Monday, June 25, 2012

Do we believe in "rule of law", or what makes us feel good?


Some disturbing, but not surprising revelations have come to light in the wake of the Sandusky trial as the jurors begin to give interviews. It seems the one thing that swayed them to find him guilty on most but not all of the counts was the consistency of the victim statements suggesting a pattern of predation. This served to make their stories believable. A small problem with this “consistency” of testimony, the cops who made the victims’ statement tapes inadvertently taped themselves. Between “recording sessions” they were coaching the victims on what to say in order to seem consistent with other statements. These cops lied under oath that they did not do this, prior to the tapes being played in court. I’m not clear on whether the jurors actually heard this evidence or not.

The only, and I stress the only “eye witness”, the assistant coach whose Grand Jury testimony about the shower incident is supposed to have been critical to the investigation (according to the media coverage), the jurors didn’t find his testimony credible. Basically the jury found Sandusky guilty only on police coached testimony. A ninth “victim” testified that while he spent years with Sandusky, nothing ever happened. He testified that the police didn’t want to accept his version of events and “expected him to agree to a lie”. As a non-conforming “victim” he will not by the way, be eligible to cash in on the 1.5 billion in assets the University has available to pay out.

Sandusky is creepy looking, and says creepy things on the TV, at least in the  edited version the media presented, and we trust that implicitly. This version was played for the jury instead of the un-edited tapes, and is grounds for appeal. The media is of course labeling it as a “harmless” mistake, likely to be ignored by the appellate court. They are probably right in the current “reality”.

We know that Sandusky is guilty because the cops who lied under oath say so. We know he’s guilty because the young men who stand to become multi-millionaires after being coached by these cops have said so. We know he’s guilty because everybody who says he isn’t, doesn’t get much media coverage. We know he’s guilty because this dim witted guy was able to violently rape boys for decades, at his home, at the university where anybody could walk in, and in hotels on road trips where anybody could have caught him; but nobody did.

Well you might say the university behaved just like the Catholic Church who hid pedophiles, really, is it the same? The church is a cult of pedophiles, but university people by and large have families and aren‘t tied to that particular university for life, and there is no University “pope” to dictate policy. Is the power and privilege that great, that corrupting? Or, do just wish it to be?

The only physical evidence was some creepy “love letters” Sandusky sent to some of the boys. The defense psychologist testified that Sandusky had “an excessive need for approval”, and the judge instructed the jury that this would in fact explain the letters, but was no defense for rape. Well, duh. But, it would explain all of his creepy behavior, if he didn’t actually rape anybody. And again, the jury was convinced that he raped the boys only because of witness statements that were at least modified, if not outright fabricated by cops. The cops who we know for a fact lied under oath about doing it. They should be in jail, but will likely get promotions and commendations.

We live in a society that doesn’t care about “rule of law“ any more (that was so 1776), we live where Dirty Harry is a “good cop” because the system is broken and the bad guys get away if you follow the rules. We live in a society where we believe the media’s portrayal of a guy as a horrific predator, a guy who may just be a flawed, pathetic individual. If they can make him look guilty enough with pictures and words taken out of context, we are all too willing to believe. It makes us feel good about ourselves. Maybe Sandusky really is guilty and the cops were just out to frame a guilty man. If you’re happy with that “reality”, so be it.

On a larger note, we can feel safe tonight because Jack Bower is on the trail of Emanuel Goldstein. We saw it on TV, and justice is done. We can all feel safe in a paranoid, fearful sort of way.  www.prairie2.com  

2 comments:

Dave said...

This is a terrifying thought. If Jerry Sandusky was railroaded, a great many people lied through their teeth to make it happen. Did one guy get tossed into the fires of hell so a lot of other people could cash in?

fype said...

P2,

Really frightening... But we did not hear the entire testimony WRT Sandusky. More prescient: The billions paid to the victims of the RC church and its denial and coverup. As long as all the churches receive deductions and exemptions from taxes, we should demand a higher level of performance. Taxpayers are obviously underwriting criminal behavior. Rule of law? Unless you are referring to the (now Cardinal) Law from Boston, not so much. He now works at the Vatican. Some punishment. Sandusky, guilty or not... could be our collective resolution of the horrendous RC conspiracy. That's show biz! Excellent point, though, P2! Thank you///fype