Another CDT LTE that advocates new trial for Sandusky
- Thread starter SteveMasters
- Start date
I believe that Ray Blehar has blocked me on Facebook. When I am signed into Facebook and am viewing the CDT comments of Elaine Steincaher's LTE , I cannot see Ray's reply to me on the subject of his trying to impugn the character of Elaine. If I don't sign into Facebook, I can see his comment. I think it is being cowardly of Ray to reply to my comment and then block me so that I can't respond to his comment. It seems to me that Ray responds to our difference of opinion of whether it is possible for Sandusky to not have been sexually aroused in his dealings with v1, v6, and others by blocking me on Facebook, BWI, and Twitter. It is certainly his prerogative to block whomever he wants, but when he blocks me he is saying that he is not interested in my opinions and, by implication, forfeits the opportunity to comment on my opinions. Here is my response to Ray's comment trying to impugn Elaine Steinbacher's character by her association with the Second Mile and stating the Truth is that Sandusky is guilty.
It is not clear to me what exactly Ray takes exception to in Elaine's Letter to the Editor. Afterall, Ray has said that he doesn't believe Jerry's trial was fair and that was the gist of Elaine's letter. It may be that Ray doesn't like the possibility of Jerry actually getting a new trial. I think it is hypocrtical to say that the trial wasn't fair and then not support a new trial.
Ray's idea of the truth is different than mine. I don't believe you can edict the truth by making an unsupported claim. I support Ray's right to express his opinion that he thinks Sandusky is guilty, but I do have a problem with Ray stating that as a fact. Ray's non-response to my question of whether he would support the truth if that truth shows that Sandusky is innocent indicates that he isn't interested in the truth. I am sorry Ray, but you either want the truth unconditionally or you don't.
It is not clear to me what exactly Ray takes exception to in Elaine's Letter to the Editor. Afterall, Ray has said that he doesn't believe Jerry's trial was fair and that was the gist of Elaine's letter. It may be that Ray doesn't like the possibility of Jerry actually getting a new trial. I think it is hypocrtical to say that the trial wasn't fair and then not support a new trial.
Ray's idea of the truth is different than mine. I don't believe you can edict the truth by making an unsupported claim. I support Ray's right to express his opinion that he thinks Sandusky is guilty, but I do have a problem with Ray stating that as a fact. Ray's non-response to my question of whether he would support the truth if that truth shows that Sandusky is innocent indicates that he isn't interested in the truth. I am sorry Ray, but you either want the truth unconditionally or you don't.
Tomorrow is a big day. It is the last day that the Commonwealth has to respond to Sandusky's PCRA. Any thoughts on what they will say? I suspect that they will say that Sandusky's legal counsel was very effective and that the OAG's behavior was within the realm of acceptable practice. I believe that Sandusky's legal counsel was very effective at enabling the shenanigans of the OAG and that there is no excuse for their conduct.
I hope Franklin talks about having a balanced offense and keeping Hack upright to be honest.
I think that anybody who makes a false accusation of sexual abuse, or coaches or encourages somebody to do so, should get the same punishment that the defendant would have gotten (or got) after a conviction. Mike Nifong should have gotten the same sentence that applies to convicted rapists.
So far, the only pornography that was found was on prosecutor Frank Fina's computer.
If Sandusky's attorneys did not determine whether any of Sandusky's purported victims (of actual involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) ever donated blood, then I would say they were ineffective. If it was proven that one or more did, it would have been the end of the world for the prosecution's case because the victims would have had to have told the Red Cross that they never had sexual contact with another male, even once, since something like 1980.
I recall leaving a message to this effect at Amendola's or Rominger's office before the trial.
I recall leaving a message to this effect at Amendola's or Rominger's office before the trial.
No one has ever been able to answer:
Why didn't Jerry appeal being indicated a Child Sex Abuser in 2009
And no one has ever been able to answer why did PSU continue to hold Jerry up as a pillar of the community including the PSU AD nominating Jerry for a national coaching award in 2010
I guess with his emeritus status you have to pretend that Jerry is still a hell of a guy
Why didn't Jerry appeal being indicated a Child Sex Abuser in 2009
And no one has ever been able to answer why did PSU continue to hold Jerry up as a pillar of the community including the PSU AD nominating Jerry for a national coaching award in 2010
I guess with his emeritus status you have to pretend that Jerry is still a hell of a guy
Last edited:
I just don't even want to engage here. Well said, La Jolla. Beat the Owls!
