chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 10:42pm
When asked the question, "Are you sexually attracted to young boys", who takes 15 seconds to say no?!?! And not even a definite no.
Fab1b
Posts: 12,949
Nov 14, 2011 10:42pm
thank you much listening now
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 10:43pm
I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.Little Danny;973268 wrote:Ok, not to go all political here, but Sandusky is basically using the Bill Clinton "It depends on your definition of IS, is" defense. He is admitting to taking long showers with these children and touching them, yet not in a "sexual" way. This is absolutely insane to be used in the context of relations with a child. What's more, this interview will be used against him and Penn State in both their future criminal and civil actions. I would love to a civil plaintiff lawyer who signs up one or more of these children. Cha-Ching!
But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horseshit
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 10:44pm
Next post is 10,000, use it wisely.Fab1b;973271 wrote:thank you much listening now
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 14, 2011 10:45pm
chicago510;973272 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.
But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horseshit
To be fair it wasn't enough for 2 police detectives and an investigator for Pennsylvania Child Welfare in 1998 to take it the Prosecutor.
reclegend22
Posts: 8,772
Nov 14, 2011 10:46pm
No, showering with little boys is not horse****. It is horseplay. Big difference. Jerry was just playing a game of wild pony with the children when all of his clothes fell off.
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Nov 14, 2011 10:47pm
Not that anything about this interview helped him, but expressing remorse while also maintaining your innocence wouldn't make a lot of sense.jordo212000;973217 wrote:He doesn't sound very remorseful. You'd figure he might be crying or something? Dude is a sociopath, just matter of fact the whole time.
If he did stop the assault then he earns a few points back, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about his course of actions.Fab1b;973251 wrote:Just got a SportsCenter alert on my phone stating - Sources told Tom Rinaldi that McQuearly stopped Sandusky's sexual assault in 2002. WTF? Now if I am McQueary I am saying that from the get go as he has been drug through the mud like a pussy!
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Nov 14, 2011 10:49pm
I'd think it might be determined that jurors who heard this interview would need to be screened out to preserve a "fair trial", but I'm not hip enough to the law scene to know for sure.chicago510;973272 wrote:But still asinine and damning to his case.
It sure seems like a preliminary opinion of innocence (lol) or guilt could have been formed based on this that would bias a juror.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 14, 2011 10:53pm
Also means he perjured himself in GJ report because it says "The Graduate Assistant was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The Graduate Assistant left immediately, distraught.Mulva;973281 wrote:
If he did stop the assault then he earns a few points back, but that still leaves a lot of unanswered questions about his course of actions.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 10:56pm
This. Can't backtrack on your GJ testimony just because it makes you sound like a huge pussy and gets you fired.Skyhook79;973294 wrote:Also means he perjured himself in GJ report because it says "The Graduate Assistant was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. The Graduate Assistant left immediately, distraught.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 14, 2011 11:03pm
Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.chicago510;973272 wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I don't believe this is admissible in court. Not sworn testimony or collected by law enforcement.
But still asinine and damning to his case. But I agree the "intent" of showering with boys is absolute horse****
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 11:07pm
You guys are right, I just read up more on it. Been too long since my 5th amendment lectures in HS.Manhattan Buckeye;973310 wrote:Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.
Thats why I'm going into medicine.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Nov 14, 2011 11:09pm
True. But I was mostly talking about the part when he had admitted he showered with boys and that his actions or alleged actions got his friend fired and is bringing down the university. He really didnt show much emotion throughoutMulva;973281 wrote:Not that anything about this interview helped him, but expressing remorse while also maintaining your innocence wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
Nov 14, 2011 11:09pm
I agree. This is clearly not under duress. That would deem it un-admissible. But since it is clear that Sandusky wasnt pressured or under any type of influence this transcript will almost assuredly be used in court, right?Manhattan Buckeye;973310 wrote:Not sure why it wouldn't be admissible, it is textbook statement against interest. If all statements needed to be sworn or collected by law enforcement, we wouldn't have many probative statements.
