Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #5

[J. J. in Phila]

That's good to know about victim 6 and it's even on record that he already admitted it!

On the ACLU case, did you mean "pyramid"? lol ....I remember when that happened...wonder if they won that case?

(JK with ya)

The DA dropped the charges, but they sued civilly, in Federal Court. The judge ruled against them, saying that they were properly arrested for open lewdness.

 

[Reader]

Holy crap! He had them at his house during the grand jury investigation?

This is a class C felony. What could that get him in PA?
http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-151.html

It was in the GJ report that JS and his wife both tried to contact at least one victim and now the lawyer is openly talking about them having two of the victims to dinner during the GJ to discuss their cases, so why wasn't he charged with tampering?

Is a GJ treated differently than a trial, regarding witness contacts?

 

[Reader]

And Amendola says "Let's Make a Deal," maybe.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/patriot-news_exclusive_jerry_s.html

We can only hope this happens and these victims are not re-abused...from your link:

Justine Andronici, a victims’ rights attorney working with Shubin on the case, said, "These statements play on the victims’ worst fears: that if they stand up and tell the truth they will be called liars and victimized again. Pedophiles seek to silence their victims with the threat that no one will believe them if they come forward. Perpetrators of sexual abuse also maintain manipulative, long-term contact with their victims for the very purpose of continuing to silence them."

 

[Talina]

Defense lawyer Joseph Amendola told CNN contributor Sara Ganim that the young man, who was described in a grand jury report as being about 10 years old in March 2002, was in Amendola's office several weeks ago and said he believed he was the boy called "Victim 2."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-attorney/index.html


Well, color me confused but just what exactly makes this particular person think that it is him being described as Victim #2 but yet says what they say happened, didn't happen? If it's him, what exactly is being described that makes it think they are talking about him but that the sex allegation didn't happen?

If it is him, this didn't happen, what exactly makes him think they are talking about him?

That doesn't even make sense to me. :waitasec:

ETA: something said regarding Victim #2 must make this person supposedly talking to the attorney think they are talking about him but to say, "hey I think that might be me they refer to as Victim #2 but what they say happened, didn't happen". What on earth in the indictment makes him think it is him if what is being described didn't happen to him?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We can only hope this happens and these victims are not re-abused...from your link:

Attorneys like to posture; it is best to ignore them when they do.

Amendola is not an idiot; he's actually quite good. He knows that there will be likely a conviction on some of the charges. It is the time that they start engaging in the dance.

 

[Pensfan]

If this statement by Amendola is true, then these victims might be like battered women who keep returning to their abusive husband. Stockholm Syndrome is thought to cause paradoxical/opposite responses in some rape victims just like it does in many hostages. Although perverse, Sandusky formed emotional bonds with his victims. This was easy for him to do since he had a lot of practice at ingratiating himself into boys' lives by meeting unmet needs and providing gifts. This warped bond may make it difficult for some of his victims to turn against him (in addition to his threats of physical violence).

 

[Pensfan]

Defense lawyer Joseph Amendola told CNN contributor Sara Ganim that the young man, who was described in a grand jury report as being about 10 years old in March 2002, was in Amendola's office several weeks ago and said he believed he was the boy called "Victim 2."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-attorney/index.html


Well, color me confused but just what exactly makes this particular person think that it is him being described as Victim #2 but yet says what they say happened, didn't happen? If it's him, what exactly is being described that makes it think they are talking about him but that the sex allegation didn't happen?

If it is him, this didn't happen, what exactly makes him think they are talking about him?

That doesn't even make sense to me. :waitasec:

ETA: something said regarding Victim #2 must make this person supposedly talking to the attorney think they are talking about him but to say, "hey I think that might be me they refer to as Victim #2 but what they say happened, didn't happen". What on earth in the indictment makes him think it is him if what is being described didn't happen to him?

In one Patriot-News articles where Amendola is interviewed, he stated that one of the boys was contacted by Penn State authorities for his name and number, but then he was never contacted again. Sandusky also gave his name and number to Curley. This might be why that victim believes that he is Victim #2. Here is where I read this.


