What if Sandusky is found not-guilty?

Donate To GopherHole
gopherbadgerman

gopherbadgerman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
4,724
Reaction score
2,041
Points
113
While I believe he probably is and should rot in a ass blaster jail cell for the rest of his life, what if he is found not-guilty? Will this change much of the Paterno hate? Or will it be more of an OJ thing?

My vote is OJ.
 

It is not so much about if he is found guilty as it is about how penn state and Joe pa took the low road instead of getting this man off their campus when they found out about his....well ... sick habits!
My take, any man horsing around in a shower with ten year olds has a big problem!
 

There have been and will continue to be perverts in this world, what troubled me the most is supposedly normal folks allowing the pervert to continue to assault kids.
 




No. McQueary would not necessarily have perjured himself.

Should Sandusky be found not guilty, all it means is that the prosecution couldn't make a strong enough case for a jury to find him guilty. It doesn't mean McQueary lied.
 

discochris said:
No. McQueary would not necessarily have perjured himself.

Should Sandusky be found not guilty, all it means is that the prosecution couldn't make a strong enough case for a jury to find him guilty. It doesn't mean McQueary lied.
Click to expand...

They would obviously have to try a case against McQueary to convict him of perjury, but in his grand jury testimony he said that he saw Sandusky anally raping a 10 year old boy. If they find Sandusky not to have raped this boy, then it would appear that McQueary lied. Obviously the prosecution would have to bring perjury cases against McQueary and prove that he perjured himself. However, based on McQueary's grand jury testimony, he unambiguously said that he saw Sandusky anally raping the boy so it would sure seem that he would have perjured himself if the defense is able to prevail on this case because they would essentially have to have a smoking gun proving McQueary lied.
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
They would obviously have to try a case against McQueary to convict him of perjury, but in his grand jury testimony he said that he saw Sandusky anally raping a 10 year old boy. If they find Sandusky not to have raped this boy, then it would appear that McQueary lied. Obviously the prosecution would have to bring perjury cases against McQueary and prove that he perjured himself. However, based on McQueary's grand jury testimony, he unambiguously said that he saw Sandusky anally raping the boy so it would sure seem that he would have perjured himself if the defense is able to prevail on this case because they would essentially have to have a smoking gun proving McQueary lied.
Click to expand...

Well McQueary is a Ginger, so I would never put anything past one of those SOB's


(Although I think that Sandusky should kill himself before the trial)
 





He can be found not guilty in a court of law. The court of public opinion has already tried and convited this sorry excuse for a human being. If you heard him talk to Costas, he pretty much hung himself with his own rope. When you answer a question with a question, you're stalling while you come up with a lie.
 

What we do know for sure:
1. Sandusky did inappropriate things with young boys. There's no disputing that. He admitted to taking showers with young boys. That's obviously not the same as raping them, but it's still inappropriate.
2. Paterno and the athletic department knew that there were some inappropriate things going on because they told him he couldn't bring young boys on campus anymore. Which to me is essentially saying "we're going to look the other way, just as long as you don't do it here".
3. Paterno allowed Sandusky to remain around his program.

No matter what happens from here on out, Paterno, along with others, deserve to be criticized for their very poor judgment.
 




He'll still be an admitted grown man who showers with young boys.

That, in itself, should be criminal.
 

After having read the grand jury presentment I would say it will take the perfect storm. At the very least it will mean that he has fired his current attorney. It will also likely mean that the prosecution is inept and his new defense team picks the perfect jury. Unfortunately the perfect defense jury could be found in Pennsylvania, BUT would have to be comprised of people fond of Sandusky and/or his "alleged" proclivities.
 

There is this thing called reasonable doubt and I can envision a construct created by the defense team that could generate reasonable doubt. I hope that is not the case, but court cases take on a life of their own.

Penn State's reaction to the allegations (dismissing Sandusky as a coach, some changes in how Penn State interacted with The Second Mile) falls on a different plane (the court of public opinion, at least until civil cases are filed) and I don't see how the program and Paterno's reputation won't take a major hit.

