Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[4Jacy]

You can disagree, but you better tell me where all the physical evidence is.

I can easily understand why there is no physical evidence in this case. While there might be some blood, it wouldn't be a huge amount on the sheets, and there can be other explanations for it. And Dottie, like a woman whose husband cheats on her, may not know.

Look at people like Jim McGreevey. Gay, in the closet, his wife didn't have a clue.

Not believing! The wife always knows!!

 

[4Jacy]

"Dottie" is guilty also. No one could be that stupid!! A boy in the basement screaming for help??????????? Guess she enjoyed her lifestyle!! Gross to the max!!!!!!!!!:maddening:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not believing! The wife always knows!!

Not believing that. I've heard too many SO say, "How could this happen? Why didn't I know?"

 

[ynotdivein]

I hope that the jury in this case doesn't get hung up on technical details. While every charge may not stick, IMO there are overwhelming similarities in the victims' testimony so far, the touching of the thigh while sharing a ride being one.

It's reasonable to consider that victims who have had no contact with one another may exhibit similar inconsistencies in terms of recalling exact dates, due to the nature of the trauma inflicted upon them. IMO it's also reasonable to consider that two boys who attended the same camp and who were similarly victimized would never reveal to one another the kind of abuse that they were experiencing, even if they shared a cabin or whatnot.

The next week or two from the defense will be interesting at least. I trust that our posters on both "sides" will exhibit the courtesy to one another and the restraint that make WS such a great site.

 

[ChickenPants]

Some juries have little or no forensic evidence and are asked to use their common sense, some juries have a lot of evidence but get stuck on conflicting testimonies or have one or 2 jurors who just can't get to a guilty verdict because of whatever problem they have in "believing" this or that, and you get a hung jury. In this case, even without forensic evidence, there are an overwhelming number of other factors that point to a guilty verdict on most, if not all of the counts.

The issue has been raised about whether Dottie Sandusky would be charged, and if not, why not. She is actually in the same category as several others who saw, heard, were told about or had overwhelming reasons to believe that abuse was going on and did not report it or do anything to protect the children. IMO if the other people had reasons to know by virtue of their close proximity to the defendant then she, as his wife, had more reasons because (1) she lives with the defendant and (2) some of the victims were brought into her home, and NOT when she was absent...actually when she was right there. If I could make an analogy about a cheating husband, the wife may be ignorant of an affair, or even purposefully put on blinders, but if it's happening in her own home over a period of a decade or more with her in the house, then it's hard to believe she didn't know. It occurs to me that Jerry liked to get victims into the shower, but the Sandusky shower wasn't his shower of choice. He waited until bedtime to "tuck them in", and she won't be the first or the last woman who bought into that. What seems troublesome is that this went on for so many years that the only way she could not know would be that she knew but she didn't want to know. She isn't the only one who dealt with it by denying it to herself.

Triple the shame if it's with young boys who think they are spending the night with a doting couple who loves children. I don't care how much I love my husband and support his activities and his mission to help young people. If the young people he brings home are all pre-pubescent boys, who he disappears into the basement with for hours, I am going to wonder. The only possible explanation I can come up with for Dottie is that she suspected for ALL OF THESE YEARS but didn't want to or couldn't confront the truth. That makes her no different from any of his other associates in the same situation. They all provided the means, the places and the support for Jerry Sandusky to perform his sick acts. If Dottie is cross-examined with questions like "did you even suspect anything was going on.....did you hear noises....did you not think it was strange your husband was bringing young boys to the basement....see blood on the sheets, etc., ?" and answers "No", or "I don't remember", it isn't going to change the fact that too many other people have been asked the same questions and given the same answers for it to be a coincidence.

There's enough corroboration in this case (especially Penn State memoranda which reveals people knew something was going on) to bolster the testimony of the victims. I understand people's point in playing devil's advocate and defense attorney. as I try to do that as well. That's what makes our American Justice System "fair"......But the devil just can't win in this one, IMO.

 

[ChickenPants]

One thing I find interesting - if repellent - about this case is that Sandusky himself did not want a change of venue and was happy to have a jury of his close peers in the small town, counting on his intimacy, his "good guy" image and his reputation as a savior of at-risk children to outweigh the preponderance of evidence against him. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is. But such arrogance is the hallmark of a criminal who is so habituated to getting his own way and getting away with it for so long.

Again, these are crimes against young children, and the smokescreen he erected with The Second Mile was a brilliant and devious playground for his sick mind. Imagine building this institution and people flocking to support your ideals, putting you on a pedestal, the parents jockeying for the chance to get their kids into the pre-eminent place for wholesome activities, all-American sports, friendships and even prestige, being singled out as a kid that Jerry Sandusky saw as "special" with "great potential".

