Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[believe09]

I am missing the lie. I get that they told the possible victim that there were others and that the others had indicated certain crimes.

Why is this a big deal? Did the investigators say "Hey we want you to say this and this and this like the others did?"

This is not a Mark Fuhrman moment to me...call me crazy.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I when I heard that Sandusky's attorney planned to use the Histrionic Personality Disorder defense :dramaqueen: That spaghetti won't stick. HPD won't fit, and the jury won't acquit. :moo:

 

[Quiche]

I am missing the lie. I get that they told the possible victim that there were others and that the others had indicated certain crimes.

Why is this a big deal? Did the investigators say "Hey we want you to say this and this and this like the others did?"

This is not a Mark Fuhrman moment to me...call me crazy.

I agree, it's weak in comparison to the testimony that's already been given by the victims. Those jurors are putting themselves in the investigators' shoes, the boys' shoes, as well as the parents' shoes-- I don't think a slip of language is going to mount to a hill of beans in their deliberations. mo :moo:

 

[Reader]

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ys-jerry-sandusky-accuser-embellishes-stories

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- Defense attorneys in Jerry Sandusky's child sex-abuse trial suggested in their questioning Tuesday that investigators shared details among accusers that led to evolving accounts of abuse, but prosecutors could be working on a rebuttal to defense statements, particularly if the former Penn State assistant football coach testifies.
-------

While prosecutors rested their case Monday after presenting 21 witnesses, including eight who said they had been assaulted by Sandusky, they have asked NBC to turn over and authenticate full transcripts of a phone interview that Sandusky did with Bob Costas last November. Among the Sandusky comments in the transcripts that were not aired on TV was: "I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped." How that and other statements are interpreted could play a role in the trial that is expected to wrap up this week.

More at link....


Me...I'm pretty sure this type of stuff was expected and McGettigan knows how to handle it...

 

[4Jacy]

Dottie will have to testify and she'll do a great job. She's been covering for him all these years! :maddening:

 

[believe09]

Sort of hard not to find her culpable if she called around to the victims asking them to come to dinner and vouch for Sandusky.

 

[StellarsJay]

So is the thought that the victim is one and the same with Matt or do you think there are more contracts out there??

I forget which victim had a contract- 9, I think. There have been reports asking where Jerry got his model from and saying using money as a reward, etc isn't proper social work technique. I think in his book Touched that Jerry says he used one with Matt- would have been years earlier and possibly Raykovitz was using them at Second Mile- just speculation.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Um.....my apologies if this is a stupid question, but.....Second Mile was for boys *and* girls??

Yes. Sandusky did bring young girls home as well, and no suggested he molested them.

 

[Quiche]

Dottie will have to testify and she'll do a great job. She's been covering for him all these years! :maddening:

I don't know-- it's really easy to "cover" for him when no one has a CLUE, but at his juncture, the entire nation has far more than a clue, they KNOW the brutal details. Yep, this is graduate level "covering" with a potential jail term for herself attached to it. I'm not sure "great job" can slide so glibly off my tongue. I'm going to guess she'll at least falter a few times. :twocents:

:jail::jail:

 

[Reader]

Dang, judge! from ThoughtFox's link above:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...QDBHBzdGNhdANhdXRob3IEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3


If anything, the defense was bolstered by a comment from Judge Cleland. In open court, with the jury seated and listening, the two sides argued to the judge how much of the tape should be allowed to play.

That's when Cleland first said, "The issue is whether or not seeds were planted by the officer."

He later said the issue was actually whether the officers' testimony may not have been accurate when they said they never discussed specifics with witnesses. He used that reasoning to rule the prosecution couldn't play more of the tape.

What effect the tape could have on the verdict is unknown. It was the first strong bit of evidence presented by a defense that otherwise has mostly relied on character witnesses for Sandusky. It goes to the heart of one of the key defense arguments.

And it may have been the judge that offered the best summation of what the defense was trying to accomplish.

 

[back2back19]

I am missing the lie. I get that they told the possible victim that there were others and that the others had indicated certain crimes.

Why is this a big deal? Did the investigators say "Hey we want you to say this and this and this like the others did?"

This is not a Mark Fuhrman moment to me...call me crazy.

IA. I don't see the big deal either but that's mainly because we're talking about 18, 19, 20+ year old men. We're not talking about kids here who can be influenced by suggestions. We're also talking about same sex sexual abuse. There's a stigma attached to it. I can easily see how finding out that there are others would make it easier to tell their story. As long as the investigators didn't feed them details, which it doesn't seem like he did. I don't see the big deal.

Although clearly this is the best day for the defense; I wish the prosecutor was more aggressive with these character witnesses. Especially the one who called #4's character in to question by saying he was a known liar/embellisher(though, again he'd be the perfect Sandusky victim!).

 

[katydid23]

I am missing the lie. I get that they told the possible victim that there were others and that the others had indicated certain crimes.

Why is this a big deal? Did the investigators say "Hey we want you to say this and this and this like the others did?"

