Penn State AD and Sandusky Charged

[JBill]

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.

Yeah I agree, but I always thought it was more likely that counsel didn't know. Not that there can't be dirty lawyers involved in a coverup of course, but it made more sense to me that Spanier and co. would keep it far away from legal. And, according to the link, Courtney wasn't full time in-house for Penn State, he worked at a private firm, and consulted for the university. Why would he keep it all quiet?

I think I'm having trouble wrapping my head around everyone's motivations here. I feel like there's a lot of information still missing, but I assume we'll get a lot more soon enough.

 

[Reverend]

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

If I'm not mistaken, this is basically saying the he's clinically an asshole (I mean this specific to the diagnosis) and the defense thinks he might actually be fucked if this is the route they are taking, because when it comes down to it, clinical assholes need to be kept away from the rest of the population.

 

[Infield Infidel]

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.

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?

His initial post was regarding potential NCAA violations; this is predominantly outside of their jurisdiction. This case has nothing to do with how the coaching staff and the athletic department handled players or recruits, or with competition itself, which is all the NCAA deals with. It's apples to oranges. Plus, it is at the pres/VP level, which the NCAA doesn't have much jurisdiction over (which is why the presidents could go outside the NCAA to form the BCS.) AFA the NCAA is concerned, they aren't going to get anything like Baylor, because that dealt with how coaches handled players. That doesn't mean this case is not worse, it just means the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction. If a guy pisses all over everything in his bedroom, and then goes outside and tinkles on the sidewalk, which is worse? Obviously the former, but for the cops the latter would get a ticket and the former wouldn't.

There's a lot of nuance here, but it's hard to miss that canderson actually said it was worse.

 

[pedros hairstylist]

I disagree that it's "apples and oranges." Both involve insular and overly powerful football programs that use their power on campus and in the community to help an accused felon escape prosecution. The difference obviously is that at PSU the fish was rotting from the head down over the course of years and years and far more people knew about the felon's criminal activities (or strongly suspected it) than at Baylor.

 

[Average Reds]

I disagree that it's "apples and oranges." Both involve insular and overly powerful football programs that use their power on campus and in the community to help an accused felon escape prosecution. The difference obviously is that at PSU the fish was rotting from the head down over the course of years and years and far more people knew about the felon's criminal activities (or strongly suspected it) than at Baylor.

It's apples and oranges because the post you quoted was not about what you are saying it was about.

That post was talking very specifically about NCAA violations and potential punishments. You're talking about the general seriousness of the two situations and the amount of culpability that each institution has. And no one is disagreeing with you that the situation at Penn State was much worse in that regard.

I just don't get what you're driving at.

 

[mauf]

I'm not familiar with the Baylor scandal, but my understanding there is that a horrific crime (murder) led to the revelation of a whole bunch of NCAA violations. There were allegations that the cover-up of the NCAA violations veered into obstruction of the criminal case, but I don't think any charges were ever brought in that vein. When Baylor's senior administration became aware of the scandal, they immediately cleaned house.

Except for the existence of a horrific crime, the PSU case could hardly be more different. There was a cover-up, but it was aimed at concealing the horrific crime, not mere NCAA violations. (Indeed, so far there are no allegations of NCAA violations relating to the cover-up of Sandusky's crimes.) The cover-up has led (so far) to criminal charges against two school administrators. PSU's senior administrators took no action when they first became aware of the scandal; when the scandal first received widespread press coverage, the school president expressed his support for the two indicted administrators.

If you must make a comparison, the PSU case was far worse from an institutional standpoint, but I think the cases are too different for a compare-and-contrast exercise to be instructive.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

When dealing with PH it's best to just smile, nod your head, tell her she is right and she'll go away. That or keep her on ignore which helps as well. Otherwise you're better off arguing with your dog because they have a better chance at understanding what you are getting at.

 

[Judge Mental13]

From Esquire's June article on Paterno

RE: VICTIM 1

We can tell you that the runner is wearing his racing uniform, but we won't tell you the name of the high school printed in white letters across the front of his shirt.
We'll tell you, though, that the high school on his shirt is not the high school where he currently attends classes, where he's currently finishing up his senior year.
The high school on his shirt is his old high school, the one he transferred out of when too many people in this small town told too many other people what they'd heard about the runner. He still runs for his old high school, but he never again wants to walk its halls.

Faggot.

It's your fault JoePa's gone.

The adults, the school administrators, well, they weren't as rough as the kids. Not quite. They didn't drop epithets or invoke gods, at least. But they didn't bend over backward to help him, to support him. It was a small-town school, with a small-town football team, but for several years it had been basking in the voluntary coaching assistance of Jerry Sandusky, a hero descended from the Penn State pantheon, a man so great people had once even thought he would eventually take over for Joe. It's hard to lose the attentions of a great man, and perhaps that's why, when the runner came forward four years ago to tell his story, to put an end to it, according to his mom, one of the top administrators at his high school had a quick and devastating retort.

"Jerry has a heart of gold."

As the scandal exploded, as its impact expanded, the news that the runner was Victim 1 spread on the unstoppable breeze of rumor.

Let's spread another rumor here.

Let's say that it's rumored that before the runner left his old high school behind, he visited a different administrator's office on a matter unrelated to the scandal.
He visited to complain about the dismissal of an assistant track coach, an assistant coach who had clashed with the head coach, but whom the runner and all the other members of the team admired.

"What," the school official replied, "are you sleeping with him, too?"

Is the rumor true?

The runner doesn't want to talk about it.

He doesn't want to talk about any of it, really.

Some things don't need to be said.

He left his old school behind.

 

[canderson]

During the cross-examination of Mike McQueary's father John, he said he didn't remember taking the stand at the preliminary hearing for Schutlz and Spanier. When the defense attorney showed the testimony transcript, John McQueary repeated he didn't remember testifying.

wtf

 

[Average Reds]

During the cross-examination of Mike McQueary's father John, he said he didn't remember taking the stand at the preliminary hearing for Schutlz and Spanier. When the defense attorney showed the testimony transcript, John McQueary repeated he didn't remember testifying.

wtf

Sounds like he's the Secretary of Commerce.

WTF indeed.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Just read Victim 10's testimony on ABCNews.com, unless Amendola can prove some kind of collusion between all the parties, I can't see how any of the jurors can let him walk on all 52 counts.

The pattern of abuse is the same in each case, perform on the child, force the child to perform on him and when he resists threaten him with the loss of something, access, family, etc... When the child grows up and tries to break things off and threats don't work anymore offer cash or get angry. It's all sickening.

 

[Average Reds]

From Esquire's June article on Paterno

RE: VICTIM 1

The only response I can think of to that Esquire feature is to repost Rev's comments about Victim 1.

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.

Beyond this, I am just deeply, deeply saddened by the behavior of the people in that article.

 

[24JoshuaPoint]

Link

Anyone read the unaired footage released from the Costas interview? Seems like some added damning evidence. I don't see any way he even comes close to walking.

"I'm a very passionate person in terms of trying to make a difference in the lives of some young people," Sandusky said in the interview. "I worked very hard to try to connect with them. To make them feel good about themselves. To be something significant in their lives. Maybe this gets misinterpreted, has gotten depending on. … I know a lot of young people where it hasn't. I have worked with many, many young people where there has been no misinterpretation of my actions and I have made a very significant difference in their lives.

Costas then challenged Sandusky.

"But isn't what you're just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles?" he asked. "And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don't necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it's entirely possible that you could've helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D and E. Isn't that possible?

Sandusky replied: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would -- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and -- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

 

[johnmd20]

And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways

:blink: What the hell does that mean Jerry? Jesus Christ what a disgusting creep. I hope he goes down forever and has an utterly horrible experience in prison. Just awful, I can't believe he said that in an interview.