A similar, if reverse, analogy comes to mind in the classic "To Kill A Mockingbird" scenario. Here the black defendant was brought to trial in HIS small town with an all-white jury of townspeople. The prosecution assumed it would be the "slam-dunk", counting on prejudice against the defendant.

When the truth was revealed, the lesson was they all had to take a good long, hard look at themselves and their blindness, their habits, general assumptions and their "profiling" of the defendant. You flip that around with Sandusky and Penn State, that whole culture, and society's celebrity-worship, especially of sports figures...he arrogantly presumes he will be acquitted because people are going to believe HIM against all other evidence.

It's important to remember that in the pedophile mind, their sickness tells them they really DO love children, and that the sex is a way of showing it. He's done it for so long because he's been allowed to do it.

One piece of evidence that stands out to me is the testimony of the law enforcement officer who hid in the house of the victim's mother and overheard Sandusky saying (I paraphrase) "I know you probably can't forgive me, and I wish I was dead."

I can imagine the jurors in this case are very disturbed about what they are hearing, and especially because it's been happening under their noses, in their beloved town. I imagine that jury room is going to be filled with a lot of outrage. It's difficult to imagine any defense testimony or arguments that will be able to overcome any of it.

 

[jabberwocky]

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...matter-if-sandusky-has-a-personality-disorder


"The defense may or may not succeed in arguing that an undiagnosed personality disorder explains the letters, but when it comes to the case as a whole, the psychiatric issue is irrelevant, says Dr. Liza Gold, clinical prof of psychology at Georgetown University.

"This really has nothing to do with whether he molested boys," says Gold, who stresses that she has not examined Sandusky herself.

"There's no evidence that I know of that links personality disorder to pedophilia," she says. Some pedophiles may have a personality disorder, and some with a personality disorder may be pedophiles. But there's no correlation between the two, argues Gold, who also serves as the vice president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. "It's apples and oranges. It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and rocks.":floorlaugh:

 

[waltzingmatilda]

DUH! Nice try Mr. Amendola. Oh course something is wrong with Jer, he is a pedo/child molester. JS may have a mental disorder, (don't we all?) but his mental capacity is not so diminished that he is unable to plot, plan, lie, scheme, sneak and stalk to target his victims.

This seems like a hail Mary by the defense to me but what do I know.

moo

wm

 

[ChickenPants]

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...matter-if-sandusky-has-a-personality-disorder


"The defense may or may not succeed in arguing that an undiagnosed personality disorder explains the letters, but when it comes to the case as a whole, the psychiatric issue is irrelevant, says Dr. Liza Gold, clinical prof of psychology at Georgetown University.

"This really has nothing to do with whether he molested boys," says Gold, who stresses that she has not examined Sandusky herself.

"There's no evidence that I know of that links personality disorder to pedophilia," she says. Some pedophiles may have a personality disorder, and some with a personality disorder may be pedophiles. But there's no correlation between the two, argues Gold, who also serves as the vice president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. "It's apples and oranges. It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and rocks.":floorlaugh:

There's a medical bible called the DSM-IV which gives the very specific pathology, symptoms and behaviors of mental disorders. There is no reference to pedophilia behavior under "Hisitrionic Personality Disorder". The only similarity is a complusion to get one's own way. The defense probably would have been better off trying to label him "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder", the main feature being the patient is unable to control compulsions to repeat certain actions. Then they could have said that poor Jerry could not control himself...

BUT, the man was never diagnosed with anything before this trial, was he? You don't suddenly turn into a histrionic, a compulsive, a pedophile, a schizophrenic, etc., in your sixties. Are they going to try to prove he has a history of a mental disorder? Where are the qualifying factors such as a diagnosis, case notes, therapy, etc?

When people have mental disturbances that can be classified as real "disorders", it usually impacts their ability to get along in life, in the workplace, and most especially in relationships with others. There's no indication that he had any problems holding down his coaching job or getting along with his peers. No, the only "disordered" component of his personality was stalking and molesting unsuspecting and vulnerable children.

Since he's declared himself innocent of all of the crimes, activities and behaviors alleged, how is he going to use a disorder to validate himself? Either he did them or he didn't. We see that if the defense opens this door, the prosecution will be able to bring on evidence to disprove it, and knowing this, Sandusky may decide he doesn't want to enter it anyway. He thinks, I imagine, that he is above all of that.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm sure Jack the Ripper had personality disorders as well.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Not believing! The wife always knows!!

As difficult as it is to accept/believe, I don't believe that the wife always knows BUT I will say this, in nearly almost every case I've seen, (including my own personal experience as an incest survivor whose mother claims not to have known...) the wives should have known! JMO~

 

[Tipstaff]

Thought provoking posts Chicken Pants - glad you jumped onto this board!!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As difficult as it is to accept/believe, I don't believe that the wife always knows BUT I will say this, in nearly almost every case I've seen, (including my own personal experience as an incest survivor whose mother claims not to have known...) the wives should have known! JMO~

A number of people should have known. That is one of the things that is so scarey about this.

