That makes no sense. Fact is that he had his day in court. Saying you (or unc, who made the statement originally) don’t believe it was a fair day in court is entirely different than stating that he didn’t have his day in court.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
That makes no sense. Fact is that he had his day in court. Saying you (or unc, who made the statement originally) don’t believe it was a fair day in court is entirely different than stating that he didn’t have his day in court.
CPL, you have been on an odd semantic crusade recently.
Yes, you are correct. He had his day in court. That doesn't mean all is well with the world.
If I served you lunch covered in maggots, you have technically been fed, but I doubt it was very satisfactory.
No apology necessary. I was lumping all of the OAG’s misconduct from the fiasco together. The cases against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were directly related to the case against Sandusky as Curley and Schultz could have been rebuttal witnesses against McQueary if they had not been charged.
We should find out soon if Fina’s law license suspension for a year and a day is upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If it is, I believe that it becomes an immediate appeal issue for Sandusky.
It’s not a semantics crusade, it’s a crusade against leaving out pertinent information. To say he didn’t have his day in court discredits your position that he didn’t receive a fair trial.
Edit: Franco mentions that Sandusky didn’t have any porn found on his computer. I have never disputed that. They checked his computer and did not find any porn. It doesn’t help to deny facts.
I don't think any of us have said "Sandusky didn't have a trial"
He obviously did. That is not up for debate.
Whether it was a fair trial, is (IMHO) up for debate.
A sandwich with maggots is still a sandwich, but you almost certainly don't want one.
What he meant was obvious to everyone but you. I don't think you're on a semantics crusade, but rather your agenda is to deflect attention away from the corruption within the PA judicial system.
I agree it gets attached to him, fairly or unfairly.
But I thought you said (first quote above) you don't think he is guilty of that? I'm confused.
Pleading guilty and being guilty are two different things. You know that as well as I do.
You also say he is guilty even though you don't think he is guilty. Can we agree that he may or may not be "actually" guilty even though he plead guilty? And we can also agree that it will be attached to his name forever unless he can somehow prove otherwise.
McGettigan spoke about the case at Lock Haven U in 2017.
"During the trial, McGettigan said Sandusky repeatedly perjured himself by denying sexually abusing the victims."
Did the reporter botch this or does McGettigan have dementia as well?
http://www.lockhaven.com/news/local-news/2017/10/prosecutor-talks-about-sandusky-case-at-lhu/
"During the trial, McGettigan said Sandusky repeatedly perjured himself by denying sexually abusing the victims."
Did the reporter botch this or does McGettigan have dementia as well?
http://www.lockhaven.com/news/local-news/2017/10/prosecutor-talks-about-sandusky-case-at-lhu/
To try and explain this a different way... take it to the extreme. Say he walks into court, the judge immediately bangs his gavel and yells "guilty!" Would you still be here on a crusade to prove he had his day in court? Obviously not. So the question then becomes, at what degree of impropriety is it OK to say he had his day in court? I think that answer is obvious, but I'm curious as to what you will say.
Sure. Let’s acknowledge that he is guilty because he agreed to acknowledge that he is guilty. Let’s also continue to question the legitimacy of his guilt without ignoring the fact he agreed to plead guilty.
Why take it to the extreme? He had a full trial. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Until one of his appeals results in a new trial, the fact will remain that he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
I'm trying to illustrate a point, please open your mind, and answer the question... at what degree of impropriety is it OK to say someone had his day in court? Forget Sandusky, I honestly don't care about the second mile or any of it's employees.
Mauti's spot on with the semantics things. Who is arguing he wasn't found guilty by a jury of his peers?
You, yourself and you said you didn't think he was truly guilty. I even had that quote in my last post. I'll quote it again. And again, we are all intelligent enough to know you can plead guilty without actually being guilty. So I'm no longer sure you are playing with a regulation deck.
Not weird. You have to be trying to redirect the discussion away from anything substantive for a reason. Nobody is that anal!
At what degree of impropriety is it OK to say someone had his day in court? Who the hell knows?
Maybe this is a semantics thing. When I hear somebody has had his day in court I take that to mean they have been given an official trial in a courtroom, found guilty or not guilty by a jury of their peers.
The idea that I am trying to deflect attention away from the corruption within the PA judicial system is weird.
I’ve acknowledged that you can plead guilty without being guilty. I also acknowledged that it was as I understand the law. As I understand the law allows for the fact that I am not a lawyer and have not studied the law intently.
Then why do you have a problem with what I said before?
Seems very reasonable to avoid calling him "guilty" when pleading guilty is not a definitive admission of guilt.
It is also reasonable to say this plea will be attached to him regardless of whether or not he is truly guilty.
I guess I just don't get your angle here.
