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

[Gatorubet]

how much does the testimony from the alleged #2 victim actually matter in the curley/schultz perjury case? isn't that case much more about what mcqueary thinks he saw and, more importantly, what mcqueary claims that he told them?

To clarify, I was trying to respond to Mike's point "all of the victims testifying will end up being on the defense" - in that only the 2002 case matters - not the other cases. So we are on the same page.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

And once on behalf of the prosecution that the young man whom Joe Amendola says he interviewed, and later gave a different version of events to the police/prosecution, is 'allegedly' the kid that was in the shower with Sandusky on that Friday night in March, 2002.

To my knowledge, the identity of victim #2 hasn't been confirmed, although Amendola says he talked to a guy that said he was victim #2. Hell, it's possible that Amendola talked to one guy claiming to be victim #2 and the prosecutors have talked to somebody else also saying he's victim #2.

have to believe that the the cross of amendola's #2 (pun sheepishly intended) will dominate the media and message boards.

 

[MaxBuck]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. Could there be problems with McQueary's testimony? Since he sent out emails to friends/teammates saying he tried to stop the Sandusky or made sure he did?

McQueary is critical in the prosecution's perjury charges against the PSU officials, and nearly inconsequential in the case against Sandusky.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

McQueary is critical in the prosecution's perjury charges against the PSU officials, and nearly inconsequential in the case against Sandusky.

huh? how many other witnesses of sandusky raping a child are there?

 

[Gatorubet]

huh? how many other witnesses of sandusky raping a child are there?

Ah......all the victims are all witnesses.

 

[Mike80]

To clarify, I was trying to respond to Mike's point "all of the victims testifying will end up being on the defense" - in that only the 2002 case matters - not the other cases. So we are on the same page.

Yep. I should have clarified what I was talking about.

 

[Taosman]

McQueary is critical in the prosecution's perjury charges against the PSU officials, and nearly inconsequential in the case against Sandusky.

I would only half agree.
It is critical to the PSU perjury trial.
It could throw a real monkey wrench into the prosecution of Sandusky if any doubt is created by his(McQ) not being 100% sure what he saw. But I would defer to the actual lawyers here.
Gator?

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

Ah......all the victims are all witnesses.

i think you know what i mean.

 

[Gatorubet]

i think you know what i mean.

If you mean corroborating eye witnesses other than victims, then the janitor who saw Sandusky giving a kid a blow job come to mind. My point was that they are all witnesses too, with credibility that can be sufficient on their testimony alone.

 

[MaxBuck]

If you mean corroborating eye witnesses other than victims, then the janitor who saw Sandusky giving a kid a blow job come to mind. My point was that they are all witnesses too, with credibility that can be sufficient on their testimony alone.

Especially when combined with the acknowledgement that Sandusky used "hands-on" methods to "show young men how to apply soap."

The idea that one could (and therefore should) not demonstrate such practices on one's own self beggars belief.

 

[Gatorubet]

Especially when combined with the acknowledgement that Sandusky used "hands-on" methods to "show young men how to apply soap."

The idea that one could (and therefore should) not demonstrate such practices on one's own self buggars belief.

fify

 

[Taosman]

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

If you mean corroborating eye witnesses other than victims...

i think that was clear. otherwise, my statement would imply that there were no victims.

... then the janitor who saw Sandusky giving a kid a blow job come to mind.

considering that this witness suffers from dementia, i don't see him as a credible witness that the prosecution will call.

 

[Gatorubet]

i think that was clear. otherwise, my statement would imply that there were no victims.

It could imply that it was hard to impossible to get a conviction without corroborating testimony of the offense. Not trying to argue with you, just discussing the issues.

considering that this witness suffers from dementia, i don't see him as a credible witness that the prosecution will call.

I did not know that. I don't even know how they know he told his supervisor.

 

[OSU_Buckguy]

It could imply that it was hard to impossible to get a conviction without corroborating testimony of the offense

note what statement i was responding, which i initially placed in bold:

McQueary is critical in the prosecution's perjury charges against the PSU officials, and nearly inconsequential in the case against Sandusky.