Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[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.

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."

I didn't say there is no evidence, I said "IF". The prosecution will lay out what they have over the next few days.

[slappybrown]

I didn't say there is no evidence, I said "IF". The prosecution will lay out what they have over the next few days.

The prosecution has already rested; they go first. Tomorrow is closing, which is unlikely to last more than an hour or two, assuming the prosecutor is not an idiot, which does not appear to be the case.

[MWB]

I didn't say there is no evidence, I said "IF". The prosecution will lay out what they have over the next few days.

Based on what has already come out we know that there is evidence though. So not sure how it's an "if" scenario.

[thepittman]

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.

and further increase the chance of people making unsubstantiated claims to obtain money? Sounds like a bad standard to set for the university.

[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.

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.

I wouldn't mind an offer of a free education. That alone is worth $75,000 or so. I think I'd be happy if they offered something like 4 years of tuition and perhaps raised money for child abuse victims of other crimes a la THON. From what I've heard these individuals aren't that much older than college-age.

[thepittman]

I didn't say there is no evidence, I said "IF". The prosecution will lay out what they have over the next few days.

The prosecution has already rested; they go first. Tomorrow is closing, which is unlikely to last more than an hour or two, assuming the prosecutor is not an idiot, which does not appear to be the case.

Didn't know it was already finished. Thanks for the update

[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.

and further increase the chance of people making unsubstantiated claims to obtain money? Sounds like a bad standard to set for the university.

That's why I worded it the way I did.

[Kraftster]

I'm curious what the theories against the university will be in the civil cases. If there's anything that they can get to a trial with, a free education isn't going to come close to being enough to settle them.

[canaan]

I'm curious what the theories against the university will be in the civil cases. If there's anything that they can get to a trial with, a free education isn't going to come close to being enough to settle them.

why would anybody want an education to the school that covered up, to at least some extent, their molestation? this will end up costing the university big coin in a civil suit.

[thehockeyguru]

Jonathan Dranov, who was called to the house of Mr. McQueary's father on a February night in 2001, said he arrived to find Mr. McQueary "visibly shaken and upset."

"He had gone into the Penn State football locker room to put away sneakers he had just purchased and he heard what he described as sexual sounds" coming from the shower, Dr. Dranov said. "I asked him what he meant and he got more upset."

According to the doctor, Mr. McQueary reported seeing a young boy peer out from around a corner. Then "an arm reached around and pulled him back."

A bit later, Mr. McQueary saw the boy and Mr. Sandusky emerge from the shower, Dr. Dranov testified.

"Did he describe seeing any particular sex act," defense lawyer Karl Rominger asked.

"No," Dr. Dranov replied

[MWB]

Is what Dranov said the same thing that was leaked from the grand jury testimony, supposedly from McQueary?

[thehockeyguru]

Is what Dranov said the same thing that was leaked from the grand jury testimony, supposedly from McQueary?

Most people following the events at Penn State already know that Dr. Dranov stated publicly and in his grand jury testimony, that Mike McQueary gave him a totally different account of what he saw in the showers at Penn State than what he testified to in his grand jury testimony.

According to Dr. Dranov, McQueary told him that as he approached the showers, he "heard the shower running" and saw a young boy poke his head out around the corner of the stall, then saw a male adult arm pull the boy back. He then says he saw Sandusky wrapped in a towel leave the shower with the boy.

Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times if he had seen any sexual activity between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary answered "no".

Based on McQueary's answers Dr. Dranov advised him not to go to the police but to report what he saw to Joe Paterno.

[MWB]

So McQueary's account in trial and in grand jury testimony are consistent, but Dranov says the account was different when told to him.

[thehockeyguru]

So McQueary's account in trial and in grand jury testimony are consistent, but Dranov says the account was different when told to him.

To this point the only thing that McQueary has changed regarding his testimony is the year it happened. This puts some of the Curley / Shultz charges past the statute of limitations.

To be honest Dranov's testimony makes a bit more sense from the standpoint that they decided not to call the state college police right then and there instead opting to go through the Penn State chain of command. I find it hard to believe that McQueary told this physician and family friend sexual acts took place and the guy told him to go to Paterno.

[MWB]

I guess I find it hard to believe they didn't tell him
to go to the police in any case, but I get your point.

[thehockeyguru]

This whole Sara Ganim thing was a bit interesting today.

