Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation


Recommended Posts

The janitor is no longer sane

Is this true? I googled and didn't see anything.
I could have sworn multiple people posted in here that he was in a mental institution now. (James Calhoun) I guess that doesn't necessary mean he's not sane though. Actually now I'm looking at it, seems like there were multiple janitor witnesses. My bad.Edit: Oh you found the link, good to know I wasn't imagining things. Edited by Reepicheep
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You find someone raping a child,  you go straight to the police station. (After you remove the kid from the situation, by force if necessary) You don't go home, consult with your father,  tell your bo

I don't have to wonder. Christ, that poor guy never stood a chance. 

Opened this up hoping he had died

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.
You alreafy have some victims providing credible testimony. The McCreary testimony corroborates the victims' version of events.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You alreafy have some victims providing credible testimony. The McCreary testimony corroborates the victims' version of events.

Right, in most sex abuse cases there is no McQueary or janitor that witnessed the abuse. The fact that they exist is the reason this seems to be a strong case for the prosecution, not a weak one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any way this goes to trial. By the time this case ever gets that far, there will be 20+ victims that came forward with more witnesses and more graphic accounts of what happened. Plus on top of that there may be a PSU paper trail, other DCYF documented reports and other investigations, etc. The prosecution will run out witnesses FOR WEEKS for jurors to hear the same types of incidents over and over again.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this DY, but apparently Sandusky is going to have an attorney who is going to, you know, make those witnesses not so good at witnessing stuff.

I too have a hard time distinguishing between towel-slapping and anal rape. Bingo, reasonable doubt!

based on what's out now, is there any doubt, reasonabl;e or other that sexual contact took place?
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Pretty sure there is a big difference between leaving immediately and intervening. Pretty sure the difference would be noted in the indictment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 to help clear McQueary's name given the backlash he is experiencing right now.

Not sure why it would be left out in the first place and it certainly does sound like McQueary is trying desperately to cover his ### but there is a possibility that he isn't lying and did, in fact stop the act before leaving the scene on the advice of his father without the child.

Sounds kinda like not really when you type it out like that, doesn't it?

Edited by beer 30
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Pretty sure there is a big difference between leaving immediately and intervening. Pretty sure the difference would be noted in the indictment.
Pretty sure JoePa immediately informed his superior, the very next day (a Sunday no less).

The bias in the grand jury presentment - as evidenced by the verbiage chosen - was discussed earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Pretty sure there is a big difference between leaving immediately and intervening. Pretty sure the difference would be noted in the indictment.
Pretty sure JoePa immediately informed his superior, the very next day (a Sunday no less).

The bias in the grand jury presentment - as evidenced by the verbiage chosen - was discussed earlier.

For the purposes of indicting Sandusky him intervening would have to be noted. There would have had to have been conversation. That would a bit important. So yeah I still smell revision because he looks like he left a child getting raped while he ran away.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Pretty sure there is a big difference between leaving immediately and intervening. Pretty sure the difference would be noted in the indictment.
Pretty sure JoePa immediately informed his superior, the very next day (a Sunday no less).

The bias in the grand jury presentment - as evidenced by the verbiage chosen - was discussed earlier.

For the purposes of indicting Sandusky him intervening would have to be noted. There would have had to have been conversation. That would a bit important. So yeah I still smell revision because he looks like he left a child getting raped while he ran away.
To suggest there is bias in favor of Paterno is one thing. To suggest there is bias against McQueary, their star witness, is another.

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any way this goes to trial. By the time this case ever gets that far, there will be 20+ victims that came forward with more witnesses and more graphic accounts of what happened. Plus on top of that there may be a PSU paper trail, other DCYF documented reports and other investigations, etc. The prosecution will run out witnesses FOR WEEKS for jurors to hear the same types of incidents over and over again.

