Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

[AimingForYoko]

12 jurors and a alternate seated. These are today's pick:



Jurors 11 and 12 seem loaded, but whatever. I stand by my statement a month or two back than Sandusky walks from most all charges.

How the hell can they not find anyone without ties to Penn State? This is some creepy cult shit.

And I'm with smastroyin.

 

[canderson]

Finding someone in Centre County without PSU affiliations would honestly be like finding someone in Madrid that doesn't speak Spanish. You can argue the affiliations hurt the defense just as much as the state, but there's no way of knowing exactly which way these people go.

Most individuals are anti-Sandusky in the county, no matter if the work on campus (by far the county's largest employer, it's not even really that close IIRC) or at Wal-Mart.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I thought I heard on the radio that one of the women on the jury actually worked with McQueary's dad, not just a doctor who worked with McQueary's dad. Edit: Now that I think about it, I think they said she was the wife of a doctor who was in a practice with McQueary's dad. Still doesn't make any better.

Either way, as I said yesterday, this entire thing is a fucking circus and when the guy walks, and I think he very well might with these folks deciding the case, it's going to get uglier. What a fucking mess. Move the fucking venue, do something, but a judge shouldn't even be entertaining some of these people as possible jurors. I was eliminated as a juror because I had gone to high school with a Somerville cop. The case involved a stabbling, in which another cop on the Somerville PD made the arrest. I just don't get this at all.

 

[Sprowl]

Jurors 11 and 12 seem loaded, but whatever. I stand by my statement a month or two back than Sandusky walks from most all charges.

With so many individuals confirming the same pattern of behavior? With handwritten letters by Sandusky as physical evidence? I could see defense lawyers shaking the credibility of several of the witnesses, but the volume of accusations is overwhelming.

Serving on an academic committee with a person related to the case is hardly an intimate relationship. I serve on enough committees to bore you all to tears, and I can barely remember half of the people on the committees, let alone a committee I served on ten years ago.

 

[Myt1]

I thought I heard on the radio that one of the women on the jury actually worked with McQueary's dad, not just a doctor who worked with McQueary's dad. Edit: Now that I think about it, I think they said she was the wife of a doctor who was in a practice with McQueary's dad. Still doesn't make any better.

Either way, as I said yesterday, this entire thing is a fucking circus and when the guy walks, and I think he very well might with these folks deciding the case, it's going to get uglier. What a fucking mess. Move the fucking venue, do something, but a judge shouldn't even be entertaining some of these people as possible jurors. I was eliminated as a juror because I had gone to high school with a Somerville cop. The case involved a stabbling, in which another cop on the Somerville PD made the arrest. I just don't get this at all.

I agree. But the prosecution tried to get the jury pool selected from elsewhere, and the defense won on that one. The jury pool is on the judge (or the state of the law that led to the decision, or whatever).

Do you remember if the judge dismissed you, or if one of the lawyers challenged? The defense attorney once kicked me on a dealing in a school zone case, likely because I was a non-criminal defense lawyer who showed up to jury duty wearing a suit.

 

[Myt1]

Finding someone in Centre County without PSU affiliations would honestly be like finding someone in Madrid that doesn't speak Spanish. You can argue the affiliations hurt the defense just as much as the state, but there's no way of knowing exactly which way these people go.

Can you? The defense wanted a local juror pool and the prosecution didn't. In the absence of better info, I'd defer to those choices as pretty good evidence.

 

[canderson]

At the time the argument to move the trial the atmosphere was much more toxic than now. Time has proven a bit hat local residents aren't supporting Sandusky at all.

Since this case isn't about PSU it has a chance of being fair. That said again the prosecutuon's case has tons if holes waiting to be exploited. Reasonable doubt I think is going to be elusive.

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

With so many individuals confirming the same pattern of behavior? With handwritten letters by Sandusky as physical evidence? I could see defense lawyers shaking the credibility of several of the witnesses, but the volume of accusations is overwhelming.

Serving on an academic committee with a person related to the case is hardly an intimate relationship. I serve on enough committees to bore you all to tears, and I can barely remember half of the people on the committees, let alone a committee I served on ten years ago.

All it takes is one and he skates on a hung jury or a mistrial. They seem to have more than enough to ensure he walks. I'm with Canderson - Sandusky is going to get away with it.

Stay tuned for five to ten more years when a new crop of victims shows up.

 

[LeftyTG]

At the time the argument to move the trial the atmosphere was much more toxic than now. Time has proven a bit hat local residents aren't supporting Sandusky at all.

Since this case isn't about PSU it has a chance of being fair. That said again the prosecutuon's case has tons if holes waiting to be exploited. Reasonable doubt I think is going to be elusive.

what do you see as the holes in the prosecution's case?

 

[Average Reds]

All it takes is one and he skates on a hung jury or a mistrial. They seem to have more than enough to ensure he walks. I'm with Canderson - Sandusky is going to get away with it.

Stay tuned for five to ten more years when a new crop of victims shows up.

I don't see how he walks if even half of what has leaked is presented as evidence. Life is not a Law and Order episode, and technical "holes" in cases don't often allow guilty defendants to beat the rap on serious felonies unless there are major problems that lead to jury nullification. (Perjured testimony at trial would be an example of the kind of "hole" that would let Sandusky walk.)

If there is a hung jury - always a risk - he'll be re-tried. But based on what has been presented in public, I can't imagine he'll be acquitted.

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

... I can't imagine he'll be acquitted.

Really? U.S. jurisprudence has a long and glorious history of letting people off the hook in high-profile, expensive and very public trials, in what seemed to be complete slam dunks. This is lining up like the next one. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to me that the population of central PA would like this all to go away so they can go back to worshipping Penn State football (see juror in front row). The easiest way to make it go away is to somehow let him walk, circle the wagons and start going to Penn State games again in the fall. They may be wrong, but if you don't think that can happen, you're not making an honest assessment of how high-profile trials of local celebrities in small jurisdictions actually play out.

 

[canderson]

what do you see as the holes in the prosecution's case?

For starters, a month ago they admitted they were an entire year off in dates of one charge. 13 months to be exact, which is why Schultz and Curkey imo won't see trial - statute of limitations expired for them with the date change.

McQuery's entire story has changed multiple times. Paterno is dead and in the ground, so he can't say what was said to him.

It only takes a small uncertainty from one juror who believes Penn State and Sandusky are beung scapegoated for him to walk.

 

[Average Reds]

Really? U.S. jurisprudence has a long and glorious history of letting people off the hook in high-profile, expensive and very public trials, in what seemed to be complete slam dunks. This is lining up like the next one. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to me that the population of central PA would like this all to go away so they can go back to worshipping Penn State football (see juror in front row). The easiest way to make it go away is to somehow let him walk, circle the wagons and start going to Penn State games again in the fall. They may be wrong, but if you don't think that can happen, you're not making an honest assessment of how high-profile trials of local celebrities in small jurisdictions actually play out.

More than happy to have a friendly wager with you. Does the charity thread still exist?

 

[mauf]

I'm surprised the defense didn't get Juror #3 (the wife of the doctor who worked with McQueary's father) bounced for cause. I'm not really concerned about the jury from the prosecution's perspective -- it looks like the prosecution used their peremptories to keep anyone really bad off the jury.

The prosecution's case will rise or fall on the strength of the victims' testimony. None of us has a basis to evaluate that in advance. I'm a lot less concerned than canderson and KW about the prosecution's chances, but I don't know anything they don't.

 

[Sprowl]

All it takes is one and he skates on a hung jury or a mistrial. They seem to have more than enough to ensure he walks. I'm with Canderson - Sandusky is going to get away with it.

Stay tuned for five to ten more years when a new crop of victims shows up.

There are seven victims in the the Grand Jury presentation, and another unnamed 8th victim. There were stories of multiple further victims coming forward in the wake of the public announcement. The defense lawyers would have to create reasonable doubt not only in the case of the victim witnessed by McQueary, but for each of the other victims, and for the physical evidence as well. I can't see it just because there is a Penn State employee on the jury -- or even because there are 3 PSU employees on the jury.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Really? U.S. jurisprudence has a long and glorious history of letting people off the hook in high-profile, expensive and very public trials, in what seemed to be complete slam dunks. This is lining up like the next one. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to me that the population of central PA would like this all to go away so they can go back to worshipping Penn State football (see juror in front row). The easiest way to make it go away is to somehow let him walk, circle the wagons and start going to Penn State games again in the fall. They may be wrong, but if you don't think that can happen, you're not making an honest assessment of how high-profile trials of local celebrities in small jurisdictions actually play out.

I'm just guessing but I imagine the prosecution will appeal to the damage Sandusky did to PSU as an institution. That could work in their favor.

Still guessing, but I imagine a lot of those cases involved a limited number of witnesses and circumstantial evidence. Unless I completely miss my guess, that should not be the case here. The letters themselves could be quite damaging (we'll know more when the contents are released).

 

[crystalline]

On the topic of jurors - have they really found a few people that haven't heard about the case?

Juror 1: A mother and Walmart employee, who says she doesn't know much about the case.

Juror 6: Woman in her 20s who says she never reads news or watches television. She works at a State College property management company and has some interactions with Penn State students, but said that wouldn't affect her opinions. She had brown hair.

I'd be more worried that these people are autistics with no social skills. How can you live there and not know much about the case??

 

[HomeBrew1901]

On the topic of jurors - have they really found a few people that haven't heard about the case?



I'd be more worried that these people are autistics with no social skills. How can you live there and not know much about the case??

Either so disgusted that they changed the channel whenever a Sandusky story came on or they are deliberately trying to be a juror on this trial for any number of reasons.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Debated starting a new topic, but seems like it fits here. The New York Times has a piece on the history of sexual abuse at Horace Mann, one of the elite New York prep schools. Pretty bad stuff. Break this out if folks want to discuss it separately.

Phil Foote, the former head of school, told me that he didn't know why Ben Balter's mother "gave up so easily" in her quest to see Somary fired. "I always wondered why she didn't pursue it," he told me. "Maybe she just got defeated." Sitting in his living room recently, I asked him why he himself didn't try to remove Somary, or at least to investigate the charges more thoroughly. Why didn't he go to the police? "The structure of H.M. was not easy," he said. "There were groups and groups within groups. It was a time with different values and different systems. You didn't have the access you do now. It was hubris. H.M. was sure it was above everybody else. Nobody wanted anything to change."

I asked if he knew what became of Ben. He said no, then paused to study my face. "He committed suicide?" he guessed, before I could say it. He turned away and, staring into the middle distance, said, "Oh, my Lord."

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Debated starting a new topic, but seems like it fits here. The New York Times has a piece on the history of sexual abuse at Horace Mann, one of the elite New York prep schools. Pretty bad stuff. Break this out if folks want to discuss it separately.

For those interested, Clusterstock posted a letter sent to parents by the School's current administration: http://www.horaceman...ponse060112.pdf

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I agree. But the prosecution tried to get the jury pool selected from elsewhere, and the defense won on that one. The jury pool is on the judge (or the state of the law that led to the decision, or whatever).

Do you remember if the judge dismissed you, or if one of the lawyers challenged? The defense attorney once kicked me on a dealing in a school zone case, likely because I was a non-criminal defense lawyer who showed up to jury duty wearing a suit.

I was bounced by the Judge. Never made it to the challenge stage. Judge was rattling off the lists of witnesses/lawyers, etc. and along the way, he said "Does anyone know any of the officers involved in the case, or any other officers on the Somerville police force." I raised my hand, went up to sidebar and he asked me who I knew and how I knew them, and then he just dismissed me and that was that. I don't know, he might have been doing me a favor as I identified myself as an attorney in the questionnaire, but I believe he bounced a couple others that also knew Somerville PD that weren't involved in the case.

 

[LeftyTG]

For starters, a month ago they admitted they were an entire year off in dates of one charge. 13 months to be exact, which is why Schultz and Curkey imo won't see trial - statute of limitations expired for them with the date change.

McQuery's entire story has changed multiple times. Paterno is dead and in the ground, so he can't say what was said to him.

It only takes a small uncertainty from one juror who believes Penn State and Sandusky are beung scapegoated for him to walk.

I guess I don't see these are particularly troublesome holes. I'm speaking only in regard to Sandusky, so any issues being off a year and the statute of limitations doesn't apply here. Paterno isn't a main witness in the case. The fallout about Paterno was more about how he knew/should have known of the abuse and didn't intervene, not that he personally witnessed acts of abuse. As has been mentioned in the thread, there are multiple victims who will testify that Sandusky persued and then sexually abused them repeatedly. If the victims testify in the same manner as they did before the grand jury, things like inconsistentcies with McQueary's story won't matter.

