Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

[LNL]

The banquet tickets were probably comped. JS didn't have to pay for them. :moo:

Exactly!

 

[wfgodot]

Deadspin's account of the day's proceedings:

Dottie Sandusky Takes The Stand, Doesn’t Do Much To Help Her Husband’s Cause

(w/plenteous links)

 

[Pensfan]

I hope the jury can see through this BS. I am a little worried because there were several jurors with close ties to the University. I really hope they surprise me, and recognize the truth of what happened.

My two oldest sons have ties to Penn State and they'd like to see Sandusky hanged, drawn, and quartered. They believe everyone affiliated with Penn State feels this way because of the damage Sandusky has done to their alma mater and community. I am more worried about someone refusing to convict Sandusky because they are an idiot or hold a grudge against law enforcement.

 

[pib]

Deadspin's account of the day's proceedings:

Dottie Sandusky Takes The Stand, Doesn’t Do Much To Help Her Husband’s Cause

(w/plenteous links)

First-time caller – thanks to everyone for the trial updates and thoughtful, interesting commentary.

Like many of you, I found Dottie’s testimony underwhelming at best. I fully did not believe her when she said she “had no idea” what might make the boys and McQueary lie. That’s not possible. If she really, really believes that ol’ Jer is innocent, then there is no way she have not asked herself a million times over why these kids would do this. She’d be thinking the kids are confused, or they want money, or whatever. Same thing with McQueary: she’d be thinking, well, Mike never liked Jerry, he was jealous, or he was mistaken in what he saw, or some such thing.

If it was your spouse who was (to your way of thinking) falsely accused of a vile crime, you better believe you’d be thinking about why all these people are trying to ruin your lives. I know Dottie was attempting to say that she thinks the accusations are baseless. But that wasn’t the question. The question asked her to comment on the motives of the boys and McQueary. She could easily say, “I think the accusers are troubled and confused and I think Mike McQueary thinks he saw something he didn’t.” Fine – everyone can weigh the merits of that. But “I have no idea?” Yes, you do. You just don’t want to say what it is. And if you can’t come up with ANY motivation for why these people would suddenly turn on your dear “admired and respected” husband, then maybe that’s because you already know the reason why.

 

[Reader]

JVM confirmed what we thought. There was no cross of Dottie. I had hoped the prosecution wouldn't bother. In this situation, not crossing tells the jury her testimony doesn't mean much. KWIM? LOL! Wendy Murphy said that, too. I wish I had written what I was thinking before she said it!

Just as someone mentioned above we don't get everything on the tweets. I don't know about JVM, don't watch her, but this AP article says that McGettigan DID cross examine Dottie:

Sandusky wife defends his contact with young boys

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=<[email protected]>&ps=1011

........In a calm voice during an hour of testimony, she described her 45-year marriage to the former Penn State assistant football coach, but lead prosecutor Joe McGettigan appeared to stump her when he asked why the men might lie in making the accusations.

"I don't know what it would be for," she said, with a slight shake of her head.

A large portion of the day's testimony, which included 11 more character witnesses, consisted of a defense psychologist, Elliott Atkins, who told jurors he believes Jerry Sandusky has a personality disorder that might explain letters addressed to one of his accusers, while prosecutors countered with psychiatrist Dr. John Sebastian O'Brien II, who said that was not the case but that he might suffer from some other problem, possibly psychosexual disorder with a focus on pre-adolescents.

More at link....

 

[StellarsJay]

If there is a hung jury followed by another trial, can the prosecution alter its lineup of witnesses or what questions they are asked? Or is it just that a new jury looks at the existing transcripts?

 

[Reader]

First-time caller – thanks to everyone for the trial updates and thoughtful, interesting commentary.

Like many of you, I found Dottie’s testimony underwhelming at best. I fully did not believe her when she said she “had no idea” what might make the boys and McQueary lie. That’s not possible. If she really, really believes that ol’ Jer is innocent, then there is no way she have not asked herself a million times over why these kids would do this. She’d be thinking the kids are confused, or they want money, or whatever. Same thing with McQueary: she’d be thinking, well, Mike never liked Jerry, he was jealous, or he was mistaken in what he saw, or some such thing.

