Snedden's opinion doesn't matter, the juries believed his testimony.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Blog posts aren't serious sources. PSU barely did vetting? I believe these people talked to the police prior to PSU's involvement in any payouts. Either way it doesn't matter, you carry on your fight, it's going nowhere and outside of some here no one cares.
Yeah, about that. the most compelling testimony is victim testimony. Juries take that seriously.
DIdn't you just post something someone posted on FACEBOOK as proof?
I'm beginning to question your sanity.
There was NO vetting. There was simply a negotiation over amounts that would be squandered on bullshit allegations.
Is that before or after they've had their "repressed memory" sessions with the prosecuting attorneys psychiatrist?
Didn't the crowd roar, "give us Barabbas?" LOL can't believe some of the reasoning here.
No kidding. Facebook posts as proof? Mob mentality as proof? Yikes.
Two of my favorite classics.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/445
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518
John Ziegler (no fan of Donald Trump) set out an interesting theory on the Central Park Five. He theorized that the Five beat the victim unconscious, and just afterward, while she was lying there, the sicko who was implicated by DNA evidence raped her. It explains why the one young man who did not confess seems to have no animosity toward the other four who did and ended up getting them all convicted.
As for the people ridiculing the notion that Sandusky may be innocent, please just answer the simple question: Why accuser do you find the most credible and why?
As for the people ridiculing the notion that Sandusky may be innocent, please just answer the simple question: Why accuser do you find the most credible and why?
I wish I could love a post, because I love your post and it is great testimonial to why things are clearly out of whack in this fiasco.
Let's contrast Sandusky with Nassar. No pornography has ever been found in Sandusky's possession, Sandusky has steadfastly maintained his innocence from day 1. Sandusky's wife Dottie has consistently stood by him during his trials and tribulations. Sandusky is not a broken man and has held up remarkebly well considering what he has been through.
Sandusky at a minimum deserves a new trial and a presumption of innocence. His case thus far can be characterized by prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel, and questionable judicial decisions. If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I would tend to agree with his lawyer Al Lindsay that the OAG may fold their hand because their case would be so exceedingly weak.
Last edited:
The jury also believed the janitor, whose story changed significantly since the grand jury and wasn’t even the actual eyewitness, victim 9 whose testimony contradicted the testimony of keystone accuser Aaron Fisher, and Victim 10 who didn’t even know Sandusky on a personal level.
Unless you are interested in what actually happened.
I don’t know whether all of these 30 post-arrest claimants talked to police or not. However, it is a fact that the only two post-arrest accusers they brought to trial were Victims 9 and 10. Both of their stories are pathetic.
Ziegler’s “interesting theory,” unfortunately, sounds completely insane compared to Occam’s Razor alternative, which is laid out nicely in the Netflix dramatization. It’s the only theory that the evidence actually supports.
What you call research, sane people call a waste of time.
Yes they did. There were multiple other victims and the AG decided to not to try those cases because Jerry already had essentially a life sentence.
And your opinion is crap. The jury’s opinion was he was guilty. That’s all that matters.
"Everything becomes and recurs eternally - escape is impossible!"
The prosecuting attorney disputed most of that Netflix documentary.
Basically they flat out lied.
To address the DNA issue, this was 1989. DNA usage , collection , and storage wasn’t what it is now thirty years later.
The men who confessed, and they did confess , said what they did. There would be no DNA on her since they didn’t penetrate her . They dry humped on her and ejaculated in their pants, which they saw and it was mentioned.
Beating her, holding her down are all party’s of the rape without penetration . It’s the same as driving a getaway car for a convenience store robbery where the clerk was shot and killed. You also get a murder charge .
I believe you are wrong. Yes, public opinion is still decidedly against Penn State including Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Sandusky. The OAG has done a good job in planting their false narratives and polluting public opinion. However, I have seen a recent uptick in the still small percentage of people who believe that there is something significantly amiss in the stories we have been sold. There will continue to be new stories coming out including on Spanier's exoneration, Gary Schultz speaking out, Malcolm Gladwell's new book being published plus developments in Sandusky's continuing legal crusade at both the state and federal level.
I don't believe the fat lady has sung. I believe there will be a significant swing in the way the general public view what happened. I hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Again, below is a Facebook post of a PI and author who gives his thoughts and quotes the prosecutor.
- Below is a Facebook post from author and private detective , John Curley. A little ways down in his post he quotes the prosecutor for the Central Park Five. They were as guilty as sin.
I submit it is worth the read, try to understand the point:
I have done criminal defense investigations for 32 years, plus. Been around the system about 3 years longer. I have lost count of the mistakes the system has made. I have seen people wrongfully arrested and in the system. It is by no means the majority. Most of the people in jail belong there.
We need reform, many people deserve a second chance.
What you are not going to get, is the right perspective from a social justice warrior who learns about the system within the hallowed halls of "higher education" or politicians.
I know the criminal class of this country. The amusing thing to me is how many of the SJW's, defense lawyers that think every ****ing client they have was wronged, the politicians, think they have some kind of immunity from predators. They would be terrified absolutely shitless if the cops stopped working.
The people making the Central Park 5 the poster boys, of the movement are making the activist mistake. "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!"
Ahab and the whale. Hatred and righteousness to such a degree they will go down into the depths and in the meantime when how wrong they were becomes apparent, they end up damaging their cause far more than they ever helped it and we that see what needs to be changed just shake our heads and try to grow more fingers to plug up the holes in the dike.
If you are going to look into the central park 5, LEARN. Do not start with a preconceived notion, read *both* sides. Read the below article from the prosecutor and I will post some links to other accounts than the net flix version in the comments. I am giving you the tools to learn about this, because if you are going to learn, your narrative has to go out the window, your preconceived notions as well, and you have to look at ALL sides with an open mind.
The below is from an article in the WSJ written by Linda Fairstein the supervising prosecutor in the Central Park 5 case.
Please do not waste your time watching the Netflix bogus documentary.....
Linda's own words.......
At about 9 p.m. April 19, 1989, a large group of young men gathered on the corner of 110th Street and Fifth Avenue for the purpose of robbing and beating innocent people in Central Park. There were more than 30 rioters, and the woman known as the “Central Park jogger,” Trisha Meili, was not their only victim. Eight others were attacked, including two men who were beaten so savagely that they required hospitalization for head injuries.
Reporters and filmmakers have explored this story countless times from numerous perspectives, almost always focusing on five attackers and one female jogger. But each has missed the larger picture of that terrible night: a riot in the dark that resulted in the apprehension of more than 15 teenagers who set upon multiple victims. That a sociopath named Matias Reyes confessed in 2002 to the rape of Ms. Meili, and that the district attorney consequently vacated the charges against the five after they had served their sentences, has led some of these reporters and filmmakers to assume the prosecution had no basis on which to charge the five suspects in 1989. So it is with filmmaker Ava DuVernay in the Netflix miniseries “When They See Us,” a series so full of distortions and falsehoods as to be an outright fabrication.
It shouldn’t have been hard for Ms. DuVernay to discover the truth. The facts of the original case are documented in a 117-page decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Galligan, in sworn testimony given in two trials and affirmed by two appellate courts, and in sworn depositions of more than 95 witnesses—including the five themselves. Instead she has written an utterly false narrative involving an evil mastermind (me) and the falsely accused (the five).
I was one of the supervisors who oversaw the team that prosecuted the teenagers apprehended after that horrific night of violence. Ms. DuVernay’s film attempts to portray me as an overzealous prosecutor and a bigot, the police as incompetent or worse, and the five suspects as innocent of all charges against them. None of this is true.
Consider the film’s most egregious falsehoods. “When They See Us” repeatedly portrays the suspects as being held without food, deprived of their parents’ company and advice, and not even allowed to use the bathroom. If that had been true, surely they would have brought those issues up and prevailed in pretrial hearings on the voluntariness of their statements, as well as in their lawsuit against the city. They didn’t, because it never happened.
In the first episode, the film portrays me at the precinct station house before dawn on April 20, the day after the attacks, unethically engineering the police investigation and making racist remarks. In reality, I didn’t arrive until 8 p.m., 22 hours after the police investigation began, did not run the investigation, and never made any of the comments the screenwriter attributes to me.
Ms. DuVernay depicts suspects Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise being arrested on the street. In fact, two detectives went to the door of the Salaam apartment on the night of the 20th because both had been named by other rioters as attackers in multiple assaults.
The film claims that when Mr. Salaam’s mother arrived and told police her son was only 15—meaning they could not question him without a parent in the room—I tried to stop her, demanding to see a birth certificate. The truth is that Mr. Salaam himself claimed to be 16 and even had a forged bus pass to “prove” it. When I heard his mother say he was 15, I immediately halted his questioning. This is all supported by sworn testimony.
Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.
Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili. Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught. The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions.
Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.
It is a wonderful thing that these five men have taken themselves to responsible positions and community respect. That Ms. DuVernay ignored so much of the truth about the gang of 30 and about the suffering of their victims—and that her film includes so many falsehoods—is nonetheless an outrage.
Ms. DuVernay does not define me, and her film does not speak the truth.
24 Today at 6:42 AM
It’s so over.
Maybe not as far as you think. Please stay tuned.
As always, you are welcome to your own opinions and thank you for your interest in National Defense.
I’m sure that she has disputed it; her decades-late comeuppance has, I’m sure, made her life more challenging over the past few weeks. The fact is that there is and was never any physical evidence that ever connected the innocent to the victim or the crime scene. Outside of the NYPD’s coerced testimony from a collection of children, the only physical evidence that exists implicates the sole perpetrator who confessed to the crime, just like he confessed and was convicted of several other identical crimes with the same MO, including another rape in the park just a few days earlier.
No matter, and it’s not worth arguing over at this point. The five innocent accused are now where they belong, whether or not the cops and the former prosecutor approve of it.
They’re not innocent , they committed some brutal crimes and now paraded as some kind of martyrs . They’re not. The documentary maker straight up lied
“Lied” according to who? The prosecutor? The police? You can spare me with their protestations now that the public doesn’t blindly believe every claim made by a prosecutor or a police officer, no matter how self-serving it is. Especially organizations with the history of the NYPD.
The documentarian who already profiled the case in 2012 for PBS - Sarah Burns, who produced it with her father, Ken Burns - has called the Netflix portrayal “very accurate.” The only thing Burns questioned were the representations of the closed-door conversations between the prosecutors and police - any transcripts of which aren’t public - though that isn’t at all germane or vital to the events as portrayed in the Netflix show. Professionals who have studied this case for decades - not including the police - have praised the show’s accuracy. It’s good.
Unfortunately, they are all being paid in 50 year installments, so the money won’t run out.
However, here is a hilarious story of how one “victim” blew through his money so quickly, he asked for a higher payment and the judge said no. He ended up giving the judge the finger after the decision.
https://www.dailylocal.com/news/nat...cle_f43ad5d2-6320-5723-89a2-a2ebc262b83b.html
My opinion may be crap, but what about the FACT that Victims 3 and 5 contradicted their trial testimony in the settlements against PSU, Victim 7 admitted he only developed a negative view of Sandusky through pseudoscientific repressed memory therapy, Victim 9 (the only accusers to claim anal rape) has been recently telling jokes about anal penetration on his Facebook page, and Victim 10 contradicted his trial testimony in a post trial interview. What about the fact that Victims 1 and 4 claimed oral sex with Sandusky dozens of times, but never were able to identify his medically confirmed hypogonadism. The remaining accuser, victim 6, never claimed a sexual act.
Doesn’t matter. The jury heard the stories evidence and said guilty on 45/48 accounts I believe .
None of your whatabouts mean a thing.
https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html?outputType=amp
It’s all laid out here.
It’s all laid out here.
Who was the eye witness? Or, did you mean ear-witness?
- McQ had 2 or 3 'quick glances'.
- Upon entering the locker room, McQ has stated that he heard slapping noises indicating anal intercourse, but nobody was sweating, nobody was in pain, nobody was in distress,
- Upon entering the locker-room, how believable is it/was it that one was able to discern 'rhythmic slapping'? Does a slapping body make pretty much the same sound as water hitting a tile floor in a community shower?
- Last, do you know the reliability rate of "eyewitness testimony"? That is, how frequently is eyewitness testimony accurate?
The problem is always going to be perception. Coward McQueary has stood before two grand juries, two criminal juries and one civil jury and every time he has been found credible by his "peers". And in the criminal hearings the defense teams did absolutely nothing to dispel his testimony - in fact they didn't even try. Why? As much as we debate the discrepancies of his story, the justification of his cause, the reasoning or coercion behind how he arrived here, the fact remains that the current narrative will stay the same until he is proven non-credible in a court of law. Discrediting MM on a message board, blog or social media does not move the public perception a single scintilla.
We have an AG appealing a misdemeanor charge at the federal level. If there was more to go with Sandusky, Shapiro would have gone for it.
You are absolutely correct, I will also add that since he was deemed credible each time there better be some amazing stuff that moves public perception, and a court of law.
Similar threads
