http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/football/ncaa ... =hp_t2_a18

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky asked a judge Thursday to throw out the child sex abuse charges against him, arguing some counts are not specific enough, evidence is lacking in others and the statute of limitations may have run out regarding eight of the 10 alleged victims.

The catch-all pretrial motion also sought to delay the May 14 start of Sandusky's trial, saying more time was needed to prepare a defense.

"We raised a number of issues that we thought were pertinent for various reasons," said his lawyer, Joe Amendola. "But the judge will have to decide that. We'll see what happens."

The omnibus pretrial motion, as it is called, is standard in Pennsylvania criminal cases.

Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the state attorney general's office, said the document was under review, and prosecutors planned to respond in writing within a week. An April 5 court proceeding in Bellefonte has been scheduled to hash out any remaining disputes.

Sandusky, 68, is confined to his home in State College while awaiting trial, and has denied the allegations against him. He is accused of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period.

The case against Sandusky led to the firing of head football coach Joe Paterno, who administrators said did not do enough once he learned about part of the allegations, and spawned criminal charges against two school officials.

Amendola asked Judge John Cleland to compel prosecutors to disclose the nature, times and locations of "any criminal offenses or acts of misconduct," beyond those for which he's been charged, if they plan to introduce them at trial.

Amendola wants to be able to question prospective jurors individually and said jurors should be sequestered at trial because the case has received extensive publicity. He said it could take up to two weeks to pick a jury.

The filing argues that a June search of Sandusky's home was illegal and seeks to prevent prosecutors from using the material at trial. That search yielded computers, records, CDs, DVDs, photos and other items.

A similar suppression motion was filed regarding conversations between Sandusky and two alleged victims, identified as Victim 1 and Victim 9 in court records. Amendola said prosecutors have said they plan to use at trial a seven-minute conversation with Victim 1 in June 2009, as well as a conversation with Victim 9 about four days after Sandusky was arrested in early November.

The motion said Sandusky was not read his Miranda rights when he was questioned once or twice by a Penn State police detective in 1998, so the record of those interviews should not be allowed as evidence. The 1998 investigation, begun after a mother complained to authorities that her son showered with Sandusky, did not result in any charges being filed at the time.

Amendola said the charges related to the young man called Victim 2 should be thrown out because prosecutors have said his identity is not known, and are basing their case on the testimony of Mike McQueary, who said he witnessed the boy being attacked by Sandusky in a football team shower in 2002.

McQueary's testimony at the December preliminary hearing, Amendola wrote, "did not establish sufficient evidence to support these charges."

The defense said the trial should be delayed because new potential witnesses have surfaced from the materials that prosecutors have already turned over, and that the discovery process continues.

The motion also said that without a delay, Sandusky might not be able to put on the stand athletic director Tim Curley and retired vice president Gary Schultz, both awaiting their own trial on charges they lied to a grand jury and did not properly report suspected child abuse.

Amendola wrote that if that trial occurs in May, Curley and Schultz may invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination, which would compromise Sandusky's constitutional right to due process of law.

Amendola said Sandusky may have an alibi defense, but so far has not been provided enough specifics about the allegations to know for sure. He asked Cleland to force disclosure of any juvenile adjudication records of all potential witnesses



Interesting that the defense is trying to get anything gathered on the search of JS's home thrown out of court. Obviously they found something incriminating or the fact that they didn't would be a major feather in the cap of the defense. I'd love to hear the pedy's excuse when they find naked pictures of boys on a computer disk under his mattress.

On May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998, Penn State University police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on conversations Jerry Sandusky had with the mother of a boy later identified as “Victim 6″ in a 2011 grand jury presentment alleging 40 criminal counts of child sexual abuse against eight victims by the former Penn State football coach. (The alleged victim count has since increased to 10, with 52 criminal charges.)

The Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment described Schreffler’s surveillance of Sandusky and the alleged victim’s mother in 1998:

Detective Schreffler testified .. The mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about showering with her son, the effect it had on her son, whether Sandusky had sexual feelings when he hugged her naked son in the shower and where Victim 6’s buttocks were when Sandusky hugged him.

Sandusky said he had showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy
again but he would not.

She asked him if his “private parts” touched Victim 6 when he bearhugged him. Sandusky replied, “I don’t think so…maybe.”

At the conclusion of the second conversation, after Sandusky was told he could not see Victim 6 anymore, Sandusky said, “I
understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”

In a PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE report published on Dec. 18, 2011, Penn State detective Schreffler said of his investigation of Sandusky, “At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”

Of his surveillance of Sandusky, Schreffler also told the Post-Gazette:

“I’ll never forget this. He (Sandusky) said ‘I would ask for your forgiveness, but I know you won’t give it to me. I wish I were dead. I understand I was wrong’

“Hearing him make that comment, I just felt there was more there. He was upbeat when he came in, and she started hammering him. I often wonder what he would have done if I’d stepped out from around the corner.”

” … I felt my hunch was right. There was something there.”

In the same December 2011 newspaper story, Post-Gazette reporter Paula Reed Ward wrote:

Mr. Schreffler and Jerry Lauro, a child abuse investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Mr. Sandusky on June 1, 1998. During that interview at the Lasch football building on Penn State’s campus, Mr. Schreffler said the man admitted to showering with boys.

“He said that he showered with other boys in the past, that he used poor judgment,” he said.

.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.

“It’d be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn’t any abuse.”

The Pennsylvania “state Department of Public Welfare” investigator in the case in 1998 was Gerald Lauro.

Thursday the HARRISBURG PATRIOT-NEWS reported the following 2011 quote from Lauro in regards to why he dropped his inquiry of Sandusky in 1998:

“I remember my last conversation with [Schreffler] concerning him hiding in that room. He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.’”

Yesterday the Patriot-News also reported that two “hidden” reports from psychologists who interviewed the Sandusky accuser in 1998 were allegedly never made available to Lauro by Schreffler. From P-N reporter Sara Ganim:

Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist.

Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.

“The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. … It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”

Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.

Clearly all of the statements made by Schreffler and Lauro cannot be true but whether those irreconcible differences indicate some manner of coverup remains to be seen.

At the very least, it’s impossible to think that the current Sandusky investigation teams will ignore such dramatically contradictory accounts of a 1998 Penn State-led investigation which in the end allowed Sandusky to allegedly sexual abuse children for more than an additional decade.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/has-proof ... rged-30002

_________________
Colbert on the #Steelers RB situation: "Where we were in running game last year was indicative in the talent at the position.''

Yeah, i read about those conversatiosn in 98. I was talking about weather they found anything on his personal computer for instance. What is your point?

I say put him in a room with Victim #1 - 10 and see what happens.

Fucking sick bastard shouldn't be allowed to be at home. Jail seems a bit too lenient also.

He would probably take advantage of them all again.

Some how I doubt that.

I believe Sandusky is 100% guilty, but I could see him walking away from this due to lack of evidence / lawyers finding loopholes.

The Pennsylvania Correctional Facility just added some valuable veteran leadership to their shower system.

_________________
r n

Really tough to walk on child molestation charges of this magnitude.

You either need to paint the accuser as someone after money and have some evidence to back it up (Michael Jackson) or hope to God they don't testify. Defendants really have an uphill climb in these kinds of cases.

Hard to paint this many accusers as being after money from an old man who was only known to Penn State alum and avid college football fans.

He got what he deserved.

_________________

Not yet.

The broken end of a broomstick is waiting for him.

_________________
r n