uPtoWnNY said:

Turns out the judge who only gave Sandusky $100,000 bail has ties to his charity. Sickening.

Are u surprised by this?

shorttrini said:

SUPRMAN said:

It's damage control and to speak to the jury pool before he goes to court.

It can be used, but it can't hurt to have people hear his side before the prosecution rips him apart.

Still not a smart thing to do, especially without your lawyer present. Let's see if he can get a fair trial now....If he didn't have a chance in hell before, he has a SNOWBALL'S chance in hell, now....

A lawyer present I think would have had a greater negative impact on an audience.

How would you know if it were a 'fair' trial or not?

I'm sure the trial will be moved away from the Penn St. area.

shorttrini said:

SUPRMAN said:

It's damage control and to speak to the jury pool before he goes to court.

It can be used, but it can't hurt to have people hear his side before the prosecution rips him apart.

Still not a smart thing to do, especially without your lawyer present. Let's see if he can get a fair trial now....If he didn't have a chance in hell before, he has a SNOWBALL'S chance in hell, now....

Btw, surprised you care if he gets a fair trial in light of your earlier statements.

SUPRMAN said:

shorttrini said:

Still not a smart thing to do, especially without your lawyer present. Let's see if he can get a fair trial now....If he didn't have a chance in hell before, he has a SNOWBALL'S chance in hell, now....

Btw, surprised you care if he gets a fair trial in light of your earlier statements.

I think, everybody is entitled to a fair trial; In this case especially, due to the serverity of the charges. I don't know about anybody else, but a person who abuses a child, especially sexually should be punished to the fullest extend of the law. I would hate to see this man, if found guilty be let off, due to some technicality, like bias for Pen State or something crazy. It can happen.

Sandusky waived his 5th Amendment rights, his lawyer is an idiot.

728huey said:

Did anyone see this interview on NBC with the coach who allegedly raped those young kids? It is rather shocking and infuriating.

Just from the sounds of this guy, he sounds like a classic pedophile, and a real scum of the earth. If he is guilty of these crimes, he needs to be locked away for the rest of his life.

Describe the sound of a classic pedophile.

SUPRMAN said:

shorttrini said:

He and his lawyer should be hit upside the head with a 2by4, for letting him do this interview.... . This can be used in court to by the prosecution.....DUMB ASSES!!!

It's damage control and to speak to the jury pool before he goes to court.

It can be used, but it can't hurt to have people hear his side before the prosecution rips him apart.

I don't know many defense lawyers who would allow their client to open their mouths about anything. My partners and I were shocked and dumbfounded that his lawyer would agree to this! Mr. Sundusky hasn't helped his case, he has done more damage. It's been reported Mr. Costas didn't air all of the telephone interview with Mr. Sundusky, one can only imagine what else he said. His lawyer didn't have any ground rules, he didn't object once to Mr. Costas questions nor advise his client not to answer. Either Mr. Sundusky lawyer is incompetent or he believes his client to be guilty and has purposely sabotage his case. There's no logic in explaining why his lawyer would permit Sundusky to speak with Costas', none.

========================

[Edited 11/16/11 17:09pm]

Disgusting.

728huey said:

Did anyone see this interview on NBC with the coach who allegedly raped those young kids? It is rather shocking and infuriating.

Just from the sounds of this guy, he sounds like a classic pedophile, and a real scum of the earth. If he is guilty of these crimes, he needs to be locked away for the rest of his life.

Face it Huey and all fellow orgers, the real problem we have here in the USA is a 21st Century version of a pederasty culture that has gone unnoticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ent_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._pederasty

Graycap23 said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Turns out the judge who only gave Sandusky $100,000 bail has ties to his charity. Sickening.

Are u surprised by this?

A lot of weird turns and rumors surrounding this case already. The story about the judge is a fact and now there a questions about the first DA who investigated.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...stery.html

Questions on Sandusky Are Wrapped in a 2005 Mystery

By KEN BELSON

TD3 said:

I don't know many defense lawyers who would allow their client to open their mouths about anything. My partners and I were shocked and dumbfounded that his lawyer would agree to this! Mr. Sundusky hasn't helped his case, he has done more damage. It's been reported Mr. Costas didn't air all of the telephone interview with Mr. Sundusky, one can only imagine what else he said. His lawyer didn't have any ground rules, he didn't object once to Mr. Costas questions nor advise his client not to answer. Either Mr. Sundusky lawyer is incompetent or he believes his client to be guilty and has purposely sabotage his case. There's no logic in explaining why his lawyer would permit Sundusky to speak with Costas', none.

