• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Disgraced Former Penn State DC Jerry Sandusky (convicted child molester)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Why are these people even talking to the press? It seems like they should put a gag order on themselves since almost everything out of their mouths have been more and more damaging to their own case.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the sick fuck gets his due, but these lawyers he has hired are not the brightest in the world.
 
Upvote 0
buxfan4life;2064907; said:
Why are these people even talking to the press?
Click to expand...

jury1.jpg


pool4.jpg


pollution.jpg


that is all ...
 
Upvote 0
I says, GOT DAYUM!!!

OWNED:

Yesterday, after Amendola waived his client's right to a preliminary hearing, he held a press conference outside of the courthouse that lasted for THREE hours. During the presser, where he insinuated the victims were working together to gain a monetary settlement, he asked anyone who believes anything in the grand jury testimony to dial 1-800-Reality.

1-800-Reality is a gay sex hotline. Not exactly the number you want to give out in regards to Sandusky.

After Amendola didn't get enough time to cement his idiocy, he then went on a media tour yesterday hitting up the always polite Ann Curry of the Today Show.

Except during Ann's interview, she looks on pathetically to Amendola and asks him straight up if he has "done his homework" and the doozy "are you competent enough to defend your client?"

Vid here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmzfrt_nbc-today-show-sandusky-attorney-no-plea-deal-in-works_news
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Mike and Mike were reading transcribed portions of McQueary's testimony this morning, which he was giving in the preliminary hearing for the perjury charges against former AD Curley and former VP Schultz.

"They asked him 'What did you see?'

McQ - "When I first opened that door, I heard rhythmic flapping sounds." (Greenwood said it's goes on a bit from there, and skips some phrases) ... "I was a little embarrassed, it sounded like some activity I didn't want to be a part of. As I turned and faced my locker, I turned and looked into the mirror, and at a 45-degree angle you could see right into the shower."

Greenwood - "The prosecutor then says 'Shockingly and surprisingly, you saw Jerry with a boy in the shower'?"

McQ - "Yes, behind him. There's no question it was a child, estimated at between 10 to 12 years old. ... I can't sit here and say 100% for sure that there was intercourse going on, but that's what I believe was happening."

Prosecutor - "What was it you believed you were witnessing?"

McQ - "Jerry molesting the boy."

Golic - "He says he saw it three times - the first time he saw them in a reflection in a mirror, the second time when he turned his head to look, and the third time he looked into the shower was when he walked closer to the shower. He said the third time he looked and Jerry and the boy had separated. He never went into the shower and never said anything to Jerry or the boy."

McQ - "I went upstairs to my office. I got to my office and called my father. I was not thinking straight and was distraught."

Prosecutor - "Why did you call your father?"

McQ - "I really didn't know what to do. I called and said 'I just saw Coach Sandusky in the showers with a boy, and what I saw was wrong and sexual, and needed some advice quickly. He told me to 'come home and talk to me right away'." I left the building and never saw Sandusky or the boy again that night."

Greenwood - "McQ never spoke to Sandusky or the boy on the three separate times he looked into that shower. He drove directly to his father's house."

McQ - "After long discussion and input the decision was to call Joe Paterno and tell him what I saw."

Greenwood - "They came to that decision around 10:30 or 11:00 pm that Friday night in March of 2002. McQueary is described as being very clear, very focused, sitting forward in his seat, and had no hesitation as he recounted the events."

Greenwood - "He went home to the townhouse, called Paterno the next morning at 7:30 or 8 am. When asked what he told Paterno, he said:

McQ - "I have something I need to talk to you about." Paterno quipped 'Well, I don't have a job for you, so don't bother coming over.' I sat at his house, at the kitchen table, and told him I saw Jerry with a young boy in the shower and that it was way over the line and sexual in nature, and I thought I needed to tell you about it. I didn't get into precise detail but I told Paterno the rough positioning of Jerry relative to the boy."

Prosecutor - "Did you make it clear the act was sexual?"

McQ - "Without a doubt."

Prosecutor - "What was Paterno's reaction?"

McQ - "He was shocked and saddened. He kind of slumped back in his chair and said 'I'm sorry you had to see that, that's terrible. You did the right thing'."

McQ - "I went to Paterno because I was sure he would handle it the right way."
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2065355; said:
The boy has never been heard from again? Right? If he's alive, he has to have heard about all this.

