Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay.

Anonymous wrote:I hoped you guys were going to be talking about what the ramifications would be if Sandusky was hypothetically innocent. Maybe that's because the title is "What if Sandusky is innocent?". Would all the Penn State officials get their jobs back? What would happen with JoePa? Would news outlets apologize? Would people protest because it's so obvious that he's guilty? Oh man, it will not (and shouldn't) happen, but it'd be kind of eye opening in regards to the power of the media and the loss of the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

In my opinion, his ultimate guilt or innocence has no bearing on the fate of the PSU officials, including Paterno. They failed to react appropriately to the serious allegations with which they were presented. If those allegations turn out to be false, it doesn't excuse their failures.

Anonymous wrote:I hoped you guys were going to be talking about what the ramifications would be if Sandusky was hypothetically innocent. Maybe that's because the title is "What if Sandusky is innocent?". Would all the Penn State officials get their jobs back? What would happen with JoePa? Would news outlets apologize? Would people protest because it's so obvious that he's guilty? Oh man, it will not (and shouldn't) happen, but it'd be kind of eye opening in regards to the power of the media and the loss of the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

"Innocence" became a futile discussion when S admitted guilt (at least on some level he's guilty). Even Paterno said: “This is a tragedy . . . It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

Maybe you can start a thread "What if Casey Anthony is Innocent?" That discussion would probably gain more traction.

I hoped you guys were going to be talking about what the ramifications would be if Sandusky was hypothetically innocent. Maybe that's because the title is "What if Sandusky is innocent?". Would all the Penn State officials get their jobs back? What would happen with JoePa? Would news outlets apologize? Would people protest because it's so obvious that he's guilty? Oh man, it will not (and shouldn't) happen, but it'd be kind of eye opening in regards to the power of the media and the loss of the "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Anonymous wrote:Innocent or won't be found guilty?

S is guilty in fact (from his own admissions) and will be found guilty. Only thing left to determine are the charges.

"Do you use such language in reference to other faiths, just to make a point? Perhaps you just reserve it for Christianity?"

Well, it's not really in the vernacular for other faiths. I guess I could say something like "Odin's beard!" like Thor did in the comic books, but it wouldn't really have the same effect. Otherwise I'd just be making it up. "MOhammed on a pogo stick!" "dali fucking lama!" uh.. "Abra-fucking-ham!" "Mitt fucking Romney!" Hey that last one sort of works, at least in some circumstances. Happy?

Innocent or won't be found guilty?

S admitted to horseplay (assuming it's like "playful" wrestling) so lots of physical contact there. He also admitted to "touching their leg." He has nowhere to hide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But in an empty locker room full of showers? Hell no. I guess I can see taking a kid to the pool, and having him get a glimpse of you while you're both changing. But getting into the same shower stall? I can't see how that's not illegal.

I don't know for sure, but don't most men's locker rooms have open showers? I don't think there are stalls.

Did he take the kids to play football? If they were playing football, I'd guess they got dirty.

Given the available information, I don't see how he can not be guilty. I just don't think he'd admit to crimes in an interview after consulting his attorney.

OK let me rephrase. Getting under the same showerhead, close enough to touch?

Anonymous wrote:Hearsay is when one person testifies in court "McQueary said he saw Sandusky raping a ten year old boy," when the statement is offered to prove that Sandusky did rape a ten year old boy.

When McQueary testifies, "I saw Sandusky raping a ten year old boy," that is not hearsay. It is eyewitness testimony.

When the other victims testify, "Sandusky put my hand on his penis" and "Sandusky performed oral sex on me," and "Sandusky made me perform oral sex on him," that's not hearsay either.

And let me add at this point, Jesus fucking christ the odds he's innocent are vanishingly small.

Do you use such language in reference to other faiths, just to make a point? Perhaps you just reserve it for Christianity?

Unrelated 55 year old men in a supervisory role simply cannot expose themselves to minors. S suggested it was after a "workout." How dirty/sweaty does a workout make a 10 year old. S described what seemed like an open shower room with multiple shower heads.

Anonymous wrote: But in an empty locker room full of showers? Hell no. I guess I can see taking a kid to the pool, and having him get a glimpse of you while you're both changing. But getting into the same shower stall? I can't see how that's not illegal.

I don't know for sure, but don't most men's locker rooms have open showers? I don't think there are stalls.

Did he take the kids to play football? If they were playing football, I'd guess they got dirty.

Given the available information, I don't see how he can not be guilty. I just don't think he'd admit to crimes in an interview after consulting his attorney.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a PA criminal lawyer, but it seems to me there must be charges that could be brought against S based on the creepy things he admitted to in the interview.
Here's one from VA:

§ 18.2-370.1. Taking indecent liberties with child by person in custodial or supervisory relationship; penalties.
A. Any person 18 years of age or older who, except as provided in § 18.2-370, maintains a custodial or supervisory relationship over a child under the age of 18 and is not legally married to such child and such child is not emancipated who, with lascivious intent, knowingly and intentionally (i) proposes that any such child feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of such person or that such person feel or handle the sexual or genital parts of the child; or (ii) proposes to such child the performance of an act of sexual intercourse or any act constituting an offense under § 18.2-361; or
(iii) exposes his or her sexual or genital parts to such child; or (iv) proposes that any such child expose his or her sexual or genital parts to such person; or (v) proposes to the child that the child engage in sexual intercourse, sodomy or fondling of sexual or genital parts with another person; or (vi) sexually abuses the child as defined in § 18.2-67.10 (6), shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

So even if S is innocent of the worst charges, seems he's toast regarding indecent exposure and liberties with a minor (at least 10 at last count).

Anonymous wrote:Sandusky was on TV, not in a court ie if he lies, nothing happens. Read the grand jury report.

But his statements can certainly be used against him.

I haven't heard any explanation why they were taking a shower. And really, what 8-10 year old jumps at the chance to take a shower? At least mine don't. I wish Costas had asked him that.

Indecent exposure may be applicable based on S's own admissions.

The laws regarding indecent exposure can vary widely by state and are often conflicting and convoluted in nature. Some states define indecent exposure as being nude in the presence of anyone of the opposite sex other than your spouse. The promotion or involvement in any group that promotes nudism is also considered an indecent exposure offense in some jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions make no legal distinction between public nudity and indecent exposure, though the objective and effect of each may vary considerably.
The definition of indecent exposure has changed throughout time and place, as what is considered indecent is often socially defined. Many lawmakers have had difficulty creating and implementing laws which are founded on social and cultural mores. Indecent exposure can have varying effects depending on its intent and context. Despite this variance, many laws will prosecute those charged with indecent exposure the same.
There are, however, some aggravating factors that may increase the severity of an indecent exposure charge. Indecent exposure is typically charged as a misdemeanor offense, which is less serious than a felony. A person who commits indecent exposure in the presence of a minor may face harsher penalties for their criminal offense. Other specific circumstances may also enhance the punishment for indecent exposure.
An indecent exposure charge can have devastating effects on those accused. Indecent exposure carries a significant social stigma and may adversely affect a convicted offender for years to come. An indecent exposure conviction may prevent an offender from gaining or maintaining employment. In some cases an indecent exposure conviction can even require that an offender register as a sex offender in a national database for years to a lifetime.