========================

[Edited 11/16/11 17:09pm]

Exactly. No defense lawyer worth his salt would have allowed his client to submit himself to that type of interview. I wondered whether it was sabotage myself.

Layzie said:

This entire situation is unbelievable and sad. How on earth does a person witness a CHILD (or anybody at that) being raped and say nothing? I'm 5'3 and would have been all over his ass. Or I would have at least tried to.

This world, I swear......

I think I would have had to do something even if I just started screaming at the top of my lungs.

Little kids full of admiration and trust getting victimized and everybody in authority circles the wagons to cover it up...it's inexcusable.

I keep thinking that these parents probably thought their kids were in the safest possible environment, who woudn't? And now this.

TD3 said:

Sandusky waived his 5th Amendment rights, his lawyer is an idiot.

He did not.

He cannot be forced to take the stand in any trial.

His Fifth Amendment right remains intact. The fact that he gave an interview does not compel him to take the stand in court.

TD3 said:

SUPRMAN said:

It's damage control and to speak to the jury pool before he goes to court.

It can be used, but it can't hurt to have people hear his side before the prosecution rips him apart.

I don't know many defense lawyers who would allow their client to open their mouths about anything. My partners and I were shocked and dumbfounded that his lawyer would agree to this! Mr. Sundusky hasn't helped his case, he has done more damage. It's been reported Mr. Costas didn't air all of the telephone interview with Mr. Sundusky, one can only imagine what else he said. His lawyer didn't have any ground rules, he didn't object once to Mr. Costas questions nor advise his client not to answer. Either Mr. Sundusky lawyer is incompetent or he believes his client to be guilty and has purposely sabotage his case. There's no logic in explaining why his lawyer would permit Sundusky to speak with Costas', none.

========================

[Edited 11/16/11 17:09pm]

Of course there is.

You are suggesting Sandusky has a claim of malpractice against his attorney.

I don't see it.

Nothing prevents a defendant from discussing their case prior to trial.

People who are guilty as charges certainly don't do they?

That's what his attorney wants you to believe.

TonyVanDam said:

728huey said:

Did anyone see this interview on NBC with the coach who allegedly raped those young kids? It is rather shocking and infuriating.

Just from the sounds of this guy, he sounds like a classic pedophile, and a real scum of the earth. If he is guilty of these crimes, he needs to be locked away for the rest of his life.

Face it Huey and all fellow orgers, the real problem we have here in the USA is a 21st Century version of a pederasty culture that has gone unnoticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ent_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._pederasty

One man is a culture of pederasty in the United States? Hardly.

SUPRMAN said:

TonyVanDam said:

Face it Huey and all fellow orgers, the real problem we have here in the USA is a 21st Century version of a pederasty culture that has gone unnoticed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ent_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._pederasty

One man is a culture of pederasty in the United States? Hardly.

Sandusky is not the only person in USA history that has been practicing pederasty. He just one of a small number of people that even been arrested for it.

Dump all these child molestin' mofos in a vat of ACID and call it a day! Actually, dump them and their friends and co-conspirators in the vat of acid too! Let not one of them escape!

TonyVanDam said:

SUPRMAN said:

One man is a culture of pederasty in the United States? Hardly.

Sandusky is not the only person in USA history that has been practicing pederasty. He just one of a small number of people that even been arrested for it.

TRUTH!

There is a sub culture of sexual perversity that has long existed and thrived in this country and others because people have become complacent when it comes to sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of young people. The Sanduskys of America and the world are legion! Why you think this man went for so long without being incarcerated or even fired? All I can say is fuck Penn State and the state of Penn! Those muthafuccas are certainly showing their asses!

All these booty bandits and panty freaks need to die.

SUPRMAN said:

TD3 said:

Sandusky waived his 5th Amendment rights, his lawyer is an idiot.

He did not.

He cannot be forced to take the stand in any trial.

His Fifth Amendment right remains intact. The fact that he gave an interview does not compel him to take the stand in court.