In early 2011, as The Patriot-News approached the point where it had enough information to run a story that Sandusky was under investigation following allegations of child sex abuse, the paper reached out to the attorney general’s office for comment on the investigation.

The attorney general’s office said the paper could be considered obstructing justice if it did not hand over information obtained during the course of reporting.

The newspaper declined to share information with prosecutors. Instead, the newspaper decided the best course was to send a short text to the mother of one alleged victim providing the name and phone number of an investigator to let her decide if she wanted to speak with authorities.

The text message was forwarded by the alleged victim’s mother to state police, and later turned over to the defense in preparation for trial.

Amendola saw it as a part of his theory that state police pushed several accusers into making allegations of child sex abuse against Sandusky, and that accusations mounted only after news reports of the investigation went public because youths who were helped by the former Penn State coach were motivated by the prospect of civil suits.

[ulf]

I guess I find it hard to believe they didn't tell him
to go to the police in any case, but I get your point.

I find it hard to believe anyone had to tell him what to do. What an idiot.

[Malkamaniac]

Real honest question. Are there people here wanting to see Sandusky go free because it releases Penn State from the grips of bad news? If Sandusky is found guilty, it's a whole heap of nothing good for the school, and reading through this I get the feeling that a few PSU alums/fans want Sandusky to go free so it doesn't damage Penn State in a detrimental way.

[shafnutz05]

Speaking as a lifelong fan of the university, Sandusky being found not guilty would be one of the worst possible things to happen to the school.

Everyone already assumes Sandusky is guilty, so how will a guilty verdict really make things any worse? A "not guilty" verdict will do FAR more damage to the university's reputation.

[llipgh2]

I think while the wounds are still fresh, it's a lose-lose situation for Penn State.

If Sandusky walks, people will believe the Penn State ties the jurors had led them to not be impartial. That the school runs the town and has too much influence.

If he is convicted, Penn State will continue to be accused of not acting fast enough, and harboring a pedophile for the sake of football.

But they will recover faster from the second scenario than the first.

[Malkamaniac]

Speaking as a lifelong fan of the university, Sandusky being found not guilty would be one of the worst possible things to happen to the school.

Everyone already assumes Sandusky is guilty, so how will a guilty verdict really make things any worse? A "not guilty" verdict will do FAR more damage to the university's reputation.

I just get the feeling that people want him to go free in hopes that it all blows over. This is certainly something that's rocked the school, but if found not guilty what would happen with the civil cases against PSU? Still viable?

[shafnutz05]

Speaking as a lifelong fan of the university, Sandusky being found not guilty would be one of the worst possible things to happen to the school.

Everyone already assumes Sandusky is guilty, so how will a guilty verdict really make things any worse? A "not guilty" verdict will do FAR more damage to the university's reputation.

I just get the feeling that people want him to go free in hopes that it all blows over. This is certainly something that's rocked the school, but if found not guilty what would happen with the civil cases against PSU? Still viable?

Yeah, but it won't just blow over if he is found not guilty. The whole scandal of "allowing this to happen" has been ongoing for a while now. I would actually argue that much of the initial fallout has passed by, especially with the death of Joe Paterno (media focus numero uno).

ESPN devoted about 45 seconds of air time to the Sandusky trial I think this week (or maybe it was in a day). Regardless, the fact that he is guilty and the university failed to act on witness reports has already been hashed out.

If a Centre County jury somehow finds him not guilty with 10 witnesses all saying he committed the crime, this will blow up into an even bigger reputation killer for that entire community.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I think Sandusky is guilty and want him to go to jail for what he did. If those in administrative positions at Penn State tried to protect Sandusky then the school will have to suffer for what took place.

I am sure that there are some PSU alumni/fans out there that want Sandusky to be found not guilty though. That line of thinking is misplaced though since it would'nt prevent PSU from losing civil cases.

[tifosi77]

Speaking as a lifelong fan of the university, Sandusky being found not guilty would be one of the worst possible things to happen to the school.

Everyone already assumes Sandusky is guilty, so how will a guilty verdict really make things any worse? A "not guilty" verdict will do FAR more damage to the university's reputation.

Completely agree. In some respects, that could set the University back to 1855.

[count2infinity]

I don't want him to be found not guilty to protect anything university related and i don't want this to just blow over.