Troy Loney wrote:what is sandusky trying to prove and who is he arguing with? the university?
believe it is the state employee retirement system
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:The judge has allowed the Paterno lawsuit against the NCAA to continue to discovery. Let the fun begin.
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 2h "It's our contention that Mr. Sandusky was The Second Mile," said Steven Bizar, an attorney at arguing on behalf of SERS. OOPS!! #NotPSU
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 4h Sandusky pension hearing key issue is whether he was a "de facto" employee of PSU after 1999. $57K per year says he worked for TSM.
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 4h (1/2) Sandusky's lawyer... maintains that Sandusky was not employed by the school when the crimes took place. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140 ... ppeal.html …
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 4h (2/2) Sex crimes not included for revoking pension until 2004. JS denies crimes after 2004: "Alleged victims, I would call them,"
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 4h Sandusky stated he received no tax forms from PSU. In response to being called an ambassador "I was never on a mission assigned to me"
Ray Blehar @RayBlehar 4h @gregbucceroni The crimes warranting revokation of pension were not on the books until 2004 - after JS was no longer a PSU employee.
Behind the Penn State scandal: A community fails to reckon with its past
The Sundance doc "Happy Valley" examines the delusional groupthink exposed by the Jerry Sandusky case.
Whatever lessons we were supposed to learn from the Penn State sexual abuse scandal, we didn’t learn them; whatever questions we were supposed to ask went unanswered. Now, I’m aware that the phrase “Penn State sexual abuse scandal” will rile up many current and former residents of the Keystone State. Just for using that expression in a pre-Sundance blurb, I’ve gotten emails from readers arguing that it’s just the “Jerry Sandusky scandal,” that Penn State bears no institutional guilt for what happened, and that the legendary Nittany Lions football program should not be viewed as tainted.
relantel wrote:The worst outcome, IMO, is if the OAG office finally realizes they won't win and drops the charges, claiming techincalities, before the trials ever begin. The haters will never believe the right result, the accused won't get their reputations back, and those in the middle won't even care.
The Mag story also reports new details about "Victim 2," the boy, now in his mid-20s, who was in the shower when McQueary witnessed Sandusky's alleged assault. A week after the presentment was released, a young man in his mid-20s identified himself as "Victim 2" to Joseph L. Amendola, the defense lawyer for Sandusky. In a wide-ranging interview on Nov. 9, 2011, in Amendola's State College law office, the young man, accompanied by his mother and brother, told Amendola and his investigator that at the time of the shower incident he was 14, not 10 or 11, as McQueary estimated.
According to a five-page memo detailing the interview written by Curtis Everhart, Amendola's investigator, the man said the incident happened on Feb. 9, 2001, not on March 1, 2002, as prosecutors had written in their presentment. The man said "this particular night is very clear in my mind," the memo states. In the shower after a workout, the man said he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker." The man said he recalled hearing a locker slam but never saw the person who slammed it. "The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity," the man said. "Nothing occurred that night in the shower."
Amendola thought Victim 2 would provide a break as he began preparing Sandusky's defense. But two weeks later, Amendola said he ran into a local lawyer at the Centre County Courthouse who told him the young man who had identified himself as Victim 2 had in fact been a victim of Sandusky and intended to sue Penn State.
Users browsing this forum: DudeMan2766 and 7 guests