Sandusky Trial Transcripts Discussion

[StellarsJay]

Say what?
The victims have been identified but the jurors haven't?

"Four of the five jurors contacted by The Associated Press said they plan to attend the sentencing hearing Tuesday in Bellefonte (BEL'-uh-fahnt), Pa.
A fifth says he'll read about it afterward, and the other seven haven't been identified."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/06/4887211/some-of-sanduskys-jurors-hoping.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Rlaub44]

Say what?
The victims have been identified but the jurors haven't?

"Four of the five jurors contacted by The Associated Press said they plan to attend the sentencing hearing Tuesday in Bellefonte (BEL'-uh-fahnt), Pa.
A fifth says he'll read about it afterward, and the other seven haven't been identified."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/06/4887211/some-of-sanduskys-jurors-hoping.html#storylink=cpy

Not your error, StellarsJay, but their pronunciation guide is a little off. Having lived in the general area, it is pronounced with only two syllables (BEL-fahnt).

 

[StellarsJay]

Thanks. With the Quebecois influence that comes with being Canadian, I used to think it would be BEL-fohnt-aye.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Respectfully snipped for focus:

I wrote a blog post that ended up going viral on the day Joe Paterno died (warning-may be offensive to some):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...terno-Final-Important-Update-please-read-lt-3

I read your blog post for the first time after this mention. Powerful. Kudos to you for your courage and resilience. And I agree with your sentiments regarding J. Paterno.

 

[Roxine]

So the court could have redacted the names but chose not to:
Sandusky Victims' Attorneys Angered at Release of Names

By Ben Present

The Legal Intelligencer
October 2, 2012

"Attorneys for a number of the victims testifying against former Penn State assistant football coach and convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky said they were displeased with the court's decision to release the trial's transcripts on the Centre County website, complete with the victims' full names as they were read in court."
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202573050813

I wonder- if some of the victims had been led to believe their identities would be private; if public status will give them more rights to damages; if now that they are all public they will have no reason left not to sue publicly; if there is now incentive for other victims to settle out of court for privacy reasons.
To me this is a large disincentive for any other victimes to testify, ever, unless there's a big payoff in money or revenge.

Is this regular policy- have names of other pedophile's victims now adualt been released?

I will say this - the young man I had dinner with last night (one of the victims of Jerry Sandusky) told me that he had no idea that the transcript was going to be released with his name in there. He knew that they would have to state it in open court for the record, they were told that, but no one contacted them to tell them that the full transcript was being released earlier this month nor that their names would not be redacted.

I don't know what the policy is for now adult victims of child sexual abuse particularly in Pennsylvania...nor do I know the precedence.

 

[StellarsJay]

If not posted already:
Clelland's sentencing statement
http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY - JUDGE CLELAND'S SENTENCING STATEMENT.pdf

 

[CarolinaMoon]

If not posted already:
Clelland's sentencing statement
http://www.co.centre.pa.us/media/upload/SANDUSKY - JUDGE CLELAND'S SENTENCING STATEMENT.pdf

Thank you for posting this, Stellars Jay!

Judge Cleland is a wise man. His sentencing structure literally says, "Go ahead and appeal, it won't get you out of prison in your lifetime."

 

[nittanylioness234]

Pennsylvania House blocks vote on measure that would ask for a federal investigation in the handling of the Sandusky case:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/10/pa_house_blocks_resolution_for.html

 

[Reader]

Here is the new link to the Centre County Sandusky and related documents:

http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?NID=506

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The county doesn't seem to have the actual transcript. They can be found here:

http://wearecentralpa.com/sanduskytrial_documents

 

[nittanylioness234]

