You don't strike me as someone devoid of intelligence LaJolla. What I don't get is how you equate someone someone fighting for due process and wanting to see a level playing ground in the justice system with someone who is fighting for Jerry's "innocence."
Advocating for a new trial does not equal fighting for Jerry's innocence. Something stinks to high heaven in this whole fiasco and the stench will not be removed until the truth is known. I believe that a new trial for Sandusky will go a long way toward removing the stench.
I am amazed at how effective the "methods" that have been used to manage the Public's perception of key issues here have been over the past 6+ years.
The public "Story" is that Sandusky is a Pedophile - proven in a court of law. Whether Sandusky is Guilty or innocent HAS NO IMPACT ON WHAT IS BEING Stated by saying the trial "convicting: Sandusky was ILLEGAL.Why is it so hard to see that a re-trial is the fair and just next step with Sandusky??? This has NOTHING to do with saying Sandusky is innocent. It only admits that the case which convicted Sandusky has way too many "suspicious" issues - many actually illegal - for the public to know "reality"
This again is one where a very emotionally directed "Story" was established which, by its basic legal processes and "quality components" of evidence used, created questionable legal results. Legal abuses should not be part of establishing Guilt in a Court process.
I question the basic motives of the OAG and the resulting public trial information because of the methods used seemed to focus on ONLY establishing a pre-ordained "reality complex" version of PUBLIC guilt. Today....too many people want to shout down anyone who questions anything about Sandusky - those invested in the "forget about suspicious issues" are definite about ignoring anything "but what I believe". These people are too positive that "guilt" has been HONESTLY (and LEGALLY) established so ..."just move on..." - when moving on COULD be creating a "cover-up" for potential illegal aspects of this case.
If a new trial provides the same "guilty" results, then we will
KNOW that Sandusky is guilty as charged. The "suspicious" element here would then fall away. This is a requirement of justice - no "beyond a reasonable doubt" suspicious elements.
I have no problems with agreeing with those who believe Sandusky is "Guilty"
IF on what we judge him "Guilty" of is proven in an unbiased, fair legal environment. Additionally the evidence used in the trial has to have more attention to the "details" of testimony. Money-based accusations alone is not evidence.
As Sandusky's "Guilt" has been publicly established today, there are to many serious questions concerning
THE LEGAL CASE for me.