Also, not to be nit picky, but all it takes is one juror to believe Penn State and Sandusky are being scapegoated to hang the jury, which is a bit different than letting Sandusky walk. If this ends in a hung jury, I think the chances are good the state retries the case unless several of the victims decide testifying was too traumatic and refuse to do so again.

 

[lars10]

<p>

<br />
For starters, a month ago they admitted they were an entire year off in dates of one charge. 13 months to be exact, which is why Schultz and Curkey imo won't see trial - statute of limitations expired for them with the date change.<br />
<br />
McQuery's entire story has changed multiple times. Paterno is dead and in the ground, so he can't say what was said to him.<br />
<br />
It only takes a small uncertainty from one juror who believes Penn State and Sandusky are beung scapegoated for him to walk.<br />

You really think those are enough holes for him to walk on all counts?
The two holes above are for just one case..and even just one charge really of that one victim.

The prosecution has a huge hill to climb to create 'reasonable' doubt on all counts.

I am a little confused about the jury selection and their closeness to the case.&nbsp; When I had jury duty I was dismissed merely because one of the victims was paralyzed and my grandmother had been a parapalegic.&nbsp; Seems like a few of these people are almost affiliated with some of the people involved and couldn't possibly be completely impartial.

It's not hard to be affiliated to PSU though..I'm sure each person in this thread knows someone that went there or at least has some affiliation to the school in some way..even if they don't know it.&nbsp; It graduates 45k or so students a year...and that's just main campus.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

According to the NBC report: "Internal e-mails and documents they say show former President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they needed to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter between a naked Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State shower room. The sources say documents show Penn State even did legal research on the issue. But in one e-mail exchange, two sources say, Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz agreed it would be 'humane' to Sandusky not to inform social services and the incident never got reported."

I hope people burn for this.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_graham_spanier.html

 

[mauf]

Spanier has sued PSU in an attempt to obtain copies of the e-mails. The university declined a previous request for the e-mails, saying they had been instructed by the AG not to disclose them.

Someone is worried about a perjury indictment.

 

[Average Reds]

Want to focus for a minute on the other two people facing charges - Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Specifically, it has been stated several times in this thread that a mistake by the prosecution has created a statute of limitations problem for the state.

For starters, a month ago they admitted they were an entire year off in dates of one charge. 13 months to be exact, which is why Schultz and Curkey imo won't see trial - statute of limitations expired for them with the date change.

This may be true for the crime of failure to report, but I do not believe it to be true for the most serious charge against Curley and Schultz, which is perjury. That charge is related to their testimony in front of the Grand Jury, which (I believe) took place in either late 2010 or early 2011.

McQuery's entire story has changed multiple times. Paterno is dead and in the ground, so he can't say what was said to him.

If McQueary and Paterno were the only evidence against Curley and Schultz, I would agree that they are likely to walk. However, it was reported today that PSU - to the surprise of absolutely no one - kept a file on the alleged activities of Jerry Sandusky over the years.

(CNN) -- Prosecutors say Gary Schultz, a former Penn State vice president who oversaw campus police, held a file that detailed alleged incidents pertinent to the investigation of former football coach Jerry Sandusky, who faces more than 50 counts involving sexual acts with 10 boys since 1994.

Schultz and Tim Curley, Penn State's former athletic director, have pleaded not guilty to charges of perjury and failing to report an alleged sexual assault of a child.

The file, which prosecutors say was initially withheld during the investigation, shows inconsistencies with what Schultz and Curley told a grand jury, according to court documents filed by prosecutors and obtained by CNN Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[mauf]

This may be true for the crime of failure to report, but I do not believe it to be true for the most serious charge against Curley and Schultz, which is perjury. That charge is related to their testimony in front of the Grand Jury, which (I believe) took place in either late 2010 or early 2011.

Most of us thought the perjury charges were unlikely to stick, as they seemed to rest solely on the credibility of McQueary's testimony. If this new evidence allows prosecutors to corroborate McQueary's testimony, or to prove perjury independent from that testimony, it's a game-changer.

From the prosecutors' filing with the court:

Schultz has known since the time that charges were filed that the Grand Jury continues to investigate the case. As a result of that ongoing investigation, the Commonwealth has continued to receive information and evidence relating to the alleged abuse. The charges against Schultz are based on his testimony before the Grand Jury as it investigated Sandusky&rsquo;s conduct. Because that investigation is ongoing, further evidence of the falsity of Schultz&rsquo;s testimony has been uncovered.

As an example, the Grand Jury long ago subpoenaed any evidence possessed by PSU relating to Sandusky, his employment with PSU, and any investigation of his criminal conduct. Only recently was the Commonwealth provided with a file containing documents relating to incident&rsquo;s [sic] involving Sandusky. This file was created, maintained, and possessed by Schultz. Documents in that file are inconsistent with statements by Schultz and his codefendant, Curley, to the Grand Jury. The Commonwealth is entirely justified in using those documents as evidence to support the Charge of Perjury against Schultz. Also, the Commonwealth has come into possession of computer data (again, subpoenaed long ago but not received form PSU until after the charges had been filed in this case) in the form of emails between Schultz, Curley, and others that contradict their testimony before the Grand Jury. Again, the Commonwealth is entirely justified in relying on this evidence to support the charge of Perjury.

Schultz&rsquo;s argument amounts to the following (1) At the time that the Grand Jury returned its Presentment, it was unaware of a number of lies that Schultz told during his testimony. (2) The Commonwealth may not prove any lie that the Grand Jury did not recognize as such at the time that it returned the Presentment. (3) Schultz told so many lies during his Grand Jury testimony that it is unfair for the Commonwealth to allege and prove so many lies. (4) Because the Commonwealth relied on specific lies during the preliminary hearing, it may not prove that Schultz told other lies to the Grand Jury. (5) Because evidence was withheld from the Grand Jury, it is unfair for the Commonwealth to use that evidence against Schultz.

Ouch.

When this new evidence becomes public, I suspect we'll learn a lot more about what Paterno knew, and when he knew it.

 

[canderson]

Yeah, if those are factual allegations they're fucked. Way way fucked.

McQuery testifying now. Said he saw Sandusky and the boy in the showers, heard slapping sounds of skin-on-skin, made noise to try to stop it.

Then this:

wpjena
Mike McQueary on the stand during #Sandusky trial: "I made sure Coach Joe knew [what he saw in the locker room] was sexual."

 

[Foulkey Reese]

Next time you guys feel like giving Joe Posnanski some web clicks, remember that he defended the guy who knew about the shower fucking but just didn't care.

 

[canderson]

McQuery also said he didn't go to police because he assumed telling PSU officials who were in charge of the police was enough of his duty.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Next time you guys feel like giving Joe Posnanski some web clicks, remember that he defended the guy who knew about the shower fucking but just didn't care.

How much has Posnanski defended Paterno since the initial allegations came out?

 

[Foulkey Reese]

How much has Posnanski defended Paterno since the initial allegations came out?

Not to make the thread about Posnanski again, but this is what I'll never be able to forgive him for.

I asked Paterno at one point in that last month if he hoped that people would come to see and measure his full life rather than a single, hazy event involving an alleged child molester. "It doesn't matter what people think of me," he said. "I've lived my life. I just hope the truth comes out. And I hope the victims find peace."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/joe_posnanski/01/24/joe.paterno/index.html#ixzz1xbrer3qK​

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Shit if that is what you are still pissed at Posnanski for, I hope he never attempts to defend a bunt.

 

[Average Reds]

McQuery also said he didn't go to police because he assumed telling PSU officials who were in charge of the police was enough of his duty.

This fact does not explain why he did nothing for the next 9 years when he saw Sandusky still on campus, still with an office, still holding events for the Second Mile, etc. At some point, you'd think he would have wondered why reporting that he witnessed the rape of a child wouldn't have been enough to spur some sort of official action against Sandusky.

Mike McQueary is perhaps the least culpable figure in this entire fiasco. But at some point, he decided to act exactly like the PSU Administration and take the path of least resistance.

