The three acquittals were all involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charges including the incident Mike McQueary witnessed
Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged
- Thread starter Pesky Pole
- Start date
I say solitary with "Call me maybe" playing continuously on a loop. He's gonna enjoy the prison bitch life too much.
Interesting. So does that mean they didn't credit McQueary? What are the elements of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse?
I agree with you wholeheartedly. You can't help thinking about the lives that were ruined while people shirked their responsibilities to stop this monster.
Here's the full breakdown, charge-by-charge: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html
Deviant charges against 2, 5 and 6 were the specific not guilty verdicts, but they had subsequent guilty charges.
Deviant charges against 2, 5 and 6 were the specific not guilty verdicts, but they had subsequent guilty charges.
Just goes to show - again - that courage is the supreme virtue, and that there wasn't anywhere near enough of it in that community.
One of his lawyers is running his mouth off (and it seems like he's kind of a runaway train) about how they'll appeal this on CNN.
We'll find out soon enough I'm sure, but maybe they were willing to accept McQueary's account that something inappropriate happened, but that "slapping noises" weren't enough to prove actual intercourse?
And thank goodness... if this (and the subsequent lawsuits that I'm positive are coming) are enough to prevent even one more organization from covering this kind of crap up, then this prosecution will have been a glowing success
This is an AWFUL idea to have this PC with the town yahoos surrounding him yelling things.
What the fuck.
What the fuck.
Amendola just made me hate him a little bit less right there, then I remember he married an 18 year old former client.
Yeah, what appellate judge is jumping at the chance to bring this shitshow into his courtroom?
I've always been conflicted about the death penalty (part of me thinks it lets the offender off too easily in certain cases), but damn if I'm not happy it isn't an option here. There's a lot of offenses that I think have grey areas of right/wrong (see thread on the guy who killed his daughter's molester), but this is a crime that there is no defense for EVER. Enjoy the new locker room showers, fucker.
It wasn't that they didn't believe McQuery, they had no victim.
Everyone thought that was a challange for the state. Sandusky is a pedophile, pure and simple. I grew up in Boston and went to catholic school. Three priests at my church and at my school did time for sex abuse in the 70's and 80's. I knew these guys and never would have guessed it. But it was true. So when a pillar of the community like Sandusky is charged and finally convicted, it shouldn't be a shock. The PA AG was right...it is an issue for all of us. Whenever you see a grown man take an interest in children, look not once, not twice but many times at what exactly they are doing with the kids...sad but it is reality. As for Penn State, not enough evil can befall that football program....may they all rot in hell, including His Holiness, Joe (Cardinal Law) Paterno.
Everyone thought that was a challange for the state. Sandusky is a pedophile, pure and simple. I grew up in Boston and went to catholic school. Three priests at my church and at my school did time for sex abuse in the 70's and 80's. I knew these guys and never would have guessed it. But it was true. So when a pillar of the community like Sandusky is charged and finally convicted, it shouldn't be a shock. The PA AG was right...it is an issue for all of us. Whenever you see a grown man take an interest in children, look not once, not twice but many times at what exactly they are doing with the kids...sad but it is reality. As for Penn State, not enough evil can befall that football program....may they all rot in hell, including His Holiness, Joe (Cardinal Law) Paterno.
Google: "geoghan"
Kinda crazy, sure. But the real problem that these are landmarks and that it has taken so long for it to come to this.
When one thinks about these cases, it's important to think about how widespread the culture of neglect has to be for them to happen. Then, given that culture of neglect, consider how many such abuses that neglect would make possible.
True. The pendulum is better stilled than let swing--that is how the day-care abuse scare happened, and a bunch of good people being falsely accused by way of prompted child witnesses isn't a terribly grand outcome either.
I feel like this is one of those attributes that becomes seemingly more "obvious" in hindsight anyway. My 7th grade English teacher is currently doing 5 years (10 suspended) for molesting students. Based on the facts that have come out, he was doing it when I had him. He was a friendly and popular teacher. When the news broke, everyone was like "Oh, yeah, I always felt like he liked kids a little too much!" Bullshit. Nobody suspected any such thing.
I just got home and opened yahoo and saw this headline, and I'm strangely a lot happier than I thought I would be. Not sure if it's because I have children now and there hasn't been a big pedophile case since they were born or what, but I didn't expect the kind of inner excitement that I have about this verdict. A lot of really good, strong people took the stand againist this guy, and I'm just really thrilled for them. The pain of reliving all of the shit this scumbag did was worth it, and hopefully, it helps others come forward in the future if they are ever victimized like they were. This is a great day for them, the justice system and all victims of sexual abuse, and I could not be happier about it.
Having the death penalty available for sexual crimes is bad idea because it provides an incentive for victimizers to murder their victims. I believe that's why kidnapping is no longer a capital offense, as it once was under "Little Lindbergh" statutes.
It's good that he was found guilty, and those young men were very brave to take the stand, but I feel mostly just sad that so many young lives were harmed irreparably.
Interesting interview with Dan Wetzel from Yahoo Sports, who covered the trial.
http://www.yahoosportsradio.com/college-fb-audio-archives/dan-wetzel-its-over-for-jerry-sandusky-but-just-starting-for-penn-state-27326/
http://www.yahoosportsradio.com/college-fb-audio-archives/dan-wetzel-its-over-for-jerry-sandusky-but-just-starting-for-penn-state-27326/
It is sad, and though I'm a cynic overall I'm not cynical on this. In part that's because I think that the society has changed since the 70s and 80s on this topic, and changed for the better. Kids are much more likely to report this kind of abuse. We teach children about bad touches and to tell people about it. And institutions are less likely to cover it up-- because of the threat of legal penalties, as seen by the catholic church or now by Penn State. (An example of how plaintiff's lawyers do serve useful purposes.)
I recently read the NY Times magazine's profile on some abuse allegations at a prep school in NY:
http://www.nytimes.c...xual-abuse.html
It's hard to believe that if that happened today, nothing would have been noticed by parents or reported by kids.
It's a sign of positive changes. The most constructive societal change started in the 80s and 90s and kicked into high gear in 2002-- to make sure that abusers can't easily keep these crimes hidden. Imagine if Sandusky was caught and jailed after his first crime.
I think one of the reasons Penn State is going to pay through the nose here is that this coverup happened in 2001/2002, just as the Globe was profiling the Boston priests that abused children and were covered up. We would all like to hope that such a coverup couldn't have happened at that time. It's much harder right now for such a thing to ever happen.
I would be happier if Joe Paterno were alive to live through this and all the testimony.
But I know what you mean.
And to continue avoiding its responsibility, Second Mile is transferring $2M to another non-profit. Clearly this is designed to make sure they are judgement proof, although the transfer apparently awaits court approval.
I do too. Often the little lady will point out cute kid while we're out and I kind of have this "I really don't want to look like I'm looking at little kids" feeling. And that sucks. Because it's just a cute kid in a Bruins jersey or playing with ducks or something and I just want to smile at the kid because yeah, it's cute and a nice moment. But in the back of my head is wondering if the parent thinks I'm a potential creep.
I am not really talking about a situation where you look at a little kid and say something like..."that's cute", you smile and go on with your day.
I am talking about grown men/women who take an interest in troubled kids, kids who are bullied, kids who appear to be at risk and try to help them. There are boundaries that cannot be crossed. Doing work through a charity in and of itself is not objectionable but when you see adults start to take little kids into their homes, take them away from the group activities,out of the public view, start showing up at the kids' home and start giving them gifts, etc. you have to stop and take a long hard look at what is going on. Nobody ever suspected Sandusky and no one ever suspected the priests at my school. They were "beyond suspicion". I think the priest scandal, the Boy Scout scandals of the last couple of years, the teacher student romances, Sandusky, etc. taken together shows patterns of conduct that all of us have to be cognizant of and vigilant about. My brother employment requires him to have interaction with kids but his employer has very strict rules/regs regarding interaction between kids and staff both during the program day and especially when the program is not in session and off hour encounters. Conducting a background check is not enough. Although you may find a monster now and then, usually there is no criminal history of these people as it goes on for years and no one talks about it.
Is this line of scrutiny fair?? No, it's not. There are many wonderful people out there who work with kids and really help them. However the predators that are out there can't have a clear shot at the weakest members of our society...and our most precious, our children.
Great outcome of a terrible story. Hypothetically thinking - could he be tried for more molestation counts if another victim really wants to pursue a trial?
(null)
(null)
Forgive the source, but has anybody heard of this before? (#5 obviously)
http://www.cracked.c...an-explain.html
http://www.cracked.c...an-explain.html
Yes, he can.
I have a question in light of his attorneys saying they didn't have time to prepare, read evidence or even retread the reports they provided to the court. They even say they were "flying by seat of their pants."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sanduskys_attorneys_trie.html
Is there a lefit case to be made for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel? The lawyers seem to be taking excessively about how they weren't prepared for the case after all.
Any lawyer types familiar with that facet of appeal?
I have a question in light of his attorneys saying they didn't have time to prepare, read evidence or even retread the reports they provided to the court. They even say they were "flying by seat of their pants."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sanduskys_attorneys_trie.html
Is there a lefit case to be made for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel? The lawyers seem to be taking excessively about how they weren't prepared for the case after all.
Any lawyer types familiar with that facet of appeal?
Yeah, it was mentioned when Sandusky got arrested iirc. Mike Francesca talked about it for a while and lots of people were saying that Penn St. (and the extra creepy Second Mile Foundation) basically disappeared him, and they were only half-joking.
It's spooky as shit.
No chance ineffective assistance saves him. Two things: It's a hard standard to prove because you have to prove that the original attorneys made mistakes during the trial, that had they not been made, the verdict would likely have been different. Second, and if you can prove that the attorneys were so ineffective the result would have been different, then all you get is a new trial and you start it all over again.
Edit: Typed the original from a phone
Gricar had just uncovered a massive heroin ring involving the NJ mafia, and was very close to basically exposing everything. The depth/style of his disappearance reeks of mafia confrontation. It's pretty well known he got mixed up in the wring stuff with that, went too far in his investigation, and well got off'd because it.