Latest Breaking News

truthisfreedom

(23,532 posts)

17. Ugh.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 06:52 PM

Jun 2012

What a nightmare.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sandusky accused by adopted son [View all] kpete Jun 2012 OP

Yup, I read that is why Sandusky didn't testify OKNancy Jun 2012 #1

Still makes no sense to me. zentrum Jun 2012 #34

IMO Dottie was not a credible witness. If I were a juror, I'd disregard every word she said. slackmaster Jun 2012 #53

The jury does not know this though, right? The judge keeps dropping charges, 4-5 of them monmouth Jun 2012 #2

Right, jury doesn't know. elleng Jun 2012 #3

It doesn't matter slackmaster Jun 2012 #55

Poor guy/kid. elleng Jun 2012 #4

There must be more problems zentrum Jun 2012 #5

He said he would testify if Sandusky was going to. You can't compel a person to be a plaintiff. WinkyDink Jun 2012 #8

Yet another reason why the defense didn't put Sandusky on the stand jade3000 Jun 2012 #15

Yes, you can. n/t tabasco Jun 2012 #24

Actually I think you can zentrum Jun 2012 #26

Maybe he wasn't willing to step forward until now. yardwork Jun 2012 #28

I read the theory that they are later going to serve a new indictment FedUpWithIt All Jun 2012 #49

You stunned? I ain't stunned. aquart Jun 2012 #6

I'll supply the brick. emilyg Jun 2012 #20

So if the pervert walks montanacowboy Jun 2012 #7

Of course. New accusers = New charges/cases/trials. WinkyDink Jun 2012 #9

Statute of limitations may apply, as this man is 33. n/t pnwmom Jun 2012 #23

They still could have brought him in zentrum Jun 2012 #27

My guess is that they didn't bring him in because they were afraid pnwmom Jun 2012 #42

I don't think the pervert will walk... Stuart G Jun 2012 #10

the prosecution didn't use him in the trial because he hadn't yet told them his story fishwax Jun 2012 #13

But I still don't really get it zentrum Jun 2012 #30

The question is did Mrs. Sandusky know. If she did she should be prosecuted as well. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #11

Was I correct in thinking she described the children as manipulative and conniving? nolabear Jun 2012 #12

It is my understanding Mrs. S did describe the children - not the adults - WilmywoodNCparalegal Jun 2012 #14

Very disturbing jade3000 Jun 2012 #16

Even if children are outright provocative that is no excuse for an ADULT to know right rhett o rick Jun 2012 #18

100000% right Rhett WilmywoodNCparalegal Jun 2012 #21

I thought the same thing. Creepy petty words of jealousy. I'm a lay person but that's how it hit me. yardwork Jun 2012 #31

The problem is, most of these children were in very dysfunctional home situations, pnwmom Jun 2012 #41

Well, if he was doing things with kids that he SHOULD HAVE been doing with his wife.... Volaris Jun 2012 #46

My impression of Dottie's description of kids is the same as yours. southerncrone Jun 2012 #47

Agreed. zentrum Jun 2012 #33

I don't know what you mean by the term "complete co-conspirator" but Sandusky pnwmom Jun 2012 #39

I don't believe she didn't know. That's my opinion. Obviously hasn't been proven, but that's IndyJones Jun 2012 #29

I agree. I think she knew. How could you not know as a spouse? She should be rhett o rick Jun 2012 #45

Ugh. truthisfreedom Jun 2012 #17

To me the worse part. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #19

Animals are better than Sandusky. roody Jun 2012 #22

Agreed. That charity allowed him to continue to rape children for decades after they knew. yardwork Jun 2012 #32

It is not just the charity to blame, it's society. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #52

No question about it, there are many ways in which our society failed here. yardwork Jun 2012 #54

I agree. I believe that the women that stay married to these animals rhett o rick Jun 2012 #60

No doubt in my mind that Mrs. Sandusky is culpable. No doubt. yardwork Jun 2012 #61

The extent to which so many were defending those people was/is astonishing. (nt) Posteritatis Jun 2012 #35

Was he the one whose ex-wife sought an injunction to keep the grandkids away? RainDog Jun 2012 #25

yes, he was the one with the ex-wife n/t shanti Jun 2012 #37

I'm guessing Matt told her of his own abuse which begs the question why she didn't tell prosecutors riderinthestorm Jun 2012 #56

Not necessarily RainDog Jun 2012 #58

Agreed. Either scenario is possible. Sandusky was so prominent in the community riderinthestorm Jun 2012 #59

this post RainDog Jun 2012 #65

oh man, i called this one! shanti Jun 2012 #36

that was my immediate thought, too RainDog Jun 2012 #38

FIVE adopted sons zentrum Jun 2012 #40

you're right shanti Jun 2012 #66

Breaking--from Yahoo's homepage zentrum Jun 2012 #43

Governor Tom Corbett's dirty hands are all over this mess LynneSin Jun 2012 #44

I thought Ray Gricar was the AG then....interesting that there southerncrone Jun 2012 #48

Ray Gricar was the county district attorney, not the state attorney general Cosmocat Jun 2012 #50

Thank you for the corrected info. southerncrone Jun 2012 #64

Yeah Cosmocat Jun 2012 #67

Gricar was a local AG. Corbett was the PA state AG LynneSin Jun 2012 #51

The predator adopted his prey... polichick Jun 2012 #57

Probably on drugs and/or in jail. Sandusky targeted vulnerable kids. yardwork Jun 2012 #62

What a horrible case this is turning out to be! polichick Jun 2012 #63