http://gma.yahoo.com/jerry-sanduskys-alleged-victims-lose-court-bid-stay-133907570--abc-news-topstories.html
QuoteThe identities of eight alleged victims of child abuse at the hands of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky will be made public during the trial that begins this month, a judge ruled today.
Four of the alleged victims had petitioned Judge John Cleland to keep their identities anonymous by allowing them to use pseudonyms. All of the victims have been previously been denoted only by number, such as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," during the investigation and pre-trial hearings.
When the trial begins on June 11, the court will not take any official action to protect their identities as the alleged victims testify against Sandusky, 58, who is charged with 52 counts of child molestation.
"While I will make every effort to be sensitive to the nature of the alleged victims' testimony, once the trial begins the veil must be lifted," Cleland wrote in an order released today.
The victims are expected to testify about the incidents in which Sandusky allegedly molested them, including on Penn State's campus, in the football locker room showers, in the campus hotel Toftrees, in Arizona at the 1998 Outback Bowl Game, and 1999 Alamo Bowl game.
Four of the victims, all of whom are men who are now legal adults, have petitioned for the right to protect their identities due to the nature of the allegations. Sandusky and his attorneys did not object to their request, Clelan wrote, but the judge felt that the alleged victims had a duty to testify publicly.
"As citizens we have certain responsibilities to protect the safety and security of the community as a whole, no matter how personally unpleasant fulfilling that duty may be," the judge wrote.
If the four victims choose not to testify in light of Cleland's ruling, the prosecution will be left with four other victims as well as witnesses to prove the charges of molestation and child rape against Sandusky.
The prosecution's star witness, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary, is set to testify about a 2001 incident in which McQueary saw Sandusky allegedly raping a young boy in the Penn State football locker room showers.
However, the prosecution originally said that the incident occurred in March 2002, but recently changed the date of the molestation to February 2001. McQueary's original statement to police in 2010 showed that he was not sure which year the incident occurred.
The prosecution has not been able to identify the child who McQueary claims he saw in the shower. Similarly, an alleged incident of molestation that occurred in the football building in 2000 was witnessed by a janitor named James Calhoun who now suffers from dementia and will not be able to testify. That child was also never identified.
The scandal resulted in the dismissal of the university's president as well as its iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who has since died.
The attorneys for the defense and the prosecution are banned from commenting on the case under a gag order issued by Cleland.
I don't know what that means.
To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.
Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban. So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.
Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban. So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.
If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure
Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.
Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban. So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.
If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.
I'm shaking my head at my own post.
It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants. Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban. Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.
The judge is a football fan and wants the alleged victims to be dealt with by angry fans.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.
Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban. So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.
If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.
I'm shaking my head at my own post.
It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants. Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban. Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.
Well, in all honesty, you
are from a foreign country.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:31:11 PM
To my Canadian legal mind that's fairly shocking.
Sicne the victims were under age at the time the identities of the victims would automatically be subject to a publication ban. So while the victims would testify openly in court, media would be prohibited from revealing anything that would identify them.
If they were still under age at the time of testimony, I'm sure Maryland v Craig would've kicked in, but I don't know what Pennsylvania's case law is on testifying as an adult re: 6th Amendment rights.
I'm shaking my head at my own post.
It has nothing to do with the age of the complainants. Any victim of a sexual assault will almost certainly be made subject to a publication ban. Re: the sixth amendment the accused is under no restrictions - it is the media who can not report anything that would identify the victim.
Well, in all honesty, you are from a foreign country.
No shit.
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
I am. Thank you. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
She still has a long way to go to catch Pepy II
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2012, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious
Compared to Vicky's Jubiliee, yeah. Now that would've been a sight to see.
Would've loved to have seen the
Nimitz in there this weekend, though. Take the fucking Bridge down with the superstructure, lulz oops, sorry, guvnuh
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 04, 2012, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Enjoy your monarch's circle jerk jubilee, then.
The flotilla down the Thames: hilarious
Compared to Vicky's Jubiliee, yeah. Now that would've been a sight to see.
Would've loved to have seen the Nimitz in there this weekend, though. Take the fucking Bridge down with the superstructure, lulz oops, sorry, guvnuh
we're in ur base shooting ur d00dz.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 12:26:47 PM
http://gma.yahoo.com/jerry-sanduskys-alleged-victims-lose-court-bid-stay-133907570--abc-news-topstories.html
QuoteThe identities of eight alleged victims of child abuse at the hands of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky will be made public during the trial that begins this month, a judge ruled today.
Four of the alleged victims had petitioned Judge John Cleland to keep their identities anonymous by allowing them to use pseudonyms. All of the victims have been previously been denoted only by number, such as "Victim 1" and "Victim 2," during the investigation and pre-trial hearings.
When the trial begins on June 11, the court will not take any official action to protect their identities as the alleged victims testify against Sandusky, 58, who is charged with 52 counts of child molestation.
"While I will make every effort to be sensitive to the nature of the alleged victims' testimony, once the trial begins the veil must be lifted," Cleland wrote in an order released today.
The victims are expected to testify about the incidents in which Sandusky allegedly molested them, including on Penn State's campus, in the football locker room showers, in the campus hotel Toftrees, in Arizona at the 1998 Outback Bowl Game, and 1999 Alamo Bowl game.
Four of the victims, all of whom are men who are now legal adults, have petitioned for the right to protect their identities due to the nature of the allegations. Sandusky and his attorneys did not object to their request, Clelan wrote, but the judge felt that the alleged victims had a duty to testify publicly.
"As citizens we have certain responsibilities to protect the safety and security of the community as a whole, no matter how personally unpleasant fulfilling that duty may be," the judge wrote.
If the four victims choose not to testify in light of Cleland's ruling, the prosecution will be left with four other victims as well as witnesses to prove the charges of molestation and child rape against Sandusky.
The prosecution's star witness, former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary, is set to testify about a 2001 incident in which McQueary saw Sandusky allegedly raping a young boy in the Penn State football locker room showers.
However, the prosecution originally said that the incident occurred in March 2002, but recently changed the date of the molestation to February 2001. McQueary's original statement to police in 2010 showed that he was not sure which year the incident occurred.
The prosecution has not been able to identify the child who McQueary claims he saw in the shower. Similarly, an alleged incident of molestation that occurred in the football building in 2000 was witnessed by a janitor named James Calhoun who now suffers from dementia and will not be able to testify. That child was also never identified.
The scandal resulted in the dismissal of the university's president as well as its iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who has since died.
The attorneys for the defense and the prosecution are banned from commenting on the case under a gag order issued by Cleland.
I don't know what that means.
I certainly don't see the logic. The defendant has a right to "confront" the witnesses against him, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. If Sandusky and his attorney don't object to the identity of the accusers being kept secret, I don't see where they have a "duty" to have their identities revealed.
Yeah that's the part that I don't get.
Quote from: dps on June 04, 2012, 11:33:30 PM
I certainly don't see the logic. The defendant has a right to "confront" the witnesses against him, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. If Sandusky and his attorney don't object to the identity of the accusers being kept secret, I don't see where they have a "duty" to have their identities revealed.
There's a difference between the court actively "outing" witnesses and declaring it's not going to go outside of normal operations to protect their privacy. They've already got wrangling to do, since there's already buzz about the juror pool (which is supposed to be kept secret). They've got a leak, and they need to plug it, stat, before somebody calls for a mistrial.
Not directly related to this case, but don't you think that the right to privacy is slowly becoming a thing of the past? We are reaching a point that pretty much every information about everyone is accessible on the internet so protection of privacy in individual cases becomes more of an arbitrary fiat rather than an equal standard. Perhaps it's about time we realized that and threw the door wide open - at least if we know everything about everyone there will be less hypocrisy.
Edit: Same really goes with a ban or restriction on publication - it could work when the publication sources were few, identified and institutionalized. In the day of the internet, there are potentially few billion publishers on the planet with an access to a few billion audience each - how do you ban a publication in that environment?
