PDA

View Full Version : Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Lacey
06-23-2012, 08:39 PM
I am not mad at Joe Paterno, may he rest in peace, I actually think he thought he had told the authorities.

I am not mad at the coach with the red hair, who thought he had reported it to school officials. He should get back his job or a lifetime retirement fund. Strange that one of the charges was what he thought he witnessed in the shower, guess the jury decided they couldn't be sure what crime it really was.

I am furious at each and every officer of the university, up to and including the former president, because they all knew and closed their eyes. And they should all be placed on leave immediately, if they are still there, charged and prosecuted, and fired if they are not gone already with no retirement if found guilty.

And yes, you all are correct here, Snaduskey's wife should bear some responsibility. Bad enough that he did things to all of those children. Think about it, he also did them to their own adopted kids. And she knew about everything, must have.

And I hope they can close his "charity" and get some of the donated money back to distribute to his victims. And sell his house and get his retirement account for them too.

I hope this is a lesson for pedophiles everywhere.

Polymer Bob
06-23-2012, 09:14 PM
According to WJAC-TV (Johnstown, PA), he was found not guilty of the counts that happened in the Penn State shower.

Well, if that filth likes sex in the shower, he should enjoy where he's going.

barbk
06-24-2012, 02:56 AM
He was only found not guilty on the charge related to sexual assault in the shower, because the jury couldn't conclude that McQuery had actually seen penetration. He was convicted of all the other charges associated with that incident.

And I don't ever think jail rape is appropriate punishment no matter what the crime.

agalisgv
06-24-2012, 03:40 AM
Penn State trying to get out front of anticipated civil suits:
Pennsylvania State University announced its next phase of damage control in the matter of Sandusky's sexual-abuse victims.

"The university plans to invite victims of Mr. Sandusky's abuse to participate in a program to facilitate the resolution of claims against the university arising out of Mr. Sandusky's conduct," school president Rodney Erickson said in a statement released just after the 45 guilty verdicts against Sandusky were brought in Friday night. "The purpose of the program is simple. The university wants to provide a forum where the university can privately, expeditiously, and fairly address the victims' concerns and compensate them for claims."

The purpose of the program is very simple. That much is true. The university wants to get ahead of the tide of civil complaints that will be brought by the victims and buy short against a market that could turn against Penn State quite severely.

It's the smart thing to do - settle quietly, extract no-public-comment promises as part of the bargain - and move on. The school knows that a jury might reasonably find some of its top administrators liable for allowing Sandusky to remain on campus and for not taking allegations made against him to the proper legal authorities.

Penn State could risk waiting for those judgments to go in its favor after former vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz; on-leave athletic director Tim Curley; and, quite possibly, former president Graham B. Spanier are tried on various perjury and failure-to-report charges. That would be a huge bet with possibly devastating consequences, however, and not a risk the school appears willing to take.

The school might be calculating that the victims, many of whom came from troubled or disadvantaged backgrounds, will take the quick settlement rather than slog through a civil process in which they will once again have to recount the most painful memories of their lives. It's a pricey game of Let's Make A Deal, and some of the victims will probably take the money on the table rather than wait to find out what's behind door number three.

It would be hard to blame them either way, and Penn State loyalists who insist the school did nothing wrong should ask themselves why the school is so eager to settle with the victims. The top remaining administrators and the board of trustees know far more than any of us what really went on and know how many people within the football program and above were aware that "Jerry has a problem," or some whispered code of the same sort.
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/20120623_In_Sandusky_case__Penn_State_tries_to_get _ahead_of_civil_actions.html?cmpid=137039853#ixzz1 yfrco6G5

Polymer Bob
06-24-2012, 03:59 PM
I never really believed in witch hunts. They should try to resolve the issue quickly and fairly.

heckles
06-24-2012, 04:05 PM
He was only found not guilty on the charge related to sexual assault in the shower, because the jury couldn't conclude that McQuery had actually seen penetration. He was convicted of all the other charges associated with that incident.