McQueary has said what he allegedly saw and it's not perjury unless it can be proven that he out and out lied. McQueary needs to be prepared to receive the "Mark Fuhrman" treatment if he takes the stand against Sandusky.
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
They would obviously have to try a case against McQueary to convict him of perjury, but in his grand jury testimony he said that he saw Sandusky anally raping a 10 year old boy. If they find Sandusky not to have raped this boy, then it would appear that McQueary lied. Obviously the prosecution would have to bring perjury cases against McQueary and prove that he perjured himself. However, based on McQueary's grand jury testimony, he unambiguously said that he saw Sandusky anally raping the boy so it would sure seem that he would have perjured himself if the defense is able to prevail on this case because they would essentially have to have a smoking gun proving McQueary lied.
Click to expand...

Guilt or lack thereof are conclusions reached when facts as presented to the fact finder are applied to the law. A not guilty verdict does not mean a certain act was not committed, and it certainly wouldn't mean that McQueary lied to a grand jury. In nearly every criminal trial, credibility of witnesses must be weighed by the fact finder in reaching its verdict. In other words, some witnesses must be more believable than others. Of course, the burden of proof in criminal matters is very high and tilted in the defendant's favor. Thus, one finds a divergence in decisions such as the OJ Simpson murders where he was acquitted in the criminal matter yet a verdict against him was entered in the subsequent wrongful death trial. Very rarely is a criminal witness subject to perjury prosecution.
 

Swede said:
Guilt or lack thereof are conclusions reached when facts as presented to the fact finder are applied to the law. A not guilty verdict does not mean a certain act was not committed, and it certainly wouldn't mean that McQueary lied to a grand jury. In nearly every criminal trial, credibility of witnesses must be weighed by the fact finder in reaching its verdict. In other words, some witnesses must be more believable than others. Of course, the burden of proof in criminal matters is very high and tilted in the defendant's favor. Thus, one finds a divergence in decisions such as the OJ Simpson murders where he was acquitted in the criminal matter yet a verdict against him was entered in the subsequent wrongful death trial. Very rarely is a criminal witness subject to perjury prosecution.
Click to expand...

The OJ Simpson criminal verdict was a case of jury nullification and had nothing to do with the jury finding certain witnesses credible and other witnesses not credible. If that jury would have been shown OJ actually murdering the two victims, the jury would still have found him not guilty.

With respect to the not guilty meaning the act still could have been committed, I don't disagree, that is why a defendant is found not guilt instead of innocent. I am saying that based on McQueary's grand jury testimony (which I would say is recommended reading) he said that he saw Sandusky raping a boy who appeared to be age ten; that is pretty damning testimony and the only way that I see Sandusky getting out of this is by discrediting McQueary which could only be done by showing that he lied. Obviously McQueary would have to be tried for perjury so its not a fete accompli, but it sure would appear so to me.
 

This quote from a long CNN article is the most normal response I have heard from anyone in this whole mess.

Matt Hahn, who played for Penn State from 2004 to 2007, recalls seeing Sandusky around a lot, though the coach had retired in 1999. He usually had young boys with him but nobody suspected a thing. Hahn had a strong reaction to a suggestion by Sandusky's attorney that hugging in the shower was what "jocks do."

"Let me make one thing clear," Hahn says. "There's no hugging in the shower between any guys, and nobody is rubbing my back and I'm not rubbing anybody's back, I can tell you that. You hear a 60-year-old man is showering with a 10-year-old boy, that's enough for me to say, 'Whoa, that's not a good thing.'"
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/us/sandusky-memoir-profile/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a19
 


I'm not going to talk for Swede and the nature of the allegations against Sandusky truly describe reprehensible behavior, but when these young adults get on the stand, Sandusky's team will go into full-bore "blame the victim" against them and as they say on a lot of episodes of Law & Order, you only need one juror. This is less like the O.J. trial and more like the Casey Anthony trial to me.
 

