Apparently the oral arguments were cancelled for the states appeal of the overturning of Sam's conviction .
I think this means the judges have decided already how they will rule . Seems a decision is coming soon

In favor of Sam?

Born_A_Bear said:

---

In favor of Sam?

---

Remains to be seen. He is confident . I am hopeful

Robemcdo said:

---

Born_A_Bear said:

---

In favor of Sam?

---

Remains to be seen. He is confident . I am hopeful

---

Ifnin bis favor I expect espn and the legendary SJW will have much to say about it....NOT!

Wonder what ever became of Oakman assaulting the girl he'd dated for a long time.

Seems Courthouse is a little crowded these days . Biker trials

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

The question shouldn't be why do I stand up for justice . A better question is why don't you?

Robemcdo said:

---

The question shouldn't be why do I stand up for I justice . A better question is why don't you?

---

This statement just about summarizes this entire fiasco. Fire those dudes, deny responsibility, payout payout payout, not an institution of football, crying out to God, perverted little tarts, through the window, over the second rafter, off the floor, nothing but net.

Robemcdo said:

---

Apparently the oral arguments were cancelled for the states appeal of the overturning of Sam's conviction .
I think this means the judges have decided already how they will rule . Seems a decision is coming soon

---

I would guess it is also a signal that the State had little to add. Its the State's burden to prove that the conviction should stand on appeal, so they get the most benefit of oral arguments (generally).

Have a funny feeling that between this and the Twin Peaks mess, the Court of Criminal Appeals is not too inclined to buy any line from a McLennan County ADA right now...

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

We all have a vested interest in justice being properly served. SU doesn't change anything that happened under CAB, even if the CABers will turn it into more proof that CAB was actually a really moral man, even though he let allegations stop at his door, regardless of how terrible the protocol was at the University as a whole and he accepted a settlement that keeps him from clearing his name. However, if SU is allowed to go free, then a wrongly accused, determined by the justice system, man will allowed to live a life as a free man.

If, as it seems, people on this thread are more concerned with a college sports dispute than the fact that an assistant district attorney obtained a conviction of rape through knowingly putting false evidence in front of a jury [undisputed at this point, the State's appeal is basically taking a "no harm no foul" approach as opposed to a "we didn't do it" approach], Baylor has even bigger scumbags than anyone thought.

A man was knowingly prosecuted using false evidence. Whether he is guilty or not [and how that impacts Baylor] is secondary. Every "right thinking" person should be appalled at the actions of the government.

No matter what you think of the BOR, Rhule, Briles, etc., one commonality should be absolute disdain for a DA's office that willfully chose to violate the trial judge's evidentiary ruling [and, to only a slightly lesser degree, for the trial judge that allowed a conviction knowing what the DA had done].

Hopefully none of you are ever taken to trial by a prosecutor that believes that the ends justify any means in front of a judge that believes expediency is more important than justice and the law.

SMH at people and their stupidity.

Bona Fide Bear said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

We all have a vested interest in justice being properly served. SU doesn't change anything that happened under CAB, even if the CABers will turn it into more proof that CAB was actually a really moral man, even though he let allegations stop at his door, regardless of how terrible the protocol was at the University as a whole and he accepted a settlement that keeps him from clearing his name. However, if SU is allowed to go free, then a wrongly accused, determined by the justice system, man will allowed to live a life as a free man.

---

Sam and Elliott form the foundation for this whole mess. Without these two blocks the whole thing comes down

BFWorldwide said:

---

If, as it seems, people on this thread are more concerned with a college sports dispute than the fact that an assistant district attorney obtained a conviction of rape through knowingly putting false evidence in front of a jury [undisputed at this point, the State's appeal is basically taking a "no harm no foul" approach as opposed to a "we didn't do it" approach], Baylor has even bigger scumbags than anyone thought.

A man was knowingly prosecuted using false evidence. Whether he is guilty or not [and how that impacts Baylor] is secondary. Every "right thinking" person should be appalled at the actions of the government.

No matter what you think of the BOR, Rhule, Briles, etc., one commonality should be absolute disdain for a DA's office that willfully chose to violate the trial judge's evidentiary ruling [and, to only a slightly lesser degree, for the trial judge that allowed a conviction knowing what the DA had done].

Hopefully none of you are ever taken to trial by a prosecutor that believes that the ends justify any means in front of a judge that believes expediency is more important than justice and the law.

SMH at people and their stupidity.

---

Great post. Sad it was even needed. But it was.

So if his overturned conviction is upheld...then the original case gets tried all over again...is that right?

