Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #9

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Defense in Penn St. case digs into accusers' pasts

http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ass&action=2&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SPNWU00L2_UNEWS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The alleged victims of the Penn State child sexual abuse scandal are finding there isn't much in their pasts that the defense isn't trying to find out. Jerry Sandusky's defense team wants to know their IQs, how well they did in school and even their medical histories.

In a series of discovery requests made to the attorney general's office in recent months, Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola has sought school transcripts, medical records going back to birth, Internet search histories, Facebook account details, employment-related documents and cellphone and Twitter records.

Prosecutors have turned over some records, don't have others and argued that many requests are not proper under state law — a determination that will ultimately be up to the presiding judge, John Cleland.

More at link....
 
Reader said:
Defense in Penn St. case digs into accusers' pasts

http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ass&action=2&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_SPNWU00L2_UNEWS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The alleged victims of the Penn State child sexual abuse scandal are finding there isn't much in their pasts that the defense isn't trying to find out. Jerry Sandusky's defense team wants to know their IQs, how well they did in school and even their medical histories.

In a series of discovery requests made to the attorney general's office in recent months, Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola has sought school transcripts, medical records going back to birth, Internet search histories, Facebook account details, employment-related documents and cellphone and Twitter records.

Prosecutors have turned over some records, don't have others and argued that many requests are not proper under state law — a determination that will ultimately be up to the presiding judge, John Cleland.

More at link....
Click to expand...

Requesting the I.Q.'s is just silly.

Arrest records, some medical histories, and possibly the transcripts could be relevant.
 
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/09/148222/jerry-sandusky-trial-judge-seals.html

"Also Tuesday, the judge approved the prosecution’s request to change the date of the allegation involving alleged victim No. 2 from March 1, 2002, to Feb. 9, 2001. The prosecution said the ongoing investigation revealed that date. The list of now-sealed discovery materials indicates 19 pages of emails from Feb. 12, 2001, to June 5, 2001, were turned over to the defense. Feb. 12, 2001, was the Monday after Feb. 9, 2001, a Friday."

So maybe something turned up to suppport McQueary? And maybe some content that shows Penn State was letting McQueary twist in the wind when they had evidence to support him?
 
StellarsJay said:
"

So maybe something turned up to suppport McQueary? And maybe some content that shows Penn State was letting McQueary twist in the wind when they had evidence to support him?
Click to expand...

I'd almost bet the ranch that Amendola has Victim 2, and he'll testify nothing happened. If that is the case they might be able to get Sandusky on that "Contact/Committed With Minor-Sexual Offenses," again, under the "open lewdness" charge, maybe, and the endangering/corruption charges.

I get the feeling that "Lawyerin' Joe" is at his lawyerin' best today. The guy is a good attorney (and no, he doesn't send me a dollar every time I say that.)
 
StellarsJay said:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/09/148222/jerry-sandusky-trial-judge-seals.html

"Also Tuesday, the judge approved the prosecution’s request to change the date of the allegation involving alleged victim No. 2 from March 1, 2002, to Feb. 9, 2001. The prosecution said the ongoing investigation revealed that date. The list of now-sealed discovery materials indicates 19 pages of emails from Feb. 12, 2001, to June 5, 2001, were turned over to the defense. Feb. 12, 2001, was the Monday after Feb. 9, 2001, a Friday."

So maybe something turned up to suppport McQueary? And maybe some content that shows Penn State was letting McQueary twist in the wind when they had evidence to support him?
Click to expand...

Also from your link:

A prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky case “inadvertently” released the names of some alleged victims in a document posted but then removed from Centre County’s website.

The filing included lists of more than 200 discovery materials the prosecution turned over to defense attorney Joe Amendola. The document in its entirety — about 40 pages — was posted to the site Monday afternoon but taken offline a few hours later as ordered by the judge...........

Along with the names of some alleged victims, the materials that were mistakenly posted include school records for some of the alleged victims; travel records to Penn State bowl games; transcriptions of telephone calls; an interview with former head football coach Joe Paterno on Oct. 24, 2011; copies of posts made to websites about rumors regarding the alleged abuse; various phone numbers; Second Mile travel records; Mike McQueary’s handwritten statement; and copies of items seized from Sandusky’s home when it was searched last June.

Philadelphia attorney Mike Boni, who’s representing alleged victim No. 1, wasn’t upset with the prosecution. He said he’s satisfied they’ve kept the young men’s privacy in mind throughout the process.

