Skyhook79;1013338 wrote:This happens all the time and is not uncommon at all.

They usually do it before everyone gets dressed up and goes to the courthouse. Legally it doesn't hurt him, in the public eye it screams guilt, especially when the defense kept saying that Sandusky is in a hurry to clear his name. Well, he had a chance to do it today, the alleged victims showed up and he didn't follow through.

He must be going with the ineffective counsel defense.

Manhattan Buckeye;1013356 wrote:
He must be going with the ineffective counsel defense.

It would seemingly be consistent with them allowing (encouraging?) Sandusky to go on a media tour.

Manhattan Buckeye;1013356 wrote:They usually do it before everyone gets dressed up and goes to the courthouse. Legally it doesn't hurt him, in the public eye it screams guilt, especially when the defense kept saying that Sandusky is in a hurry to clear his name. Well, he had a chance to do it today, the alleged victims showed up and he didn't follow through.

He must be going with the ineffective counsel defense.

Had a chance to clear his name today? How so, it was a "preliminary" hearing on whether or not it would go to trial which is a very low burden to prove. I don't know if Sandusky is guilty or not but i am willing to let him have his day in court something you and others are unwilling to do.

Skyhook79;1013416 wrote:Had a chance to clear his name today? How so, it was a "preliminary" hearing on whether or not it would go to trial which is a very low burden to prove. I don't know if Sandusky is guilty or not but i am willing to let him have his day in court something you and others are unwilling to do.

Easy answer: if he shows there's not enough evidence against him -- there's no trial. So if he feels his case is strong; go forward with the prelim and plan the celebration for your release when the judge dismisses the charges.

I'm guessing he really didn't want to sit through hearing all those victims testify what they did to him, and have all the emotion those stories would generate reverberating through that cloistered community. He wouldn't be able to step outside his door without someone saying something, I'm sure.

And I haven't seen many here suggest he shouldn't have his day in court. I have seen lots of overly emotional statements about what should happen to him as punishment -- but I shrug that off as venting more than anything else.

Writerbuckeye;1013491 wrote:Easy answer: if he shows there's not enough evidence against him -- there's no trial. So if he feels his case is strong; go forward with the prelim and plan the celebration for your release when the judge dismisses the charges.

I'm guessing he really didn't want to sit through hearing all those victims testify what they did to him, and have all the emotion those stories would generate reverberating through that cloistered community. He wouldn't be able to step outside his door without someone saying something, I'm sure.

And I haven't seen many here suggest he shouldn't have his day in court. I have seen lots of overly emotional statements about what should happen to him as punishment -- but I shrug that off as venting more than anything else.

There was no chance this was not going to trial with a Grand Jury report. Sandusky's Legal team did the absolute right thing by waiving this hearing. It's done almost 100% of the time especially in Pennsylvania.
Sandusky did enter a plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial at the hearing.

I know it's done most of the time. In 8 years of covering courts as a reporter, I think I actually sat through one preliminary hearing. All the rest of the defendants waived and went straight to jury trial.

My point was that Sandusky has publicly proclaimed his innocence and his (I think idiot) attorney has even had him doing the media circuit to a degree. If all the bravado was real, he'd go forward with the hearing and try to get the charges dismissed.

But we both know most attorneys can BS with the best of them, and Sandusky's took it a bit further than most but backed off when the real crap was about to hit the fan. No surprise.

Writerbuckeye;1013575 wrote:I know it's done most of the time. In 8 years of covering courts as a reporter, I think I actually sat through one preliminary hearing. All the rest of the defendants waived and went straight to jury trial.

Exactly, thanks for making my point.

Paterno is setting himself up as "physically unable to appear" if called in as a witness. Does he really have cancer? Did he really break a hip? I'm calling BS.

I think he's really sick, and you can't fake a broken pelvis, but I doubt his ego would let his attorney pull such a stunt. He will try to salvage his "legacy" at all costs. It's a losing battle, imo, but he'll try.

