Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,726
#3,726
#3,727
#3,727
LawVol13 said:
Coming from someone as clueless as you, that's a compliment.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Do you ever attempt to make reasonable arguments or do you just sling insults around? It appears that the bulk of your posts are just insults without even attempting to add substance to the discussion. Does this make you feel better about yourself?
 
#3,728
#3,728
knucklehead_vol said:
Yea, but something just seems wrong about him still being there. If the old bastard was fired, why wasn't he? One thing seems definite, he'll never have another job in football.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower and his dad hold the key to unlocking a lot of mysteries Penn State doesn't want out.

Watch, as the media continues to press for the former GA to be fired, he will get closer to telling his story. When he does, curtains.
 
#3,730
#3,730
Vercingetorix said:
He sounds like just about 19 year old that's had two semesters of college philosophy. Three percent of them fork off into the the bowels of the philosophy department and are never heard from again. The rest of them grow up.
Click to expand...

Well, at least this statement is consistent with the way you speculate and jump to conclusions without first finding or waiting for the facts to surface.
 
#3,731
#3,731
therealUT said:
As of this point, I will rely on the Attorney General's findings. If more facts come out, my opinion might change according to the facts. It scares me to think that you want to be a prosecutor and you presume guilt without being privy to evidence that proves guilt.
Click to expand...

Whats scary is the old bastard and the AD dept. let this monster on campus. Whats scary is the fact that ther may be a lot more victims. Whats scary is we don't even know all the facts yet, just whats in the grand jury indictment, that's scary. Being scared of what someone thinks is feeble minded at this point.
 
#3,732
#3,732
Domestic Silence said:
The whistleblower and his dad hold the key to unlocking a lot of mysteries Penn State doesn't want out.

Watch, as the media continues to press for the former GA to be fired, he will get closer to telling his story. When he does, curtains.
Click to expand...

I think this is right. It is only a matter of time before he spills the full story.
 
#3,735
#3,735
therealUT said:
As of this point, I will rely on the Attorney General's findings. If more facts come out, my opinion might change according to the facts. It scares me to think that you want to be a prosecutor and you presume guilt without being privy to evidence that proves guilt.
Click to expand...
What's the problem with a prosecutor presuming guilt?
 
#3,736
#3,736
BigPapaVol said:
What's the problem with a prosecutor presuming guilt?
Click to expand...

Prior to having the evidence; everything.

The only evidence that currently exists is what is in the Grand Jury indictment; everything else is speculation. Maybe it is reasonable speculation; however, speculation is not evidence.

The burden is on the accuser, not the accused.
 
#3,737
#3,737
Domestic Silence said:
The whistleblower and his dad hold the key to unlocking a lot of mysteries Penn State doesn't want out.

Watch, as the media continues to press for the former GA to be fired, he will get closer to telling his story. When he does, curtains.
Click to expand...

Apparently he is a *****, so the thought of going to jail scares him (see what I did philosophy major?) and will tell the DA all he wants. Plus, like others have said, the feds are now involved, he'll spill his wittle heart out.
 
#3,738
#3,738
therealUT said:
Prior to having the evidence; everything.

The only evidence that currently exists is what is in the Grand Jury indictment; everything else is speculation. Maybe it is reasonable speculation; however, speculation is not evidence.

The burden is on the accuser, not the accused.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. He still has to present a case to get an indictment?

I don't know what evidence you're referring to as the only that exists. There is far more evidence against Sandusky. If you're talking about Paterno, those are his own words under oath.
 
Last edited:
#3,739
#3,739
therealUT said:
Prior to having the evidence; everything.

The only evidence that currently exists is what is in the Grand Jury indictment; everything else is speculation. Maybe it is reasonable speculation; however, speculation is not evidence.

The burden is on the accuser, not the accused.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this line of thinking. Is presumed guilt not the starting point? Evidence is obviously required for a conviction, but why would you need evidence BEFORE the presumption of guilt?
 
#3,743
#3,743
BigPapaVol said:
I don't get it. He still has to present a case to get an indictment?

I don't know what evidence you're referring to as the only that exists. There is far more evidence against Sandusky.
Click to expand...

He should be presenting evidence of probable cause, not of guilt.
 
#3,744
#3,744
therealUT said:
Prior to having the evidence; everything.

The only evidence that currently exists is what is in the Grand Jury indictment; everything else is speculation. Maybe it is reasonable speculation; however, speculation is not evidence.

The burden is on the accuser, not the accused.
Click to expand...

If the prosecutor presumes innocence, then I'd question how motivated he might be to find evidence to the contrary.

I'm comfortable with prosecutors presuming guilt and building their case because the system itself presumes innocence.

Also, we've only seen the Grand Jury Presentment which is based on the testimony of everyone they interviewed. Those individuals were invited to testify based on some evidence the DA provided to the GJ. We won't see that body of evidence until the case (cases?) goes to court but we can be sure it exists.
 
#3,748
#3,748
YorkVol said:
If the prosecutor presumes innocence, then I'd question how motivated he might be to find evidence to the contrary.

I'm comfortable with prosecutors presuming guilt and building their case because the system itself presumes innocence.

Also, we've only seen the Grand Jury Presentment which is based on the testimony of everyone they interviewed. Those individuals were invited to testify based on some evidence the DA provided to the GJ. We won't see that body of evidence until the case (cases?) goes to court but we can be sure it exists.
Click to expand...

Let me clear up my prior statement regarding evidence. The only evidence that is currently available to the public, regarding what Paterno knew, is that which was in the Grand Jury indictment.

Since the Attorney General was privy to more evidence than the public and has stated that Paterno is not legally culpable, based upon the evidence they have, then I give credence to that position until further evidence surfaces.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top