The Casey Anthony trial wasn't a "blame the victim" trial. You will never have a case with a dead child that is a "blame the victim" trial. The problem with the Casey Anthony trial is that the prosecution WAY over stepped what they normally would have done because of the media spotlight. The prosecution essentially argued "the little girl died from something awful, negligent, or irresponsible that the mother did". They didn't have a strong theory of the case, yet they went for Murder1 and the death penalty? That trial was OVER with the charging order, and it is entirely the prosecutor's fault.

This case will be totally different in that there is a very particular theory to the case. Jerry Sandusky did xyz, to person A, person B and person C on these dates...etc. They will have a theory of the crime, their issue will be physical evidence. However, it will be an open and shut case. It's more of a sure thing than OJ or Casey Anthony.

PS: There is no connection between Sandusky being found not guilty and Mcquery perjuring himself. There are tons of cases of witnesses taking the stand who are not believed by a jury.
 

Bob, was talking more about the angle that all the evidence pointed toward Anthony being guilty and she was acquitted. You obviously can't blame a deceased victim.

That said, I do believe the accusers in this case are going to be hammered from top-to-bottom. They come from at-risk situations and the defense is going to pound on that in some way or another. If that course is pursued by the defense, I view that as being almost (note "almost") as bad as the horrid acts of Sandusky.

As for the over-charging issue, I think you are right on the mark and perhaps this is why the prosecutor has taken as much time as he/she has. There have obviously been whispers about Sandusky, but they were just that and rushing to court could have blown this whole thing.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
PS: There is no connection between Sandusky being found not guilty and Mcquery perjuring himself. There are tons of cases of witnesses taking the stand who are not believed by a jury.
Click to expand...

Usually when a witness is not believed by a jury it is a situation where the witness is not an eye witness to a crime. Here, McQueary testified that he saw Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy. In 99.9% of cases, a jury will accept an eye witness account as truth unless there is some evidence presented that discredits the eye witness, e.g. the witness has something to gain by incriminating the defendant (this is not the case with McQueary). The only way I see the defense team discrediting McQueary is by proving that he lied. Juries just don't randomly discredit a witness without a reason. Here, there is no reason to discredit McQueary's testimony.

Also, keep in mind that there are two former PSU employees that the prosecution is planning on filing perjury charges against because the prosecution did not believe their grand jury testimony. In that situation, the prosecution did not believe the two former PSU employees because their testimony contradicts McQueary's testimony. The prosecution has not proved that they were lying, but the contradictory testimony has lead the prosecution to believe that they are lying and are pursuing perjury charges. That shows you how much the prosecution believes in McQueary's testimony. Accordingly, with respect to McQueary (and you have to read the grand jury testimony to realize that this is pretty much a slam dunk case against Sandusky) if the defense is able to discredit McQueary it will only be by showing that McQueary lied. That is my point, based on McQueary's grand jury testimony, there really is no way to discredit McQueary other than by showing that he lied.
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
Usually when a witness is not believed by a jury it is a situation where the witness is not an eye witness to a crime. Here, McQueary testified that he saw Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy. In 99.9% of cases, a jury will accept an eye witness account as truth unless there is some evidence presented that discredits the eye witness, e.g. the witness has something to gain by incriminating the defendant (this is not the case with McQueary). The only way I see the defense team discrediting McQueary is by proving that he lied. Juries just don't randomly discredit a witness without a reason. Here, there is no reason to discredit McQueary's testimony.

Also, keep in mind that there are two former PSU employees that the prosecution is planning on filing perjury charges against because the prosecution did not believe their grand jury testimony. In that situation, the prosecution did not believe the two former PSU employees because their testimony contradicts McQueary's testimony. The prosecution has not proved that they were lying, but the contradictory testimony has lead the prosecution to believe that they are lying and are pursuing perjury charges. That shows you how much the prosecution believes in McQueary's testimony. Accordingly, with respect to McQueary (and you have to read the grand jury testimony to realize that this is pretty much a slam dunk case against Sandusky) if the defense is able to discredit McQueary it will only be by showing that McQueary lied. That is my point, based on McQueary's grand jury testimony, there really is no way to discredit McQueary other than by showing that he lied.
Click to expand...

