Another CDT LTE that advocates new trial for Sandusky

[SteveMasters]

Elaine Steinbacher writes "Give Sandusky new, fair trial." This the third LTE in weeks that have had similar sentiments as Bill Levinson and I have had recent letters to the editors with the same basic message. This topic is timely as the Commonwealth's response to Sandusky's PCRA is due by Tuesday September 1.

It appears to me based on the comments on both BWI and on the CDT that more and more people are realizing that the first trial was unfair and that a new trial is warranted. This last LTE has had a very interesting array of commenters including Ray Blehar, John Ziegler, Brian Cuban, Bill Levinson, JJ, Bernie McCue and others.

It also includes comments from Bruce Herold who grew up next door to the Sanduskys. Bruce speaks highly of Jerry and Dottie Sandusky and says that he believes the whole thing was a sham from the beginning.

I asked Brian Cuban some questions which he refused to respond to (which is his right), but I think that are relevant to know just what exactly happened in this entire Penn State/Sandusky story. They revolve around what I believe are the 4 biggest false narratives in the saga:

1. Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, and Joe Paterno knowingly enabled the acts of a pedophile. The Freeh Report was factual.
2. Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the shower. The Grand Jury Presentment was factual.
3. Victim 2 is unknown. AM is an impostor and a fraud.
4. Jim Calhoun witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a minor in the shower.

I believe that Ray Blehar is on record that he wants to know the truth even if that means that Penn State burns. I feel the same way. The question that I asked Ray is whether or not he wants to know the truth even if it means that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. From the comments I have seen, I believe that there are a lot of people who are not interested is knowing that truth. IMHO, anyone who is interested in the truth must support a new trial.

http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/29/4895910_letter-to-the-editor-give-sandusky.html?rh=1

 

[PennSt8er]

I think it is very hard to suggest that Jerry isn't a pedophile. He is in my opinion. But his trial appears to be a sham. And the whole Penn State tie-in has to be one of the most egregious abuses of power in politics in decades.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

I think it is very hard to suggest that Jerry isn't a pedophile. He is in my opinion. But his trial appears to be a sham. And the whole Penn State tie-in has to be one of the most egregious abuses of power in politics in decades.

Well stated and I agree.

 

[bdgan]

I think it is very hard to suggest that Jerry isn't a pedophile. He is in my opinion. But his trial appears to be a sham. And the whole Penn State tie-in has to be one of the most egregious abuses of power in politics in decades.

That's the problem. What good is a new trial if it proves that JS only abused half of those kids or if his abuses didn't include anal rape? Jerry would still be in jail and the general public wouldn't feel any differently about C/S/S/P.

 

[mn78psu83]

That's the problem. What good is a new trial if it proves that JS only abused half of those kids or if his abuses didn't include anal rape? Jerry would still be in jail and the general public wouldn't feel any differently about C/S/S/P.

If you're only seeing this in a pragmatic light, understood. I too believe Jerry is guilty. If his constitutional and or legal right were violated and his attorney can show that with the current appeal, then he deserves a new trial in spite of what the perceived outcome might be. It's that simple. He has the same rights as every citizen and deserves the same protections. On the other hand, I don't think many on this board know the law well enough to make a valid interpretation of anything at this point. That is why the attorneys on the board are silent about it. They know that they don't know and nobody will until there is, if there is, a new trial.

 

[SteveMasters]

That's the problem. What good is a new trial if it proves that JS only abused half of those kids or if his abuses didn't include anal rape? Jerry would still be in jail and the general public wouldn't feel any differently about C/S/S/P.

If that is the case, then JS gets what he deserves. If it can be shown that any of the accusers (and their lawyers) committed fraud in their negotiating of a settlement with Penn State, I would expect that they would have to suffer the consequences.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

That's the problem. What good is a new trial if it proves that JS only abused half of those kids or if his abuses didn't include anal rape? Jerry would still be in jail and the general public wouldn't feel any differently about C/S/S/P.

It is more important that the justice system work properly than any one trial. What happen to Sandusky not only put him into jail but it also destroyed or hurt many lives. We shall see if CSS are guilty or not and whether Joe should have been implicated. I those cases, i believe that they will be exonerated but we shall see. Kids on the football team were hurt, people in State College were hurt and to some extent all alumni were hurt. That happened because the justice system was abused in the Sandusky trial.