"There was no chance this was not going to trial with a Grand Jury report. Sandusky's Legal team did the absolute right thing by waiving this hearing. It's done almost 100% of the time especially in Pennsylvania. "

Why couldn't they have waived it earlier? It was a cheap defense trick that backfired on them.....people are now saying if Sandusky really cares about these people, why didn't he spare them the hassle of showing up ready to testify?

Wetzel nails it again in his most recent column, and once again you whiff. He had his day in court this morning and decided not to follow through with it despite claiming he would - and his victims (I'm going to stop using the word alleged now because it is obvious he is completely guilt of some sort of crime) lived up to their obligations and were ready. He'll get another chance at the trial, but he is one of the most odious creatures we've seen in some time. The man is one sick, sick man.

BTW, link to Wetzel's column:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_jerry_sandusky_waives_hearing_121311

Also, appears his attorney is an equal piece of work:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Jerry-Sandusky-8217-s-lawyer-suggests-calling-a?urn=ncaaf-wp11446

"(I'm going to stop using the word alleged now because it is obvious he is completely guilt of some sort of crime)"


I hope no one ever has to have you sit on a jury...and Why do I care what Dan Wetzel thinks?

Skyhook79;1014227 wrote:"(I'm going to stop using the word alleged now because it is obvious he is completely guilt of some sort of crime)"


I hope no one ever has to have you sit on a jury...and Why do I care what Dan Wetzel thinks?

Hoping no little boys ever have to shower with Jerry Sandusky again > Hoping the writer never sits on a jury

Skyhook79;1014227 wrote:"(I'm going to stop using the word alleged now because it is obvious he is completely guilt of some sort of crime)"


I hope no one ever has to have you sit on a jury...and Why do I care what Dan Wetzel thinks?

You should hope more that if you sexually abuse a child, you have me for an attorney to counsel you NOT to admit it in an interview with Bob Costas.

Anything else substantive you want to add? Sandusky damned himself with his actions and comments and his counsel damned him with his ineffectiveness. The guy admitted to showering with young boys, at night, with no one else in the locker room. He cooked his own goose. But no, you don't know if he's guilty or not. What was he doing, teaching wrestling moves in the shower? Is that normal in your world?

Manhattan Buckeye;1014336 wrote:You should hope more that if you sexually abuse a child, you have me for an attorney to counsel you NOT to admit it in an interview with Bob Costas.

Anything else substantive you want to add? Sandusky damned himself with his actions and comments and his counsel damned him with his ineffectiveness. The guy admitted to showering with young boys, at night, with no one else in the locker room. He cooked his own goose. But no, you don't know if he's guilty or not. What was he doing, teaching wrestling moves in the shower? Is that normal in your world?

Taking showers with boys is not something I do nor is it normal but it also does not constitute sexual abuse, otherwise Sandusky would have been arrested when he told the 2 detectives and the Child Public Welfare investigator along with the mother of one of the victims that 13 years ago. They already knew this about Sandusky.
Also pretty sure I wouldn't want the services of a Lawyer who brags about beating up on soccer players in a basketball rec league on a internet message board and has some of the views you have on due process.

Manhattan Buckeye;1014336 wrote: The guy admitted to showering with young boys, at night, with no one else in the locker room. He cooked his own goose. But no, you don't know if he's guilty or not.

No we don't, because he didn't admit to sexually abusing them, which is what he is on trial for. Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this?

lhslep134;1014600 wrote:No we don't, because he didn't admit to sexually abusing them, which is what he is on trial for. Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this?

I'm guessing you wouldn't hire him either?

Skyhook79;1014606 wrote:I'm guessing you wouldn't hire him either?

Are you kidding me? Someone who has those views on due process? The fact he felt the need to criticize me because he thought I go to a 3rd tier law school (in reality I go to a 1st tier one)? The fact that he has no cognition of the concept that Sandusky didn't admit to what he is being charged with?


Hell no, I'd feel better representing myself with my one semester's worth of knowledge.

lhslep134;1014614 wrote:Are you kidding me? Someone who has those views on due process? The fact he felt the need to criticize me because he thought I go to a 3rd tier law school (in reality I go to a 1st tier one)? The fact that he has no cognition of the concept that Sandusky didn't admit to what he is being charged with?


Hell no, I'd feel better representing myself with my one semester's worth of knowledge.

[video=youtube;rNh4VGRxerk][/video]


I would even take this guy before him.

McQueary will eventually admit to being molested by Sandusky during his many sleepovers in the basement of the Sandusky home.

lhslep134;1014600 wrote:No we don't, because he didn't admit to sexually abusing them, which is what he is on trial for. Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this?

Of course, which is why as a lawyer I wouldn't make it past voir dire. I'd look at the other jurors and say what type of idiot thinks this guy isn't guilty?

You don't check your brain in at law school, even if it is a TTT. All of my friends at Baker, Bradley Arant, Vinson, Hogan, Dewey, Hunton....wait am I missing any, yes McGuire, Ropes, Skadden and I still have a friend in the Manhattan DA's office are saying "what the heck is going on here?"

He's getting his due process, and he's burning himself in his public statements.

But of course I'm wrong. Because TTT and Paterno guy say so.

Forget an Ipad 2, I'll give each of you an Ipad 200 if Sandusky walks.

"Also pretty sure I wouldn't want the services of a Lawyer who brags about beating up on soccer players in a basketball rec league on a internet message board and has some of the views you have on due process. "

Beating up? You mean beating the crap out of them from a scoring stand point? Guilty. Do you actually mean physically beating up? Like in a fight, as in an assault? As in "hey there's a soccer nerd on our court, let's get'em!".

Lhslep, this is the type of liar you have defending you. When have I ever bragged about beating up anyone in any circumstance?

Manhattan Buckeye;1015504 wrote:"Also pretty sure I wouldn't want the services of a Lawyer who brags about beating up on soccer players in a basketball rec league on a internet message board and has some of the views you have on due process. "

Beating up? You mean beating the crap out of them from a scoring stand point? Guilty. Do you actually mean physically beating up? Like in a fight, as in an assault? As in "hey there's a soccer nerd on our court, let's get'em!".

Lhslep, this is the type of liar you have defending you. When have I ever bragged about beating up anyone in any circumstance?

Really, thats your argument about my statement "beating up on soccer players in a basketball rec league"? That somehow meant physically assaulting them? So I guess when you said:

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member Join DateNov 2009Posts3,884vCash11,456Rep Power6

The soccer nerds that got their asses handed to them in intramural basketball would disagree.



You really cut off their asses and handed it to them? Thats assault I'm pretty sure in your world I guess. LOL[INDENT=5][INDENT]


[/INDENT]


[/INDENT]

Skyhook79;1015667 wrote:Really, thats your argument about my statement "beating up on soccer players in a basketball rec league"? That somehow meant physically assaulting them? So I guess when you said:

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member Join DateNov 2009Posts3,884vCash11,456Rep Power6

The soccer nerds that got their asses handed to them in intramural basketball would disagree.



You really cut off their asses and handed it to them? Thats assault I'm pretty sure in your world I guess. LOL[INDENT=5][INDENT]


[/INDENT]


[/INDENT]

Yes, I literally cut their asses off, I managed to escape prosecution by hiring Sandusky's lawyer.

lhslep134;1014600 wrote:No we don't, because he didn't admit to sexually abusing them, which is what he is on trial for. Aren't you a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this?

As an individual, I have the right to have decided that that we know he abused children. I have no obligation, unless I'm called to serve on his jury, to believe otherwise.

Skyhook79;1014606 wrote:I'm guessing you wouldn't hire him either?

I would hire Manhatten Buckeye to be my lawyer. Problem is, I simply can't afford him.