Do you have any idea how disturbing it is that the supposed troll is the rational one in this exchange?
Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET
- Thread starter JeannieNeedsAShooter
- Start date
Victims testimony?? Have you read Vic #9 testimony?? You find that creditable??
Well here are some of the questions that should have been asked.
9 said he met the tickle monster at Jerrys TSM summer camp? Was the proven to be true...probably.
9 stated he went to Joe's last game against Illinois. Was that proven or disproven?
9 stated he was at JS's house hundreds of times. Surely someone could confirm or deny that.
9 also detailed the abuse and apparently the jury believed him.
Did the defense really shoot any holes in the testimony? Honest question as it's been a while. Discrediting a witness is the classic defense, yet these shady victims made the jury bite on all of their lies I guess. It's certainly possible, but not really probable(1%) that they were all lying.
I don't think they wanted to talk to him at all, the email sort of forced their hand. They saw that more people knew things and they had to act. Would they have pursued this if the email had never been sent? I believe the answer to that is an emphatic no.
Well one of the arguments in the PCR petition is incompetent/ineffective counsel. The defense didn't even interview ANY of the alleged victims before trial. They went in cold when cross examining them on the stand. Just think about that for a minute. No defense lawyer, in their right mind, would do such a thing (or believe the prosecution when they said the defense wasn't allowed to interview any of the alleged victim's pre trial). That's 1st year law school stuff.
If it was merely ill advised why was he charged and convicted on 3 counts relating to the 98 incident?
Face it, Sandusky is pedophile. Your continued defense of him is pathetic at best.
I don't believe I have been blocked by Blehar. Paterno and Ziegler yes, they blocked me very early.
I'm sure that the petition was well written and very convincing, that's the guys job. Let me put it to you this way, it did not take a court hearing to convince me of his guilt and no appeal will reverse that. I understand that that is my opinion, but you should realize that it's a very educated opinion, that's all.
To even consider that the actions from 2009 and on were NOT politically motivated is ludicrous at best. I know better.
I'm blocked by Paterno and I have absolutely no reason why. Never engaged in any conversation with him whether it be for or against. Have had numerous "for Paterno" conversations but the block made no sense to me.
I am sorry. I confused Scott with Ray. Scott blocked me a long time ago but has made friendly replies to tweets that I have made.
What causes you to be so confident that you have command of the facts? What is your connection to the case? Do you have any inside information?
I believe you have told me in the past that you agreed that JS did not receive a fair trial. Are you against him getting a new trial based on the irregularities in the first trial?
They charged him in 2011 because they could. They believed they had enough to establish his behavior in that incident to fall into the category of grooming. And maybe they were right.
But maybe they weren't. We know that JS maintained relationships with both V6 and V2 right up until his indictment. Both said nothing sexual happened during those two incidents.
Whether Jerry is or is not a pedophile is immaterial to this discussion as far as I'm concerned. This is about whether or not Jerry received a fair trial. I happen to believe that the prosecution deliberately adopted a three prong strategy because their case was so week. 1) They wanted to try the case in the court of public opinion. Throwing Joe under the bus ensured that would happen. 2) They they wanted to depict Jerry as a monster, because they couldn't win if all they were trying to prove was that he was a creep. The whole anal intercourse fabrication in the presentment took care of that. And 3) They wanted to take a quantity over quality approach because no jury could possibly think JS was not guilty when he was facing 48 counts.
It should never be overlooked that people, such as those in the OAG, are among the most politically ambitious in all of society. Losing was never an option for them and I think there is ample evidence to suggest that they broke laws to guarantee the outcome that made them look good.
Last edited:
But who was on the grassy knoll?
To recap, Sandusky just made some ill advised decisions, he's a creep not a monster, and his guilt/innocence is immaterial? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
BTW, it's common for victims to maintain a relationship with their abuser. Maybe you should do some research into behavior of CSA victims before you pass judgment? Just a thought.
There's nothing intellectually dishonest about my position. V6 texted Jerry on Father's Day, 2011 to tell him how important he was to him. Father's Day...not Valentine's Day. You're the one passing judgment with nothing but circumstantial evidence to support you argument.
LT, I have already figured out you use several alias' here (just by the likes you receive) and I have seen your style of writing at other blogs under different name (ie Judas Shuttlesworth, Andrea DiMaggio). I thought you were a BOT or related to one, but then thought you were hired by the BOT PR team. However, no one can hate Jerry so much that you have to be an alleged victim. I put down alleged, because if you were a victim by now you would have put your hate aside. You keep going, because of the money and it is pathetic. Which victim are you? Have you ever thought what wold happen if BWI released your real name?
No you haven't and everyone already knows you're not the real Todd Brewster.
Valentine's Day? Now you're just being stupid.
You're questioning the victims behavior, which is consistent with CSA, and giving Soapy a pass on everything no matter how outlandish.
Short of video evidence you won't believe it because you want Joe exonerated.
Joe's exoneration has nothing to do with Jerry's possible innocence. Joe acted exactly as he was supposed to. So did C/S/S.
I agree that Jerry could be guilty regardless of whether Joe is exonerated or not.