"Amendola says both Victim Two and Sandusky deny seeing McQueary. Sandusky says he only found out there was a problem a few days later when Curley called him and said someone had witnessed horsing around that made them uncomfortable.
Sandusky said he gave Curley the boy’s name and phone number, saying he was sure he’d help to clear up the misunderstanding.
Sandusky contacted him and said, ‘You may get a call from someone from Penn State who is going to ask you about what’s going on in the shower, and if you do, it’s OK to tell them what was going on,’ " Amendola said. (This boy was supposedly never contacted again by the DA's office or Penn State officials.)
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/patriot-news_exclusive_jerry_s.html

 

[Pensfan]

Huh? Victim #2 WILL defend Jer, but he WON'T testify at his hearing? Why not? It sounds like some of the other Victims may testify, why not #2?

Respectfully shortened-
The prosecutor brings his/her witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing to convince the judge that there is enough evidence to take the case to trial. If Victim #2 is a hostile witness (towards the prosecution), he won't be called to testify by the prosecutor at the preliminary hearing.

 

[Pensfan]

In felony cases in states where the Grand Jury indictment is used to start a criminal proceeding, defendants often waive the preliminary hearing, because the grand jury will make the probable cause determination. However, some defendants request a preliminary hearing because it allows them to gain information about the basis of the prosecution's case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preliminary+Hearing


In a case like the one against Mr. Sandusky, which was laid out in a 23-page grand jury presentment, it is likely a preliminary hearing will include testimony from at least some of the eight people identified as victims by the state attorney general's office.
That, Mr. Difenderfer said, is essential to figuring out the defense of the case.
"If they're going to be dynamite witnesses(for the prosecution), I want to know now," he said. "If they're going to crumble, I want to know now."
The idea, Mr. Difenderfer continued, is to have full and thorough cross-examination and try to get the victims to say something inconsistent.
"I'd much rather them be under oath and screw up," he said. "Then we crush them. Even innocent mistakes are points in our favor."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11327/1191952-454-0.stm?cmpid=psu.xml#ixzz1fGUNfHsF

 

[Pensfan]

The new allegations are from TWO of Sandusky's grandchildren.

Sandusky had a private detective investigating the allegations from Victim #1 for 3 years. (Hang in there, Victim #1. Every day Sandusky gets a little closer to prison.)

Reports state that Sandusky recently had his house appraised so he can use it for bail. (I wonder how Sarge feels about living in a cardboard box in her golden years. Jerry's evil will eventually cause her to lose her home.)
http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/sanduskys-attorney-reacts-lawsuit/nFqnT/

 

[Concerned Papa]

Respectfully shortened-
The prosecutor brings his/her witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing to convince the judge that there is enough evidence to take the case to trial. If Victim #2 is a hostile witness (towards the prosecution), he won't be called to testify by the prosecutor at the preliminary hearing.

OK, Thanks for that information. I took the post down.

At the very least, it would seem that if this newest victim testifies, possibly new charges could be added thereby changing this absurd bond that has Sandusky still roaming the streets.

 

[Reader]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/give-penn-st-coach-charity-donors-15044956

A newly hired lawyer for a high school student [victim 1] described by prosecutors as a sexual abuse victim of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky said Tuesday that he has been distressed to hear Sandusky's attorney dispute the charges.

Slade McLaughlin said his client stands by the allegations and sees the strategy by defense attorney Joe Amendola as putting victims on trial instead of Sandusky.
--------

"The proof is going to come out strong and hard, and these people are going to eat their words," McLaughlin said.

He said that Amendola's comments were not appropriate and that they may be an effort to influence potential jurors in favor of Sandusky.

"I frankly think a lot of his comments have been incendiary," McLaughlin said. "I think they have been harmful and hurtful to a lot of the victims."


More at link....

