Penn State scandal (merged)

#3,776
#3,776
YorkVol said:
The grand jury doesn't convict, they indict. The accused doesn't even appear before the grand jury and may not even know there is evidence against them being presented. The accused get their chance when the case goes to court.
Click to expand...

Yea, good catch, didn't mean to put the grand in there. At work man....
 
#3,777
#3,777
YorkVol said:
Everyone seems focused on the fact that he hired a criminal attorney, but I would think that being who he is he hired the best he could and that attorney would also be able to represent him in a civil case (or hire a team to do so). What is your take?
Click to expand...

He is in the process of hiring the attorney it's the managing partner at a firm that does criminal and civil work. This guy does both as well and apparently at a very high level.
 
#3,779
#3,779
YorkVol said:
Everyone seems focused on the fact that he hired a criminal attorney, but I would think that being who he is he hired the best he could and that attorney would also be able to represent him in a civil case (or hire a team to do so). What is your take?
Click to expand...

The guy may do both or associate with civil guys. Very rare that big firms do criminal work
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3,780
#3,780
NWGVol said:
A possible crime has been committed, there has to be a presumption of guilt to start gathering evidence. If there's no evidence, the presumption of guilt moves to someone else, but the presumption has to be there to get the process started, does it not?
Click to expand...

Give him a few minutes, he has to go back and reference his textbooks occasionally.
 
#3,781
#3,781
NWGVol said:
A possible crime has been committed, there has to be a presumption of guilt to start gathering evidence. If there's no evidence, the presumption of guilt moves to someone else, but the presumption has to be there to get the process started, does it not?
Click to expand...

There does not have to be a presumption of guilt to gather evidence; in fact, such a presumption would lead to a predisposition that has the potential to blind the investigators from some evidence.
 
#3,782
#3,782
BigPapaVol said:
He is in the process of hiring the attorney it's the managing partner at a firm that does criminal and civil work. This guy does both as well and apparently at a very high level.
Click to expand...

San Diego Vol said:
The guy may do both or associate with civil guys. Very rare that big firms do criminal work
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Thanks to both.
 
#3,783
#3,783
therealUT said:
There does not have to be a presumption of guilt to gather evidence; in fact, such a presumption would lead to a predisposition that has the potential to blind the investigators from some evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Similarly, presumption of innocence has the same likelihood, but it only applies to the incompetent. Bad lunch does the same. Hell, the list is endless.
 
#3,784
#3,784
therealUT said:
There does not have to be a presumption of guilt to gather evidence; in fact, such a presumption would lead to a predisposition that has the potential to blind the investigators from some evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm referring to presumption of guilt in reference to the possible crime itself, not necessarily the person being charged.

If there's no presumption of guilt by a prosecutor, then how could there be a possible crime?
 
#3,787
#3,787
NWGVol said:
I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm referring to presumption of guilt in reference to the possible crime itself, not necessarily the person being charged.

If there's no presumption of guilt by a prosecutor, then how could there be a possible crime?
Click to expand...

Do you immediately come on to the scene and say a crime was committed? Or, would you say that it was probable that a crime was committed? (Think homicides/suicides/deaths in unusual circumstances).
 
#3,791
#3,791
BigPapaVol said:
Why does it matter?
Click to expand...

In one case, you are asserting from the beginning that a crime definitely occurred, there was definitely a victim, and there was definitely an guilty party. Those predispositions would drive you to find evidence to conform to your own predispositions.

In the other cause, you are asserting that there might have been a crime, there might have been a victim, and there might be a guilty party. This is more open and allows one to more easily obtain and analyse evidence objectively, without the force of having to convict anyone.
 
#3,792
#3,792
therealUT said:
In one case, you are asserting from the beginning that a crime definitely occurred, there was definitely a victim, and there was definitely an guilty party. Those predispositions would drive you to find evidence to conform to your own predispositions.

In the other cause, you are asserting that there might have been a crime, there might have been a victim, and there might be a guilty party. This is more open and allows one to more easily obtain and analyse evidence objectively, without the force of having to convict anyone.
Click to expand...
Jesus.
 
#3,793
#3,793
one of the managers in my office took down all his PSU stuff. Told me quite a bit about how this is affecting their alums
 
#3,794
#3,794
therealUT said:
Do you immediately come on to the scene and say a crime was committed? Or, would you say that it was probable that a crime was committed? (Think homicides/suicides/deaths in unusual circumstances).
Click to expand...

How do you get to probable? By presuming something actually happened, no?
 
#3,795
#3,795
therealUT said:
In one case, you are asserting from the beginning that a crime definitely occurred, there was definitely a victim, and there was definitely an guilty party. Those predispositions would drive you to find evidence to conform to your own predispositions.

In the other cause, you are asserting that there might have been a crime, there might have been a victim, and there might be a guilty party. This is more open and allows one to more easily obtain and analyse evidence objectively, without the force of having to convict anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't see that it matters unless prosecutor is incompetent and a grand jury equally do. If that's the case, what difference does any predisposition make?

I know you're pushing the idea that it changes the perception of the evidence, but that makes no sense.
 
#3,796
#3,796
I asked this question last night and never really got answer. At least I didn't see one. But considering where the topic has gone...

1. Why did JP get fired?
2. With that answer. Did the BoT need something to make this decision with? Or did they just need a clean house mentality without something to pin JP to?
 
#3,799
#3,799
BeecherVol said:
I asked this question last night and never really got answer. At least I didn't see one. But considering where the topic has gone...

1. Why did JP get fired?
2. With that answer. Did the BoT need something to make this decision with? Or did they just need a clean house mentality without something to pin JP to?
Click to expand...

The firing was a business decision to avoid the loss of sponsors and to prevent his presence from being a distraction to the campus, games etc.

They are also pissed that he could have prevented everything with one phone call.
 
#3,800
#3,800
BeecherVol said:
I asked this question last night and never really got answer. At least I didn't see one. But considering where the topic has gone...

1. Why did JP get fired?
2. With that answer. Did the BoT need something to make this decision with? Or did they just need a clean house mentality without something to pin JP to?
Click to expand...

According to the statement made by the BoT, the only details they had in making their decision to fire Paterno were those that were contained in the Grand Jury indictment. They fired Paterno without any due process, any inquiry, any further investigation. It was purely reactionary in the face of media criticism.

If they were getting rid of Paterno because they felt that he did not properly look into the matter because he was overly concerned with the reputation of the University and the football program, I see blatant hypocrisy by the BoT. They immediately fired Paterno, without looking into the matter, because they were overly concerned with the reputation of the University.

I base this assumption upon the statements made by the BoT concerning their lack of any further details.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top