The Lions' Pride

Were it the same case you absolutely could. For example, if you were charged with murder you could argue one that you didn't do it and in the alternative, you could argue that even if you did do it the jury can't find you guilty because you were insane or acting in self-defense or some other affirmative defense. Obviously the prosecution would point this out to the jury and it would be something they would hammer you on. In this situation, because we are dealing with 2 separate trials, it will depend on the admissibility of the arguments of one trial into the other. I'm not sure if it could get in but you can bet the NCAA's lawyers will fight like hell to keep it out. Maybe someone with alittle more experience with this can comment as well.

I think the VIP injections to this thread is why people go out and create their own thread about a topic. What could be sooooooo secret that needs to be VIP?

Just my thoughts but if threads are going to be hijacked by VIP's then why can't we have others so people can discuss things?

It just happens on accident man - people don't know they've made a VIP post and then people respond to it.

I know one way to never ever get blocked from a VIP post again

I wish I had that money right now to do so. I really think this is one of the best boards out there and enjoy everything daily. I don't get frustrated when I see the big green VIP but do get a little upset when there is some good convo going and it becomes stale or non eventful because people don't know what is being said.

And I would like to believe that people don't know they are making it VIP but I look at the names associated and believe they know exactly what they are doing.

VIP also tends to keep the yoyo trolls out of the threads.

Just FYI, when you're VIP on mobile you can't see what posts are VIP and what aren't. The only way to tell is that it automatically makes your replying post VIP, and if people don't notice that then they won't realize they're posting VIP.

And yes, I usually default to VIP, especially when talking about this sort of topic simply because that way I really don't have to worry about trolls.

Based off those emails, it's reasonable to conclude that "interfaced and cooperated" means that Freeh was only interested in creating the most dramatic report possible for the sake of publicity.

This is also the quality of character on our BOT. You're not showing respect if you question them?

http://pinterest.com/pin/173529391864357738/

He seemed touchy. It's not good to bash the people that you are supposed to be serving.

Another story about the emails. I bet Freeh could place blame and assign a motive based off these.

How about the opposite scenario then?

Shortly after Freeh's findings were announced, prosecutor Fina sent an email to Paw.
“Greg – Truly great work,” he wrote. “Please extend my congratulations to your team.”
“Frank – this note really means a lot to me,” Paw responded. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your work, and it was my pleasure to have an opportunity to work with you on this matter.”

Independent?

Ray Blehar

Great job, Ryan. Perhaps the first of many dominoes to start falling.

Blehar's reply. This might not be earth shattering but hopefully as Ray suggests this is only the first of something bigger.

Not the same scenario here. And ugh, I hate sounding like I'm defending Freeh, it makes me feel all dirty like licking an ashtray. But I have led and conducted a number of military analysis reports in my career. You conduct the analytical work "independently" and "unbiased" if possible but in the end, your conclusions usually favors one or more recommendations. The result is no longer "unbaised" because you concluded.

Here we see the misuse of the word independent. Both Freeh & the Prosecution used much of the same evidence. They both looked at it. They both concluded Sandusky was a monster. Freeh made the assessment and conclusion first. The Prosecution and the jury made it after. The Prosecution is under no obligation to work "independently" from Freeh after the report was published. The prosecution does not have to be "unbiased". The prosecution does not have to be "impartial." It is their job to take a side that prosecutes Sandusky.

In this case Freeh did his assessment independently from the prosecution (we assume). Once the report was completed, Freeh's group arrived at conclusions. Ideally, those conclusions are derived in an independent, unbiased, and impartial investigation (which they were not, IMO).

Once Freeh's conclusion is published, he is no longer under obligation to be "impartial" regarding the conclusions. As a human being (and that is still up for debate), the mountain of evidence convinced Freeh that Sandusky was a monster.

And Freeh did a horribly crappy job in "independent" analysis. But at least the prosecution did theirs well.