(no subject)

robert trivers , genes in conflict . blog found today . I also entertain the possibly that Sandusky is innocent. Why? Because I took the initiative to read the trial transcript and formed my own conclusions.

I found nothing in the transcript that proved that Sandusky was innocent. I found nothing in the transcript that proved to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sandusky is guilty either. The testimony of the victims is absolutely very sad. It's also inconsistent, and involves allegations that were brought to light often under very dubious circumstances (previously estranged family members hiring civil lawyers for them, psychologists uncovering repressed memories, questionable investigative and interview techniques, etc).

I encourage you all to read the transcript yourselves, then compare it with the Grand Jury testimony. Is Sandusky innocent? Not necessarily. But, it certainly raises questions of his guilt. To me, the most disturbing thing about this situation is the speed and conviction at which Sandusky was tried and found guilty by the media and public - long before the case went to trial. No physical evidence. Mainly testimony by a handful of people who arc now filing civil suits for millions, and a former football coach who has told numerous different versions of his story (and is now filing a civil suit of his own). Kind of reminiscent of the community hysteria surrounding the Salem witchcraft trials. Scary.