Sandusky Granted Hearing on New Evidence
- Thread starter Open Mind 1
- Start date
I feel that many apply the civil law standard of guilt as opposed to the criminal law standard of guilt in this case.
Yet all objective people know he was guilty and comprehend he can't be prosecuted for the same crime to fix the wrong
Just like all objective people accept Sandusky is a pedophile
I'd love to hear your definition of "guilt" in a civil case
The interesting thing is many here keep complaining about the civil cases while not comprehending that a settlement doesn't mean a wrong occurred. Civil cases are settled all the time to reduce risk.
In the criminal case, Sandusky was found GUILTY on almost every charge. Rightfully so.
Guessing you were trying to talk about reasonable doubt which the jury found none on the convictions.
"Reasonable doubt" by a jury of his "peers":
"During the O.J. Simpson murder trial, prosecution experts testified that the odds of someone other than Simpson leaving his blood at the crime scene ranged from 1 in 170 million to 1 in 1.2 billion. The match probability for victim Nicole Brown Simpson's blood found on a sock in Simpson's bedroom was even more staggering, ranging from 1 in 6.8 billion to 1 in 21 billion.
These astronomical odds were established using "genetic fingerprinting" techniques presented by molecular biologist Robin Cotton from Cellmark Diagnostics. For context, experts explained that the odds of a match to Nicole Brown's blood were higher than the total population of the Earth at the time."
You’re pretty fast and loose with the terms “all” and “everybody” in your posts.
Yeah this was early in the DNA era. The jurors didn’t really understand or trust it. They didn’t know what DNA results really meant. Unbelievable.
The State admitted the GJP contained lies and we know fina was cited/lost ability to practice law.
Those are not sweeping allegation's. Those are two stone cold FACTS.
I'm not. EVERYONE who is being objective and is looking at these cases without emotion agree. Once emotion gets involved people aren't reasonable.
Same thing with the Anthony case in Texas. Clear verdict but people who disagree refuse to accept the facts of the case over emotion.
It's really not that difficult...same can be said with the angst surrounding college football. The reaction is emotional not based on facts because of nostalgia.
Which doesn't change the outcome the of the case. He wasn't ONLY convicted on those statements.
Every single trial that has ever occurred has lies. Every single one. Who realize that, right?
No, it didn't. Each count is independent of the others.
You guys are seriously setting yourself up to be very angry over a fair trail and a just verdict. Sandusky will never get a new trial. There's nothing to warrant it. If you dislike that I'm sorry but that's just what is.
In which Sandusky didn't testify because the defense's only option was to keep him off the stand.
"So called evidence" lol
In fact, if I remember correctly, the defense didn't call a single witness to testify on his behalf because they couldn't find one that was credible.
Are you referring to the slap slap slap sounds Big Red said he heard which turned out to be a lie.
Not everybody thinks like you do (thank God) and just because you think something doesn’t mean it’s the only possible way to think. Your thoughts on college football are based on emotion as well because those changes are what you want to see.
Sometimes there is only one possibility
They aren't based on emotion. I don't want to see NIL but I understand it and understand the mistakes that were made in the past that created the wild, wild west version we have today. You can't discuss something reasonably when you're emotional about it.
The majority of the people in this thread are defending Sandusky because he was a coach at Penn State (and how it impacted Joe) not based on facts.
You EXPONENTIALLY underestimate the power of guilt. Ever hear of a man named Judas Iscariot??? Based on your posts, I highly doubt it.
Based on his posts I know he's heard of Munchausen, and Machiavelli.
First off, I think almost everyone know who Judas was. Even non-Christians as it's a standard story of betrayal often used.
One theory is that Judas kills himself because he believes Jesus will rise from the dead and punish him. It wasn't guilt but escape from penalty.
The truth--no one knows why he killed himself--people can only speculate--assuming he even did kill himself.
Survivor's guilt and this situation aren't comparable--it's also why the word "usually" was used. Victims are more likely to kill themselves the those that commit perjury. Interesting enough, you assume it's guilt not that he was a victim.
Would you like to try again?
Last edited:
Sandusky was “convicted” in a situation where there was no witness and there was no victim. How does that happen if there is no premeditated opinion?
Yet the only situation with an ear witness he was found to be not guilty.
Add to that that there are plenty of addicts who lie incessantly to cover up their addictions that end up drinking/snorting/shooting themselves to death.
What are you talking about?
You're basically claiming the jurors conspired against Sandusky which is the most absurd thing said in this thread
Again, each count is independent of the others--one witness lying doesn't alter the other convictions. Sandusky was convicted based on his actions. Three's a reason he didn't take the stand and, to the best of my recollection, the defense didn't even put anyone on stand to defend him. Because they knew he was guilty. Their only hope was a juror wouldn't believe it. The second he would have spoken he would have been convicted on everything.
So, they die of their addiction--using drugs or alcohol--not because of the lies but because they can't control the addiction.
Ya. Someone that sells the only real Dad he ever knew down the river for $7 million dollars and to get himself out of some legal issues never feels guilty about it. Give me a frikin break.
How many of your clients have you had to hide in remote, hidden, secret hunting camps for days on end so they couldn’t be located until you were able to get them to flip?
Your second statement shows the conspiracy theory nonsense at it's height. It's just comical how desperate some of you are to believe this is all false and nothing happened. Denial is amazing--see Dottie. Only, with her, it's understandable because she was fearful for the rest of you it's just desperate.
No one ever kills themselves over being abused, right? People have sold out people the love for far less and been just fine. The reality is the father figure abusing you is going to cause major issues--unlike guilt--not ones that 7M can solve
Last edited:
Wait. Are you now saying my second statement is false? That was according to sworn testimony at the 2016 PCRA hearings.
And for the record, you being an attorney and all, the way you run your sentences together in many of your posts make them hard to interpret. Like why would Dottie be desperate because she was fearful for the rest of us?
I'm not sure why you all have trouble following things on a message board without punctuation. Do you text people or do you write sentences there as well? To help you out:
It's understandable because she was fearful...for the rest of you it's just desperate
Dottie was terrified of Jerry and the truth.
Why are you picking and choosing what sworn testimony you believe? Also, you're altering what was stated but that's the desperation I speak of. I'm saying your second statement is full blown conspiracy as opposed to fact because it wasn't factual contrary to what you believe.
Actually, to be fair to you and others, it may not be desperation--you might just be believing misinformation that has been spread by the conspiracy theorists.
Last edited:
@BUFFALO LION by the way--what was the decision in the 2016 PCRA hearing and the merit of his claims? Just checked--the opinion is available on online if you're unsure.
Last edited:
He's no attorney, unless he's a Pitiot, where everyone is an attorney.
Is that why she visits him every week in prison as she has since his incarceration?
If you're going to continue to vomit your faux righteous BS on this board, please have just a bit of it make sense once in awhile.
Yes, it's 100% why she visits him. Those that were mentally abused for decades as she often remain loyal. TShe refused to accept the reality of what was happening--there's countless others (especially women) that remain loyal to husbands that abused their children. Google it if you don't believe me. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this. If not, that's on you.
Him being in jail doesn't mean he still doesn't control her.
Your (or others) unwillingness to learn isn't my problem or concern. You quoted me and asked a question and I answered--you not liking the answer (you thought you did something there) is your problem. Hence this nonsense. If you don't want to discuss it then don't ask a question. We both win that way.