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

[Hodgepodge]

From http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...es-by-paterno-curley-schlutz-read-in-hearing/.....

When asked if he thought it was criminal for a man to grab a boy?s genitals, Schultz replied ?I don?t know.?

When asked to describe the definition of sexual conduct, Schultz replied ?I don?t know.?

I always wondered what happened to him after Stalag 13 got closed down.

 

[Gatorubet]

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

Well, there was a lot of basic teen hygiene education just lacking out there. *

Coach Sandusky: :slap: :slap: :slap: <pause>
"So...to reiterate, never let anyone do THAT to you son. Now, on to my favorite subject - athlete's feet, the scourge of the shower!"


* http://content.usatoday.com/communi...dusky-might-have-been-teaching-kids-hygiene/1

 

[ochre]

true story: with that completion, Drake now has a higher QB rating than McGloin.

 

[cincibuck]

Wait! There's more, it's The Hygiene Defense!

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...oduces-the-8216-hygiene-821?urn=ncaaf-wp11548

 

[Taosman]

 

[Gatorubet]

Wait! There's more, it's The Hygiene Defense!

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...oduces-the-8216-hygiene-821?urn=ncaaf-wp11548

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse for Jerry Sandusky, an attorney for the former Penn State
defensive coordinator said on Thursday that his embattled client used to shower with young boys to teach them "hygiene."

Instead, Rominger argued, Sandusky was showering with them to teach them how to shower.
"Some of these kids don't have basic hygiene skills," Rominger told the station.

And would you believe it -some kids don't know about pedophiles or sodomy!?

 

[Taosman]

I don't get a good feeling that this will turn out like many are thinking.
McQueary's testimony may get torn apart. Especially, when McQ is saying he's not 100% sure about what was going on.
"... I can't sit here and say 100% for sure that there was intercourse going on, but that's what I believe was happening."
That's just great you cowardly pos! You just created doubt with your testimony!

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I don't get a good feeling that this will turn out like many are thinking.
McQueary's testimony may get torn apart. Especially, when McQ is saying he's not 100% sure about what was going on.
"... I can't sit here and say 100% for sure that there was intercourse going on, but that's what I believe was happening."
That's just great you cowardly pos! You just created doubt with your testimony!

Perhaps Gator or Sepia can weigh in. How much can he backtrack from his grand jury testimony before it crosses over into perjury or is he free to contradict the gj testimony with no possible repercussions.

I tend to not think this is a slam dunk case either: McQ is a gutless weasel, JoePa will most likely be room temperature by the time the trial begins, the jury pool in HV is hopelessly tainted and biased and who knows how much shady behind the scenes [Mark May] is going down with the 2nd Mile board members and Ped State power brokers.

 

[NFBuck]

Perhaps Gator or Sepia can weigh in. How much can he backtrack from his grand jury testimony before it crosses over into perjury or is he free to contradict the gj testimony with no possible repercussions.

I tend to not think this is a slam dunk case either: McQ is a gutless weasel, JoePa will most likely be room temperature by the time the trial begins, the jury pool in HV is hopelessly tainted and biased and who knows how much shady behind the scenes [Mark May] is going down with the 2nd Mile board members and Ped State power brokers.

They say gingers have no soul...sure appears this one doesn't.

 

[Gatorubet]

I don't get a good feeling that this will turn out like many are thinking.
McQueary's testimony may get torn apart. Especially, when McQ is saying he's not 100% sure about what was going on.
"... I can't sit here and say 100% for sure that there was intercourse going on, but that's what I believe was happening."
That's just great you cowardly pos! You just created doubt with your testimony!

There is always doubt. How reasonable is it? The fact that McQ did not get a dead-on view of Sandusly's junk penetrating the kid does not mean the puzzle of hearing slapping sounds - when matched with a naked Sandusky pinning a naked kid against the wall from hehind - is somehow an undecipherable event to a jury.

And when he asks "So you were not sure?" - he'll say "Sure enough for a teaching assistant to go to the head coach Penn State and tell him that his long time buddy and DC was seen having sex with a young boy in the showers...so that the head of the Campus Police would be notified - that sure!"