I don't see anyway it does not go to trial. He has denied doing it and the prosecution is not going to offer up a sweet plea bargain at the public outrage would be off the charts. If you are Sandusky, and the state is not offering a plea bargain that keeps you out of jail for the rest of your life, you try the case and take your chances that your attorney can do enough to cast reasonable doubt. You are assuming that the victims can all be found and are willing to testify against him. That is easier said than done. There is also no physical evidence here, one witness, the janitor, is not capable of testifying and McQueary seems to have already contradicted himself.While Sandusky has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and rightly so, that is a far cry from being convicted in a court of law, which is a much higher standard.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sandusky knew McQueary saw him, I don't think there's a discrepancy between him "leaving immediately" and "making sure it stopped." It's not like Sandusky is going to keep raping the kid with McQueary watching.

What makes you think that? Wouldn't shock me if the bastard winked and kept on.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sandusky knew McQueary saw him, I don't think there's a discrepancy between him "leaving immediately" and "making sure it stopped." It's not like Sandusky is going to keep raping the kid with McQueary watching.

What makes you think that? Wouldn't shock me if the bastard winked and kept on.
:shrug: I'm not a child raper but I'd think having McQueary there might kill the mood.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sandusky knew McQueary saw him, I don't think there's a discrepancy between him "leaving immediately" and "making sure it stopped." It's not like Sandusky is going to keep raping the kid with McQueary watching.

Good point.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sandusky knew McQueary saw him, I don't think there's a discrepancy between him "leaving immediately" and "making sure it stopped." It's not like Sandusky is going to keep raping the kid with McQueary watching.

What makes you think that? Wouldn't shock me if the bastard winked and kept on.
:shrug: I'm not a child raper but I'd think having McQueary there might kill the mood.
Neither am I but nothing I've read or heard about Sandusky impresses me as a deterrent to this monster so far. I'm not sold that he would have given it a second thought to be seen by someone he'd known since he was a kid. Sandusky was above the law at Penn State, at least in his mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad - my recollection was the presentment said Paterno called his superior immediately. In fact, it says he informed his immediate supervisor (the very next day, a Sunday).

Angry Beavers noted upthread McQueary seems to have already contradicted himself. This is what pisses me off about this leaked email that he did (something unspecified) make sure to stop it before he turned heel. Dude, your reputation is NOT the issue here - believe it or not, there are bigger fish to fry here.

Only way that email gets leaks to the press is intentionally by McQueary did it directly, or one of his buddies decided to "help him out". Either way, you're opening up a can of worms if the defense is able to introduce that. I just think the primary witness in a felony sexual assault case could keep their ####### mouth shut during an ongoing investigation in the pretrial phase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.

apparently his lawyer had a child w/ an underage girl

The Daily says… Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile’s emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday. The emancipation request … makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer. Roughly around the same time, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola’s child, and gave birth before she turned 18. He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time. Court records show the two were married on Feb. 8, 2003, around the time her mother says their second child was born. They are now separated, but she has kept his surname.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.

apparently his lawyer had a child w/ an underage girl

The Daily says…

Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile’s emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

The emancipation request … makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer.

Roughly around the same time, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola’s child, and gave birth before she turned 18.

He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time.

Court records show the two were married on Feb. 8, 2003, around the time her mother says their second child was born.

They are now separated, but she has kept his surname.

Age of consent in PA is 16.

You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.

apparently his lawyer had a child w/ an underage girl

The Daily says…

Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile's emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

The emancipation request … makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer.

Roughly around the same time, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola's child, and gave birth before she turned 18.

He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time.

Court records show the two were married on Feb. 8, 2003, around the time her mother says their second child was born.

They are now separated, but she has kept his surname.

Age of consent in PA is 16.

You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.

;)

What is the age of consent in Colorado?
22
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught the lawyer on one of the morning shows earlier - I wasn't paying close attention but he was asked something like, "If your client is actually innocent, how do you explain all the different people accusing him of these crimes?" His response was that, you know how these things go, people hear these allegations and they know it's a big school and there's a lot of money at stake, etc. Basically insinuating that the victims coming forward were lying just to profit.

apparently his lawyer had a child w/ an underage girl

The Daily says…

Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile's emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.

The emancipation request … makes no mention of any special relationship between her and her lawyer.

Roughly around the same time, Iavasile became pregnant with Amendola's child, and gave birth before she turned 18.

He was born in 1948 and was around 49 at the time.

Court records show the two were married on Feb. 8, 2003, around the time her mother says their second child was born.

They are now separated, but she has kept his surname.

Age of consent in PA is 16.

You could cast aspersions regarding a 49 y.o. lawyer impregnating a 17 y.o. client, but don't be calling her underage. Think of the Amish.

;)

What is the age of consent in Colorado?
22
glad it's not 28
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the recent news, I'm surprised there aren't more apologies being issued in this thread.

:confused:
:goodposting:

No need to be coy or cryptic Joe T. We know nothing more about McQueary today than we knew a week ago.

As noted upthread, if he made eye contact and Sandusky stopped, that fits his cryptic and coy "I made sure it stopped".

If that is what happened - and we don't know one way or another - and then he ran, that means the coward still abandoned a 10 year boy who was being ### raped.

Edited by BobbyLayne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread I broached the topic of Sandusky's raping of a 10 year old, McQueary hearing the telltale "slapping" and discovering them... and the fact that there was no screaming bloody murder by this child.

Perhaps Sandusky was just getting off simulating the act. (use your imagination) :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread I broached the topic of Sandusky's raping of a 10 year old, McQueary hearing the telltale "slapping" and discovering them... and the fact that there was no screaming bloody murder by this child.Perhaps Sandusky was just getting off simulating the act. (use your imagination) :shrug:

Or maybe it wasn't the first time
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

You're right about the victims' testimony, but it should be noted that the bolded above will not be admissable (since it is hearsay).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the recent news, I'm surprised there aren't more apologies being issued in this thread.

:confused:
:goodposting:

No need to be coy or cryptic Joe T. We know nothing more about McQueary today than we knew a week ago.

As noted upthread, if he made eye contact and Sandusky stopped, that fits his cryptic and coy "I made sure it stopped".

If that is what happened - and we don't know one way or another - and then he ran, that means the coward still abandoned a 10 year boy who was being ### raped.

And he kept seeing Sandusky unpunished with other boys for the nine years since. His little plea of "you know me" and "I made sure it stopped" falls pretty flat considering there are nine more years of victims he allowed with his silence.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread I broached the topic of Sandusky's raping of a 10 year old, McQueary hearing the telltale "slapping" and discovering them... and the fact that there was no screaming bloody murder by this child.Perhaps Sandusky was just getting off simulating the act. (use your imagination) :shrug:

Or maybe it wasn't the first time
Or Sandusky is hung like a fly. My son is 12. An average sized male would kill him.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

:goodposting:

One difference here could be that the victims may testify en masse. That could tip the scales.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

Now, to be accurate in the comparison, it's now been firmly established that the preschoolers' depositions were heavily coached by the prosecution's lawyers. Further -- the McMartin case is now considered to have been an immense sham and the defendants are now accepted to be completely innocent of everything they were charged with.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
No I don't. There is public outcry but McMartin was the culmination of a decade of hysteria that included alleged satanists running day cares and abusing kids.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
No I don't. There is public outcry but McMartin was the culmination of a decade of hysteria that included alleged satanists running day cares and abusing kids.
The only reason I brought up McMartin was to strengthen my point that a large number of witnesses does not necessarily ensure convictions in high profile cases. The burden of proof in these cases is much higher, IMO, than in normal court cases. Or perhaps its that well paid defense attorneys are simply much better at their jobs than public defenders and have tons more money to spend. Whatever the reason, it would be highly premature to consider this case to be open and shut based on history.

