<p>going- I also do not make decision on “wishful” thinking. If there has been a cover up let the facts come out. You apparently think waiting for something to be proven means you have taken a side. I wonder how your reading comprehension is because no where on these threads can you show that I want a certain result. All I have ever said is that people are making accusations and assuming wrong doing where all the facts are not out and once everything comes out they may be incorrect. I do make the conclusion that many here have made up their minds and it will not matter to them if factual information comes out that disproves their conclusion. They will find reasons to not accept it so that their preconceived opinion will not change.</p>
<p>
No need for personal barbs.</p>
<p>I don’t understnd the thinking that McQueary is a damaged witness, other than wishful thinking that Sandusky is innocent. </p>
<p>Let me re-state: other than wishful thinking that there was no coverup at PSU.</p>
<p>Who were those directed at?</p>
<p>You know a thread is going south when someone pulls out the “you have poor reading comprehension” card.</p>
<p>They were directed at all the Internet pieces saying Penn State’s strategy will be to present McQueary as a damaged witness.</p>
<p>You have my apology. I took it that they were directed at me.</p>
<p>I think McQueary will testify and he will likely be credible. The only thing he supposedly did that possibly was damaging to his character is the supposed email that was leaked out from his friends or bystanders. We don’t even have the actual email and the context of how the fact was presented in the email, but we already crucified him as a damaged witnessed. Did he just make a quick remarks to a friend in passing or was it a deliberate statement to the world, we just don’t know. Context is very important here. Even there is such an actual email, but for all the rest of events, there has been not much contradiction in his actions. Of all the things people allow Paterno and PSU associates to get away with in their minds, I think McQueary looks a lot more credible and believable than them by a long shot including the motives behind the matter.</p>
<p>Moreover, I believe the boy the McQueary witnessed is found and will be testifying. If he does along with McQueary testimony, it is way too powerful and a very strong evidence that could trump most other evidences in the case. Also I would question the notion that the jury will not find out that the PSU administrators are being booked for perjury, I am not a lawyer but that fact is very pertinent to the credibility of their testimony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe I had heard on the news that Sandusky’s lawyer claims that they have found the victim to whom McQueary referred. He stated that the victim confirms Sandusky’s version of events (that he had turned on all the shower heads, was sliding around, and engaging in nothing but "horseplay). What caught my attention, however, is that the individual supposedly states that he did not see McQueary. </p>
<p>The GJ report specifically mentions that McQueary noted that he was observed by both Sandusky and Victim #2 (at least I think it was #2). So I have to wonder if the young man to whom Sandusky’s lawyer is referring is not really the boy McQueary claims to have observed, or his memory of the event has been blocked out or influenced somehow by Sandusky. Childhood memories can be significantly influenced by suggestion, as history has shown countless times. Kids can be influenced to both accuse people of abuse, and they can also be manipulated into either forgetting or rewriting the abuse in their minds. That’s why victim testimony is often so shaky, particularly if the victims are or were children at the time.</p>
<p>Finally, as John Stewart so astutely pointed out, in general, “horseplay” is not something that would ever “be mistaken for rape.” The description of the scene in the GJ report is pretty explicit and does not remotely resemble the event as described by Sandusky in his Bob Costa interview.</p>
<p>^ believe Amendola “claimed” to have that victim, but seems since that time the prosecutor has also claimed so, and that he is testifying against Sandusky. Personally I don’t believe Amendola ever had that victim’s agreement, it seemed like part of his game/strategy perhaps. </p>
<p>agree with Jon Stewart. Wish someone asked Sandusky what exactly horseplay is???</p>
<p>^^ The dictionary defines “horseplay” as “rough or boisterous play or pranks” and so in Sandusky’s case, what he allegedly did (that is criminal) might come under that definition in his mind!</p>
<p>And form a completely cynical standpoint, what is to prevent the defense from finding ANY boy who may have gone to the locker room with Sandusky in 2002 who will testify that he was there and they were horsing around and didn’t see McQ. There may very well be boys who experienced that without being abused and didn’t see MCQ because it was a different night and a different boy.</p>
<p>I thought they claimed they knew who the victim was because Sandusky claims to have been questioned by Curley after the event and says he told them who the boy was. He claims that in 2002 he called the boy and told him that people from Penn State would be contacting him and that he should talk to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, among other scenarios, was something that occurred to me.</p>
<p>If Curley confirms he spoke to Sandusky and was given a name then they can confirm who the boy was.</p>
<p>But let’s remember that a pedophile of this type has an enormous amount of control over his victim’s. Let’s suppose that Sandusky is telling the truth and he gave PSU officials the correct boy’s name and called that boy to tell him that he was going to be contacted by PSU and that he should talk to them. How do you really think that conversation went? I’m guessing that threats were made about what would happen if the boy didn’t tell PSU a laundered version of the events that night. Even if threats were not made, Sandusky probably told the boy HIS version of the truth (horsing around, towel slapping, whatever) and suggested to the boy that he should back him up. It would certainly not be the first time that a victim was coerced into lying for a perpetrator. As it was, if I remember the story correctly, PSU never did contact the boy. Real good investigating.</p>
<p>Well EPTR there really was no reason to contact him because according to you the fix was already in and he would have lied anyway.
I wish we would just not bother holding those darn trials they actually give people a chance to defend themselves.
We should just read stories in newspapers, post stuff on the Internet and then go execute people.</p>
<p>Sandusky is a warped human being who still doesn’t seem to think he has done anything wrong and that his actions came from love. It’s like he’s a text book example of a pedophile. His contacting witnesses, etc was very inappropriate and who knows what he said. The fact that he had these slumber parties, gave them money, gifts, even if they were used clubs is odd. And why it didnt raise eyebrows, its thats old boy network.</p>
<p>tom, what did you think jurors might make of Sandusky’s interviews, in which he stumbled not once, but twice, over the question “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?” In the second interview, the attorney had to intervene and tell him how to answer the question. Those aren’t newspaper stories or internet opinions, but words straight from his own mouth.</p>
<p>Tom, I think I made it clear that I was speculating on what may have happened based on what we already know.</p>
<p>That’s what a discussion is all about. Clearly, I have an opinion on how one can explain some of the inconsistencies in the story. I would be very interested in hearing how Sandusky explains them. Unfortunately, I would not make a very good juror. Best to leave that to people who don’t already have a firm opinion.</p>
<p>I think Sandusky is in a world of trouble. I was just nudging you because it seems people on this thread actually get annoyed that he is going to put up any defense. That if anyone in the entire area of central Pennsylvania even confirms a story they are part of some grand conspiracy.
Those last few posts make it appear that back to 2002 Curley and Sandusky were conspiring to have a fake victim lined up to testify nothing happened.</p>