T.D. Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 And now, the Hygiene Defense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 Testimony: Paterno ‘knew inappropriate action was taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster’ in 2002 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Joe-Paterno-told-a-grand-jury-he-8216-knew-ina?urn=ncaaf-wp11597 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 Sandusky should be shot if guilty IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Loyal Sandusky wife/enabler besmirches victims: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sandusky-trial-hears-wife-defend-husband-criticize-victims/story?id=16601332#.T-Hfib_PZJh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 This whole thing is so tawdry is stretches the definition of the word. Someone need to explain why NBC sat on most of the Costas interview with Sandusky. There is no excuse for that. None. What little respect I have left for the national news media just took another major hit. If the jury takes more than 10 minutes to convict this guy, they're not doing their job. Hopefully, Mr, Sandusky will soon find out what it's like to be the hunted and not the hunter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 This whole thing is so tawdry is stretches the definition of the word. Someone need to explain why NBC sat on most of the Costas interview with Sandusky. There is no excuse for that. None. What little respect I have left for the national news media just took another major hit. If the jury takes more than 10 minutes to convict this guy, they're not doing their job. Hopefully, Mr, Sandusky will soon find out what it's like to be the hunted and not the hunter. Well, the primary excuse is that it would taint the deliberations and preclude Sandusky from a fair trial. It could then be aired later. Granted, the US is very different from the UK and Europe in terms of what can be published prior to a trial. (In at least some countries, notably Germany, privacy laws might preclude much from being published after the trial -- I don't hold much truck with Germany's privacy laws, but that's a different topic.) Given that the interview is out there floating around, if Sandusky takes the stand, one would certainly hope that the prosecutor would ask him to explain those quotes, so they do become part of the trial record. As it is now, they might be considered hearsay (in a legal sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The NBC interview can't be used by the prosecution because of the right of the accused not to testify. Had he chosen to testify, it could then be used in cross-examination to impeach whatever BS Sandusky would have said on the stand. All that is moot since they didn't call him to the stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a moot point. What I'm questioning is why NBC chose to air only a portion of the interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 It is a moot point. What I'm questioning is why NBC chose to air only a portion of the interview. They (and especially their lawyers) may have felt it was so explosive that it would have jeapordized the trial. Can you imagine how much more flak they would have taken if they aired it, and this was at the heart of a successful appeal? And frankly how much more trial by media do we need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 And frankly how much more trial by media do we need? Anything that gets this creep closer to the slammer is OK by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Judge drops three counts vs JS If this MFer walks .......,,,,,,,,,, Edited June 21, 2012 by Soulstation1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Judge drops three counts vs JS If this MFer walks .......,,,,,,,,,, Those seem to be technicalities, and that's 3 of 51, so I don't think that will change anything. The defense seems to have consisted of character witnesses and the wife. Perhaps they will have some effect on the jury, but IMO, character witnesses are irrelevant. Plenty of monsters lead double lives as upstanding members of the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Judge drops three counts vs JS If this MFer walks .......,,,,,,,,,, Those seem to be technicalities, and that's 3 of 51, so I don't think that will change anything. The defense seems to have consisted of character witnesses and the wife. Perhaps they will have some effect on the jury, but IMO, character witnesses are irrelevant. Plenty of monsters lead double lives as upstanding members of the community. Yes, a technicality. The judge ruled that the three charges being dropped were redundant. I think the defense's strategy all along has been to convince just one person on the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been established. The wife, the trotting out of multiple character witnesses, the repeated allusions to the deep pockets of Penn State University or even the Second Mile Foundation, alleged coaching of witnesses and the discussion of personality disorders are all designed to create uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 And frankly how much more trial by media do we need? Anything that gets this creep closer to the slammer is OK by me. Yes, but a jury "tainted" by the media isn't going to help get him convicted. I'm not sure what NBC's reasons were, but I'd be curious to hear them too. I'd be shocked if he isn't found guilty. As one commentator said, having ten (or however many) accusers taking the stand is like having a video of the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Attorneys: Sandusky's adopted son says he's also a victim By the CNN Wire Staff updated 5:37 PM EDT, Thu June 21, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-trial/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Edited June 23, 2012 by Dave James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alocispepraluger102 Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) let's not forget small town reporter sarah ganim's role in exposing this story. our worthless big national media and personnel couldn't research and develop a news story with a real edge and get it straight if it hit them alongside their pompous heads. sarah ganim wins pulitzer prize Edited June 23, 2012 by alocispepraluger102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Wow He faces 300-400 years in jail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Wow He faces 300-400 years in jail And, as if it matters, the terms will be served consecutively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 AWESOME. If there's any real justice though, this verdict will have far wider implications than just the incarceration of one man for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I seem to recall hearing somewhere that pedophiles are at the bottom of the food chain (as it were) in prison society. So I don't think he's going to have a very easy time of it - if he survives, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 There's even a term for them in prison slang - 'short eyes'. May he rot in hell. Bertrand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete C Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 There's even a term for them in prison slang - 'short eyes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alocispepraluger102 Posted June 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 A novel based on the Sandusky story might be quite something if it were done in the right way, whatever that might be. I'm thinking of Jonathan Littell's "The Furies," whose main character is an SS man who plays a key role in the Holocaust. For a good while I thought this was a book (and it's a massive one, too) that I would despise and ought to stay away from, but when I finally read it I found it fascinating and enlightening, though it was not without flaws IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts