Jump to content

George Hopkins removed from DCI Hall of Fame


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Well, I'm no lawyer of course but, if he's acquitted in this case, the others can proceed I'd guess.  It's hard for me to accept that circumstances are not of prime consideration in each case and, to a sufficient degree in my pea brain, the cases are different enough to address each one separately.

I'd also expect the case against him to rely heavily on the continual and habitual component of his motivations over several/many years.  A pattern, per se. that would bolster the cases of each, again to my untrained eye.

If each case is dismissed or he's acquitted in each, wouldn't he have a case against Cadets for firing him for this cause? 

If he went 12-0, maybe.  But I do not expect any of the other accusations to go to trial.  So worst case is he wins two acquittals, but ten accusations remain.  How does that play out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MikeD said:

I thought that the reason there are only two in the actual charge against GH is that the balance are all beyond the statute of limitations, similar to the Cosby case where only a single woman's case was within the statute.

Personally I hope the HOF is not tying any such removal decision to the legal outcome of the case. 

Yes to all of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Terri Schehr said:

If this is against the guidelines, just remove it, mods. Several people have asked for updates.  

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-39-CR-0005538-2018&dnh=ydjtESJlJf%2fH60wd1QajOg%3d%3d

It looks like next court appearance will be 18 Sep & they will be arguing a motion to dismiss Count 1.   

Unless there is a plea deal this is all gonna take a long time to resolve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

I thought that the reason there are only two in the actual charge against GH is that the balance are all beyond the statute of limitations, similar to the Cosby case where only a single woman's case was within the statute.

Personally I hope the HOF is not tying any such removal decision to the legal outcome of the case. 

I’m pretty sure it is statute of limitations.  But ...There’s this. https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/04/08/pennsylvania-child-clergy-sex-abuse-statute-of-limitations/stories/201904080125

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2019/05/13/nj-extends-statute-limitations-child-abuse-cases/1183930001/

Edited by Terri Schehr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

It sickens me that the pull of this creep is so strong that people on DCP can't even go a month without starting or dredging up a thread on the guy.

Stop it.

Well it’s not like the title of the thread mislead you... you’re the one who opened it

my only interest is possible trial start date and that was answered....the rest meh

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2019 at 10:24 AM, horndevil said:

I'm curious if he actually would have legal recourse. If an acquittal were to take place and GH were to deem that his removal from the HOF had caused him serious professional damages, would he not be entitled to compensation from those damages?

I can’t see how.  He’s guilty, but even if he was acquitted, he should be too busy  after the criminal trial with civil lawsuits anyway. 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Yes - If he did somehow end up suing YEA, then YEA could enter into evidence any and all financial shenanigans from over the years.

But, regardless of what side prevails in court the real winners will be the lawyer$.

GH has already settled a case with YEA that alleged wrongful termination, withheld compensation, etc. Assuming YEA has competent lawyers, they likely required him to release all claims as a condition of receiving that settlement. I doubt there's going to be any more between him and YEA.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terri Schehr said:

The charges are in PA so the NJ SoL changes don't apply.  Unless there were assaults during the Cadets NJ period that a prosecutor there is willing to press charges on.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...