What difference would that make? Should the 1998 results make him more suspicious in Feb of 2001? Forget trying to decide exactly what Mike told them – all we know for certain is that Sandusky and a boy were in the showers on Feb 9, 2001
The prosecution says
Knowing about 1998 should have made Joe aware of Sandusky's proclivities. They say it is important because a reasonable person would think it was a criminal pattern.
The defense says:
Several of the staff and coaches testified that JS showered with 2M kids often and none reported it as unusual or improper so they did not see this as a pattern of criminal behavior.
In 1998 a mother did report a shower with her son. Her son and Sandusky both said in interviews that the bear hug was not sexual and there was no molestation
Lauro head investigator DPW concluded “not criminal behavior” but “boundary issues”.
Dr. Seascock licensed psychologist ruled Sandusky is not a pedophile and only has boundary issues.
Should Joe, Tim or Gary who are not DPW child abuse experts or psychologists think this 2001 incident is suspicious knowing the conclusion of the inquiry?The information is all documented here so no repeat is required.
What is your ruling Juror?
Do you think prosecutors are correct and Joe, Tim or Gary should have been more suspicious if they knew the rulings in 1998?
Do you think knowing of the rulings would make them less suspicious?