Think Paterno and Curly disappeared him? Not too much more out of that [Mark May]hole valley that would shock me.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the humiliation that would come with something like this being brought back up. He could have a family, a career, a life... and just not want to associate what he's doing now with anything from that time period of his life.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2065355; said:
The boy has never been heard from again? Right? If he's alive, he has to have heard about all this.

Think Paterno and Curly disappeared him? Not too much more out of that shithole valley that would shock me.
Click to expand...

Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola, has stated that he has talked to a guy that he believes to be 'Victim #2', and according to Amendola, that guy told him that he was in the shower with Sandusky and that nothing sexual occurred. During his long session with the media outside the courthouse on Tuesday, Amendola said that he has since heard that the guy has been giving a different version of events to police and/or prosecutors. But Amendola is spinning his version of the case for the media, and until the judge puts a gag order on him, he's saying whatever he thinks will help his case and/or lead to an eventual mistrial or hung jury.

And since Sandusky was in the showers with multiple boys over the years, that could have been a different kid.

McQueary's testimony this morning said "I know they saw me. They looked directly in my eye, both of them." Given McQueary's rather distinctive appearance, even a kid that was being abused should realize years later that he was the kid described by McQueary; as long as he's not suppressing the memories completely, which is possible in such a situation.

But there are 9 other alleged victims, and the majority of them appear to be ready to testify against Sandusky. Today's testimony only involves the incident with Victim #2, since he's the one involved in what McQueary reported to AD Curley and VP Schultz. And today's hearing was specifically for the charges against Curley and Schultz, it wasn't part of the 52 criminal charges for Sandusky.


​
 
Upvote 0
Penn State will be getting more time to respond to the NCAA.

SI.com

Penn State formally requests more time to reply to NCAA inquiry

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- With a Friday deadline looming, the NCAA signaled it would give Penn State more time to respond to its inquiry over the university's handling of child sex abuse accusations against former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin said in a letter to NCAA president Mark Emmert released Thursday that answers to the NCAA's questions about the Sandusky case might come from other, separate probes already in progress. Among them is a university trustees investigation spearheaded by former FBI director Louis Freeh.
Baldwin spoke to Emmert and other NCAA staff by phone Nov. 23 about the concurrent inquiries, according to the letter dated Dec. 12.

"The university understands that the NCAA will continue to monitor these investigations and will have access to the report" from Freeh and the trustees, Baldwin said.
"At that time, the NCAA will determine if further response from the university is necessary," she wrote before requesting more time.

Both the NCAA and Penn State indicated in recent weeks that the school may not make the Friday deadline to provide complete answers to several questions posed last month by Emmert.

Freeh's investigation is already sharing information that the NCAA said would help determine how the college sports governing body would proceed.

"Although this information will aid in our real-time review, once the counsel's work is complete the university likely will need to formally respond to the questions raised by President Emmert," the NCAA said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

The Big Ten announced last week it also would conduct its own review and reserved the right to hand down sanctions pending its findings. The 12-member league also planned an immediate review of institutional control of athletics at its schools.

The Department of Education also is looking into Penn State, along with the separate criminal case by the state attorney general's office.
...

Kenneth Frazier, who heads the trustees committee overseeing the internal probe, said this week at a business forum hosted by The Wall Street Journal in New York that he hoped Freeh's team would have findings by the end of the academic year. Penn State's spring semester ends in mid-May.
Cont'd ...
​
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Here's the part of McQuery's testimony that relates to Curley and Schultz.

SI.com

...
Nine or 10 days later, McQueary said he met with Curley and Shultz and told them he'd seen Sandusky and a boy, both naked, in the shower after hearing skin on skin slapping sounds.

"I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong," McQueary said. "I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."

McQueary said he was left with the impression both men took his report seriously. When asked why he didn't go to police, he referenced Shultz's position as a vice president at the university who had overseen the campus police.

"I thought I was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you," he said. "In my mind it was like speaking to a (district attorney). It was someone who police reported to and would know what to do with it."

Under cross-examination, McQueary said he considered what he saw a crime but didn't call police because "it was delicate in nature."

"I tried to use my best judgment," he said. "I was sure the act was over." He said he never tried to find the boy.

Curley and Schultz are charged with lying to a grand jury and failing to properly report what McQueary allegedly told them.

Their lawyers say the men are innocent and contest McQueary's statements.

Later, Thomas Harmon, the former chief of the Penn State police department, said Schultz didn't tell him about the shower allegation.
District Judge William C. Wenner was hearing testimony Friday to help him decide whether state prosecutors have enough evidence against the pair to send their cases to trial.


Cont'd ...
​
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top