 

[ChickenPants]

I'm sure Jack the Ripper had personality disorders as well.

:boohoo:

Yes, called the boo-hoo poor me syndrome. LOL when my kids were young and they'd try to conjur up excuses for their behaviors I loved to tell them to invite me to go on Jerry Springer with them. That way they could duke it out, blame everything on their "chldhood" and make a few hundred dollars. And be famous, too. They were usually laughing too hard to continue that line of defense.

 

[ChickenPants]

As difficult as it is to accept/believe, I don't believe that the wife always knows BUT I will say this, in nearly almost every case I've seen, (including my own personal experience as an incest survivor whose mother claims not to have known...) the wives should have known! JMO~

What I find interesting as well is that in the past couple of decades, the level of violent crimes and previously unheard-of behaviors has increased; meanwhile the friends, relatives and neighbors of the perpetrators always cry: But he seemed like a normal, nice guy!!!

 

[Rlaub44]

Since he's declared himself innocent of all of the crimes, activities and behaviors alleged, how is he going to use a disorder to validate himself? Either he did them or he didn't.

I think Amendola only wants this "disorder" to explain away the parts of the evidence that appeared strange to onlookers. The letters, the clinging, the stalking, the gifts. These are the areas that others can prove or credibly testify to. This disorder might also (in Amendola's dreams) explain Sandusky's boundary issues, such as showering with young boys.

As far as the victim's testimony, he is counting on discrepancies in dates, as well as his repeated suggestion that the victims are in it for financial gain, to provide doubt. Doesn't seem to be working so far in my opinion, but who knows what direction he will take during the defense's case next week.

 

[ChickenPants]

Clarification, I just remembered that the histrionic "disorder" (previously undiagnosed) is going to be allowed in ONLY in reference to the so-called "love letters" Sandusky wrote. Defense's argument that in that context, his writing would be histrionic, i.e., exaggerated, childish proclamations of love, and etc. So this does not apply to the child molestation specifically.

Jabberwocky's post above quoting Dr. Gold gives me the key word: UNDIAGNOSED. If they evaluate him now, it would seem irrelevant because he was not evaluated or diagnosed at the time of the acts. And there would have to be proof that he has consistently demonstrated other elements of histrionic disorder. It would be interesting to find corroborating witnesses to that, as well.

 

[ThoughtFox]

A number of people should have known. That is one of the things that is so scarey about this.

And really they DID know that something was amiss. Why did they "notice" when Jerry was with a young unrelated boy all the time? Their subconscious was trying to tell them something, but they wrote it all off as "Jerry being Jerry" or "Jerry being a good guy" or "Jerry helping boys."

People often misunderstand the clues their minds give them. Most of us have known someone who puzzles us or makes us nervous, but we blame ourselves or think it's just a personality difference.

For some people, Jerry was sort of a famous jock and perhaps he reminded them of their own inadequacy at sports? Or maybe they were impressed with his wealth and connections to the University, so when they would get a creepy feeling they wrote it off as a feeling of jealousy.

There are so many people in this world who don't listen to their inner voice to warn them and tell them what is right. And these pedophiles and other criminals count on that. They figure out how to stay under the radar and they use "protective coloration" because people see what they want to see.

 

[Reader]

Jerry Sandusky prosecutors leave the jury to mull a mountain of strong evidence over the weekend

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...rors-strong-case-weekend-alleged-victims.html

........Other than that, Amendola has been forced to seemingly concede that Sandusky was present when the alleged acts occurred. The line drawn in the argumentative sand occasionally was about whether there was actual penetration or just naked rubbing of private parts. It's not a promising place for a defense to operate.

..........Toward the end of Monday's session, deputy attorney general Joe McGettigen paced in front of the jury box and asked jurors to remember something they'd heard as they broke for the day:

"The showers, the showers, the showers."

By Thursday, he could have added "the basement, the basement, the basement" and "the hotels, the hotels, the hotels" and who knows how many other locations. Then he could have shifted to at least a dozen gasp-inducing phrases and moments from the rest of the week.............

...........Maybe that's the only way to possibly save a conviction, the accused trying to explain the seemingly unexplainable.

As Amendola strolled out of the Centre County Courthouse on a brilliant, sunny afternoon in this picturesque town, all that was certain is that he has three days to think up something.

And it better be good. Real good.

 

[Reader]

Who rocks?


Deputy attorney general Joe McGettigen and

Victims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10

and all the other witnesses for the prosecution!




:rocker: