Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[Tipstaff]

It seems that tomorrow will be the actual Show & Tell of the Sandusky defense particularly if they intend to rest on Wednesday. Looking forward to the cross examination of Mr. & Mrs. Sandusky IF they actually take the stand.

 

[back2back19]

It seems that tomorrow will be the actual Show & Tell of the Sandusky defense particularly if they intend to rest on Wednesday. Looking forward to the cross examination of Mr. & Mrs. Sandusky IF they actually take the stand.

Yeah. I'll be curious if Mrs. Sandusky testifies but I don't think Mr. Sandusky will. No way would the defense be resting on Wednesday if he was testifying. There would be a loooong direct and probably an even longer cross.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It seems that tomorrow will be the actual Show & Tell of the Sandusky defense particularly if they intend to rest on Wednesday. Looking forward to the cross examination of Mr. & Mrs. Sandusky IF they actually take the stand.

Maybe they'll produce Victim 2?

 

[Tipstaff]

Yeah. I'll be curious if Mrs. Sandusky testifies but I don't think Mr. Sandusky will. No way would the defense be resting on Wednesday if he was testifying. There would be a loooong direct and probably an even longer cross.

Thinking stunt here by Amendola putting Sandusky on the stand and asking him just a few questions - would that limit the prosecution to only questioning on what was brought out on direct?

 

[Tipstaff]

Maybe they'll produce Victim 2?

Can't surprise - he would have to have been on the witness list and identified I think. I know the defense didn't have to give a witness list in PA but the judge did ask for one. Is it really possible?

 

[katydid23]

Thinking stunt here by Amendola putting Sandusky on the stand and asking him just a few questions - would that limit the prosecution to only questioning on what was brought out on direct?

But I think that anything Jerry has said on tv is going to be admitted into the trial, once he takes the stand. No matter how many questions his attorney asks, it will still come in, I believe.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Can't surprise - he would have to have been on the witness list and identified I think. I know the defense didn't have to give a witness list in PA but the judge did ask for one. Is it really possible?

Maybe he is on the list.

 

[BennyProfane]

Maybe they'll produce Victim 2?

There was an article posted a couple weeks ago stating that Amendola's "Victim 2" lawyered up after initially contacting the defense, and hasn't been heard from since.
Personally, I don't think the real Victim 2 will ever appear in a courtroom.
If he's still alive, he's had plenty of time to understand he'd be protected, and still hasn't come forward.
If Amendola's "Victim 2" tries to defend Sandusky falsely, he's risking a whopping big perjury charge, and I just can't see a fake attempting that.
If Amendola's "Victim 2" is real -- and nothing really happened -- he'll have to say something like "Yeah, I know it's me they're talking about because I remember seeing the red-headed guy looking at us. Nothing happened." But I don't believe this will happen because I believe McQueary.
He wouldn't be the first sexual assault victim to testify that there was no sexual assault (http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...rost-acquitted-of-sexual-exploitation-charges), but that's just so unlikely after the testimony of all the other victims.
If it's true that a guy dropped out of Amendola's sight, that guy was probably looking to cash in & got cold feet.
I'm thinking that because the victims have already been treated so respectfully, and because Victim 2 hasn't appeared, he's either decided that Sandusky has enough knives stuck in him already and doesn't want to endure the ordeal, or he's just... permanently unavailable.

 

[Tipstaff]

But I think that anything Jerry has said on tv is going to be admitted into the trial, once he takes the stand. No matter how many questions his attorney asks, it will still come in, I believe.

Doesn't the defense have to open the doors to his statements on TV in direct?

 

[Rlaub44]

Maybe they'll produce Victim 2?

I wonder how it could ever be verified that the person they produce is the same boy that McQueary saw that night? I'm not sure I could trust that the defense didn't find another youngster from the same time period that could testify he showered with Sandusky on a Friday in February, 2001, and that nothing happened.

How does the prosecution show that this new witness(if such a thing occurs) isn't Victim 2?

 

[Tipstaff]

I wonder how it could ever be verified that the person they produce is the same boy that McQueary saw that night? I'm not sure I could trust that the defense didn't find another youngster from the same time period that could testify he showered with Sandusky on a Friday in February, 2001, and that nothing happened.

How does the prosecution show that this new witness(if such a thing occurs) isn't Victim 2?

Recall McQueary, check school attendance records, and question witness as to any marks, moles etc. on Sandusky?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I realize I'm a bit late to the "showering with grandpa at the Y" discussion, but I must share a few thoughts.

At the Y I belong to, age 6 is the cutoff for being taken into the opposite sex locker rooms. A quick google search suggests that this is the rule for Ys everywhere.