I would argue that the answer is ZERO. If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, and walked into a kangaroo court and were instantly declared guilty, would you be satisfied? Would you say "aww shucks, I didn't commit the crime, but at least I had my day in court"?
You are 100% literal on this one? They set foot in a court, had some form of trial with an outcome? So you have no assumption that the person had a fair trial?
They didn’t have some sort of a trial. They had an actual trial. He wasn’t just instantly declared guilty. Each side presented their case. He was found guilty. Were their things that I questioned preceding the trial and as the trial was happening? Sure. But I am not ready to declare it a kangaroo court because Jerry Sandusky was found guilty.
By all means, call him not guilty. I don’t think I’ve ever said you shouldn’t. I will continue to call him guilty because he designated himself as such.
You keep wanting to jump back to Sandusky, but I didn't ask about him or his trial. Forget Sandusky for a minute and just answer my questions:
If you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, and walked into a kangaroo court and were instantly declared guilty, would you be satisfied? Would you say "aww shucks, I didn't commit the crime, but at least I had my day in court"?
You are 100% literal on this one? They (some random person) set foot in a court, had some form of trial with an outcome? So you have no assumption that the person (not Sandusky) had a fair trial?
Okay, whatever you want. I'm fine with saying he plead guilty. I'm not fine with he's guilty. Clearly there is a difference (you can plead guilty to a lesser charge to mitigate risk of more severe punishment without actually being guilty of the crime). Anyone not willing to admit that is either thick headed or stubborn.
You refuse to answer my simple question and then you walk away, you may not like the message that sends.
Actually, I was typing that response before your response popped up. I don’t want you think my response was an attempt to avoid you. I haven’t really shied away from anything here.
I am not assuming a kangaroo court because I am not assigning some questionable things in a courtroom to be a complete joke of the judicial process.
I’m out.
IMO McQueary was concerned by what he experienced but he couldn't be sure exactly what it was. He felt obligated to tell someone but he didn't want to accuse Sandusky falsely. That's why he didn't tell his dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz specifically about sexual assault.
Years later the authorities pressured him during questioning and he didn't want to be accused of not doing enough to stop Sandusky. That's when he started to embellish his story and hang the PSU administrators out to dry.
Am I missing something? I thought felony charges were dropped but that Spanier was found guilty of misdemeanor child endangerment. His state appeals failed so he was taking his appeal to federal court. I thought that was still open and that his 2 month jail sentence was pending.
The federal court threw out the conviction.
Apparently AG Shapiro is going to appeal. I doubt he will win.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/04/graham-spanier-conviction-overturned.html
Again, You keep going back to Sandusky. Forget him. It feels like you are doing that to avoid responding.
I think its as simple as this.....the prosecutors are serial liars. God only knows!
Didn't Eshbach indicate that she knew the GJP was false? Did McGettigan say that V2 was known only to God. Isn't Fina about to have his ass put in a sling?
Maybe. But on the other hand, the ordeal is behind them. Spanier still has appeals to deal with.
At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.
Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.
When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."
Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.
"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."
Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."
It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."
As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.
On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.
Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.
"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."
"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.
"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."
"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.
"Yes," Myers said.
She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.
After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.
If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched
"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.
"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.
John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally been released.
"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about Myers' central role in the Penn State scandal.
"And it's obvious to anyone who understands the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. Myers' testimony was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had flipped for [millions] and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore," Ziegler said.
In contrast, when Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler said, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."
John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.
"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."
"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"
"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" at the Sandusky trial, Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."
Good point. And where the hell did they hide Myers during the Sandusky trial?
If you watch any interviews with McGettigan after the trial, it’s clear he’s a absolute loon. I’m no psychologist but I’m guessing Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He let winning the Sandusky trial go to his head now his things any wild theory that pops into his head is true.
He has stated that:
Sandusky’ autobiography “Touched” was specifically written as a way to confess his crimes
Dottie Sandusky worked out some sort of agreement with her husband where so agreed to ignore her husband raping boys in exchange for providing her children.
I’m sure there are several others
It was a gut-wrenching decision for each of them to make. They each felt their backs were to the wall, and the way out via being found not guilty was an excessively narrow path. While I would guess there are aspects of their legal ordeal that they might have done differently in hindsight, imo, once they got to the point they did, they had no other choice except to take that plea. I can't see how or why they would change that decision given the same circumstances. Also keep in mind they did not expect to receive any jail time as part of that plea - the judge took them by surprise with that.
These are two men who never would think of doing anything besides what they thought was the right thing to do in any aspect of their lives. They are still that way. They took the information they were given at the time and made their best choices. As Curley said, he wishes he had asked more questions. But really, considering JS to be a pedophile at that time with the information they had was just not something they considered. I'm not certain that more questions would have yielded a different conclusion regarding what happened in the locker room. If they had different info, their actions would have been different, I am certain.
Similar threads
