Author Topic: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'  (Read 20956 times)

wes

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 65269
  • What Dire Mishap Has Befallen Thee
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2011, 04:55:38 PM »
lol new so called victims can come out all the time, his attorney expects copycats.  It is part of how big trails go, people looking for attention or to attach their name to this event.  Good luck proving he raped anyone. 


:(

Salvatore Martinez

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 340
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #151 on: November 23, 2011, 04:58:05 PM »
lol new so called victims can come out all the time, his attorney expects copycats.  It is part of how big trails go, people looking for attention or to attach their name to this event.  Good luck proving he raped anyone. 


i have some advice for you and PLEASE take it seriously, go to the nearest pawn shop, buy whatever gun they will sell you, put bullets in the chamber, put the gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

thelamefalsehood

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • I love lamp
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #152 on: November 23, 2011, 05:00:09 PM »
lol new so called victims can come out all the time, his attorney expects copycats.  It is part of how big trails go, people looking for attention or to attach their name to this event.  Good luck proving he raped anyone. 



Happy Thanksgiving Sucksdickfor$20/Jstunami! Dont gobble up to many cocks tommorrow!

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40625
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #153 on: November 23, 2011, 06:54:16 PM »
don't think it was the power of the media Prime, I think it was just despicable that a MOTHER seemed to not care about her kid or her whereabouts.....

How is it you know this? Could it be that you read about it in the press, on the Internet or saw a news story about it on television? Is that not the media?

tommywishbone

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20489
  • Biscuit
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #154 on: November 23, 2011, 09:51:11 PM »
Oh really?  :D

Sandusky lawyer says 2 new abuse claims unfounded

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP)—A former Penn State assistant football coach accused of molesting boys for more than 15 years faces two new claims of child sexual abuse, but both are unfounded, his lawyer told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Attorney Joseph Amendola said one claim against Jerry Sandusky stemmed from a Sandusky family dispute, and he characterized the other as an example of people trying to mimic other allegations.

“That doesn’t surprise me because we believe there would be a number of copycat allegations, people who really maybe not even had direct contact with Jerry but … try to jump on the bandwagon,” Amendola said.

More on scandalJerry Sandusky interview sheds light on mindset Forde-Yard Dash: Damage done extends beyond Penn State 
Jerry Sandusky He said the accusations, should they result in charges, would be vigorously contested.

“We’ll defend those if and when they become charges,” Amendola told the AP in a phone interview Wednesday. “We’ll defend those just like we’re defending the other charges.”

Sandusky, 67, is charged with sexually abusing eight boys, some on campus. He has said he showered with some boys but never sexually abused them.

The Patriot-News newspaper of Harrisburg has reported that the pair of new claims were brought within the last two months.

Lawyers for two other people arrested earlier this month as a result of a grand jury investigation into allegations against Sandusky are asking prosecutors to turn over material to help them prepare for a preliminary hearing next month.

Attorneys for Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former university vice president Gary Schultz wrote to state prosecutors Tuesday asking for grand jury testimony and other information related to their cases. They both faces charges of perjury and failure to properly report suspected child abuse; they maintain their innocence.

The request appears to be a long shot, since such disclosures aren’t required so early in a case’s trajectory. But the letter also hints at a likely defense strategy: questioning the testimony of a graduate assistant who said he reported seeing Sandusky rape a child in 2002.

Among other things, they asked for corroboration of statements by assistant coach Mike McQueary that he told Schultz and Curley he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the football team showers nine years ago. They said such corroboration is needed to meet the relatively low legal standard required for the perjury charge to advance from the preliminary hearing to county court for a full trial.

“The presentment states no such corroboration,” wrote Caroline Roberto, who represents Curley, and Thomas J. Farrell, Schultz’s lawyer. “Please provide any in advance of the hearing or specify there is none, thereby saving the court and us considerable time and inconvenience.”

Roberto and Farrell acknowledged that Pennsylvania’s criminal procedure rules don’t require the disclosure they are seeking but told state prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach she had the discretion to provide it. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment on the letter Wednesday.

 
McQueary The lawyers have previously said their clients are innocent of the charges and vowed a vigorous defense.

