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

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Anyone who knows that a child is being molested and doesn't do a thing about it should be ashamed of themselves. Paterno definitely deserved to get fired.

 

[casmith07]

What you may be thinking of is things like custody hearings where the judge might take the minor to a separate room so he can hear what he has to say in a non-threatening environment. Making a criminal accusation is another matter, and the defense has the right to try and refute the testimony the way he would with any other witness.

Yep. Defendant has a right to confront his accusers and any witnesses in a court of law.

 

[peplaw06]

What you may be thinking of is things like custody hearings where the judge might take the minor to a separate room so he can hear what he has to say in a non-threatening environment. Making a criminal accusation is another matter, and the defense has the right to try and refute the testimony the way he would with any other witness.

Yep. Defendant has a right to confront his accusers and any witnesses in a court of law.

Some states provide for the victim to testify (and be cross-examined) by closed-circuit television in another room separate from the jury and gallery. Not sure if it is possible in Pennsylvania or not, and I'm sure the defense would object, but it would be up to the judge. Most of the time though, that is reserved for the very young victims. If these victims were 10-12 years old when the offense was alleged to have occurred, they'll be anywhere from 15-25 years old at the time of trial. Odds are they'll all testify in front of a jury.

 

[peplaw06]

This was my point, so I'm confused why you were disagreeing with it. If anyone (Sandusky or anyone else - doesn't matter who we are talking about) makes public statements in public forums the 5th amendment is not a protection for them regarding what they said in those forums.

He was disagreeing with you because he was talking about something completely different than the Sandusky interview when you chimed in and responded to him. He and joseephus were talking about the person Cajun knows. You thought he was talking about Sandusky.

 

[Rogah]

Maybe so, but the same principle applies regardless of who it is. I don't believe if a criminal willingly brings the evidence of a crime to the police that frees him from being prosecuted for the crime. I know some aspects of our legal system are screwy, but I don't buy that one

What I suspect you are talking about is whether bringing that evidence to the police compels the criminal (or alledged criminal) to testify against himself, and I agree that it does not. Accordingly, the 5th amendment protects the accused from having to testify against themselves at trial, but it doesn't provide a blanket protection against considering the actions of the accused prior to that.

You are correct about that but realistically if someone has committed a crime but they are not the main target, they could make a deal with the prosecutor for immunity. In other words, hypothetically speaking, suppose McQueary committed a crime when he decided not to call the police following the night he personally witnessed the sexual abuse. He is protected against self incrimination and he doesn't have to testify. However, realistically speaking, the prosecutor wants to get Sandusky and not McQueary so McQueary would be given immunity in exchange for his testimony.

 

[Rogah]

Or, if the government compels production of evidence of a crime, which is what I'm writing about.

But yes, the Sandusky interview with Costas would and should be played at trial.

It's definitely a head-scratcher. I can't believe he did the interview. The only thing I could think is that Amendola will attempt to use the interview to show that by not attempting to conceal anything, Sandusky lacks the mens rea for the crime and is therefore setting up an NGI defense...but that's thinner than air.

Either Sandusky's lawyer is a complete moron or he has no plans whatsoever of actually going to trial. Right now I'm split 50/50 on which of those 2 choices is actually the case.

 

[Rogah]

Is there a "my attorney is not competent enough to defend me" defense?

That could be grounds for a mistrial, but the attorney's incompetence would have to be something that actually took place during the trial.

If Sandusky actually went to trial, say with a new lawyer, that lawyer could move to have the phone-call-interview inadmissible, perhaps with the reasoning that that interview was conducted under the poor advice of counsel. I would consider such a motion a longshot, but judges are a 1-man show, so you can never tell what may happen.

 

[Rogah]

Would they put minors on the stand? Wouldn't they do the cross-examination somewhere other than an open courtroom?

There are processes in place to protect the identity of a witness. The prosecutor certainly has the option to put minors on the stand if he so chooses.

 

[Rogah]

This was my point, so I'm confused why you were disagreeing with it. If anyone (Sandusky or anyone else - doesn't matter who we are talking about) makes public statements in public forums the 5th amendment is not a protection for them regarding what they said in those forums.

This is correct. The 5th amendment protects you from being forced to make statements which are self incrimination. It does not, however, protect you from statements you have voluntarily made in an open forum. Also, most states do not allow taped conversations to be admissible if the person doesn't know he is being taped, no matter what the accused may have said. Obviously that is not the case here.

If the same conversation took place in a police holding cell, with a policeman doing the questioning instead of Bob Costas, and Sandusky had not been read his rights, then his statements would be inadmissible - or if it was determined there was some sort of coercion or force. But given the fact that Sandusky was voluntarily conducting that interview, the statements are 100% in play.

 

[casmith07]

This is correct. The 5th amendment protects you from being forced to make statements which are self incrimination. It does not, however, protect you from statements you have voluntarily made in an open forum. Also, most states do not allow taped conversations to be admissible if the person doesn't know he is being taped, no matter what the accused may have said. Obviously that is not the case here.

If the same conversation took place in a police holding cell, with a policeman doing the questioning instead of Bob Costas, and Sandusky had not been read his rights, then his statements would be inadmissible - or if it was determined there was some sort of coercion or force. But given the fact that Sandusky was voluntarily conducting that interview, the statements are 100% in play.

That's what makes it even more ridiculous.

 

[JBond]

So did McQueary lie to the grand jury or in the email to his buddies? He is lying. There is no doubt. He has contradicted his formal testimony to the grand jury. So who did he lie to?