 

[canderson]

Defense so far today is having coaches say sharing showers is something done by nearly every coach in America, basically, and that nothing anyone saw there should be alarming.

 

[Myt1]

:blink: What the hell does that mean Jerry? Jesus Christ what a disgusting creep. I hope he goes down forever and has an utterly horrible experience in prison. Just awful, I can't believe he said that in an interview.

I can't be a murderer. Just look at all these people who are alive and in the courtroom with me today.

 

[canderson]

Victim #5 attorney's was subpoenaed this afternoon outside courthouse by representative of Sandusky's attorney. Cited for fee agreement and media communication.

 

[Buffalo Head]

From what little snippets I've seen from today, the defense being presented seems more like the type you'd expect at a sentencing hearing, focusing more on Sandusky being a really nice person, rather than trying to rebut the prosecution's case. The only full day for the defense is tomorrow, and they expect to move to closing arguments on Thursday. Unless they have something of substance planned, this is going to be a quick guilty verdict, as it should be.

 

[Orel Miraculous]

And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

How, how, how, how in the world did this not air? Was this just bad journalism by NBC or is there something else behind this quote landing on the cutting room floor?

 

[berniecarbo1]

Sandusky has an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal here. Amedola should be disbarred when this is all over. Doesn't excuse anything and clearly this guy is a pedophile...but for Joe Amendola to allow this idiot to talk to Costas and then put on this foolish defense....Sandusky has a legitimate appeal...and maybe even a malpractice claim...this whole thing is so repulsive, how could Billy O'Brien even think about keeping any of Paterno's former assistants on his staff?? BTW, have any of the coaches not retained by O'Brien found coaching jobs yet?? God this is awful.

 

[canderson]

Amedola is awesome. This morning walking into the courthouse he had two different gems:

Defense attorney Joe Amendola declined to say if Sandusky would testify as he entered the courthouse this morning. "Stay tuned. It's like a soap opera. If I tell you, it takes all the excitement out of it," Amendola said.

When asked which soap opera, Amendola first said, "General Hospital," then changed his answer to "All My Children."

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

 

[Buffalo Head]

So is real "defense" simply giving Sandusky the ability to appeal on the grounds of incompetent representation?

 

[crystalline]

Amendola is awesome. This morning walking into the courthouse he had two different gems:

I came here to post this article. He's surprisingly casual in a field where most are very careful about their language.
I think there are two possibilities:
(1) Amendola is a terrible and unprofessional defense attorney.
(2) Amendola thinks he is guilty and deserves to be punished, and thus is not taking the case very seriously.

 

[mauf]

Sandusky has an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal here. Amedola should be disbarred when this is all over. Doesn't excuse anything and clearly this guy is a pedophile...but for Joe Amendola to allow this idiot to talk to Costas and then put on this foolish defense....Sandusky has a legitimate appeal...and maybe even a malpractice claim...this whole thing is so repulsive, how could Billy O'Brien even think about keeping any of Paterno's former assistants on his staff?? BTW, have any of the coaches not retained by O'Brien found coaching jobs yet?? God this is awful.

Do you really think so?

Sure, he's not doing a terribly good job, but what identifiable mistakes has Amendola made? Choosing not to grill the victims on cross-examination is probably a defensible tactical decision in light of the overwhelming evidence of Sandusky's guilt. Sandusky's decision to testify is his alone -- cant blame counsel for that one. The psychiatric defense isn't likely to succeed, but seems like a good-faith effort to construct a defense where none really exists.

Are there other questionable defense decisions that I missed?

 

[mauf]

I came here to post this article. He's surprisingly casual in a field where most are very careful about their language. I think there are two possibilities: (1) Amendola is a terrible and unprofessional defense attorney. (2) Amendola thinks he is guilty and deserves to be punished, and thus is not taking the case very seriously.

#2 is the same as #1. Amendola is not a public defender; he didn't have to take this case.

To be clear, I don't think he's necessarily doing an awful job. If you believe (as I do) that a guilty verdict is certain, the compassionate approach of not grilling Sandusky's victims on cross-examination may have served Sandusky's interests as well.

 

[24JoshuaPoint]

If you believe (as I do) that a guilty verdict is certain, the compassionate approach of not grilling Sandusky's victims on cross-examination may have served Sandusky's interests as well.

Right. I think not grilling them was the right choice because does anyone (even Amendola) actually think all these accusers are lying? The grilling probably would have just made their testimony more damning.

How, how, how, how in the world did this not air? Was this just bad journalism by NBC or is there something else behind this quote landing on the cutting room floor?

I was wondering as well. There had to have been something or a specific decision related to those specific quotes. Otherwise it's pure gold for a news reporter and should have been aired IMO.

 

[Average Reds]

How, how, how, how in the world did this not air? Was this just bad journalism by NBC or is there something else behind this quote landing on the cutting room floor?

The only explanation that doesn't lead me to question the competence of everyone at NBC is that Sadusky's attorney insisted on a certain amount of editorial control as a condition of granting the interview. This still doesn't portray NBC in a very good light, but it's the only thing I can think of to explain why they did not use material like this.

Of course, the fact that this footage exists and is not protected shows how out of his depth Amendola is.

 

[berniecarbo1]

Do you really think so?

Sure, he's not doing a terribly good job, but what identifiable mistakes has Amendola made? Choosing not to grill the victims on cross-examination is probably a defensible tactical decision in light of the overwhelming evidence of Sandusky's guilt. Sandusky's decision to testify is his alone -- cant blame counsel for that one. The psychiatric defense isn't likely to succeed, but seems like a good-faith effort to construct a defense where none really exists.

Are there other questionable defense decisions that I missed?

Alowing him, and apparently encouraging him to speak with Costas boxed in the defense. As you stated he didn't have to take the case and if Sandusky was the driving force behind going public with Costas, Amendola should have insisted he not. If Sandusky refused, he (Amendola) should have filed a motion to withdraw and explained that his client was not cooperating and that he could not effectively and zealously represent him. Also, the Costas interview was in NYC with Amendola on the set and Sandusky on the phone. He should have been sittng right next to Sandusky and as the questiosn came in, instruct Sandusky to either repsond or not. Amendola sat on the set and Sandusky croaked himself.

A cross examination would have been to challenge time lines, locations, etc. assuming the accusations were in dispute. It appears that was not the case. The defense is a set up for a sentencing hearing. Rather than put those victims through this, they should have been working on a deal for a sentencing recommendation. I think he could have saved his client from most likely spending the rest of his life in jail to at least having the possibility of getting out someday. I would be shocked if Sandusky ever sees the light of day again. But then again, who knows.

 

[RingoOSU]

The defense also called former Penn State football coach Booker Brooks to the stand. He also testified that he had showered with children.

“Even as a youngster, I went to the YMCA, and showered with adult men who were not relatives of mine all the time. And then I became a counselor, and showered with young kids all the time,” he said. “As a football coach, I’ve showered with young men all the time... and even now, as a grandfather, I take my grandchild to the YMCA, and because she’s too young to shower by herself, we shower together... it’s a very common thing, all over the country.”
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/18/two-witnesses-i-have-showered-boys-too?hpt=hp_bn15

This program is seriously fucked up beyond repair.

 

[Myt1]

The defense also called former Penn State football coach Booker Brooks to the stand. He also testified that he had showered with children.

“Even as a youngster, I went to the YMCA, and showered with adult men who were not relatives of mine all the time. And then I became a counselor, and showered with young kids all the time,” he said. “As a football coach, I’ve showered with young men all the time... and even now, as a grandfather, I take my grandchild to the YMCA, and because she’s too young to shower by herself, we shower together... it’s a very common thing, all over the country.”
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/18/two-witnesses-i-have-showered-boys-too?hpt=hp_bn15

This program is seriously fucked up beyond repair.

Right up until the end, where he mentions a granddaughter, do you think he's wrong?