Speaking of the Jury, looks like it's full of Penn. Staters
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-jury-will-include-penn-state-students-and-fans.html;_ylt=AmmnRiu5jg7WWhwQhMh02S85nYcB
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2012, 06:42:04 AM
Speaking of the Jury, looks like it's full of Penn. Staters
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-jury-will-include-penn-state-students-and-fans.html;_ylt=AmmnRiu5jg7WWhwQhMh02S85nYcB
Shocking, given the fact that the trial is in Centre County. :sleep:
Creepy third person love letters incoming!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sanduskys-love-letters-alleged-victim-revealed/story?id=16501341#.T89DssWT95d
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2012, 06:49:26 AM
Shocking, given the fact that the trial is in Centre County. :sleep:
They should have moved that trial to someplace else in Pennsylvania. Someplace with objective people like Pitt grads...oh wait.
But seriously though that judge's...well....judgements are really suspect in the early going.
Hopefully this new love letter bombshell will move this thing to an easy conviction.
The key portion of the judge's ruling was not excerpted in the article.
It's the part that says: "[T]here is no support in Pennsylvania law for offering anonymity to an adult witness because the witness is one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
The key portion of the judge's ruling was not excerpted in the article.
It's the part that says: "[T]here is no support in Pennsylvania law for offering anonymity to an adult witness because the witness is one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime."
Really? So rape victims are routinely outed in PA?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 02:45:08 PM
The key portion of the judge's ruling was not excerpted in the article.
It's the part that says: "[T]here is no support in Pennsylvania law for offering anonymity to an adult witness because the witness is one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime."
Really? So rape victims are routinely outed in PA?
Are rape victims one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:59:59 PM
Are rape victims one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime?
Take a nap dude. The Wisconsin thread has mellowed out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:59:59 PM
Are rape victims one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime?
Take a nap dude. The Wisconsin thread has mellowed out.
Oh, I get it. Only Yi can use the Yicratic Method. Foul. :mad:
Seriously though, the judge is not making an exception for adults who were child victims. That would created a separate class of child sexual abuse.
Anyone can use the Yicratic method. You just suck at it.
Rape victims are a special class of adult crime victims. In most jurisdictions their identity is shielded. Joan's quoted statement suggests that in Pennsylvania they are not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 03:24:14 PM
Anyone can use the Yicratic method. You just suck at it.
:EdSchutzmiddlefinger:
QuoteRape victims are a special class of adult crime victims. In most jurisdictions their identity is shielded. Joan's quoted statement suggests that in Pennsylvania they are not.
Rape victims are shielded in PA; but he's not being charged with Rape Rape.
They should've thought about privacy before they let themselves get raped.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
Really? So rape victims are routinely outed in PA?
I don't think they are usually permitted to testify under a pseudonym.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
I don't think they are usually permitted to testify under a pseudonym.
An emminently reasonable conclusion. But I imagine the relevant issue is whether the press is barred from publishing their name.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:59:59 PM
Are rape victims one of a class of victims of a particular form of crime?
Take a nap dude. The Wisconsin thread has mellowed out.
Oh, I get it. Only Yi can use the Yicratic Method. Foul. :mad:
.
Well yeah, he gets mad if you do it to him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
An emminently reasonable conclusion. But I imagine the relevant issue is whether the press is barred from publishing their name.
Doubt it - that would be a prior restraint.
But the issue the judge was deciding was a little different - whether the witness could testify under an assumed name.
What I have seen which is more typical is that in reported orders and decisions, the courts don't mention the victim by name.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Well yeah, he gets mad if you do it to him.
I get mad when people make unwarranted logical leaps and/or rush straight to a value judgement about the interlocutor.
If you try it and avoid those errors you will see I have no beef.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Well yeah, he gets mad if you do it to him.
I get mad when people make unwarranted logical leaps and/or rush straight to a value judgement about the interlocutor.
If you try it and avoid those errors you will see I have no beef.
