Sandusky going with the big guns to debunk repressed memory
- Thread starter interrobang
- Start date
I have no idea without looking. Off to the Google machine and possibly a rabbit hole.
Ok then, If that is the case... all they have to rely on is his sterling reputation as an honorable, truthful young man.
Last edited:
I disagree. AF has other credibility problems.
You can also argue that the OAG played our politically correct culture like a Stradivarius. It made the process of thoroughly vetting the accusers seem cruel and unnecessary. Any presumption of innocence for the accused was thrown out the window the minute JVP was fired. Any scrutiny of the OAG's actions or the credibility of the accusations was stigmatized as enabling a child predator.
It should be remembered that these "victims" are no longer children. They are men in their 20's. By definition, they come from difficult circumstances. I can certainly see attorneys telling some of these men something along the lines of: "JS is guilty. He did horrible things. You thought he was just being nice to you, when he was really grooming you...violating you. He deserves to go to prison. And he will with a little help from you. We know he did &$^% to Victim X. If you "remember" that he did &$^% to you too, you'll be able to buy your mom a new house and never worry about money again."
While what you say may be true, it's not proof. Same with what I say.
I'm also saying it's naive to ignore the likelihood that quantity over quality was an instrumental strategy employed by the OAG and so was embellishing the accusations. Forget whether the victims would lie. Would the prosecution skew things to win the case? These people are not selfless public servants. They are bred to be the most politically ambitious people on the planet. There was no way in hell they were going to take JS to court and lose. How far were they willing to go?
I can think of no better example than the janitor case, which had no victim, no report of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime, no established date for the crime, and no viable witness of the crime. The court allowed hearsay testimony. We now know that the actual witness specifically told investigators that the man he saw was NOT Jerry Sandusky. And the prosecution withheld that information from the jury. If the evidence against JS was so compelling, this case would have never seen the light of day.
They shouldn't get to hide their misconduct behind the 'Haven't these poor kids suffered enough?" excuse.
Last edited:
No, the defense had the tape, and no, it doesn't exonerate Jerry. Especially lacking context as both sides admit that at the time of the tape the alleged witness had dementia. Furthermore the only portion of the tape released is that one statement, with no context. In his next sentence the janitor may have ID'd little green men as the perp.
I am not nearly as dismissive as you are. I was simply asking to clarify that the defense didn't have the tape. My understanding is that they did.
My bad. I didn't think that revelation came to light until after the trial.
Last edited:
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You can't possibly be arguing that there is evidence that supports JS's guilt here "beyond a reasonable doubt".
This is my understanding as well. I think it demonstrates Amendola's ineffectiveness in not introducing Calhoon's statement at trial. Amendola was also ineffective by not calling AM as a witness and introducing the statement he gave to Everhart. IMO, there is very strong evidence that Amendola was totally ineffective in his defense of Sandusky.
I am not sure what you are talking about here. I was talking about the legal procedures as I understand them, assisted by lawyers, and how that plays into the process of the PCRA appeal, which has rules as well.
What we know is that the defense had the tape if it wanted to use it, and also that both sides knew that the tape was pretty useless for either considering JC had pretty significant dementia at the time it was recorded. It's hard to argue definitive ineffective counsel when counsel was rationally taking into account the mental state of the witness and has more information about what else is on that tape.
However the judge also noted at trial that even should those convictions be set aside in the V8 case, it would have no effect on sentencing. Pretty irrelevant to overall conviction.
Thanks for your wikilaw analysis
I think, now, the burden is switched. In other words, Jerry was convicted on that charge. I think that the burden is now on the accused to overturn it.
I'm no lawyer, but I always thought this to be the case. I guess it depends on what the goal is. If it is a new trial, then maybe the burden is on the accuser. If it is overturning a verdict, then maybe the burden is on the accused.
You are correct, the burden here is on Jerry, the convicted, to:
"plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the following:
(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted:
(i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime;
(ii) awaiting execution of a sentence of death for the crime; or
(iii) serving a sentence which must expire before the person may commence serving the disputed sentence.
(2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following:
(i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.
(iii) A plea of guilty unlawfully induced where the circumstances make it likely that the inducement caused the petitioner to plead guilty and the petitioner is innocent.
(iv) The improper obstruction by government officials of the petitioner's right of appeal where a meritorious appealable issue existed and was properly preserved in the trial court.
(v) (Deleted by amendment).
(vi) The unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.
(vii) The imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum.
(viii) A proceeding in a tribunal without jurisdiction.
(3) That the allegation of error has not been previously litigated or waived.
