One thing we know for certain....the university" was not going to jail for Tim, Gary and Graham. Yet I've not heard of a trustee who thinks they did anything criminal.
A false and inflammatory GJP, being charged with statues that do not apply, even maneuvering dates to apply SOL and finally using ex post facto laws to sway the potential outcome of a trial.....is in reality a form of emotional torture. While confessions obtained by torture have long been outlawed in this country, it is clear that Fina and co. tightened the screws.....knowing full well that what they were doing was improper. So yes, Tim and Gary finally, after years of emotional torture, confessed to a misdemeanor. Endangering a child that no one has been able to identify. LOL
I said I've not heard of a trustee who thinks they were guilty. If you have tell us who.
Not really. Standard jury instructions include telling the jurors that they can believe some, none, or all of what a witness says. And people plead guilty for a number of reasons, not all of which involve a belief that they are actually guilty even if that's what they say to the court when questioned about their plea.
So then, in this universe OJ is innocent and Tim is a criminal. End of story, got it.
In my view you've demonstrated an ability to be pragmatic about many topics over the years. If you are at all familiar with the mechanics of the legal system, then you already understand why this assertion is fundamentally flawed.
I sort of agree. Yet cherry picking when claimants were telling the truth put Sandusky in jail for life.
Excellent analogy. I had to plead in traffic court (kangeroo) because the judge said the court was too crowded with cases, so either except the standard plea deal .....a cash pay fine......or go to trial. Of course he would be the judge and jury. Anyone would be a fool to ?
Here's another thought. Does anyone here really know the schedule of a D1 coordinator? Suppose Dottie was truthful and they did have regular sex.....what ever they may have meant for them. If you believe the claimants, Jerry was juggling 70 hour weeks, sex 2 or 3 times with his wife and 5 to 8 times a week with boys.....really? Testimony of the frequency and time periods of some claimants overlapped incredibly.
Here's some good advice. Don't ever believe any guy when he's talking about his sex life. Sandusky or the Pope.
Nobody is denying the facts. They are contesting them. They are protesting an obvious injustice.
It is in the court transcripts where his written statement and GJ testimony are quoted. While he stated he didn't see insertion, he was certain the boy was being sodomized. So if he is telling the police and GJ that, then why is the GJP such an issue. He was reacting to the heat was taking at the time this became public. He also said he had discussions with the police and the person in charge of the police (Schultz). Ok, we know he spoke to Schultz. But why would he say he also talked to the police??
He did say in his police statement that he was certain that the boy was sodomized. As for you other points about the height of JS and the boy, I agree. The fact that the OAG had to put a mannequin on a stool in photos to demonstrate what Mike described should have been enough to show everyone that this is BS.McQueary never said he saw a boy being sodomized. Here's what he did say during direct examination conducted by McGettigan:
Q. So I can distinguish what you believed and what you said to either your father or Coach Paterno, is what you thought you saw anal sex occurring?
A. I thought I saw that, yes, no doubt about that.
That's on page 205 of the June 12, 2012 trial transcript, and it's not a reference to either grand jury testimony or a statement to police. It's a direct question from McGettigan. It's also known as a leading question. Leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination because the question itself suggests what the answer should be. It's not clear why Rominger didn't object, as the court twice cautioned McGettigan against leading questions and even said he didn't know why the defense wasn't objecting. Your takeaway here is that the words "anal sex" were fed to McQueary; he didn't say them aloud of his own volition, he only agreed with them when pressed by a prosecutor.
And quite frankly, if McQueary actually believed that he's a complete idiot. He testified that the boy was standing with his hands against the shower wall, Sandusky standing behind him, Sandusky's front pressed to the boy's back, and Sandusky's arms around the boy's waist. Sounds just like that bear hug that Sandusky admitted to in 1998, doesn't it? Anyway, McQueary also testified the boy was about 10 or 11 and was about chest height on Sandusky.
Here's an illustrative picture of a grown man and a child of roughly the same age as V2 who are roughly the same relative height as Sandusky and V2 as described by McQueary:
I don't want to be graphic here, but there's zero anatomical chance that McQueary saw a standing Sandusky sodomizing a standing V2. The embrace that McQueary described, in the absence of Sandusky unmistakably bending at the knees or possessing gentalia of equine proportions and prehensile abilities (neither of which McQueary testified to), would have put Sandusky's junk in the kid's lower back. The relevant anatomy does not align. Period. And I suspect that's a, if not the, reason the jury acquitted on the V2 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse count.
As for McQueary's "discussions with the police," he admitted on cross examination that when he wrote in an email that he had discussions "with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police," he was referring only to Schultz and had not spoken to anyone else in law enforcement until they approached him in 2010. That's on pages 260-261 of the same transcript. In other words, at least one of his recountings many years after the fact of what he did at the time was partially untrue.
Hmmmm . . . .
I agree that you run into problems when you cherry pick when someone is telling the truth..........
We are taking the wrong approach in debating Sandusky's guilt or innocence! Sandusky is IRRELEVANT here. Why...because you can not establish "innocence" 10 years after the fact with a "private" crime like what the OAG accuses. This is NOT by accident!! It is an engineered method of deception and legal abuse!