Except you have. On multiple occasions. You referred it to as "Gotcha" postings. We had an episode last week.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
Except you have. On multiple occasions. You referred it to as "Gotcha" postings. We had an episode last week.
No, I have pointed out logical inconsistencies where I thought they existed. That's not the same thing as saying "this post proves that Raz is mentally deficient."
One of your problems is that you point out logical inconsistencies where they don't exist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
I don't think they are usually permitted to testify under a pseudonym.
An emminently reasonable conclusion. But I imagine the relevant issue is whether the press is barred from publishing their name.
Define "press".
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 03:02:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:02:21 PM
I don't think they are usually permitted to testify under a pseudonym.
An emminently reasonable conclusion. But I imagine the relevant issue is whether the press is barred from publishing their name.
Define "press".
Press isn't the key word here - it's "publish".
Define "publish".
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
Define "publish".
The Canadian law states that the identity of a victim of a sexual offence "shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way".
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2012, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
Define "publish".
The Canadian law states that the identity of a victim of a sexual offence "shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way".
Define "document."
Define "broadcast."
Define "transmitted."
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on June 08, 2012, 03:01:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2012, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
Define "publish".
The Canadian law states that the identity of a victim of a sexual offence "shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way".
Define "document."
Define "broadcast."
Define "transmitted."
:lol:
I'm not sure of the :lol:
Plenty of times issues are fought in court over exactly what is meant by those terms. In my annotated Criminal Code there are no cases that discuss exactly what is meant by those terms, but I'm sure if I searched I could find some.
:mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2012, 03:09:46 PM
I'm not sure of the :lol:
I am not surprised. I, however, am quite sure.
QuotePlenty of times issues are fought in court over exactly what is meant by those terms. In my annotated Criminal Code there are no cases that discuss exactly what is meant by those terms, but I'm sure if I searched I could find some.
:mellow:
I bet you hear that (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f) (http://www.smileyvault.com/) so often you think it is a natural phenomenon! :lol:
:frusty:
Grumbler was making fun of Marty there BB.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
:frusty:
Grumbler was making fun of Marty there BB.
Ah.
I was worried that with the main witness (Paterno) dead, the Penn state officials would get off scott free. Looks like I don't have to worry. :)
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/12169577-nbc-former-penn-state-president-could-face-charges-in-sandusky-case?lite
QuoteNBC: Former Penn State president could face charges in Sandusky case
Updated at 4:02 p.m. ET: Pennsylvania prosecutors are considering criminal charges against former top Penn State University officials for allegedly concealing what they knew about the conduct of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, law enforcement told NBC News.
Follow @msnbc_us
As Sandusky's trial began Monday on 52 counts alleging that he abused 10 boys over 15 years, the sources said investigators had obtained new evidence, including internal university email messages and other documents.
The documents show that former university President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they were obligated to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter in a Penn State shower room between Sandusky and a young boy, both of whom were naked, the sources said.
The documents allegedly show that university officials even did legal research on whether such conduct might be a crime, but in one email exchange, Spanier and former university Vice President Gary Schultz agreed that it would be "humane to Sandusky" not to inform social services agencies, two sources said.
It wasn't the first time university officials had heard about Sandusky's alleged behavior. Schultz, who headed the campus police at the time, testified to a grand jury that he knew about an alleged separate incident involving Sandusky and a young boy in a shower in 1998. That report was investigated by local authorities but never led to charges.
The documents also indicate that Spanier and former university Athletic Director Tim Curley took a report from former graduate assistant coach Michael McQueary more seriously than they led grand juries investigating the case to believe.
McQueary — who is expected to testify for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial — originally testified to a grand jury that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy in March 2002. But an email revealed Monday indicates that Spanier, Schultz and Curley discussed what McQueary allegedly saw and whether to report it more than a year earlier.
Lawyers for Spanier, who was fired in September, didn't return calls seeking comment.
In a statement, lawyers for Schultz and Curley said "the information confirms that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz conscientiously considered Mike McQueary's reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the University President Graham Spanier and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct."
