And went to jail for it
Yes, those who told the prosecutors one thing behind closed doors to get a good deal then got "amnesia" in front of their supporters in open court. It's called bait and switch. Judges don't like it.
Sandusky prison interview article
- Thread starter NoBareFeet
- Start date
- Status
Ether way, hardly a major issue. it wasn't a conspiracy or a planned event. it was inadvertent.
It was a coverup and it was a major issue for kids later abused by Sandusky after these guys let him go. They kicked the can down the road and kids paid for it.
well, those charges were all dropped so....let me capitalize this, "YOU ARE WRONG".
one, he did not tell Joe that. second, under examination, he didn't see anything he only suspected.
They were never charged with a cover up. Only a conspiracy to endanger children. A coverup and conspiracy are two different things. So let me bold what a juror from Spanier's trial where he was convicted said:
"It didn't feel like they were conspiring to endanger children," Navazio said. "They were conspiring to protect Penn State."
He did tell Joe it was sexual and Joe corroborated it....twice.
this from Van Natta:
"By telling the grand jury that McQueary used the words "fondling" and that the act was of "sexual nature," Paterno unwittingly provided the first explicit link that the Sandusky scandal was also a Penn State one. This gave rise to the Freeh report and the NCAA sanctions that stemmed from them. His testimony would also be a key component of the charges brought against Curley, Schultz and Spanier and will play a part in McQueary's whistleblower lawsuit. The coach certainly did not realize it at the time, but by corroborating McQueary's account, Paterno would tarnish his own legacy and help topple the program he'd spent 61 years building."
I'm not saying they didn't exist. I'm saying that they weren't as pervasive. And PSU was definitely behind the times in a number of HR related things.
It was definitely NOT a cover up. Not only does the evidence we saw in court show that it was not a cover up but a FEDERAL investigation also showed that it was not a cover up.
EXCLUSIVE: Federal Report on Former Penn State President Concluded There Was No Cover-up | Law & Crime
Next week, almost exactly six years after the “Jerry Sandusky Scandal” broke publicly with a grand jury leak to a local newspaper, three former Penn State administrators will finally go on trial for charges related to an alleged cover-up of child sex abuse.
lawandcrime.com
It was and the juror I quoted above said so.
The only Federal Investigation of the Penn State scandal resulted in PSU being fined for violating the Clery Act and not reporting Sandusky. CoverupNot only does the evidence we saw in court show that it was not a cover up but a FEDERAL investigation also showed that it was not a cover up.
EXCLUSIVE: Federal Report on Former Penn State President Concluded There Was No Cover-up | Law & Crime
Next week, almost exactly six years after the “Jerry Sandusky Scandal” broke publicly with a grand jury leak to a local newspaper, three former Penn State administrators will finally go on trial for charges related to an alleged cover-up of child sex abuse.
Clery Act Violations
Education Department's historic sanction against Penn State for Clery violations, Sandusky's abuse
Identifying a football culture that protected athletes and officials, the Education Department will fine Penn State U nearly $2.4 million for failing to notify students about assistant coach charged with sex abuse and for failing to disclose other campus crimes.
And here
Penn State says it will pay record Clery Act fine of $2.4 million
Penalty was levied following investigation sparked by Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Last edited:
Despite the lies of JJ, no one was molested on the Penn State campus, in a shower or otherwise.
You don’t comprehend the basics of law or the legal system. You're not making an argument and you don't grasp that. A non-answer is never an answer. It just means I'm not doing the work for you because no matter what is presented you're so emotionally invested you won't accept it.
Lulz...FFS...just say you can't find any other examples.
I don't understand the basics of law? Bahahaa!! Wow that's a doozy! Here's the other question you refused to answer Mr. law expert....
If testimony was transcribed under oath you aren't allowed to ask someone about that testimony in attempt to point out contradictions, etc.?
The above is common practice in pretty much all criminal defense trials but hey what do I know I'm just some simpleton. Don't take my word for it though, I guess the folks at Cornell Law just don't know wtf they're talking about? Note the underlined parts. If the JS trial was federal the judge would have violated FRE 607. In general, if the practice of not allowing defense counsel to question a witness about prior testimony was so common there wouldn't be a freaking FRE explicitly allowing it.
impeachment of a witness
Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of discrediting or undermining the credibility of a witness during a trial, by presenting evidence or asking questions that contradict their testimony or reveal a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in their statements. It is a common strategy used by attorneys to challenge the veracity of a witness and to cast doubt on the reliability of their testimony. In federal court, Federal Rules of Evidence 607 provides that any party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that reflects on the witness's character for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest, or other reasons.
