And some Werewolf games.

Dont forget Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony.

sex sells

I have a tendency to do random strings of combo posts, 2 or 3 in a row, rather than editing my afterthoughts in. It's a bad habit, and often gets me top honors in many threads. lol.

Speaking of, attorney Jose Baez will be appearing on Court TV shortly.

Seems like the best defense of Sandusky is that people were motivated to make this stuff up about him. McQueary because he wanted his job or had a grudge against him, the kids to get money, etc...

McQueary wanted to be a retired defensive coordinator?

That's an accurate observation, Tom. If Sandusky was totally innocent of all these charges, (i.e. he simply did not do any of what he is charged with), and all these victims "made up" all this; there would be inconsistencies in their stories - inconsistencies that any half-way competent lawyer (even an Amendola) could drive a Mack truck through. You can't have eight or ten victims make all this stuff up and not have a trail of lies all over the place. (The prosecuting attorney highlighted this very point during closing arguments yesterday.)

With the possible exception of Mike McQueary's testimony, Sandusky hasn't been able to knock any meaningful holes into the testimony of the other victims. His total defense seems to be "This is a big conspiracy and everybody is out to get me!" along with "There's no way I could have done any of this because my character witnesses have testified that I'm a great guy" topped off with "These people are saying all these terrible things about me because they're after money!"

I'm fully cognizant of the fact that the defense "doesn't have to prove anything," but if there was some massive conspiracy to "get" Jerry Sandusky and this was all a bunch of made up BS, there would be some evidence somewhere to back it up. With all the time his defense team has had since he was arrested last November, if there was a smoking gun that totally exonerates Jerry Sandusky (or at least creates some "reasonable doubt") you would think such "evidence" would have turned up by now.

I mean, if a jury can just dismiss dozens of first and second hand eye witness accounts simply on the basis of "Gee, they might all be making it up!" then what's the point? Why even try anybody?

Saying people are after his money is a dumb argument I think for Lawyerin' Joe. How much does Sandusky have? Yea, he was a DC for a big college but it's not like he has untold millions. He last worked in 1999. Even if he ave. $500,000 a year as a coach, that's about $15,000,000 over his career. That's not a lot all things considered. Throw in another $5,000,000 for pensions, books, endorsements, ect. (And I'm being generous) and it's about $20,000,000 tops. In reality, it's probably like $10 million and even that might be a stretch.

Well, when you catch a cop lying on the stand, twice, it probably opens the door of doubt to a lot of people. Most of those witnesses waited a long time to come forward, and many of them repeatedly denied it at first. They're sketchy on the details. They were 'troubled' kids at that time. Remember, they were ideal victims for a reason. And McQueary's wierd wierdness doesn't help, imo.

To be fair, you have to shake the sand out first.

that's a ton of money. sandusky has probably lived a rather unostentatious life - he lives in the sticks in a normal house - and aside from raising foster children, likely had few huge expenses. i'm sure that he's made way more money than an average pedophile.

some have said this, sure, but imo the real concern is that it only takes one. and there's definitely a non-zero chance that there's at least one.

a hypothetical that just occurred to me: what do you guys think would have happened if paterno had testified? if you think he would have substantially swayed the jury one way or another, I think you have to acknowledge that his ghost still might.

(drose will be back, dammit)

maybe it's just the conspiracy theorist in me, but the lone wolf, single-principled person, etc factor is definitely in play in pedo valley.

this forum skews under 30 (ldo) and I think that's coloring the debate a bit. can you really pick apart a grandmotherly witness who some will see as a victim as well? it's real tough to predict how people will empathize (or not) with the situation she's in. I'm not sure that wearing down dottie tv-police-interrogation style will play well with all 12 jurors.

ofc you guys would know better than I, maybe it is possible. but leaving the jury with that as its almost-final impression, especially if you're not very successful, is a big risk.

Pedo State will pay.

RT @sganim: #Sandusky jury coming back in 10 mins with "supplemental charge" unclear what means.

wut

the patriot-news linked a definition of "supplemental charges" but they really just googled it and copied/pasted the first statute that had that term in it (which was a completely irrelevant CFR dealing with federal disbarment stuff)

edit -

leslie casse ‏@marygroovy
@DWCook @patriotnews @ydrcom exactly. A supplemental charge can mean a supplemental instruction from the judge.

If Sandusky wins we riot.

What happened to Court TV? Is it still on? I can't seem to find it.

Edit: lmgtfm.... it's TruTV. That is so gay.

awwwwww christ

I'm not under 30, and I've never watched Law & Order.

I'm not sure why probing questions is considered high-risk. Obv it makes sense to be gentle, polite, and compassionate as you ask your questions. Let her take her time, tell her she needs to be strong, tell the baliff to get her a tissue... you can ask the "right" series of questions without appearing to be a prick, even to idiots.

The old-lady-as-defense-witness strategy is not impervious to a great line of questioning, is it? I think not... especially when that old lady has been living in a house in which her husband has been showering with and raping young boys.

Dan Wetzel ‏@DanWetzel
Jury asks Judge to reread instruction on circumstantial evidence, key to janitor claim he saw Sandusky abuse Victim 8 in Penn St shower

edit - this seems like a reasonable request, but i wonder how necessary they are feeling the janitor's testimony is. this is a really tough point because remember this was hearsay brought in under an exception, so the judge was likely cautious to them on how to evaluate it. (i do think the exception, if it were excited utterance, is plainly covered here)

is that good or bad? lol

I enjoy people stepping to Hoya, a renowned world class prosecutor.

looks like i was right on the hearsay exception

The Patriot-News ‏@PatriotNews
#Sandusky jury asked for 'excited utterance' definition re: Vic 8, case w/janitor who reportedly told coworkers he'd seen ex-coach, child

edit - why is the jury inquiring on hearsay exception definitions? that should be a matter of law...