It could happen to you or to me. That is why we need a new trial.

 

[SteveMasters]

If you're only seeing this in a pragmatic light, understood. I too believe Jerry is guilty. If his constitutional and or legal right were violated and his attorney can show that with the current appeal, then he deserves a new trial in spite of what the perceived outcome might be. It's that simple. He has the same rights as every citizen and deserves the same protections. On the other hand, I don't think many on this board know the law well enough to make a valid interpretation of anything at this point. That is why the attorneys on the board are silent about it. They know that they don't know and nobody will until there is, it there is, a new trial.

You can state all the legalese you want. The first trial was unfair and a new trial is warranted.

Do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated? If you do, then you must realize that something about this story stinks to high heaven. If you believe all 4, then you must not be 100% sure that Sandusky is guilty of everything he is accused of.

 

[m.knox]

1. Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, and Joe Paterno knowingly enabled the acts of a pedophile. The Freeh Report was factual.
2. Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the shower. The Grand Jury Presentment was factual.
3. Victim 2 is unknown. AM is an impostor and a fraud.
4. Jim Calhoun witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a minor in the shower.

I believe that Ray Blehar is on record that he wants to know the truth even if that means that Penn State burns. I feel the same way. The question that I asked Ray is whether or not he wants to know the truth even if it means that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. From the comments I have seen, I believe that there are a lot of people who are not interested is knowing that truth. IMHO, anyone who is interested in the truth must support a new trial.

http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/29/4895910_letter-to-the-editor-give-sandusky.html?rh=1

Jerry Sandusky isn't our problem. #1 cited above is our problem, and the BOT and PSU administration did absolutely nothing to refute it. Part of the problem is that Sandusky's crimes are so egregious that most don't give a damn about the details, and with C/S/S not having a trial for 4 years, I'm not sure the details will ever come to light.

 

[mn78psu83]

You can state all the legalese you want. The first trial was unfair and a new trial is warranted.

Do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated? If you do, then you must realize that something about this story stinks to high heaven. If you believe all 4, then you must not be 100% sure that Sandusky is guilty of everything he is accused of.

Steve, You seem like a sincere and good person. I'm not emotional about this though and I think you really are. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your analysis. You don't strike me as qualified and the legalese is what matters with respect to whether or not JS gets a new trial. I'll let the courts decide.

 

[SteveMasters]

Jerry Sandusky isn't our problem. #1 cited above is our problem, and the BOT and PSU administration did absolutely nothing to refute it. Part of the problem is that Sandusky's crimes are so egregious that most don't give a damn about the details, and with C/S/S not having a trial for 4 years, I'm not sure the details will ever come to light.

The details will come to light. There are too many legal cases going on right now for all of them to be stymied. The ones to come to light are Sandusky's PCRA, PSU 3 criminal, Paterno estate, Spanier defamation, McQueary, and there are probably more.

 

[SteveMasters]

Steve, You seem like a sincere and good person. I'm not emotional about this though and I think you really are. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your analysis. You don't strike me as qualified and the legalese is what matters with respect to whether or not JS gets a new trial. I'll let the courts decide.

You are correct that courts will decide. I think there is also a good chance that Judge Cleland will dismiss the PCRA out of hand. If he does, it will be appealed. It seems like there is a fair amount of corruption in the PA judiciary and Sandusky's PCRA may not be able to get any traction within Pennsylvania. If that is the case, it will be appealed at the Federal level. Sandusky has said he will fight the charges until his last breath if necessary.

That being said, IMHO if Judge Cleland has any objectivity whatsoever; he will schedule hearings into some of the serious allegation laid out in the PCRA. If that happens, there should be a very good chance that Judge Cleland will find that a new trial is warranted.

I won't deny being emotional about this. I believe that a number of parties have been victims in this injustice. They include Penn State, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Jerry Sandusky. Yes, Jerry Sandusky; he did not receive a fair trial and has not be afforded due process.

I ask you again, do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Beat the owls!!!

 

[SteveMasters]

Beat the owls!!!

Hi Lajolla. Nice of you to stop by. Temple may not be as easy of a win as some people think.

What do you think of my take on the 4 biggest false narratives in the case?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Hi Lajolla. Nice of you to stop by. Temple may not be as easy of a win as some people think.