This decision being upheld right now doesn't necessarily mean he will walk...right?

boognish_bear said:

---

So if his overturned conviction is upheld...then the original case gets tried all over again...is that right?

This decision being upheld right now doesn't necessarily mean he will walk...right?

---

I believe you are correct
State can decide to try it again or dismiss
I doubt they will . People might pay a little closer attention this time plus they might not get to pull the bogus phone record trick a second time

Robemcdo said:

---

The question shouldn't be why do I stand up for justice . A better question is why don't you?

---

The self-importance of a powerless deranged person on a message board is always a riot.
You ought to be locked up yourself in a padded room.

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

Milli, says victims never lie....say what???

oldbear69 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

Milli, says victims never lie....say what???

---

Unhinged lunatics, desperate to redeem the last two years of their wasted lives ranting on the internet.

If you were truly confident in your worldviews you wouldn't go ape about it on here.

MilliVanilli said:

---

oldbear69 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

Milli, says victims never lie....say what???

---

Unhinged lunatics, desperate to redeem the last two years of their wasted lives ranting on the internet.

If you were truly confident in your worldviews you wouldn't go ape about it on here.

---

milli, calm down,,,you off your meds again?

oldbear69 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

oldbear69 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

You are hopeful, huh? What personal investment do you have in this, oh that's right, you're a Canadian that claims ties to Ian McCaw.

Shouldn't your primary concern be trying to spring that convicted murderer Carlton Doton that you swear is innocent?

Isn't that the most vital domino in your scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid?

---

Milli, says victims never lie....say what???

---

Unhinged lunatics, desperate to redeem the last two years of their wasted lives ranting on the internet.

If you were truly confident in your worldviews you wouldn't go ape about it on here.

---

milli, calm down,,,you off your meds again?

---

It's hilarious that you try and project your demented fantasies as someone else's delusions.

I'm probably a quarter your age and a helluva a lot further from a padded room.

"[Y]our scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid".

"Unhinged lunatics".

One big hole in your hyperbole.......the Tenth Court of Appeals already overturned the conviction and remanded the case. Three neutral appellate judges found and ruled that the trial court's evidentiary rulings excluding exculpatory evidence was improper, probative on the key issue in the case [consent], and within the zone of impacting the jury's decision. The appellate court therefor did not reach four other issues [including the most disturbing issues about the behavior of the DA].

Nobody painted the prosecutors.....the appellate court found the ruling improper.

Unless "Unhinged Lunatic" now means "can read with basic comprehension", you may want to buy a dictionary, read it, and stop being a world class buttwipe.

BFWorldwide said:

---

"[Y]our scheme to paint the prosecutors you hate as invalid".

"Unhinged lunatics".

One big hole in your hyperbole.......the Tenth Court of Appeals already overturned the conviction and remanded the case. Three neutral appellate judges found and ruled that the trial court's evidentiary rulings excluding exculpatory evidence was improper, probative on the key issue in the case [consent], and within the zone of impacting the jury's decision. The appellate court therefor did not reach four other issues [including the most disturbing issues about the behavior of the DA].

Nobody painted the prosecutors.....the appellate court found the ruling improper.

Unless "Unhinged Lunatic" now means "can read with basic comprehension", you may want to buy a dictionary, read it, and stop being a world class buttwipe.

---

Lulz, you keep siding with the Carlton Dotson murder apologists, I'm sure your ranting diatribes on a message board will empower you.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Lulz, you keep siding with the Carlton Dotson murder apologists, I'm sure your ranting diatribes on a message board will empower you.

---

While you are clearly the resident expert on ranting diatribes, your cognitive capabilities and reasoning are lacking.

More disturbing, the repeated editorial "mantra" of the admins clearly is only imposed as to certain viewpoints when you feel free to respond to people's commentary about a written court opinion by calling them murder apologists based upon a set of unrelated circumstances which are years removed.

Maybe the admins can explain why they allow it? Bueller? Bueller?

boognish_bear said:

---

So if his overturned conviction is upheld...then the original case gets tried all over again...is that right?

This decision being upheld right now doesn't necessarily mean he will walk...right?

---

As I recall, the appeals court rendered an opinion on only one of several defense appeals from the original trial. If appeals court decision is overturned, it might be possible for the defense to raise those issues to the appeals court again.

BFWorldwide said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Lulz, you keep siding with the Carlton Dotson murder apologists, I'm sure your ranting diatribes on a message board will empower you.

---

While you are clearly the resident expert on ranting diatribes, your cognitive capabilities and reasoning are lacking.