 

[Seven Costanza]

Why Sandusky hasn't offed himself yet is beyond me. I harken back to the old Costanza line, "It's not a lie if you believe it". I wonder if he really thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Average Reds]

Why Sandusky hasn't offed himself yet is beyond me. I harken back to the old Costanza line, "It's not a lie if you believe it". I wonder if he really thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

Would this be bonus points in the death pool?

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Why Sandusky hasn't offed himself yet is beyond me. I harken back to the old Costanza line, "It's not a lie if you believe it". I wonder if he really thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

The guy is a serial child predator rapist that doesn't have one iota of remorse for what he did or his victims, this wasn't a one time "mistake" or "weakness", his only hope right now is that his attorney can get a few jurors to believe him and look past all the evidence.

 

[Average Reds]

From Sandusky's trial today:

Victim 1 described staying In Sandusky's basement bedroom, where a water bed and television were sequestered away from a pool table. It was there that Sandusky began abusing him, he said.

Jury members placed their hands over their mouths or wiped tears away from their eyes as the man testified that Sandusky forced him to perform oral sex.

For clarity, Victim 1 is the person who filed the initial complaint against Sandusky (in 2008) and kicked off the investigation that resulted in these charges. He is now an 18 year old man and is one of several victims who will be testifying at the trial.

Sprowl is dead right about the totality of the evidence being presented here. Sandusky may be able to gain an acquittal on one or two individual counts, but I cannot see him beating the rap after witness after witness testifies to a pattern of predatory behavior over a period covering more than a decade.

http://abcnews.go.co...=2#.T9eqVMW3VME

 

[canderson]

My friend who's one of the main reporters for this case said the cross examination so far has been worthless. She said she's not even sure what their goal is, because they're just asking basic questions that can't do anything to downplay the previous testimony.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Why Sandusky hasn't offed himself yet is beyond me. I harken back to the old Costanza line, "It's not a lie if you believe it". I wonder if he really thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

Not only does he believe it, he and his attorney have come out and said he's going to take the stand. Now, an attorney cannot put someone on the stand if they know they are lying, which means that Sandusky is telling his attorney that he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong either. The interviews Sandusky did following the allegations are going to seem like a walk in the park when the heat of the prosecution starts firing at him. Man, that cross is going to be must see television.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

A few notes:

- The grand jury (I actually know a girl who was on it) said Paterno did exactly as he should. Paterno has agreed to be a witness for the prosecution as well.

- Death penalty? I don't see how students should be punished for this, and that's all a death penalty does IMO.

- I'd guess Curley and the VP resign Monday after posting bail, and Spahner goes not long after.

- here in PSU land, people are awe-struck how Sandusky (who is BELIVED) could do this.

- Sabdusky is a monster and very well might get life in prison. I too won't be shocked if he takes his life prior to the trial. He's an odd guy in general.

- This is the sickest thing I've ever read, but the Baylor basketball murder scandal a few years back overall is much more troubling, institution-wise, in my eyes.

Still sticking with this statement?

 

[Average Reds]

Still sticking with this statement?

For the record, the context for the post you quoted was related to a discussion about whether the football program at PSU would receive the "death penalty" from the NCAA. canderson was saying that in terms of a lack of institutional controls relating to the NCAA, the Baylor basketball scandal was much worse, and in that limited context he is clearly right.

In terms of the behavior of the University, this is far worse. And I don't think he would disagree.

 

[canderson]

Yeah, that was relating to the athletic department as a whole itself. I think the PSU scandal was more university VPs/prez related behavior which is apples and oranges (and comparatively worse). Baylor's was basically a coach going rogue iirc.

 

[JBill]

From Foulkey's post:

President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they needed to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter between a naked Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State shower room. The sources say documents show Penn State even did legal research on the issue. But in one e-mail exchange, two sources say, Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz agreed it would be 'humane' to Sandusky not to inform social services and the incident never got reported."

I wonder if this means that Penn State's general counsel knew about the 2001 shower incident. From what I remember, Wendell Courtney, Penn State's general counsel, was aware of the 1998 investigation, but he's denied knowing anything about what happened in 2001 (http://www.centredai...ge-of-acts.html). And he was also the attorney for Second Mile.