It's an entirely different argument, but often with eye witness testimony, you don't try to prove that they are flat out lyinng (then perjuring) instead you try to prove that there is a reasonable chance that they were mistaken, and you can that a variety of ways. You can already see this argument starting to take place with the Sandusky interview. He isn't saying "McQuery was lying, I didn't do that", he is saying "I was horsing around with a kid in the shower". The argument is, I was in the shower, and he might have thought he heard something terrible happening, but he mistook my "horsing around" for sex. that mistake, even if you say you are 100% convinced it isn't a mistake, is not perjury.

So the Defense is even unlikely to say McQuery is lying.

Furthermore, even if that was the case, even if Sandusky's defense acts really strange and doesn't argue "it was a mistake" and instead say "it's a lie", there is still a huge jump to make that into perjury. The DA would have to think he was lying and they'd have to find proof that he was lying.

That's sort of beside the point though, i'd be shocked if the argument isn't "McQuery was mistaken" rather than "McQuery is a liar".
 

So we're up to almost 1000 posts on this subject....

So we're up to almost 1000 posts on the subject of Jerry Sandusky and Penn State - on the Minnesota Golden Gopher message board....and let's remember that Sandusky has not coached at Penn State since 1999.

On the other hand, an assistant basketball coach at Syracuse, who also molested young boys, who was still coaching at Syracuse at of last year, has garnered a grand total of 3 posts on the GopherHole.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? There's a whole lot of pouring onto Penn State going on here, led by the media, and followed by a bunch of self-righteous people who all think they know everything. The only thing that we do know is that if this had happened at any other school that did not have the figure of Joe Paterno associated with it, this story would not have made a tenth of the waves it has, and likely would have made very few - if any - waves on the Gopherhole.

The speculation and endless accusations going on here and across the country are ridiculous and need to end. The only evidence that is out is the Grand Jury report. It would be nice to see other arguments and defensive statements/testimony before we continue to hang people in effigy who may or may not deserve it. We are an audience, not a jury.

/end rant.
 


wels0081 said:
He'll still be an admitted grown man who showers with young boys.

That, in itself, should be criminal.
Click to expand...

It should? So when my 63-year-old father-in-law takes my 5-year-old son to the Y to go swimming, and they go take a shower in the locker room afterwards, does that make him a criminal?
 

cncmin said:
So we're up to almost 1000 posts on the subject of Jerry Sandusky and Penn State - on the Minnesota Golden Gopher message board....and let's remember that Sandusky has not coached at Penn State since 1999.

On the other hand, an assistant basketball coach at Syracuse, who also molested young boys, who was still coaching at Syracuse at of last year, has garnered a grand total of 3 posts on the GopherHole.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Click to expand...

Well, there are a few pretty significant differences in the two cases.

1) Penn State is in the B1G and Syracuse is not.
2) A Grand Jury has issued an indictment of Sandusky, something not done lightly, while the Syracuse incident is "reported" and being investigated.
3) The Sandusky case involves eight unrelated instances, while the Syracuse case involves two brothers. This could well be as big as the Sandusky case (although probably not, given the relative positions of Sandusky and the Syracuse coach in their communities), but it sure isn't yet.
4) There does not appear to be evidence of Syracuse covering up the incident.

I think there is a reason one has 1000+ posts and the other does not. Whether those posts are warranted or not is another matter, but then almost all the posts on sports message boards could be labeled unwarranted.
 

I think Joe Pa is hurt by this no matter what. No one will ever know how much he knew or when he knew it, but being in his position he SHOULD have known and it appears SOMETHING was known. The part I don't get is when does the investigation of the Happy Valley police begin (or whatever department would investigate this). According to McQuery he called the police. Why was Sandusky not arrested?

However, this could also become a reason for a not guilty finding. McQuery has made statements that are cloudy and seem almost contradictory. Did he call the cops? Did he tell Joe Pa what he saw or just he saw something disturbing? Did he break up the actual act? The list goes on. A competent defense attorney could start reducing his credibility with some of the statemenst he's made publicly.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom