Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WTF are you talking about??? That's the conclusion you come to if this tape actually does exist??? If I recall correctly, Sandusky was convicted of charges associated this unknown victim based at least partially on second hand testimony from the now demented janitor.Originally posted by PSU Mike:
So if this tape exists, and you believe the guy, does it make you feel better that two guys who had access to FB showers were showering with kids?
I follow Zig because he has information but I do not agree with all, or even most of his conclusions on the scandal. However, there are a few things to note here. Whatever you might think of his take on the subject, I've never known John to simply make up evidence. There are a number of reasons why the defense team would not have used this info at the trial. For one, as part of the discovery process, the prosecution dumped millions of documents and other evidence on the defense team about three weeks prior to the trial. It would have been impossible for the defense team to go through it all in time. It's a common strategy used by prosecution teams to deny the defense team an opportunity to find holes in the prosecution's arguments. It's also a common practice for the defense to team to respond with a request for a continuance in order to have more time to go through the discovery documentation and those requests are nearly always granted. However, every request for continuance made by the defense team in the JS trial was denied. That's a big part of why the trial happened so quickly and it's also very unusual.Originally posted by psu00:
Well, with all respect, it's Zeigler so I take it with a grain of salt. If the prosecution had that on tape and did not turn it over to the defense that's a serious charge to make. If the defense had it and didn't bring it up, (which I find very hard to believe), then that's beyond malpractice on their end. Right now though, I need more proof than a tweet from Zeigler to get all worked up over it. JMO.
This post was edited on 3/12 10:02 PM by psu00
Yep, and that's exactly why the BOT cabal/Pepper Hamilton/FSS are fighting so hard against providing the unredacted source docs for the bullshit freeh report.Originally posted by Obliviax:
all of this would have been for naught...the Freeh Report, the NCAA, the BOT's actions/inactions, perhaps the victim payouts.....that would be a monumental mess of epic proportions.
John says the "lawyer" has the "audio". And that as he understands it (or I understand him), the "lawyer" implies that the janitor was declared "demented" AFTER he made the statement that it wasn't Sandusky. I assume the "lawyer" he is talking about is Amendola, but he didn't make that clear.Originally posted by mn78psu83:
Who has the audio tape? If the tape exists, was the janitor suffering from dementia at the time of the statement? If so, it's not relevant. I never thought that the hearsay ruling was correct either though.
OK. Apparently at least two of Sandusky's lawyers have the audio. Amendola and the appeals attorney.Originally posted by BUFFALO LION:
John says the "lawyer" has the "audio". And that as he understands it (or I understand him), the "lawyer" implies that the janitor was declared "demented" AFTER he made the statement that it wasn't Sandusky. I assume the "lawyer" he is talking about is Amendola, but he didn't make that clear.Originally posted by mn78psu83:
Who has the audio tape? If the tape exists, was the janitor suffering from dementia at the time of the statement? If so, it's not relevant. I never thought that the hearsay ruling was correct either though.