Lol...look at you trying to use Google and debating with someone who lives in courtroom. Commonplace is the best result you could find. Listen, I know you don't want to believe Sandusky is a pedophile and you want everyone to believe the trial was unjust. But it wasn't. You can disagree with a ruling (this one wasn't wrong but pretend it was) while still comprehending that doesn't make the trial unfair. Sandusky is guilt as sin. Everyone with a brain knows and sees that but please keep trying to learn the law with Google when that's not even what the ruling was.Lulz...FFS...just say you can't find any other examples.
I don't understand the basics of law? Bahahaa!! Wow that's a doozy! Here's the other question you refused to answer Mr. law expert....
If testimony was transcribed under oath you aren't allowed to ask someone about that testimony in attempt to point out contradictions, etc.?
The above is common practice in pretty much all criminal defense trials but hey what do I know I'm just some simpleton. Don't take my word for it though, I guess the folks at Cornell Law just don't know wtf they're talking about? Note the underlined parts. If the JS trial was federal the judge would have violated FRE 607. In general, if the practice of not allowing defense counsel to question a witness about prior testimony was so common there wouldn't be a freaking FRE explicitly allowing it.
impeachment of a witness
www.law.cornell.edu
Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of discrediting or undermining the credibility of a witness during a trial, by presenting evidence or asking questions that contradict their testimony or reveal a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in their statements. It is a common strategy used by attorneys to challenge the veracity of a witness and to cast doubt on the reliability of their testimony. In federal court, Federal Rules of Evidence 607 provides that any party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that reflects on the witness's character for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest, or other reasons.
If you were reasonable I'd try to educate you but you're just throwing a tantrum.
Haah! Typical mealy mouthed lawyer response. You again ignored my very simple question and instead resorted to another ad-hominem attack, which shows you have a weak position here. Not sure why you are picking this hill to die on but hey feel free to keep beclowning yourself.
You claimed it was common/no big deal for a judge to not allow defense to question a witness about their prior under oath testimony in court (not some random 2nd hand hearsay mind you). If it's so common then surely you can provide me with just one other example. But nope, all you have are ad-hominems.
There wouldn't be so many questions about his guilt or innocence if the judge and prosecutors didn't prevent key witnesses from being cross examined based on their own prior transcribed testimony in a court a law.
This has nothing to do with my personal opinion re: his guilt or innocence (I've even said in this very thread I'm inclined to think he was guilty) but the trial was a complete shit show so it makes it hard to figure out wtf actually happened. Some of the "victims" whose claims were allowed in the JS trial were flat out laughable and easily disproven (the janitor hearsay story comes to mind) but the judge wouldn't allow the defense even slightest attempt at impeaching them.
You're not asking "simple questions" because you don't understand the complexity of law.
I'm not citing you law because you'll dismiss whatever proof you're provided with.
There aren't any questions about his innocence. He's 100% guilty as the jury determined.
All trials can be deemed "shit shows" when you don't deal with law. There's nothing out of the ordinary with this trial which is why he can't get a new one. You comprehend that there was an injustice on a high-profile case that a new trial would have occurred. Just like when he was "re-sentenced" it was the same outcome.
There's no conspiracy here. This is just how the legal system works.
If you're "inclined to think he was guilty" you should be accepting the outcome as you agree he's where he needs to be.
Last edited:
JS said he didn't do it when he plead not guilty. Do you really think getting on the stand to verbally say he didn't do it would have made a difference?
Has no tell-tale signs and accusers have zero credibility.
Completely unfair trial.
Lots of doubt.
It’s possible the date of the McQueary incident was late 2000 not feb 2001. Which means he waited about 6 weeks to tell Joe. Hmmm. So it went from March 2002 to Feb 2001 to Dec 2000. It’s nearly impossible to defend oneself without an accurate date. Many of claims also came after controversial “repressed memory” sessions (after money was dangled in front of them) with the same shady therapist and same shady lawyer. This is the house of cards the JS case was based on.