 

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I really hope the prosecution asks: "Does the act of showering together with your granddaughter at the YMCA often involve rhythmic slapping noises?

 

[riboflav]

Right up until the end, where he mentions a granddaughter, do you think he's wrong?

Not sure what you're getting at here but I played sports all the way through varsity level and now coach in high school and AAU and have for years and I have never seen an underage athlete and an adult coach shower together. I know that's anecdotal but I'm just saying it's possible not to share a shower with a minor.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Umm, no discussion about this today?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-testify-tape-victim-police.html

Defense introduced 16 minutes of recordings between victim number 4's attorney and the police, and then victim number 4, which arguably can be construed as the police "coaching" his testimony. Not sure how helpful it's going to be, but it's certainly something I'm not sure anyone saw coming.

 

[johnmd20]

Not sure what you're getting at here but I played sports all the way through varsity level and now coach in high school and AAU and have for years and I have never seen an underage athlete and an adult coach shower together. I know that's anecdotal but I'm just saying it's possible not to share a shower with a minor.

Me too. Never once did I shower with an adult when I played sports in Junior High, High School, or College. Never once as an adult would I shower with a child. I have a 8 year old nephew. You couldn't pay me to take a shower with him.

Who would want to shower with kids, unless they were a pedo?

 

[crystalline]

If the defense can plant a seed of doubt about whether the stories were coached by police, maybe that's all it takes.
One additional line from yesterday:

http://www.centredai...popular#wgt=pop

Megan L. Rash, of Milesburg, said she knew [Victim 4] growing up and that he was known as someone who was “a dishonest person and embellished stories.”

On the financial gain line of argument -- keep in mind he has a history with the victim's mother:

“I believe her comment was, ‘I’ll own his house,’ ” Fravel said.
When asked by Amendola if Fravel heard the teenager speak of financial gain, he said he heard the teenager say, “ ‘When this is over, I’ll have a nice new Jeep.’ ”

http://www.centredai...ml#wgt=rcntnews​

edit: fix links

 

[canderson]

The two state troopers giving conflicting testimony was a big win for the defense yesterday, but I'm not sure how much doubt it cast in the jurors' minds giving all the gruesome testimony they heard last week. Closing arguments should wrap up tomorrow (defense should rest today), so we'll soon find out.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

The two state troopers giving conflicting testimony was a big win for the defense yesterday, but I'm not sure how much doubt it cast in the jurors' minds giving all the gruesome testimony they heard last week. Closing arguments should wrap up tomorrow (defense should rest today), so we'll soon find out.

All it takes is one for a hung jury. He's going to walk.

Edit: The good news is that the defense couldn't discredit every witness for trying to get rich, but if a juror was pre-disposed to finding Sandusky innocent and was just looking for an opening, they got one with the recording of the trooper "coaching" the lawyer after denying it. If you were looking for a reason to find him innocent it wouldn't be that far of a leap to conclude that it was at least possible for the troopers to coach the rest of the accusers and that you couldn't say that you couldnt' find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I'm hoping that Sandusky does take the stand and trips himself up under cross examination by the prosecutor. If he couldn't handle Bob Costas, hopefully the prosecutor can get him to say something even worse.

 

[canderson]

Forgot to mention Sarah Ganim, the Patriot-News reporter who won that Pulitzer, was subpoena'd yesterday and likely will be forced to testify. The paper filed an appeal to kill the subpoena yesterday but apparently to no avail, unfortunately.

 

[Average Reds]

All it takes is one for a hung jury. He's going to walk.

Edit: The good news is that the defense couldn't discredit every witness for trying to get rich, but if a juror was pre-disposed to finding Sandusky innocent and was just looking for an opening, they got one with the recording of the trooper "coaching" the lawyer after denying it. If you were looking for a reason to find him innocent it wouldn't be that far of a leap to conclude that it was at least possible for the troopers to coach the rest of the accusers and that you couldn't say that you couldnt' find him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

It's possible he'll get a hung jury over the tape. As you mentioned, if there was a juror inclined to hold out, this is the kind of thing that allows them to justify a not guilty verdict by lending credence to the notion that the alleged victims were "coached." But IMO that is literally the best Sandusky can hope for, and it's hard for me to agree that "he's going to walk." Because if he does get a hung jury, he'll be re-tried.

I will say that until yesterday the possibility of a hung jury looked incredibly remote. I still think he'll be convicted based on the overwhelming evidence that has been presented, but when a judge inexplicably makes the following comments in open court with the jury present

"The issue is whether or not seeds were planted by the officer."

Well, anything is possible.

 

[Myt1]

Not sure what you're getting at here but I played sports all the way through varsity level and now coach in high school and AAU and have for years and I have never seen an underage athlete and an adult coach shower together. I know that's anecdotal but I'm just saying it's possible not to share a shower with a minor.

Of course it's possible, but it's hardly rare. Many men's locker rooms in gyms, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, pools etc. have had communal showers for decades. Have you never been in a communal locker room where people of mixed age were changing as well?

Me too. Never once did I shower with an adult when I played sports in Junior High, High School, or College. Never once as an adult would I shower with a child. I have a 8 year old nephew. You couldn't pay me to take a shower with him.

Who would want to shower with kids, unless they were a pedo?

Who said anything about want? Brooks described something that is not terribly rare (IMHO, up 'til the granddaughter part, which is why I asked) and, 99.9% of the time, is in no way sexual. By your rationale, must adult men who use a communal shower be gay?

As Bucknah points out, the obvious issue is that the showering itself is a red herring. Rubbing up against a kid, lathering him, picking him up, and actually sodomizing him are the issue here.

 

[BroodsSexton]

All it takes is one for a hung jury. He's going to walk.

I don't know. How many victims were there? I'm not sure it's reasonable to think that the police "pressured" each of these victims into the statement, and then again into coming to court to testify and destroy a man's life who didn't actually do what they say he did. Much more reasonable to think that they were just giving the kids the confidence to talk about things that were embarassing, in a very difficult environment. After all, look at what actually was said -- it's not like they were threatening the kids, or waterboarding them, and then taking false confessions. It's about encouraging them to tell the truth, even if it was embarassing, and reassuring them that they were not alone.

Leiter tells Andreozzi about incidents with other alleged victims that police had uncovered.

"Oh, you're kidding, the time frame matches up?" Andreozzi said. "Can we at some point say to [Victim No. 4], 'Listen, we have interviewed other kids, other kids have admitted that there was intercourse. And they've admitted. Is there anything else you want to tell us?' "

Leiter acknowledged they could and that doing so isn't unusual.

"Yep, we do that with all the other kids, 'Listen, this is what we've found … This is what we found, this is how he operates. … This has happened and this has happened and that has happened," Leiter said.

The conversation continued for 16 minutes until Victim No. 4 returned to the room and was given a Sierra Mist to drink. Leiter then addressed Victim No. 4.

"You're not the first," he said. "I've interviewed probably nine kids, nine other adults. And you're doing very well. It is amazing. If this was a book, you'd be repeating word for word what other people told us. And we know from these other young adults who talked to us that there is a pretty well-defined progression that he operated and he still operates to some degree.

"Often this progression goes on into a long period of time leading into more than just touching, there's been actual oral sex that's taken place by both parties and it is classified that an actual rape has occurred. I don't want you to feel that again.

"I don't want you to feel ashamed. You are a victim in this thing. What happened, happened. These types of things happen. We need you to tell us what happened. Again, we're not going to treat you any differently … You are a victim of this crime.

"We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place. I just want you to know that you are not alone in this … I just want you to understand your not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this."

Victim No. 4: "I understand."

Leiter: "OK, we're going to restart the recording. It is now 12:37. Again, we are going to continue the recording."

