The Commonwealth's dubious claims in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

[nits74]

I agree with most of your post, but I am not sure that the truth will never be revealed and that there will be no new trial. I think there is a reasonable chance that either Judge Foradora will grant Sandusky a new trial or that Sandusky will win a new trial on appeal. The law is on Sandusky's side in his PCRA petition. This case is a textbook example of an unfair trial and the reason that PCRA laws were written. It is replete with totally ineffective defense counsel, serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct, and judges with an extreme prosecution bias. If Sandusky wins a new trial, I think there would be a very good chance that the truth would become evident. Too many people know what actually happened for the truth to be burried forever.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The forces working against this are powerful and their tentacles extend throughout the Commonwealth. And if you're looking to the media for help in unearthing this, I think you can write that off.

 

[bdgan]

Mike had every right to be concerned about JS being in the shower with a youngster in the evening alone. Reporting that made sense. As for what he actually "saw?" One only needs to be familiar with the layout of the locker room. His testimony doesn't match the site lines.

His testimony also doesn't match up with his response or the response of anybody he told.

 

[GTACSA]

His testimony also doesn't match up with his response or the response of anybody he told.

How about his father's verbal response when he asked Mike if he saw insertion?

 

[marshall23]

How about his father's verbal response when he asked Mike if he saw insertion?

Are you saying that Mike and his father remained silent for 10 years and covered up an anal rape that he witnessed? I doubt that. I would never believe that.

 

[marshall23]

How about his father's verbal response when he asked Mike if he saw insertion?

When "he" who? If Big John knew Mike saw insertion he would have called authorities that night. End of discussion. In addition John had a conversation with Gary, when Gary purportedly told JM "we have nothing to sink our teeth into." So John wouldn't have confirmed a witnessed rape then. You really are an idiot.

 

[GTACSA]

Are you saying that Mike and his father remained silent for 10 years and covered up an anal rape that he witnessed? I doubt that. I would never believe that.

I am saying that his testimony matches up to his father's verbal response. My post was in response to a specific post that asserted the contrary.

When "he" who? If Big John knew Mike saw insertion he would have called authorities that night. End of discussion. In addition John had a conversation with Gary, when Gary purportedly told JM "we have nothing to sink our teeth into." So John wouldn't have confirmed a witnessed rape then. You really are an idiot.

This has nothing to do with my post as explained above.

 

[Mixolydian]

I am saying that his testimony matches up to his father's verbal response. My post was in response to a specific post that asserted the contrary.



This has nothing to do with my post as explained above.

If this has nothing to do with your post then your post has nothing to do with anything relevant. You are consistently dumb as a stump.

 

[GTACSA]

If this has nothing to do with your post then your post has nothing to do with anything relevant. You are consistently dumb as a stump.

It had everything to do with bdgan's post to which I replied; of course you were not involved in that post/response.

But you already know that.

 

[Mixolydian]

It had everything to do with bdgan's post to which I replied; of course you were not involved in that post/response.

But you already know that.

I do already know that. Doesn’t change my point.