But I do think that this story has created public hysteria. I think we're well beyond outcry stage. Sandusky's lawyers will no doubt have an argument that it will be difficult for him to obtain a fair trial under the current atmosphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been a lot of improvements in the interviewing techniques since the McMartin trial and they are almost always videotaped. I don't know the details here but I can't imagine this is a similar situation. There was no hysteria when the initial interviews/testimony of these victims were heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

Yeah this is nothing like that case (or the even larger Kern County ritual abuse cases of the 1980s). Not even in the same ballpark.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
No I don't. There is public outcry but McMartin was the culmination of a decade of hysteria that included alleged satanists running day cares and abusing kids.
The only reason I brought up McMartin was to strengthen my point that a large number of witnesses does not necessarily ensure convictions in high profile cases. The burden of proof in these cases is much higher, IMO, than in normal court cases. Or perhaps its that well paid defense attorneys are simply much better at their jobs than public defenders and have tons more money to spend. Whatever the reason, it would be highly premature to consider this case to be open and shut based on history.

But I do think that this story has created public hysteria. I think we're well beyond outcry stage. Sandusky's lawyers will no doubt have an argument that it will be difficult for him to obtain a fair trial under the current atmosphere.

I think we have reached "hysteria" level on a message board. "Outcry" seems to suit the real world IMHO.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

This is nothing like McMartin unless I missed the Satanic rituals part. McMartin was driven by public hysteria over abuse at day care.
You don't think there's public hysteria involved in this case?
No I don't. There is public outcry but McMartin was the culmination of a decade of hysteria that included alleged satanists running day cares and abusing kids.
The only reason I brought up McMartin was to strengthen my point that a large number of witnesses does not necessarily ensure convictions in high profile cases. The burden of proof in these cases is much higher, IMO, than in normal court cases. Or perhaps its that well paid defense attorneys are simply much better at their jobs than public defenders and have tons more money to spend. Whatever the reason, it would be highly premature to consider this case to be open and shut based on history.

But I do think that this story has created public hysteria. I think we're well beyond outcry stage. Sandusky's lawyers will no doubt have an argument that it will be difficult for him to obtain a fair trial under the current atmosphere.

I don't recall any of these witnesses saying they saw their abusers flying through the air. So I don't think you really strengthened your point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
:goodposting: Its too bad we couldnt have waited for the whole truth to be unraveled, but the lynch-mob had already formed. At least the focus is back on Sandusky where it belongs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

You're right about the victims' testimony, but it should be noted that the bolded above will not be admissable (since it is hearsay).
Hearsay is generally not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted (that the janitor saw Sandusky), but it's not categorically banned. The janitor can testify as to who he told. Those people can corroborate that the janitor told them. It could also come in through a hearsay exception (most likely as an excited utterance).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

You're right about the victims' testimony, but it should be noted that the bolded above will not be admissable (since it is hearsay).
Hearsay is generally not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted (that the janitor saw Sandusky), but it's not categorically banned. The janitor can testify as to who he told. Those people can corroborate that the janitor told them. It could also come in through a hearsay exception (most likely as an excited utterance).
The janitor apparently has dementia and will be unable to testify.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could think this is a weak case. Eyewitnesses, seven victims already testified and not to just touching: one boy said he oral sex with Sandusky something like 20 times. How are those bad witnesses? If anything, this is probably one of the strongest sex abuse cases in history considering you have two third party witnesses to the crimes (even though the janitor sounds like a weak witness, there is contemporaneous testimony from his superior/coworkers that he immediately told them what he saw).

I think all Sandusky and his lawyer are doing is trying to muddy the waters as much as possible to create doubt in order to get the best plea deal. No way he goes through a trial on these charges, especially with 5-10 new boys coming forward every week.

I always assume every high profile case is weak, based on the fact that in the last 20 years or longer lots of high profile people who I was sure was guilty have been found not guilty by a jury. Seems like it's well over 50% of the cases that are followed carefully on TV, as no doubt this one will be.

Back in the 1980s in Los Angeles, we had the McMartin preschool trial which involved similar charges. There were witnesses galore, but they were mostly the victims themselves and they weren't believed by the jury. That case stretched over 3 years, cost the city millions, and nobody was ever convicted.

Sadly, what you are talking about with a lot of high profile cases has to do with jury nullification, which has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the case, and only about sending some sort of societal message. And I am pretty sure these victims, who are all now adults but werent 2-5 at the time of the crimes, will come across far better than the very young McMartin witnesses.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...