Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

How long will the jury deliberate?


  • Total voters
    166
Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched Rock Center. This latest victim is very convincing. The reporter said that there is a second group of young men that came forward after the current trial indictments. If he is acquitted they will go after him with the next group of victims. My guess is that Matt will be included in that group, should it become necessary.

That guy seemed extremely convincing, and extremely haunted by what he was saying..
. Some of the details were so bizarre, ie blowing on his stomach? I find it difficult to believe that sort of thing is made up.
 
See, that's what I thought but SportsbyBrook is just flipping out and he is hugely disgusted with Dranov but I thought he made it clear that mcQ reported something sexual had occured and he was deeply upset. I'm not sure where he was contridicted.

There was speculation prior to the trial that Dranov was not going to be helpful to the prosecution - hey maybe Brook's is onto somehting but just not sure.
 
I watched Rock Center. This latest victim is very convincing. The reporter said that there is a second group of young men that came forward after the current trial indictments. If he is acquitted they will go after him with the next group of victims. My guess is that Matt will be included in that group, should it become necessary.

That is very good to hear. Stay strong all victims of this monster.
 
Although, there will be an even stronger defense position that these victims are jumping on the bandwagon. jmo
 
Although, there will be an even stronger defense position that these victims are jumping on the bandwagon. jmo

It would be hard to claim that his son was just jumping on the band wagon.
 
It makes you wonder. I mean, it wasn't too long after he decided not to pursue charges that he disappeared, was it?

Just under 7 years!

Do you think some over zealous Booster paid him to go away or more directly paid him to keep quiet and go away? Or do you think it more nefarious, and that some one with the program had him "done in" so that it wouldn't taint the program?

I don't know. There is no evidence of either.
 
I watched Rock Center. This latest victim is very convincing. The reporter said that there is a second group of young men that came forward after the current trial indictments. If he is acquitted they will go after him with the next group of victims. My guess is that Matt will be included in that group, should it become necessary.

WOW!!!!:please:
 
Something just ocurred to me. How many Second Mile kids ended up in prison? They might have to incarcerate Jerry out of state for his own safety. Father John Geoghan in Massacheusets did not survive long in prison, even in protective custody.
 
There was speculation prior to the trial that Dranov was not going to be helpful to the prosecution - hey maybe Brook's is onto somehting but just not sure.

I know there were some differences but it was basically the same stuff. Other legal experts are saying it's good for the defense too. Oy. :/ I am worried they're looking for reasons to acquit. Hopefully, back-to-back, it makes sense.
 
I bet this guy has victims in their 50s.

I'm going to say it. IMO his dad likely had victims too. Jerry created TSM to be very similiar to his dad's charitable organization for disadvantaged kids.
 
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_judge_dis.html

Judge John Cleland found one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and one count of aggravated indecent assault involving the accuser known as Victim 4 weren't supported by the evidence.

Cleland said two of the counts had to be dismissed because the alleged victim testified Sandusky attempted to penetrate him but didn't say that such penetration had actually occurred. Cleland said he would have been required to set aside any convictions on those counts, because "the verdict was not supported by the evidence."
 
I'm going to say it. IMO his dad likely had victims too. Jerry created TSM to be very similiar to his dad's charitable organization for disadvantaged kids.

My computer has been down for hrs-I am furious I miss a lot-but we are up & running again-ITA with your statement Pensfan-I think thier are many many more victims out there-Jerry learned this from someone-JMOOC
 
Let's look at this logically. They are looking at a witness that tells us about another witness, McQueary. It means that they think McQueary might have seen what he said he saw. They are not looking at the other victims.

1. It's the first step in a process, a starting point.

2. They don't believe any of the uncorroborated victims, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10.

3. They are looking at the cases where there is no victim, 2 and 8.

If it's 2 or 3, Victims 1 and 6 are still in play, maybe Victim 4.

4. If they convict on 2, it reflects on Paterno.
 
I'm going to say it. IMO his dad likely had victims too. Jerry created TSM to be very similiar to his dad's charitable organization for disadvantaged kids.

What gets me is that abuse runs in cycles... i'm fairly confident this behavior on Sanduskys part wasn't self originating, but how many __new__ cycles of abuse has he created over the decades?!

so ****ing sad.
 
I have a question. Do Jerry and Dottie have any biological children? Or are all of their children adopted? Just curious.
 
J.J. in Phila,
RE: Ray Gricar, I drive some folks who are members of something called
"The Pennsylvania Society". Some sort of political club or something (one lady mentioned she worked as an intern for Reagan when he was President, so I guess it's a pretty big deal). They always stay at the Waldorf-Astoria.
Anyway, when this broke, they were ALL foaming at the mouth and wanted JoePa's head, amongst others. And most of them thought that RG was paid off by someone at Penn State, and intentionaly dissapeared.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Again, thanks for the great coverage!
 
Let's look at this logically. They are looking at a witness that tells us about another witness, McQueary. It means that they think McQueary might have seen what he said he saw. They are not looking at the other victims.

1. It's the first step in a process, a starting point.

2. They don't believe any of the uncorroborated victims, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10.

3. They are looking at the cases where there is no victim, 2 and 8.

If it's 2 or 3, Victims 1 and 6 are still in play, maybe Victim 4.

4. If they convict on 2, it reflects on Paterno.

I'll take: 4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
276
Guests online
2,709
Total visitors
2,985

Forum statistics

Threads
599,643
Messages
18,097,735
Members
230,895
Latest member
Tb3
Back
Top