OT: Sandusky not to blame

[Icebear]

As a side note, one should at least be "glad" that his attorneys are mounting a vigorous defense. Imagine of they mailed it in, got a guilty verdict, only to be overturned because his lawyers didn't do their jobs.

I don't deny the guy is sleaze and needs to rot in prison, but i want to see him stay there, not get out because his atty's were disgusted as well...

Fact is that it has not been very vigorous at all, eric. It is mostly desperate. The trial was expected to take three weeks and may be over and done in two. The prosecution did a very solid job. I do not expect deliberation to be terribly long. We here throughout central PA are living it everyday.

 

[UConn990411]

One significant problem is this defense borders on admitting the crime. It may well become impossible for the jury to draw any line saying he never touched or abused the boys and in doing so guarantee a guilty verdict. The post trial argument may become adequacy of counsel for taking such a wild defense.

Um, that's kind of the point.

The only reason to ever plead insanity (or something similar) is that you know there's essentially no chance of being acquitted. It's basically a last resort type of method.

 

[CCinCT]

And what network or cable outfit, in your opinion, reports the actual news as it is?

All media has their bias, but NBC has been caught out recently with some pretty outrageous, misleading, and biased editing.

Trayvon Martin and Romney's "WaWA" video edits.

 

[alexrgct]

I believe that the defense is not that his disorder led him to sexually assault boys, but that it led him to say and write inappropriate things that have been presented as evidence already. In other words, he may be a bit off and have done some things that don't look good in light of the accusations, but there's an explanation for that.

In any case, a weak defense.

 

[EricLA]

Fact is that it has not been very vigorous at all, eric. It is mostly desperate. The trial was expected to take three weeks and may be over and done in two. The prosecution did a very solid job. I do not expect deliberation to be terribly long. We here throughout central PA are living it everyday.

Ah. well you would know better than I would. Either way hopefully the right verdict comes in and the right punishment is meted out...

 

[Shenandoah]

And what network or cable outfit, in your opinion, reports the actual news as it is?

Right now, none of them. I've stopped watching the news. C-span comes the closest...

 

[Icebear]

Um, that's kind of the point.

The only reason to ever plead insanity (or something similar) is that you know there's essentially no chance of being acquitted. It's basically a last resort type of method.

I agree completely, that is the point. I believe it is, also, part of the lame defense to set up a potential inadequacy appeal.

 

[JS]

Right now, none of them. I've stopped watching the news. C-span comes the closest...

You know what I recommend? Go to the CNN site and sign up for their "Breaking News" emails.

You'll get maybe one or two a day, very little elaboration on the story and absolutely no spin. It's how I first learn of most news events.

 

[Zorro]

I was expecting to hear either that he was "over-sugared" or that "the Devil made him do it",

 

[meyers7]

I believe that the defense is not that his disorder led him to sexually assault boys, but that it led him to say and write inappropriate things that have been presented as evidence already. In other words, he may be a bit off and have done some things that don't look good in light of the accusations, but there's an explanation for that.

In any case, a weak defense.

Ding ding. Not sure why so many people have trouble understanding this.

But yea, it's still pretty weak.

 

[Icebear]

Sandusky's defense rests without putting Sandusky on the stand.

 

[arnie3]

Sandusky's defense rests without putting Sandusky on the stand.

After the Costas' interview, I can see why his lawyers wouldn't want him on the stand!

 

[VAMike23]

Sandusky's defense rests without putting Sandusky on the stand.

I'm shocked.....!!!!!!!!

.........

 

[alexrgct]

All indications were that the jury would have the case by Thursday, which means Sandusky wasn't going to testify. And really, he hasn't done a single interview where has hasn't come off terribly. Nothing to be gained by putting that guy up in front of a jury.

 

[Icebear]

Yes, not surprising at all. Just reporting what came across the news. I'm thinking we may have a decision by late Friday or sooner.

 

[Zorro]

He is 1) a very sick man and 2) dead meat. There will be no choice but to keep him in solitary.

 

[Icebear]

He is 1) a very sick man and 2) dead meat. There will be no choice but to keep him in solitary.

Very true.

 

[Shenandoah]

You know what I recommend? Go to the CNN site and sign up for their "Breaking News" emails.

You'll get maybe one or two a day, very little elaboration on the story and absolutely no spin. It's how I first learn of most news events.

I appreciate the input, JS, but CNN sealed the deal when anderson cooper showed video of enemy snipers killing American Troops in Iraq, on his show. My son was in Iraq at the time. I also lost a former Tae Kwon Do student to a sniper in Iraq.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Dan Patrick reached out to Costa earlier this week to attempt to find out why NBC didn't air the portion of the interview that Sandusky seems to admit he was guilty. Costa told Dan Patrick that he would prefer to not appear on his show and that answers would be provided tonight on Rock Center. I usually don't watch the show, but tonight I did to find out the reason. As expected NBC didn't address the issue. I wonder what Costa will tell Dan Patrick now.

However, I did learn that the prosecution did not charge Sandusky with all the charges they could have, in case Sandusky get acquitted. Probably means there will be a couple of more trials regardless of the outcome of this trial.

 

[diggerfoot]

You know what I recommend? Go to the CNN site and sign up for their "Breaking News" emails.

You'll get maybe one or two a day, very little elaboration on the story and absolutely no spin. It's how I first learn of most news events.

That's a sensible suggestion, JS, but there is still a bit of a problem. People argue about this news media having a liberal bias or that news media having a conservative bias, but both misses the point to an extent. Every corporate media outlet will have, to a certain extent, a corporate bias. It's entirely understandable, nothing cynical about the self-preservation nature of it, but it becomes entirely insidious and pervasive. Even the headline news, sans any kind of spin, constricts the range of possible news of importance from a corporate perspective. There will be a bias -- sometimes slight, sometimes significant -- towards news that either: 1) sells well or 2) bodes well for corporate objectives. Corporations with a bottom line don't altruistically seek to shoot themselves in the foot through their media holdings.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

What human related event, when recorded in any way by person or technology, is unaffected by bias or subjectivity? History is written by the winners indeed.

I enjoy the multitude of news/media sources available to me, and I take responsibility for employing my own filter. There is an off button on my computer and TV as well.

 

[diggerfoot]

What human related event, when recorded in any way by person or technology, is unaffected by bias or subjectivity? History is written by the winners indeed.

I enjoy the multitude of news/media sources available to me, and I take responsibility for employing my own filter. There is an off button on my computer and TV as well.

I don't disagree with anything you say. I'll reiterate, though, that when people get in heated debates about whether corporate media overall has a liberal or conservative bias they are unaware of the broader picture. There is also a difference between different biases, such as liberal or conservative, or by historians with a plethora of different perspectives, and conforming, unidirectional bias.

On a related note, the first president to get 80% approval for anything was FDR, shortly after mass media came into full fruition (something not lost on Hitler). Whether FDR (or Bush II) should ultimately be judged right or wrong for their corresponding decisions that gathered overwhelming support, neither enjoys the level of support they received without mass media. Such media has gone from increasingly independent and decentralized to consolidated and corporate, particularly from the seventies on. This trend has concerned both conservatives and liberals, by the way, though an independent and much diffused Internet now stands as the hopeful way out.