This is not a Mark Fuhrman moment to me...call me crazy.

The thing is, it might be a problem in the juror's eyes. It might make them wonder if the lawyer was 'telegraphing' to a potential witness, and sending hints about what to accuse JS of and assuring him that others already have done so. I think that might be a problem for this witness and attorney.

 

[Reader]

I agree, it's weak in comparison to the testimony that's already been given by the victims. Those jurors are putting themselves in the investigators' shoes, the boys' shoes, as well as the parents' shoes-- I don't think a slip of language is going to mount to a hill of beans in their deliberations. mo :moo:

Exactly....in my previous experience (IMO) this is a tactic used by most investigators to make the victim feel more assured that if he/she tells about their abuses, they will be believed and not scorned.

Remember, this was not just a regular citizen/parent, tho those are frightening enough, but JERRY SANDUSKY, a former famous coach, a famous leader of the very organization they were selected from. They knew how powerful he was in the community and to go up against him in this case was an enormous challenge and very frightening for them. They needed to be assured that they were not alone and that the investigators would have their backs....even with these assurances, no one could make them say what they said and go through all the legal roadbloacks if they were not telling the truth. If they were lying, they would have faltered somewhere along the way in this looooong journey. These investigators and prosecutors are trained how to spot a liar and any boys not believable would have been eliminated.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I am really troubled by the tape. NO, I don't think it exonerates JS (as if anything could, the perv), but it can give reasonable doubt, at least for the charges related to V4. Why on the ffffff would the troopers be so careless as to record this?

 

[seattlechiquita]

The thing is, it might be a problem in the juror's eyes. It might make them wonder if the lawyer was 'telegraphing' to a potential witness, and sending hints about what to accuse JS of and assuring him that others already have done so. I think that might be a problem for this witness and attorney.

WORD. :rocker: I do see the tape as incredibly damaging.

 

[LinasK]

Sandusky to take stand? Attorney says 'stay tuned'
By MARK SCOLFORO and GENARO C. ARMAS, AP
19 minutes ago

BELLEFONTE, Pa. — Jerry Sandusky's defense attorney compared the former Penn State assistant coach's high-profile child sex-abuse trial to a soap opera on Tuesday, telling reporters to "stay tuned" to find out if Sandusky would take the stand in his own defense.

Asked what soap opera he'd compare the trial to, defense attorney Joe Amendola initially said "General Hospital," then "All My Children."

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120618/US.Penn.State.Abuse/?cid=hero_media

:furious::sick::sick::sick:

 

[Quiche]

IA. I don't see the big deal either but that's mainly because we're talking about 18, 19, 20+ year old men. We're not talking about kids here who can be influenced by suggestions. We're also talking about same sex sexual abuse. There's a stigma attached to it. I can easily see how finding out that there are others would make it easier to tell their story. As long as the investigators didn't feed them details, which it doesn't seem like he did. I don't see the big deal.

Although clearly this is the best day for the defense; I wish the prosecutor was more aggressive with these character witnesses. Especially the one who called #4's character in to question by saying he was a known liar/embellisher(though, again he'd be the perfect Sandusky victim!).

Everyone that I've known all their lives can be said to be a "known liar/embellisher." IMO, all kids pass through the fibbing stage, as well as the tattler stage, the knockknock joke phase, the trying to impress girls phase, the... You get my drift.

Actually, contrarily, I think that knowing someone ALL their life is NOT a good/accurate barometer for the kind of person they are today. JMO and all that

If the prosecution is reading here, pick this up on closing, willya? :seeya:

 

[believe09]

I am really troubled by the tape. NO, I don't think it exonerates JS (as if anything could, the perv), but it can give reasonable doubt, at least for the charges related to V4. Why on the ffffff would the troopers be so careless as to record this?

There is no such thing as a perfect, clean investigation. IMO. These troopers are human. Look at the size of the fish they were trying to bring in-and it is not as if no one knew that Sandusky was an abuser. LE gave it their best shot years earlier and what they had was pretty good. And yet, the DA chose not to pursue.

And then we have the basic concept of an adult male sexually assaulting children. I suppose that Sandusky is lucky in many many ways that someone didnt take him out on some level.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

How long is the lunch break? I'm waiting for the trial to resume and hope that we hear some live reports before InSession signs off at 3:00 EDT.

OT: If you live in the midwest and are experiencing the heat wave like we are here in Michigan, be sure to stay hydrated and don't stay out in the sun too long.

 

[seattlechiquita]

There is no such thing as a perfect, clean investigation. IMO. These troopers are human. Look at the size of the fish they were trying to bring in-and it is not as if no one knew that Sandusky was an abuser. LE gave it their best shot years earlier and what they had was pretty good. And yet, the DA chose not to pursue.

And then we have the basic concept of an adult male sexually assaulting children. I suppose that Sandusky is lucky in many many ways that someone didnt take him out on some level.

I agree with you, but still find it troubling - and the jury might consider it reasonable doubt.