>> is a defense attorney and dr. gayle salt is a prrg koesht. this is a key witness we heard from. he's now locked into that testimony. this will be what he'll have to say in the actual trials, correct?
>> yes, indeed. it is a low standard. it's just to get through the preliminary hearing to say there's enough evidence to proceed with the trial. but the trial, lester, is really about words. the jury in an ultimate trial has to believe mccreery beyond a reasonable doubt or else there is an acquittal in the case.
>> but i was struck by the way he phrased things. did you describe for mr. curley and mr. schultz the way he was in the shower?
>> i would have, i would have, he didn't say i saw this and this is what i said.
>> he really soft pelddals it and probably did at the time, which may make him more credible to a jury rather than less. it's that he saw something of a extremely disturbing sexual nature, so disturbing that he didn't want to use the real words.that's going to be his sorry.
>> and let me ask gayle about that. this is trauma advertising to see what he saw. he was disturbed, he called his father. is that a natural response ? and does that tend to make him more credible?
>> i think it is. i think when you are overwhelmingly horrified or anxious about something, you throw up a defense. you know, is that really what i saw? i don't want to say those words. those words make it more real to me. and i think that he's -- what he describes is so identifiable to us, the public, to a jury, that we would feel that way, that this person was his mentor. this person was his superior. and when you see, essentially, a father figure of yours doing something that you consider to be heinous and, you know, it's so disturbing that this is a natural reaction, i think we can relate to that.
>> and one of the things being brought up by the defense is whether he described this differently to other people. is there a tendency when you see something like that to almost begin to rationalize it? well, maybe it wasn't what i thought i saw or maybe it was this and maybe it was that?
>> i think you could say he's trying to introduce that. he's saying, i saw them close proximity. i saw hands up on a wall. i saw arms up around somebody. he's saying, i didn't see penetration. he's saying that, so that leaves a little bit of room which probably his mind needed, if you will, to not be horrified. but at the same time, he paints us a picture that even if that didn't happen, it doesn't matter because it's a picture that's totally inappropriate. it's sexual abuse , nonetheless.
>> ricky, the defense now knows what he's going to say. was there anything he said or anything he might have been weak on that they may seize on?
>> well, i think there is the question of precisely what he told curley and schultz . that's the case. curley and schultz say they never were told by mcqueary or anyone else that these were acts of a sexual nature. this is a perjury case. it's a very different case than the case against sandusky himself for the alleged sexual molestation.
>> they claim he said there was horsing around but that there was no sex.
>> horsing around in the shower, perhaps he shouldn't have been in the shower, but they have a defensible case, curley and schultz . mr. sandusky stands on quite a different ground.
>> we'll have to end there. thanks so much.
Source: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/45707289/
harbaugh the walking dead season 2 milwaukee brewers will power will power indy 500 martin luther king memorial
No comments:
Post a Comment