So basically, you have the police discussing standard police investigation tactics, which have been repeatedly been upheld as proper, and then reassuring the kid that he's not alone, his story is consistent with others', and that he should truthfully tell them what he knows. And the credibility of the victim can be assessed by the jury who watches him testify. A lot of smoke, but from that transcript I don't see fire.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

I don't know. How many victims were there? I'm not sure it's reasonable to think that the police "pressured" each of these victims into the statement, and then again into coming to court to testify and destroy a man's life who didn't actually do what they say he did. Much more reasonable to think that they were just giving the kids the confidence to talk about things that were embarassing, in a very difficult environment. After all, look at what actually was said -- it's not like they were threatening the kids, or waterboarding them, and then taking false confessions. It's about encouraging them to tell the truth, even if it was embarassing, and reassuring them that they were not alone.



So basically, you have the police discussing standard police investigation tactics, which have been repeatedly been upheld as proper, and then reassuring the kid that he's not alone, his story is consistent with others', and that he should truthfully tell them what he knows. And the credibility of the victim can be assessed by the jury who watches him testify. A lot of smoke, but from that transcript I don't see fire.

Like I said, all it takes is one juror that is looking for an excuse to find him "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" for a hung jury and 8 or 9 of the jurors have strong Penn State ties.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Like I said, all it takes is one juror that is looking for an excuse to find him "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" for a hung jury and 8 or 9 of the jurors have strong Penn State ties.

Well, if it's the case that they're not going to weigh the evidence impartially, then they technically don't need an excuse.

 

[canderson]

Defense rests, recess until tomorrow at 9 a.m. when closing statements are to be given.

 

[grsharky7]

3 counts have been dismissed by the judge, still has 48 counts against him though. As far as the PSU connections on the jury, it would be impossible to find 12 people in Centre County who don't have ties to the university. I live about 2 hours from PSU and I know most the nitters I know are hoping he is convicted and put away for the rest of time.

 

[PBDWake]

Yeah. Most of the PSU alumni I know fall more in the camp of "Eff this guy for everything he did, and for the fact that I now have to defend myself as a PSU alumni and JoePa" camp than some sort of "Come on! He's a nice guy! PSU! PSU!" camp. Even thinking back to the arguments with PSU alumni I had over JoePa, it was always "JoePa never really knew", not "Jerry would never have done that".

 

[canderson]

Closing arguments done, went to the jurors at 1:20 p.m. They are sequestered with no form of communication/tv/phone until they reach a verdict / mistrial / whatever.

During the prosecution's closing arguments, when they showed photos of 8 boys who are accused to have been assaulted, Sandusky smiled. He smiled as he was called a pedophile. He smiled as the prosecution said "find him guilty of everything." He even laughed at one point.

I've said for a while before the trial I think he walks. After following testimony and tactics, I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

 

[Montana Fan]

A radio dude suggested Sandusky is getting off to this whole thing because he's such a sick fuck. CAnderson's post makes me think he might be right.

 

[wutang112878]

During the prosecution's closing arguments, when they showed photos of 8 boys who are accused to have been assaulted, Sandusky smiled. He smiled as he was called a pedophile. He smiled as the prosecution said "find him guilty of everything." He even laughed at one point.

I've said for a while before the trial I think he walks. After following testimony and tactics, I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

I never thought his lawyer was great, but does he have any clue? Between this reaction and the ABC interview when he couldnt say 'I am not attracted to kids', they couldnt even coach the guy to not seem like a dirtbag for a little while. If you cant get a guy to look sad and slightly shake his head during the prosecutors closing arguments you really have no chance.

 

[Toe Nash]

I never thought his lawyer was great, but does he have any clue? Between this reaction and the ABC interview when he couldnt say 'I am not attracted to kids', they couldnt even coach the guy to not seem like a dirtbag for a little while. If you cant get a guy to look sad and slightly shake his head during the prosecutors closing arguments you really have no chance.

Certainly anecdotal, but I agree with this and it makes me incredulous that the folks who worked with him were clueless to what he did.