If it was your spouse who was (to your way of thinking) falsely accused of a vile crime, you better believe you’d be thinking about why all these people are trying to ruin your lives. I know Dottie was attempting to say that she thinks the accusations are baseless. But that wasn’t the question. The question asked her to comment on the motives of the boys and McQueary. She could easily say, “I think the accusers are troubled and confused and I think Mike McQueary thinks he saw something he didn’t.” Fine – everyone can weigh the merits of that. But “I have no idea?” Yes, you do. You just don’t want to say what it is. And if you can’t come up with ANY motivation for why these people would suddenly turn on your dear “admired and respected” husband, then maybe that’s because you already know the reason why.

Welcome, pib, good post!

 

[StellarsJay]

Several months ago a neighbour was quoted as saying that Dorothy had cautioned Jerry that his behavior with boys might be misuderstood.
Can't find the quote now.

 

[LinasK]

Several months ago a neighbour was quoted as saying that Dorothy had cautioned Jerry that his behavior with boys might be misuderstood.
Can't find the quote now.

Oh wow! That would prove she knew his behavior was suspicious and not normal!!!

 

[PHB]

Welcome pib!!!

I think, aside from the overwhelming evidence, Jerry and Dottie's behavior doesn't jibe with some facing these accusations. I don't know about y'all, but if I were wrongly accused of being a lifelong serial child rapist, I would be LOUDLY denying it to anyone who would listen! I'd call a press conference, be all over social media, offer to let LE seach every piece of property I own, volunteer for a lie detector test, yada, yada. Instead, all Jerry did was offer a stammering denial during the Bob Costas interview.
And as for Penn State "boosters" wanting to see him acquited, I think the exact opposite would be true. When I worked EMS, one of my co-workers was busted with child , and everyone at the ambulance service, even his close friends, was upset he only got probation, because he made us all look bad.
JMO

 

[ThoughtFox]

If there is a hung jury followed by another trial, can the prosecution alter its lineup of witnesses or what questions they are asked? Or is it just that a new jury looks at the existing transcripts?

They can start all over and rethink it and even call new witnesses. That's what I've seen happen in mistrials before. This trial and jury would be null and void and everything starts fresh.

But frankly, I don't think that's going to happen this time. Dottie wasn't that convincing today, and they said her voice is shaky, which could be taken as nervousness or old age, or could be taken as lying and dishonesty.

Also, I saw a retweet today but couldn't find the source that Dottie high-fived someone in the supporters group when she got off the stand, and that seems really strange. I think most people on the Jury will find both Sanduskys to be unfathomable and strange. :twocents:

I see Twitter as a cross-section of humanity, and from reading hundreds of tweets on this case for the past two weeks, for every one person who expresses doubt about Jerry, there are literally hundreds calling for him to be hung, keelhauled, dragged out of town, and things even worse. Today the tweets about Dottie were more of the same.

Most of the doubters seem uninformed, too. I saw a tweet from a woman who wanted to know how old the victims were, implying that Jerry was gay instead a pedophile, and that there might have been mutual consent. That's the oldest misunderstanding in the book. A pedophile is not attracted to adults, but to children only.

Sometimes that is used as a defense by pedophiles who have abused boys - "I couldn't find a man so I had sex with a teenager" - blah blah blah. It usually doesn't work on most juries. In this case the details go beyond letters or texting, and the physical relationship was obviously abhorrent, shameful, and disgusting to the victims - they still shudder when they see chest hair, for instance, or they bled and hid the fact by getting rid of their underwear.

Yes, Jerry had some long-term relationships with some of the boys and responded with threats when they tried to "break up" with him, but he also needed multiple victims, and the Jury knows that he had lists of names with asterisks beside certain boys.

I thought the worst thing Dottie said today was that Jerry started Second Mile because they couldn't adopt any more foster children. What? That begs the question of why he wanted so many children, considering what he did with the kids in his care from the charity. I don't think Dottie even understood how damaging that testimony might be from the standpoint of family safety.

It's obvious from the Anthony trial that there could be a clueless Juror out there who might reject logic - and Jerry clearly has his supporters, as bizarre as that seems - but I'm hopeful that justice will prevail this time.

