Jump to content

Penn State horror story


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 09:20 AM)
Nah, no way to apply any innocent intention behind the things he's accused of.

 

Yes there is.

 

"We were play wrestling" that is an innocent intent.

 

Just think about the instruction and compare it to a regular rape case.

 

Imagine if the instruction was:

 

"The critical issue is not that the victim feels the actions were unwanted ... the issue is not what the victim felt, the issue is what the defendant intended"

 

That would basically mean that as long as the person who committed the rape "thought they werent committing rape" they couldnt be convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:34 AM)
I read a tweet last night saying he told the grand jury initially that he was not abused so if he were to testify otherwise it could lead to perjury charges

 

Not only that but his credibility would come into question and could actually help the defense's argument, "The sensationalist media has even convinced Mr. Sandusky's son that he was also abused, eventhough he was not. Based on this, you have to wonder if all of the alleged victims arent suffering from the same incorrect memories."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 04:38 PM)
Yes there is.

 

"We were play wrestling" that is an innocent intent.

 

There is no way to portray anal and oral sex as "play wrestling".

 

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 04:38 PM)
Just think about the instruction and compare it to a regular rape case.

 

I don't think that's comparable. In a regular rape case, the argument isn't whether or not something occurred (sexual intercourse), but whether or not it was consensual.

 

In this case, there's 0 chance that the alleged actions were consensual because the victims were all children who can't consent. The defense is that most of the events never occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:38 AM)
That would basically mean that as long as the person who committed the rape "thought they werent committing rape" they couldnt be convicted.

 

I'm sure there's some sort of "reasonable person" standard here, otherwise anyone could self-delude into believing it's not rape and they'd be a-OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:45 AM)
I'm sure there's some sort of "reasonable person" standard here, otherwise anyone could self-delude into believing it's not rape and they'd be a-OK.

 

Im not sure people understand what a jury instruction is.

 

A jury instruction is the judge telling the jury what they are supposed to consider etc. The reason I quoted the instruction is because (imo) its completely off base.

 

The reason I brought up rape, is because if a similar instruction was given, people would go absolutely insane.

 

Crimson,

 

In this case, there's 0 chance that the alleged actions were consensual because the victims were all children who can't consent. The defense is that most of the events never occurred.

 

Right they are separate arguments.

 

Argument 1: There was never oral/anal sex.

 

Argument 2: There were some contact, but it was not abuse.

 

Without the jury instruction, argument 2 would be almost an automatic conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 05:02 PM)
Right they are separate arguments.

 

Argument 1: There was never oral/anal sex.

 

Argument 2: There were some contact, but it was not abuse.

 

Without the jury instruction, argument 2 would be almost an automatic conviction.

 

I agree that the instruction is inappropriate. But I don't think it really matters.

 

Even if the jury believes all the accounts or oral/anal sex are lies, they'd have to be complete morons to think that Sandusky believed being naked with kids, showering with kids, touching kids near their privates was innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 05:00 PM)
Good Lord.

 

I just read that he was prepared to testify. I can't fathom why he wasn't called.

 

From the Today Show report this morning...when the case started, he was sitting behind Sandusky, supporting him. But one of the witnesses, I think it may have been Victim 4 (but don't quote me), testified that Matt Sandusky, the adopted son, was there and also being abused. After that session, Matt S. went to the prosecutors with his story, saying he may be able to help them.

 

Of course, if the prosecution called him, I think the cross could have been devastating to the case. Well, maybe not devastating, but it sure would hurt. Why would you come to us NOW after you already testified in the Grand Jury that you weren't abused? etc, etc.

 

Here's the blurb:

 

The jury, which includes nine people with ties to Penn State, had already begun deliberating when Matt Sandusky's attorneys issued a statement alleging that his father abused him.

 

"During the trial, Matt Sandusky contacted us and requested our advice and assistance in arranging a meeting with prosecutors to disclose for the first time in this case that he is a victim of Jerry Sandusky's abuse," Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici said in the statement. "At Matt's request, we immediately arranged a meeting between him and the prosecutors and investigators.

 

"This has been an extremely painful experience for Matt and he has asked us to convey his request that the media respect his privacy. There will be no further comment."

 

Matt Sandusky went to live with Sandusky and his wife as a foster child and was adopted by them as an adult. He is one of Jerry Sandusky's six adopted children.

 

Shortly after Jerry Sandusky's arrest, Matt Sandusky's ex-wife went to court to keep her former father-in-law away from their three young children. Jill Jones successfully obtained a restraining order forbidding the children from sleeping over at their grandparents' home.

 

Around the same time, details emerged that Matt Sandusky had attempted suicide just four months after first going to live with the couple in 1995. He had come into the home through The Second Mile.

 

Shortly after the suicide attempt, Sandusky's probation officer wrote, "The probation department has some serious concerns about the juvenile's safety and his current progress in placement with the Sandusky family," according to court records supplied to The Associated Press by his birth mother, Debra Long.

 

Despite those concerns, probation and child welfare officials recommended continued placement with the Sandusky family, and the judge overseeing his case agreed.

 

During testimony last week, an accuser known as Victim 4 said Matt Sandusky was living at the Sandusky home at the time he stayed there overnight and testified that Jerry Sandusky came into the shower with the two boys and "started pumping his hand full of soap." Matt Sandusky shut off the shower and left, appearing nervous, the witness said.

 

On Friday, three of Matt Sandusky's siblings -- Jeffrey Sandusky, Jon Sandusky and Kara Werner -- were in court with their parents.

 

Another son, Ray Sandusky, who lives in Brentwood, Tenn., said he had no comment and closed the door on an Associated Press reporter.

 

A sixth Sandusky child, E.J., could not be located by the AP on Friday.

Edited by CanOfCorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:45 AM)
His wife to act so clueless is criminal to me.

I actually feel bad for her. Its obvious to me Sandusky is guilty. Making his wife go through that and having her testimony dissected by the media makes Jerry even a bigger scum IMO, if that's even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 01:18 PM)
I actually feel bad for her. Its obvious to me Sandusky is guilty. Making his wife go through that and having her testimony dissected by the media makes Jerry even a bigger scum IMO, if that's even possible.

 

I would feel bad if I didnt know that this stuff happened right under her nose and she played ignorant. If she really walked in on something in the hotel room, as a mother some sort of warning bells should have been going on in her head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 12:29 PM)

 

That was the one I found but its Florida (different jurisdiction) and it didnt answer the question of whether the state could appeal.

 

In Civil cases usually the plaintiff and defendant agree on the jury instructions before they are given, thus not a lot of appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...