• 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
Holy [Mark May], you guys

Sandusky replied: "Well -- you might think that. I don't know. In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would -- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and -- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
There is a report that it was well known what he was doing in the athletic department because the standard "joke" became "If you drop the soap in the shower and Jerry is near, don't bend over!" You can't make this stuff up!
 
Upvote 0
UpNorth_Buckeye;2167918; said:
So basically, it was "it's not that bad if you only molest a small portion of the kids you come into contact with, right?.......Right???"
Click to expand...

I was firmly in the camp that there would be a mistrial because at least one juror saw a JS acquittal as equaling a redemption for JoePed. Now, I'm not so sure. How anyone can look at this trial and not see an utter cluster fuck for the defense, I don't know.

If they can't convict him after the last week+ of testimony, then Happy Valley truly is a fucking doomed place.
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Judge denies defense motions to dismiss several charges

Court resumed this morning in the Jerry Sandusky case without the jury, and instead defense attorney Karl Rominger ran down an accuser-by-accuser argument for the judge to dismiss charges before the case goes to trial.
Rominger argued that accusers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 gave too broad of a time frame of alleged abuse.

?Sandusky kept a very professional schedule,? Rominger said. ?He traveled with the football team and with The Second Mile ... and he can bring people to show and account for his whereabouts on many occasions, but it?s very difficult to defend when the charges include very long periods of time.?Prosecutor Frank Fina withdrew one count, regarding Victim 7, because it did fall outside the time frame that prosecutors originally believed. But in the other cases, Fina said, laws are not on the side of the defense and the jury should decide the credibility of each witness and the validity of each charge.
Judge John Cleland denied all of the motions for dismissal.
He did say that he?s been ?concerned about this from the beginning? about a broad time frame of alleged abuse. Since then however, prosecutors have narrowed it down enough that he will let the jury decide, Cleland said, and denied those motions for dismissal.
Cleland also expressed doubt that prosecutors had made their case for indecent assault related to alleged Victim 6 -- the case that prosecutor Ray Gricar declined to pursue in 1998 -- but denied the request for the case to be thrown out and said a jury will decide.
The hearing did give a glimpse into Sandusky?s defense of some of the cases.
For example, in the case of Victim 5, who tearfully testified that Sandusky never called him again after approaching and touching him in the Lasch Building shower could depend on time. The time frame that accuser gave, Rominger said, could have fallen within the time period in which Sandusky had access to that building taken away, Rominger argued.
In the case of Victim 2 -- which Mike McQueary says he witnessed in the Lasch Building showers in 2001 -- Rominger argued that because McQueary testified he didn?t see actual penetration or genitals, prosecutors didn?t prove their case for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Jurors would have to speculate, Rominger argued.
He also argued there wasn?t enough evidence in the cases of Victim 8 -- where janitors heard another janitor explain what he?d seen between Sandusky and a boy in a shower in the same locker room -- and Victim 6, who testified he blacked out during part of the alleged touching.
The jury was instructed to come to court today at 10 a.m. so that attorneys had time to argue these motions. Prosecutors have one ?short? witness, the judge said, and then will rest their case.
The defense is expected to take about three days to present their evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27;2167922; said:
Drop the charges because the defendant abused children for so long, it's impossible to keep track of when and where. Right.

A for effort, asshole.
Click to expand...

It's the only argument they have.

Get you popcorn ready for Sandusky's testimony. It'll be a nightmare for the defense and for Penn State.
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Prosecution rests case; defense starts

The mother of one of Jerry Sandusky's alleged victims says her son's underwear was frequently missing from the laundry and he claimed he'd thrown it away because he had an accident.

The mother of the teen called alleged Victim 9 by prosecutors was the last witness called Monday before the state attorney general's office rested its case against the former Penn State assistant football coach.The woman's son testified Thursday that Sandusky had repeatedly forced him to have anal sex that resulted in bleeding. The teen testified that he "just dealt with it."
Earlier today, prosecutors dropped one of the 52 counts against Sandusky, saying the statute he was charged under did not apply at the time of the alleged illegal contact. Sandusky denies all the charges.
The defense began presenting its case by calling former Penn State assistant coach Dick Anderson.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Jerry Sandusky trial: Ex-coach says it was not uncommon to see boys in the coaches' shower

Defense witness Dick Anderson, a former assistant football coach at Penn State, testified this morning at the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse trial that it was not uncommon for boys to shower with coaches at the university.


Anderson, under cross-examination by prosecutor Joe McGettigan, said he has taken showers with boys at Penn State and the YMCA. The admission appeared to stun McGettigan, who asked if Anderson had ever hugged the kids. The coach said he hadn't.

Anderson said he never witnessed Sandusky do anything inappropriate to a boy. He said Sandusky was well thought of in the community.



Under questioning by defense attorney Joe Amendola, Anderson said Penn State coaches routinely worked 15- to 17-hour days and it would have been difficult for a coach to take time out to play racquetball or basketball with children.

"There would be coaches in and out of the showers while Jerry was there with kids," Anderson said.



Anderson coached at Penn State for 34 years, concentrating on the offensive line.

Anderson said he might see the need to have a child spend the night at a hotel with a coach "for emotional support if I felt it to be necessary."
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top