• 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
Buckeye86;2165488; said:
And yet, McQueary ended up with a job on the staff.
Click to expand...

archer-phrasing2-300x225.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Mike McQueary says he has 'no doubt' Sandusky molested boy in shower

Mike McQueary took the stand this afternoon in the child sex abuse case against Jerry Sandusky. The assistant Penn State football coach told a story very similar to the one that he told at a preliminary hearing for two Penn State officials charged with perjury before a grand jury and never reporting this incident to police.
The story: That he was returning to the coaches' locker room late one Friday night, first heard "skin on skin" slapping noises, and then saw -- through a mirror -- Sandusky in the showers with a young boy, standing behind him in a way that McQueary believed was sexual.
"To me there's no way in that position his genitals weren't against his rear," he said during cross-examination. "They were extremely, extremely close. As close as can be."
McQueary slammed his locker, made a noise and looked directly into the shower to find both the boy and Sandusky standing and looking at him.
No one said a word.
When asked if he had any doubt of what he'd seen, or who was in that shower, McQueary -- who has been the center of controversy over credibility -- stared at Sandusky for a second, and said: "No doubt at all."
McQueary said he went right upstairs to his office and called his father. "To get advice from the person in my life who I trusted the most, because I had just seen something ridiculous," McQueary said.
He went to his father's home and told him the story, first alone, just the two of them.
His father, John McQueary, then called a friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, for more advice.
"Again not getting overly descriptor in what I had seen, but making sure he know it was sexual, wrong, perverse," Mike McQueary said.
Their advice was to tell his boss, coach Joe Paterno, immediately.
The juror who works in athletics leaned forward and stared at McQueary during this testimony. The father of two, a teacher in Bellefonte, laughed quietly when McQueary explained that Paterno initially told him: "You're not getting a job," when he called.
McQueary explained that he was not descriptive with Paterno, and did not use graphic language in telling him what he witnessed.
Their conversation was not explained in court.
About a week later, McQueary testified, he got a phone call from athletic director Tim Curley. He met with Curley and vice president Gary Schultz -- who oversaw athletics and police -- for about 15 minutes, he testified.
They asked him no questions, only listened to what he was saying, McQueary said.
Later, Curley called and told him they looked into it, but the judge wouldn't allow jurors to hear the details of that conversation for the same reason they couldn't hear what Paterno said -- the hearsay rule in court.
McQueary said he seldom talked about what he'd seen after that. Members of his family gradually came to know, and others recognized an adverse reaction he'd have when seeing Sandusky in person, he testified.
McQueary never went to police on his own. He said he believed Schultz "was like a district attorney" and only talked to authorities again when they knocked on his door in 2010.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Defense questions Mike McQueary's story

Questioning former coach Mike McQueary is the Jerry Sandusky defense's make-or-break cross examination, because his defense hinges on the theory that McQueary lied and many of the alleged victims came forward only because Penn State has a lot of money.
McQueary said he saw Sandusky molesting a boy in a Penn State campus shower.
Defense attorney Karl Rominger, for the first time since the trial began, took on the task of questioning the witness.

He immediately questioned McQueary about the date change -- how prosecutors changed the criminal paperwork to say that it didn't happen in March 2002, but instead in February 2001.McQueary answered that it is consistent with what he'd said all along. His written statement says "2002 or 2001."
McQueary said today in court that he told grand jurors he was only 90 percent sure it was 2002. He also testified today that he repeatedly told investigators to make sure it was the right year because he wasn't sure.
Rominger also asked him about what he told family confidant, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a topic on controversy since Dranov testified that McQueary told him he hadn't seen anything sexual in the shower that night.
McQueary responded by saying that he toned down his story when he spoke to certain people, partly out of embarrassment.
He did that when he talked to Joe Paterno, he said, still making sure the coach understood the gravity of the situation. "I made sure coach joe knew it was sexual," McQueary testified.
Rominger asked McQueary about emails released in November that McQueary wrote to friends, saying "I didn't just turn and run, I made sure it stopped."
McQueary said he was talking about slamming the locker room door to alert Sandusky in an attempt to stop anything inappropriate that was happening.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Caseworker says relationship between coach, boy was like 'immature adolescents'

Jerry Sandusky had told a caseworker that he had a three-year "relationship" with the boy known as Victim One, according to testimony today.
Sandusky denied anything sexual. But he did admit to lying with the boy and cracking his back. To kissing his forehead.
He said he was wrapped up in Victim One, according to testimony. That he felt used by the boy.
He admitted to following his school bus after a fight.
To making him a homemade birthday card.
"Does that sound like a relationship between a middle-aged man and a small boy or between immature adolescents?" prosecutor Joseph McGettigan asked the caseworker, Jessica Dershem.
"Immature adolescents," she replied.
Dershem said that Central Mountain High School, the boy's school, did refer a case of alleged abuse to the child welfare agency, Children and Youth Services.

During cross-examination today of Dershem, defense attorney Joe Amendola pointed out that the now-18-year-old's story started out as allegations that Sandusky was touching him over his clothing. "There's no mention of oral sex," Amendola said in court.When he testified this morning, Victim One said he was embarrassed and scared to tell the truth about everything that happened to him over three years of hanging out with Sandusky.
He then described in detail a pattern of behavior -- games and meals, back rubbing, stomach blowing -- that eventually led to oral sex.
The teen broke down several times on the stand, including once during cross-examination, when Amendola was quizzing him about changing his story.
He repeatedly answered that he had a hard time telling people what happened, and changed his story more than once before the grand jury.
After being asked a few times, he started to cry, looked toward prosecutor Joe McGettigan, and asked him to "make him stop."
Victim One did finish his testimony, and told jurors that he was telling the whole story today in court, hoping that he could put it all past him.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: State police trooper said investigation warranted charges

The state police trooper who initially handled the Clinton County case against Jerry Sandusky believed there was enough evidence from a teenage boy -- now known as Victim One -- to charge Sandusky with indecent assault.

Instead, a three-year grand jury investigation ensued, which led to more than 50 counts of child sex abuse against 10 children, and is still ongoing. Sandusky's trial started yesterday.The statement came out during the testimony of a caseworker who was reviewing Children and Youth Service forms under questioning by Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola.
Gov. Tom Corbett has been criticized for supposedly delaying the investigation as attorney general while he ran for governor. Corbett has denied those allegations.
There was one state police trooper working on the investigation for the first 18 months, and more investigators weren't brought in until right before the gubernatorial election. A majority of the the accusers were found after Corbett took office.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;2165523; said:
Jerry Sandusky trial: I wish I?d paid more attention to one young man?s pain

By LaVar Arrington
Click to expand...

Besides Paterno's "With the beneift of hindsight..." quote (which was quickly walked back), this is the only expression of shame, guilt or regret that I've seen from a Penn State stakeholder. Not that Arrington hasn't said his share of tone deaf things in defense of Penn State in this mess, but at least he seems to have the ability to step back, reflect and be a fucking human being.

I know I shouldn't be astounded by this point, but I keep checking in on the Audibles board and seeing the most perplexing ethical gymnastics you could think of. Nobody there is asking what a 10 year-old boy was doing in the showers, they are asking what the floor plan of the showers was. They are not asking why Sandusky would do such a thing, but rather relating their own stories about the times they showered with old men and saying it wasn't "that" abnormal. They are asking what constitutes "sexual contact" and failing to realize that if you have to ask that question about interactions with a CHILD, that the act in question is most certainly out-of-bounds.

And then, if anybody dares to try to ask the RIGHT questions, they feign indignation about the implication that they might not think that Sandusky is guilty as sin, despite the extent to which they are contorting the evidence to find excuses for him.

I know, "Cults, man."
 
Upvote 0
Does anybody believe that the length of the investigation and the timing of bringing the charges had nothing to do with allowing JoePa to get win #409 before the shit hit the fan?

There should be an investigation of the investigation, conducted entirely by non-PSU and non-Pennsylvania folks.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;2165540; said:
Does anybody believe that the length of the investigation and the timing of bringing the charges had nothing to do with allowing JoePa to get win #409 before the [Mark May] hit the fan?

There should be an investigation of the investigation, conducted entirely by non-PSU and non-Pennsylvania folks.
Click to expand...

There was more than one person with a timing issue in this mess. From post #2513:

Gov. Tom Corbett has been criticized for supposedly delaying the investigation as attorney general while he ran for governor. Corbett has denied those allegations.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
LightningRod;2165534; said:
Jerry Sandusky trial: State police trooper said investigation warranted charges
Click to expand...

BB73;2165540; said:
Does anybody believe that the length of the investigation and the timing of bringing the charges had nothing to do with allowing JoePa to get win #409 before the shit hit the fan?

There should be an investigation of the investigation, conducted entirely by non-PSU and non-Pennsylvania folks.
Click to expand...

This, or something like this. I think I posted this somewhere in this thread, but its baffling to me that charges were not brought unless there was some cover-up or at least foot-dragging in the criminal justice chain... Penn State controls its local police force (not campus security, police), the University hid facts, charges were not brought... it's sickeningly amazing.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;2165537; said:
Besides Paterno's "With the beneift of hindsight..." quote (which was quickly walked back), this is the only expression of shame, guilt or regret that I've seen from a Penn State stakeholder. Not that Arrington hasn't said his share of tone deaf things in defense of Penn State in this mess, but at least he seems to have the ability to step back, reflect and be a fucking human being.

I know I shouldn't be astounded by this point, but I keep checking in on the Audibles board and seeing the most perplexing ethical gymnastics you could think of. Nobody there is asking what a 10 year-old boy was doing in the showers, they are asking what the floor plan of the showers was. They are not asking why Sandusky would do such a thing, but rather relating their own stories about the times they showered with old men and saying it wasn't "that" abnormal. They are asking what constitutes "sexual contact" and failing to realize that if you have to ask that question about interactions with a CHILD, that the act in question is most certainly out-of-bounds.

And then, if anybody dares to try to ask the RIGHT questions, they feign indignation about the implication that they might not think that Sandusky is guilty as sin, despite the extent to which they are contorting the evidence to find excuses for him.

I know, "Cults, man."
Click to expand...

Matt Millen and Todd Blackledge seemed to be pretty passionately victim-first when this broke. There have been a few voices...but not many.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top