Junction
Club Member
I'm kind of curious who at NBC decided that footage wasn't worth airing, and why....
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Sandusky update (more evidence against Joe P)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I'm kind of curious who at NBC decided that footage wasn't worth airing, and why....
Especially in the age when you can put everything online...
I wonder if it was an agreement with his attorney.
fify
Good fify
That is what I was trying to say but was trying to be polite, your wording is more effective.
Sandusky's lawyer continued with his "defense" today.
Had a psychologist try to make the case that Sandusky suffers from a personality disorder that make him need attention and could lead to to doing the stuff he did to kids. In other words "It's not his fault, he is a sick man." His lawyer also tried to argue that one of the victims who testified had been coached to give his testimony.
Also had Sandusky's wife testify. She claimed that the victims were all "lying" and said she never saw her husband do anything innapropriate. She also said the boys were "clingy" and blamed this whole scandal on them.
I can understand standing by her husband but this is ridiculous. By testifying she also removed her spousal immunity. It wouldn't be surprising if the prosecution now goes after her credibility.
This whole thing is playing out like a bad mad for cable movie.
Had a psychologist try to make the case that Sandusky suffers from a personality disorder that make him need attention and could lead to to doing the stuff he did to kids. In other words "It's not his fault, he is a sick man." His lawyer also tried to argue that one of the victims who testified had been coached to give his testimony.
Also had Sandusky's wife testify. She claimed that the victims were all "lying" and said she never saw her husband do anything innapropriate. She also said the boys were "clingy" and blamed this whole scandal on them.
I can understand standing by her husband but this is ridiculous. By testifying she also removed her spousal immunity. It wouldn't be surprising if the prosecution now goes after her credibility.
This whole thing is playing out like a bad mad for cable movie.
Last edited:
That doesn't surprise me at all. The level of denial and mental gymnastics it would take over the decades would be immense. She'd have to turn all of that upside down and also accept the personal guilt for doing nothing all these years. No way she's capable of that at this point.
The mental issue isn't a defense to raping boys, they still deny that. It's being used to try to explain away the letters and cards and such things Sandusky was sending to the boys before and after he was raping them.
They are also trying to get one juror to feel sorry enough for him to vote not guilty.
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
The creep won't testify
Don't know if this will sit well with the jury ... be interesting to know what the defense strategy is here. Do they think the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt? Or do they just think that Jerry can only hurt his case worse on cross? After his interview with Costas, I have to believe it's more likely the latter.
Don't know if this will sit well with the jury ... be interesting to know what the defense strategy is here. Do they think the prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt? Or do they just think that Jerry can only hurt his case worse on cross? After his interview with Costas, I have to believe it's more likely the latter.
Last edited:
I don't think the defense had a choice here. As bad as it looks to the jury when a guy won't even speak up in his own defense, there's a ton of stuff that the prosecution could have tripped him up on. There's also likely some evidence that hasn't been able to be introduced but would become admissible if Sandusky opened the door on the witness stand. Defense will point to the personality disorder and the compulsion to please others as the reason that he couldn't be put on the stand.
with regards to nbc and costas... they said they didnt post it because they didnt want to taint the jury pool
I think that they have one or maybe a couple of jurors who they have targeted to generate enough sympathy to get a not-guilty vote out of. They know that if it were a simple majority they would already be toast but anything less than a unanimous decision and they have won this round.
Their defense is based on getting their targeted juror(s) to believe that Sandusky is actually a missunderstood guy who really wanted to help these kids and got accused by some mixed up kids who had ideas put in their minds and were coached by the prosecution and the police.
Put Jerry on the stand and it is for to easy for him to come across as the delusional slimeball that he really is and kill everything they have worked for.
I think the whole strategy is a hail mary anyways but putting Sandusky on the stand would be like fumbling the snap on the play.
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
:lol:
Good analogy.
FWIW ... (and I will not post the link) ... but a certain CU alum (whose name shall not be spoken :rolling_eyes
who writes for ESPN has written a surprisingly good column on the ESPN website today regarding the trial ... for those who might be interested.
Yeah. The networks do that all the time. Their commitment to the highest ideals of jurisprudence far exceed their concerns about their own ratings.
:lol:
I wonder what's really going on.
:lol:
Good analogy.
FWIW ... (and I will not post the link) ... but a certain CU alum (whose name shall not be spoken :rolling_eyes
Surprisingly good? You mean he didn't make the story about himself?
Pedo Bear shows up to trial:
http://deadspin.com/5919859/pedobear-shows-up-at-the-courthouse-for-jerry-sanduskys-trial
Defense rests.
What? No "he asked for it" defense?
13Buff
Club Member
Deliberation should take what, 10 Minutes?
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
I wouldn't be so sure of that. As Mtn pointed out ... it only takes one intransigent juror to hang a jury and get a mistrial.
It will come down to who the jurors believe ... the kids (now adults) who apparently never reported anything because they didn't want to displease their "benefactor" (or for whatever reason) and who waited until they were adults to come out with all this (not uncommon with child victims) ... or the "character" witnesses the defense called, and who were either not cross-examined at all or only perfunctorily were (the press accounts I've seen didn't even mention it).
That would be interesting. He may just want to take a guilty verdict in Pa. and avoid Texas jails altogether.
What may get him with the PSU supporters could be a train of thought that he was the one responsible for soiling the image of Saint JoePa. If that gets mentioned in the jury room he may see all his PSU support dissappear in an instant.
I think the odds of a hung jury are less than 10% when it is all over with but considering the options his defense team had to go for it.
Last edited:
I don't believe for a second that anyone in that jury room is basing a decision on protecting Penn State or Joe Pa.
Let's say this had happened at CU.
Would anyone here let your concern for the football program have any influence on how you ruled on a case involving sexual abuse of children?
The bastard would burn.
Buffnik;1150472[B said:
Honestly, I don't either. I do think it may have a little influence over the attitude that they came into the trial with. A little bit of "Why are they picking on PSU football." Or "JoePa wouldn't keep anyone that bad around." The defense may be hoping for some of this.
As disgusting as the topic of the case is anyone who came in predisposed to favor Sandusky because of his PSU connections and the good press he has gotten over the years because of second mile is very likely to have put that aside once the testimony started.
We know that plenty of Nebraska fans thought that Osborne was doing the right thing when he let Lawrence Phillips off with a slap on the hand after dragging a girl down the stairs by the hair and when Nebraska ignored Christian Peters facing legitimate accusations of rape.
It is a little different once you start looking at evidence in a courtroom but we have enough cases to show that fanatical fanbases can convince themselves of a lot of things.
I wonder how attendance is going at their youth camps.
The impact on recruiting and the program is going be further down the road. A lot of the recruits in this years class are kids that PSU had been in touch with since before this scandal hit the media.
The long term impact is yet to be seen. As Nik mentions how is attendance at their youth camps. Also what is it going to look like once the Civil suits start to kick in and the school has to come up with millions of dollars to pay out. As that happens they will also end up with control of the athletic department being put under control and supervision of the academic side of the house.
This trial is likely just the start of the nightmare for PSU. As the administrators go on trial and the civil suits start digging directly into AD and university business then the ugly attention will come to a boil. It remains to be seen how all this effects PSU in the long term.