I am starting to get nervous

jms62 · #1 06-22-2012, 01:59 PM

That sick feeling in my gut waiting for a verdict in the Sandusky trial. Should've taken no more than 20 minutes to convict and now they are in their second day. If he walks it would be a disgrace.

bigrun · #2 06-22-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

That sick feeling in my gut waiting for a verdict in the Sandusky trial. Should've taken no more than 20 minutes to convict and now they are in their second day. If he walks it would be a disgrace.

How many charges, 50-60?...takes time to weed thru all of them...should rubber stamp all guilty but that should take a few days...He'll never see daylight anyway...cryin out loud, even a step son said he did it...

jms62 · #3 06-22-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun

How many charges, 50-60?...takes time to weed thru all of them...should rubber stamp all guilty but that should take a few days...He'll never see daylight anyway...cryin out loud, even a step son said he did it...

Unfortunately his step son wasn't on the stand.

Antitrust32 · #4 06-22-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

Unfortunately his step son wasn't on the stand.

i do agree with bigrun that the reason it is taking so long is because there are SO many charges to give verdicts on.

I really dont think there is anyway he walks on these charges. But after Casey Anthony, I guess really anything can happen.

Danzig · #5 06-22-2012, 02:58 PM

i have no doubt that the jury is just being thorough. long times and short times don't necessarily mean a thing. i've seen super quick verdicts that everyone expected meant would go one way, and it went the other. you certainly don't want to give anyone reason to question, or have grounds for appeals.
and it is possible that some charges could go one way, and others another. or hell, maybe one of the jurors isn't in a hurry to get home...maybe the spouse is a shrew!

MaTH716 · #6 06-22-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

Unfortunately his step son wasn't on the stand.

I haven't been following the trial, but how did the prosecution not play this card?

Danzig · #7 06-22-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I haven't been following the trial, but how did the prosecution not play this card?

seems like it was recently brought to the prosecutors attention...from what i read, it's why the defense so abruptly said they were done, and didn't call sandusky to the stand.

but hey, he's not included-but new charges can be brought based on his case. i wondered if he was the one whose ex-wife had tried to keep the kids from visiting their far less than grand father. they are. and now we know why.

Antitrust32 · #8 06-22-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I haven't been following the trial, but how did the prosecution not play this card?

apparantly it was not known to the prosecution until a few days ago. Also since the son had previously denied denied and denied that he had been molested, he would have been an easy target for the defense if he testified (according to what I read). Personally I think if you hear it from the mans own kid, then it would eliminate any doubt.

But they've already heard graphic testimony from many victims, plus witnesses. I really hope the defense strategy of "those kids lied and want money" doesnt give the jurors any doubt.

Danzig · #9 06-22-2012, 03:16 PM

i do know that the jurors asked to review a couple hours of testimony, which they were supposed to do today. i wonder if they will continue to deliberate thru the weekend? or maybe they'll wrap it up this afternoon....guess we'll just have to wait and see.