The letter suggests a key element of that defense is likely to be a challenge to the testimony of McQueary, who a grand jury report said told the administrators during a meeting “that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having … sex with a boy.”

Schultz and Curley said that McQueary was not that specific when he told them what he saw, according to the grand jury. The panel concluded that portions of the testimony by Schultz and Curley were not credible but that McQueary’s testimony was “extremely credible.”

Roberto and Farrell said in the three-page letter that they want an email from McQueary to Penn State players saying he stopped the alleged 2002 sexual attack on a child by Sandusky and a statement that he notified police.

McQueary, now on administrative leave from his coaching job, wrote in an email to friends that he had “discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police” about what he saw.

He did not specify whether he spoke to campus or State College police. State College borough police Chief Tom King has said McQueary did not report to his department, and campus police have said they were unable to find a record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Amendola said he plans to attack each allegation, with the 2002 report “the biggest one we’ve decided to attack first.” A man who Amendola said told him that he might to be the alleged victim in 2002 went in to talk to the lawyer after the grand jury report was released Nov. 5.

“He says Jerry didn’t do anything sexually to him, not only that night but any other night, so we’re attacking that one first,” Amendola said.

The lawyers for Curley and Schultz asked for any criminal record and deals that prosecutors may have made regarding McQueary and information about any contacts between McQueary and Sandusky after the alleged attack.

“Apparently, Mr. McQueary golfed and socialized with Mr. Sandusky after March 1, 2002, conduct that is inconsistent with Mr. McQueary’s testimony: Most people do not socialize with individuals they believe to be child-rapists,” the lawyers wrote.

They said the state should provide any interviews with the person called “victim 2” in the grand jury report issued Nov. 5, the day charges were filed against Schultz, Curley and Sandusky.

They also sought copies of grand jury testimony by their clients, McQueary and football coach Joe Paterno, who was fired in the wake of the scandal. And they said state investigators may have leaked grand jury details, asking the attorney general’s office to “halt and investigate these abuses” and report them to the proper disciplinary authorities.


a

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2011, 08:09:02 AM »
How is it you know this? Could it be that you read about it in the press, on the Internet or saw a news story about it on television? Is that not the media?

yes of course I read about it and saw it on TV but as a person you yourself have to look at the overwhelming evidence in certain circumstances and weigh it for yourself....I think she was guilty.....a lot of people thought O.J. was guilty too, I being one of them.....

akers1021

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
  • "Big arms and delts dont make you a bodybuilder"
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2011, 09:30:51 AM »
Oh really?  :D

Sandusky lawyer says 2 new abuse claims unfounded

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP)—A former Penn State assistant football coach accused of molesting boys for more than 15 years faces two new claims of child sexual abuse, but both are unfounded, his lawyer told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Attorney Joseph Amendola said one claim against Jerry Sandusky stemmed from a Sandusky family dispute, and he characterized the other as an example of people trying to mimic other allegations.

“That doesn’t surprise me because we believe there would be a number of copycat allegations, people who really maybe not even had direct contact with Jerry but … try to jump on the bandwagon,” Amendola said.

More on scandalJerry Sandusky interview sheds light on mindset Forde-Yard Dash: Damage done extends beyond Penn State 
Jerry Sandusky He said the accusations, should they result in charges, would be vigorously contested.

“We’ll defend those if and when they become charges,” Amendola told the AP in a phone interview Wednesday. “We’ll defend those just like we’re defending the other charges.”

Sandusky, 67, is charged with sexually abusing eight boys, some on campus. He has said he showered with some boys but never sexually abused them.

The Patriot-News newspaper of Harrisburg has reported that the pair of new claims were brought within the last two months.

Lawyers for two other people arrested earlier this month as a result of a grand jury investigation into allegations against Sandusky are asking prosecutors to turn over material to help them prepare for a preliminary hearing next month.

Attorneys for Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former university vice president Gary Schultz wrote to state prosecutors Tuesday asking for grand jury testimony and other information related to their cases. They both faces charges of perjury and failure to properly report suspected child abuse; they maintain their innocence.