If the case against JS was so strong why did the prosecution even bring charges for victim 8 (janitor incident) even though their own police interview of the janitor showed he id’d someone other than JS? Was JS framed to protect some other pedo?? The victim was never identified and the conviction was based entirely on hearsay testimony. Coincidentally after the trial a police interview with the actual janitor in May 2011 surfaced and showed he did see abuse but the person wasn’t JS. Wtf?? The climate at the time was so crazy the jury convicted on this charge despite there being no name, no set date, and having only uncorroborated hearsay to go on.
Summary from Zieglers above article:
“…
Upon closer inspection there are all sorts of problems with Houtz’s allegations, just as there are with all of those against Sandusky. Where there should be lots of evidence, there is none. No pornography, no drugs, no alcohol, no payoffs, no physical evidence, no physical attacks in either direction, no plea bargain, no confession, along with a never-ending series of appeals despite a lack of monetary and political resources.
It is highly probable that there has never been another serial child sexual-abuser in modern history whose case fit all of those descriptions. That is because Jerry Sandusky is not an abuser of children, but a very obviously innocent man who was railroaded by a perfect storm of remarkable circumstances far beyond his control, or even understanding.”
Summary from newspaper write up (based largely on Pendergrasts research)
If the case against JS was so strong why did the prosecution even bring charges for victim 8 (janitor incident) even though their own police interview of the janitor showed he id’d someone other than JS? Was JS framed to protect some other pedo?? The victim was never identified and the conviction was based entirely on hearsay testimony. Coincidentally after the trial a police interview with the actual janitor in May 2011 surfaced and showed he did see abuse but the person wasn’t JS. Wtf?? The climate at the time was so crazy the jury convicted on this charge despite there being no name, no set date, and having only uncorroborated hearsay to go on.
Summary from Zieglers above article:
“…
Upon closer inspection there are all sorts of problems with Houtz’s allegations, just as there are with all of those against Sandusky. Where there should be lots of evidence, there is none. No pornography, no drugs, no alcohol, no payoffs, no physical evidence, no physical attacks in either direction, no plea bargain, no confession, along with a never-ending series of appeals despite a lack of monetary and political resources.
It is highly probable that there has never been another serial child sexual-abuser in modern history whose case fit all of those descriptions. That is because Jerry Sandusky is not an abuser of children, but a very obviously innocent man who was railroaded by a perfect storm of remarkable circumstances far beyond his control, or even understanding.”
Summary from newspaper write up (based largely on Pendergrasts research)
Last edited:
Is it common for law enforcement testimony to be impeached by an audio recording of their own witness interview? A juror caught texting from the courtroom twice? How about two state troopers discussing testimony in the hallway after being warned not to do so by the judge? Then one trooper when questioned by the defense admits to discussing the others testimony while the other trooper denies it. Is it common for LE not to be held in contempt after breaking a sequestration order? I have no idea.
The eyes of the nation were on this trial and a clown show took place. Although, maybe this happens every day in our judicial system.
Also Investigators were accidentally caught on tape tampering with witness testimony (co-witness contamination). One of the victims was refusing to claim actual abuse/molestation took place so they took him aside (forgetting to turn off the recording) and told him there were 10 other victims (which was a lie at the time) that claimed abuse, then when they resumed the session, he suddenly claimed there was actual abuse. There is so much weird behavior by law enforcement with this case that maybe some other high level pedo was being protected and Jerry was the fall guy? There’s so much that doesn’t add up. Maybe there was some kind of child trafficking being run out of the 2nd mile, who knows what the hell was going on?
Last edited:
20 years from now someone will probably find pictures of him at the BNL concert that night.It’s possible the date of the McQueary incident was late 2000 not feb 2001. Which means he waited about 6 weeks to tell Joe. Hmmm. So it went from March 2002 to Feb 2001 to Dec 2000. It’s nearly impossible to defend oneself without an accurate date. Many of claims also came after controversial “repressed memory” sessions (after money was dangled in front of them) with the same shady therapist and same shady lawyer. This is the house of cards the JS case was based on.
Summary from Zieglers above article:
“…
Upon closer inspection there are all sorts of problems with Houtz’s allegations, just as there are with all of those against Sandusky. Where there should be lots of evidence, there is none. No pornography, no drugs, no alcohol, no payoffs, no physical evidence, no physical attacks in either direction, no plea bargain, no confession, along with a never-ending series of appeals despite a lack of monetary and political resources.
