Latest Breaking News

LynneSin

(95,337 posts)

51. Gricar was a local AG. Corbett was the PA state AG

Reply to southerncrone (Reply #48)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 07:25 AM

Jun 2012

Around 2008 this case landed on his desk but instead opted to pretty much ignore it so he could run for governor.

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