The request appears to be a long shot, since such disclosures aren’t required so early in a case’s trajectory. But the letter also hints at a likely defense strategy: questioning the testimony of a graduate assistant who said he reported seeing Sandusky rape a child in 2002.

Among other things, they asked for corroboration of statements by assistant coach Mike McQueary that he told Schultz and Curley he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the football team showers nine years ago. They said such corroboration is needed to meet the relatively low legal standard required for the perjury charge to advance from the preliminary hearing to county court for a full trial.

“The presentment states no such corroboration,” wrote Caroline Roberto, who represents Curley, and Thomas J. Farrell, Schultz’s lawyer. “Please provide any in advance of the hearing or specify there is none, thereby saving the court and us considerable time and inconvenience.”

Roberto and Farrell acknowledged that Pennsylvania’s criminal procedure rules don’t require the disclosure they are seeking but told state prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach she had the discretion to provide it. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment on the letter Wednesday.

 
McQueary The lawyers have previously said their clients are innocent of the charges and vowed a vigorous defense.

The letter suggests a key element of that defense is likely to be a challenge to the testimony of McQueary, who a grand jury report said told the administrators during a meeting “that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having … sex with a boy.”

Schultz and Curley said that McQueary was not that specific when he told them what he saw, according to the grand jury. The panel concluded that portions of the testimony by Schultz and Curley were not credible but that McQueary’s testimony was “extremely credible.”

Roberto and Farrell said in the three-page letter that they want an email from McQueary to Penn State players saying he stopped the alleged 2002 sexual attack on a child by Sandusky and a statement that he notified police.

McQueary, now on administrative leave from his coaching job, wrote in an email to friends that he had “discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police” about what he saw.

He did not specify whether he spoke to campus or State College police. State College borough police Chief Tom King has said McQueary did not report to his department, and campus police have said they were unable to find a record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Amendola said he plans to attack each allegation, with the 2002 report “the biggest one we’ve decided to attack first.” A man who Amendola said told him that he might to be the alleged victim in 2002 went in to talk to the lawyer after the grand jury report was released Nov. 5.

“He says Jerry didn’t do anything sexually to him, not only that night but any other night, so we’re attacking that one first,” Amendola said.

The lawyers for Curley and Schultz asked for any criminal record and deals that prosecutors may have made regarding McQueary and information about any contacts between McQueary and Sandusky after the alleged attack.

“Apparently, Mr. McQueary golfed and socialized with Mr. Sandusky after March 1, 2002, conduct that is inconsistent with Mr. McQueary’s testimony: Most people do not socialize with individuals they believe to be child-rapists,” the lawyers wrote.

They said the state should provide any interviews with the person called “victim 2” in the grand jury report issued Nov. 5, the day charges were filed against Schultz, Curley and Sandusky.

They also sought copies of grand jury testimony by their clients, McQueary and football coach Joe Paterno, who was fired in the wake of the scandal. And they said state investigators may have leaked grand jury details, asking the attorney general’s office to “halt and investigate these abuses” and report them to the proper disciplinary authorities.




doesnt mean there ALL UNFOUNDED bro....of course you will have some other jump on the "money train" please tell me your not so naive to believe ALL these kids are lying, please tell me your not that stupid   ::)...these are DEFENSE LAWYERS, there good at twisting the truth, where have you been for the last 50 years? 

reppingfor20

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #157 on: November 24, 2011, 09:41:25 AM »
yes of course I read about it and saw it on TV but as a person you yourself have to look at the overwhelming evidence in certain circumstances and weigh it for yourself....I think she was guilty.....a lot of people thought O.J. was guilty too, I being one of them.....

there is no evidence, there are people come out and saying this and that, some testimony, there has been no trail yet, so how can evidence be presented?
TEAM Nasser

reppingfor20

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2011, 09:44:29 AM »
Oh really?  :D

Sandusky lawyer says 2 new abuse claims unfounded

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP)—A former Penn State assistant football coach accused of molesting boys for more than 15 years faces two new claims of child sexual abuse, but both are unfounded, his lawyer told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Attorney Joseph Amendola said one claim against Jerry Sandusky stemmed from a Sandusky family dispute, and he characterized the other as an example of people trying to mimic other allegations.

“That doesn’t surprise me because we believe there would be a number of copycat allegations, people who really maybe not even had direct contact with Jerry but … try to jump on the bandwagon,” Amendola said.

More on scandalJerry Sandusky interview sheds light on mindset Forde-Yard Dash: Damage done extends beyond Penn State 
Jerry Sandusky He said the accusations, should they result in charges, would be vigorously contested.

“We’ll defend those if and when they become charges,” Amendola told the AP in a phone interview Wednesday. “We’ll defend those just like we’re defending the other charges.”

Sandusky, 67, is charged with sexually abusing eight boys, some on campus. He has said he showered with some boys but never sexually abused them.

The Patriot-News newspaper of Harrisburg has reported that the pair of new claims were brought within the last two months.

Lawyers for two other people arrested earlier this month as a result of a grand jury investigation into allegations against Sandusky are asking prosecutors to turn over material to help them prepare for a preliminary hearing next month.

Attorneys for Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and former university vice president Gary Schultz wrote to state prosecutors Tuesday asking for grand jury testimony and other information related to their cases. They both faces charges of perjury and failure to properly report suspected child abuse; they maintain their innocence.

The request appears to be a long shot, since such disclosures aren’t required so early in a case’s trajectory. But the letter also hints at a likely defense strategy: questioning the testimony of a graduate assistant who said he reported seeing Sandusky rape a child in 2002.

Among other things, they asked for corroboration of statements by assistant coach Mike McQueary that he told Schultz and Curley he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the football team showers nine years ago. They said such corroboration is needed to meet the relatively low legal standard required for the perjury charge to advance from the preliminary hearing to county court for a full trial.

“The presentment states no such corroboration,” wrote Caroline Roberto, who represents Curley, and Thomas J. Farrell, Schultz’s lawyer. “Please provide any in advance of the hearing or specify there is none, thereby saving the court and us considerable time and inconvenience.”

Roberto and Farrell acknowledged that Pennsylvania’s criminal procedure rules don’t require the disclosure they are seeking but told state prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach she had the discretion to provide it. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment on the letter Wednesday.

 
McQueary The lawyers have previously said their clients are innocent of the charges and vowed a vigorous defense.

The letter suggests a key element of that defense is likely to be a challenge to the testimony of McQueary, who a grand jury report said told the administrators during a meeting “that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having … sex with a boy.”

Schultz and Curley said that McQueary was not that specific when he told them what he saw, according to the grand jury. The panel concluded that portions of the testimony by Schultz and Curley were not credible but that McQueary’s testimony was “extremely credible.”

Roberto and Farrell said in the three-page letter that they want an email from McQueary to Penn State players saying he stopped the alleged 2002 sexual attack on a child by Sandusky and a statement that he notified police.

McQueary, now on administrative leave from his coaching job, wrote in an email to friends that he had “discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police” about what he saw.

He did not specify whether he spoke to campus or State College police. State College borough police Chief Tom King has said McQueary did not report to his department, and campus police have said they were unable to find a record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Amendola said he plans to attack each allegation, with the 2002 report “the biggest one we’ve decided to attack first.” A man who Amendola said told him that he might to be the alleged victim in 2002 went in to talk to the lawyer after the grand jury report was released Nov. 5.

“He says Jerry didn’t do anything sexually to him, not only that night but any other night, so we’re attacking that one first,” Amendola said.

The lawyers for Curley and Schultz asked for any criminal record and deals that prosecutors may have made regarding McQueary and information about any contacts between McQueary and Sandusky after the alleged attack.

“Apparently, Mr. McQueary golfed and socialized with Mr. Sandusky after March 1, 2002, conduct that is inconsistent with Mr. McQueary’s testimony: Most people do not socialize with individuals they believe to be child-rapists,” the lawyers wrote.

They said the state should provide any interviews with the person called “victim 2” in the grand jury report issued Nov. 5, the day charges were filed against Schultz, Curley and Sandusky.