Does that mean that he was found guilty of fondling that specific boy, but not raping him? Did the boy allege he'd been raped?

agalisgv
06-24-2012, 04:09 PM
The boy above has never been located. That was the problem--there was no direct testimony in that case.



ETA: Apparently Sandusky is under suicide watch.

Lacey
06-24-2012, 05:21 PM
The suicide watch is more to give him protection from other inmates than to address his emotional state. But apparently it puts him in solitude, which is not always a great thing.

With regard to the university's very quick thinking about offers to those who were harmed by Sanduskey, I am naiive not to have thought that they have been waiting these six months with a we're so sorry after all the denials over the years. I mean, talk about a wham bang move.

I obviously hope that those who were able to testify will get huge quick settlements.

But I am on the fence about those who have yet to come out of the woodwork, would they take a small offer when they could get a much larger amount from a jury.

And isn't the bottom line for Penn State that they want to keep their executives (former) out of trouble?

Also I read something about their insurance company isn't quite so wild about the university offering what the company will have to pay off, they have to agree and might (probably wrongly) think that they could get off with less.

barbk
06-24-2012, 05:35 PM
Does that mean that he was found guilty of fondling that specific boy, but not raping him? Did the boy allege he'd been raped?

He was found guilty of several counts related to that boy (I forget the exact name of the charges) but not the specific deviant sexual assault charge. So, it seems that the jury felt that there was clearly very, very inappropriate, sexual behavior demonstrated, but not enough evidence to convict on the rape charge itself.

purple skates
06-24-2012, 05:38 PM
Also I read something about their insurance company isn't quite so wild about the university offering what the company will have to pay off, they have to agree and might (probably wrongly) think that they could get off with less.

I'm no expert on insurance, but I would think that the willful misconduct by Penn State officials in not investigating/stopping the abuses could negate the insurance policy in this instance.

barbk
06-24-2012, 05:41 PM
Sandusky's attorney seems to be doing everything possible to create grounds for an appeal. Given the many inappropriate things he's said outside of court during the trial and the deliberations, the poor job he did on the defense, whatever Second Mile and Sandusky paid him was way too much. (I'm not defending Sandusky in the least, but nobody deserves a lawyer like that.)

agalisgv
06-24-2012, 06:37 PM
Unfortunately attorney misconduct is rarely if ever a sufficient reason for an appeal.

milanessa
06-24-2012, 06:52 PM
Did anyone see the Anderson Cooper interview with Joe Amendola (Sandusky's lawyer) the night of the verdict? More specifically his comments while he was being miked and readying himself to be on air. Completely inappropriate, IMO. When Jason Carroll, the CNN reporter on the scene, told him they were going to hook him up (fit his microphone) he responded "With who? Is she cute?" (that may not be a direct quote but it's close.) He sounded punch drunk.

I found it on YT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrY1JUwwv8

Polymer Bob
06-24-2012, 08:31 PM
I'm no expert on insurance, but I would think that the willful misconduct by Penn State officials in not investigating/stopping the abuses could negate the insurance policy in this instance.

I don't have all the details in front of me, but I seem to recall that they DID investigate. :confused:

purple skates
06-24-2012, 08:40 PM
I don't have all the details in front of me, but I seem to recall that they DID investigate. :confused:

There's no way there wasn't a huge cover-up going on.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19366104/sandusky-trial-reveals-suspected-coverup-by-penn-state-officials


The Sandusky story, the way authorities have framed it, is one littered with missed chances to stop a rapist who preyed on children for years.

Prosecutors have hinted that top university officials knew far more about Sandusky's alleged proclivities than they have let on, submitting a document Monday that says Penn State's former vice president -- himself facing charges related to the scandal -- maintained a file on Sandusky a decade ago. A Penn State trustee told the Associated Press he now suspects a coverup.

Yet evidence and testimony from the trial also show there were plenty of people, not just those at the highest levels of the university, who had ample opportunity to stop a man accused of violating 10 boys over 15 years: