E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
/
Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, in an April 5 file photo.
Updated: 3:45 p.m. ET -- The judge in Jerry Sandusky’s child sex abuse trial ruled Monday that the alleged victims of the former Penn State assistant football coach will have to testify using their real names.
McKean County Senior Judge John Cleland also ruled that tweets or other electronic dispatches from reporters covering the trial, which begins Tuesday, will not be allowed, reversing an previous ruling.
At a pretrial hearing in Bellefonte, Pa., Cleland also resolved a dispute over research into potential jurors, rejecting a motion by Sandusky's lawyer to order the state attorney general's office to turn over information it has collected about potential jurors.
Jury selection is scheduled to begin Tuesday in Sandusky's trial on 52 counts that he sexually abused 10 boys over a 15-year period. Sandusky, 68, who remains confined in his home in State College, Pa., has repeatedly denied the charges.
Lawyers for five Sandusky accusers had requested that their clients be allowed to testify under pseudonyms.
Cleland rejected the motion, but pledged that the court would "cooperate when possible" to protect witness privacy and personal information.
"Arguably any victim of any crime would prefer not to appear in court, not to be subjected to cross-examination, not to have his or her credibility evaluated by a jury - not to put his name and reputation at stake," the judge wrote. "But we ask citizens to do that every day in courts across the nation."
The judge noted the sensitivity of the issue, and the efforts that both sides have made to protect the men to this point. But "once the trial begins, the veil must be lifted," he wrote.
In a statement provided to the Patriot News newspaper, lawyers Andrew Shubin and Justine Andronici, who represent multiple alleged Sandusky victims said they were “extremely disappointed” by the ruling.
"The victims in this case courageously came forward and provided extremely painful and personal information to investigators and prosecutors so that they could help protect children from further harm and exploitation,” the wrote. “The victims' experiences, the abuse they have suffered and its effects and their testimony at trial are certainly matters that are critical to the public interest. However, their personal identities are not."
Media organizations typically do not identify people who say they were sexually abused.
Cleland also denied a request by Sandusky's lawyer to order the attorney general's office to turn over information it has collected about potential jurors. Cleland said there was not enough evidence to warrant a hearing on the matter, and noted that prosecutors have said they have only done what a diligent defense attorney would do.
"Even if the commonwealth collected the information in this case in the manner the defense asserts and which the commonwealth denies, I do not believe that the information is constitutionally required to be turned over to the defense," Cleland wrote.
The basis for the defense request was an anonymous letter that claims to list the information prosecutors have collected.
"A motion filed by counsel must be supported by allegations of fact backed up with some credible basis to believe the allegations to be true," Cleland wrote. "Otherwise the court and counsel can be engaged in chasing chimeras."
Cleland, who was selected to preside over the Sandusky case after Centre County's judges recused themselves because of the defendant's connections to Penn State University, has not ruled on defense motions to have some or all of the charges thrown out. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday rejected a motion filed late Friday by Sandusky's attorneys seeking to delay the trial.
Cleland previously had said he would allow electronic communication, but not photographs or the recording or broadcasting of any verbatim account of the proceedings while court is in session.
Media groups, including The Associated Press, sought clarification on Friday, in response to which Cleland rescinded permission for any electronic communications from inside the Centre County courtroom.
"It is readily apparent from the allegations in the media's motion ... that the standard I applied in my definition is confusing to reporters, unworkable, and, therefore, likely unenforceable," the judge wrote.
The rules Cleland put in place are typical for Pennsylvania trials. He noted a state criminal procedure court rule that prohibits transmission of proceedings in session by phone, radio, TV, or "advanced communication technology."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
That is absurd and unprecedented!!! You are requiring victims of child molestation to make their names and identities public? Who is this joke of a judge!?!
pennsylvania justice, ivan. a close look will reveal outrage after outrage.
Obviously the Judge is a Penn State Grad. This is very sad.
@JBMW
"Cleland received his undergraduate degree from Denison University and in 1972, his J.D. from The National Law Center of The George Washington University, 1972."
Stop trying to incite anger with garbage and lies.
Regardless of where the judge went to School, Sandusky is a Child molesting scumbag, and the judge might be a pedophile sympathizer.
Yeah I have to disagree with this. While it is true that people have to reveal their identities in court as a matter of routine, the threat of getting on the stand to testify for this particular type of crime will be a deterrent to victims coming forward. There's a difference between saying "My name is George and I got robbed" on national media and "My name is George and I got raped." on natiional media.
It's a shame the judge doesn't see that.
The problem here is that they were all minors when they were abused. Had he been reported and tried many years ago as he should have been, many would have still been minors and their identities fully protected. In essence, the victims are being punished by the lack of action on the part of Penn State and the legal system. The article also says that Sandusky's team wants to undermine their credibility. Again, their credibility BEFORE they were abused or after?! Being victimized like this can drive people to drink, abuse drugs, etc to escape the reality of what happened, so now I see Sandusky's attorneys turning around and saying so-and-so is not a reliable witness because he drinks too much (when it was Sandusky's abuse that brought about the drinking problem in the first place.)
I sometimes wonder how certain people get to be judges in the first place. Clearly there are some that lack even the most basic common sense.
There is no reason for these people to have to publicly identify themselves. The judge could easily ascertain their identities in chambers and allow them the dignity of remaining anonymous to the public. I hope there's some way to appeal this ruling successfully. It's outrageous.
I do not agree with the judges decision. Talk about punishing the victim.
I can understand the judge saying the accused has a right to face his accusers, then why is it when whistle blowers or people in organized crime decide to accuse others of wrong doing, they can do it behind screens without publicly identifying themselves? I don't understand his reasoning why these young men should have to be raped twice, first by Sandusky and now by this Judge!
Correct me if I am wrong..
BUT I though that it was law that the accuser has the right to know who is accusing him of the crime. AKA Sandusky has the right to know who the state says he raped.
Personally I am not a fan of the judge not letting them testify under a fake name, but legally I do not know if they ever had a chance at it.
If the victims were female, they wouldn't be required to use their real names.
In any case, if the accused has the right to know her/his accusers, then all victims of sexual molestation should be named. Why make an exception in this trial?
And the media sharks start to circle...
WTF?!?!?!?! Since when has any court required a RAPE Victim to be publicly identified??? This judge needs to be disbarred today!
Vincent Denali, what gives you the idea that female victims never have to be confronted by their molesters/rapists? Why on earth do you think so many female victims don't report the crime? It's because invariably they are made out to be somehow deserving of what they went through.
Like it or not, an accused does have the right to confront his accusers and his attorney has the right to cross examine them in front of the jury. Try reading the 6th Amendment.
So is the judge prepared to depose a the whole 5th grade of an elementary school and 8th grade Junior High? This sicko goes way back and was very active in child molestation until he was caught. The ruling is very narrow minded and just plain vengeful to those who were humiliated. Why Judge do you want to drag them through the mud again???
Please vote this judge out on the street and may this creep get it over and over in Prison.......
In 11 years of practice in criminal law, I have never, not once, seen a victim testify in court using a pseudonymn. They always, always testify using their real names. In my jurisdiction, there are court rules at prohibit using the victim's full name in an appellate brief or in a court opinion. But that's it.
I'm not surprised at all by this. Remember that central PA is notorious for judges doing "odd" or illegal things. Remember last year how a judge was found guilty for taking payments over 20 years to put innocent kids in jails because if profited private jails?? You think that Sandusky and Penn State don't have a few friends on the bench? This is an obvious act of intimidation by the court, thinking that maybe you'll get 1 out of 10 that will want to expose themselves as abused in public. Just sickening.
Well sandusky appears to be scum but he has the right to face his accusers just like anyone else. Otherwise, we might as well do away with the courts and try everyone by public opinion.
Would you like to be tried by a poll?
I am absolutely disgusted with this judge. Never in the history of molestation/rape cases has the victim ever had to give their full name...let alone have to be yet again violated by cross-examination...the media will run wild through this...and Sandusky will probably get off because the victims will be too frightened to come forward now. Justice? I think not!
Thank you for being a voice of reason, IWonder... the sheer fact they've all come to a knee jerk conclusion of guilty is terrifying, much less don't want his accusers to give their names. I remember back during the Michael Jackson trials, how so many wanted to see him hang. Only after his death did some of the accusers step forward and say "My parents made me do it so they could get money".
If he did it, then he'll have to face justice. Leave it up to the jury. We have seen none of the evidence, if there is any. It's only words against his, and let's face it. If every frelling case were solved by knee jerk responses, everyone would be labeled guilty and locked away. Because that's exactly how you, the United States public, work. Everyone's guilty and evil except for you folks...
I agree with those few posters who believe Sandusky has a right to face his accusers. If you want to bring charges against someone for something he did to you, you must stand and face him. No exceptions, except for minors.
Some of you people are complete idiots. John and Mary Six-pack sitting in that court room watching have no need to be told the names of the victims as they take the stand to testify. Sandusky knows their names. Sandusky's lawyers know their names and know everything about their lives. The prosecution team knows their names and the judge knows too.
The jury doesn't need to know their names. The media doesn't need to know their names. And The ignorant masses definitely don't need to know their names.
These men may be adults now, but they were children victims of sex crimes. They can take the stand without saying their real names and Sandusky can still *confront his accusers*. What a load of crap to say otherwise.
Karen - Have you looked at EVERY case ever tried? Are you sure that they NEVER have had to? I find it a little hard to believe that it has NEVER happened & this judge is ruling against EVERY molestation case that has EVER been tried.
Sandusky will be in the court and so will the accusers, so he will get to face his accusers. I expect he will know most of their names already. What his team wants is all the names beforehand so they can do research on the victims so they can turn it around and put THEM on trial, which would absolutely not be fair.
Too bad about their names being published. There are ways to beat the system legally. I sure hope these victims uses a lot of make-up to hide what they look like and get a Dr to give a prescription for heavy dark sunglasses. There is no law about that.
When you start Suing everyone in sight they will need your real name to make out the check.
IvanAp, and others that feel this way,
The judge got it 100% correct on this issue. Here is why:
1) The Fifth Amendment requires it.
2) The last thing we want is for the defendant to win an appeal on a conviction over this issue, thus remaining a free man.
3) Our court system operates best when it's all a mater of public record, open to the public and NOT behind smoke and screens. None of the victims in this case are minors any longer and therefore not entitled to the protections that are granted a minor. A court system open to the intense glare of the public light is more likely to be a fair arbiter of justice than otherwise.
I for one want to see this man lawfully convicted and not given a chance to successfully appeal that conviction. That means we MUST strictly adhere to the "rule of law" which requires just this kind of sacrifice. I know this sucks, but these lawyerly distinctions are not always pleasant.
For those of you that wish to abridge the defendants rights "just in this case" you risk letting him getting released into that same neighborhood, or possibly into your neighborhood.
it's almost as if this judge wants them to relent! wth??? what a cruel judgment. shame on him.
well to those boys who are now men, we support you and don't let it deter you! you go in there with your heads held high and let him have it!!!
this "man" Sandusky is the lowest on the food chain. scum on top of scum.
The victims will have to be brave a second time. I hope they step forward so this liar, this fake, this animal will go to jail.
The sixth amendment does say that the accused has the right ot face his accuser. In most molestation cases that I have heard about, the accused face their accuser. But the court does not use use the victims real names. They are referred to as plaintiff 1,2,3 etc. I can see no valid reason for the victims to have to use their real names.
These victims are being victimized AGAIN
well I do agree with everyone, Sandusky is a scumbag, he has not been found guilty, but his name has been drug through the mud. If the victims are truthful (I do believe them) then put your name on the claim.
Anyone who testifies in a trial faces consequences and possible consequences! Everything from character assination to death threats, maybe more than threats. Perhaps, it shouldn't be that way but that's the way it is, in the real world.
People have the right to confront their accusers. Since there is no physical evidence in this case, it really comes down to the credibility of the accusers. I they are not identified, how could their credibility be examined. As much as one would like to protect these people from further embarrassment, there is no way to do so without violating the rights of the accused to confront his accusers.
I am all for hanging Sandusky since I believe he did it, but this ruling is 100% correct. The 6th Amendment clearly gives you the right to know the accusations against you, and who is making them. It does not give exemptions for specific crimes, or ages of the victims.
This is not the same as the media not publishing the names of victims, which is something they do voluntarily as part of journalistic ethics. People here seem to be confusing this issue with the ruling. Even in those cases where they are not named in the news, the victims still use their real names in court as the lawyer above noted.
The judge got this completely right. Now, the question is, will the media keep mum or not. It is the media that generally reveals victims' names. This is generally the same for female victims of rape. Now, whether or not the victims are called by their real names in open court I do not know, but the names of the accusers cannot be anonymous. These are not children - ven if they were when the crimes were perpetrated against them. The judge has to proceed under the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and judged as such by the jury.
This manufactured outrage and taking umbrage is retarded. Like the judge wrote, victims of crime in just about *all* trials all over the country have to step forward with their real identities when testifying, so why should these particular witnesses in this particular case be exempted from something that millions of other crime victims had to do since the founding of the US? The judge didn't rule something radical or extraordinary - he rejected the victims' attempt at getting treated in a way that is radical and extraordinary.
Logic of it is pretty simple: openness, particularly in high publicity cases like this, further helps the search for truth by allowing others with knowledge of the facts or the witnesses to come forth with information that might otherwise remain hidden. What if a witness had bragged a few years back about being out to get the defendant because of something unrelated to the alleged crime? If the witness is only known as "X9" or something, anybody in the public with relevant information or motives wouldn't know that maybe it's time to come forward with that, and so a miscarriage of justice that might've otherwise been prevented takes place.
There's nothing wrong with openness in court.
We have at least one EYE WITNESS account, and the eye witness took the story to their "boss" as soon as it happened. It is not merely his word against theirs. THey will grill the eye witness and those he spoke to following the incident, and if HE is found credible, Sandusky will be found guilty on at least that one count, which could lock him up the rest of his life.
the "right" to face your accuser is crap- what difference does it make who the person is if the facts and evidence are correct, all that does is discourage people from bringing charges for fear of retribution. what about the victims right to safety and justice? forcing victims of childhood crime to act this way is disgusting and i hope you people defending this dont have to watch your child be humiliated and lashed out at in public over something that happened when they were a child, i hope you dont have to lie awke and hope no unbalanced person take vigilante justice against your child for daring to prosecute a terrible person. it doesnt happen you say- what about the elderly couple terrorized because some vigilante leaked their address as george zimmermans? what about the assaults on women who resembled casey anthony? people and aholes do still try to take their twisted version of justice into their hands and it is wholly avoidable. tell me what difference does it make if my name is fred, or jorge or dina if i have proof you raped me?
"say you never did tell me your full name"
"just between you and and me, my name is irrelevant"
If you're going to invade my town for God knows how long, at least have the decency to spell it correctly: it's BELLEFONTE!
You beat me to it.
As a former resident, I thought the same thing. Let's make certain our facts and spelling are correct!
I hate it when a name is butchered.
I'm from the west coast. Have never set foot in PA and even I know the correct spelling. The only "Belafonte" I know of is (was) Harry.
"Invade my town" Get over yourself...no one is 'invading your town'.
Thats rich....but its perfectly ok for a child molester and his slimy lawyer to behave in any way they please.....while all you people in 'Happy Valley' sit back and reap the rewards of Penn State football....
Happy Valley....I think not. Seems like you all are suffering from some sort of identity problem...or would that be that Penn State hasn't yet told you all how to think or feel yet...?
Jet,
Angry much? Have a "Happy" day! Troll....
Jet - You do know that Penn State isn't in Bellefonte, don't you?
Jet,
If you knew anything at all about Happy Valley or the Centre County, PA area, you would know that it is a very wonderful place to live and work. What Jerry did was horrible and he will be held accountable. He is not a reflection of the rest of us who are privileged to live in this wonderful area. Further, if you knew anything about Bellefonte, you'd know it is a very small and mostly quiet town. For those who live and work there, it will feel like an invasion of sorts with all of the news media.
Those who testified against the priest in Boston (Sandusky on steroids) used their real names. As a child victim of abuse (my b ig brother was my Sandusky) I can tell you the shame of it isn't in what your name is or in even that people KNOW your name. The shame belongs to those who knew and allowed it to happen. In my case, dear old Dad. In the Boston priest case, the Archdiocese and in this case, Penn State Administrators. These victims, while traumatized and hurt, needn't be ashamed of anything. They should take some pride in showing the courage to come forward and putting this turd in the bowl where he belongs.
Randy,
Amen to that.
Bellefonte is a quiet, beautiful town full of old Victorian homes. It was once known as the "Cradle of Governors" back in the day, and the people there are friendly and hospitable. Centre County is one of the most picturesque places I have ever seen. So yes, this will be an invasion of sorts by the media, but necessarily so.
But don't confuse Jet with facts. It will ruin his perfectly good, hateful tirade about a place where he has probably never been. Love it when people use that giant brush to denigrate an entire region.
the town can change it's name for the trial...Tinker Bellafonta...then change it back afterward...got to protect that image...
plain bob,
Why does Bellefonte, the county seat of Centre County, (you know, where the "courthouse" is in every county in the U.S.), need to protect its image? Did they do something wrong? Please explain your logic. Nah, it's easier to post inane comments than actually think about what you are saying.
Another troll.
well it's kind'a oxy-moron... these people don't want their real name used at trial...but these other people are up in arms cause... they didn't give the right name to their town...and they act like it's beneath them to have the media in town...i was just say'n...a sign at the entrance to town...Welcome to Tinker Bellafondleta...might make one of their guest feel at home...then change the name of the town back after the trial ...so it's not tarnish by the media...troll harder...
plain bob,
Please review the gibberish you just posted. When you post, have a point. And btw, "just say'n" means you have no point, in case you were wondering. But you probably weren't, because it doesn't appear that thinking is one of your strong areas.
Illiterate troll...Is it plain bob, or just plain idiot?
Sandusky has the right to confront the witnesses against him and as noted since they are now adults it is assumed that they dont need to hide their identities, if they were kids that would be different.
Now to the person who suggested that if this had involved women as victimes (i.e. a rape case) that the womn could testify under an alias - no way, same thin applies.
In the news reports we dont see the names because the mainstream press - real ethical type reporters (not random bloggers) - do not publish the names of the victimes out of respect for thier privacy, this respect for privacy has nothing to do with denying the accused his full rights.
I have no problem with this as long as the "victims" are not children. Grown ass men should have no problem having their name stated in the court documents since it is those same men who started this law suit to begin with.
Actually, it was all started when Sandusky ass raped young boys.
This is not a law suit! This is a criminal trial brought on by the PA AG!
USA--get your facts straight. They are not suing him, he is being prosecuted. Our justice system relies on such witnesses to willingly testify and cooperate in order to convict criminals. The level of publicity of this trial will have will be unprecidented.....thus victimizing these people once again, adults or children is not relevant.
The victims were children, raped by a grown ass man who now cowers behind this incompetent judge. Other grown ass men did nothing to put a stop to this which is a real shame. Trauma like this at a young age can carry through to adulthood and beyond. Show some sympathy and some compassion you troll & tool.
*facepalm* usa is great, please go back to your corner. You should be ashamed of yourself and your ridiculous comments. I hope you never breed.
usa is great wrote "Grown ass men should have no problem having their name stated in the court documents since it is those same men who started this law suit to begin with."
As long as the same applies to women in rape cases.
Female rape victims are not identified because society has a tendency to view these women as "degraded" or "defiled" or possibly at fault for their abuse.
We really can't afford male victims less. This judge is very backward- understandable since it is in Pennsylvania.
I thought that they had grown men who witnessed that POS doing the deed. Just try him on that and leave the kids alone. Some judges do not belong in postions of authority when they are so mentally screwed up.
"I have no problem with this as long as the "victims" are not children."
Ummm the victims were children at the time of the crime. They weren't rape as grown ass men.
If these were children, their identities would be protected. THEY WERE CHILDREN AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. Identify them only if they are lying.
If they were women, their IDs would still be protected (as they should). This is an outrage. The judge should be removed!
Right on Terry. Sodomdusky is prolly giving it to the judge so now these traumatized people will face more humiliation and disgrace. Very sad.
Have any of you considered the possibility that he is innocent? If the accusers are really "victims" (which has not been determined yet), they should be willing to say so aloud, in public. The American system of justice was designed with a purpose in mind: to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If we pillory accused persons without any real evidence of guilt or an opportunity to defend themselves, this country will degenerate rapidly to mob rule. If he is truly guilty, telling the truth in public will serve to prove it.
@Traylor - I agree with what you say but to answer your question, nope.
Why cant the victims meet with the judge in chambers? Why expose someone to more degradation and humiltiation? If they were adults when this happened I wouldnt be too concerned about the names going public but trauma to a child has lifelong implications. In this case I disagree with exposing the victims to this. What exactly does revealing the names of the victims who were children at the time of the alleged incidents do for finding facts or determining evidence?
...
You should always have the right to know who your accusers are, and that is the way it should be..otherwise you end up with the kids that accused people in the Salem Witch trials. Not saying it good or could be better, I don't like it, but unless they are going to put them behind screens in the court room, that is the way it is. Now, if he allows the records open and it to be televised, that will be the last straw.This will be a good test of the media as well and see how well they uphold their moral obligation.
The accused can still face his accusers without plastering the victims names all over the place.
I'm sure as the accused testify, they can bring a photo of how they looked when they were abused, and Sandusky can lie his ass off, while reminiscing about how that particular ass felt.
Nobody got boned up the butt in Salem...
No you're right, a bunch of people just got killed by the government because a mob mentality took over.
Stunned at the idea that they can't face him in a court of law without stating their legal names. This is absurd. If they were women, we wouldn't even be reading this. Raped a second time by the justice process. How sad...
They haven't established they were raped the first time yet. You want to put someone away for life based on anonymous rumor? This is still America.
The 6th Amendment guarantees every accused person the right to face their accusers. The judge couldn't legally have made any other decision. This country should always be ruled by the law and not the mob. I think this guy is guilty but that doesn't matter.
Exactly--you can't have faceless, nameless people accusing you of a crime in this country.
He has the right to face his accuser(s) - if they don't like it, then they have the right to not testify.
I think there's a difference between facing your accusers (privately) and the accuser's face/name being publicly announced. He can still face them/know who they are without their names being released.
He would be facing his accusers, the names would just not be made part of the permanent record for the world to see. The people sitting in the court room observing have no need to know and neither does the press. The defense and the judge would have the names of the persons accusing him of the crime and that's all that's really necessary.
"This country should always be ruled by the law and not the mob"
Well, it did take mob marches and a war to end some laws, otherwise we still have slaves and women would still be second class citizens with no voice or right to vote.
And the news media is just dirty enough to list every name nation wide as BREAKING NEWS
Yes, this is the problem. The victim's identities are still largely protected if the media doesn't publish them. Let's see which, if any, media outlets refuse to name the victims.
My point exactly!
Once again the victims are victimized.
While they can state in front of the accused and the jury what their real names are...I think it should be kept from the public. The names of rape victims are kept private...the victims of sexual abuse as children should have those same rights.
These children/men were/are rape victims. Their lawyers have their names and sworn testimony and that should be enough for the court/judge and jury.
Yeah, just what a brutal, controlling rapist craves..............CONTROL and HUMILIATION. Great Job PA! N ow Sandusky gets to victimize these already tortured soles AGAIN. WTF?
Just great. So let's just have the victims be victimized again. This is absolutely sickening!
say ahhhhhhhh - The Sandusky defense team said they were okay with the names not being made public. He may be guilty of a bunch of stuff, but not this.
The defense wants the full names to be able to dig up background to discredit the victims. The same type of defense is used in rape cases.
cms - The defense already has the names. The defense sided with the prosecution about keeping the names from the public.
Have strength and come forward using your real names and testify. No one, with any sense would think bad of you.
Perverts like this must be exposed, prosecuted and removed from society. Besides, it sets a good example for other victims too embarrassed to talk.
Easy for you to say, what if you have never told anyone in your life what happened to you, not even your parents, and since time has gone by, now your wife, ect. After burying what happened for so long, you must stand in front of the whole world and relive all of that and have everyone now know you as having been abused by a pedophile. I can see why that would keep some people from testifying. Sure the judge and attorneys need to know who they are, the public does not.
completely agree with hiap
Men, no matter how old, have to deal with a lot of mental anguish when publically admitting to be molested by an older man. If there was decency in the media, the media would refrain from making their names public, and court documents would only release their names on a need-to-know basis. I hope the best for these men who had the courage to speak up. It is so difficult for victims of sexual crimes to step forward and let themselves be known to the public. They have gone through so much torment personally, and yet they are being required to make it known publically. I can only imagine their mental anguish at this time.
Why is this taking so long and why does this judge keep ruling like this. This is really awful and I feel sorry for those kids who are being victimized again.
They aren't kids--they are adults.
They have to stand up and make the accusation in court, not hide behind a lawyer.
Every accused has the legal right to face their accuser.
It's the law...period.
Kimbo you're a fricken broken record. You only need to post your drivel once.
Apparently I do because of people, like you, that consider one guilty until proven innocent.
But thanks for taking the time for the insult--appreciate it!
"They aren't kids--they are adults.
They have to stand up and make the accusation in court, not hide behind a lawyer.
Every accused has the legal right to face their accuser.
It's the law...period."
You are a heartless MONSTER. They WERE children at the time of sexual molestation. They can stand up and make the accusation in court WITHOUT having to release their names to the entire world. Crawl back to your hellhole, troll.
Justice is blind and slow.
Not a troll.
A mother, wife and retired veteran of the military.
I have managed to get my point across without calling anyone names or making vile insults.
But apparently you can't seem to muster the decorum to behave yourself on an internet forum.
I can.
Now they have to relive the abuse all over again with their real identities revealed. Does the judge want them to back out rather than have to testify? Hmmm . . . interesting defense plan.
Alleged abuse, alleged...it has not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
An accusation is exactly that - an accusation - and nothing more.
@Kimbo
Have you read the grand jury report? The alleged abuse listed in that report turns my stomach.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf
Have you read the recent article Confessions of a Pedophile Priest?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONFESSIONS_OF_A_PEDOPHILE_PRIEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-01-04-33-24
This article is revealing because he used the same 'tickle' 'back rub' ruse that Sandusky used. He also didn't feel that he had done anything wrong.
I understand how the justice system works and I understand that he will have his day in court. However, with what has been revealed to date...it is disgustingly apparent that it is MORE than just an accusation.
Kinbo is obviously either a Sandusky lover or a pedophile (or both) who will enjoy seeing the victims humiliated in court just as much as Sandusky.
cms5 - facts have come out after the grand jury presentment that show there is misinformation in that presentment.
Or maybe Kinbo wants to see justice done and believes in the rule of law. Maybe Kindo doesn't believe people should be convicted on accusations alone. If we convict solely based on accusations, how long will it be before everyone is in jail?
wryview
Please post your source.
The one off the top of my head is where the presentment stated that McQuery saw sex. The transcripts of his actual testimony says he 'assumed' it was sex. It was hard to find, but here it is:
The First False Assertion:
On pages six and seven of the grand jury presentment one reads the second-hand summary of testimony given to the grand jury by the Penn State “graduate assistant,” subsequently identified to be Mike McQueary. According to this second-hand account, McQueary “saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”
That assertion is false! Why? First, because, in December 2010, nearly a year before the release of the grand jury presentment, McQueary had given investigators a hand-written statement in which he asserted: “I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring.” [Sara Ganim, Harrisburg Patriot-News 11 December 2011].
His inarticulate language aside, if McQueary’s hand-written statement (denying that he saw insertion) is accurate, then the grand jury report must be wrong, because anal intercourse is defined as “the sex act in which the penis is inserted into the anus of a sexual partner.” If McQueary didn’t see insertion, then he didn’t actually see anal intercourse.
Based upon all of his published testimony, McQueary seems to have believed that the intercourse already had occurred, due to: (1) some “slapping sounds” he remembered hearing only in the hallway leading to the locker room and (2) the vision he had of a naked Sandusky standing closely behind a young boy, after McQueary entered the locker room and looked into a mirror seconds later. But that belief is much more tentative and speculative than the starkly certain eye-witness account of “anal intercourse” found in the grand jury presentment. Thus, somebody appears to have tampered with McQueary’s testimony.
Moreover, if you examine Mike McQueary’s subsequent testimony, which was given on 16 December 2011 at the preliminary hearing for Penn State’s former Athletic Director, Tim Curley, and its former Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz, you’ll see that McQueary is steadfast in his assertion that he never saw “insertion.” Twice, McQueary asserted the essence of this sworn testimony: “I did not see insertion nor was there any verbiage or protest, screaming or yelling, so I can’t sit here and say that I know 100 percent sure that there was intercourse, but that’s what I said to myself and that’s what I believed was happening.” [Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, pp.13-14, p. 72] When he was asked if he saw “the look of pain on the boy’s face,” McQueary said, “no.”[p. 97]
Later, under cross-examination, McQueary was even more emphatic: “I have never used the word anal or rape in this—since day one.” [Transcript, pp. 71-72] Thus, the reader must doubt the grand jury presentment every time it summarizes McQueary’s testimony by asserting he saw something “anal.”
Use your common sense: Should we believe the more prosaic first-hand testimony that McQueary provided both in his hand-written statement and in his subsequent testimony under oath? Or should we believe the vivid and inflammatory allegation of “anal intercourse” found in the second-hand summary of his testimony?
The Second False Assertion:
After falsely asserting that McQueary “saw a naked boy…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky,” the author who summarized the grand jury presentment made a very misleading assertion when he wrote that: McQueary “went to Paterno’s home, where he reported what he had seen.” [Grand Jury Report, p. 7]
Obviously, by linking the false assertion that McQueary “saw a naked boy…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky” to the assertion that McQueary “reported what he had seen” to Paterno, the author who summarized McQueary’s testimony wants American readers to believe that the grand jurors believed that McQueary went to Paterno and told him that he witnessed Sandusky engaged in anal intercourse with a young boy. Perhaps, the jurors did.
But, as we now know – given his hand- written statement in December 2010 and his subsequent actual testimony under oath on 16 December 2011 – McQueary has testified that he never witnessed insertion and never used the word anal.
In addition, McQueary testified under oath that he never used the term “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” when he notified Paterno about what he saw in the shower on 1 March 2002. [p. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, p. 25] (In fact, McQueary testified under oath that he could not recall using the words “sexual assault,” when talking to Paterno, or even using the word “crime” to describe Sandusky’s behavior) Actually, McQueary’s preliminary hearing testimony substantiates Paterno’s earlier assertion (in a news release) that McQueary “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.” [Star-Ledger Wire Services, Nov. 8, 2011]
I must admit, when I first heard Paterno dispute what I took to be McQueary’s grand jury testimony, I thought, “McQueary must be lying!” Thus, like many other thoughtless Americans at the time, it didn’t occur to me that the author who summarized McQueary’s grand jury testimony in the presentment might have crafted a misleading assertion.
It’s also worth mentioning at this point that McQueary did testify he was sure he used the term “fondling” when talking to Paterno on 2 March 2002. Thus, that testimony clearly substantiates Paterno’s grand jury testimony, where he asserted that he told Athletic Director Tim Curley that McQueary “had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” [Grand Jury Report, p. 7] It also answers the question posed by many disparagers of Paterno: “How was the sordid anal intercourse witnessed by McQueary passed up Penn State’s chain of command by Paterno as mere “fondling?” Now you know. Anal intercourse was never mentioned, but Sandusky’s rough positioning and fondling were!
Thus, the evidence strongly suggests that the grand jury presentment’s second-hand summary of McQueary’s testimony – which strongly and directly implied that McQueary told Paterno he witnessed anal intercourse — is false.
Again, simply ask yourself: Should we believe the prosaic first-hand, testimony by both McQueary and Paterno about “fondling,” and their denials about any discussion of anal intercourse? Or should we believe the second-hand account of McQueary’s testimony that misleads the reader into inferring that McQueary told Paterno about anal intercourse?
After you’ve reached the correct conclusion, think about all the misplaced outrage and abuse directed at Paterno by media jackals and the many jackasses they incited, who thoughtlessly swallowed that misleading inference and indignantly asked: “How could Paterno have done so little after being told about the rape of a child?” Message to planet earth: Paterno never was told about a rape!
The Third False Assertion:
On page seven of the grand jury presentment, the second-hand summary of McQueary’s testimony states: McQueary “reported to Curley and Schultz that he had witnessed what he believed to be Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in the Lasch Building Showers.” [p. 7] This assertion is closer to the truth, but also appears to be false, if only because McQueary subsequently testified on 16 December 2011 that he “never used the word anal or rape in this – since day one.”
Moreover, McQueary specifically testified that he did not use the words “sodomy” or “anal intercourse” when he reported what he saw to Curley and Schultz some ten days after talking to Paterno. [Transcript, p. 34.]
Nevertheless, when reading the preliminary hearing transcript, which contained the full verbatim testimony provided by Curley and Schultz to the grand jury on January 12, 2011, I was struck by the persistence with which the prosecutors questioned both Curley and Schultz about whether McQueary ever mentioned “anal sex” by Sandusky to them. Why would they pursue the “anal intercourse” or “anal sex” line of questioning if McQueary had not given these attorneys reason to believe that is what he saw?
Why? Because, McQueary never wavered in his impression that Sandusky had engaged in anal sex, even if he never used the word anal and never witnessed the act of insertion.
Nevertheless, McQueary’s testimony at the preliminary hearing buttresses the assertion attributed to Curley in the grand jury report: “When asked if the graduate assistant had reported ‘anal sex between Jerry Sandusky and this child,’ Curley testified, ‘Absolutely not.’” [p. 8] Thus, both McQueary and Curley have testified under oath that they never discussed “anal sex,” notwithstanding the second-hand summary in the grand jury presentment that has McQueary testifying precisely to “anal sex.”
Similarly, since McQueary and Curley agree that they never discussed anal sex during their conversation, Gary Schultz – who was at that same meeting – could not have heard any discussion of “anal sex.” But that did not stop one of the prosecutors from asking Schultz: “Would you agree with me that if it had been sodomy, that is, anal sex, that would clearly be inappropriate sexual conduct.” Schultz answered, “No doubt,” but he subsequently asserted that he didn’t recall McQueary “telling us what he observed specifically.” [Transcript, p. 226] Thus, Schultz had “no indication that a crime occurred.”[p. 229]
Again, ask yourself: Should I believe the first-hand testimony of McQueary, Paterno, Curley and Schultz? Or should I believe the second-hand summary of McQueary’s testimony found in the grand jury presentment?
Thus, for a third time, it appears that the grand jury presentment has falsely summarized McQueary’s testimony. Should we be surprised?
No. Not if you consider another example where the summarization of McQueary’s testimony in the grand jury presentment is contradicted by his subsequent testimony at the preliminary hearing.
Consider this: The grand jury report asserts that: As McQueary “entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds.” [p. 6]
Yet, when under cross-examination by Curley’s lawyer, McQueary testified that he passed through two sets of doors, separated by a hallway, before entering the locker room that had the showers. He also testified to hearing the slapping sounds upon entering the first set of doors. Thus, he was in the hallway, not the locker room when he heard the slapping sounds. In fact, when Curley’s lawyer asked him if he heard the slapping sounds after he entered the second set of doors, McQueary asserted that he couldn’t recall. [pp. 53-54 of Transcript]
Thus, if we are inclined to believe McQueary’s first hand testimony under oath to second-hand summaries of that testimony, then the grand jury presentment appears to have gotten the facts wrong again!
Were these false summaries of McQueary’s testimony in the grand jury presentment accidental, or were they part and parcel of a “prosecutorial document designed to get convictions and to sway public opinion?” [Bill Kline, “It was a witch hunt at Penn State,” The Morning Call, November 18, 2011] The very inflammatory use of “anal intercourse,” when McQueary has made it a point to deny that he ever used the word “anal,” convinces me that the insertion of inflammatory false statements into the grand jury presentment was intentional.
TZ-3189354
I'm a 25-year veteran of the military with two grown children and a husband.
What I am is a citizen who believes in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
What I am is an adult with enough experience to know that people lie, people make up stories and people falsely accuse...it happens everyday.
What I am is someone who wants the law to work as it's supposed to - allow the accused to have their day is court and be proven guilty of any charges levied.
What I am not is one of the idiots posting on this subject that have decided they are judge, jury and executioner without any personal knowledge of what has or has not happened.
What I am not is one to assume guilt just because a finger has been pointed.
But apparently....you are.
wryview
Interesting. Who wrote this piece?
It comes down to did McQueary see 'insertion'...tell Paterno there was 'insertion'...pass the 'insertion' information on to Curley or Shultz...did McQueary see the look of 'pain' on the boys face? Really? Those are the argued inaccuracies?
Regardless...an adult male naked in a shower with a 10 year old child that is NOT his own, after hours, is highly inappropriate. Seems the majority of his victims 'showered' with him. Is 'insertion' required for sexual abuse to have occurred?
Pedophiles rely on everyone believing their story. An upstanding citizen would never.... Those of us who actually know a pedophile have heard it all. They have many explanations lined up and ready to use. You see, they truly believe they are innocent...they've done nothing wrong. Even when confronted...will not stop their deviant behaviors. Years later, when their victims choose to face them...they continue to deny any wrongdoing.
cms- What? No comment on my proof?
wryview
ah...the comment would be 12.9
Your comment wasn't there when I posted my question. I don't remember WHO wrote the piece, but it cites plenty of sources. No matter how much PROOF I give you, you won't accept it. But then, that's your problem.
McQueary, in his testimony earlier this year, stated that he did NOT see penetration. Don't ask for my source - just google it. It's in several articles - take your pick.
I'm fairly certain that the charges concerning this particular shower incident will be dropped or found "not guilty" - because no one knows who the victim is; McQueary says he didn't actually see sex & there is no agreement on when it actually allegedly occurred.
We can assume there was - but there is NO proof & NO victim to testify to it. Therefore, he probably won't be convicted on that particular charge.
Showering in and of itself is not a crime (or at least wasn't in 2001 or 2002 - whenever the heck it occurred.)
Do I think he did it? Yes. But do I think they can they PROVE all of it? No.
Ok, I think you may be looking at one individual charge...if it's even one of the charges.
I asked who wrote the piece because opines of the media cannot be consider proof anymore than our vine statements. Neither would be admissable in court.
It is one of the charges. That is why McQueary testified. Did you check out the citations in the piece? Probably not, because you don't want to believe that the prosecution bends the grand jury presentments to suit their needs. If you are hell-bent on not believing it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it to you. I have better things to do.
Ok...a little searching and here's the link to your 'proof'.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Three-False-Assertions-by-by-Walter-Uhler-120118-176.html
This link is McQueary's testimony at the Curley hearing
http://onwardstate.com/2011/12/16/mike-mcqueary-testimony-recap/
Again, I cannot consider opines of the media to be factual, nor is it proof. HAGD
I ask this out of simple curiosity. If he is found not guilty, how would you guys personally feel about it? Would you feel the legal system has brought out the truth? Or has he already been convicted in your minds and the legal system has failed society once again? While I personally believe he is guilty, I'm not sure how I would react to a not-guilty verdict.
If he was found not guilty, he could join the catholic church and molest boys with the church's blessing.
twogap, this is why my condemnations are usually reserved. If Sandusky is found not guilty, people will still think he got away with it because of the adult careers and lives that have already been destroyed over what has already been sworn by first hand witnesses. Can anyone say Joe Paterno? Joe Paterno was just one of many who paid the price for this man's proclivates. Joe Parterno was definitely screwed over in my opinion. He could have done more to expedite an earlier charge by the state perhaps, but the mere allegations are dangerous considering who Sandusky was and is. At this point, it would take an unusual amount of consideration for Sandusky to be found not guilty, in spite of any and all dog and pony tricks his lawyers are pulling, such as this latest drama.
Get it straight they were raped and no one needs to know who they were then or now.
This is another case of innocent until proven guilty.
Just because he's been accused doesn't make him guilty.
These people are adults, no longer children--same protections do not apply.
They had no problem smearing his name all over the press in their accusations, but THEY want to be protected? Double-standard--he's not a convicted child molester - he's an accused child molester. He has not been found guilty in a court of law.
Just because someone says they were abused doesn't make it so. Money has a strange way of helping people remember things that didn't happen--just look at history for proof.
Innocent until proven guilty, innocent until proven guilty--I don't know how many times we have to shove it down people's throats to get it. You'll get it if you end up on the other side of the fence someday.
And OJ was innocent of the Murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, whatever.
Innocent until proven guilty only works if you have plenty of money, for the rest of us it's guilty until proven innocent.
I was on the otherside of the fence for 116 days for something I didn't do, take your notion of innocent until proven guilty and put it where the sun don't shine
Technically it is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That presumption is not a given RIGHT.
If this were a civil case seeking a monetary settlement...I would agree with your statement that Money has a way of helping people remember...however, this is a criminal trial. The victims are testifying for the commonwealth.
Hey, the system isn't infallible--mistakes are made.
Glad you made it out.
But I find it very interesting that your avatar is a marijuana leaf--very interesting...
Presumption of innocence is the same thing. You are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
He has not been proven guilty of anything, except the court of public opinion, which means nothing (to me anyway).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presumption+of+Innocence
Yeah, Kimbo47. Go send your son to visit. These people 'smeared his name'? Uh huh. By finally telling how he raped and abused them?
You make a great cheerleader for Sandusky. We get it already, the overwhelming evidence and testimony of people who actually saw Sandusky raping a child doesn't mean a thing. It all could just be a giant misunderstanding. Right, sure. Keep posting.
You are a sorry excuse for a human being Kimbo. I pray to God you haven't and will never breed.
52 counts that he sexually abused 10 boys over a 15-year period, Sandusky, 68, has repeatedly denied the charges. Somebody is lying. In court that is called perjury. 10 against 1, hmmmm!
Kimbo47
Kimbo47 you are just downright delusional. Tell me where and when any one of these victims went to the press and made their accusations.
Your claim that the victims have been publicly smearing Jerry Sandusky is preposterous.
The victims filed a criminal complaint. The DA built a case. The case went to a grand jury. The grand jury felt there was enough evidence for trial. Along the lines the press found out and reported. None of these victims have gone to a national or local media outlet with these claims.
At this point this is a criminal case not a civil case. There is no money involved. If and when this does become a civil case and about damages feel free to rant away about the victims wanting money.
52 counts that he abused, etc., etc., etc.
Go look up the story of the Martin PreSchool accusations in 1983. By 1984, parents claimed that a total of 360 children were abused at this preschool.
None of it was proven and the defendants were aquitted of all charges. One of the accusers even came forward later as an adult and said he lied, it didn't happen.
Now tell me....I'm delusional? Groups of people don't lie about something "like this?" Right!
One filed a complaint, then the rest jumped on the bandwagon, just like the McMartin case.
Now, I don't presume to know whether it did or did not happen--what my point is--is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An accusation does not a conviction make. You'd be singing a different tune if someone was pointing the finger at you, you would want the law to consider you innocent until proven guilty, right? Doesn't everyone deserve the same consideration?
Hell, I could point the finger at you and say you raped me--does that make it so?
And as far as the "touching" mirroring what Catholic priests have said--well everyone has access to that information on the internet.
And mark my words, there will be a CIVIL case, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not.
Kimbo47 you say this
then you say this
so because of the Martin preschool case the victims in the Sandusky case have no right to accuse Jerry Sandusky?
But yes I do you believe you are delusional when you say things like this
and by posting something like that you are doing the exact opposite of what you claim in an earlier post
@Kimbo
These cases are not comparable. In the PreSchool case...the alleged victims were still CHILDREN. Children are pliable and it was obvious that the children were led.
In this case...the victims are now adults.
I personally know adult victims and how the abuse affected their lives. I've seen them confront their abuser and heard the abuser deny everything. This person was a well respected person in the community...the victims did not press charges and they didn't make it public. Those of us close to them were 'informed' so that we could make certain our children were never alone with this person.
Rarely are charges brought against a person unless there's testimony and evidence to back up those charges. In fact, many guilty people walk the streets while evidence is compiled against them. While you may point the finger at someone and accuse them of rape...without evidence or testimony...that would truly be just an accusation.
Sandusky will see these very brave men in the court room. The public and the media DO NOT need to know these men; as they should be protected like any other rape victim would be, regardless of their current age. Sandusky is the only one that needs to be exposed to the public and the media.
The person accusing someone of rape must testify in court and use their real name.
Kim, you apparently are not even casually familiar with how our justice system works. I believe I learned about it in 6th grade. Additionally, there is nothing remotely "brave" about an adult accusing another adult male of any action; it the accusations are true, it's simply what you do.
Spoken by someone who obviously has never been the victim of childhood sexual assault.
I was abused by multiple people in multiple ways when I was a kid. At 5, me and the neighborhood kids by a evil dirty old man. In 5th grade by some older boys and my dads, lifetime best friend. In sixth grade I was gang raped by multiple older boys. In 8th grade I was raped in a Mormon church. In High School I was date raped. In High School my English teacher abused me. So excuse me the hell out of me but I never had the balls to confront my rapists nor tell anyone what was happening to me; including my parents.
Sandusky will be proven guilty and these men are very brave for finally standing up to him, as I could of never done it. I still stand that the public and the media do not need to know who these young men are.
I am a woman if that matters.
@Kim
Then you, above all others, should understand how devastating having one's name and identity plastered all over the news and internet would be - you couldn't even tell your parents, in secret, for the love of God.
Seriously, you exhibit some interesting characteristics here...most normal survivors of multiple (and I'm sure violent) rapes would NOT be defending an accused rapist/pedophile.
Just saying.
@Jet
Please read Kim from Utah's post again. I don't see where she's defending Sandusky.
* You might be thinking of the multiple Kimbo47 posts.
By the way, I was also abused as a child, by three different male relatives.
And I STILL believe that you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Jeez, how hard is that to understand. Just because someone points a finger at you doesn't mean you did what they said.
Good grief people--I'm not condoning child abuse--I was a victim myself--but what I can't stand is to see someone convicted without a fair trial--I wouldn't want it to happen to me or anyone else.
And for the person/people who said I must be a Sandusky lover, etc. News flash--I've never even been to PA, didn't know who he was until the scandal broke and I'm not a Penn State fan. I don't even live in that part of the country.
I am a fan of the justice system and believe in allowing it to work - that's all.
If the rest of you want to assume there is something more than that--well you have the right to do so.
Unless you have never been abused, then you do not understand what it does to you as a young child. See you think, you believe you are the only one that has suffered this. You are too embarrassed to say anything to anyone, because who is going to believe you!?!?!?! Really who is going to believe you!!!!!!!
Then when your mind has fully matured and you turn into an adult, you start to realize it was all painfully wrong, but you are still too embarrassed to stand up for yourself. Really who is going to believe you!!!!!!!
So the reason Sandusky has so many accusers against him is because one, just one very brave person had enough balls to open his mouth. Then another abused person thought, well if he can do it, so can I. There is safety in numbers or bravery in numbers, but it all started with one brave person.
Sandusky will pay for what he did; it is just too bad that the media and public will sentence these brave men to a new kind of hell.
I just wonder what you would all think and believe if it was your kid, your brother, that had been abused by Sandusky??? Really who is going to believe you!!!!!!!
Kim From Utah
It was me, I've also been a victim, more than once.
But I still believe in letting the law do it's job. I will not stand by and watch someone convicted in the court of public opinion, without a fair trial and that person being convicted in a court of law.
And maybe I am a different type of person--I had and have no problem with standing up and pointing a finger at my accuser(s)--no problem whatsoever.
It is a common legal standard for accusers to testify using their real names. It is up to the media to refrain from using their names.
No way the media will refrain from using their names...that would be too decent . More importantly, not using their names would get in the way of making money by attracting readers/viewers who want to learn the most trivial and/or intimate details about the lives of the accusers.
First is was Sandusky, now it is this judge...the media will victimize the accusers a third time.
Victims always testify under their own names.
Me, no they don't. Most states have provisions for victims of sexual assault to choose to use a pseudonym. The person still faces the defendant in court, the attorneys and the judge know the person's name but it's not part of the public record. Do a bit of research!!
No, they don't get to use a pseudonym. There are court rules, as there are in my state, about not including the name in court documents, motions, etc. Instead you use initials or just the first name and last initial. But when a victim is sworn in to testify under oath, I have never in 11 years of practice heard of that victim not using his or her proper name.
This man is a filth and a waste of space here on earth; I hope he is convicted and raped in prison.
He might like it.
As much as I dislike child abuse .... child rapists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then put to death when convicted. That said, as I read the outrage expressed towards Sandusky I am convinced the media has tried and convicted this man, without a trial. Sandusky has the right to face his accusers, period. If they are not man enough to face him and testify against him using their identities, then Sandusky should walk. Protecting the identity of the accusers can be done in a closed court (without the media present) but the media hoards would be screaming about their First Amendment rights rather than due process.
You can't have it all, protecting the identity of the accusers, courtroom open access for the media, and protecting the rights of the accused. Wish the judge would considering closing the courtroom, sequestering the jury and unmercifully hammering any leaks to the media, for the duration of the trial.
How many times in recent memory has the media tried and convicted the accused, wrongly. Later, perhaps due to new evidence or DNA evidence the convicted has been shown to be innocent and then released. I don't see the media issuing apologies, or offering to compensate the newly released .... who they wrongly accused and published in the first place!
Bear in mind, I am not saying Sandusky is innocent .... I am saying he has the right to a fair trial - one that is not conducted by media clowns but by a judge and jury of his peers. If he is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be executed .... period.
You're just not getting it Brian. I, and others are upset because EVERYONE will know the victims' names. Of course Sandusky should and he already does, they'ved testified before the grand jury and his attorney was there for that...so yeah he knows their names. What everyone is upset about is that everyone will now know their names. Get a fricken clue before you post your moronic little tirade.
You missed the point totally - you have jumped on the bandwagon with all the others. A lemming by any other name.
You might also want to consider your appropriate use of the english language.
You should have thought of that before you used "lemming" incorrectly.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I agree with all those who say because the now men were raped as children, they should be permitted to use an alias when testifying.
Children who testify aren't permitted to use aliases.
How soon we forget that people can "jump on the bandwagon" and accuse someone of something that actually didn't happen.
Let's not forget the 80's and ALL those children/parents accusing day care workers of molesting them and IT NEVER HAPPENED.
But that didn't matter to the court of public opinion--they were convicted and their lives ruined for something that never happened and it was later proved it didn't happen but it was too late for them - they became the real victims.
So let's not be too quick to assume, because there are multiple accusers, that it "actually" happened.
It's been proven in the past that you can have multiple accusers for something that never actually took place.
That's why you must presume he's innocent until he's proven guilty.
Come on guys, you would want the same benefit provided to you if you were in a situation where you were accused of a crime.
And those eye witnesses that saw Sandusky raping the kid in the shower? I'm sure they were having a group hallucination. This is NOT testimony of a few 4 and 5 yr olds. These are adults that saw what he was doing, and adults that covered it up.
Me thinks you doth protest too much. Mrs. Sandusky??
@vttova: Yeah, heaven forbid anyone should get a fair trail just because you've made up your mind after hearing only part of the story.
Adults have testified to what he did Kimbo, not just the victims. Man I have NEVER seen anyone hop on the bandwagon of a pedophile. You have completely twisted ideas of what is right and wrong. And it's quite obvious where your...proclivities lie. Isn't it great that you can come on websites like this... be completely anonymous and proclaim how important it is that victims go through more humiliation for the delight of you and other abusers?
vttove - There were only TWO so-called eye witnesses. One has dementia and the other says he never actually saw sex. And the prosecution doesn't even know who those two victims are. So, I'd say Sandusky will beat those charges.
Since we're not the judge nor jury...why must we presume he is innocent? Should we ignore the grand jury report and the fact that there is more than one or two accusers?
cms5 - The grand jury PRESENTMENT was full of inaccuracies & the information was cherry-picked to make the prosecution case look good. That is what a grand jury presentment in PA does.
A grown man in a shower with a child that is not his own - after hours - is okey dokey with you huh?
What makes you believe that YOU and the PUBLIC need to know the accuser's names? Sandusky and his entire defense team have already met the accusers. And if the allegations are true Sandusky knows a little more than just the accusers names. Nobody in the general public needs to know any of the accusers names for any reason. I'm not saying Sandusky actually raped anyone, I'm just saying that only the judge/defense/prosecution need to know the accuser's names and nobody else.
@wryview
Again, please post your source regarding the inaccuracies in the Grand Jury Report.
cms - I never said it was okay. But you need proof. See above for source material. And it is NOT a Grand Jury Report. It is a Grand Jury PRESENTMENT.
Imagine letting people run around knowing that they would never have to use their real name in a court case like this. I would think that would be at least some incentive to use accusations of sexual misconduct as a weapon against a potentially innocent person.
I am not saying that victims should have this burden as well as the humiliation, but for the sake of curbing false accusations, I would say that real names in court are extremely important. Those who are found to have made up accusations should never enjoy any anonymity, and unfortunately, you must treat each accusation with skepticism and at least some doubt from the start. Without this, courts would be predisposed to believing any accusation made.
I am not in disagreement with the victims using their real names in front of the accused and the judge and jury. The public should not be given this information...PERIOD.
The defense will try to discredit the witnesses using character and background information...without real names, they can't do that can they? This is where the victims will be victimized once again.
Victimized again, this time by the court system. The media has no morals to keep their names private, so the victims will likely be smeared all over the Internet and tv. And they wonder why victims are hesitant to come forward after that are raped.
I agree with the judge on this one. Given the length of time that has passed and the circumstances in which they are coming out of the wood works to accuse. He Has a right to face his accusers. I've been through what they've had happen to them and as a victim it is hard but you let him win if he scare you away from facing him. If it is all true. They should make him face them and dare him to lie to their faces and point him out. I did and it has made me stronger. Make him face up to what he did. And show other victims or potential ones how to stand strong.
Sandusky has faced his accusers..... Get a clue, the outrage is over the fact that now the PUBLIC will know the accuser's names which is totally unnecesary.