Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[costalpilot]

Even if acquitted, he can still be subjected to civil suits. Victim 1 can't sue Penn State, because nothing happened on campus.

its true psu's civil liability is not affected by the outcome of this trial. I doubt the 2nd asserion. where the crime occured has nothing to do with institutional responsibility and culpability.


psu's failures enabled sandusky to comit years and years of crimes against innocent minors. its culpability has nothing to do with where the crimes occured, imo.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

its true psu's civil liability is not affected by the outcome of this trial. I doubt the 2nd asserion. where the crime occured has nothing to do with institutional responsibility and culpability.

He wasn't employed there at the time, and they did report it in 1998. Victim 1 doesn't have a case against Penn State; he might against Second Mile.

 

[lonetraveler]

Anderson said he might see the need to have a child spend the night at a hotel with a coach "for emotional support if I felt it to be necessary."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_ex-coach.html

WTH? Emotional support? I am worried about Mr. Anderson in many ways.

Yep, I can't help but think about the "birds of a feather flock together" saying. KWIM?

 

[Reader]

Jerry Sandusky Defense Ignores Detailed Accusations

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-ignores-detailed-accusations/story?id=16593410

The withering allegations of sex abuse from eight accusers in the Jerry Sandusky trial were largely ignored today by Sandusky's legal team as the defense began telling their side of the story........

But he (the judge) laid out a schedule that indicates Sandusky will offer few witnesses on his behalf.........Sandusky's lawyers called four people to the stand and all were essentially character witnesses.
------------

The trial began today with a surprising statement from Judge John Cleland saying he had doubts about the strength of the prosecution's case, but at this point in the trial is convinced that there is enough credible evidence that the charges should go to a jury. His comments were made while the jury was out of the courtroom.

Cleland's statements of doubt about the state's case contrasted with his consistent dismissal of motions by the defense to have charges dropped against Sandusky.

More at link....

 

[lonetraveler]

I'd be curious how the granddaughter's parents feel about her grandfather blasting to the country he showers naked with her in a room full of naked men.

I really don't even believe this story. I would like to think that if this DID happen, at least one of the man in the locker room would have had the sense to complain to management about this.

ITA, when I heard this statement today I had to cringe. The visual I get in my mind has a little toddler face height with a naked man's crotch in a shower with his stuff at eye-level for her to ponder. Sick, sick, sick.......is all I can say about it.

 

[Quiche]

I think putting the victims' lawyers on the stand is a mistake, no matter WHAT the questions consist of-- the jurors will see it as a last ditch effort to cast dispersions on a bunch of physically and emotionally devastated boys/young men.

(In my mind, all those victim's are CHILDREN, and still are. The trauma of being sexually used by a man who was in a trusted (even respected) position, stunts the emotional growth to the point that a large part of them remain that vulnerable, confused, heartbroken child. I go ballistic when I see them referenced as men-- no way, these victims were little kids. Just for reference-- here's a passel of ten year olds! (pic is from a movie) They're still frail, imo! :banghead: :furious: :banghead: :furious:

 

[wfgodot]

Did Jerry Sandusky Admit His Guilt To Bob Costas In Portion Of Interview NBC Never Aired? (Deadspin)

 

[passionflower]

If this story is true,what kind of men would put up with a man brnging in a little girl to a shower or locker room?. I cant even imagine the lanuage and mannerisms in there! My husband said he would be livid.

 

[Pensfan]

JERRY SANDUSKY:
19:01:01:00 Well—you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) 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.
http://deadspin.com/5919340/did-jer...ostas-in-portion-of-interview-nbc-never-aired

Omg. This entire paragraph is disturbing. There's no doubt that there are others that didn't come forward

GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY, JERRY!

 

[katydid23]

JERRY SANDUSKY:
19:01:01:00 Well—you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) 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.
http://deadspin.com/5919340/did-jer...ostas-in-portion-of-interview-nbc-never-aired

Omg. This entire paragraph is disturbing. There's no doubt that there are others that didn't come forward

GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY, JERRY!

It sounds like a confession, imo.

"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.."


Really? How do you even say those words if you are NOT admitting as much? I just showed it to my husband and he died laughing. He said he could not even imagine laughing at such an accusation, and wording anything in that awkward kind of way, if talking about being a pedophile. He says he would have been loudly saying NO WAY, never, ever.... and not laughing and saying well, hardly ever...

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Jerry Sandusky Defense Ignores Detailed Accusations

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-ignores-detailed-accusations/story?id=16593410

The withering allegations of sex abuse from eight accusers in the Jerry Sandusky trial were largely ignored today by Sandusky's legal team as the defense began telling their side of the story........

But he (the judge) laid out a schedule that indicates Sandusky will offer few witnesses on his behalf.........Sandusky's lawyers called four people to the stand and all were essentially character witnesses.
------------

The trial began today with a surprising statement from Judge John Cleland saying he had doubts about the strength of the prosecution's case, but at this point in the trial is convinced that there is enough credible evidence that the charges should go to a jury. His comments were made while the jury was out of the courtroom.

