Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mamabear1963 said:
Can someone explain why he won't be attending? Lack of sleep or lack of coffee but I am confused...
Click to expand...

IF I understand this correctly, the arraignment is when the formal charges are read and he/JA enter a plea. It said he entered a not guilty plea today, so I guess his attendence is not needed now.
 
Reader said:
IF I understand this correctly, the arraignment is when the formal charges are read and he/JA enter a plea. It said he entered a not guilty plea today, so I guess his attendence is not needed now.
Click to expand...

Coward
 
SPORTSbyBROOKS SPORTSbyBROOKS
If victim McQueary saw (#2) was set to recant at hearing today, why did Amendola waive it? Wouldve be HUGE boost to Sandusky defense.


SPORTSbyBROOKS SPORTSbyBROOKS
According to Amendola, victim McQueary saw (#2) had recanted & reportedly was set to testify today. bit.ly/tfU9mv
7 minutes ago

SPORTSbyBROOKS SPORTSbyBROOKS
Very sad, if true. RT @NFLGimpy: attacking of McQueary based on desire to exonerate Paterno. If McQ = liar, JoePa's "legacy" isn't tarnished


Some people seem to think this is a game...I don't think the victims think so
 
azwriter said:
I think that's Jerry trying to be clever. He doesn't need to hear the victims testify. He knows what he did and I'm sure he has recorded or can recall each and every incident.

I think I'm going to barf.
just my O
Click to expand...
This is probably 'sick' thinking on my part but I blame that on following crime too long I guess......I'm wondering, after seeing the time, detail & caring Jer seemed to have put into Probst's scrapbook IF.....Jer has his own huge scrapbook hidden away somewhere. If prosecuters/pi's can find that thing.....should be game, set, match imo. You know he has one hidden somewhere. He comes across to me as being ultra-sensitive feeling wise with the 'boys'.
 
Really hoping McQueary's testimony is not as scattered and questionable as it seems to be right now. IF he's told 3-4-5 different 'stories' no doubt his credibility is down the drain. Also hoping this scenario was not somehow 'planned out' from the get go and 'things' are proceeding 'as planned'. I wouldn't put that past anyone involved.
 
mahmoo said:
Really hoping McQueary's testimony is not as scattered and questionable as it seems to be right now. IF he's told 3-4-5 different 'stories' no doubt his credibility is down the drain. Also hoping this scenario was not somehow 'planned out' from the get go and 'things' are proceeding 'as planned'. I wouldn't put that past anyone involved.
Click to expand...

McQueary's testimony is not going to be that important to put Sandusky in prison for decades. There were 7 involuntary deviant sexual assault charges from the Nov 4th Grand Jury hearing. Each could bring a 20 year sentence and only one is dependent upon McQueary's testimony.

Among the multiple new charges Sandusky faces since Nov 4th are four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor. In all, the new charges against him carry a maximum penalty of more than 150 years in prison, plus fines.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20551790,00.html
 
mahmoo said:
Really hoping McQueary's testimony is not as scattered and questionable as it seems to be right now. IF he's told 3-4-5 different 'stories' no doubt his credibility is down the drain. Also hoping this scenario was not somehow 'planned out' from the get go and 'things' are proceeding 'as planned'. I wouldn't put that past anyone involved.
Click to expand...

In reality, it are charges around Victim 1 and Victim 6 that are strongest. There are corroborating witnesses.
 
Pensfan said:
McQueary's testimony is not going to be that important to put Sandusky in prison for decades. There were 7 involuntary deviant sexual assault charges from the Nov 4th Grand Jury hearing. Each could bring a 20 year sentence and only one is dependent upon McQueary's testimony.

Among the multiple new charges Sandusky faces since Nov 4th are four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor. In all, the new charges against him carry a maximum penalty of more than 150 years in prison, plus fines.
Click to expand...

From what I heard on HLN this morning.....if he's found guilty.....some of those sentences are mandatory, non-netgotiable, sentences. Guilty on even a few charges will basically put him away for life not to mention the $ fines also attached. If Sandusky doesn't have some type of umbrella policy insurance on top his general coverage his wife will likely be rendered broke if he is found guilty on even minimal counts. It will be up to the presiding judge but, as I've mentioned before, any imposed fines can be deducted from the posted bond and rightly should be.
 
mahmoo said:
Really hoping McQueary's testimony is not as scattered and questionable as it seems to be right now. IF he's told 3-4-5 different 'stories' no doubt his credibility is down the drain. Also hoping this scenario was not somehow 'planned out' from the get go and 'things' are proceeding 'as planned'. I wouldn't put that past anyone involved.
Click to expand...

