some charges dropped today for c/s/s

[snap infraction]

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

[daleko]

Jan 22, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

I seem to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

[mscott59]

Jan 22, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 22, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

I seam to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

trying to recall past law & order episodes.. i'm sure one of them dealt w/this....

[daleko]

Jan 22, 2016 14:58:50 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Jan 22, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

I seam to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

trying to recall past law & order episodes.. i'm sure one of them dealt w/this....

OK that gave me a chuckle. Thanks

[snap infraction]

Jan 22, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 22, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

I seam to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

it would seem unfair for paterno's prior testimony to be allowed to verify mcqueary's account as the defense team has no way of cross examining.  

[daleko]

Jan 22, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

Jan 22, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

I seam to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

it would seem unfair for paterno's prior testimony to be allowed to verify mcqueary's account as the defense team has no way of cross examining.  

As I said, I don't know if it applies here but the SCOTUS has ruled in the past that there can be exceptions to the 6th. I don't know enough about the application of their ruling or subsequent nuances to suggest its use here. Perhaps a Google is in order and/or a visit from Trn.

[snap infraction]

Jan 22, 2016 14:58:50 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

Jan 22, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5 daleko said:

I seam to recall that the SCOTUS did rule, as an exception to the 6th, that it may later be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, even if the source of the statements dies prior to the trial. Not sure if it applies here.

trying to recall past law & order episodes.. i'm sure one of them dealt w/this....

this one may be the closest   www.imdb.com/title/tt2495436/

[oujour76]

Jan 22, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it would seem unfair for paterno's prior testimony to be allowed to verify mcqueary's account as the defense team has no way of cross examining.  

Yes and no. If being dead means the prior testimony can't ever be used, the incentive to make witnesses disappear increases big time.

[daleko]

Jan 22, 2016 17:49:35 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jan 22, 2016 15:51:50 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

it would seem unfair for paterno's prior testimony to be allowed to verify mcqueary's account as the defense team has no way of cross examining.  

Yes and no. If being dead means the prior testimony can't ever be used, the incentive to make witnesses disappear increases big time.

That's what Willie contends happened. Operation 6th Amendment by the CIA.

[daleko]

Jan 22, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

Got your snow shoes/boots ready? It's a bigun.

[snap infraction]

Jan 23, 2016 0:31:37 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jan 22, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5 snap infraction said:

on the 4th anniversary of paternos death, the pa state superior court dismissed charges of obstruction, conspiracy, perjury charges and ruled cynthia baldwins testimony inadmissible.  

charges of endangering child's welfare and failure to report still remain.  

not sure if the ag's office can or will appeal this ruling.

not sure if the state continues on remaining charges or will drop remaining charges.

 w/o baldwin's testimony, it's essentially mcqueary's word vs c/s/s's word.  remember, paterno is dead so can't verify any of mcqueary's claims.  and correct me if i'm wrong, but since paterno is dead, his past testimony can't be used.  

so it looks like the administrators will likely get off on a technicality.  

Got your snow shoes/boots ready? It's a bigun.

good storm.  we got 23 inches but it wasn't really an inconvenience, except that you desire to cook and drink more when it snows a lot.   power lines are underneath ground where i live so i didn't have to power about losing power.  i prefer the weekday storms though.  it's a nice way to breakup my boring work routine.