 

[Reader]

In one Patriot-News articles where Amendola is interviewed, he stated that one of the boys was contacted by Penn State authorities for his name and number, but then he was never contacted again. Sandusky also gave his name and number to Curley. This might be why that victim believes that he is Victim #2. Here is where I read this.


"Amendola says both Victim Two and Sandusky deny seeing McQueary. Sandusky says he only found out there was a problem a few days later when Curley called him and said someone had witnessed horsing around that made them uncomfortable.
Sandusky said he gave Curley the boy’s name and phone number, saying he was sure he’d help to clear up the misunderstanding.
Sandusky contacted him and said, ‘You may get a call from someone from Penn State who is going to ask you about what’s going on in the shower, and if you do, it’s OK to tell them what was going on,’ " Amendola said. (This boy was supposedly never contacted again by the DA's office or Penn State officials.)
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/patriot-news_exclusive_jerry_s.html

BBM

All of these contacts were improper, not even considering that Curley should have been calling the police instead of the alleged abuser! He was giving JS a chance to cover himself.

Notice the subtle threat in JS's call to the child: 'it’s OK to tell them what was going on,’.....and I'm pretty sure he 'reminded' the victim about what 'it's OK' for him to say....

This man had no boundaries whatsoever and was so sure he could cover everything up with his influence [threats?] over the witnesses....

I really hope that the GJ/police end up charging him with tampering/improper contacts with witnesses during an investigation....

 

[Concerned Papa]

As critical as I've been about Joe Paterno's failure to act on behalf of these children, I don't believe any of this bs:

Costas: "Did Joe Paterno at any time ever speak to you directly about your behavior?"

Sandusky: "No."

Costas: "Never?"

Sandusky: "No."

Costas: "He never asked you about what you might have done. He never asked you if you needed help, if you need counseling."

http://articles.businessinsider.com...oe-paterno-grand-jury-young-boy#ixzz1fIZPAia1

 

[Pensfan]

BBM

All of these contacts were improper, not even considering that Curley should have been calling the police instead of the alleged abuser! He was giving JS a chance to cover himself.

Notice the subtle threat in JS's call to the child: 'it’s OK to tell them what was going on,’.....and I'm pretty sure he 'reminded' the victim about what 'it's OK' for him to say....

This man had no boundaries whatsoever and was so sure he could cover everything up with his influence [threats?] over the witnesses....

I really hope that the GJ/police end up charging him with tampering/improper contacts with witnesses during an investigation....

Curley, Shultz, Joe Pa, and Spanier likely testified to the grand jury that they never knew the name of that child therefore, the allegations from Victim 2 had to come from McQueary's statements. This is logical because the current man stating that he is Victim2 states (through Amendola) that he will not testify to being raped, so he didn't testify he was raped in front of the grand jury. Amendola has made statements that the prosecution has no victims and only has supposed eyewitnesses. This also shows that the shower rape allegations all came from McQueary's statements.

The man (who states he was that boy) and Sandusky stated that they never saw McQueary the night the child was raped. Therefore, Victim2 only knows that he is Victim 2 because Sandusky told him that info.

When pedos have access to many children, they are known to groom several at a time. Sandusky may have showered with another boy on a different night that week and the man who now says he is Victim 2 was intentionally misinformed by Sandusky that he was Victim 2. It is also possible that the man who states that he is Victim 2 is just dishonest. How is Sandusky going to prove that Victim2 was the actual boy McQueary saw in the shower? I don't see how he can prove this. ???

 

[Dr.Fessel]

As critical as I've been about Joe Paterno's failure to act on behalf of these children, I don't believe any of this bs:

I agree with you 100%.Paterno made a fully informed decision when he promoted McQueary.

 

[BennyProfane]

Defense lawyer Joseph Amendola told CNN contributor Sara Ganim that the young man, who was described in a grand jury report as being about 10 years old in March 2002, was in Amendola's office several weeks ago and said he believed he was the boy called "Victim 2."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/justice/pennsylvania-sandusky-attorney/index.html


Well, color me confused but just what exactly makes this particular person think that it is him being described as Victim #2 but yet says what they say happened, didn't happen? If it's him, what exactly is being described that makes it think they are talking about him but that the sex allegation didn't happen?

If it is him, this didn't happen, what exactly makes him think they are talking about him?

That doesn't even make sense to me. :waitasec:

ETA: something said regarding Victim #2 must make this person supposedly talking to the attorney think they are talking about him but to say, "hey I think that might be me they refer to as Victim #2 but what they say happened, didn't happen". What on earth in the indictment makes him think it is him if what is being described didn't happen to him?

I'm thinking Sandusky went through his rolodex of shower buddies and picked one out that he could rely on -- maybe a kid with whom nothing happened. He says to the kid something like 'You're not gonna believe this, but some investigators think...'

But Amendola's claim of a defense witness has this problem:
If in 2002 Sandusky really gave to Curley the contact info for a kid who would exonerate him, why wouldn't Curley provide that info to the GJ?
If Curley lost the info in the ten years gone by, wouldn't he at least tell the GJ that Sandusky had identified that kid during the initial investigation?
Even though the GJ doesn't have to include ALL info in the presentment, they would have had three years to try tracking down that info, and I just can't see excluding any mention of it.

The upside of "today's" Victim Two is that if he were to take the stand in any trial, could McQueary believably look at a twenty-year-old and say No, that's not the ten-year-old I saw pinned against the wall ten years ago.
A verbal description provided by McQueary ten years ago wouldn't include much more than hair and skin colour, one that could be matched by a kid of about the same age that Sandusky didn't assault.

 

[Pensfan]

I'm thinking Sandusky went through his rolodex of shower buddies and picked one out that he could rely on -- maybe a kid with whom nothing happened. He says to the kid something like 'You're not gonna believe this, but some investigators think...'

But Amendola's claim of a defense witness has this problem:
If in 2002 Sandusky really gave to Curley the contact info for a kid who would exonerate him, why wouldn't Curley provide that info to the GJ?
If Curley lost the info in the ten years gone by, wouldn't he at least tell the GJ that Sandusky had identified that kid during the initial investigation?
Even though the GJ doesn't have to include ALL info in the presentment, they would have had three years to try tracking down that info, and I just can't see excluding any mention of it.

The upside of "today's" Victim Two is that if he were to take the stand in any trial, could McQueary believably look at a twenty-year-old and say No, that's not the ten-year-old I saw pinned against the wall ten years ago.
A verbal description provided by McQueary ten years ago wouldn't include much more than hair and skin colour, one that could be matched by a kid of about the same age that Sandusky didn't assault.

Welcome to Websleuths, Benny. Great post!

 

[concentric]

What does this make now, 3 victims saying he took them across state lines to bowl games?

I don't see how the Feds can stay out of this.

-----

Waiting to hear if it has been determined that there are any persons at these game destinations/conferences/charity events who might also have shared the same perverse interests as JS.

(There was an article or document posted in either this thread, or the one about Syracuse - B. Fine where at one incident, two other men were active participants in the assault. Either I will find that info. or someone else here recognizes what I am referring to.)

We may find out that the Sandusky or Fine investigations will lead to the truth regarding coverups that happened in other states, countries, etc.

Keeping in mind that there have been massive international internet child *advertiser censored* busts over the last several years--there must be some investigators who are keeping tabs on communications.

 

[ScorpRising]

I agree with you 100%.Paterno made a fully informed decision when he promoted McQueary.

Interesting. I have a call in to my football guy as I have no interest in looking at the stat crap...

For now, I leave you with this... The "house that Joe built", the dominant football mentality, say it however you like that created the cover-up is now going to put their streak or whatever in jeapordy in 2004 to buy some guy's silence? The immoral, narcissitc, self-serving football god I've been reading about the past few weeks would never put anything in front of his record. Why not just pay him off if he didn't deserve the spot?

Can someone point me to the ESPN cover-up thread? I apparently need to vent some frustration at the hypocritical media in it's own thread.

ETA: A search for "ESPN cover up" routed me back to this thread.