queencitybuckeye;1015688 wrote: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.

I guess you don't believe in the Bill of Rights either? Why do you live here then?

Skyhook79;1015691 wrote:I guess you don't believe in the Bill of Rights either? Why do you live here then?

I believe in it so much that I actually understand what they mean, something you clearly haven't bothered to learn.

sleeper;1015689 wrote:I would hire Manhatten Buckeye to be my lawyer. Problem is, he is too busy handing asses to soccer players in his rec basketball league and posting about it on Ohio Chatter.

Probally because ManHatten Buckeye also promises Ipad's too.

queencitybuckeye;1015693 wrote:I believe in it so much that I actually understand what they mean, something you clearly haven't bothered to learn.

ensuring the rights of the person charged with numerous safeguards, chief of which is the requirement that the person is presumed innocent until the government meets the highest burden of proof known in American law: proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.

Is this the part you believe in?

Skyhook79;1015697 wrote:ensuring the rights of the person charged with numerous safeguards, chief of which is the requirement that the person is presumed innocent until the government meets the highest burden of proof known in American law: proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.

Is this the part you believe in?

As the text you highlighted is nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States, I'd say no, that's not the part of the Bill of Rights I believe in. I do believe that you're an uneducated fool, too stupid to know how dumb you look when you attempt to debate those of us with more knowledge of this or any other subject.

Skyhook79;1015694 wrote:Probally because ManHatten Buckeye also promises Ipad's too.

Well MB also understands that a promise to buy everyone iPad's is not legally binding. A concept that very few, if any, of the people on here understand.

sleeper;1015715 wrote:Well MB also understands that a promise to buy everyone iPad's is not legally binding. A concept that very few, if any, of the people on here understand.

because OSU people lie, everybody lies, steals, cheats, murders people, because its OSU.

Speedofsand;1015734 wrote:because OSU people lie, everybody lies, steals, cheats, murders people, because its OSU.

Actually, MB is a SEC guy. Good point.

queencitybuckeye;1015735 wrote:Actually, MB is a SEC guy. Good point.

Eh, I try to think of him more of a ACC guy.

sleeper;1015745 wrote:Eh, I try to think of him more of a ACC guy.

Me too, but in the context of speedofsand's post (cheating, stealing, etc.), that's more of an SEC thing.

queencitybuckeye;1015755 wrote:Me too, but in the context of speedofsand's post (cheating, stealing, etc.), that's more of an SEC thing.

+1

Its more of an OSU thing than a Florida thing.

queencitybuckeye;1015701 wrote:As the text you highlighted is nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States, I'd say no, that's not the part of the Bill of Rights I believe in. I do believe that you're an uneducated fool, too stupid to know how dumb you look when you attempt to debate those of us with more knowledge of this or any other subject.

The 5th, 6th and 14th amendment clearly go to presumption of innocence.

Skyhook79;1015814 wrote:The 5th, 6th and 14th amendment clearly go to presumption of innocence.

Where do they contain a requirement for someone having nothing to do with a court case being required to hold that presumption?

By your "logic", I have to now and forever hold the belief that Orenthal didn't turn two humans into Pez dispensers.

queencitybuckeye;1015859 wrote:Where do they contain a requirement for someone having nothing to do with a court case being required to hold that presumption?

By your "logic", I have to now and forever hold the belief that Orenthal didn't turn two humans into Pez dispensers.

Or Casey Anthony didn't have anything to do with the death of her kid. Since I do remember Skyhook commenting on how classless some of us were for making sexual comments towards her. Like here.

Skyhook79;965321 wrote:Lets look at the mentality of some on here:

Casey Anthony knows her child has been missing for 30 days and tells no one and her decomposing body is found a few miles from her home=I'd hit/bang Casey anthony and would motor boat her awesome boobs.

Joe Paterno tells not 1 but 2 superiors ,about an alleged act sexual in nature told to him by someone else, within 1 day=He should die a slow painful death after Bubba bends him over in prison.

I didn't see 1/2 the outrage over a little girls henious death either known by her Mother or even committed by her Mother as we see with someone who didn't even have first hand knowledge of an alleged sex act on a minor who went to his superiors as soon as he found out.