 

[borndem]

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."

Sandusky is charged with 51 criminal counts related to 10 alleged victims over a 15-year span. He's accused of engaging in illegal sexual contact ranging from fondling to forced oral and anal sex...

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

Those remarks are, IMO, just plain SICK. This Amendola must think he is competing for a "Daytime Emmy" award. He is making light business of all this for the record.

As for the "All My Children" remark, it sounds like, IMO, that he is just using those boys/men as a prop for that cute little remark -- he is making light business of the trust, hurt, self-doubt, self-hate, and confusion of those little boys who have grown up with this in their past and present. Seems almost criminal, to me. Grrrrrr. :banghead: Birds of a feather, IMO.

 

[Quiche]

Is there anyone here that thinks the town folk wants Jerry Sandusky to remain free to sit on his deck and ogle the schoolyard children-- their kids, their grandkids?

I know Penn State, and others are financially vested in the reputation of "Happy Valley," want this matter entirely cleared up and tightly secured in a moments' history, not a longstanding testament to Pennsylvania Gothic (JJ in Phila brought that moniker to light here, I love it). If Jerry doesn't go away to prison, his reputation will remain, and grow, fester, and erupt in ugly manifestations that will putrefy the future of their pretty little town.

Those jurors with ties to Penn State know that better than anyone... but every one of them is probably staking their own futures on their decision, as well. JMO

Plus, they could probably justify removing Jerry from his home simply by seeing how sickly looking Dottie has become-- iow, they can see/feel they'd be doing her a favor!

:jail::jail:


eta: Hi Boytwnmom! :wave:

 

[azwriter]

In order for Jerry Sandusky to be able and to have the opportunity to sexually abuse young boys, it was absolutely necessary for him to be two different people.

Jerry the good guy, trusted, loyal and whose public focus on children in need would establish a positive place like Second Mile. His friends and aquaintances and the general public would see him as an outstanding member of the community. He appeared as a hard working, honest all around good guy. He was looked upon as the Patron Saint of Troubled Youngsters.

His winning career as an assistant football coach for a major university went a long way to hide Jerry the abuser. He was a star every Saturday afternoon during the season.

Of course the people who knew that Jerry would never see the other Jerry Sandusky. The sick man who carefully selected young boys to groom as his sexual toys. He did this with gifts, kindness and demanding behavior toward these boys. He was Jerry in the trench-coat who did his homework to know which boys came from broken homes or who needed a role model or would be swayed with gifts, football games and trips to bowl games. They were weak and yet would remain loyal to "coach." This Jerry perfected that "game."

Jerry worked hard at this deceptive behavior; And to hide this behavior. Just as hard as he worked to garner the glowing admiration of his friends, fellow coaches and players, neighbors and town folks. Of couse no one could ever believe wonderful Jerry could abuse these boys. But the Jerry who sexually took advantage of young boys was clever and wise. And for a long time I struggled as to just how the two Jerrys could exsist and be successful.

I honestly think Jerry the abuser was able to keep up using these young boys because he had an entire college university hide his crimes against the kids.

I know that we will have the opportunity to learn much more of the operation and conduct of Jerry the abuser when the two Penn State administrators Curley and Shultz are brought to trial. I am looking forward to that event.
jmo

 

[ChickenPants]

A psych eval on Dottie would be good. Two decades of denial and she's outed to the world. Sh'e still in "defense mode" and disassociated from her own culpability.

I have a feeling that when this is over and she doesn't have to be in the trenches of the trial, it's all going to come caving in. The so-called "lifelong friends" may rally around her out of sympathy for a while but then they will have to go back to their own lives. Whispers and innuendo will follow her around for the rest of her life. She's always going to have to wonder what people are thinking of her.

Even if he is acquitted (doubt it!) she will most likely have a lot of rage toward him for what he's put her through and then there's always that reality of what he put those young kids through. Sooner of later her subconscious mind is going to rear it's head.

Then she will have a full-blown case of PTSD.