Normally, one can't incriminate oneself as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, which says someone can't "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Mr. Sundusky admitted he showered with boys, he admitted he touched boys legs, he hugged them, and engaged in horseplay with them. He said, "people made up the other stuff". Again, Sundusky has negated his Fifth Amendment Rights, rights not to incriminate himself. If he / his defense makes a claim of hearsay, the prosecutors would say it is an exception -- he made the statements against interests.

===============

[Edited 11/17/11 2:25am]

http://today.msnbc.msn.co...im-guilty/

Asked the question of why so many alleged victims would come forward if nothing inappropriate or illegal had occurred, Sandusky told Costas, “I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward,’’ Sandusky said. “Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life.

“And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

-------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 11/17/11 2:39am]

TD3 said:

SUPRMAN said:

He did not.

He cannot be forced to take the stand in any trial.

His Fifth Amendment right remains intact. The fact that he gave an interview does not compel him to take the stand in court.

Normally, one can't incriminate oneself as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, which says someone can't "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Mr. Sundusky admitted he showered with boys, he admitted he touched boys legs, he hugged them, and engaged in horseplay with them. He said, "people made up the other stuff". Again, Sundusky has negated his Fifth Amendment Rights, rights not to incriminate himself. If he / his defense makes a claim of hearsay, the prosecutors would say it is an exception -- he made the statements against interests.

===============

[Edited 11/17/11 2:25am]

Exactly.....Also, this interview, will most likely be used against him during the trial.

HotGritz said:

TonyVanDam said:

Sandusky is not the only person in USA history that has been practicing pederasty. He just one of a small number of people that even been arrested for it.

TRUTH!

There is a sub culture of sexual perversity that has long existed and thrived in this country and others because people have become complacent when it comes to sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of young people. The Sanduskys of America and the world are legion! Why you think this man went for so long without being incarcerated or even fired? All I can say is fuck Penn State and the state of Penn! Those muthafuccas are certainly showing their asses!

All these booty bandits and panty freaks need to die.

You tell'em, HotGritz!!!

I remember hearing one of my professors talking about how angry he was about the whole situation going on at Penn State. He was the only person in his family not to go to Penn State, but he grew up in a family of alums. And I remember him saying that he hopes the man gets what's coming to him, but he hopes the school will come out alright from it.

I was like FUCK Sandusky, FUCK the superiors, AND FUCK the school...they turned their back on those children. They knew EXACTLY wha was going on....what wolf in sheep's clothing they hired.What monster they had running their football team all those years. As far as I'm concerned, they could shut down that school and call it a day. Who wants to use those showers in the men's locker room after you know what happened in there?

I know many schools in America are now trying to pull up their A game in the wake of this. Remember getting an email from the head of the University, giving us all straight warnings to report any abuse we witness, no matter how small. While this is good, I think it's sad that this had to come after all that has happened. All those kids will sadly never be the same...

TD3 said:

http://today.msnbc.msn.co...im-guilty/

Asked the question of why so many alleged victims would come forward if nothing inappropriate or illegal had occurred, Sandusky told Costas, “I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward,’’ Sandusky said. “Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life.

“And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."

-------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 11/17/11 2:39am]

Does this count as a confession?

I think the man just admitted that there are SOME boys he seeked out...

TD3 said:

SUPRMAN said:

He did not.

He cannot be forced to take the stand in any trial.

His Fifth Amendment right remains intact. The fact that he gave an interview does not compel him to take the stand in court.

Normally, one can't incriminate oneself as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, which says someone can't "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Mr. Sundusky admitted he showered with boys, he admitted he touched boys legs, he hugged them, and engaged in horseplay with them. He said, "people made up the other stuff". Again, Sundusky has negated his Fifth Amendment Rights, rights not to incriminate himself. If he / his defense makes a claim of hearsay, the prosecutors would say it is an exception -- he made the statements against interests.

===============

[Edited 11/17/11 2:25am]

His admissions can be used against him at trial.

He still cannot be compelled to take the stand at his trial regardless of the admissibility of his public statements.

The prosecution cannot make him take the stand simply because "he's already admitted x,y and z."

Speaking publicly in not a criminal case where he is compelled to be a witness against himself.

He could be lying and that would not be perjury . . . .

You are misunderstanding the Fifth Amendment.

When you are Mirandized, you are told anything you say can and will be used against you. That does not negate your Fifth Amendment right.