More disturbing, the repeated editorial "mantra" of the admins clearly is only imposed as to certain viewpoints when you feel free to respond to people's commentary about a written court opinion by calling them murder apologists based upon a set of unrelated circumstances which are years removed.

Maybe the admins can explain why they allow it? Bueller? Bueller?

---

You've mindlessly cast your lot with internet lunatics that think murderers are innocent because they're that rabid to redeem a disgraced football coach, enjoy the clapping of your fellow lunatic seals.

Malbec said:

---

---

Indeed, your singularly minded kind are put into hysterics and hissy fits on a message board daily for the same old trite and asinine agenda for two years and counting.

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

---

Indeed, your singularly minded kind are put into hysterics and hissy fits on a message board daily for the same old trite and asinine agenda for two years and counting.

---

oldbear69 said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Malbec said:

---

---

Indeed, your singularly minded kind are put into hysterics and hissy fits on a message board daily for the same old trite and asinine agenda for two years and counting.

---

---

Oh, we know literacy has been an issue for your cadre for quite some time.

Regardless of where anyone falls on the pro or anti-Briles, or pro or anti-BOR spectrum, I am surprised there is not at least more universal support for properly administered criminal justice. I don't think some people understand how rare it is to have a conviction dismissed for these types of evidentiary claims, or how egregious the miscarriage of justice is when convictions are obtained in the manner it appears Sam U's conviction was.

303Bear said:

---

Regardless of where anyone falls on the pro or anti-Briles, or pro or anti-BOR spectrum, I am surprised there is not at least more universal support for properly administered criminal justice. I don't think some people understand how rare it is to have a conviction dismissed for these types of evidentiary claims, or how egregious the miscarriage of justice is when convictions are obtained in the manner it appears Sam U's conviction was.

---

This doesn't fit the narrative of shills on either side. His guilt or innocence is not important. The truth has never mattered. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

303Bear said:

---

Regardless of where anyone falls on the pro or anti-Briles, or pro or anti-BOR spectrum, I am surprised there is not at least more universal support for properly administered criminal justice. I don't think some people understand how rare it is to have a conviction dismissed for these types of evidentiary claims, or how egregious the miscarriage of justice is when convictions are obtained in the manner it appears Sam U's conviction was.

---

I am not pro or anti Briles. I have not liked the BOR for over a decade and say welcome to the party to the rest of you. I am not interested in joining Robemcdo in anything especially dragging Baylor thru the mud on this board as some kind of moral act. Donate money to their defense if you want to do something helpful.

303Bear said:

---

Regardless of where anyone falls on the pro or anti-Briles, or pro or anti-BOR spectrum, I am surprised there is not at least more universal support for properly administered criminal justice. I don't think some people understand how rare it is to have a conviction dismissed for these types of evidentiary claims, or how egregious the miscarriage of justice is when convictions are obtained in the manner it appears Sam U's conviction was.

---

Excellent point but the reason people don't understand its a problem is because the wrongfully accused tend to be the poor, the challenged . They can't afford any defence and certainly can't afford an appeal . I've made the mistake of following the justice system a little closer . I really wish I didn't . What they did to Sam is the norm not the exception .

Robemcdo said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Regardless of where anyone falls on the pro or anti-Briles, or pro or anti-BOR spectrum, I am surprised there is not at least more universal support for properly administered criminal justice. I don't think some people understand how rare it is to have a conviction dismissed for these types of evidentiary claims, or how egregious the miscarriage of justice is when convictions are obtained in the manner it appears Sam U's conviction was.

---

Excellent point but the reason people don't understand its a problem is because the wrongfully accused tend to be the poor, the challenged . They can't afford any defence and certainly can't afford an appeal . I've made the mistake of following the justice system a little closer . I really wish I didn't . What they did to Sam is the norm not the exception .

---

Yeah, we all really believe you're here for justice.

And clearly ranting your conspiracies on the internet is going to bring it...

BFWorldwide said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Lulz, you keep siding with the Carlton Dotson murder apologists, I'm sure your ranting diatribes on a message board will empower you.

---

While you are clearly the resident expert on ranting diatribes, your cognitive capabilities and reasoning are lacking.

More disturbing, the repeated editorial "mantra" of the admins clearly is only imposed as to certain viewpoints when you feel free to respond to people's commentary about a written court opinion by calling them murder apologists based upon a set of unrelated circumstances which are years removed.

Maybe the admins can explain why they allow it? Bueller? Bueller?

---

Not likely.