It is highly probable that there has never been another serial child sexual-abuser in modern history whose case fit all of those descriptions. That is because Jerry Sandusky is not an abuser of children, but a very obviously innocent man who was railroaded by a perfect storm of remarkable circumstances far beyond his control, or even understanding.”
That's what I was referring to. Here's the Ganim story on that from the trial: Conflicting testimony
I guess according to Mr. Lawyer expert @LandoComando, re: victim 8, its perfectly normal for the prosecution to bring charges (and the judge to allow them) when they have no victim identified, no set date, only hearsay testimony in trial, and a recorded investigator interview with the direct witness claiming the perpetrator was not the person the prosecution charged?? Thats a well run trial according to him, smh.
Also don’t forget the NCIS investigator who looked into the MM incident re: Spaniers security clearance and found it to be nothing sexual and no cover up. This completely contradicts the narrative put forth by freeh/PA OAG
None if that is surprising and if the nation's eyes were on it and it was a "clown show"it would be more than a few Penn State fans saying the trial was a sham. Again, if it was he'd get a new trial but they have no argument to make that happen or it would have.
You're all grasping at straws
Yes, that happens and the best an attorney can do is request an extension. Literally happens all the time.
I dont think you have any understanding of how trials work. There was literally nothing in this trial that is grounds for a dismissal or to obtain a new trial.
Court proceedings are far from perfect but nothing in this case is extraordinary
@LandoComando ,
You are correct in that many on here do not understand the legal system nor do they understand Child Sexual Assault. However, I think their gambit is that if Sandusky is innocent then the whole scandal goes completely away. Swinging for the fences.
You are correct in that many on here do not understand the legal system nor do they understand Child Sexual Assault. However, I think their gambit is that if Sandusky is innocent then the whole scandal goes completely away. Swinging for the fences.
Anyone that uses the GJ presentment, Freeh report or that sham of a trial as the basis for their argument is either stupid, or just acting stupid.
The Freeh report was a sham. The trial was not.
Anyone pretending there's a chance Sandusky is innocent "is either stupid, or just acting stupid"
Perhaps, but I never mentioned Sandusky.
So what is it, stupid, or just acting stupid?
Neither. Its called being right. Your comment in the other thread proves the point that you can't accept what happened because you incorrectly believe if nothing happened that would make people view Joe differently
Are you licensed to practice law in PA? If not, why do you believe your opinion of the validity of the trial has meaning. That's truly ignorant.
And if you believe Sandusky is guilty wheres the problem?
Thanks for confirming our judicial system is a complete farce and violates the Constitution.
No victim, no date, trial testimony consisted of single hearsay witness, and a LE investigator recording of the direct witness saying the person he saw wasn't JS, and you think there's nothing wrong with that and it's perfectly SOP in our system? Yikes!
I have a feeling if such impossible to defend claims were made against you you'd have a different feeling towards it.
Your comment in the other thread was unintelligible. Based on that, I'll put you down for stupid, because I don't think you're acting.
Gotta love those arrogant shithead lawyers who think that in order to have an opinion you need a law degree to understand basic due process or what the US Constitution says particularly the 5th and 14th amendments.
Judging by his steadfast defense of the sham JS trial I wouldn't be surprised if @LandoComando had some sort of personal stake in the JS verdicts. No victim, no date, no direct witnesses, bring 'em on down, no big deal it's all SOP in the courts.
I'm also surprised a "good" lawyer would have so much free time on their hands to post on a PSU message board all day.
He also said "And if you believe Sandusky is guilty wheres the problem?" It's mind boggling that an actual lawyer needs the following explained to them. If JS' due process rights can be violated anyone's can. It doesn't matter if you think JS is the biggest POS in the entire world, it's about principal and following the Constitution. This is why the sham trial was so upsetting to many people. Why all the shenanigans, reliance on controversial repressed memory therapy, super rushed timelines, etc. if the case was so air tight?
Last edited:
That claim isn't impossible to defend. As an attorney, all you have to do is create reasonable doubt.
Sandusky's attorney couldn't create any for Jerry because none existed.
- Status
