Jerry Sandusky: What's Next

there would be a second “arraignment” after the preliminary hearing that “locked in” prosecutors for the charges they would pursue at trial but that was not the case in other places i worked. it matters a bit because adding more charges could significantly lengthen the trial process.

also, if anyone knows what the status would be of in terms of trying sandusky on other charges separately from this i’d be interested to hear their input. obviously prosecutors would like to fold in as many of these to this effort as possible to strengthen their case but would they be able to pursue another separate charge if it turns out sandusky is exonerated in court?

I mean, the crux of the prosecution case here is that these two lied under oath to the GJ. Aren’t the relevant facts here contained in the GJ? Or does MM actually have to testify?

but I DO NOT KNOW where the incident took place

Saying that the GJ presentment is a total lie is still a stretch at this point. There are probably points where a one-sided version of events is presented that doesn’t represent the full truth, but to call the whole thing a flat out lie? If you think it’s a flat out lie, do you think Sandusky is innocent? I just want to encourage you to be a bit more measured and careful in your statements and analysis (also see my comment in that fanpost).

It has been reported that MM signed a statement for the Grand Jury presentment that was worded like this
"I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts like the young boy being sodomized was occurring." He says the whole incident lasted about a minute.

We do not have a quote or Q&A from his Grand Jury testimony so this statement is as close as we have as a quote then Dr Dranov evidently testified this way:
McQueary heard "sex sounds" and the shower running, and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view. Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel.However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no,
These two versions are not that far apart so we need to see a transcript of his GJ testimony to see if it differs substantially from his written statement. If it does not he indicates he did not SEE insertion or the actual sex act but on the basis of the sounds he was sure there was a sex act.
I suggest that it is the prosecutors embellishment of MM’s testimony that had the GJ Presentment reading "He saw a naked boy with his hands on the shower wall being subjected to anal intercourse"
What if he saw the boy with his hands on the wall from the neck up and assumed the ‘anal intercourse’ from the noise he had heard but the wording of the presentment makes it appear he was seeing Sandusky naked with the naked boy when he only saw Sandusky as he left the shower room in a towel?
I think that makes a lot of logical sense

NOTHING BUT PSU LOGO MERCHANDISE.

have hoped they have been having weeks of fun. I don’t listen to Stern though…

But I’d still say it needs more Pedo Bear

The dancing Snoop Dogg is a nice touch.

But let’s do it anyway. There were one or two victims that said through their attorneys that they were relieved not to testify, I remember reading that much.

I suppose I’m wrestling with the usefulness of cross-examining the witnesses in that forum. There has to be some good reason that he didn’t do it, and I don’t believe it’s because Amendola’s an idiot. But I can’t figure it out. The whole case is built on credibility, after all. Why not do all you can to get potentially contradictory statements on the record, unless Amendola knows that he’s really not going to be permitted by the judge to get very far into the actual cross-examination.

Where I’m solidly with jesse. is that Amendola showed the Commonwealth’s lawyers and witnesses just how much of a hot mess this trial is going to be. And there was certainly the middle finger aspect you mentioned.

and if you let the defense get in 4 or 5 questions about witness credibility before objecting, the judge would normally say “are you going somewhere with this, counselor?” to the defendant, who would admit that he was getting at credibility, and the judge would say “save it for trial” and cut him off after another question or two.