 

[Reverend]

Really? U.S. jurisprudence has a long and glorious history of letting people off the hook in high-profile, expensive and very public trials, in what seemed to be complete slam dunks. This is lining up like the next one. This is all pure speculation, of course, but it seems to me that the population of central PA would like this all to go away so they can go back to worshipping Penn State football (see juror in front row). The easiest way to make it go away is to somehow let him walk, circle the wagons and start going to Penn State games again in the fall. They may be wrong, but if you don't think that can happen, you're not making an honest assessment of how high-profile trials of local celebrities in small jurisdictions actually play out.

I get what you're getting at here, I think, but I think it's worth noting that there is a kind of disjunction between what things seem like they would be and how things actually play out in reality. When you just think about it rationally in the abstract, it seems like there would be tons of hung juries because of how hard it would seem to be to get 12 people to agree beyond a reasonable doubt. In reality, there are far fewer hung juries than might be expected in this sense.

This is related to the very common, general, and at times unsettling IMO, mistrust of juries. By and large, the literature of those who have studied juries think they actually do a pretty good job.

Ouch.

Prosecutors really, really don't like being lied to, yeah? Makes sense--you lie, you're fucking with a prosecutors job. Some people seem to think they are often frivolous charges, but I totally understand why prosecutors go after perjury cases with such intensity: it's the very heart of the system.

McQuery also said he didn't go to police because he assumed telling PSU officials who were in charge of the police was enough of his duty.

This has already been hashed over at length earlier in the thread, but it still mystifies me.

It's like how we're a nation of people obsessed with Star Wars, but nobody wants to be a Jedi. WTF?

I still lack the non-gendered language to discuss this properly.

Why Sandusky hasn't offed himself yet is beyond me. I harken back to the old Costanza line, "It's not a lie if you believe it". I wonder if he really thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

I agree--It troubles me that a person can live with no sense of honor.

For clarity, Victim 1 is the person who filed the initial complaint against Sandusky (in 2008) and kicked off the investigation that resulted in these charges. He is now an 18 year old man and is one of several victims who will be testifying at the trial.

Hero.

I wish we didn't live in a world such that it took enormous courage and internal strength to do a thing like that, but as long as we do, this kid kicks ass.

And he's on his way to owning his life. Fucking awesome.

Not only does he believe it, he and his attorney have come out and said he's going to take the stand. Now, an attorney cannot put someone on the stand if they know they are lying, which means that Sandusky is telling his attorney that he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong either. The interviews Sandusky did following the allegations are going to seem like a walk in the park when the heat of the prosecution starts firing at him. Man, that cross is going to be must see television.

Oh. My. God.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Not only does he believe it, he and his attorney have come out and said he's going to take the stand. Now, an attorney cannot put someone on the stand if they know they are lying, which means that Sandusky is telling his attorney that he's innocent and didn't do anything wrong either. The interviews Sandusky did following the allegations are going to seem like a walk in the park when the heat of the prosecution starts firing at him. Man, that cross is going to be must see television.

I'll believe it when I see it. I have a very hard time imagining that he's actually going to take the stand.

 

[Sprowl]

From Foulkey's post:

I wonder if this means that Penn State's general counsel knew about the 2001 shower incident. From what I remember, Wendell Courtney, Penn State's general counsel, was aware of the 1998 investigation, but he's denied knowing anything about what happened in 2001 (http://www.centredai...ge-of-acts.html). And he was also the attorney for Second Mile.

Yes -- that denial from Courtney stuck out as implausible. It's hard to imagine legal research on the university's position being conducted without the university's lead counsel being consulted.

Schultz withholding the file on Sandusky from investigators is an act in furtherance of a coverup that ought to extend the statute of limitations, no?

 

[pedros hairstylist]

Really canderson? I really thought you would have changed your mind, especially in light of the documentation this week that school officials knew and strategized about McQueary's accusation in 2001 and their clear cut decision to bury the issue. That doesn't surpass a rogue coach?

 

[canderson]

I haven't read any of the emails or state docs relating to it. I'm in no way saying the school is OK, I've never defended any of their actions - hope you don't think I'm an apologist (hell I hate PSU academically actually).

My point at the time was one was covering a murder, this isn't murder and at the time no info of a great detailed coverup (it was more of ineptness and ignoring things). The guys that covered both up should burn in hell.

 

[canderson]

The defense is going to paint Sandusky as a victim himself, of histrionic personality disorder.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_coach_acc.html