 

[sandgk]

There is always doubt. How reasonable is it? The fact that McQ did not get a dead-on view of Sandusly's junk penetrating the kid does not mean the puzzle of hearing slapping sounds - when matched with a naked Sandusky pinning a naked kid against the wall from hehind - is somehow an undecipherable event to a jury.

Or put another way, asked of Sandusky - "can you tell us why coaching soap application methods demands pinning a kid to the shower wall, from behind, with your arms wrapped around his waist?"

They say gingers have no soul...sure appears this one doesn't.

Redheads are the blondes of the gods - when they're female.

 

[dav713]

Or put another way, asked of Sandusky - "can you tell us why coaching soap application methods demands pinning a kid to the shower wall, from behind, with your arms wrapped around his waist?"

How else is he going to show little boys how to wash their genitals?

 

[sepia5]

Perhaps Gator or Sepia can weigh in. How much can he backtrack from his grand jury testimony before it crosses over into perjury or is he free to contradict the gj testimony with no possible repercussions.

I tend to not think this is a slam dunk case either: McQ is a gutless weasel, JoePa will most likely be room temperature by the time the trial begins, the jury pool in HV is hopelessly tainted and biased and who knows how much shady behind the scenes [Mark May] is going down with the 2nd Mile board members and Ped State power brokers.

Again, i don't practice criminal law, and it's been awhile since I've taken crim law or evidence, but . . .

Here's the PA statute on perjury:

? 4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a
felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he
makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when
the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of
the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if
it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding.
It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the
falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is
material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to
prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was
administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the
declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document
purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when
the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to
have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense
under this section if he retracted the falsification in the
course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became
manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and
before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made
inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation,
both having been made within the period of the statute of
limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the
inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the
alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by
the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the
prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one
or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be
true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section,
except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a
statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony
of a single witness.

Note that, under subsection (d), he could have notified the prosecution at any time after providing his initial testimony to let them know he wished to retract or alter his testimony. If he now gets up on the stand and changes an aspect of his testimony that is material to the case, he could get charged with perjury. But, in addition, I think the only reason he hasn't been charged with anything himself is that he is cooperating in the cases against the others. So, if he fucks with his testimony, he could become the subject of charges aside from perjury, too.

Also, if he suddenly changes his testimony while on the stand, I believe the State could read his former testimony into the record and question McQ on the inconsistency. The jury would then be able to decide which testimony was more accurate and truthful.

 

[X Buckeyes07 X]

In noting potential discrepancies/weaknesses in McQ's testimony, are people losing sight of the fact that the ~9 alleged victims are going to hit the stand one-by-one as well? Even if McQ's testimony isn't a home run, there are going to be almost double digit (hell, we might reach double digits by the time this makes it to trial) men getting on the stand explaining all the gory details about what he did to them. The only way this doesn't end in an overwhelming conviction is if the jury pool is that tainted. Even with the potential that some jurors are PSU blowhards, you have to consider any sympathy for him will be negated if they are one of the many that, while they love PSU, basically disassociated Sandusky from their love for PSU when they blamed him for Paterno (who they love much more) getting the axe.

 

[BB73]

I don't get a good feeling that this will turn out like many are thinking.
McQueary's testimony may get torn apart. Especially, when McQ is saying he's not 100% sure about what was going on.
"... I can't sit here and say 100% for sure that there was intercourse going on, but that's what I believe was happening."
That's just great you cowardly pos! You just created doubt with your testimony!

McQueary's testimony is crucial in the charges against AD Curley and VP Schultz. It will be difficult to nail them on perjury, but I believe somewhat less difficult for a jury to find them guilty of a failure to report a crime involving inappropriate contact by a man toward a young boy.

But McQueary's just a corroborating witness to a single incident in the 52 charges against Sandusky, for which there appear to be at least 8 alleged victims prepared to testify about what they will say Sandusky did to them personally.