then said, "I just witnessed something I'll never forget the rest of my life. He had this boy, with his hands against the wall, licking his privates." Mr. Petrosky said his colleague was crying and shaking.
Click to expand...
 
Not saying this would happen but the odds of the jury NOT convicting him are pretty good, imo. Why?

Unless I missed it, did the higher ups covering up this thing ever testify? Could they have if they did not?

There is zero evidence, that I have seen, other than the words of the accused. They did not bring bloody underwear or pictures or anything of that order. They brought descriptions of his basement, the shower and the campus but that all seems normal with the happenings of the time.

Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence?

I don't know how the jury will weigh this stuff but there is no smoking gun in this case.

Just throwing out the possibility of him not being convicted of anything.

 
'Mario Kart said:
Not saying this would happen but the odds of the jury NOT convicting him are pretty good, imo. Why?Unless I missed it, did the higher ups covering up this thing ever testify? Could they have if they did not?There is zero evidence, that I have seen, other than the words of the accused. They did not bring bloody underwear or pictures or anything of that order. They brought descriptions of his basement, the shower and the campus but that all seems normal with the happenings of the time. Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence? I don't know how the jury will weigh this stuff but there is no smoking gun in this case. Just throwing out the possibility of him not being convicted of anything.
Click to expand...
But in the end, the prosecution's strongest card may well be the testimony of former Penn State coach Mike McQueary - the only independent eyewitness to any alleged abuse.It was McQueary who, in a decisive voice, told the court he saw Sandusky pin a young boy against the wall from behind - in "an extremely sexual position" - in a coach's shower back in February 2001. Despite multiple attempts, the defense appeared unable to shake the account.
Click to expand...
 
'Thorn said:
'Mario Kart said:
Not saying this would happen but the odds of the jury NOT convicting him are pretty good, imo. Why?Unless I missed it, did the higher ups covering up this thing ever testify? Could they have if they did not?There is zero evidence, that I have seen, other than the words of the accused. They did not bring bloody underwear or pictures or anything of that order. They brought descriptions of his basement, the shower and the campus but that all seems normal with the happenings of the time. Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence? I don't know how the jury will weigh this stuff but there is no smoking gun in this case. Just throwing out the possibility of him not being convicted of anything.
Click to expand...
But in the end, the prosecution's strongest card may well be the testimony of former Penn State coach Mike McQueary - the only independent eyewitness to any alleged abuse.It was McQueary who, in a decisive voice, told the court he saw Sandusky pin a young boy against the wall from behind - in "an extremely sexual position" - in a coach's shower back in February 2001. Despite multiple attempts, the defense appeared unable to shake the account.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Okay, but McQueary strenuously stated this. That does not make it so.I'm not defending Sandusky here, just throwing out the possibility that while there is testimony from victims, there is little to no evidence depending on which way you look at it.With this in mind... if convicted, chances of an appeal and tie this thing up in courts again is likely, no?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnRHAyXqYY
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Mario%20Kart said:
Not saying this would happen but the odds of the jury NOT convicting him are pretty good, imo. Why?Unless I missed it, did the higher ups covering up this thing ever testify? Could they have if they did not?There is zero evidence, that I have seen, other than the words of the accused. They did not bring bloody underwear or pictures or anything of that order. They brought descriptions of his basement, the shower and the campus but that all seems normal with the happenings of the time. Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence? I don't know how the jury will weigh this stuff but there is no smoking gun in this case. Just throwing out the possibility of him not being convicted of anything.
Click to expand...
There's no physical evidence, but the testimony from the 8 alleged victims is pretty compelling. The defense didn't do much to attack their stories or their character.As for Sandusky's adopted son, maybe he didn't have any evidence that was "damning"? Maybe his testimony was only needed to contradict specific things that Sandusky might have said?
 
'Mario Kart said:
'Thorn said:
'Mario Kart said:
Not saying this would happen but the odds of the jury NOT convicting him are pretty good, imo. Why?Unless I missed it, did the higher ups covering up this thing ever testify? Could they have if they did not?There is zero evidence, that I have seen, other than the words of the accused. They did not bring bloody underwear or pictures or anything of that order. They brought descriptions of his basement, the shower and the campus but that all seems normal with the happenings of the time. Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence? I don't know how the jury will weigh this stuff but there is no smoking gun in this case. Just throwing out the possibility of him not being convicted of anything.
Click to expand...
But in the end, the prosecution's strongest card may well be the testimony of former Penn State coach Mike McQueary - the only independent eyewitness to any alleged abuse.It was McQueary who, in a decisive voice, told the court he saw Sandusky pin a young boy against the wall from behind - in "an extremely sexual position" - in a coach's shower back in February 2001. Despite multiple attempts, the defense appeared unable to shake the account.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Okay, but McQueary strenuously stated this. That does not make it so.I'm not defending Sandusky here, just throwing out the possibility that while there is testimony from victims, there is little to no evidence depending on which way you look at it.With this in mind... if convicted, chances of an appeal and tie this thing up in courts again is likely, no?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnRHAyXqYY
Click to expand...
No.
 
In the closing argument from the defense lawyer:

"There are no winners in this case... His life is ruined. We have a fired university president. We have a dead coach...."
Click to expand...
He's hoping for a big Paterno fan or fans on the jury to buy the "they killed Joe Pa so at least let Jerry go" schtick.
 
'fatness said:
In the closing argument from the defense lawyer:

"There are no winners in this case... His life is ruined. We have a fired university president. We have a dead coach...."
Click to expand...
He's hoping for a big Paterno fan or fans on the jury to buy the "they killed Joe Pa so at least let Jerry go" schtick.
Click to expand...
I suppose he had to say something, though that's pretty bad.
 
'Mario Kart said:
Why not call his adopted kid anyway? Why have him as a surprise if he had damning evidence?
Click to expand...
His only purpose would have been to rebut direct testimony from Sandusky about events that he (the adopted son) had direct knowledge of. Sandusky then chose not to testify.
 
Someone please explain to me why the prosecution was unwilling or unable to use either of these unless Sandusky testified.

Jerry Sandusky decided not to testify in his child sex abuse trial after his lawyers were warned that prosecutors would call a surprise new witness — one of the defendant's own adopted sons — who was prepared to deliver damaging testimony about his father, sources tell NBC News.
Click to expand...
'Leeroy Jenkins said:
'Godsbrother said:
So did the jury ever get to hear the unaired portions of Sandusky's interview with Bob Costas?
Click to expand...
No. It sounds like that was only able to be used to impeach Sandusky had he taken the stand.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

offdee
Getting out of jury duty
3 4 5
Replies
208
Views
7K
Zow
Zow
JohnnyU
Devil's Den Random Murders - Now a possible serial killer?
Replies
15
Views
529
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
HellToupee
FBG Murda
Replies
13
Views
453
mr. furley
mr. furley

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top