Did he go to the cops? Did he stop the rape of a child? Or did he run to his daddy and abandoned the child as the grand jury testimony indicates?

 

[TNCowboy]

So did McQueary lie to the grand jury or in the email to his buddies? He is lying. There is no doubt. He has contradicted his formal testimony to the grand jury. So who did he lie to?

Did he go to the cops? Did he stop the rape of a child? Or did he run to his daddy and abandoned the child as the grand jury testimony indicates?

I would think there would be a record of him going to the police, but then, with everyone scrambling to cover themselves, who knows?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

So did McQueary lie to the grand jury or in the email to his buddies? He is lying. There is no doubt. He has contradicted his formal testimony to the grand jury. So who did he lie to?

Did he go to the cops? Did he stop the rape of a child? Or did he run to his daddy and abandoned the child as the grand jury testimony indicates?

What they were saying last night on the radio was that the grand jury report is a highly condensed version and not a complete detail of everything said in testimony.

He could be lying now to make himself look better, but I'm inclined to believe that he did stop the assault, as he claimed in the email.

 

[03EBZ06]

Ok, let's say he did stop the assault, then what took place immediately after that? Who notified his parents? Who took the boy to his home or to the hospital? What did Sandusky do or say when he intervened? To me these are important matters that should be documented in Grand Jury report, even if it's condensed version.

I find it hard to believe McQueary's actions on that day was not fully documented in Grand Jury report when other incidents were very detailed and graphic.

 

[JBond]

Ok, let's say he did stop the assault, then what took place immediately after that? Who notified his parents? Who took the boy to his home or to the hospital? What did Sandusky do or say when he intervened? To me these are important matters that should be documented in Grand Jury report, even if it's condensed version.

I find it hard to believe McQueary's actions on that day was not fully documented in Grand Jury report when other incidents were very detailed and graphic.

Excellent questions. Police? Hospital? Doctor? Anything?

 

[JBond]

What they were saying last night on the radio was that the grand jury report is a highly condensed version and not a complete detail of everything said in testimony.

He could be lying now to make himself look better, but I'm inclined to believe that he did stop the assault, as he claimed in the email.

and then what? What happened next? I think McQueary is a POS that needs some jail time so he can learn first hand what it is like to be abused.

 

[peplaw06]

Ok, let's say he did stop the assault, then what took place immediately after that? Who notified his parents? Who took the boy to his home or to the hospital? What did Sandusky do or say when he intervened? To me these are important matters that should be documented in Grand Jury report, even if it's condensed version.

I find it hard to believe McQueary's actions on that day was not fully documented in Grand Jury report when other incidents were very detailed and graphic.

That grand jury report is more detailed than any grand jury report I've ever seen. They didn't need near as much evidence as it sounds they heard to indict him. And I seriously doubt McQueary sat through hours and hours of testimony as he likely would if he were in trial. Wouldn't be surprising to me if additional things happened that McQueary didn't tell the grand jury.

 

[JBond]

Inside the Mind of Jerry Sandusky

For those of us who are no longer 10 years old emotionally, we cringed again and again during Sandusky’s statements. That’s what people do when their internal barometers of truth register something pathological unfolding. But some assailants among us don’t have such a barometer inside them at all. Hence, they think that we don’t, either.

Sandusky told us that he asked an alleged victim’s mother for forgiveness (but allowed that she might never be able to offer it) because he had exercised bad judgment being naked with her child. Yet, he denied being sexually attracted to children. He stated—again with no emotion—that Mike McQueary, then a graduate assistant at Penn State, and a janitor, were both lying when they reported that he was sodomizing children. Yet he offered no reason why they would lie.

Sandusky spoke in a monotone voice, without expressing any outrage or even disbelief that victims would come forward and accuse him of sodomizing them when they were children. His ability to remain composed may reflect an inability to resonate with the emotions of others and possibly even an inability to feel any guilt or remorse. Were you or I wrongly accused of raping children, I can imagine we would be saying things like, “Bob, this is preposterous. I am being railroaded. I don’t know who has it in for me, but I’m going to find out. This is entirely baseless. I will take a dozen polygraphs today. Tell me where to show up. I’ll do it on your show. I only want to clear my name and save my friends and family from the pain of thinking for one moment that I am a monster.”

Nope. We didn’t hear that. What we may have heard (if Sandusky is proven guilty) is that chilling sound of a man under siege who feels nothing so much as his own dark desires, who sees others only as prey, who has no regard for the truth and whose pulse rises not even a little when his cruelty and depravity are revealed.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/15/inside-mind-jerry-sandusky/#ixzz1dtEcYpHj

 

[WV Cowboy]

I worry that some of the victims, who are now in their mid to late 20's, don't want to come forward and reveal to the world what happened to them in private.

(who could blame them?)

Some may not have even told their parents.

Some may have wives now, and their own families. Their wives may not even know that this happened to their husband years ago.

They may just decide to keep silent, .. and Sandusky wins.

 

[Joe Realist]

I worry that some of the victims, who are now in their mid to late 20's, don't want to come forward and reveal to the world what happened to them in private.

(who could blame them?)

Some may not have even told their parents.

Some may have wives now, and their own families. Their wives may not even know that this happened to their husband years ago.

They may just decide to keep silent, .. and Sandusky wins.

..and that is what the defense has done, basically daring them to come forward. Sandusky will win.