What do you think of my take on the 4 biggest false narratives in the case?

I hope the OL really opens up the running game.

 

[Misder2]

Steve, #1 is irrelevant in regards to Sandusky's innocence or guilt

 

[mn78psu83]

You are correct that courts will decide. I think there is also a good chance that Judge Cleland will dismiss the PCRA out of hand. If he does, it will be appealed. It seems like there is a fair amount of corruption in the PA judiciary and Sandusky's PCRA may not be able to get any traction within Pennsylvania. If that is the case, it will be appealed at the Federal level. Sandusky has said he will fight the charges until his last breath if necessary.

That being said, IMHO if Judge Cleland has any objectivity whatsoever; he will schedule hearings into some of the serious allegation laid out in the PCRA. If that happens, there should be a very good chance that Judge Cleland will find that a new trial is warranted.

I won't deny being emotional about this. I believe that a number of parties have been victims in this injustice. They include Penn State, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Jerry Sandusky. Yes, Jerry Sandusky; he did not receive a fair trial and has not be afforded due process.

I ask you again, do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated.

I ask you again, do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated.

I do not believe 1 & 2, but I'm not sure either of those will have any legal bearing on whether or not Jerry gets a new trial.

As far as 3 goes, "for me" V. 2 is unknown, at least nobody has "proven to me" who he is.

As far as 4 goes, I can't logically say one way or the other. He may or may not have. The question for me concerning Calhoun is why Judge Cleland allowed the hearsay testimony by the 3rd party. I thought he was wrong to do so, even though it was permissible by the letter of the law.

That is all I have to say on these matters and all other matters pertaining to a possible new trial for JS. I should have remained silent in the first place.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Lets say Sandusky gets a new trial. What new evidence will be introduced? Will MM CSS all have to testify again? Will some of the data from the Freeh report be introduced? Will more victims testify and be crossed examined? Will anyone from TSM be called? Will the state police officers that were shown to have lied be forced to correct their testimony? Will OG BoT members be called? Will people from the AG office and political powers be called?

A new trial could be very enlightening. It might shed light on a lot questions we all have. Perhaps it will focus more on TSM and their cover up. Maybe some of the collusion between the BoT, TSM, and political powers all be exposed. Maybe the entire cover up will be exposed. Maybe a few victims will be exposed as frauds. Maybe more victims will come forward.

I have no idea if Sandusky is innocent or guilty. But he does deserve a fair trial. And a new trail may be very enlightening.

 

[OldTiredLion]

Just for the sake of argument let's say he gets a new trial. He didn't choose to testify in 2012 so he'd probably have to do so in this one in order to win his freedom. If I'm the prosecution, my very first question is, "Mr. Sandusky, after the 1998 incident in which you were confronted by the police and a young boy's mother after you showered with her son, you mentioned that 'you wish you were dead,' but nevertheless continued with this late night activity in secluded shower rooms. Can you explain, in your own words, why?"

 

[21Guns]

Beat the owls!!!

Bingo.

Please stop saying the name. It's over. The pedophile is in protective custody in state prison for the rest of his days on earth, until mercifully, they end(or by some measure of fate, the guards turn their backs).

5 days until football season begins. Penn State football, is greater than a pedophile. Period.

And...nobody with half a brain thinks Temple will be an "easy" win. Their defense will keep it close, until our athletes take control of the game. As I said, 23-7, or, 23-10. One of the two, PSU goes to 1-0.

 

[SteveMasters]

Steve, #1 is irrelevant in regards to Sandusky's innocence or guilt

#1 is absolutely relevant in Sandusky's case. Lindsay alleges in the PCRA that the OAG committed prosecutorial misconduct by charging Spanier, Curley, and Schultz with criminal offenses with apparently no intent of actually prosecuting those them in order to silence them from testifying in Sandusky's case (paragraphs 211-213, 395).

 

[SteveMasters]

I ask you again, do you believe any of the 4 false narratives I articulated.

I do not believe 1 & 2, but I'm not sure either of those will have any legal bearing on whether or not Jerry gets a new trial.

As far as 3 goes, "for me" V. 2 is unknown, at least nobody has "proven to me" who he is.

As far as 4 goes, I can't logically say one way or the other. He may or may not have. The question for me concerning Calhoun is why Judge Cleland allowed the hearsay testimony by the 3rd party. I thought he was wrong to do so, even though it was permissible by the letter of the law.

That is all I have to say on these matters and all other matters pertaining to a possible new trial for JS. I should have remained silent in the first place.

Thank you for you response. I am very interested in what the State has to say in their response to #3. If they are silent, I believe that will be very telling.

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

And...nobody with half a brain thinks Temple will be an "easy" win. Their defense will keep it close, until our athletes take control of the game. As I said, 23-7, or, 23-10. One of the two, PSU goes to 1-0.

The kicking game worries me!

 

[mn78psu83]

Thank you for you response. I am very interested in what the State has to say in their response to #3. If they are silent, I believe that will be very telling.

Not about JS, but I appreciate your style of debating these matters on this board. I've never seen you make an ad hominem attack. You stick to your line of reasoning and the discussion at hand.

 

[SteveMasters]

Just for the sake of argument let's say he gets a new trial. He didn't choose to testify in 2012 so he'd probably have to do so in this one in order to win his freedom. If I'm the prosecution, my very first question is, "Mr. Sandusky, after the 1998 incident in which you were confronted by the police and a young boy's mother after you showered with her son, you mentioned that 'you wish you were dead,' but nevertheless continued with this late night activity in secluded shower rooms. Can you explain, in your own words, why?"

Jerry does not remember making that statement. I don't believe it was not on tape. I think this line of inquiry would be reasonable for the prosecution to pursue if there is a new trial.

 

[SteveMasters]

The kicking game worries me!

The offensive line worries me.

 

[SteveMasters]

Not about JS, but I appreciate your style of debating these matters on this board. I've never seen you make an ad hominem attack. You stick to your line of reasoning and the discussion at hand.

Thank you for your kind words. This is an emotional topic. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I do have a lot of questions. A lot of people think they have all of the answers and some of them have big egos and don't necessarily treat people with opposing opinions very nicely. I try to treat people the way I would like to be treated myself.

 

[uppermaclion]

Why don't you take your son or young relatives and let them hang out with Sandusky unsupervised? Maybe have a tickle fight in bed. The guy is a pedophile and needs to be in prison. End of story. Guess what, that's where he is after a trial and appeals. Get over it, he's guilty and that's that.

 

[SteveMasters]

Bingo.

Please stop saying the name. It's over. The pedophile is in protective custody in state prison for the rest of his days on earth, until mercifully, they end(or by some measure of fate, the guards turn their backs).

5 days until football season begins. Penn State football, is greater than a pedophile. Period.

And...nobody with half a brain thinks Temple will be an "easy" win. Their defense will keep it close, until our athletes take control of the game. As I said, 23-7, or, 23-10. One of the two, PSU goes to 1-0.

I am fine with you calling JS an alleged pedophile. I just don't believe you can say conclusively that he is an actual pedophile based on the patently unfair trial that he received.

 

[SteveMasters]

Why don't you take your son or young relatives and let them hang out with Sandusky unsupervised? Maybe have a tickle fight in bed. The guy is a pedophile and needs to be in prison. End of story. Guess what, that's where he is after a trial and appeals. Get over it, he's guilty and that's that.

You are welcome to your own opinions. My opinions are different from yours.

Get over it, Sandusky did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new trial. If he has a fair trial and is found guilty, then he gets what he deserves. If he is found not guilty, then there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice. There are just too many false narratives floating around that have been widely accepted for my liking. I believe that a new trial would very likely disspell many if not all of these narratives.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Hack is back!!!

 

[21Guns]

I am fine with you calling JS an alleged pedophile. I just don't believe you can say conclusively that he is an actual pedophile based on the patently unfair trial that he received.

Steve it's a heinous crime, on a par with murder. There were 48 counts. Obviously you are making a case, but I don't believe there is a soul on this earth who believes he is innocent. I just don't have anything but hate for the monsters who commit these crimes.

Yep, worried about our o line too, but not a thing we can do about it. We brought a kid in from Stanford who is 3 years older than the rest of our linemen, and he can't even make the field...it is what it is. We gotta win with our defense and our return and coverage units. I think we can score on special teams, touchdown wise, and at some point, somebody hopefully will break one of those 20 WR screens we throw, haha. If we lose this one, I think 7-5 is best case scenario...