Main witness?
WTF, how dumb are you Tim?
Quote from: katmai on June 11, 2012, 05:29:43 PM
Main witness?
WTF, how dumb are you Tim?
Not in the Sandusky case, the case against the higher ups in the university that covered things up.
Quote from: katmai on June 11, 2012, 05:29:43 PM
Main witness?
WTF, how dumb are you Tim?
Dumb enough to talk about people getting of "scott" free.
Fucking crazy. It's amazing how stupid people can be.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/06/11/documents-reveal-secret-file-regarding-sandusky-sex-abuse/
QuotePITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Documents filed by the Attorney General's office indicate new evidence has been uncovered against several former Penn State officials, including Graham Spanier and Gary Schultz.
In documents obtained by KDKA-TV investigators, the Attorney General's Office indicates former vice president Schultz kept a secret file with allegations regarding Sandusky and sex abuse. This comes after an NBC report alleges Spanier did not report alleged abuse because it would be humane to Sandusky to not report the matter.
"Only recently was the commonwealth provided with a file containing documents relating to incidents involving Sandusky," a statement from the Attorney General's office says. "The file was created, maintained and possessed by Schultz. Documents in that file are inconsistent with statements by Schultz and his co-defendant, Curley, to the Grand Jury.
"Also, the commonwealth has come into possession of computer data (again, subpoenaed long ago but not received from PSU until after the charges had been filed in this case) in the form of e-mails between Schultz, Curley and others that contradict their testimony before the Grand Jury."
Sources close to the investigation confirm both e-mails in the file kept by Schultz as well as e-mails found in computer data indicate high-ranking Penn State officials, including Spanier, Schultz and former athletic director Tim Curley, knew about an alleged sexual assault that took place in the Penn State locker room shower.
Those documents filed by the Attorney General's office late Monday indicate Schultz told so many lies in his Grand Jury testimony that it was impossible to respond to each and every one of them.
Penn State says the e-mails were discovered and immediately turned over.
That's right, kids: When you press that SEND button, it's all discoverable.
:yes: That point was stressed repeatedly during my training. Hmm, actually, I wonder why? :hmm: :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2012, 06:08:46 PM
:yes: That point was stressed repeatedly during my training. Hmm, actually, I wonder why? :hmm: :unsure:
Never mention your accounting irregularities in email form. Or text. Or IM. Or in files on your hard drive. Yes, that thing can undergo sector analysis even after you format it. :P
Drill holes in your hard drives.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 12, 2012, 06:29:09 PM
Drill holes in your hard drives.
I've discovered, since working with computer forensics guys, that they can work some real miracles with hard drives--but they can't put them back together after you've sledgehammered the shit out of them.
Quote from: derspiess on June 12, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 12, 2012, 06:29:09 PM
Drill Shoot holes in your hard drives.
Fixed.
My former employer didn't let us shoot the giant pile of hard drives.
Unfun supervisory job: Watching people take out a giant pile of hard drives with drills. Then count the drives to make sure we got them all. Then fill out the paperwork (ON PAPER WITH CARBON PAPER COPIES).
So the trial is almost over (I think closing arguments start tomorrow).
I predict a mistrial. Too many idiots end up on juries today who think real life is like CSI: Miami and every case should have a smoking gun, or else they have 'reasonable doubt'. :)
:(
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/attorney_for_jerry_sanduskys_a.html
Quote
BELLEFONTE -- Matt Sandusky, through his attorney Andrew Shubin, said that he met with prosecutors this week to say for the first time that he is a molestation victim of Jerry Sandusky, his adopted father. Matt, 33, was adopted by Jerry and Dottie Sandusky as an adult, after going to live with the family as a foster child.
He has denied ever being abused by his adopted father until now. "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," Shubin said in a statement.
Shubin also said Matt was prepared to testify truthfully at trial, if called by prosecutors. It is unclear why he did not testify.
In March, The Patriot-News reported that Matt had a rocky relationship with his adopted father. His biological mother told The Patriot-News she believed Sandusky had stolen her son from her.