“The prosecution is extremely busy trying to fend off what seems to be a ridiculously blunderbuss array of discovery requests by the defense,” Boni said.
Click to expand...
Boy, I bet somebody caught HE11 for that!
 
StellarsJay said:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/09/148222/jerry-sandusky-trial-judge-seals.html

"Also Tuesday, the judge approved the prosecution’s request to change the date of the allegation involving alleged victim No. 2 from March 1, 2002, to Feb. 9, 2001. The prosecution said the ongoing investigation revealed that date. The list of now-sealed discovery materials indicates 19 pages of emails from Feb. 12, 2001, to June 5, 2001, were turned over to the defense. Feb. 12, 2001, was the Monday after Feb. 9, 2001, a Friday."

So maybe something turned up to suppport McQueary? And maybe some content that shows Penn State was letting McQueary twist in the wind when they had evidence to support him?
Click to expand...

I, for one, would love to read the content of those e-mails. It could certainly shed some light on how much detail McQueary shared with Curley and Schultz, and how much effort went into hiding the problem in house.

19 pages of emails - sounds like a lot of discussion over a matter that Schultz and Curley indicated they didn't feel was that serious.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
I'd almost bet the ranch that Amendola has Victim 2, and he'll testify nothing happened. If that is the case they might be able to get Sandusky on that "Contact/Committed With Minor-Sexual Offenses," again, under the "open lewdness" charge, maybe, and the endangering/corruption charges.

I get the feeling that "Lawyerin' Joe" is at his lawyerin' best today. The guy is a good attorney (and no, he doesn't send me a dollar every time I say that.)
Click to expand...

Yep...he and JS should be really proud of their 'blame the victim' game....old as dirt and just as nasty...

I believe the state is up to it however....if they have victim 2 to testify for the defense, why wouldn't the state just drop that charge?
 
Judge in Sandusky case weighs defense subpoenas

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=<D9ULC3HO0@news.ap.org>&ps=1013

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) — The judge in Jerry Sandusky's criminal trial says he'll decide what information the defense is entitled to from schools, child services agencies and others, but didn't rule right away.

Judge John Cleland also didn't immediately rule Wednesday on a defense request to delay the start of trial, currently scheduled for June 5.

Cleland opened a hearing in Bellefonte by noting the "trial is approaching" for the former Penn State assistant football coach.
-------

The judge in Jerry Sandusky's child-sex abuse case said Wednesday he may throw out parts of some defense subpoenas and that he wanted to swiftly resolve disagreements about defense access to background information on the accusers.

Judge John Cleland said he planned to rule quickly on motions by several school districts and government agencies to quash subpoenas served by Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola.


More at link....
 
Reader said:
Yep...he and JS should be really proud of their 'blame the victim' game....old as dirt and just as nasty...

I believe the state is up to it however....if they have victim 2 to testify for the defense, why wouldn't the state just drop that charge?
Click to expand...

They don't know yet.
 
Why didn't Curley, Schultz,& Paterno in their Grand Jury Testimony counter the dates McQueary gave on the shower incident?
 
Tipstaff said:
Why didn't Curley, Schultz,& Paterno in their Grand Jury Testimony counter the dates McQueary gave on the shower incident?
Click to expand...

Paterno probably didn't keep a record of it; I'd suspect McQueary wasn't keeping notes either.

Curley/Schultz not keeping a record is unusual.
 
Tipstaff said:
Why didn't Curley, Schultz,& Paterno in their Grand Jury Testimony counter the dates McQueary gave on the shower incident?
Click to expand...

"It was so not sexual that not only have we forgotten what happened, we've forgotten what year it was."
"We searched all the 2002 files and didn't find a thing."
"Just goes to show McQueary doesn't remember right."
"Helping Sandusky's prosecution isn't Penn State's job."
"We were going to spring it on you at our trial."
"Cynthia Baldwin didn't tell us to."
"What incident?"
 
Spring break was the reason given for the 10 days delay in meeting with McQueary after Curley and Schultz learned of the allegation from Paterno. Given by whom, I'm not sure. I don't believe Curley or Schultz ever said that in their testimony before the grand jury. Perhaps it was just speculation. I'm never thought it was a good reason; however, at least it was a reason. Now I'm even more curious to hear why it took them 10 days to interview McQueary.
 
StellarsJay said:
"It was so not sexual that not only have we forgotten what happened, we've forgotten what year it was."
"We searched all the 2002 files and didn't find a thing."
"Just goes to show McQueary doesn't remember right."
"Helping Sandusky's prosecution isn't Penn State's job."
"We were going to spring it on you at our trial."
"Cynthia Baldwin didn't tell us to."
"What incident?"
Click to expand...

Under Oath and charged with a crime, Curley & Schultz, didn't counter or dispute the dates. Did they bother to review anything or did they simply think they were going to walk? Did they think a cover-up was in place?
 
Judge Cleland ruled that the defense is entitled to some, but not all, of the records requested in the recent round of subpoenas.

The Second Mile must release any complaints made by the accusers against Sandusky, along with records of their internal investigation.

Juniata College must release copies of the background check done on Sandusky when he tried to become a coach there in 2010.

The school districts must release documentation on psychological treatments not covered by privacy laws, but not IQ testing.

He will also receive information regarding the Clinton County child abuse investigation.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/10/3192220/judge-in-sandusky-case-orders.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/05/judge_in_sandusky_case_orders.html
 
They are talking about the failure to report charges possibly being dropped against Curley and Schultz, because of the statute of limitations. If convicted, they would have faced 90 days in jail and a $200 fine. It is a victory for them, but a minor one.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
They are talking about the failure to report charges possibly being dropped against Curley and Schultz, because of the statute of limitations. If convicted, they would have faced 90 days in jail and a $200 fine. It is a victory for them, but a minor one.
Click to expand...

In Sara Ganim's article in today's Patriot-News, she rightfully mentions that this opens Tom Corbett up to fresh criticism for the lack of urgency he gave the matter when he was Attorney General.

Had he pursued this more vigorously, with more than one trooper assigned, the statute of limitations should not have ever been an issue; additionally, although nobody could have foreseen this, Paterno would still be alive to testify as corroboration to McQueary in the perjury trial.

Sara's analysis:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/05/mike_mcqueary_jerry_sandusky_p.html
 
Rlaub44 said:
In Sara Ganim's article in today's Patriot-News, she rightfully mentions that this opens Tom Corbett up to fresh criticism for the lack of urgency he gave the matter when he was Attorney General.

Had he pursued this more vigorously, with more than one trooper assigned, the statute of limitations should not have ever been an issue; additionally, although nobody could have foreseen this, Paterno would still be alive to testify as corroboration to McQueary in the perjury trial.

Sara's analysis:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/05/mike_mcqueary_jerry_sandusky_p.html
Click to expand...

A very good analysis.

This has been the first legitimate criticism of Corbett in this matter, IMO.

Schultz has another problem. He claimed under oath that someone in child services was contacted, supposedly DPW, and investigated the 2001 incident. There was no record of that nor any record of University Police even being informed of the incident, unlike 1998.

Schultz basically has to convince a jury that he forgot; I don't think he'll be successful. Curley, who was out of the criminal investigation loop, isn't facing that problem. Bottom line, Schultz should be convicted on that, but I'd expect the case against Curley to be hugely weaker.

If Amendola has "Victim 2" and Victim 2 says there was no rape, Sandusky walks on that charge; I wouldn't even vote to convict him. There are other charges, including Unlawful Contact with Minor. I'd expect that Sandusky will be convicted, but he won't get 600 years. Amendola might be preparing to be Monty Hall, i.e. "Let's make a deal."

I could see Sandusky being convicted and out in time to vote for Corbett's successor.
 
J. J. in Phila said:
A very good analysis.

This has been the first legitimate criticism of Corbett in this matter, IMO.

Schultz has another problem. He claimed under oath that someone in child services was contacted, supposedly DPW, and investigated the 2001 incident. There was no record of that nor any record of University Police even being informed of the incident, unlike 1998.

Schultz basically has to convince a jury that he forgot; I don't think he'll be successful. Curley, who was out of the criminal investigation loop, isn't facing that problem. Bottom line, Schultz should be convicted on that, but I'd expect the case against Curley to be hugely weaker.

If Amendola has "Victim 2" and Victim 2 says there was no rape, Sandusky walks on that charge; I wouldn't even vote to convict him. There are other charges, including Unlawful Contact with Minor. I'd expect that Sandusky will be convicted, but he won't get 600 years. Amendola might be preparing to be Monty Hall, i.e. "Let's make a deal."

I could see Sandusky being convicted and out in time to vote for Corbett's successor.
Click to expand...

This might be where the emails that we recently learned about could be Curley's undoing. All it will take is one line demonstrating that Curley and Schultz recognized that there was a sexual nature to the allegations, and the perjury charge is all but secured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 3,677 (members: 212, guests: 3,465)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
3,465
Total visitors
3,677
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,250
Messages
17,966,174
Members
228,733
Latest member
jbks
Back
Top