They also sought copies of grand jury testimony by their clients, McQueary and football coach Joe Paterno, who was fired in the wake of the scandal. And they said state investigators may have leaked grand jury details, asking the attorney general’s office to “halt and investigate these abuses” and report them to the proper disciplinary authorities.




good post, all these kids and parents are out for $$$$$, bad economy, a few initial claims that got pushed aside because lack of evidence, now you have a downpour of $$$$ grubbing parents forcing their kids to come out and lie.

TEAM Nasser

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40625
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2011, 02:28:07 PM »
yes of course I read about it and saw it on TV but as a person you yourself have to look at the overwhelming evidence in certain circumstances and weigh it for yourself....I think she was guilty.....a lot of people thought O.J. was guilty too, I being one of them.....

I am not saying a jury couldn't get it wrong or perhaps sometimes the defense is really strong or the prosecution weak. Fortunately, one is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty and this usually works out well. However, I will say one can "think" whatever they want, unless they were actually a part of the trial, as in being one of the jurors, what they think carries no weight.

reppingfor20

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2011, 05:44:19 PM »
I am not saying a jury couldn't get it wrong or perhaps sometimes the defense is really strong or the prosecution weak. Fortunately, one is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty and this usually works out well. However, I will say one can "think" whatever they want, unless they were actually a part of the trial, as in being one of the jurors, what they think carries no weight.

good post Prime, wise man!
TEAM Nasser

240_Iz_Nutz

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Getbig!
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #161 on: November 24, 2011, 05:49:44 PM »
good post Prime, wise man!

I tend to agree with you that the guy is far from a lock to be convicted given the process. Your perspective almost seems to back him regardless. There were obviously some very odd situations at the absolute minimum. It's probably a smoke and fire situation here. And sure, that doesn't mean he is a lock to be found guilty. It does seem creepy that you almost seem to advocate for the dude regardless.

reppingfor20

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #162 on: November 24, 2011, 05:58:02 PM »
I tend to agree with you that the guy is far from a lock to be convicted given the process. Your perspective almost seems to back him regardless. There were obviously some very odd situations at the absolute minimum. It's probably a smoke and fire situation here. And sure, that doesn't mean he is a lock to be found guilty. It does seem creepy that you almost seem to advocate for the dude regardless.

Yes because I hate to see people get convicted in the court of public opinion, it is outrageous what the media can do to a person who never had a day in court yet.  

Amanda Knox, Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Ray Lewis, Michael Jackson, many others.

TEAM Nasser

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40625
Re: Penn State Rumor - Jerry Sandusky 'Pimped Out Young Boys'
« Reply #163 on: November 25, 2011, 12:14:13 AM »
I tend to agree with you that the guy is far from a lock to be convicted given the process. Your perspective almost seems to back him regardless. There were obviously some very odd situations at the absolute minimum. It's probably a smoke and fire situation here. And sure, that doesn't mean he is a lock to be found guilty. It does seem creepy that you almost seem to advocate for the dude regardless.

Essentially, you are saying that if one is not against something they must be for it. Some smart people reserve judgment until all the facts are known, that's not a position of support as you suggest it is. Personally, I am a great believer in the old adage, "where there is smoke, there is fire." But, I also don't believe in jumping to conclusions. I'll admit that from what the public has been fed so far, Sandusky looks guilty as heck. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is.

I was once accused of inappropriate behavior by a fifth grade girl at the elementary school where I worked. She told her parents I was trying to look up her skirt while she played tether ball. Several of her girlfriends supposedly backed her up.  Incidentally she was wearing high heels because it was picture day....go figure, school photos are head shots basically. Her parents called the Superintendent to complain and insisted I be fired.

That didn't happen. Instead, I was given a letter exonerating me, which I was advised to keep on file forever, should she later try to make some claim. BTW, think about it, it is physically impossible to see up some kids skirt in a situation like this, unless one were laying on the ground or standing on their head. LOL! If anything, I was simply crossing the playground to get from the staff lunch room to my office and noticed her shoes, probably thinking how funny it was to be playing tether ball in high heels.

Incidentally, this young student had been sent home to change clothes in the past because she showed up at school dressed like a slut. Presumably, her parents didn't have a problem with that. Life can be really weird sometimes.