Swazi

November 15th, 2011 at 1:01 AM ^

A lawyer who in his 40s impregnated a 16 year old while serving as her lawyer.

 

He also says that they're going to have kids, including the McQueary one, say it never happened.  Which is pretty laughable.  However, he says "We think we found him".  So he's announcing on public television that "he thinks" he has a case to defend Sandusky.

go16blue

November 14th, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^

Its possible that this is just something he insisted on doing himself, to try to clear his name. Its not like he has a chance of getting a non-life sentence at this point, anyway.

Look Up_See Blue

November 14th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^

I'm not taking any side here at all, just posing a hypathetical question:

If Sandusky goes to trial and a jury finds him not guilty.  What happens next?  I'm not saying this will happen, merely looking at the situation from all angles.  How does the University respond to such a verdict?  How does Joe Pa respond?

Disclaimer: by no means do I side with Sandusky or think he's innocent.  I'm merely opening up a topic for debate.

Look Up_See Blue

November 14th, 2011 at 8:06 PM ^

Yeah I mean stranger things have happened I suppose.  Today they said the judge that set his bail had volunteered for 2nd Mile at one point and I believe she's taking some heat for not disclosing that information prior to taking the case.  It just makes me wonder how political this will get before its all said and done.

superstringer

November 14th, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

Lawyer here.  Be clear:  "Innocent" of criminal charges does NOT mean "it never happened."  It means, "prosecution didn't prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

I was taught that proof at trial is like a scorecard.  Let's say all the evidence at trial must add up to 100 points.  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means the prosecution has to have at least, like, 92 points, defense no more than 8.

Whereas, in civil liability, the plaintiff v. defendant is decided on "preponderance of the evidence" -- the one side with 51 or more points wins.

So, maybe the evidence says Sandusky did it, 80 to 20.  Not guilty, in that case.  But, we can't say "oh so he didn't do it." Because by 80 to 20, we'd say he did.

CASE IN POINT:  OJ.  He was not guilty of criminal charges.  But a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death, i.e., he caused the deaths.  How is taht consistent?  B/c the criminal jury found "reasonable doubt," however, the civil jury still found the "preponderance of the evidence" that he did it.

bluebyyou

November 14th, 2011 at 10:11 PM ^

One other point, is that at the civil trial you don't have the option of not testifying.  Being examined, cross or direct by a good trial lawyer can be like a day in hell.  Plus you also have the additional charge of dealing with perjury should you lie and the boys and girls on the criminal side of the bench go after you again.

Space Coyote

November 14th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^

But in the end ESPN and the news has sucked any bit of me wanting to actually hear more about this story away.  I mean, I couldn't even watch the start of the Michigan game Saturday because they were showing Joe Pa's house.  As normal, ESPN blows up everything until everyone is sick of it and then move on to the next thing and do it again.

Sopwith

November 14th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^

There were about 150 Michigan Alumni at the game at this one bar in DC, and the grumblings started about 3:45.  Several minutes later, as people noticed on their cell phones that Michigan was already up 7-0, people were yelling at the bewildered staff.  After about the first 6-7 minutes of gametime were up, they managed to put on a silent feed from the ESPN 3 webcast, which mollified people for a few minutes, until people were griping about the sound.  It was a total mess.

SFWolverineFan

November 14th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^

Does anyone know if I can hear/watch the interview streaming online?  This student needs to get work done, but is very interested in what that dirtbag has to say for himself.  

True Blue Grit

November 14th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^

of the year.  Although I can understand NBC's desire to boost their ratings, giving this disgusting excuse for a human being the chance to con people into believing he's innocent is wrong.  Unless of course Sandusky comes clean on national TV which I strongly doubt he'll do.  The only thing that would make this worthwhile is if Costas throws off the journalistic gloves and grills Sandusky mercilessly  until he becomes a whimpering blob. 

But, I really, really don't understand why Sandusky's lawyer is letting him do this.  Maybe he strongly advised against it and the moron is going ahead with it anyway.  He must really feel like he has nothing to lose I guess.