<p>
</p>
<p>Amendola will probably put alot of Jerry’s former kids on the stand to testify that the relationshipship was completely nonsexual. Just as Ted Bundy could have said – truthfully – “There are millions of women I didn’t murder.” That kind of defense won’t pass the laugh test in this case.</p>
<p>Yea, it is an extra expense and very sad that these precautions are necessary for the protection of the adult AND the child(ren), sadly. </p>
<p>Our non-profit has to be sure we are never alone with just one of us and a patient/member of the public and that we never go to their homes, always see them in public because of liability insurance issues. I do hate that this is necessary, or we have to have VERY expensive background checks and it would be a risk to the staff in case of flase accusations.</p>
<p>
Not really a sensible analogy. More like people who Bernie Madoff made good investments for.
I’m not saying this will happen, but what if Sandusky comes up with dozens of kids who say that he was like a father to them, never touched them, etc., and the prosecutor only comes up with two accusers, both of whom are drug addicts who Sandusky will say he cut off ties with after they stole from him? Remember, the jury won’t get any hearsay evidence. It won’t hear from the janitor, who has dementia. It won’t hear about people’s suspicions. There won’t be any physical evidence or documents that clearly show guilt.
I’m just saying, don’t assume that this case is a slam dunk at all.</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt’s sentiment about the difficulty of those who work with children. The fear of one misstep that could be misinterpreted could devastate a family.
Many years ago, prior to the news coverage of molestation, there was a music teacher in my area that was accused of abuse. He was an elderly man and was teaching a young girl the piano. I believe she was 9 or 10. He had her sit on his lap like he did with his own grandchildren. Looking back now we know it was inadvisable but back then it did not seem to be a clear indication he was a molester. The entire episode ultimately led to his death.</p>
<p>We want to punish molesters but I sure hope the charge of molestation does not mean you are not able to mount a criminal defense. If you are charged with molestation should there be an automatic assumption of guilt and any questioning of your accusers evil?</p>
<p>“He was an elderly man and was teaching a young girl the piano. I believe she was 9 or 10. He had her sit on his lap like he did with his own grandchildren.”</p>
<p>That’s a sad story. But, a piano teacher having a 9 or 10 year old student sit on their lap, when they are not a relative is/would have been inappropriate. I could not even imagine our professional piano teacher doing such a thing, now or 40 years ago. If people are exhibiting appropriate behavior with children, they do not need to be in fear, imo.</p>
<p>The precautions that we take as teachers, caregivers or volunteers to protect ourselves from false allegations are really designed to avoid that singular situation in which a child misinterprets an action or outright lies (for whatever reason). It is a very different situation when multiple people come forward to report an abuser and I am wholeheartedly confident that a jury will be able to see the difference. Explaining away one incident, or even one accuser, is one thing but Sandusky is charged, at this point, with 50 counts of abuse and there are nine victims. The more reports that are received, the less likely it will be that a jury will look at his actions as benign.</p>
<p>Unless something happens (and goodness knows that’s possible) there’s no way any jury will not believe Mike McQueary. No matter what some traumatized victim says about “no, no, nothing happened”, we already have Sandusky and that victim in the shower, naked. We have an extremely credible eyewitness who has given up his career to testify to the Grand Jury – there’s no motivation on McQueary’s part to lie, and every motivation to keep quiet. He might not have done “enough” when he was a grad student, but he’ll be a witness now, and a good one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This post raises an important point. What will McQueary answer to the question: “Is there any possibility at all that what you saw in the shower that night could have been something other than what you perceived it to be?” </p>
<p>He is the only independent eyewitness. And the press has already taught him a great lesson about life. I don’t know what part (all? none?) of the grand jury testimony is available in a trial, and we don’t know exactly what the transcript of this testimony says…only the grand jury summary of it. Unless the grand jury asked that question, it will be answered for the first time at a trial. </p>
<p>If a defense attorney can get him to say he really cannot be 100% certain these many years later, it will jerk the rug from under the prosecutor. (This is especially true regarding the perjury charges against the two PSU officials.) Now, there seems to be plenty of other testimony available, but it is from victims and without independent corroboration.</p>
<p>Based on what has happened to him in the press and other media, I wouldn’t be surprised to see McQuery develop some uncertainty.</p>
<p>McQueary already stated what he saw, and it is unlikely he will change that story to minimize it at this point. And I thought I read that the prosecutor does have the victim McQueary observed.</p>
<p>Also there are 10 victims, as of now. I think the number is likely much higher and we will continue to see new victims emerge. </p>
