Penn State Sandusky Trial #10

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope I can clear up some confusion about the prosecution vs. Jerry Sandusky's testimony.

There was a hearing prior to ole Jer not testifying. At that time, the prosecution had to say what their rebuttal witnesses would testify to. This apparently included Matt's testimony and the remainder of the Bob Costas interview.

If Jerry didn't take the stand, the prosecution wouldn't be able to rebut his testimony. Somehow, Amendola managed to splain to Jerry that he couldn't testify since what would come up in rebuttal would be extremely damaging to the case.

The prosecution wanted Jerry to testify, you can bet on that! We're all pretty sure Jerry wanted to testify, what with his histrionic personality disorder, and all. That's why he came out of chambers with a sour face. Curses! Foiled again!
 
Are they having a lunch break? I imagine the jury is hungry, let alone all the uhhh, older folks involved...


eta: Oh, I might have an understanding why the prosecution discouraged Jerry's testimony: They probably assured the victims that they'd do their level best NOT to allow their reputations to be dragged through the mud. Of course, the only one who could refute the charges would be Jerry himself. His defense, his only defense, would be to call them liars, cheats, beggars, waifs, attempt to explain away what really happened between them.

Matt, in essence, stood up for the victims (including his own self and his own children perhaps) by saying that he'd counter-smear him, and righteously!!

Awesome Matt!!! :clap:
 
Reader said:
OK, thanks! from your link:

Citing unnamed sources “close to the case,” NBC said prosecutors warned Jerry Sandusky’s defense team that if the defendant took the stand, prosecutors would call Matt Sandusky as a rebuttal witness. According to the sources, Matt Sandusky contacted prosecutors after the trial began with “damaging testimony” about his father’s behavior.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/21/3237097/nbc-sanduskys-adopted-son-ready.html#storylink=cpy

I don't understand that state decision either....let JS go ahead and show the jury how delusional he is and then his son testifies that it's all a lie....why not? hope we find out more about that....
Click to expand...



Ok I read daily.. but seldom post.. here is my take on what all that with *Matt* was about.... Im thinking they didnt hear from Him till into the trial.. perhaps after the SA had closed it's side and couldnt call him on direct..
so the only way they could call him was as a rebutal .. but they have to legally have something they can use him to rebut.. .. which they would have if JS took the stand.. but if not they dont have the grounds..
I do not think the SA didnt want JS to testify.. Im pretty sure they wanted him to.. Its just that perhaps legally they needed to notify the defence of the posiblity of Matt being called.. and the defense based their choice on that along with other things..

mabe one of our legal eagles can chime in with the legal rules about this???
 
IS had a banner saying the prosecution is giving its closing arguments now... but the silence in Tweetland says no?

(And if Amendola wants to do read-alouds for closing statement, I hope McG reads some of JS's creepy love letters to remind the jury that this isn't Mother Teresa we're talking about.)
 
LEFT-COASTER said:
Ok I read daily.. but seldom post.. here is my take on what all that with *Matt* was about.... Im thinking they didnt hear from Him till into the trial.. perhaps after the SA had closed it's side and couldnt call him on direct..
so the only way they could call him was as a rebutal .. but they have to legally have something they can use him to rebut.. .. which they would have if JS took the stand.. but if not they dont have the grounds..
I do not think the SA didnt want JS to testify.. Im pretty sure they wanted him to.. Its just that perhaps legally they needed to notify the defence of the posiblity of Matt being called.. and the defense based their choice on that along with other things..

mabe one of our legal eagles can chime in with the legal rules about this???
Click to expand...

This is how I see it as well.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
I hope I can clear up some confusion about the prosecution vs. Jerry Sandusky's testimony.

There was a hearing prior to ole Jer not testifying. At that time, the prosecution had to say what their rebuttal witnesses would testify to. This apparently included Matt's testimony and the remainder of the Bob Costas interview.

If Jerry didn't take the stand, the prosecution wouldn't be able to rebut his testimony. Somehow, Amendola managed to splain to Jerry that he couldn't testify since what would come up in rebuttal would be extremely damaging to the case.

The prosecution wanted Jerry to testify, you can bet on that! We're all pretty sure Jerry wanted to testify, what with his histrionic personality disorder, and all. That's why he came out of chambers with a sour face. Curses! Foiled again!
Click to expand...

oops didnt see this before i posted above.. you and are on same page CarolinaMoon.. you just said it better than me and before me lol
 
Oops, nope, they're on!

McGettigan (cont'd): Spectrum of witnesses. Witnesses have different capacities for recollection. And different facilities for speaking. Fear, nervousness, difficult task all impact how people testify. (Explaining why some witnesses were weak on stand). Don’t assume a witness was lying if they appeared nervous.

Memories were buried.

