What if Sandusky is innocent?

[Anonymous]

I know for a fact that people within the Penn State community are having this very discussion. Not high ups, but staff, alum, students.

[Anonymous]

I personally know someone who participated in the Second Mile as a child, and who was invited to sleepovers with other boys (after Second Mile events) at S's house. He was not molested, but said that S made him uncomfortable because he liked to horseplay in a way that felt very personal.

[Anonymous]

10:15, get off your high horse. This is a public forum, if you want to chat amongst lawyers go make your own DCUM Lawyers forum.

[Anonymous]

It's not heresy or hearsay. The sworn testimony is evidence. The jury can choose to believe it or not.

[Anonymous]

Nah, y'all have the guy tried, convicted, and headed for the tarring and feathering right along with the entire program. It is rather sickening, that no one is willing to think there might be an alternative, especially for the secondary people. It is quite possible that young men did not elaborate when talking to people old enough to be their grandfather, or that everyone was not actively in on a cover up....but the court of public opinion has already been held.

And you write happy little posts reinforcing one another until you believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:15, get off your high horse. This is a public forum, if you want to chat amongst lawyers go make your own DCUM Lawyers forum.

Why not just say "hey, isn't that heresy?" And the answer would be, "No, I think the word you're looking for is hearsay. And it's not hearsay either. It's sworn testimony."

And there's no high horse. I'm sure if I wanted to know what luxury SUV fits 3 Britax across, I'd come to this forum and someone would enlighten me. It's nice to know what you're saying before you speak. Opinions are one thing and fine. But to ensnare legal terms in the mix to bolster your argument is disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nah, y'all have the guy tried, convicted, and headed for the tarring and feathering right along with the entire program. It is rather sickening, that no one is willing to think there might be an alternative, especially for the secondary people. It is quite possible that young men did not elaborate when talking to people old enough to be their grandfather, or that everyone was not actively in on a cover up....but the court of public opinion has already been held.

And you write happy little posts reinforcing one another until you believe it.

Have you been drinking? Or once falsely accused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know for a fact that people within the Penn State community are having this very discussion. Not high ups, but staff, alum, students.

Sorry, I lost track. What's "this very discussion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know for a fact that people within the Penn State community are having this very discussion. Not high ups, but staff, alum, students.

Sorry, I lost track. What's "this very discussion."

Ummm, I'm imaginging it would be what the title says, ie "What if Sandusky is innocent?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know for a fact that people within the Penn State community are having this very discussion. Not high ups, but staff, alum, students.

Sorry, I lost track. What's "this very discussion."

Ummm, I'm imaginging it would be what the title says, ie "What if Sandusky is innocent?"

I don't know, the thread's gone in a few directions. Just asking.

[Anonymous]

Hearsay is when one person testifies in court "McQueary said he saw Sandusky raping a ten year old boy," when the statement is offered to prove that Sandusky did rape a ten year old boy.

When McQueary testifies, "I saw Sandusky raping a ten year old boy," that is not hearsay. It is eyewitness testimony.

When the other victims testify, "Sandusky put my hand on his penis" and "Sandusky performed oral sex on me," and "Sandusky made me perform oral sex on him," that's not hearsay either.

And let me add at this point, Jesus fucking christ the odds he's innocent are vanishingly small.

[Anonymous]

This discussion = Whether Sandusky's innocent.

The janitor's account is hearsay because he has dementia and cannot testify now and his account was relayed to the grand jury by people he told at the time. Their testimony of his reports are not hearsay. Correct, lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sworn testimony of 8 victims and corroborating testimony is the evidence. Most cases don't have the DNA-level proof that you seem to be seeking. By legal standards, the evidence needs to be "clear and convincing" to the jury.

Actually for the trial the standard will be beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't remember from criminal procedure what the standard is for the grand jury, maybe that is what you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion = Whether Sandusky's innocent.

The janitor's account is hearsay because he has dementia and cannot testify now and his account was relayed to the grand jury by people he told at the time. Their testimony of his reports are not hearsay. Correct, lawyers?

McQ's testimony is not hearsay. The janitor's stament made at the time may be admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sworn testimony of 8 victims and corroborating testimony is the evidence. Most cases don't have the DNA-level proof that you seem to be seeking. By legal standards, the evidence needs to be "clear and convincing" to the jury.

Actually for the trial the standard will be beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't remember from criminal procedure what the standard is for the grand jury, maybe that is what you are referring to.

I'd actually like to know this: the different standards of proof for different juries.