Jerry was advised by Joe Amendola to not fight being indicated by CYS when Aaron Fisher first made his accusations of CSA, presumably because it was a civil as opposed to a criminal matter. IMHO, Amendola gave Sandusky terrible advise.
That just doesn't hold up
Being indicated a child sex abuser even for someone who is one doesn't look good
It also would show up on any background checks going forward
It is also what forced Bruce Heim's hand in not allowing Jerry to attend his own golf charity outing
Jerry not attending his own golf tournament was the single biggest event in eventually outing Jerry
That is what confirmed Jerrys rumors as more than just that and eventually forced Jerry to resign and spend more time with his family Aka TSM firing him
The only reason why jerry didn't appeal the CSA indication, is it would have raised more questions than what TSM PSU and Jerry were willing to answer
JS is a convicted pedophile. I am fine with JS getting a new trial, as I believe he had inadequate defense, but I have a hard time coming up with an excuse for why Sandusky was alone, naked with young boy in a Penn State locker room shower, late on a Friday evening when presumably nobody else would be around, except for nefarious reasons. And that is regardless of McQueary's varying description of what he thought he saw.
People get too caught up with McQueary's testimony. Sandusky shouldn't have been there at that time of day alone, naked with a kid in the first place.
I disagree, JS is probably innocent of the charges, but I agree his trial was a total miscarriage of justice.
Agreed, he should not have been in the shower with the young man. Does not prove that anything went on inside the shower. Only the perception of MM; the jury did not convict Sandusky of these charges. Makes me wonder about the other witnesses; gee one of them is dead and another has dementia.
I thought the jury convicted him on 4 of those 5 charges from the shower incident
Joe Amendola does not know Jerry to be guilty. Jerry is either guilty or not. Based on the first trial being patently unfair, you cannot be confident in the results. In order to determine conclusively whether or not Jerry is guilty or not, requires a new, fair trial.
I agree that being indicated was not good for Sandusky You have to remember that in January 2009 when Sandusky was first indicated it was 3 months before v1 first claimed oral sex occurred. Maybe they thought a criminal case would be difficult based on inappropriate behavior alone and that Amendola didn't want to provide any additional testimony of inappropriate behavior that might be used to implicate Sandusky beyond what JS had said in his interview with Jessica Dershem. I still think that Amendola made a huge mistake in not addressing the v1 allegations head on when they first surfaced rather than to let them linger. As I suspect you already know, Jerry Sandusky has consistency professed his innocence and has never confessed to any sexual activity or having any sexual intent in any of his dealings with minors.
"Joe Amendola does not know Jerry to be guilty."
How do you know that?
"and has never confessed to any sexual activity or having any sexual intent in any of his dealings with minors."
And from your perspective, blowing raspberries on the tummies of young naked boys is just "boundary pushing"
Thank you for being fine with a new trial. I can't excuse JS's inappropriate behavior other than to say that, at a minimum, his actions appear weird. In the statement he made before he flipped, AM said that nothing untoward happened in the shower that night and that they were just having fun snapping towels. In fact, AM said that in their 10+ year relationship that nothing untoward ever happened.
Amendola has given post trial interviews where he has stated that he believed JS to be innocent and he seemed very sincere to me.
I know that JS has admitted to blowing raspberries with AF but I don't believe it was when either he or AF were totally naked. From what I understand happened, I cannot say that this blowing raspberries incident was without a doubt CSA because it is not clear to me that there was sexual intent. On the other hand, the over a hundred times that AF claimed that oral sex occurred are clearly CSA if they can be proven. I would love to see if the prosecution could convince the jury that any oral sex occurred between JS and AF in a new trial.
"was without a doubt CSA because it is not clear to me that there was sexual intent"
One doesn't need to conclude that beyond doubt, beyond a REASONABLE doubt is conclusive enough. Get it?
I hope you are wrong in your assertion that a new trial will not take place. I wholeheartedly disagree that he doesn't deserve one as the first trial was even close to being fair.
I say have any and all accusers testify at at a new trial and let the chips fall where they may. I would love to see how credible AM, Matt Sandusky, Anthony Spinelli (victim x), Greg Bucceroni and others seem after they have been cross examined by a prepared, effective attorney.
Obviously, all things taken into account, the jury did.
But you don't agree with the jury. I do
Its not that I don't agree with the jury, its that I don't believe the trial was fair.
They did, but the FJL always try to slide that in.
Actually Jerry did appeal, but he withdrew it once the CYS filed an additional report with information from AF's shrink.
Similar threads