His biological mom, Debra Long, testified before the grand jury in early 2011 about strange behavior she says she witnessed between her son and Sandusky.
Matt testified, too. But Sandusky's attorney, Joe Amendola said at the time that he was not worried about Matt's testimony, and that Long was making false allegations because she was angry at the Sandusky family.
During testimony at trial, Victim 4 told jurors that one time Jerry Sandusky began touching him during a shower, Matt Sandusky was present, but left the shower when the assault began
Yeah, that was kind of a bummer to hear... but is anyone really surprised?
I really wanted him to take the stand, if only to say even more weirdo, off-the-wall, self-incriminating shit than the shit he already had in public. But his lawyers aren't that crazy.
The "sure i did all those things, but it wasn't sexual" defense?
Didn't that fucking moron say something along the lines of "I only asked some of the kids I mentored for sexual favors... BUT NOT ALL OF THEM LOL" in his interview with Costas?
The best part of that Costas interview was when Bob asked him if he was sexually attracted to boys, and he answered with the agonizingly long "Well..." response. :lol:
That was worse that Wacko Jacko and Ed Bradley. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on June 21, 2012, 06:22:46 PM
Didn't that fucking moron say something along the lines of "I only asked some of the kids I mentored for sexual favors... BUT NOT ALL OF THEM LOL" in his interview with Costas?
Pretty much. As I recall, Costas asking something like "was this charity set up to give you access to young boys" and Sandusky answered something along the lines of "many of the boys I helped have never accused me of anything."
Quote from: Caliga on June 20, 2012, 06:19:32 PM
So the trial is almost over (I think closing arguments start tomorrow).
I predict a mistrial. Too many idiots end up on juries today who think real life is like CSI: Miami and every case should have a smoking gun, or else they have 'reasonable doubt'. :)
Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Cal = incorrect. :sleep:
I'm kind of glad I was wrong, though. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 22, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 20, 2012, 06:19:32 PM
So the trial is almost over (I think closing arguments start tomorrow).
I predict a mistrial. Too many idiots end up on juries today who think real life is like CSI: Miami and every case should have a smoking gun, or else they have 'reasonable doubt'. :)
Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Cal = incorrect. :sleep:
I'm kind of glad I was wrong, though. :)
I'm glad you were wrong too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18561442
QuoteFormer US college football coach Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of child sex abuse.
The jury reached its verdict at the end of its second day of deliberations.
Sandusky, 68, denied 48 counts of abusing 10 boys over 15 years. A full guilty verdict could have seen him spend the rest of his life in jail.
Sandusky's arrest in November caused a scandal at Penn State University that saw the president, and legendary football coach Joe Paterno, fired.
After the verdict, Sandusky's bail was revoked and he was taken into custody in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.
The decision, delivered by a jury of seven women and five men, came after about 21 hours of deliberations over two days.
A large crowd had gathered outside the courthouse as the hearing was under way, and people cheered as the verdict was delivered.
Unfolding accusations
Sandusky, who did not testify, was accused of abusing boys he met through Second Mile, a charity he founded for at-risk youth.
He allegedly abused them at his home, in hotels and the athletic facilities of Penn State.
Eight men aged between 18 and 28 testified during the nearly two-week trial, providing graphic details of the alleged abuse.
One witness told the court how he hid and then threw away underwear after Sandusky allegedly forced him to have anal sex, making him bleed.
Sandusky's arrest in November led to the firing of several Penn State officials amid accusations that the university had failed to act on reports of suspected abuse.
Two Penn State administrators are awaiting trial for failing to report the suspected abuse and lying to the grand jury.
Penn State boasts one of the proudest football traditions in the country
Could've been stopped years ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
Could've been stopped years ago.
That's what bothers me most.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
Could've been stopped years ago.
Yup. Lets hope the Penn st. administrators that covered it up get hammered.
for once i agree with Tim.
Don't worry, Tim. The hammer of justice will come down on Penn State just like it did on the Catholic Church.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2012, 02:18:15 AM
Don't worry, Tim. The hammer of justice will come down on Penn State just like it did on the Catholic Church.