Btw, the Fifth Amendment does not apply when you are not in custody or not under oath.

There is no way he can claim hearsay, he made the statements himself voluntarily presumably with full knowledge that they can used against him in a criminal and/or civil procedure.

shorttrini said:

TD3 said:

Normally, one can't incriminate oneself as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, which says someone can't "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Mr. Sundusky admitted he showered with boys, he admitted he touched boys legs, he hugged them, and engaged in horseplay with them. He said, "people made up the other stuff". Again, Sundusky has negated his Fifth Amendment Rights, rights not to incriminate himself. If he / his defense makes a claim of hearsay, the prosecutors would say it is an exception -- he made the statements against interests.

===============

[Edited 11/17/11 2:25am]

Exactly.....Also, this interview, will most likely be used against him during the trial.

Not exactly.

That's a misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment.

Of course, Sandusky and his legal team know this will be used against him in court.

But he doesn't have to take the stand in court, and he gets to make his statements to the jury without ever taking the stand and being subject to cross examination which is a risky but very calculated move by the defense.

SUPRMAN said:

TD3 said:

Normally, one can't incriminate oneself as a protection of the Fifth Amendment, which says someone can't "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Mr. Sundusky admitted he showered with boys, he admitted he touched boys legs, he hugged them, and engaged in horseplay with them. He said, "people made up the other stuff". Again, Sundusky has negated his Fifth Amendment Rights, rights not to incriminate himself. If he / his defense makes a claim of hearsay, the prosecutors would say it is an exception -- he made the statements against interests.

===============

[Edited 11/17/11 2:25am]

His admissions can be used against him at trial.

He still cannot be compelled to take the stand at his trial regardless of the admissibility of his public statements.

The prosecution cannot make him take the stand simply because "he's already admitted x,y and z."

Speaking publicly in not a criminal case where he is compelled to be a witness against himself.

He could be lying and that would not be perjury . . . .

You are misunderstanding the Fifth Amendment.

When you are Mirandized, you are told anything you say can and will be used against you. That does not negate your Fifth Amendment right.

Btw, the Fifth Amendment does not apply when you are not in custody or not under oath.

There is no way he can claim hearsay, he made the statements himself voluntarily presumably with full knowledge that they can used against him in a criminal and/or civil procedure.

Sup no ever said anything about Sundusky taking the stand. No one spoke of Miranda right... that's not even apart of the discussion. If anyone has total lack understanding of the Fifth Amendment it's you and your post is all over the place.

The prosecutor could use this as testimony without cross examination.

I'll repeat, Mr. Sundusky has waived his 5th Amendments rights.

TD3 said:

SUPRMAN said:

His admissions can be used against him at trial.

He still cannot be compelled to take the stand at his trial regardless of the admissibility of his public statements.

The prosecution cannot make him take the stand simply because "he's already admitted x,y and z."

Speaking publicly in not a criminal case where he is compelled to be a witness against himself.

He could be lying and that would not be perjury . . . .

You are misunderstanding the Fifth Amendment.

When you are Mirandized, you are told anything you say can and will be used against you. That does not negate your Fifth Amendment right.

Btw, the Fifth Amendment does not apply when you are not in custody or not under oath.

There is no way he can claim hearsay, he made the statements himself voluntarily presumably with full knowledge that they can used against him in a criminal and/or civil procedure.

Sup no ever said anything about Sundusky taking the stand. No one spoke of Miranda right... that's not even apart of the discussion. If anyone has total lack understanding of the Fifth Amendment it's you and your post is all over the place.

The prosecutor could use this as testimony without cross examination.

I'll repeat, Mr. Sundusky has waived his 5th Amendments rights.

Again, he has not.

Your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment is wrong.

If I'm wrong show me a source supporting your interpretation but as some with a legal education working at a law firm, I seriously doubt that I am in error.

He cannot waive his Fifth Amendment right at all unless he is in custody or under oath.

This interview was neither.

If does not take the stand, he Fifth Amendment rights to not come into question during a trial.

Trust me.

Give me a source supporting your interpretation.

Yes the testimony can be used at trial without cross examination. That favors the defendant, not the prosecution.

He has said all he intends to say in the interview and never has to speak in court which means the prosecution does not get to cross examine him on what he said in the interview.

