re: OSU LHP Heimlich: “(his) explanation ... incomplete from legal standpoint”

quote:

---

If you aren't familiar with the word,

---

First of all, it would serve you well not to be a condescending arse.

Secondly, we've had men offered contracts with weapons charges, domestic battery charges, vehicular manslaughter charges and other felonies on their records.

All it takes is one GM willing to give Heimlich a chance. That is not an unprecedented occurrence.

That’s where I am. The more I research the case I’m standing at 50/50.

quote:

---

All it takes is one GM willing to give Heimlich a chance.

---

Okay, cool. So we have a hypothetical GM willing to take the chance, and he convinces ownership to take the chance. Why on God's green earth would they give him a million fricking dollars when literally no one else is looking to draft the kid?

Regardless of the red flag, the vast majority of drafted college seniors don't get more than $50k to sign, and it's rare the bonus is even that high.

So add in the red flag and why would anyone give him $1MM+?

You specifically said he would be a millionaire in a few weeks. Now you're saying someone will give him a chance.

And you keep bringing up crimes that, from a public perception standpoint, pale in comparison.

Just admit you talked out of your arse.

quote:

---

So at some point many many family's have to decide if it's worth spending the money with ZERO assurances

---

In this specific case, his attorney actually assured them that he had little chance to win since it would be his word vs the girls

If you want more on this story- here is an actual investigative journalist article.

LINK

quote:

---

You specifically said he would be a millionaire in a few weeks.

---

If you want to resort to specifics I said it was "likely" he would be a millionaire. I'm basing that on what we have witnessed in the past from teams willing to take a chance on troubled individuals with potential.

quote:

---

Just admit you talked out of your arse

---

You may well be an idiot. Another observation based on history.

Maybe he did do it, maybe not. There is a lot more to this story. I can tell you that he has maintained his innocence the whole time. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty. He has passed several lie detector tests.

First off, I don't know if this guy did or did not do what he was accused off. We do know however that he pled guilty, so under the criminal justice system he is, in fact, guilty.

That said, I think he has consistently maintained that he did not do what he was accused of. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't appear there was going to be any physical evidence confirming or negating that he did what he was accused of. It appears the trial was largely going to depend on the credibility of the witnesses -- i.e. him saying he did not do it vs. the child (and her mother who is/was Heimlich's ex-sister in law) saying he did.

I suspect his lawyer advised him (and rightfully so) that even if he did not do it, it was going to come down to who the jury believed and juries tend to sympathize with and give more credibility to the child in these types of cases. Also, it's incredibly difficult to cross-examine a child and not come across as horribly unlikable to the jury.

The risk/decision he had to look at was that even if he absolutely did not do it, he still would be fighting an uphill battle at trial because juries are more apt to believe children, and if he lost, he would be facing a significant penalty. Or, he accepts a much lesser penalty by pleading guilty, even if he did not do it.

It's human nature to adamantly defend yourself if you know you have not done anything wrong. But it's very possible that even if innocent, the odds were not good that 12 jurors he doesn't know would believe him. Thus, despite his innocence, he felt he it was better to take the lesser of two "no-win" choices.

I think as part of his sentencing he was required to attend professional counseling and all psychiatric reports over the years of counseling indicated he was not a threat to children. I think the psychiatrist also almost went so far as to say he/she believed that Heimlich did not do it, and that he only accepted the guilty plea because he felt he had no realistic other choice and he wanted to avoid putting his family through what would be a public legal proceeding.

The author of the linked article says:

quote:

---

That being said, Heimlich did plead guilty. As a matter of law, he’s guilty.

---

I 100% agree with that. But, I disagree with this...

quote:

---

because if he pleaded guilty based on the evidence against him, that means he (or his lawyer) believed the state had overwhelming evidence that he committed the crime, or at least enough evidence to make a guilty verdict probable.

---

It very well could have been that his lawyer advised him that there was better chance the jury would believe the child over him because of the natural sympathy factor and he had to weigh that risk in his decision.

I think the author's of the article's next statement is a bit misleading...

quote:

---

So this is not, contrary to how some have portrayed it, a “he said, she said” debate any longer.

---

In a since he's right because this matter has been adjudicated. However, the author did not reference any physical evidence to go along with the testimonial evidence. So in a practical sense whether or not he actually did it (not legally did it) is still subject to debate and it is still a "he said/she said" debate

Again, I don't know these people; I haven't seen the evidence in full; so I don't know if he actually did or did not do it. I just think it's an interesting case to look at from all angles.

Many of us have read it.

Hope the juice was worth the squeeze for selling your soul.

quote:

---

He has passed several lie detector tests.

---

Which means nothing in court.