Penn State Case Against Sandusky About to Blow Up

auditor0007

Gold Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,566
2,265
255
Toledo, OH
I knew that there had to be something wrong with Mike McQueary's statement that he saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a young boy in the shower. Anyone in their right mind would have put an immediate stop to it and called police. Instead, McQueary went on to notify Coach Paterno.

But now we are hearing statements from McQueary's family members and others that he only heard sexual sounds coming from the shower. He never actually witnessed anything. While this does not change what Sandusky may or may not have done, it sure does begin to shoot a hole in the prosecution's case from their most important witness. It also puts McQueary in a very bad spot, because now it is looking as if he perjured himself before the Grand Jury.

Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary told a grand jury how he witnessed former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually assault a young boy in an athletic department shower in 2002.

The Patriot-News reported that McQueary told a different version of the story to a family friend after witnessing the alleged assault.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...ws-main-bb|dl2|sec3_lnk3|119310#ixzz1gKt4aUhU
 
Last edited:
I knew that there had to be something wrong with Mike McQueary's statement that he saw Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a young boy in the shower. Anyone in their right mind would have put an immediate stop to it and called police. Instead, McQueary went on to notify Coach Paterno.

But now we are hearing statements from McQueary's family members and others that he only heard sexual sounds coming from the shower. He never actually witnessed anything. While this does not change what Sandusky may or may not have done, it sure does begin to shoot a hole in the prosecution's case from their most important witness. It also puts McQueary in a very bad spot, because now it is looking as if he perjured himself before the Grand Jury.

Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary told a grand jury how he witnessed former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually assault a young boy in an athletic department shower in 2002.

The Patriot-News reported that McQueary told a different version of the story to a family friend after witnessing the alleged assault.

Read more: Report: Family friend contradicts McQueary's statements - NCAA Football - Sporting News


I do believe that if McQueary witnessed what he reasonably believed to be a felonious sexual assault on a child without reporting it to the police - he should pay the penalty for that, be it a fine, probation, or even prison time - in addition to any lies he told on the stand.


That being said - I don't think people are looking at this in the right context. Its not like McQueary walked into a room and saw (heard?) some stranger assaulting some kid. Sandusky was the most powerful man in the program outside of Paterno - at the time McQueary was a complete nobody, a graduate assistant, starting a career. If he had made accusations against Sandusky that could not be otherwise supported, he would have lost his job and probably never worked in football again. It is reasonable to believe that these accusations would not have been supported - because if the victim doesn't report the crime, why would the victim testify truthfully about it? Then its just some punk nobody grad asst. making accusations against the 2nd most powerful man in Penn St. football.

Those circumstances should mitigate his penalty - but in the end, are no excuse for failure to act. We all have to make potential sacrifices to do what's right sometimes.


Either way though, this is only one of the charges. How many counts are against Sandusky? How many accusers? Unless this is some massive conspiracy of dozens of people willing to testify on the public record that horrible sexual things were done to them - I don't see how he won't go down hard for this one. If I were Sandusky I'd just kill myself.
 
Last edited:
so mcquery will be the scape goat......who didnt see that coming....still wont blow up the case....you have so many others saying the same thing....and you still have the janitor who told people what he saw....
 
Sandusky has the support of the left. He was exercising a lifestyle choice.
 
so mcquery will be the scape goat......who didnt see that coming....still wont blow up the case....you have so many others saying the same thing....and you still have the janitor who told people what he saw....

I'm still in wait and see mode, but I do believe you are correct. We have only heard bits and pieces so far. Even with that, there are so many that it would have to be a major conspiracy if it were all untrue.
 
It's not a Penn State vs Sandusky. It's the State of Penn. vs Sandusky. Sandusky waved a prelim hearing today. I wonder what that means. You think the case is about to "blow up" because the witness told a different version of the disgusting act to his family? I'd tell a different version to my family if I saw it too.
 
A criminal conviction against Sandusky is not easy. The case is ten years old and there is no solid evidence against him. they will attack eyewitness testimony and hearsay
 
A criminal conviction against Sandusky is not easy. The case is ten years old and there is no solid evidence against him. they will attack eyewitness testimony and hearsay
Yeah, the statue of limitations will DQ some of the victims, I suspect.

But, the latest victim to come forward is 18 yo, I believe. He is well within the statute's limit.

I believe the statute of limitations on rape is a certain period of time after they reach the age of 18 and/or after they become aware of the crime/rape/sexual abuse.

McQueary should have been completely honest in his grand jury testimony. His cred is in question now because of that.
 
A criminal conviction against Sandusky is not easy. The case is ten years old and there is no solid evidence against him. they will attack eyewitness testimony and hearsay
Yeah, the statue of limitations will DQ some of the victims, I suspect.

But, the latest victim to come forward is 18 yo, I believe. He is well within the statute's limit.

I believe the statute of limitations on rape is a certain period of time after they reach the age of 18 and/or after they become aware of the crime/rape/sexual abuse.

McQueary should have been completely honest in his grand jury testimony. His cred is in question now because of that.

I'm not saying he won't get convicted...just that it is not a sure thing
 
A criminal conviction against Sandusky is not easy. The case is ten years old and there is no solid evidence against him. they will attack eyewitness testimony and hearsay
Yeah, the statue of limitations will DQ some of the victims, I suspect.

But, the latest victim to come forward is 18 yo, I believe. He is well within the statute's limit.

I believe the statute of limitations on rape is a certain period of time after they reach the age of 18 and/or after they become aware of the crime/rape/sexual abuse.

McQueary should have been completely honest in his grand jury testimony. His cred is in question now because of that.

I'm not saying he won't get convicted...just that it is not a sure thing
Yeah, I know that you're not saying that. And, when it comes to court cases, I am pretty much convinced that nothing is a sure thing.

:)
 
As I recall the libs dismissed allegations of rape by Clinton from a credible victim because the statute of limitations had expired and that was the end of the discussion. Are football fans ready to exonerate Sandusky because the statute of limitations expired in some of the cases? The Catholic church didn't escape criticism when it was revealed that pedophile priests may have molested young boys.
 
Gotta have some physical evidence, how can you convict somebody of something like that based on somebody's sayso? Whether it's 1, 10, 100, how can you be sure they're not lining up for a big payday civil lawsuit? Anybody know of any witnesses?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top