I do agree as common logic that he has waived any privileges to what he said in the interview, but that is not the same as waiving his Fifth Amendment rights. He can't be compelled to testify even regarding what he said in the interview.

[Edited 11/17/11 9:27am]

The Miranda court held that the privilege is not waived “if the individual answers some questions or gives some information on his own, prior to invoking his right to remain silent.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966).

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/PoliceInterrogation/WaivingFifthAmend.asp

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.

If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violative of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events

http://www.law.cornell.ed..._amendment

SUPRMAN said:

TD3 said:

Sup no ever said anything about Sundusky taking the stand. No one spoke of Miranda right... that's not even apart of the discussion. If anyone has total lack understanding of the Fifth Amendment it's you and your post is all over the place.

The prosecutor could use this as testimony without cross examination.

I'll repeat, Mr. Sundusky has waived his 5th Amendments rights.

Again, he has not.

Your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment is wrong.

If I'm wrong show me a source supporting your interpretation but as some with a legal education working at a law firm, I seriously doubt that I am in error.

He cannot waive his Fifth Amendment right at all unless he is in custody or under oath.

This interview was neither.

If does not take the stand, he Fifth Amendment rights to not come into question during a trial.

Trust me.

Give me a source supporting your interpretation.

Yes the testimony can be used at trial without cross examination. That favors the defendant, not the prosecution.

He has said all he intends to say in the interview and never has to speak in court which means the prosecution does not get to cross examine him on what he said in the interview.

I do agree as common logic that he has waived any privileges to what he said in the interview, but that is not the same as waiving his Fifth Amendment rights. He can't be compelled to testify even regarding what he said in the interview.

[Edited 11/17/11 9:27am]

Normally, a person cannot incriminate himself as a protection of the 5th amendment. However, by admitting that he, "showered with little boys" and "hugged little boys", he has given up his 5 amendment right NOT to incriminate himself. If he tries to say, they are heresay, the prosecution would most likely say that it is an exception-- that he made the statements against interests.

I may not practice, by I did learn something in school....

shorttrini said:

SUPRMAN said:

Again, he has not.

Your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment is wrong.

If I'm wrong show me a source supporting your interpretation but as some with a legal education working at a law firm, I seriously doubt that I am in error.

He cannot waive his Fifth Amendment right at all unless he is in custody or under oath.

This interview was neither.

If does not take the stand, he Fifth Amendment rights to not come into question during a trial.

Trust me.

Give me a source supporting your interpretation.

Yes the testimony can be used at trial without cross examination. That favors the defendant, not the prosecution.

He has said all he intends to say in the interview and never has to speak in court which means the prosecution does not get to cross examine him on what he said in the interview.

I do agree as common logic that he has waived any privileges to what he said in the interview, but that is not the same as waiving his Fifth Amendment rights. He can't be compelled to testify even regarding what he said in the interview.

[Edited 11/17/11 9:27am]

Normally, a person cannot incriminate himself as a protection of the 5th amendment. However, by admitting that he, "showered with little boys" and "hugged little boys", he has given up his 5 amendment right NOT to incriminate himself. If he tries to say, they are heresay, the prosecution would most likely say that it is an exception-- that he made the statements against interests.

I may not practice, by I did learn something in school....

Again, the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to public statements.

How would you argue 'hearsay?' 'Hearsay' has to be someone other than the speaker being quoted. What you say is never 'hearsay' regardless of the medium it is presented in.

Playing a video of that interview in court would not be considered 'hearsay,' in any context.

You are legally allowed to make statements against your own interest. You have the right not to make those statements under oath or in custody, but you have a choice to do a television interview, a print interview and/or radio interview to an audience of unknown size, but for those holding the interview you understand their interest is a larger audience, so no one if forcing you by placing you under oath or threat of continued abuse in custody to make statements that are not in your best interest. That's what the Fifth Amendment exists to protect you against, not public expressions you choose to make. Regardless of the consequences of those public expressions in regard to fine, detention etc., there is no Fifth Amendment attached.

If you wrote a newspaper article that was published in a paper that anyone can read, why can't that be used in court against you? You can take the stand and offer your views on what was written or let your words speak for yourself and have to give no further explanation for your deeds and actions.

You've spoken, the prosecution uses it, so the jury hears only what you want them to hear about you and you don't have to take the stand to tell your side of the story. That is not a bad tactic in this situation.