<p>Based on what Amendola already admitted, I expect him to actively work to discredit each victim by trying to demonstrate their own troubles, ie. other abuse they suffered by other victimizers, mental illness, violence, crimes.</p>
<p>I’m sure there’ve been convictions made with much less testimony. He’s had a hard time answering the questions as to his attraction to young boys himself in the televised interviews. I believe in the 2nd interview he said he was attracted to both young boys and girls.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t been keeping up with things much, (so I’m now in the same situation that most posters have been in the whole time). But I have read two articles that say that Sandusky’s attorney has someone who believes he was the one observed by McQueary and he’s supposedly saying that nothing sexual happened in that shower. </p>
<p>We’ll see.</p>
<p>All 8 victims from the grand jury presentment will testify and presumably one of them is the victim that McQueary saw. I think if the victim says I was being sodomized and McQueary collaborates that he saw the very act, then could there be any question of what happened?</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Scandal: All Eight Victims to Testify Against Jerry Sandusky - ABC News](<a href=“All Eight of Jerry Sandusky's Alleged Victims Will Testify Against Him - ABC News”>All Eight of Jerry Sandusky's Alleged Victims Will Testify Against Him - ABC News)</p>
<p>Sources told ABC News, however, that all eight boys in the grand jury presentment intend to take the stand against Sandusky when the hearing begins Dec. 13. The hearing in Centre County, Pa., is expected to last several days.</p>
<p>“Remember, the jury won’t get any hearsay evidence. It won’t hear from the janitor, who has dementia. It won’t hear about people’s suspicions. There won’t be any physical evidence or documents that clearly show guilt.”</p>
<p>It will hear Sandusky’s admissions, though. If you have trouble with the question “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?” you’re going to lose the jury’s sympathies forever at that moment. That doesn’t mean he’ll be convicted on every count, of course, just that he’s in big trouble even if he has a whole Pop Warner team of character witnesses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would imagine that the answer to the question, “Did you see Mr. Sandsusky’s ***** penetrate the victim’s anus?” might be a No. But any other description would be enough. </p>
<p>There was the 1998 investigation. There was McQueary’s testimony about a 2002 incident, and as others have said there’s no reason for him to lie. He was probably(?) questioned as a result of the 2008 investigation. </p>
<p>There’s just too much smoke here for there not to be a fire. PSU FIRED Paterno. Two of them are up on perjury charges, because their story is too ridiculous for anyone to believe. They admit at least to knowing McQueary told them something not right happened. Then, 6 years later, another complaint.</p>
<p>But, I think it’s very possible at this point that anyone who was a kid in the Second Mile during this period has a real motive to come forward and claim abuse, even if it didn’t happen. There will be huge payoffs.</p>
<p>
I bet they won’t all testify. It’s one thing to bring them before the grand jury, and something else again to subject them to cross-examination. In particular, I predict that Victim 9 will not testify at the trial.</p>
<p>I am not sure what your point is, victim 9 may or may not testify but how many victims do we really need? Isn’t 3 or 4 are already an overkill let alone 8 or 9 or more? If you can’t make a case with that many victims then I don’t know how you can ever make a case for such crime.</p>
<p>If any of the victims stories are proven false that may cast doubt on some of the others. Using the Syracuse case for example there were 3 victims if the case went to trial victim #3 had a story that did not check out. He claimed to have taken a bus with the team from Syracuse to Pittsburgh. If he was put on the stand his credibility is shot. Victim #2 was supposedly interviewed in 2002 and denied that he was molested. He now says he was. Victim #1 is deemed credible but it would be his word against Fine. I could see a jury being influenced using “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard if some testimony proves to be false or questionable so much that it could taint all testimony. I believe the prosecutor should only present testimony that can really stand up. I am not sure I would put weaker testimony up. If the case is strong enough why bother.</p>
<p>Our previous church contacted a lawyer back in 1993 to discover what we needed to do to protect our volunteers and our children. We implemented a safety policy and started running background checks on ALL volunteers. So this isn’t a new issue! At our church and in our Boy Scout troop, it is understood that an adult is never to be alone with a child, even to drive him/her home. It’s also a rule that a married couple is never alone with a child.</p>
<p>With all the incidents of abuse that have come to light over the years institutions now have mandatory training for volunteers, along with mandatory background checks. The Boys Scouts have such training, as does the Catholic Church, which is called VIRTUS. These programs have become mandatory in the last 10 years.</p>
<p>United Methodists have something called Safe Sanctuaries – similar guidelines to Scouting, plus our own church now has a policy that if you are renting the social hall for a group event (not a wedding) your group has to provide the church with a copy of your own abuse prevention strategy. If the pastor doesn’t think it is similar enough to SSanct., then you can’t have the space.</p>