Defense counsel never asked about abuse, intercourse, never asked about that. He asked about other things…reason he didn’t ask about specific instances is because…sometimes witnesses fight back and give more details about crimes.
by WTAE.com/ Web staff 1:14 PM

Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRuKYX00
 
Amendola calls putting together closing "tiring." "it's a once in a lifetime experience."
by cvmikesisak via twitter 1:16 PM

McGettigan (cont'd): Spectrum of witnesses. Witnesses have different capacities for recollection. And different facilities for speaking. Fear, nervousness, difficult task all impact how people testify. (Explaining why some witnesses were weak on stand). Don’t assume a witness was lying if they appeared nervous.

Memories were buried.

Defense counsel never asked about abuse, intercourse, never asked about that. He asked about other things…reason he didn’t ask about specific instances is because…sometimes witnesses fight back and give more details about crimes.
by WTAE.com/ Web staff 1:14 PM
McGettigan (cont'd):
Shows a slide : HUMILIATION, SHAME, FEAR = SILENCE.
Shows a slide: Photos of eight alleged victims as kids.

Don’t forget when they were boys and don’t forget what the defendant did to them.
This case is about what happened to those boys and two others we don’t know the ID of. Case is about that, not about conspiracies.
by WTAE.com/ Web staff 1:14 PM
Prosecution closing argument by Joe McGettigan: Two of Amendola’s arguments are on a collision course. Is it a conspiracy theory or were kids trying to make money? Which is it?
Vast conspiracy – easy to point fingers. What about the grand jury – they are now part ofconspiracy too?

Amendola theory about private attorneys? Collpases of own weight, requires everyone to be in it together. And to what end?
Was there this great drive to get this important person? Come on. In 2008, I was in desert in Iraq, so I’m a late addition to this conspiracy. And Mike McQ, he must be part of it too. So if there’s a conspiracy, bring the handcuffs for me, because I must be part of it too.
by WTAE.com/ Web staff 1:13 PM


Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRuS4KXn
 
Prosecution closing argument by Joe McGettigan: Two of Amendola’s arguments are on a collision course. Is it a conspiracy theory or were kids trying to make money? Which is it?
Vast conspiracy – easy to point fingers. What about the grand jury – they are now part ofconspiracy too?

Amendola theory about private attorneys? Collpases of own weight, requires everyone to be in it together. And to what end?
Was there this great drive to get this important person? Come on. In 2008, I was in desert in Iraq, so I’m a late addition to this conspiracy. And Mike McQ, he must be part of it too. So if there’s a conspiracy, bring the handcuffs for me, because I must be part of it too.
by WTAE.com/ Web staff 1:13 PM

Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRuSNzUB
 
also i think the posiblitity of Matt testifing explains why after the meeting JS was so upset..
 
Presser right now. Prosecution just wrapped up. Per In Session
 
ynotdivein said:
I'm on pins and needles. Can't wait to hear the Twitter version of the prosecution closing!

I'll start a new thread after that for Verdict Watch.
Click to expand...


:seeya: I'm on "pins and needles" as well [ even though I have not followed the trial here -- which I wish I would have done ] ... but I have been catching snippets on the tube ...

Question : When do y'all think this case will go to the jury ?

Thanks for the updates !

And Thanks for the Verdict Watch Thread ... which is where I will be waiting for the jury's GUILTY on ALL Counts Verdict !

:moo:
 
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176556"]Link to Verdict Watch thread (with a poll!)[/ame]
 
Mcgettigan says it feels like he has 10 souls in his pocket, then walks up to #sandusky,points at him
by 8CumbCoReport via twitter 1:23 PM


#Sandusky, asked for his feelings as jury deliberates, says: "I can't comment."
by cvmikesisak via twitter 1:20 PM
#Sandusky huddles with wife Dottie, daughter Kara as jury deliberates.
by cvmikesisak via twitter 1:18 PM


Read more: http://livewire.wtae.com/Event/Jerry_Sandusky_Trial_2#ixzz1yRwNuGn9
 
Mcgettigan says it feels like he has 10 souls in his pocket, then walks up to #sandusky,points at him

by 8CumbCoReport via twitter1:24 PM


As McGettigan gave his closing argument, Accusers One, Four, Six, and Nine were sitting in the front 2 rows on the prosecution’s side…in direct view of the jury box.

by WGAL 1:23 PM


News 8 reporter Matt Barcaro said Prosecutor McGettigan's demeanor was more casual (than the defense), like a professor giving a lecture.

by WGAL 1:23 PM


News 8's Matt Barcaro just sent a more detailed update on the prosecution's closing argument. We'll post that shortly.

by WGAL edited by WGAL1:21 PM


The case is now in the jury's hands.

by WGAL 1:19 PM


Prosecutor McGettigan ended his closing argument by walking over to Sandusky and saying to him -- You know what you did, we know what you did and now these kids need justice.

by WGAL 1:19 PM
Reply
Permalink



Read more: http://livewire.wgal.com/Event/WGALs_Jerry_Sandusky_trial_coverage#ixzz1yRwMceio
 
WHOA - it's to the jury already??!?!!?! How did I miss this??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 4,441 (members: 99, guests: 4,342)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
4,342
Total visitors
4,441
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,546
Messages
17,970,761
Members
228,805
Latest member
Val in PA
Back
Top