(4) That the failure to litigate the issue prior to or during trial, during unitary review or on direct appeal could not have been the result of any rational, strategic or tactical decision by counsel."
Note the word "prove". Not suggest, or claim, but prove.
Also one of the Hillside Stranglers, OJ, the Menendez brothers, the cops charged in the Rodney King beating, and list goes on.
If it's high profile you can bet your ass she'll try and find a way to the witness stand.
Funny thing about science. It's all about a process & reproducability.
I do find her studies, books, and reports really interesting. I haven't gone too far down the rabbit hole, but I don't immediately see a ton of others replicating her results.
I mean, she's been at this for quite some time.
So why is she the one called everytime there's a major trial? She's (as the post title says, "the big gun"). But if her research was legit (and it sure sounds like it is) why isn't there a whole cottage industry of similar experts with follow-on papers that corroborate her conclusions, testifying also?
Even Dr Loftus agrees that prior to therapy V7 alleged that Jerry put his hands down his pants. So at best what you have is still a crime, and at worst what the evidence shows is the process of incremental disclosure common in cases of child sexual assault.
Centre County, Pa. - Jerry Sandusky is heading back to court this week.
He'll be transported from SCI Somerset to the Centre County Courthouse on Thursday, May 11th, so he can attend his evidentiary hearing.
That hearing is a part of Sandusky's efforts to get a new trial, on the grounds that his counsel for his first trial was incompetent.
The hearing is set to begin at 9 a-m.
He'll be transported from SCI Somerset to the Centre County Courthouse on Thursday, May 11th, so he can attend his evidentiary hearing.
That hearing is a part of Sandusky's efforts to get a new trial, on the grounds that his counsel for his first trial was incompetent.
The hearing is set to begin at 9 a-m.
H/T @JmmyW :
LINK Dr Loftus Bio:
"The only daughter of Sidney, a doctor, and Rebecca, a former librarian, Loftus grew up in Bel Air, Calif. At age 6, she was molested by a babysitter. She never repressed the memory, but she put it out of her mind, not even telling her parents."
It would be interesting to know what the difference is there....
LINK Dr Loftus Bio:
"The only daughter of Sidney, a doctor, and Rebecca, a former librarian, Loftus grew up in Bel Air, Calif. At age 6, she was molested by a babysitter. She never repressed the memory, but she put it out of her mind, not even telling her parents."
It would be interesting to know what the difference is there....
Do you really need someone to explain the difference? Don't you know how to use google? Remember when I called you out on that sick google-related burn in another thread and you desperately tried to change the subject? Good times!
Not when the convict is asking for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel
Burden is 100% on the convict and it's a heavy burden.
You mean you need actual evidence, and can't just get a certain specified number of people to say something happened... some of whom don't even have to testify or actually exist?
An allegation is not the same as a crime. I believe one of the purposes of these evidentiary hearings is to determined if repressed memory therapy was used on any of the 8 trial accusers and, if it was, what are the ramifications
Jerry was convicted of abusing V7, it's no longer an allegation. The burden is now on your prison pal to prove it fits the PCRA criteria which I outlined above, not just fish for excuses.
If alleged victim 7 used RMT to recall his alleged abuse, his testimony immediately becomes suspect.
Why don't you give it a shot on your own first. It's the only way you'll get better. Teach a man to fish and all. Then you can report back and ask for specific help in areas you are struggling.
I'll even give you a push in the right direction: www.google.com
So that we're all clear on the facts:
- V7 claimed, before receiving any therapy, that Jerry put his hands down his (V7's) pants [have to be careful to avoid dangling modifiers]
- V7 then underwent RMT, which is Repressed Memory Therapy (Definately not Registered Massage Therapy).
- Jerry would still like to "get to the bottom" of this
Seriously - you are trying to make that case? Why do you want all this to be in every late night monologue all over again?
Some people on this board could spend all day and night defending poor Jerry. They need help.
"Suspect" doesn't get it done. Sandusky has to prove it was false and that the false testimony caused the guilty verdict.
Let it be noted that CD is back on the clock as of 4:10 PM est today. Don't want to see anyone shorted, or replaced w/ a bot.
No one, not even John Ziegler, is denying the Sandusky wasn't a absolutely weird dude. But Joe Paterno got fired, PSU ended up paying out $100 million, and PSU became national embarrassment because people were lead to believe Sandusky was sodomizing and performing oral sex on boys in the Penn State showers, and I simply all reports that allege that are easily debunked.
Most sane people believe performing sex acts on young boys is "weird". Sane people also
believe those that defend pedophiles are weird. Thus there are many weird people who frequent
this board.
