tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post554573883836807181..comments2024-03-24T10:23:42.737-04:00Comments on Jim Fisher True Crime: Jerry Sandusky's Defense: Digging Up Dirt on AccusersJim Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03640110709472034191noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-13358556578149371952012-05-12T18:24:17.621-04:002012-05-12T18:24:17.621-04:00Yes. In the Sandusky case, the outcome of the tria...Yes. In the Sandusky case, the outcome of the trial will have real meaning for the defendant and his accusers. It will not however, produce, for a lot of people with strong opinions going in, with objective truth. Was Michael Jackson a pedophile? Was O. J. innocent? Did Bruno Hauptmann kidnap and murder the Lindbergh baby? As a method of fact finding, the trial process, with its rules of evidence and so forth, is inadequate, and unreliable. But trials are less about truth than they are justice.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03640110709472034191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-68261106699047528392012-05-12T17:13:01.575-04:002012-05-12T17:13:01.575-04:00Actually, I see that you're a published author...Actually, I see that you're a published author and former investigator. That means you already knew the things I was saying, and more.<br /><br /><br />And that your comment 'there will always be people convinced he's guilty and always be people convinced he's innocent' was just to make us unthinking public wonder a bit if there actually is any concept of objective truth in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-88907575580809432872012-05-12T15:09:12.621-04:002012-05-12T15:09:12.621-04:00Me again. Thx for posting even though I disagreed ...Me again. Thx for posting even though I disagreed with your final paragraph.<br /><br />Here is another point: It must be easy, really, to decide the truth between two such opposite possibilities (hundreds of sexual contacts occuring, or none). But it is an issue that has deep political and moral dimensions too.<br /><br />People such as the PR guys hired by Penn State focus on appearances. The case shouldn't be about appearances and impressions, or about who gets convinced. There is a clear underlying truth, it is one way or the other, and we should really hope that whatever it is agrees with what the jury decides.<br /><br />One issue is, should a person be condemned just because things like nakedness or close contact with a non biological child are felt to be repellent to jurors?<br /><br />There should first be a clear def'n of what is abuse. If the definition means sexual contact (not nakedness, not a warm shower, not hugging) then most of the accusations are irrelevant, as they do not include direct sexual contact.<br /><br />Secondly, the question of whether such contact occurred or not is a question of fact, presumably there are experts who can distinguish between on the one hand lying for financial gain etc, versus on the other hand what is a known type of crime that only is committed by people with a particular psychiatric disorder.<br /><br />A difficulty is that there can be deals a prosecutor makes, to get testimony to convict someone in return for amnesty for other crimes. It really does have to be determined if any of the victims were facing charges. It really does need to be determined if any were not actually saying sexual contact occurred, but just signing a transcript where they really said 'yeah, yeah, yeah,.....' to wahtever prosecutors were asking, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-5591518270816146342012-05-12T11:50:00.393-04:002012-05-12T11:50:00.393-04:00If the jury decides not to believe any of these ac...If the jury decides not to believe any of these accusations, Jerry Sandusky will be acquitted, and under the law, presumed innocent. That would not preclude the possibility of sexual molestation. Regardless of the outcome of this case, there will people convinced he is innocent, and people convinced he is a pedophile.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03640110709472034191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6528377935446865958.post-31095280374520600102012-05-12T07:05:30.208-04:002012-05-12T07:05:30.208-04:00Well, not really. Most of the 'accusations'...Well, not really. Most of the 'accusations' are accusations of innocent contact. <br /><br />Two of them are more serious (victim 1 and victim 4). <br /><br />If neither of those two are believed, it would mean JS actually is innocent. BTW why does that possibility not figure anywhere in your analysis? <br /><br />Strange.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com