OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"

[demlion]

Well here is my deal. I actually think JS is guilty of some stuff. Of what I am not sure. when i read russian eagle and all the vics with questions i wonder exactly what JS is guilty of, but i don't want to be defending him. My beef is that all the posts about a poison jury pool, and a corrupt OAG really preventing TC GS and GS getting a fair trial I agree. Why doesn't that same poisoning and corruption apply to JS?

Well, just in the interest of taking up the actual issues in the actual ODC charges against Fina, rather than the SIP nonsense, it does not apply to Jerry because Fina did not violate Jerry's attorney client privilege.

This case is about Fina"s conduct. It is NOT about Jerry's trial, and not about whether the victim witnesses were truthful in Jerry's trial.

But you should all pat yourselves on the back. You acted like Fina said you would.

 

[roswelllion]

Well, just in the interest of taking up the actual issues in the actual ODC charges against Fina, rather than the SIP nonsense, it does not apply to Jerry because Fina did not violate Jerry's attorney client privilege.

This case is about Fina"s conduct. It is NOT about Jerry's trial, and not about whether the victim witnesses were truthful in Jerry's trial.

But you should all pat yourselves on the back. You acted like Fina said you would.

Thanks Lucy!! You of the “pull the football”! Group.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Well, just in the interest of taking up the actual issues in the actual ODC charges against Fina, rather than the SIP nonsense, it does not apply to Jerry because Fina did not violate Jerry's attorney client privilege.

This case is about Fina"s conduct. It is NOT about Jerry's trial, and not about whether the victim witnesses were truthful in Jerry's trial.

But you should all pat yourselves on the back. You acted like Fina said you would.

So, you are saying that Fina did NOT taint Sandusky’s jury pool? What about the fictitious “anal rape” statement?

 

[demlion]

So, you are saying that Fina did NOT taint Sandusky’s jury pool? What about the fictitious “anal rape” statement?

I am saying Fina is not charged with tainting the jury pool. This is a thread about Fina's charges, and about his claim in the hearing that PSU fans believe JS is innocent.

Not very many do, but everyone insisted on being counted.

 

[francofan]

His questions show his lack of any history of giving a damn about injustice in criminal court. I have noticed it is a common theme among SIP denizens. It accounts for his insistence that I re-prove the case. They proved it when it counted, to the satisfaction of the jury, and Jerry is where he belongs.

All the victim-shaming and other justifications for SIP make you feel better, but do not cut much ice.

Do you have any interest in the injustice in the Penn State fiasco? I once thought that you did, but I am now starting to think differently. If you think that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz received punishment appropriate to their crimes, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I don't believe the case against Jerry Sandusky has been made. IMO, his trial was patently unfair including totally ineffective defense counsel and serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct. I am not surprised that his appeals have not gotten much traction since Pennsylvania judges must be elected and the judicial system takes public opinion into account in their decisions. The OAG has done a very good job in poisoning public opinion in this case.

I have read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as the opinions of NCIS Special Agent John Snedden. Based on their extensive research, they found scant evidence to support the jury's verdict. I agree with Snedden's conclusions that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather only a political job.

You are of the opinion that Sandusky is guilty of CSA and I respect your opinion. I believe the reason that you don't want to reprove the case against Sandusky is because the case is very weak. Penn State paid 36 claimants for their allegations against Sandusky. I suspect that you might acknowledge that at least some of these 36 claimants may not be Sandusky victims. However, you seem to believe that at least some of them are. I ask you again, are you convinced that any of these 36 men are in fact Sandusky victims? If you are, please provide specific details of why you have come to that conclusion. I suspect that you have no interest in doing so. If that is the case, it will only reinforce my belief that the case that Sandusky is a predator who committed serial acts of CSA is very weak.

 

[demlion]

What is going on with Fina has ZERO to do with direct justice for CSS. This is about whether Fina' s use of Baldwin violated CSS's rights. It is already well settled that it did. They dismissed all the charges related to Baldwin's testimony, correct?

It has even less to do with JS. Baldwin's testimony was not used to convict him. The indictment using her testimony was not issued until months AFTER JS was convicted.

So, go ahead and reach whatever conclusions you like, and be sure to conflate this unrelated stuff into a senseless argument that allows you to prove Fina correct.

 

[indynittany]

I don’t know enough about dem to know where he’s coming from.
I am not picking and choosing. I do have experience with people on both sides of the equation in instances like this. I am focusing primarily on what, to me, is the most convincing part of this whole thing. Jerry was investigated by police for possible sexual abuse in ‘98. He promised never to do that again. He did it again and was caught. What non-sexual reason would he have done that for?

What did that investigation turn up?

Promised to never do what again? Put himself and PSU in jeopardy of a he said/he said scenario in a civil suit?

For what non sexual reasons do any of us hop in the shower after a workout?

Here's the contradiction. If they investigated Jerry and came up empty, then their admonition of him to not shower with TSM kids in the future was a warning to protect Jerry Sandusky....not the boys. OTOH, if they investigated Jerry and still suspected he might be a pedophile, then there is no excuse for their failure to indicate him, which would have restricted his access to children going forward.

 

[demlion]

T

Do you have any interest in the injustice in the Penn State fiasco? I once thought that you did, but I am now starting to think differently. If you think that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz received punishment appropriate to their crimes, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I don't believe the case against Jerry Sandusky has been made. IMO, his trial was patently unfair including totally ineffective defense counsel and serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct. I am not surprised that his appeals have not gotten much traction since Pennsylvania judges must be elected and the judicial system takes public opinion into account in their decisions. The OAG has done a very good job in poisoning public opinion in this case.

I have read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as the opinions of NCIS Special Agent John Snedden. Based on their extensive research, they found scant evidence to support the jury's verdict. I agree with Snedden's conclusions that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather only a political job.

You are of the opinion that Sandusky is guilty of CSA and I respect your opinion. I believe the reason that you don't want to reprove the case against Sandusky is because the case is very weak. Penn State paid 36 claimants for their allegations against Sandusky. I suspect that you might acknowledge that at least some of these 36 claimants may not be Sandusky victims. However, you seem to believe that at least some of them are. I ask you again, are you convinced that any of these 36 men are in fact Sandusky victims? If you are, please provide specific details of why you have come to that conclusion. I suspect that you have no interest in doing so. If that is the case, it will only reinforce my belief that the case that Sandusky is a predator who committed serial acts of CSA is very weak.

He reason I don't want to re-prove the case is that it is a waste of time. But the bigger point for the SIP SQUAD, is that this case against Fina has f#ck-all to do with Jerry's case.

The 2 things are unrelated except in the fever dreams of the SIP SQUAD.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Do you have any interest in the injustice in the Penn State fiasco? I once thought that you did, but I am now starting to think differently. If you think that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz received punishment appropriate to their crimes, then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I don't believe the case against Jerry Sandusky has been made. IMO, his trial was patently unfair including totally ineffective defense counsel and serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct. I am not surprised that his appeals have not gotten much traction since Pennsylvania judges must be elected and the judicial system takes public opinion into account in their decisions. The OAG has done a very good job in poisoning public opinion in this case.

I have read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as the opinions of NCIS Special Agent John Snedden. Based on their extensive research, they found scant evidence to support the jury's verdict. I agree with Snedden's conclusions that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather only a political job.

You are of the opinion that Sandusky is guilty of CSA and I respect your opinion. I believe the reason that you don't want to reprove the case against Sandusky is because the case is very weak. Penn State paid 36 claimants for their allegations against Sandusky. I suspect that you might acknowledge that at least some of these 36 claimants may not be Sandusky victims. However, you seem to believe that at least some of them are. I ask you again, are you convinced that any of these 36 men are in fact Sandusky victims? If you are, please provide specific details of why you have come to that conclusion. I suspect that you have no interest in doing so. If that is the case, it will only reinforce my belief that the case that Sandusky is a predator who committed serial acts of CSA is very weak.

I respect your opinion, but what's the point/goal of sharing?

It seems to do nothing but prove Fina's accusations against the fans right.

Jerry's case is in high courts now, there's no more jury pool to bias. The high courts will not be moved by message board posts.

If you wish to agitate for justice the best places to do so are to the BoT, in upcoming elections (PA supreme court is elected ... run a candidate or question those that run), contributing funds to Jerry andtor CSS, appealing to the governor for a pardon or for friendly BoT appointments, to the state legislature to restructure the BoT.

Any of those things could effect your cause. Social media posts just serve to fuel enmity of people outside PSU's sphere that we are all truthers.

Do something that matters.

Go to town halls with your representatives and ask hard questions about these matters. I have. Send a copy of Pendergasts book to members of the PA court & to the governor. Do SOMETHING positive that has a chance, however small, of helping your cause.

