Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[Rocco]

Smart to not let Sandusky convict himself.

[columbia]

sandusky didn't even testify... wow. closing arguments tomorrow at 9 AM.

I can't imagine that he could have helped in his defense.

[Kraftster]

Shouldn't have said in their opening he would testify then.

[Rocco]

Shouldn't have said in their opening he would testify then.

It's been established that Amendola isn't very good.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120 ... _.html?c=r" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A family friend of key prosecution witness Mike McQueary contradicted the testimony of the former assistant football coach this morning, saying McQueary never expressly said that he saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the locker-room showers.

"Each time I would ask, ‘What did you see? What did you see?' " said Dr. John Dranov, of Boalsburg, Pa., "and he kept coming back to the sounds."

Both men, McQueary last week and Dranov today, testified that father John McQueary called Dranov to his house after the younger McQueary reported having inadvertently stumbled onto a traumatic scene.

Mike McQueary, at the time a Penn State coach, swore on the stand that he specifically told his father and the doctor that he had witnessed something sexual, disturbing and wrong when he arrived in the locker room at night to put away a pair of sneakers.

But today, Dranov said that McQueary never specifically said he had witnessed a sexual act. The younger man, terribly upset, his voice shaking and hands trembling, said he had heard "sexual sounds," Dranov said.

Dranov testified that he asked, "Mike, what do you mean?

“Sexual sounds, you know what they are," McQueary responded.

"No, I don't," Dranov said he answered.

McQueary, the doctor testified, then related that he had looked into the showers and seen a boy. A moment later "an arm reached out and pulled the boy back."

A man stepped out of the shower — it was Sandusky, the physician testified.

This morning's testimony cuts in two ways: One, whether McQueary actually saw a sex act, and whether he accurately, specifically reported it to others, including revered Penn State coach Joe Paterno. And two, whether the jury can believe McQueary's earlier testimony about what he said he saw that night.

Defense attorney Karl Rominger asked the doctor: "Did he describe seeing any particular sex act?"

"No," Dranov answered, "he did not. Did he give me any graphic description? He did not."

Still, he said, "It was clear in Mike's mind this was an incident that should be reported."

I found this interesting. To me it seems that McQuery's story on what he has seen has changed each time he's told it.

[DudeMan2766]

I'm really starting to think this guy walks.

[MWB]

sandusky didn't even testify... wow. closing arguments tomorrow at 9 AM.

I can't imagine that he could have helped in his defense.

Especially based on that NBC interview. I can't imagine he would do well under cross examination.

[thepittman]

I'm really starting to think this guy walks.

Maybe because he is innocent?

[llipgh2]

I'm really starting to think this guy walks.

I posted the same thing earlier. I have a really bad feeling about this.

EDIT: Either going to walk, or it will be a hung jury.

[MWB]

Does anyone really think he's innocent?

[thepittman]

Does anyone really think he's innocent?

Well if there is no evidence, besides a eye witness account that seems to change every day, why should he be convicted?

It sucks the media hangs you before you are even proven guilty.

[Troy Loney]

I'm really starting to think this guy walks.

Maybe because he is innocent?

No.

[thepittman]

I'm really starting to think this guy walks.

Maybe because he is innocent?

No.

Proof?

[Troy Loney]

Really?

[KennyTheKangaroo]

theres plenty of indication that this guy is a creep and a criminal.

that does not mean hes going to go to jail. frankly, if kenny the kangaroo was a juror, based on what has been out there publicly, it would be far from a slam dunk to say this guy is guilty. thats just in a court of law prospective, if you will.

that doesnt mean kenny the kangaroo thinks hes innocent, or that there are too many holes in the story. its just a beyond a resonable doubt type thing.

[thepittman]

Eyewitness accounts are pretty much garbage

Proof-


[youtube][/youtube]

[MWB]

Does anyone really think he's innocent?

Well if there is no evidence, besides a eye witness account that seems to change every day, why should he be convicted?

It sucks the media hangs you before you are even proven guilty.

There are 10 people who have said that he molested them. There's the McQuery account (while the account varies, what hasn't changed is that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy and there was something sexual in nature, according to him). That's not "no evidence."

[MWB]

If the verdict comes back innocent and he really did do it, this has an awful effect on future victims. I imagine it's hard enough to come forward as it is, but knowing there's a high-profile case out there where the attacker was found innocent makes it even more difficult.

[thepittman]

Does anyone really think he's innocent?

Well if there is no evidence, besides a eye witness account that seems to change every day, why should he be convicted?

It sucks the media hangs you before you are even proven guilty.

There are 10 people who have said that he molested them. There's the McQuery account (while the account varies, what hasn't changed is that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy and there was something sexual in nature, according to him). That's not "no evidence."

Did an initial person make the claim, then a bunch more bandwagon at the chance of a money grab? There are no morals in society anymore so it's hard to tell what to believe.

[mac5155]

I just hope, for the university's sake, that he is convicted. If he's not, we will never hear the end of how "the jurors were all PSU fanboys."

He is dead to me and the rest of the alumni base, sans a few.

[MWB]

Does anyone really think he's innocent?

Well if there is no evidence, besides a eye witness account that seems to change every day, why should he be convicted?

It sucks the media hangs you before you are even proven guilty.

There are 10 people who have said that he molested them. There's the McQuery account (while the account varies, what hasn't changed is that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy and there was something sexual in nature, according to him). That's not "no evidence."

Did an initial person make the claim, then a bunch more bandwagon at the chance of a money grab? There are no morals in society anymore so it's hard to tell what to believe.

Ok, so worst case scenario.... one person made the claim and nine others went for the money grab (a claim that's not substantiated). That means one person says he was molested and a witness says he heard/saw misconduct. That's still not "no evidence."

[thepittman]

For the record I don't believe he is innocent either, that doesn't mean he is actually guilty though.

[KennyTheKangaroo]

Did an initial person make the claim, then a bunch more bandwagon at the chance of a money grab? There are no morals in society anymore so it's hard to tell what to believe.

gr8 point, and hey, this happened at penn state, which is morally superior to pretty much every other major university, and he was friends with joepa, so yes its all just an attempt to railroad penn state.

[slappybrown]

Its one thing to make some fabricated claim and then quickly settle and leverage the fact that the alleged wrongdoer doesn't want this to play in public; its quite another to take the stand and describe being raped in open court. Especially 10 different instances of people doing so.

Also, while I am sure Sandusky is well off, this isn't someone who has a personal net worth in the tens of millions. His legal fees alone are reducing the value on any potential judgment, which is years away in any event if ever.

I am as skeptical as the next person, but in this case: come on.

[MWB]

I just hope, for the university's sake, that he is convicted. If he's not, we will never hear the end of how "the jurors were all PSU fanboys."

He is dead to me and the rest of the alumni base, sans a few.

I know this would never happen for a variety of reasons, but curious what some alums think. Would you be ok if PSU paid each victim a certain amount as an apology of sorts for the part administration had in any type of cover-up? Just the ones who came forward already. Again, I know it wouldn't happen for legal reasons, but if it could happen I think it would be a good gesture by the school.