Which evidence did you find particularly overwhelming?
Sandusky Seeks New Trial Based On Fina-Freeh Collusion, Leaks
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Which evidence did you find particularly overwhelming?
Ain't that the truth. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sandusky, the case was ramrodded through the courts as if the future of the world depended on it. Seven or eight months from when the charges were filed? Some summary cases take longer.
Please point us to this overwhelming evidence you speak of.
The only evidence is testimony and in almost all cases, there are serious problems with said testimony.
Such a waste of time. He will never get a new trial. Never. He tarnished an entire university community not to mention ruining so many young promising lives. What a vile human being. Yet people devote intellectual energy to the one person responsible for this entire mess. Paterno was fired, massive fines and settlements were paid, careers and reputations were destroyed. None of this would have happened if Sandusky was not a very sick and depraved human.
If there is "overwhelming evidence" it is known "only to God." It is enough to make any custodian cry.
Overwhelming evidence or an unprepared defense team? You seem very narrow minded. Tunnel vision. This case had some serious shenanigans in play. Anyone being honest has to admit that. I don't know if Jerry is innocent or guilty. Regardless, the justice system shouldn't get to break the rules just to get the outcome it desired. And if they did break the rules, they shouldn't get to say "okay, but he was guilty so keep him locked up, but here's a few slaps on the wrist for the lawyers who broke the rules". The entire thing should become a do over where everyone plays by the rules.
I won't be surprised if there are more hearings after today. However, I see two big hurdles for Sandusky's defense.
The first hurdle is that in order to establish eligibility for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence, they will at minimum have to show that the evidence would likely compel a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The OAG is going to shoot down quite a few of Sandusky's arguments. Whatever is left is going to have show a new verdict is likely. That's going to be a big hurdle.
The second hurdle is authenticating the McChesney diary. Based on my read of the diary that was made public, it is likely not an original version of the diary. I suspect it's a transcription of a hand-written diary. Because a transcription like that is subject to errors, it's not considered a certified legal copy. At minimum, they would need McChesney to authenticate the transcribed version, or authenticate an original version if Sandusky's defense can compel its production. Again, this is a hurdle but not insurmountable.
Now, if the judge panel accepts the truth of the contents of diary for the purposes of the hearing, the OAG is going to be able to counter many of the Sandusky arguments about what certain contents could mean. For example:
- Freeh's collaboration with OAG. That's not new info necessarily. He announced when he was hired he'd be collaborating to a certain degree with law enforcement. (This was also mentioned at in the Freeh Report and at his press conference.) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ctions-regarding-abuse-reports-134241848.html
- Judge Cleland was keeping a strict trial date. There were public filings outlining this, and a media article to go along with it. http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...est-for-trial-delay-in-sandusky-case,1015493/
- Mustukoff getting transcripts. I suspect this was simply the GJ transcripts of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno that were read into the record on 12/16/2011.
- Fina provided filings to Freeh. I suspect this was simply the OAG filings made on 3/30/2012 which were made public. https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...Defendants-Pretrial-Motions-March-30-2012.pdf
Those are just a few of the easier items the OAG could argue successfully to counter Sandusky's claims about the McChesney diary. The question is, among the remaining items, would they result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.
The first hurdle is that in order to establish eligibility for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence, they will at minimum have to show that the evidence would likely compel a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The OAG is going to shoot down quite a few of Sandusky's arguments. Whatever is left is going to have show a new verdict is likely. That's going to be a big hurdle.
The second hurdle is authenticating the McChesney diary. Based on my read of the diary that was made public, it is likely not an original version of the diary. I suspect it's a transcription of a hand-written diary. Because a transcription like that is subject to errors, it's not considered a certified legal copy. At minimum, they would need McChesney to authenticate the transcribed version, or authenticate an original version if Sandusky's defense can compel its production. Again, this is a hurdle but not insurmountable.
Now, if the judge panel accepts the truth of the contents of diary for the purposes of the hearing, the OAG is going to be able to counter many of the Sandusky arguments about what certain contents could mean. For example:
- Freeh's collaboration with OAG. That's not new info necessarily. He announced when he was hired he'd be collaborating to a certain degree with law enforcement. (This was also mentioned at in the Freeh Report and at his press conference.) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...ctions-regarding-abuse-reports-134241848.html
- Judge Cleland was keeping a strict trial date. There were public filings outlining this, and a media article to go along with it. http://www.statecollege.com/news/lo...est-for-trial-delay-in-sandusky-case,1015493/
- Mustukoff getting transcripts. I suspect this was simply the GJ transcripts of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno that were read into the record on 12/16/2011.
- Fina provided filings to Freeh. I suspect this was simply the OAG filings made on 3/30/2012 which were made public. https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...Defendants-Pretrial-Motions-March-30-2012.pdf
Those are just a few of the easier items the OAG could argue successfully to counter Sandusky's claims about the McChesney diary. The question is, among the remaining items, would they result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.
