Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His attorney knocked up a 17 year old girl when he was 49. She was his client. I'm not sure his judgment should be trusted.

How do you know this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/jerry-sandusky-s-lawyer-joe-amendola-a-16-year-old-client-pregnant-married-article-1.977873

Anonymous wrote:My hunch is he's a sociopath who convinced his defense attorney that he's innocent. What about the janitor? And the NYT is reporting that more victims have come forward. Did you hear the interview? He sounds like a man with a very low IQ. I really wonder if he doesn't have brain damage from his years of playing football.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm genuinely curious whether or not a defense attorney needs to believe his client is innocent in order to defend him/her. I always thought such belief would be desirable, but not necessary. At the end of the day, the defender's job is to get a lesser sentence for the client, right?

As for the allegations themselves, I believe there is a difference between 'horsing around' and having oral and anal sex with someone. If there are victims willing to testify to actually having sex with Sandusky, case closed. Guilty as charged.

If all 8 of them had mentioned 'just showering together' and nothing else, it could - maybe - pass for poor judgement on Sandusky's part. Maybe.

That Freak could not come right out and say he was not sexually attracted to young boys. He hesitates. The creep had to stop and think about it. If I was a prosecutor I would use Sandusky's statement to Costa (sic) as admisions. Good grief he gave the prosecutor sixty to seventy percent of their case. All the prosecutor has to do is get some of the victims to provide a little more details and McQueery's case.
Is his lawyer crazy. Dont answer that. Maybe his attorney is trying to raise an ineffective of counsel appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:S said he showered naked with young boys. S said he touched the legs of naked little boys while showering. S said he horseplayed with little boys in the shower. Finally, S said, but I never had sex with the boys. OP, come back when you can add 3 +1=4 and not 2.

Since when are these crimes?

Gosh, either you are dense or you may actually be a follower and participant of child sex trafficking. It is a big, organized and lucrative business. Your statement speaks volumes. EEEEEWWWWW.

I know "innocent until proven guilty'...but come on. What old man is continually showering with young boys that are not his own children? What if you found out your son's gym teacher was naked with your kid having 'play' in the shower. Sorry--adult males do not routinely have play at all hours of the night in the shower with numerous young boys.

Anonymous wrote:S said he showered naked with young boys. S said he touched the legs of naked little boys while showering. S said he horseplayed with little boys in the shower. Finally, S said, but I never had sex with the boys. OP, come back when you can add 3 +1=4 and not 2.

Since when are these crimes?

S said he showered naked with young boys. S said he touched the legs of naked little boys while showering. S said he horseplayed with little boys in the shower. Finally, S said, but I never had sex with the boys. OP, come back when you can add 3 +1=4 and not 2.

execute him whether guilty or not, he is a weirdo error ont he side of caution. Bring back medevil public courts when the offender is a molestor.

If he's innocent, won't he be able to show that at trial. This is, after all, why we have trials.

Yeah, but we're having our own little trial right here on DCUM!

If he's innocent, won't he be able to show that at trial. This is, after all, why we have trials.

Anonymous wrote:His attorney knocked up a 17 year old girl when he was 49. She was his client. I'm not sure his judgment should be trusted.

How do you know this?

To indict, grand jury: More likely than not based on a preponderance of evidence.
To convict, jury: Beyond reasonable doubt.

^^^^^ should say "Probable cause" not probably, ooops.

Probably cause or something similar is the usual standard for GJ indictment (much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) and lower than preponderance of the evidence in many cases) ... a reason to believe a crime was committed and the defendant did it.

Then the (petit) jury at trial determines the facts based on the BRD standard for conviction.

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.

the criminal standard of proof is note "clear and convincing", it is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is greater than clear & convincing in most jurisdictions.