I hope you're wrong. Sandusky basically concedes everything McQueary claims he saw except penetration. It would seem to me what version of the incident McQueary told to whom will be more important in Curley's and Schultz's trials than Sandusky's.
 
mahmoo said:
Really hoping McQueary's testimony is not as scattered and questionable as it seems to be right now. IF he's told 3-4-5 different 'stories' no doubt his credibility is down the drain. Also hoping this scenario was not somehow 'planned out' from the get go and 'things' are proceeding 'as planned'. I wouldn't put that past anyone involved.
Click to expand...

Befoe I discount the findings of a grand jury who found McQueary to be extremely credible, it's going to take considerably more than a doctor's last minute version of events and a lawyer who hasn't been right in anything I've seen so far.
 
Sandusky's co-counsel just described Sandusky as being like a teenager in terms of maturity (this was on Piers Morgan - CNN). He seemed to teeter on arrested development due to a traumatic incident. I wish I had been paying closer attention but in case anyone wants to see it - I think they replay at 9:00 Pacific Time.
 
Okay, I just searched Twitter to see if I could find a better description of what was said (and I did).

"Sandusky's co-council claims that his client is mentally/emotionally closer to a teenager than a 60yr old."


That's pretty much word for word.



Another tweet that offers a better description than I did:

Chronological age vs mental age may perhaps be the reason for being comfortable with kids rather than older ppl.
 
LRinCA said:
Sandusky's co-counsel just described Sandusky as being like a teenager in terms of maturity (this was on Piers Morgan - CNN). He seemed to teeter on arrested development due to a traumatic incident. I wish I had been paying closer attention but in case anyone wants to see it - I think they replay at 9:00 Pacific Time.
Click to expand...
Every time the defense mentions "big ol' kid" or "arrested development", they are describing a characteristic of a fixated pedophile straight out of an abnormal psychology textbook. Keep on blabbing, defense attorneys.
 
Concerned Papa said:
Befoe I discount the findings of a grand jury who found McQueary to be extremely credible, it's going to take considerably more than a doctor's last minute version of events and a lawyer who hasn't been right in anything I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

What possible motive could McQueary have for lying under oath? That's a powerful question. I wonder if Amendola will attempt to address it or just go with the Rashomon defense: what McQueary thought was an anal rape was actually just horsin' around.
 
LRinCA said:
Okay, I just searched Twitter to see if I could find a better description of what was said (and I did).

"Sandusky's co-council claims that his client is mentally/emotionally closer to a teenager than a 60yr old."

That's pretty much word for word.

Another tweet that offers a better description than I did:

Chronological age vs mental age may perhaps be the reason for being comfortable with kids rather than older ppl.
Click to expand...
I'm not trained in law but.....if I were Amendola.....I'd be looking for a new angle as far as portraying Sandusky as some big, dumb, naive oaf lost in his teen years. According to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky"]Jerry Sandusky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
He graduated first in his class with a B.S. in health in 1966 and physical education in 1970 from Penn State. He also went on to be a 30 year, long-tenured coach at PS as well as establishing/managing a large, financially successful charity for many, many years. He was apparently, a master at fundraising as well. I don't think goofy, naive, teenage boys accomplish this type of success while still teenage boys so NO.....I'm not buying Sandusky's 'deer in the headlights what did I do wrong wide-eyed blink blink' defense.
 
As annoying & curious as this last minute waiver may have been....when it's all said and done.....it may have actually worked out for the best prosecution/victim wise. It seemed like Amendola basically laid out his defense strategy for the one+ hour he spent in the spotlight this morning. Add his media smorgasbord to Jerry's two other interviews and it must be like manna from heaven to the Commonwealth attorneys. It was almost surreal to listen to Amendola go on and on and on and on. We're usually lucky to get a 30-second, "I can't answer that" interview with any attorney much less from one on a high-profile case like this one.
 
That link basically covers exactly what you just said (I just skimmed right past that part in bold!).

I have a cold/flu and shouldn't be allowed internet access!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 160 more.
Total: 435 (members: 161, guests: 274)

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
274
Total visitors
435
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,477
Messages
18,240,062
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top