Apparently, that whole "presumption of innocence" deal doesn't apply to people who actually weren't found guilty of their charges, since da Hook seems to be strongly hinting against her innocence.

Heretic;1015881 wrote:Or Casey Anthony didn't have anything to do with the death of her kid. Since I do remember Skyhook commenting on how classless some of us were for making sexual comments towards her. Like here.



Apparently, that whole "presumption of innocence" deal doesn't apply to people who actually weren't found guilty of their charges, since da Hook seems to be strongly hinting against her innocence.

"either known by her Mother"

That was conceded by the defense that she knew she was actually dead and I made those comments after all the evidence came out and after she had her day in court and no where did I say she was guilty. Nice try though.

Manhattan Buckeye;1015503 wrote:
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?"
.

Holy crap you think I actually care about your name drops? Get out of here with that sh*t. If you think you're adding credibility, it's just making you look foolish since no one cares.

And I never said he couldn't be found guilty. I said he admitted to doing something that the police already knew about in the past, but he didn't admit to the crime he's being charged with. Showering with someone (no matter how f*cked up it is) is not an automatic sexual abuse/assault. While it's presumed he did abuse them (like it was presumed Casey Anthony killed her kid), he is entitled to have his day in court and attempt to prove his innocence (or lack of guilt I guess).

Manhattan Buckeye never misses an opportunity to let all of us out here in the hinterlands know he lives in that there "Noo Yark City"!

Tiernan;1017033 wrote:Manhattan Buckeye never misses an opportunity to let all of us out here in the hinterlands know he lives in that there "Noo Yark City"!

????

He doesn't live in "Noo Yark City". I don't believe he even lives in this country right now.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/live_coverage_follow_updates_f.html

Mcqueary's testimony today.

http://twitter.com/sganim

http://twitter.com/patriotnews

McQueary's credibility took a huge hit with the "...I'm not sure of what I was seeing" comment. Defense Attys for Jerry will eat him up.

Tiernan;1017181 wrote:McQueary's credibility took a huge hit with the "...I'm not sure of what I was seeing" comment. Defense Attys for Jerry will eat him up.

The Judge not letting the defense question McQueary about the Dr at his house or the defense question McQueary's Dad about that either is troubling but will be brought up in the actual trial.

Tiernan;1017181 wrote:McQueary's credibility took a huge hit with the "...I'm not sure of what I was seeing" comment. Defense Attys for Jerry will eat him up.

I'm not sure of what I was seeing and I wasn't 1000% positive are two very different things.

"There is no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry Sandusky in the showers with a boy and there was severe sexual acts going on and it was wrong and over the line,"


Yeah, he admitted he literally did not see the literal act of anal rape. But it is very hard to not deduce that it was what was happening with the graphic description of what he did see and hear that he gave under oath today. Not every prosecuted crime has been seen. The prosecution only has to establish MMO, which they will with the other witnesses called, and McQueary's account will seem pretty solid, imo.

Skyhook79;1017206 wrote:The Judge not letting the defense question McQueary about the Dr at his house or the defense question McQueary's Dad about that either is troubling but will be brought up in the actual trial.

I don't think it is really necessary to these charges to be honest.

#1: Just because the perjury case is going to trial doesn't mean a conviction is imminent. The prosecution simply met their burden of proof to bring them to a trial, not to convict them. Evidence submitted and testimony today, imo, aren't strong enough to convict Schultz on perjury charges. It comes off as heinous incompetence more than knowingly lying under oath. If I were anybody connected to Penn State, I would be worried that anyone this moronic was in charge of the university finances for a number of years. It seems that the state may have strong enough testimony to convict Curley, however.
#2: Dranov's testimony doesn't really add anything to the defense of either Curley or Schultz. The biggest problem the defense attorneys are facing is from their own clients, imo: their recountings of how everything went down and who exactly knew and/or did what don't match.

I'd love to know what both sides of the Penn State clan think of this...the usual message board I go to for opinions from them is oddly quiet which I take as a fairly somber sign.

So he said a few weeks ago that he stopped it???? Doesn't sound that way to me. What a pussy the ginger is!