<p>
My point is just that the grand jury statements do not tell us anything about potential weaknesses in any of this testimony.</p>
<p>Hunt, this could change of course, but as of now, all 8 of the original victims are planning to testify: [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>Does anyone know: If Amendola really does have the victim in the shower, is he obligated to tell the prosecutor who the boy is, and provide access to him?</p>
<p>Errr… perhaps I could have worded that better.</p>
<p>If Amendola really has been in contact with the victim who McQueary saw in the shower…</p>
<p>LasMa, all 8 are testifying must mean that they know the identity of the victim McQueary saw. The list of everyone testifying is available for both the defense and prosecutor to prepare for the cross examination. BTW, the article is stating that all 8 are testifying AGAINST Sandusky.</p>
<p>Now there are allegedly 10 victims. So when the prosecutors say eight are testifying, maybe they mean eight of the ten.</p>
<p>A background check will only yield results if the person was charged. So, if there were accusations in the past and that’s all, Sandusky could still have an all-clear background check.</p>
<p>I wonder if Juniata College actually found something criminal in his past, or if they just got tipped off by someone in the know…</p>
<p>^Juniata College found out about the investigation through a background check</p>
<p>seems to be the original 8 who they know are testifying, think it’s next week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One big thing left out here is McQueary. How rare is it that an adult actually WITNESSED the pedophilia? And it’s too bad about the janitor.</p>
<p>McQuery IMHO will be a damaged witness. He will have 3 other adults state he did not tell them he saw a rape plus he will have to acknowledge walking away from an attack. He will not look good on the stand under cross examination.
I would not be shocked if the only trial McQuery testifies at is the perjury trial and he is never called at Sandusky’s trial.</p>
<p>“People close to the case” say 8 accusers will be testifying. That doesn’t mean they actually will testify. I don’t know, maybe there are dozens of potential witnesses, and these are the strong ones, so perhaps they will testify. But it also appears to me that both sides are floating information designed to send messages to the other side–I would take them all with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>^^^
Tom, the three other adults who might claim that McQ didn’t tell them about the rapes are also the ones who are either being charged with perjury or are suspected of covering up the abuse. I don’t think they can hurt MCQ based on what those gentlemen have to say. Again, McQ has nothing to gain from testifying and everything to lose, where the others, well…it’s just the opposite.</p>
<p>But they will be giving the same testimony for which they are being charged with perjury–it will be up to the jury to determine who to believe. I don’t think the prosecution will be allowed to tell the jury that they’ve been charged with perjury for it. And this time, the defense attorney will be there to tear down McQ as much as possible. “Did you call the police, or didn’t you?” And if the alleged victim testifies and says nothing happened, the defense may be able to make the jury wonder if McQ made a mistake, or was confused, etc.</p>
<p>Paterno has not been charged with covering up abuse- only here. That will not be an issue at the trial of Sandusky. You have no idea if the two can be damaged on cross. What happens if their trial is first and they are exonerated? If their trial has not been held yet can the issue of an indictment even be brought into the cross examination?</p>
<p>If they have enough accusers who can present credible testimony, the prosecutors may not use McQ at all, because they know that the defense will be able to make him look bad. Once they’re in the courtroom, they don’t need sensational evidence–they need credible evidence. This is why I predict Victim 9 in the new report won’t be used–his evidence is sensational (and casts potential blame on Sandusky’s wife), but there are some things about it that signal to me that this won’t be a good witness (not enough there to say for sure, but we’ll see). If the prosecution has two or three guys who will clearly testify that they were abused, and who are currently reasonably solid citizens with no other axe to grind against Sandusky, that’s enough to convict him.</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt. I would be surprised if McQuery gets anywhere near Sandusky’s trial. I also think the number of victims that testify will be lower than currently discussed</p>
<p>I don’t understnd the thinking that McQueary is a damaged witness, other than wishful thinking that Sandusky is innocent.</p>
<p>Well I do not think Sandusky is innocent and I think McQuery is a damaged witness. But we will see. As I stated I would not be surprised if he does not testify.</p>
<p>Let me re-state: other than wishful thinking that there was no coverup at PSU.</p>
<p>At any rate, whether the prosecution thinks it will need McQueary is up to them, but to me, he would be a powerful witness. But what do I know. :)</p>
<p>Hunt you stated, “I don’t think the prosecution will be allowed to tell the jury that they’ve been charged with perjury for it.”</p>
<p>Do you think they will find jurors who don’t already know this?</p>
<p>I think many things can possibly happen if this does go to trial, a la Casey Anthony. I will find it fascinating how McQueary does handle his opportunity to do the right thing at this point given the flack he took for not doing enough. I like to think people want to be stand up people but we’ll see.</p>
<p>McQueary has stated (apparently in an email to friends) that he reported the incident to the police. The police state they they had no report from McQueary. Someone is not being truthful.</p>