<p>EPTR, the Edwards and Clemons cases were so weak that every expert I heard felt they shouldn’t have been brought at all. They were both brought based on the testimony of one witness who fell apart under cross examination. This is very different.</p>
<p>Assuming Sandusky is convicted, IMO he’s going to ask that it be overturned based on ineffective assistance of counsel. I don’t see any other way to explain Amendola’s out-of court shennanigans and perfunctory defense.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57456908-504083/jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-rests-without-sandusky-testifying/[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57456908-504083/jerry-sandusky-trial-defense-rests-without-sandusky-testifying/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/sandusky-trial-jerry-sandusky-does-not-testify-as-defense-rests-its-case-jury-to-begin-deliberations-thursday-1071789/[/url]”>http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/sandusky-trial-jerry-sandusky-does-not-testify-as-defense-rests-its-case-jury-to-begin-deliberations-thursday-1071789/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That Dranov testimony was much less damning to McQueary than earlier reports suggested. It makes sense and, at least from what’s being reported now, Dranov didn’t contradict McQUeary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken those coaches also went on to say that they had never and would never shower with children alone. I think one could make the argument that there is a big difference between herding a bunch of kids into the shower together and taking a late night shower one on one with a child when the place was essentially deserted.</p>
<p>^^^Agreed.</p>
<p>I don’t see any way he is not convicted, but I have been wrong about most major cases, and I’m a lawyer! I can’t believe he even let it go to trial. That shows how sick he is.</p>
<p>Second Mile’s insurance company is paying the bills for his defense…I wonder if that factored in to his decision to go to trial. I wonder if they will have to pay for the defense in the civil suits as well? It seems like he abused the yound men a second time by not doing a plea. I understand why he didn’t, but really does seem like additional abuse.</p>
<p>I have not kept up with every post on this thread but have read a bunch. </p>
<p>Does anyone know why the prosecution did not put into evidence during its rebuttal phase, the damning tape of the part of the Bob Costas interview of Sandusky that was not aired originally, but has recently been made public? I thought for sure the prosecution would enter it after the defense rested its case.</p>
<p>^^^If I were the prosecutor, I would want to use that as part of my closing arguments. That would be pretty powerful, since the prosecution gets to go last in closing arguments.</p>
<p>^^^Oh, OK, I did not realize that the prosecutor could introduce evidence in closing arguments and I thought his chance was during the rebuttal after the defense rested. So, maybe it is still coming?</p>
<p>“Second Mile’s insurance company is paying the bills for his defense…I wonder if that factored in to his decision to go to trial.”</p>
<p>Well, Second Mile, and likely every member of its Board, will be sued, as will PSU, and estate of JoePa. The insurance company has a strong interest in the outcome of the criminal trial - it will be harder for them to defend civilly if there is a criminal conviction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that he could do that. I am not a lawyer, so for all I know one cannot introduce evidence in closing arguments. I was just saying I would want to, because those would be some pretty intense “last words.”</p>
<p>Dranov and John McQueary had to claim they weren’t convinced it was child sexual abuse because as physicians they would have then been required to report said abuse. </p>
<p>so sad how these young boys seemed to have been considered nothing more than collateral damage of the PSU Football.</p>
<p>
I don’t think they would have been required reporters under the law.</p>
<p>I usually call it pretty well. I have not kept as close tabs on this case, but I would say that he will be convicted and then the real circus with the civil suits will begin. I cannot conceive of that many individuals colluding iwith this information. I never felt the Clemente and the Edwards cases should have been brought to trial with what evidence was there. I also felt sick but sure that Casey Anthony was not going to be convicted of anything major though scot free was a shocker to me. I think Sandusky is going to be put away.</p>
<p>I am hoping some stornger rules of conduct and procedure are put into place to protect children from predators. This should have not continued as long as it did, and my fear is that it is happening right now in some places. I don’t think Penn State is so unique nor Horace Mann</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As pedophiles are known to be very good at placing themselves in environments in which they have easy access to children, you are unfortunately but almost certainly correct.</p>
<p>For everyone tom lie and frame Sandusky seems ludicrous. And the character witnesses are meaningless, as is his wires testimony. Sandusky was very clever and knew how to pick pick victims. </p>
<p>Imhope the jury sees thru the fluff.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that anyone wanted to testify for Sandusky, however, if your contact and knowledge about someone has been favorable, and truly nothing but that, there is an obligation to say so. Until Sandusky is convicted, and he has not yet been convicted, and I do believe he will be, he is innocent. To behave otherwise is not right. GOing purely by public sentiment, Sandusky should have been hanged right away.</p>
<p>Does it occur to anyone that there are those who did not know Sandusky was doing these things? That his wife may truly not have known? I do not believe that everyone was in a big conspiracy to permit Sandusky to feed his sick fetishes. That they were so interested in making the money that they HAD to let Sandusky have his way? I don’t believe that. I think a lot of this is from just not being able to comprehend that someone would do something like this.</p>
<p>I also find it inconceivable that so many boys would lie about this. If it had been one victim, it would be one word against another, but there are just too many. </p>
<p>I find the character witnesses for Sandusky rather worthless. Someone can be upstanding in certain facets of life, and even have helped other people, but have dark hidden secrets of crimes or ill behavior. It should not matter if he was a nice guy some of the time. It only matters in this instance what actions he may have committed that are criminal. He preyed on children who were either threatened or coerced (or ashamed) to keep quiet. He did not typically do the crimes with others witnessing them (except the one that we know about). And yes, I do believe that a wife or other friends could have known nothing about these behaviors because they were behind closed doors and he took action to try to keep it a secret. And who wants to believe someone they love or like would do such horrible things?</p>
<p>That is why their testimony is worthless. They only saw what Sandusky let them see. Its like saying I never saw him rob a bank so of course he must be innocent. </p>
<p>Character witnesses while a nice idea, seem pretty useless. I think some knew enough that they should and could have stopped it, at least stopped and discouraged and stopped supporting his access to children. </p>
<p>When my kid was younger and had friends over, liquor would disappear. I looked the cabinet. I couldn’t prove it, but I knew, so I took precautions.</p>
<p>As for the defensem they are all over the map, everyone loved him and he had great relationships and worked real well with kids, yet he has a syndrome where he can’t have good relationships, it makes him over affectionate and sexual seeming, etc.</p>
<p>If he can be both of thhose, why cant he have two personas…the kindly grandfather and the pedophile</p>
<p>“I do not believe that everyone was in a big conspiracy to permit Sandusky to feed his sick fetishes. That they were so interested in making the money that they HAD to let Sandusky have his way?”</p>
<p>Doesn’t have to be “everyone”. In fact, it only has to be one - the one who was told, directly and explicitly, who is said to have known in the indictment, and then immediately started watering things down. The one with a track record for not protecting his own players even when they were receiving death threats (and one person was actually found dead). The one who had very, very lucrative contracts in place that would likely have gone awry if the truth came out. The one who fired Sandusky after an earlier “episode” but allowed him to keep using the locker room and shower. The one who, after being told directly about Sandusky’s activities in the shower, continued to allow him to use it for a year. The one who had virtually all the power in the situation. Only needed one guy to direct the conspiracy, the one with the most at stake.</p>
<p>You know who this is.</p>