Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal (Indictment Post #144, "Pimping" Allegations Post #442)

[Cajuncowboy]

That is still more that the story won't be told. Not that it can't be told. This person could tell the story, but they choose not to.

Trust me. He CAN'T tell it.

 

[joseephuss]

Trust me. He CAN'T tell it.

Sounds like 5th amendment type thing. He can't tell it because it may incriminate him. Nice.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Trust me. He CAN'T tell it.

Why not just finally tell the truth?

It seems they/he are still covering up something.

Just tell the truth, finally once and for all.

 

[WV Cowboy]

No eye witnesses in those cases. Sounds like there will be plenty in this one.

Did you hear his lawyer saying they have found some of those boys and now, as adults, they are saying that nothing happened.

Intimidation ?? Payoff ??

I'm concerned here.

 

[Stautner]

Did you hear his lawyer saying they have found some of those boys and now, as adults, they are saying that nothing happened.

Intimidation ?? Payoff ??

I'm concerned here.

I didn't hear that, but aren't there something like 40 supposed incidents? If it were just a couple of guys I could buy it, but seems like the payoff/intimidation effort would have to be way too big to have a reasonable chance to work. Seems Penn State was a little behind in getting this effort off the ground to begin with, if that's what is happening.

One thing I did hear this morning is that supposedly more victims are coming out.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Sounds like 5th amendment type thing. He can't tell it because it may incriminate him. Nice.

Maybe some of the principals are not available. Maybe.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Why not just finally tell the truth?

It seems they/he are still covering up something.

Just tell the truth, finally once and for all.

Yep.

All about saving their own hide.

And what's worse is we don't know if there is merit to the 'child pimping ring.'

Let's say there is *some* merit to it...that just means there is more child molestors out there that the authorities could find and arrest.

Nobody really cares about the victims becasue if they did, they would act a lot more selfless than they are acting.








YR

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I didn't hear that, but aren't there something like 40 supposed incidents? If it were just a couple of guys I could buy it, but seems like the payoff/intimidation effort would have to be way too big to have a reasonable chance to work. Seems Penn State was a little behind in getting this effort off the ground to begin with, if that's what is happening.

One thing I did hear this morning is that supposedly more victims are coming out.

There may be more victims that come out. The next trick will be to sort through who was actually a victim and who now sees an opportunity to jump on the civil suit gravy train. And don't think there aren't some already planning that.

 

[Stautner]

There may be more victims that come out. The next trick will be to sort through who was actually a victim and who now sees an opportunity to jump on the civil suit gravy train. And don't think there aren't some already planning that.

I agree, and in fact that was an immediate thought when I heard more victims were coming out. Some of them may well be golddiggers, but the fact remains that out of a boatload of accussers and alleged incidents it seems pretty unlikely that none of it will stick or that Penn State and Sandusky can make it all go away.

 

[casmith07]

Sounds like 5th amendment type thing. He can't tell it because it may incriminate him. Nice.

He CAN tell it, but if it could incriminate him the 5th Amendment will protect him from prosecution.

 

[casmith07]

Right. The basic default rule is defendants don't talk to anyone before trial and don't testify at trial.

Amendola has basically pigeon-holed Sandusky into having to testify at trial. To think he would speak before the trial to defend himself and not testify on his own behalf?? That would be odd. All that stuff can be used against him at trial now. And now if any part of his story changes he's even more sunk than he already was.

I was more referring to the thought that sometimes a defendant would do an interview like this after the trial is done. But something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware.

Absolutely! It's as if Amendola is already conceding defeat. Mind-boggling strategy, if you can even call it that.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I agree, and in fact that was an immediate thought when I heard more victims were coming out. Some of them may well be golddiggers, but the fact remains that out of a boatload of accussers and alleged incidents it seems pretty unlikely that none of it will stick or that Penn State and Sandusky can make it all go away.

I was told by a prominent lawyer that people looking for a lawsuit will be easily dismissed in court.

However, I think that if somebody looking for a lawsuit comes out, it does re-hash the scandal in the public's eyes.






YR

 

[casmith07]

I was told by a prominent lawyer that people looking for a lawsuit will be easily dismissed in court.

However, I think that if somebody looking for a lawsuit comes out, it does re-hash the scandal in the public's eyes.

YR

Your prominent source is correct. You have to have standing in order to make it past the smell test. If there's nothing substantial there, they'll be easily dismissed in court.

If I'm Amendola/Sandusky I'm doing everything in my power to settle out of court for any civil proceedings. AND take a deal for criminal.

 

[Stautner]

He CAN tell it, but if it could incriminate him the 5th Amendment will protect him from prosecution.

You can't go public and tell everyone you did something then go to court and plead the 5th in court and be protected. The 5th only protects you if you choose not to talk, it doesn't wipe the slate clean if you have already talked and there is a credible record of it.

I was told by a prominent lawyer that people looking for a lawsuit will be easily dismissed in court.

However, I think that if somebody looking for a lawsuit comes out, it does re-hash the scandal in the public's eyes.

YR

This is true assuming the intentions of the party are made known up front and/or if the party isn't credible, but if the party can be verified as being in the place he claims an incident occured (like a 2 mile event), and appears to be credible, he can be a witness at trial. He can always file a civil suit later.

 

[casmith07]

You can't go public and tell everyone you did something then go to court and plead the 5th in court and be protected. The 5th only protects you if you choose not to talk, it doesn't wipe the slate clean if you have already talked and there is a credible record of it.

If you self-report a crime with evidence of said crime, a conviction will not survive the scrutiny of the courts on the basis of the 5th Amendment.

I'm writing a paper on this very issue related to self-reporting of convictions/crimes in the military based on a statute that Congress implemented in 2006.

 

[Stautner]

If you self-report a crime with evidence of said crime, a conviction will not survive the scrutiny of the courts on the basis of the 5th Amendment.

I'm writing a paper on this very issue related to self-reporting of convictions/crimes in the military based on a statute that Congress implemented in 2006.

I understand at that point (initially) a person has not been read his rights, but if he waives his rights and signs a confession that is not coerced are you telling me the authorities cannot use it, nor use any of the evidence he willingly brought in? I have a hard time believing that because if that were the case all any criminal would have to do is bring all the evidence of his crime to the police and they couldn't prosecute him. "Here Sgt. McClusky, here's every shred of evidence you need to throw me in jail for life, but since I brought it to you myself rather than you having to investigate to find it you can't use any of it!"

Nevertheless, reporting a crime to the authorities is not the same as going public through public forums, and that's what we are talking about here. Going public through public forums doesn't mean the accussed has to testify at trial - he's still protected from doing that - but it does not mean whatever he said or did on camera is inadmissable.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Just FYI, other than the interesting debate going on here about the 5th and self incrimination, it doesn't apply to what I was referring to. It's not that the person in question "Won't" give all the details, it's that he "Can't" give ANY details.

 

[peplaw06]

If you self-report a crime with evidence of said crime, a conviction will not survive the scrutiny of the courts on the basis of the 5th Amendment.

I'm writing a paper on this very issue related to self-reporting of convictions/crimes in the military based on a statute that Congress implemented in 2006.

I understand at that point (initially) a person has not been read his rights, but if he waives his rights and signs a confession that is not coerced are you telling me the authorities cannot use it, nor use any of the evidence he willingly brought in? I have a hard time believing that because if that were the case all any criminal would have to do is bring all the evidence of his crime to the police and they couldn't prosecute him. "Here Sgt. McClusky, here's every shred of evidence you need to throw me in jail for life, but since I brought it to you myself rather than you having to investigate to find it you can't use any of it!"

Nevertheless, reporting a crime to the authorities is not the same as going public through public forums, and that's what we are talking about here. Going public through public forums doesn't mean the accussed has to testify at trial - he's still protected from doing that - but it does not mean whatever he said or did on camera is inadmissable.

I think you two are talking about two different people.

 

[Stautner]

Just FYI, other than the interesting debate going on here about the 5th and self incrimination, it doesn't apply to what I was referring to. It's not that the person in question "Won't" give all the details, it's that he "Can't" give ANY details.

Are you talking about someone who is mentally incapable communicating details? Otherwise I don't understand the use of the word CAN'T unless it's due to concerns over self-incrimination.

 

[casmith07]

I understand at that point (initially) a person has not been read his rights, but if he waives his rights and signs a confession that is not coerced are you telling me the authorities cannot use it, nor use any of the evidence he willingly brought in? I have a hard time believing that because if that were the case all any criminal would have to do is bring all the evidence of his crime to the police and they couldn't prosecute him. "Here Sgt. McClusky, here's every shred of evidence you need to throw me in jail for life, but since I brought it to you myself rather than you having to investigate to find it you can't use any of it!"

Nevertheless, reporting a crime to the authorities is not the same as going public through public forums, and that's what we are talking about here. Going public through public forums doesn't mean the accussed has to testify at trial - he's still protected from doing that - but it does not mean whatever he said or did on camera is inadmissable.

If a guy waives his rights, then he's been suspected of an offense and apprehended by authorities, and has not self-reported.