I may be coming in months late on this, but I am just now reading the transcripts. I was a bit surprised by the Schreffler testimony (6/14/12), where he says neither the DA's office nor the PSU police wanted the boys interviewed by CYS or DPW in 1998. "We were totally against it. The District Attorney did not want it. The police did not want it." - Why? Because Sandusky had connections to these agencies? Because they were thought to be inept? Because they didn't put much stock into that type of interview??? Also, Schreffler states he talked to Arnold right at the beginning, because he "wanted to get them on board right away." He said he spoke to her several times, and to Gricar several times. He said he would have taken the case farther, but Gricar closed the investigation. He also says he works for Homeland Security, teaching explosives classes.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I may be coming in months late on this, but I am just now reading the transcripts. I was a bit surprised by the Schreffler testimony (6/14/12), where he says neither the DA's office nor the PSU police wanted the boys interviewed by CYS or DPW in 1998. "We were totally against it. The District Attorney did not want it. The police did not want it." - Why? Because Sandusky had connections to these agencies? Because they were thought to be inept? Because they didn't put much stock into that type of interview??? Also, Schreffler states he talked to Arnold right at the beginning, because he "wanted to get them on board right away." He said he spoke to her several times, and to Gricar several times. He said he would have taken the case farther, but Gricar closed the investigation. He also says he works for Homeland Security, teaching explosives classes.

Those interviews, Seasock and Chambers, were not admissible as expert opinion, and were not entered into evidence in 2012.

A psychologist could testify as a fact witness, e.g. "Victim 6 told me this," but could not testify, "In my professional opinion, Sandusky is engaging in pedophilic grooming," or, "In my opinion, this is just a boundary issue."

DPW, however, could use that in making their determination.

BTW: They changed the law after the Sandusky case. PA was the only state where it could not be used in a criminal trial.

RFG was not known to put too much stock in psychological reports, like the Comitz case. I wrote a blog on it: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/03/25/3140008/psychology.html That is primarily for the references and quotes.

 

[nittanylioness234]

So are you saying they didn't want the interviews because they, by and large, would be inadmissible? Wouldn't there be value in them anyway, to get a couple of more opinions of what was happening?

Also, I notice in the transcript that Amendola says to Schreffler, "I assume that Mr. Gricar had all the information you and other officers had gathered regarding this case?" And Schreffler replies, "Yes, sir." So Schreffler is saying that Gricar had the Chambers report, presumably.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

So are you saying they didn't want the interviews because they, by and large, would be inadmissible? Wouldn't there be value in them anyway, to get a couple of more opinions of what was happening?

Yes.

Also, I notice in the transcript that Amendola says to Schreffler, "I assume that Mr. Gricar had all the information you and other officers had gathered regarding this case?" And Schreffler replies, "Yes, sir." So Schreffler is saying that Gricar had the Chambers report, presumably.

The Chambers Report was also mentioned and attached to the actual police report. I cannot imagine any district attorney in the commonwealth (or, in larger offices, their deputy) making any decision to prosecute without looking at the police report.

BTW, do you have the day/page?

 

[nittanylioness234]

6/14/12, pg 80.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

6/14/12, pg 80.

thanks. From what I can tell, Gricar never interviewed Victim 6, nor did anyone from the DA's Office?

 

[nittanylioness234]

Not to my knowledge.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Not to my knowledge.

I went through it again. Nothing.

According to the Spanier presentment, Gricar made the decision not to prosecute prior to Sandusky being interviewed.

 

[Reader]

So really what the facts are showing is that Gricar made his decision not to prosecute Sandusky without even giving the case a good study, IMO.

I think he was persuaded that it would not be wise. I don't think it was money or worry about his career.

I think with the little he was told, since he apparently didn't read anything, he discussed it with 'whoever' and decided that at that time in 1998, it was not worth disrupting the college, the community, and all the agencies that had vouched for JS as a foster/adoptive parent and mentor, for a case of just a little 'horsing around'.

IMO

 

[nittanylioness234]

It's possible it was about his career.

But I've been thinking about there being a "whoever" since the beginning. I hope if there is a "whoever," that we find out who it, or they, are.