 

[francofan]

What is going on with Fina has ZERO to do with direct justice for CSS. This is about whether Fina' s use of Baldwin violated CSS's rights. It is already well settled that it did. They dismissed all the charges related to Baldwin's testimony, correct?

It has even less to do with JS. Baldwin's testimony was not used to convict him. The indictment using her testimony was not issued until months AFTER JS was convicted.

So, go ahead and reach whatever conclusions you like, and be sure to conflate this unrelated stuff into a senseless argument that allows you to prove Fina correct.

I believe there is a link between what is going on with Fina and justice for CSS. If it can be established that Fina acted unethically in his dealings with Baldwin, it demonstrates that the convictions of Curley and Schultz are tainted. In addition, it certainly won't hurt Spanier's appeal.

It does have a connection to the Sandusky case as well. If the OAG hadn't brought their frivolous cases against Curley and Schultz; it would have freed Curley and Schultz to be trial witnesses and to be able to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary.

There is no question that Fina acted unethically and he should have to pay the price. His defense is that the ends justifies the means. This defense should not hold water. My contention is that the case against Sandusky is not as cut dried as it appears and that Fina should lose his ethics case for multiple reasons.

Why are you so bothered by my bringing up what seems to me an injustice of epic proportion?

 

[francofan]

T

He reason I don't want to re-prove the case is that it is a waste of time. But the bigger point for the SIP SQUAD, is that this case against Fina has f#ck-all to do with Jerry's case.

The 2 things are unrelated except in the fever dreams of the SIP SQUAD.

I don't think it is a waste of time as I still believe the case hasn't been made.

 

[Connorpozlee]

What did that investigation turn up?

Promised to never do what again? Put himself and PSU in jeopardy of a he said/he said scenario in a civil suit?

For what non sexual reasons do any of us hop in the shower after a workout?

Here's the contradiction. If they investigated Jerry and came up empty, then their admonition of him to not shower with TSM kids in the future was a warning to protect Jerry Sandusky....not the boys. OTOH, if they investigated Jerry and still suspected he might be a pedophile, then there is no excuse for their failure to indicate him, which would have restricted his access to children going forward.

This is such an ignorantly idiotic point you (and Franco has done the same thing) like to make.

“For what non sexual reasons do any of us hop in the shower after a workout?”

It has never been about taking a shower. Never. In fact, I’m about to take one myself. But before I strip down and hop in, I’m going to check first to make sure there are no boys in there. If there is a boy in there, I sure as hell won’t be getting in and beyond that I certainly won’t be touching them.
I’ll ask this again Indy, because I never seem to find a believable answer from anybody. For what innocent reason would Jerry be in the shower the second time, having physical contact with an unrelated boy, after having been investigated for doing so in ‘98 and promising to never do so again?

 

[demlion]

I believe there is a link between what is going on with Fina and justice for CSS. If it can be established that Fina acted unethically in his dealings with Baldwin, it demonstrates that the convictions of Curley and Schultz are tainted. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
In addition, it certainly won't hurt Spanier's appeal.

It does have a connection to the Sandusky case as well. If the OAG hadn't brought their frivolous cases against Curley and Schultz; it would have freed Curley and Schultz to be trial witnesses and to be able to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary. WISHFUL THINKING.

There is no question that Fina acted unethically and he should have to pay the price. His defense is that the ends justifies the means. This defense should not hold water. My contention is that the case against Sandusky is not as cut dried as it appears and that Fina should lose his ethics case for multiple reasons. THE CASE AGAINST JS MAY BE TERRIBLE, BUT IT WAS OVER BY THE TIME OF THIS WRONG DOING BY FINA.

Why are you so bothered by my bringing up what seems to me an injustice of epic proportion?

I am bothered by your blind inability to see that JSs case was not tainted by things that happened in the CSS cases AFTER JERRY was convicted.

 

[PSU2UNC]

What is going on with Fina has ZERO to do with direct justice for CSS. This is about whether Fina' s use of Baldwin violated CSS's rights. It is already well settled that it did. They dismissed all the charges related to Baldwin's testimony, correct?

It has even less to do with JS. Baldwin's testimony was not used to convict him. The indictment using her testimony was not issued until months AFTER JS was convicted.

So, go ahead and reach whatever conclusions you like, and be sure to conflate this unrelated stuff into a senseless argument that allows you to prove Fina correct.

You act as if Fina's malfeasance took place in a vacuum. His unethical behavior affected the entire case against C/S/S, not the least of which by contributing to the tainting of the jury pool (e.g. as soon as the media reported that *gasp* their own lawyer was testifying against them, that introduced huge and unfair bias).

You are correct that some of his unethical behavior is not being discussed at the hearing (e.g. the patently false GJ presentment, which also tainted the jury pools), but that's another discussion.

 

[francofan]

I am bothered by your blind inability to see that JSs case was not tainted by things that happened in the CSS cases AFTER JERRY was convicted.

My point is that JS’s conviction was absolutely tainted by Fina’s unethical behavior.

 

[demlion]

You act as if Fina's malfeasance took place in a vacuum. His unethical behavior affected the entire case against C/S/S, not the least of which by contributing to the tainting of the jury pool (e.g. as soon as the media reported that *gasp* their own lawyer was testifying against them, that introduced huge and unfair bias).

You are correct that some of his unethical behavior is not being discussed at the hearing (e.g. the patently false GJ presentment, which also tainted the jury pools), but that's another discussion.

Given that NONE of his behavior which is the subject of this complaint resulted in testimony at trial which caused them to be convicted because every single charge made by that testimony was thrown out, it means diddly.

His inflammatory and false presentment against Jerry is not the subject of this complaint. If you are dying of thirst in a desert, seems foolhardy to waste your time imagining what you would do were there a lake nearby.

 

[demlion]

N

My point is that JS’s conviction was absolutely tainted by Fina’s unethical behavior.

NOT this unethical behavior. Baldwin testified in October 2012. Jerry's trial was OVER.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Given that NONE of his behavior which is the subject of this complaint resulted in testimony at trial which caused them to be convicted because every single charge made by that testimony was thrown out, it means diddly.

His inflammatory and false presentment against Jerry is not the subject of this complaint. If you are dying of thirst in a desert, seems foolhardy to waste your time imagining what you would do were there a lake nearby.

just asking, do you feel the charges against C/S/S were justified? is there room to believe Curley and Schultz were charged to prevent them from testifying as defense witnesses?

I absolutely cannot abide that 2 provably false charges were presented at trial JUST TO MAKE a connection between Jerry and PSU.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Given that NONE of his behavior which is the subject of this complaint resulted in testimony at trial which caused them to be convicted because every single charge made by that testimony was thrown out, it means diddly.

His inflammatory and false presentment against Jerry is not the subject of this complaint. If you are dying of thirst in a desert, seems foolhardy to waste your time imagining what you would do were there a lake nearby.

To be fair, this complaint is pretty much a fools errand anyway. There is no jail time involved. Worst case for Fina, he gets disbarred and goes to work as a consultant somewhere.

The complaint isn't really my point. My point is that his unethical behavior permeated the entire process and corrupted the legal system for all 4 defendants. Your attempts to minimize his appalling behavior is troubling.

 

[demlion]

just asking, do you feel the charges against C/S/S were justified? is there room to believe Curley and Schultz were charged to prevent them from testifying as defense witnesses?

I absolutely cannot abide that 2 provably false charges were presented at trial JUST TO MAKE a connection between Jerry and PSU.

Just begging someone to indicate they understand that, for purposes of THIS ODC complaint, IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER.

This ODC complaint has to do with the impermissible linkup between Baldwin and Fina. The charges against CSS which resulted from this breach of privilege WERE DISMISSED A LONG TIME AGO.

Whether they got fairly charged of the other stuff, including the charges they plead guilty to, and whether the trial tactics in Jerry's trial were honest and decent, IS> NOT> THE> SUBJECT>OF>THIS>COMPLAINT.

 

[demlion]

To be fair, this complaint is pretty much a fools errand anyway. There is no jail time involved. Worst case for Fina, he gets disbarred and goes to work as a consultant somewhere.

The complaint isn't really my point. My point is that his unethical behavior permeated the entire process and corrupted the legal system for all 4 defendants. Your attempts to minimize his appalling behavior is troubling.

The complaint, and Fina's testimony about it, is the subject of the GD thread. I have no problem believing that his scumminess was world wide and constant for his entire life. But those things are irrelevant in a hearing about the Baldwin stuff.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The complaint, and Fina's testimony about it, is the subject of the GD thread. I have no problem believing that his scumminess was world wide and constant for his entire life. But those things are irrelevant in a hearing about the Baldwin stuff.

Yeah, because threads on this board never ever engage in subjects that are tangential to the initial thread topic. (/sarcasm).

You want to keep the discussion to only the complaint because having to talk about all of the other transgressions of Fina doesn't help your stated position. But carry on.

 

[demlion]

Yeah, because threads on this board never ever engage in subjects that are tangential to the initial thread topic. (/sarcasm).

You want to keep the discussion to only the complaint because having to talk about all of the other transgressions of Fina doesn't help your stated position. But carry on.

My only stated position in this thread is:
Hurray for Wendy! That is a GREAT thing. She tortured that skeevy douche so thoroughly that he actually used her name?

Big win for wensilver!

The porny emails alone would have sunk him before most lawyer Disciplinary Boards.

I hope they bury that self-pitying clown.

It is in the first 10 posts. 31 people liked it. But then the Sandusky Innocence Project (SIP) took over the thread. But carry on youself. Sheesh.

 

[denniskembala]

WOMP WOMP!

LINK

Former state prosecutor Frank Fina, facing ethics charges over his aggressive pursuit of a former Pennsylvania State University president for covering up sex abuse there, on Friday blamed the case against him on a band of “truthers” who he said simply cannot accept the blow his sweeping investigation delivered to the university.

“They’re vicious, frankly,” Fina said as he took the stand in his defense at a hearing before a three-lawyer panel in Philadelphia weighing whether to suspend his law license.

He noted that the Disciplinary Board, in notifying him he was under investigation two years ago, cited in part a complaint filed with the board against him by Wendy Silverwood, a Penn State alumna and a leading critic of the investigations of Spanier and his aides. Silverwood, who declined to comment Friday, has long maintained that Fina railroaded Spanier and his aides.

These turds will simply never admit to a witch hunt, as with the BoT trying to protect their fiefdom.

 

[demlion]

None of this yammering is going to change any outcome for Curley and Schultz. And this complaint does not have a GD thing to do with Jerry at all, since the behavior occurred AFTER Jerry was convicted. No amount of wishful thinking will make that any different.

BTW, the poster who said that if Fina were disbarred he would just go to work as a consultant? If that were so, I cannot believe he will make much money at it. He has a better future as a porn vendor.

 

[PSU2UNC]

But then the Sandusky Innocence Project (SIP) took over the thread. But carry on youself. Sheesh.

You can't see that your childishly named "SIP" is inextricably linked to Fina's malfeasance, but my guess is that you do see that, but just won't admit it.

 

[demlion]

You can't see that your childishly named "SIP" is inextricably linked to Fina's malfeasance, but my guess is that you do see that, but just won't admit it.

I can see how you would see it.

 

[Zenophile]

To be fair, this complaint is pretty much a fools errand anyway. There is no jail time involved. Worst case for Fina, he gets disbarred and goes to work as a consultant somewhere.

Bingo. In fact, it looks like he's already set up for this.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Bingo. In fact, it looks like he's already set up for this.

I want to take a shower after reading those biographies! How many of those guys were on Frank’s porn e-mail distribution list?

 

[roswelllion]

Just begging someone to indicate they understand that, for purposes of THIS ODC complaint, IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER.

This ODC complaint has to do with the impermissible linkup between Baldwin and Fina. The charges against CSS which resulted from this breach of privilege WERE DISMISSED A LONG TIME AGO.

Whether they got fairly charged of the other stuff, including the charges they plead guilty to, and whether the trial tactics in Jerry's trial were honest and decent, IS> NOT> THE> SUBJECT>OF>THIS>COMPLAINT.

You keep focusing on this actual complaint. I thought this thread was more about Fina's comments about Penn State fans being delusional and them [the PSU fans] specifically wensilver and others who believe TC GS GS and even some JS are innocent. So he specifically sites Wendy who by the way is NOT one of your SIP and then the thread follows. We all think Fina played fast and loose with the rules.
You then seemed to have moved to the specific nature of this complaint which IMO had very little to do with this thread. Maybe I am wrong but I thought it was about Fina's whining about PSU fans.
For me Fina's behavior helped taint and poison the entire process. I can't say well it poisoned this part of it but not this other part.

 

[demlion]

You keep focusing on this actual complaint. I thought this thread was more about Fina's comments about Penn State fans being delusional and them [the PSU fans] specifically wensilver and others who believe TC GS GS and even some JS are innocent. So he specifically sites Wendy who by the way is NOT one of your SIP and then the thread follows. We all think Fina played fast and loose with the rules.
You then seemed to have moved to the specific nature of this complaint which IMO had very little to do with this thread. Maybe I am wrong but I thought it was about Fina's whining about PSU fans.
For me Fina's behavior helped taint and poison the entire process. I can't say well it poisoned this part of it but not this other part.

The only bad things which could happen to Frank Fina here have to do with the actual complaint which is being pursued. I would be happy to seem him hit by a car for the things he did, but it would seem more appropriate to bring that up in a "Frank Fina is crossing a busy street" thread.

 

[roswelllion]

Well we read the OP differently. I read it as Fina whining about the "PSU truthers" which includes your SIP group as well as others, specifically called out was wensilver who is not an SIP member.

 

[PSUSignore]

Like many others here, talk of Sandusky being innocent makes me uncomfortable and certainly those voices do not speak for me. Jerry lost the benefit of the doubt with the public a long time ago, perhaps it reached the point of no return when this happened.



If it takes you 10 seconds of stammering before you answer a crystal clear question with only one acceptable answer, that's an indication that you have a problem.

 

[indynittany]

This is such an ignorantly idiotic point you (and Franco has done the same thing) like to make.

“For what non sexual reasons do any of us hop in the shower after a workout?”

It has never been about taking a shower. Never. In fact, I’m about to take one myself. But before I strip down and hop in, I’m going to check first to make sure there are no boys in there. If there is a boy in there, I sure as hell won’t be getting in and beyond that I certainly won’t be touching them.
I’ll ask this again Indy, because I never seem to find a believable answer from anybody. For what innocent reason would Jerry be in the shower the second time, having physical contact with an unrelated boy, after having been investigated for doing so in ‘98 and promising to never do so again?

It wasn't sexual either time. Both Jerry and the boys have said so. Jerry did it a second time because he didn't see anything wrong with what he had done. Jerry had, arguably, healthy relationships with both of those boys until the day he was indicted, when both were adults.

I've never claimed any more than I thought Jerry deserved a new trial. Imagine if Curley, Schultz and Alan Meyers had been free to be defense witnesses. To be sure, I don't think any of the PSU related cases hold up at all. Especially the janitor case; no victim, no witness testified, no date established for the crime, no report of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime...guilty on five counts! How do you defend yourself against that? Either Sandusky is an innocent man or there is a concerted effort to make this a PSU story and not a TSM story, or both.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Like many others here, talk of Sandusky being innocent makes me uncomfortable and certainly those voices do not speak for me. Jerry lost the benefit of the doubt with the public a long time ago, perhaps it reached the point of no return when this happened.

View embedded media

If it takes you 10 seconds of stammering before you answer a crystal clear question with only one acceptable answer, that's an indication that you have a problem.

You don't think the argument that he stammered because he wasn't properly prepared by his lawyer holds water?

Me neither.

 

[PSUSignore]

You don't think the argument that he stammered because he wasn't properly prepared by his lawyer holds water?

Me neither.

Not for that question. A 5 year old can answer such a question better. No preparation necessary.

Q: "Did you do this?"
A: "No!" (without hesitation)

 

[Fizz1]

Bingo. In fact, it looks like he's already set up for this.

Interesting gaming expertise.

 

[francofan]

You don't think the argument that he stammered because he wasn't properly prepared by his lawyer holds water?

Me neither.

One thing that the Costas interview demonstrated is that it makes Jim Clemente's contention that Sandusky was in the top 1 percent of “nice guy” acquaintance predators very suspect. If Sandusky was in the top 1 percent, he certainly would have been able to give a reasonable answer to the question of whether or not he was sexually attracted to boys without giving it any thought.

 

[lubrano]

The only bad things which could happen to Frank Fina here have to do with the actual complaint which is being pursued. I would be happy to seem him hit by a car for the things he did, but it would seem more appropriate to bring that up in a "Frank Fina is crossing a busy street" thread.

Looks like he has a new gig though I have not yet verified.

http://www.thenoonangroup.org/attorneys.html

 

[PSUSignore]

One thing that the Costas interview demonstrated is that it makes Jim Clemente's contention that Sandusky was in the top 1 percent of “nice guy” acquaintance predators very suspect. If Sandusky was in the top 1 percent, he certainly would have been able to give a reasonable answer to the question of whether or not he was sexually attracted to boys without giving it any thought.

That depends how he defined the "top 1 percent." Perhaps it was based on victim counts, amount of time before being caught, etc. I honestly do not know how Clemente reached that conclusion, I'm just throwing out things that might have been a factor. Sandusky being too incompetent to properly answer a simple question on national TV may not have proven or disproven Clemente's point.