IggyPride00
Posts: 6,482
Nov 14, 2011 11:12pm
I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.
How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 11:13pm
The Judge who granted bail was affiliated with his charity. Certainly no implications of impropriety there?IggyPride00;973332 wrote:I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.
How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Nov 14, 2011 11:14pm
It would be hard to prove that considering his lawyer was sitting next to Costas.Laley23;973326 wrote:I agree. This is clearly not under duress. That would deem it un-admissible. But since it is clear that Sandusky wasnt pressured or under any type of influence this transcript will almost assuredly be used in court, right?
So all the prosecution has to prove is that there was penetration. Sandusky already admitted everything but.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Nov 14, 2011 11:14pm
IggyPride00;973332 wrote:I just heard on the Ed Show that Sandusky's house backs up to the playground of a middle school. Talk about direct access.
How in the world is this sicko allowed to be out on the loose?
Did you hear that the judge who set his bond had some tie to the 2nd mile? An attorney in State College said he had clients with similar charges and none had ever been freed with unsecured bond
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Nov 14, 2011 11:21pm
No, this is something that people affiliated with McQueary are putting out to try and save some face. McQueary already said in the GJ testimony that he didn't interfere. Now he looks like a jackass and a pussy.Fab1b;973251 wrote:Just got a SportsCenter alert on my phone stating - Sources told Tom Rinaldi that McQuearly stopped Sandusky's sexual assault in 2002. WTF? Now if I am McQueary I am saying that from the get go as he has been drug through the mud like a ****!
Probably hard to gather evidence when everyone was helping to cover it up.Skyhook79;973276 wrote:To be fair it wasn't enough for 2 police detectives and an investigator for Pennsylvania Child Welfare in 1998 to take it the Prosecutor.
Fab1b
Posts: 12,949
Nov 14, 2011 11:27pm
I did read the GJ report and the Ginger damn sure didn't say he tried to stop anything. I was just passing what the alert said but I haven't seen anything else in reference to the ESPN alert either.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Nov 14, 2011 11:28pm
Looks like McQueary's pride got into the way. If the reports are true that he did break it up, then it looks like he might have some explaining to do. In the GJ report he said he called his dad and left right away
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 14, 2011 11:54pm
Um No, they had Sandusky and the mother in the same room and a phone recorded conversation between Sandusky and the Mother admitting to being in the shower with the boy. They told Sandusky not to shower with boys and let him go.dwccrew;973350 wrote:
Probably hard to gather evidence when everyone was helping to cover it up.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Nov 15, 2011 12:01am
So now you deny there was any cover up at all or just that JoePa wasn't involved in a cover up? Seems as if they still were investigating after this incident since he is now being charged. Just because they didn't charge him then, doesn't mean he was not still being investigated. He is being charged now; probably would've been charged much earlier and less little boys raped had PSU cooperated and not covered this whole thing up.Skyhook79;973392 wrote:Um No, they had Sandusky and the mother in the same room and a phone recorded conversation between Sandusky and the Mother admitting to being in the shower with the boy. They told Sandusky not to shower with boys and let him go.
Skyhook79
Posts: 5,739
Nov 15, 2011 12:03am
Investigation started in 2008 didn't you read the GJ testimony?dwccrew;973403 wrote:So now you deny there was any cover up at all or just that JoePa wasn't involved in a cover up? Seems as if they still were investigating after this incident since he is now being charged. Just because they didn't charge him then, doesn't mean he was not still being investigated. He is being charged now; probably would've been charged much earlier and less little boys raped had PSU cooperated and not covered this whole thing up.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Nov 15, 2011 12:06am
And he is being charged now....in 2011. Had they cooperated long before, notified the proper authorities and been forthcoming of evidence, Sandusky would've been charged way back in 2002 and less little boys would have been raped.Skyhook79;973404 wrote:Investigation started in 2008 didn't you read the GJ testimony?