I disagree that Joe's exoneration has nothing to do with Jerry's possible innocence. Joe's exoneration will do nothing but help Jerry's defense. Joe could not be guilty if Jerry is innocent. The unjust firing of Joe caused the hysteria created by the false grand jury presentment to get exponentially worse against Sandusky. IMO, exoneration of Joe will reverse some of that hysteria.
Joe has already been exonerated. So that can't be a motive.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no "Andrea DiMaggio". Anyway, not the real one who has disavowed this clown's crap.
I never said anyone, outside of Sandusky, was guilty of anything. That said, if you can't admit changing public opinion of Joe is why you're giving Soapy a pass you're more deluded than I thought.
I've literally never posted there. You're just a gang of delusional fools that can't accept reality.
You're a sad little gang of fools.
Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ridiculous theories becomes part of them.
The victims wouldn't have spoken to the defense attorneys, and there's no way Amendola could've forced them to talk to him.
And criminal defense attorneys do what you call a "cold cross" in every single case. Every case. This really highlights the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
And, thinking about it, I've done a "cold cross" of one or more witnesses in probably 90% of the civil cases I've tried. It's not financially practicable to depose every potential witness in a case.
Your paranoid delusions are breathtaking. Literally anyone that disagrees with you is part of a grand conspiracy.
Correct, Amendola couldn't have forced the victims to speak to him before trial but he sure as hell could have tried, instead of just taking the OAG at their word. This wasn't a civil case, pal so your 90% rate doesn't apply. These were CRIMINAL charges. The defense absolutely has the right to try and depose/interview the alleged victims before trial.
Of course you don't have to interview every SINGLE witness (you need to prioritize based on how much time you have before trial-which in the JS was practically none after discovery started) but you sure as hell want to talk to the ones who will be testifying, as alleged victims, against your client in a criminal trial.
These weren't just run of the mill witnesses that JS's defense failed to interview before trial, they were alleged VICTIMS of JS's who were going to testify that he abused them. There's a big difference. Apparently you're not a good enough lawyer to see the difference....
From a quick google search (link):
The defense can gain significant benefits from trying to interview prosecution witnesses rather than relying on their statements. These include the ability to:
- gauge witnesses’ demeanor and credibility
- ferret out details of witnesses’ stories and strategize as to how to handle their testimony at trial
- impeach witnesses who say something on the stand that’s inconsistent with what they told the defense
- establish a foundation for arguing witnesses who refuse to speak to the defense are biased against the defendant, and
- find leads for new evidence and people to interview.
Some defendants might wonder whether it’s worth it to interview a witness who has already given a statement that the prosecution has disclosed. But prosecutors and police officers sometimes omit or misstate information (either intentionally or not). Further, when law enforcement and prosecutors speak to witnesses, they aren’t likely to ask all the questions the answers to which the defense would like to know. And there might not be a record of all conversations witnesses have had with the other side.
Waste of Time?
It’s perfectly legal for defense attorneys and their investigators to interview prosecution witnesses in most instances. (Among the instances in which it’s not are those involving harassment or threats.) And even though prosecutors might not want their witnesses—including police officers and victims—to talk to the defense, they typically can’t stop them (though they may “inform” them that they don’t need to).
It’s generally up to witnesses and victims to decide whether to talk to the defense before trial. They might not be willing to talk, but a defense attorney or investigator who doesn't ask often doesn't know.
===========================================
From another link:
A defendant, usually through their defense attorney, can ascertain statements and other information from individuals that the prosecutor intends to use as witnesses during trial. During the discover process, the prosecutor must provide the names and addresses of the individuals they intend to utilize as witnesses during trial, which gives the defense a clear indicator of who they should interview. However, the process of interviewing the prosecutor’s witnesses, which may include the alleged victim of a crime, is not always possible in certain circumstances. Under no circumstances should a defendant conduct their own informal interviews or attempt to contact victims of a given crime, which may be viewed as intimidation, another crime, by the courts.
Some of the preeminent laws and policies concerning defense attorneys interviewing the prosecution’s witnesses include:
- Prosecutors cannot mandate their witnesses to not speak to defense attorneys; however, they can strongly suggest that an individual not do so. However, prosecutors have no legal right to withhold a willing witness from speaking with the defense’s counsel.
- Prosecution witnesses are also under no legal obligation to speak with the defense either, and if invasive measures are used to obtain an interview, more crimes may actually be committed. Some of the notable circumstances of forced interviews on the prosecution’s witnesses occur during a deposition.
- Depositions are not common in criminal law, however, some states, such as Florida and California, have laws in place allowing the defense to subpoena a potential witness for a legally required interview under oath.
- The final option for defense attorneys to use to garner information from prosecutor’s witnesses is through the services of a private investigator. While public defenders offices do have private investigators, the demand for services means they will not be solely tasked with investigating your case. In these instances, having private counsel and the ability to afford the dedicated services of a private investigator are beneficial to those that can afford to do so.
=========================================================
Good God I really hope you've never defended someone against criminal charges...if you even are a lawyer
Last edited:
Similar threads
