Why does it sound like someone's excusing it as if this doesn't concern them using the 5th Amendment especially since it sounds like he already admitted that he was seeking teenage boys out? Not calling anyone out, just stating...

Timmy84 said:

Why does it sound like someone's excusing it as if this doesn't concern them using the 5th Amendment especially since it sounds like he already admitted that he was seeking teenage boys out? Not calling anyone out, just stating...

Certainly not excusing Sandusky's actions, the school's, Joe Paterno"s and everyone else involved in covering up criminal behavior made even more atrocious that the victims were children, brought into that environment. Rather than protect, they covered up. How they live with themselves I can't fathom.

I'm trying to correct an erroneous view of the Fifth Amendment. What he's admitted to are part of the allegations against him. It's already alleged, so there's no way to keep it out of court. It's part of what the prosecution has to prove. The prosecution is certainly not building their case based on that interview. It's the victims that are the prosecutions case against him. What jury won't convict after listening his victim's testimony?

Again the tape is his way of saying all he plans to say in his defense. He will not have to take the stand to take it which insulates him from being cross examined with the testimony of his victims.

That's what the defense doesn't want. He has told his side and doesn't have to take the stand to do it.

How devestating would his defense look if he takes the stand and repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment to question after question? (Which he can do regarding any fact (testimony, broadly interpreted) that would support any allegation against him. He could take the Fifth regarding most questions concerning the video except for the obvious -such as 'Is that you on the phone speaking?' He has to give him name and address but not much else.)

Taking the Fifth in that manner is not asserting a Fifth Amendment right that the tape not be played. There is no Fifth Amendment right that prevents the tape from being played. There is no legal argument to prevent the tape from being played.

SUPRMAN said:

Timmy84 said:

Why does it sound like someone's excusing it as if this doesn't concern them using the 5th Amendment especially since it sounds like he already admitted that he was seeking teenage boys out? Not calling anyone out, just stating...

Certainly not excusing Sandusky's actions, the school's, Joe Paterno"s and everyone else involved in covering up criminal behavior made even more atrocious that the victims were children, brought into that environment. Rather than protect, they covered up. How they live with themselves I can't fathom.

I'm trying to correct an erroneous view of the Fifth Amendment. What he's admitted to are part of the allegations against him. It's already alleged, so there's no way to keep it out of court. It's part of what the prosecution has to prove. The prosecution is certainly not building their case based on that interview. It's the victims that are the prosecutions case against him. What jury won't convict after listening his victim's testimony?

Again the tape is his way of saying all he plans to say in his defense. He will not have to take the stand to take it which insulates him from being cross examined with the testimony of his victims.

That's what the defense doesn't want. He has told his side and doesn't have to take the stand to do it.

How devestating would his defense look if he takes the stand and repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment to question after question? (Which he can do regarding any fact (testimony, broadly interpreted) that would support any allegation against him. He could take the Fifth regarding most questions concerning the video except for the obvious -such as 'Is that you on the phone speaking?' He has to give him name and address but not much else.)

Taking the Fifth in that manner is not asserting a Fifth Amendment right that the tape not be played. There is no Fifth Amendment right that prevents the tape from being played. There is no legal argument to prevent the tape from being played.

They might not be building their case around that interview, but, what he as admitted to, during that interview, surely helps their case. Also, by him giving that interview, he has now, tainted the jury pool. The interview, shows him as someone who is not in touch with reality and has no sympathy or empathy for his victims. A jury in a case like this, will find it hard to find sympathy for someone who does not show any sympathy towards his victims.

shorttrini said:

SUPRMAN said:

Certainly not excusing Sandusky's actions, the school's, Joe Paterno"s and everyone else involved in covering up criminal behavior made even more atrocious that the victims were children, brought into that environment. Rather than protect, they covered up. How they live with themselves I can't fathom.

I'm trying to correct an erroneous view of the Fifth Amendment. What he's admitted to are part of the allegations against him. It's already alleged, so there's no way to keep it out of court. It's part of what the prosecution has to prove. The prosecution is certainly not building their case based on that interview. It's the victims that are the prosecutions case against him. What jury won't convict after listening his victim's testimony?

Again the tape is his way of saying all he plans to say in his defense. He will not have to take the stand to take it which insulates him from being cross examined with the testimony of his victims.

That's what the defense doesn't want. He has told his side and doesn't have to take the stand to do it.

How devestating would his defense look if he takes the stand and repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment to question after question? (Which he can do regarding any fact (testimony, broadly interpreted) that would support any allegation against him. He could take the Fifth regarding most questions concerning the video except for the obvious -such as 'Is that you on the phone speaking?' He has to give him name and address but not much else.)

Taking the Fifth in that manner is not asserting a Fifth Amendment right that the tape not be played. There is no Fifth Amendment right that prevents the tape from being played. There is no legal argument to prevent the tape from being played.

They might not be building their case around that interview, but, what he as admitted to, during that interview, surely helps their case. Also, by him giving that interview, he has now, tainted the jury pool. The interview, shows him as someone who is not in touch with reality and has no sympathy or empathy for his victims. A jury in a case like this, will find it hard to find sympathy for someone who does not show any sympathy towards his victims.

I didn't hear/watch the interview as there was nothing he could possibly say to justify, defend or help someone understand what he did.

It wouldn't be helpful to the defense at all if he didn't in some way address and respond to the charges against him.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

HotGritz said:

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...

Unfortunately change only comes when muthafuccas start getting sued and getting thrown in jail. Trust that right now Penn State is worried about their public image and their bottom line. The kids will never be the same because of what they've been through and the lack of support from community and society at large. Damn Shame!