Cleland's statements of doubt about the state's case contrasted with his consistent dismissal of motions by the defense to have charges dropped against Sandusky.

More at link....

Cleland was referring to one of the eleven charges related to Victim 6. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_judge_den.html

The charge is a misdemeanor, and, if convicted on it alone, it would not require Sandusky to be on Meagan's List.

A full analysis of the charges regarding Victim 6, including links to the statutes involved is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/19/2992124/speculative-reasons.html

 

[katydid23]

IIRC, there are supposed to be some of his former 'kids' who are going to testify and say he never touched them in 'that' way. I wonder if any of those kids dropped out recently?

 

[SyraKelly]

Thanks for all the updates today everyone--I just got done reading this thread and all I can say is--glad I don't live there!

 

[Reader]

Cleland was referring to one of the eleven charges related to Victim 6. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_trial_judge_den.html

The charge is a misdemeanor, and, if convicted on it alone, it would not require Sandusky to be on Meagan's List.

A full analysis of the charges regarding Victim 6, including links to the statutes involved is here: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/19/2992124/speculative-reasons.html

I'm not sure about that J. J. It reads like he was referring to the whole case. Here is the full quote:

"I've been concerned about this since the beginning," Cleland said. "There were very broad representations made by the Commonwealth on the bill of particulars. Since then, the Commonwealth has submitted an amended bill of particulars, and amended their information, which I believe now meets the standards of due process. Although early on I certainly was not persuaded that that was the case."

Cleland's statements followed a morning of legal wrangling over whether some of the counts of sex abuse against Sandusky should be tossed today, as the prosecution wraps up its case........

Sandusky's lawyers argued that the charges against him were too broad and vague because they lacked specific dates and locations, and gave Sandusky no shot at a good defense because he could not use alibis to prove that he was somewhere else.

 

[Reader]

He wasn't employed there at the time, and they did report it in 1998. Victim 1 doesn't have a case against Penn State; he might against Second Mile.

However the offenses against Victim 1 were said to occur from June 2007 to September 2008, which is after the 2001 incident with McQueary.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY AMENDED CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR 2422 2011.pdf

I'm wondering if it would be considered that since the school did not report that incident to CPS or police as required, they would be liable for compensation to V. 1. Altho the abuses may not have occurred on the campus, the school officials were the ones responsible for JS being able to committ his attacks on the victim in 2007-08.

Of course he and his attorney can file whatever they want and see what happens.

 

[costalpilot]

However the offenses against Victim 1 were said to occur from June 2007 to September 2008, which is after the 2001 incident with McQueary.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY AMENDED CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR 2422 2011.pdf

I'm wondering if it would be considered that since the school did not report that incident to CPS or police as required, they would be liable for compensation to V. 1. Altho the abuses may not have occurred on the campus, the school officials were the ones responsible for JS being able to committ his attacks on the victim in 2007-08.

Of course he and his attorney can file whatever they want and see what happens.

im not wondering..the school failed to respond reasonably to allegations of child abuse and they incurred responsibilty thereafter for the crimes that were committed by that individual that gained access in part to children in part due to his affiliation with the school. they are culpable. imo.

 

[costalpilot]

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in background to Sandusky interview. The FULL interview was not aired, and Sandusky has implicated himself in the parts that were not aired...this development was discussed in dept by 1080the fan..the Portland espn affiliate this afternoon.:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/1...s-from-sandusky-interview-disturbing-unaired/

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure about that J. J. It reads like he was referring to the whole case. Here is the full quote:

"I've been concerned about this since the beginning," Cleland said. "There were very broad representations made by the Commonwealth on the bill of particulars. Since then, the Commonwealth has submitted an amended bill of particulars, and amended their information, which I believe now meets the standards of due process. Although early on I certainly was not persuaded that that was the case."

That wasn't however, the weak charge he was talking about. Victim 6 has narrowed down to a two hour window.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

However the offenses against Victim 1 were said to occur from June 2007 to September 2008, which is after the 2001 incident with McQueary.

http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY AMENDED CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR 2422 2011.pdf

I'm wondering if it would be considered that since the school did not report that incident to CPS or police as required, they would be liable for compensation to V. 1. Altho the abuses may not have occurred on the campus, the school officials were the ones responsible for JS being able to committ his attacks on the victim in 2007-08.

Of course he and his attorney can file whatever they want and see what happens.

No, they wouldn't incur liability. Second Mile had that responsibility in 2005.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

im not wondering..the school failed to respond reasonably to allegations of child abuse and they incurred responsibilty thereafter for the crimes that were committed by that individual that gained access in part to children in part due to his affiliation with the school. they are culpable. imo.

Legally, they are not, though Second Mile could be. That only applies to Victim 1.