Yes. but they will be far worse for both with a conviction.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sandusky update (more evidence against Joe P)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
This just keeps getting worse. When I head he had a number of adopted kids, I feared this would be the outcome.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...rry-sandusky-accused-sexual-abuse-adopted-son
http://espn.go.com/college-football...rry-sandusky-accused-sexual-abuse-adopted-son
apparently he diddled his own son
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20906116/closing-arguments-set-sandusky-abuse-trial
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20906116/closing-arguments-set-sandusky-abuse-trial
What leads you to say that? Anything specific ... or wishful speculation (which I share BTW).
the defense did nothing to sway
77buff
Well-Known Member
Why didn't the defense let his adopted son testify?
77buff
Well-Known Member
It would be great to see Penn State sued for millions as a result of Sandusky, and their botched coverup.
Defense or prosecution? Would have been a better witness for the prosecution, but because (and Snow/other lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong as I read this in an article last night) he wasn't originally on the prosecutions witness list, the defense would have been able to move to delay the trial for months and they would have to find a new jury as well. Had the defense called Sandusky to the stand, the prosecutors could have countered with his adopted son, but only then.
/not a lawyer
The report I read was that he only came forward and offered to testify a little over a week ago. This would have created problems because as you mention he wasn't on the prosecutions witness list submitted to the defense.
According the the same article a bigger issue was that up until this time he has been vehement in denying that Sandusky did anything to him. The speculation from the prosecutor asked in the article was that the prosecution did not want to put him on the stand then have him have to explain why he is saying this now after saying the opposite for so long. The idea is that as a prosecutor you don't want to introduce doubt into the minds of the jury. Once they start doubting one thing then it is easier to transfer that doubt to other evidence as well and your overall case becomes damaged.
In this case where they felt that they had multiple other credible witnesses the addition of Sandusky's son would not have added much and could potentially do a lot of damage so they didn't use him.
You (and Goose) are spot-on. If the son had come forward when this first broke, that would have been one thing. Waiting until the trial was well underway as he did would have shed doubts on his testimony.
The son may well have stuck by his father initially thinking he was the only one who was violated ... but after hearing the testimony of 8 others changed his mind. That's the only reason I can think of for his coming forward so late. But him testifying would only have muddled things for the jury.
New developments
BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- After deliberating for more than seven hours, the jury in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse trial asked the judge Thursday night if it could rehear testimony from two witnesses: Mike McQueary, a onetime Penn State graduate assistant who reported seeing the former Nittany Lions coach assault a boy in a campus shower, and Dr. Jonathan Dranov, who testified that McQueary gave him a different account of what he saw.
Judge John Cleland told the jurors that McQueary's testimony was about two hours in length and Dranov's was about 20 minutes long.
[h=4]Penn State Scandal[/h]Former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky is standing trial on accusations of molesting young boys. ESPN.com Topics has full coverage of the scandal and the ongoing trial. Topics Page »
"It would be a long night" if they tried to review the McQueary testimony, the judge said.
"My suggestion to you is we address that question first thing in the morning -- if that's OK with you," Cleland said. "You've been at it a little while now. I'll leave it to your discretion."
The jury then decided to listen again to that testimony, and restart deliberations, Friday.
Sandusky faces life in prison if convicted of 48 counts of abuse of 10 boys over 15 years.
Dranov, a family friend of McQueary, said he spoke to McQueary the night McQueary claimed to have seen Sandusky engaging in a sex act with a boy of about 10.
Dranov testified Wednesday that McQueary described hearing "sexual sounds" and seeing a boy in the shower and an arm reach around him and pulling him out of view. McQueary said he made eye contact with the boy and Sandusky later emerged from the showers, Dranov said.
That account differs from what McQueary told a grand jury that investigated Sandusky and what he told jurors June 12.
McQueary testified he saw Sandusky pressing a boy up against the wall inside the shower, and that he had no doubt he was witnessing anal sex. McQueary's report to his superiors -- and Penn State officials' failure to go to outside law enforcement -- is what ultimately led to the firing of longtime coach Joe Paterno.
Dranov told the jury that McQueary didn't provide him with a graphic description of what he saw but described hearing sounds he considered sexual in nature.
"It just seemed to make him upset, so I backed off that," Dranov said.
When prosecutors asked Dranov to describe McQueary's demeanor, he said the former Penn State starting quarterback was clearly upset.
"His voice was trembling. His hands were shaking. He was visibly shaken," Dranov said.
McQueary had testified June 12 that he wasn't "overdescriptive" in his conversation with Dranov, saying he told the doctor that what he saw was sexual, wrong and perverse.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
Well ... it does to some extent, because what McQueary told the GJ and testified to at trial was more explicit as to what he saw. But that could be explained away by McQueary feeling (justifiably IMO) ashamed that he didn't take action on the spot.
I just hope the jury sees through this ... as despicable as McQueary's [non] actions were ... Sandusky's were much more so.
What really worries me (as I posted) before ... is that the jury wasn't allowed to hear expert testimony as to victim behavior following sexual assault by someone they trusted ... and to refute the defense's "expert" who tried to explain away JS's actions in writing letters to the victims.
Sandusky had also been a mentor to McQueary and a friend of his family. McQueary had hero worship for the guy. Of course his hands were shaking, he was in denial, he was in shock, and he had trouble expressing everything immediately after it happened.
What would make me question McQueary would be if he was on point and in total control of himself when he talked to people in the hours and days following what he witnessed.
That reaction is actually believeable. I'm saddened that his father told him to keep his mouth shut once he reported it AND that he followed his fathers advice.
somebody
Well-Known Member
It looks like the jury may be looking for a way to discredit, or maybe they do just want clarity. At any rate, that would only impact McQueary's testimony, and it's nearly impossible to buy the defense's cnspiracy theory. Anyway, if this jury does come back not guilty, the adopted son's charges could be the basis for new charges.
**** this guy
I'm sure he just wants a ticklin.
**** this guy
I'm interpreting the shirt different than you, I think. My impression is he wants to serve justice himself. Why would he call him the tickle monster if he actually thought he was innocent and wanted him released and found innocent?
+1
Last edited:
I think the shirt is hilarious.
Agreed. I don't think that dude thinks Sand is innocent. BCS has never been good at interpreting things correctly.
This seems like some really bizarre AllBuffs Rorschach test.
I think the guy is being sarcastic with that shirt and making fun of how ridiculous it was for Sandusky to try to get people to think his actions were innocent by referring to himself as a tickle monster.