Meanwhile Jerry, who like all pedophiles thinks that sick sex was his way of showing he "loved" the boys, will maintain his innocence and be blissfully unaware of anything or anyone but himself. He's just a simple, uncomplicated, good old boy - a nice guy who helps kids. Nobody understands him. I hate to say it, but when if the so-called PRISON OUTRAGE against pedophiles happens to him, he'll just go on trying to charm and convince people that he's a good guy at heart.

 

[Trident]

My two oldest sons have ties to Penn State and they'd like to see Sandusky hanged, drawn, and quartered. They believe everyone affiliated with Penn State feels this way because of the damage Sandusky has done to their alma mater and community. I am more worried about someone refusing to convict Sandusky because they are an idiot or hold a grudge against law enforcement.

I'm more worried people are horrified about what he did to Penn State instead of to the child victims.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm more worried people are horrified about what he did to Penn State instead of to the child victims.

That might get him convicted.

 

[Reader]

In order for Jerry Sandusky to be able and to have the opportunity to sexually abuse young boys, it was absolutely necessary for him to be two different people.

Jerry the good guy, trusted, loyal and whose public focus on children in need would establish a positive place like Second Mile. His friends and aquaintances and the general public would see him as an outstanding member of the community. He appeared as a hard working, honest all around good guy. He was looked upon as the Patron Saint of Troubled Youngsters.

His winning career as an assistant football coach for a major university went a long way to hide Jerry the abuser. He was a star every Saturday afternoon during the season.

Of course the people who knew that Jerry would never see the other Jerry Sandusky. The sick man who carefully selected young boys to groom as his sexual toys. He did this with gifts, kindness and demanding behavior toward these boys. He was Jerry in the trench-coat who did his homework to know which boys came from broken homes or who needed a role model or would be swayed with gifts, football games and trips to bowl games. They were weak and yet would remain loyal to "coach." This Jerry perfected that "game."

Jerry worked hard at this deceptive behavior; And to hide this behavior. Just as hard as he worked to garner the glowing admiration of his friends, fellow coaches and players, neighbors and town folks. Of couse no one could ever believe wonderful Jerry could abuse these boys. But the Jerry who sexually took advantage of young boys was clever and wise. And for a long time I struggled as to just how the two Jerrys could exsist and be successful.

I honestly think Jerry the abuser was able to keep up using these young boys because he had an entire college university hide his crimes against the kids.

I know that we will have the opportunity to learn much more of the operation and conduct of Jerry the abuser when the two Penn State administrators Curley and Shultz are brought to trial. I am looking forward to that event.
jmo

Very good analysis of JS, azwriter, thanks!

You and me both on the Curley and Schultz trial...I think that is when the whole story will come out about what went on at Penn. St. concerning JS. Shame they couldn't have had that trial first.....

 

[Reader]

That might get him convicted.

Whatever works....

 

[Quiche]

A psych eval on Dottie would be good. Two decades of denial and she's outed to the world. Sh'e still in "defense mode" and disassociated from her own culpability.

I have a feeling that when this is over and she doesn't have to be in the trenches of the trial, it's all going to come caving in. The so-called "lifelong friends" may rally around her out of sympathy for a while but then they will have to go back to their own lives. Whispers and innuendo will follow her around for the rest of her life. She's always going to have to wonder what people are thinking of her.

Even if he is acquitted (doubt it!) she will most likely have a lot of rage toward him for what he's put her through and then there's always that reality of what he put those young kids through. Sooner of later her subconscious mind is going to rear it's head.

Then she will have a full-blown case of PTSD.

Meanwhile Jerry, who like all pedophiles thinks that sick sex was his way of showing he "loved" the boys, will maintain his innocence and be blissfully unaware of anything or anyone but himself. He's just a simple, uncomplicated, good old boy - a nice guy who helps kids. Nobody understands him. I hate to say it, but when if the so-called PRISON OUTRAGE against pedophiles happens to him, he'll just go on trying to charm and convince people that he's a good guy at heart.

ITA!

Also, Jerry's a wealthy man, certainly by prison standards. He'll pay for protection, receive it, and pay again and again and again. At some point, Dottie may refuse to indulge him in taking "his" money out of her monthly budget and cut the coddling. No matter what, social justice will catch up to him and he'll get got, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. jmo