So your stance is that "he's guilty because he was convicted, he was convicted because he's guilty"?
Also, please elaborate about these "promising young lives". Who specifically are you referring to?
The evidence of guilt is actually very underwhelming. The evidence of prosecutorial misconduct is very strong.
Isn't it just great how Paterno's transcribed words ("It was of sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was") are taken at face value and never questioned, yet in this case the transcription is subject to errors?
It is amazing (or perhaps not) that these attorneys have not yet figured out how to navigate video conferencing.
Huh? Proceedings are still going on. I'm watching live. Certainly neither side can claim victory or defeat yet.
The attorney representing the OAG had tech issues and had to be reached by phone.
It's crazy to me that 7 months (or whatever) into the pandemic people can't figure out web meetings.
Will be interesting to see how the judges rule. Only one judge asked questions (is that normal?) She seemed to play "devil's advocate" towards both sides (I assume that is standard?) Criticisms of Sandusky's appeal seem to be based primarily around the timing (was this information brought forward at the proper time) rather than legality. Criticisms of the OAG side seemed to be more based on legal (not related to the procedure of the appeal) which seem like more serious criticisms, but perhaps I am biased.
I think (and would love it if someone corrects me), they are arguing that the juror isn't mentioned by name in the diary (which I think is true, but they know who she is from other sources). They also argued that the Freeh group didn't form until after the GJ (meaning no collusion) but I have no idea how that is relevant to the misconduct at trial regarding the juror.
Would love for an attorney to chime in on this, but I don't see how the court shouldn't take another look at this. I get that there are legal technicalities that are important and can trump "fairness" but I think Lindsay's argument about the timing holds water.
If fairness, it depends on the application being used. Not all are as simple as click the link and key in the passcode.
The general gist of Lindsay's comments, when asked about the timing, was that they wanted to, the state said no, then the state turns around and asks why they didn't do it earlier even though they tried earlier and were rebuffed
You're a state's attorney who has been using virtual meetings for months. No excuse.
Didn't see all of it, but didn't get the impression that Lindsay got anywhere with this. Having women judges surely didn't help...
When This Sandusky appeal is crushed yet again, this thread should retire as well. Francofan can move on to some other worthwhile pursuit, like rehashing the Catholic Church scandal?
The trial always seemed shady to me, but I’m not a lawyer and have no in-depth knowledge of legal proceedings. If he deserves a new trial he should get a new trial.
That said, if he gets a new trial his team will have a hell of a time trying to innocently explain away the showering with boys after after agreeing not to do so. I would imagine he would still be found guilty but he deserves a new trial it should occur.
That said, if he gets a new trial his team will have a hell of a time trying to innocently explain away the showering with boys after after agreeing not to do so. I would imagine he would still be found guilty but he deserves a new trial it should occur.
This was a feedback issue. By now you should know how your phone or PC best functions for web audio. Or if you don't have someone on hand who can help you (i.e. Al Lindsay is older and perhaps not super tech savvy; he clearly had a assistant in the room helping him out...which is better than not having a solution)
Maybe you should just go away. I don't have any tolerance for people who come into discussions that they "aren't interested in", then provide no useful new information or perspective. You are worthless.
I know you can't get past the showering with boys issue but as I have said many times just because something is inappropriate doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal.
Sorry this is off topic:
Can anyone think of another example of a phrase or term (like Catch 22) that originated in a work of fiction that then became commonly used to the point that many people don't even know where it came from?
Further off topic:
The new-ish Catch-22 miniseries (the one Clooney produced and has a small role in) is pretty well done. I recommend checking it out. Six episodes (each about an hour)
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Further off topic:
Joseph Heller was a prof at Penn State in the early 50s. I heard that a small part of the inspiration for the bureaucratic idiocy in the novel was from his experience dealing with the bureaucratic idiocy of the university administration. Apparently nothing has changed in 70 years.
I read 1984 multiple times and do not remember 2 minutes hate.
Double think and Big Brother are good examples.
He was a professor at PSU (there is a "blue historical marker" depicting this on campus) but he was also actually in the Army Air Corps. I suspect most of his inspiration regarding idiocy originated there.
Good to see you on here @JmmyW
The continuance they were referring to was from May. See my post on that for more details below.
Filed 5/9 for continuance
5/10 Diary entry says it will be denied
5/21 Cleland formally denies
Details in my post below...
Sandusky Seeks New Trial Based On Fina-Freeh Collusion, Leaks
John Snedden is confident and I trust John. I am fully aware that this is Pennsylvania and its track record is abysmal, especially in this case. I have been disappointed many times in the past few years. Things seem different this time. I am cautiously optimistic. From what John has said...
bwi.forums.rivals.com
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Less well known than the other two; Orwell’s answer to ‘let them eat cake.’