:XD:
We need to stop enabling---even promoting and marrying---monsters.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 23, 2012, 02:59:01 AM
We need to stop enabling---even promoting and marrying---monsters.
That joke went over my head.
More thoughts from the mind of a predator, a former teacher that was named in a recent surfacing of long-ago sex abuses at a prominent New York private school.
QuoteMr. Lin was articulate in the interview, sometimes philosophical and a bit puzzled by the resurfacing of the past. "I'm surprised they remember," he said, referring to the students. "It was all so casual and warm."
...
Tek Young Lin was revered at the Horace Mann School. He was different from other teachers — a Buddhist who carefully tended to his elaborate gardens, a chaplain and a cross-country coach. He was so beloved that the English department chairmanship was named in his honor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/nyregion/tek-young-lin-ex-horace-mann-teacher-says-he-had-sex-with-students.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/nyregion/tek-young-lin-ex-horace-mann-teacher-says-he-had-sex-with-students.html)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2012, 09:50:26 PM
Yup. Lets hope the Penn st. administrators that covered it up get hammered.
They probably will be as soon as this trial's over. Transcripts from this trial would be perfect to back up affidavits and make the case a foregone conclusion.
Pretty disgusting, but not as disgusting as the first "NYT Pick" comment. :x
QuoteBased on the torrent of allegations, admissions and convictions, pedophiles are in greater abundance in our society than anyone ever thought, and are a very great danger. Forget Tax Reform, forget Immigration Reform, forget Election Reform, forget the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and all the other windmills at which we have been tilting. It is way past time to start spending our time, our money and our efforts on protecting our children, rather than on all the "feel good" projects we are involved in around the world.
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2012, 08:41:54 AM
QuoteBased on the torrent of allegations, admissions and convictions, pedophiles are in greater abundance in our society than anyone ever thought, and are a very great danger. Forget Tax Reform, forget Immigration Reform, forget Election Reform, forget the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and all the other windmills at which we have been tilting. It is way past time to start spending our time, our money and our efforts on protecting our children, rather than on all the "feel good" projects we are involved in around the world.
I agree with the above. But I'm not going to just sit around and complain about the neglect of our children. I'm starting a foundation to help those most at risk--"The Third Mile."
Indeed. We need more laws to Protect the ChildrenTM.
Wow...
well, at least the civil suits will be able to get some money.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12464481-sandusky-could-keep-59000-pension-despite-conviction?lite
QuoteFormer Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse, could still profit from his public pension.
Sandusky stands to collect $58,898 each year, according to PennLive.com, because the crimes he committed are not included on the list of 22 that would force him to give up his benefits.
Pennsylvania's public officials or retirees are required to forfeit their pensions under the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) if they commit "certain crimes that breach the member's duty of faithful and honest public service." The list does not include sex crimes.
"I think it is nauseating that a convicted pedophile like Sandusky will be collecting a pension while sitting behind bars," Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle said in a statement. "He certainly doesn't deserve to continue to enjoy the benefit of a taxpayer-funded pension."
Upon his death, Sandusky's wife, Dottie, would be able to get half of the annual payout, PennLive.com reported.
Nicholas Maiale, chairman of the SERS board, told PennLive.com that he will get a legal review of the board's options in this case. "I am a Penn Stater and I am a citizen of Pennsylvania, and we are all morally outraged about this case and what happened to those kids," he said, though he is not optimistic about a forfeiture.
Retired Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, meanwhile, could lose his pension after being accused of perjury, PennLive.com reported.
Rep. Boyle introduced a bill in 2011, before Sandusky was charged, that is now one of six bills that could broaden the list of crimes that require public workers to give up their pensions, PennLive.com reported.
Sandusky's sentencing is expected in about three months.
It sounds silly in this case, but it makes sense. Your pension is not something that you get to keep for good behavior. It's an asset your earn as part of your employment, and you own it, not the state. It makes as much sense to take his pension as it does to take back his salary retroactively.