 

[cjrugger]

Put a tent over this circus

 

[NittanyAmerica]

Jerry Sandusky isn't our problem. #1 cited above is our problem, and the BOT and PSU administration did absolutely nothing to refute it. Part of the problem is that Sandusky's crimes are so egregious that most don't give a damn about the details, and with C/S/S not having a trial for 4 years, I'm not sure the details will ever come to light.

WHAT?

Are you nuts?

Jerry is our Problem because the BoT, The ex Gov., The accusers, The media and YOU made him our problem.

WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

 

[SteveMasters]

Steve it's a heinous crime, on a par with murder. There were 48 counts. Obviously you are making a case, but I don't believe there is a soul on this earth who believes he is innocent. I just don't have anything but hate for the monsters who commit these crimes.

Yep, worried about our o line too, but not a thing we can do about it. We brought a kid in from Stanford who is 3 years older than the rest of our linemen, and he can't even make the field...it is what it is. We gotta win with our defense and our return and coverage units. I think we can score on special teams, touchdown wise, and at some point, somebody hopefully will break one of those 20 WR screens we throw, haha. If we lose this one, I think 7-5 is best case scenario...

I have no sympathy for perpetrators of CSA either.

I can tell you that there are a lot of people who believe JS is innocent and there are even more that realize that he didn't get a fair trial. I am not ready to say that he is innocent, but I can say unequivocally that the joke of the first trial has not proven him guilty in my eyes and was not even remotely fair.

There were 10 alleged victims presented at trial, but 2 of these victims ( v2 and v8) were "unknown" and those count are very suspect IMO as there were exculpatory statements from principals (victim/eyewitness) that Joe Amendola inexplicably didn't introduce at trial. The case consisted of just one accuser (v1) for over 2 years and 7 other accusers who did not make anything close to contemporaneous reports and could have been influenced by v1's accusations and by the possibility of financial settlements from Penn State. I am not sure than v1's accusations stand on their own.

I have articulated what I believe to be 4 false narratives that the OAG would like you believe are true. If even one can be demonstrated to be false, then it shows that the trial was compromised and not fair. I believe that all 4 can be shown to be false and a new trial is warranted. It would be very interesting IMHO to have a new trial where any and all accusers testify to their accusations, have defense counsel cross examine them and then have an impartial jury make a judgement if the accusations are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[indynittany]

I think it is very hard to suggest that Jerry isn't a pedophile. He is in my opinion. But his trial appears to be a sham. And the whole Penn State tie-in has to be one of the most egregious abuses of power in politics in decades.

The problems I see are:
1) The trial was such a sham that you can't be sure if he's a monster or just a creep.
2) It was obvious that Joe was being unfairly characterized and deserved defending, but the way Sandusky's crimes were portrayed, it was impossible to suggest he might also be innocent and still defend Joe. You had to make a choice and Joe was the easier by far.
3) Both the people responsible for the welfare of children and the people responsible for protecting PSU were more interested in protecting themselves than in doing their jobs.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'm not sure about the OL. That is a fair statement.

 

[KC-KS-Lion]

I have no doubt Sandusky was at least weird with bad intentions or questionable decisions.
At the same time have issues with the lack of physical evidence, especially after having his home searched...is this common in child abuse cases?

 

[JoeBatters1]

Question for SteveMasters - Ziegler claimed a while back that Sandusky took a polygraph and the results were inconclusive - with Sandusky apparently telling the truth on some of the more salacious accusations (eg, I presume anal and oral sex) but not doing so well on the less salacious accusations which I presume relayed to touching or other behaviors. Do you know any other specifics relating to the results of this polygraph?

 

[SteveMasters]

Question for SteveMasters - Ziegler claimed a while back that Sandusky took a polygraph and the results were inconclusive - with Sandusky apparently telling the truth on some of the more salacious accusations (eg, I presume anal and oral sex) but not doing so well on the less salacious accusations which I presume relayed to touching or other behaviors. Do you know any other specifics relating to the results of this polygraph?

I do not know the specifics. I don't have knowledge of whether or not Sandusky has taken a polygraph. Ask Ziegler directly. I am not in contact with him at this time.