In the women's locker room there are both open showers where anyone can see you in them, and private stall showers with curtains. As far as I recall, I've NEVER seen even a naked little girl in the open showers, much less a boy.

There is also a curtained-off section of the locker room reserved for families with children, and another curtained-off section that is supposed to be off-limits to children.

So theoretically, if Grandpa was a member of my Y, and assuming that the men's locker room has the same set-up as the women's, he could take her into a private shower and then get her dressed in the curtained-off family section with a large degree of privacy, unless of course there were other men with small children in the curtained-off family section.

That being said, however:

I am middle-aged and I have seen my own father naked exactly once in my life, and that was inadvertent. I could not have been more than five years old and even then I averted my eyes because I knew I was not supposed to be seeing that.

Have times really changed so much that it is now okay for a child roughly the same age I was then (given the Y's rules) to be seeing, not even her father, but her GRANDFATHER naked?

If so, all I have to say is...EWWWWWWWWW.

And also: that sight would have completely terrified and traumatized me as a little girl.

:twocents:

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I wonder how it could ever be verified that the person they produce is the same boy that McQueary saw that night? I'm not sure I could trust that the defense didn't find another youngster from the same time period that could testify he showered with Sandusky on a Friday in February, 2001, and that nothing happened.

How does the prosecution show that this new witness(if such a thing occurs) isn't Victim 2?

Records that he was there, parents recollections. Sandusky supposedly called the boy/family after Curley spoke with him.

 

[katydid23]

Doesn't the defense have to open the doors to his statements on TV in direct?

I am not sure, but I think that there is a wide latitude, no matter how small they try and keep the scope. I mean, the tv interview was on this exact question, 'did you molest those boys?' So it is very on point, and it will be hard to make it seem irrelevant, no matter how narrow they try and make their scope. jmo

No matter how narrow they try and keep it, they will have to broach the basic subject of the victims and the charges. They cannot just ask him about the weather.

ETA: I just remembered. THEY ALREADY ADMITTED PORTIONS OF THE VIDEO.

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

" but told the jury they must consider an accurate printed transcript of the video that will be given to them when they begin deliberations after testimony concludes...."

 

[HMSHood]

Body Language expert Patti Wood's insights of Jerry Sandusky's New York Times videotaped interview.What does Jerry Sandusky's body language indicate?
http://bodylanguagelady.blogspot.com/2011/12/pattis-analysis-of-jerry-sanduskys-body.html

Sandusky certainly isn’t. He starts the interview with oddly detached emotions. He doesn’t face the interviewer. He often looks out with a blank expression. He is relaxed sitting back on the couch. He oddly opens with a response to the allegations “I kid you.” Then says in a rather soft neutral voice “These allegations are false” – Then he immediately turns his head away and gazes off in the distance. I believe an innocent person would look at the interviewer and make sure that they heard and understood your statement.

He keeps blinking his eyes, which raise red flags.

He laughs as he answers some of the questions. If you have been in my Deception Detection program you know that anger and laughter are “cover emotions.” In interrogation videos I have analyzed the accused laugh as a cover to make their allegation seem “lighter” not serious not as bad. At one point Sandusky actually has what I call --- soft eyes and a charming smile as he is asked about sexually abusing young boys.

Even in the 1987 interview, he laughs. Something is nor right with him.

At time marker 210 concerning the Coach Joe Paterno

He says, “I don’t know that he didn’t know – I know that he didn’t, never said anything to me.” and then at time marker 2:56 he gives a smirk, his face asymmetrical, he seems gleeful that he was able to pull one over on the interviewer and in essence throws the coach under the bus.

Sandusky's relationship with Joe Paterno is turbulent and is not upset about him getting fired.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Photo of the two defense witnesses who testified yesterday. Have your eye bleach handy because the thought of either if these two ole men showering with a child is just gross!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...other-alleged-victim-testifies-underwear.html

moo

 

[Tipstaff]

Photo of the two defense witnesses who testified yesterday. Have your eye bleach handy because the thought of either if these two ole men showering with a child is just gross!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...other-alleged-victim-testifies-underwear.html

moo

Picture these guys in prison garb on Law & Order!:rocker:

 

[costalpilot]

Doesn't the defense have to open the doors to his statements on TV in direct?

m no lawyer but imo.................... no


i'd be shocked if any sandusky testifys....although his lawyer was stupid enuff to let him do the tv interview...still, could he be THAT stupid? i doubt it, although if sand does have that histronic personality disorder in fact, you KNOW he wants to tesify

 

[SyraKelly]

Good Morning everyone-what time does court start?

 

[waltzingmatilda]

Good Morning SyraKelly! I am not sure what time the trial begins but I am watching coverage on In Session.

wm