Yeah I have to agree with this sentiment. Using phrases like, "I would have said..." is not really the truth. If you can't recall exactly what you said in a situation this serious...you say "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." I believe even Mike is his last court appearance referenced that he could have handled the situation better (not that I'm blaming him...he was in a tough spot). That said, I think much of this could have been avoided if Mike simply testified that he saw them in the shower, it was strange, and he felt it was inappropriate in the PSU Football locker room, i.e. not sexual, but inappropriate (which is what I believe was most likely said at the time). Mike's cryptic testimony is one major reason everyone started playing the blame game.
"Court hears arguments in appeal in Penn State cover-up case"
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Yeah I have to agree with this sentiment. Using phrases like, "I would have said..." is not really the truth. If you can't recall exactly what you said in a situation this serious...you say "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." I believe even Mike is his last court appearance referenced that he could have handled the situation better (not that I'm blaming him...he was in a tough spot). That said, I think much of this could have been avoided if Mike simply testified that he saw them in the shower, it was strange, and he felt it was inappropriate in the PSU Football locker room, i.e. not sexual, but inappropriate (which is what I believe was most likely said at the time). Mike's cryptic testimony is one major reason everyone started playing the blame game.
Based on everyone's reaction at the time, including McQueary's, I believe "I saw something inappropriate" is much closer to the truth than "I just saw a child being raped".
couple of thoughts:
- It was several years so "i would have" is probably correct because people remember the time and tenor but not the specific word usage. That's why parsing Joe's words is an exercise in futility.
- From what I can tell, MM never saw JS touching the child directly. he saw it through a mirror. Nobody's followed up on that but mirrors distort and ruin depth perception. This is, to me, a big deal.
- I've always questioned the "hearing slapping noises" in the area between two doors. Highly unlikely and, if it were true, would have led to quite a different discovery when he saw them through the mirror. Just doesn't make sense.
- Lots of rumors of MM's character flaws. Was he "encouraged?" time will tell.
- With the coaching of other witnesses, even with the above in mind, I can imagine MM was convinced that JS was a monster and his, MM's, testimony was the only thing standing between protecting children and more being abused. Remember, at the time of the GJ presentment, there were only a handful of incidents (1, the shower kid, a deranged janitor, and MM). I am comfortable believing MM pumped up his testimony, thinking he was doing public good, from what he told JVP, C & S.
MM had no idea how badly this whole thing would spin out of control, and he had no idea how he would be used by certain malicious individuals to even up scores. Mike's no genius, to put it mildly, and he has a lot of flaws, but he was a pawn in this game, and was totally in over his head. He also received very bad advice, most likely, by others who also had no idea what the real game was.
He handled the situation very poorly, to say the least, but under normal circumstances the results would not have been nearly as dire. I've come to view him as a truly pathetic figure in this whole mess, and just another individual whose life has been totally destroyed because of the vengeful dishonest corrupt scum that were the executive board.
You'd have to think that Dad M. and Dr. Dranov are not happy about being pawns in this whole game, either. Maybe they will have more to say eventually.
He handled the situation very poorly, to say the least, but under normal circumstances the results would not have been nearly as dire. I've come to view him as a truly pathetic figure in this whole mess, and just another individual whose life has been totally destroyed because of the vengeful dishonest corrupt scum that were the executive board.
You'd have to think that Dad M. and Dr. Dranov are not happy about being pawns in this whole game, either. Maybe they will have more to say eventually.
Last edited:
This is true, and it is a big deal. When I look in a mirror, I never see back the 25 year old Adonnis I know I really am. I just see some 50 year old guy who has a vague resemblance to my father.
Let me see if I understand this correctly' C/S/S are incompetent in this case because they didn't understand the laws, rules, and procedures surrounding personal representation in front of a grand jury. Is that correct? So, stating it otherwise, this is all on C/S/S for failing to understand a lawyer's business. Here's a question, if it'a always on us to understand what is and what ain't a lawyer's business and it's never contingent on a lawyer to explain what she does and doesn't do, then what is the possible point in even have lawyers? What do we need them for?
Exactly. I believe this is what Mike truly "reported" to Joe and CSS because that's what he witnessed and truly felt at the time. It syncs up with the reactions and steps that were taken in response. To believe these men were unequivocally told of a sexual assault (of a child nonetheless) and didn't immediately involve authorities simply doesn't make rational sense. It may get clicks and ratings, but it doesn't make rational sense.
What would she care about that? She's retired. It's struck me when thinking about this mess about how many of the foot soldiers the scumbags used to do their dirty work really had nothing to lose. It's almost like it was a thoughtful consideration in their being handpicked for the job. Will Cynthia Baldwin be disbarred for obstructing the investigation and for denying C/S/S their constitutional right to legal representation? What could she possibly care? She's retired. Will Linda Kelly be disbarred for her misconduct and malicious prosecution of C/S/S? What could she possibly care? She's retired. Aren't a number of the investigators like Feathers and Sassano similarly retired? Will Erickson ever pay anything for his role in all this railroading? What can he possibly care? He was called out of a planned retirement and given a boatload of goodies that can't be taken away (except for maybe the medal and also his name on the food science building, but who cares about that?) and now he's back in retirement. What does he got to lose? They really thought this out well. We can't even punish any of the foot soldiers in this mess. How is it we'll ever be able to punish the capos and bosses?
And one of the defendants: Also brought out of retirement.
Keeping with your line of thought, it is reasonable to conclude that he was set up for a fall here.
BBrown, I just noticed that as I was reading through all the posts. The irony is this pathetic loser is either CR66 himself under a different account liking his own posts, a lacky paid by CR66 to like his posts, or one of the many PennLive sPitt fan trolls. Either way it is truly pathetic!Any one else find it odd or at the very least "ironic" that all 66 likes of Cruisin's posts come from some douche named joe pa thetic? Just saying.
One would hope - or at least I would hope - that when/if the CSS trials ever come to be:
The testimony of MM regarding what he did/didn't say to CSS becomes a relative non-issue....and, quite frankly, so should CSS's testimony (should they choose to take the stand).....with regard to the decade-old conversations.
1 - If this issue is a key component of the Prosecution's case, we are all in for a real mess.
At best it would become a classic "He Said/She Said" situation. But it is much, much worse than just that.
2 - It flat out just isn't fair to MM.
If the Prosecution was even willing to move forward with proffering indictments for the offenses charged, they damn well have a responsibility to "pin things" on more than MM's testimony vs CSS's testimony.
If this case goes forward they damn well better have an abundance of tangible evidence to support the accusations (not to mention something with a hell of a lot more weight than "Her Honor"s nonsense)
Do they? Maybe we will see....if we ever have a trial. I have heard conflicting opinions on the State's case....but none of us will know with any certainly unless/until a trial occurs.
3 - No one - NO ONE -should be expected to be able to retrieve accurate, detailed information from conversational or "eyewitness" experiences nearly a decade in the past.
In this case, this applies to MM, CSS, and ANYONE who is asked to relate occurrences strictly from memory.
In the BEST CASE scenario, such recollections are "iffy".
Such information becomes exponentially LESS valid when:
A - The incidents were "stress inducing"
B - Additional post-event information (or mis-information) is provided to the "witness".
These events are the poster child for both "A" and "B". That could be an entire day long discussion in and of itself.....and much of it centers on the role of the investigators and prosecutors of this case.....particularly with regard to item "B", but that is a whole 'nother issue.
I am not good at this whole "linking" thing, but if you want to gain some perspective, here is one relevant study (you can probably find it online or in a decent academic library). It looks primarily on methods to mitigate the processes (including post-event information) that effect accurate recall....but also sheds a lot of light on the processes themselves:
"How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social Postwarnings and the Monitoring of memory characteristics." Gerald Echterhoff
This particular study focuses on eyewitness recall (ie, the MM aspect of this case), but other studies of recall have the same types of findings for the type of recall we would place the CSS and other witnesses testimonies under. There is a lot of this research out there.....and it is overwhelmingly consistent with respect to the issues involved in the whole CSS case.
No, I'm not a Clinical Psychologist or PhD Researcher, but the basic studies in these areas are clear and definitive enough for a reasonably intelligent layman to comprehend (which probably excludes the typical Jury, alas, but I digress).
4 - If we boil it all down to layman's terms, I think it is a fair summation to say:
No way, no how, would any competent professional think it is right to make determinations on something as impactful as criminal trials, based upon decade old recollections of high stress events....recollections distorted through HUGE injections of post-event (mis)information....recollections unaided by ANY substantive contemporaneous records (that is ANOTHER story unto itself....why did NO ONE keep any substantive contemporaneous notes of the conversations which supposedly took place during the initial stages of these events?).
I believe it is a fair summary of the data to say (borrowing from some of the studies):
Biased beliefs, once implanted in a person's mind, persevere.....even in the face of debiasing instructions. The degree of bias in increased when compounded by stress / time lapse / external (mis)information and other factors - ALL of which were abundantly present wrt the recall of ALL of the witnesses in this case.
With respect to THIS particular situation, what this means is:
If MM says "We discussed rape"
and
C or S says "We discussed inappropriate behavior"
There is a VERY real probability that neither party is lying.....even if one of the statements is absolutely true.
That is why you damn well better have a full spectrum of evidence - which the Prosecutors may or may not have - before you move forward with the charges that were presented.
5 - When/If CSS ever go to trial, the Prosecution will have the opportunity and obligation to present a thorough. "beyond a reasonable doubt", case against CSS.
If they do.....then we can ALL put to bed the circle-jerking about what "word" MM used, "would have said..." conjecture, and the irrelevant post-game analysis of every line of "recall" testimony. We would all be a lot better off.
If they do not....then the Prosecutors owe one hell of a lot more than an apology to EVERYONE involved.....including the witnesses that they hung out to dry.
____________
I have no idea when or if we will see the CSS come to trial.
But I do know that unless/until it does:
All of this consternating about recollections of decade old / distorted / externally-influenced / conflicted / hi-stress events.......and the parsing of every word of testimony regarding such recollections.....doesn't do anyone much good. In the end. ALL OF IT better be relatively insignificant in the criminal prosecution.....or the entire situation is permanently FUBAR.. In the meantime, the circle-jerking has the potential to unfairly damage a lot of folks.
If we had not been waiting FOUR GD YEARS to see this case come to some sort of disposition, we would not have subjected ourselves and everyone associated with it to so much turmoil. Let's hope we don't go another decade waiting for the "system" to shit or get off the pot.
Anyway....just one person's thoughts.
. -
The testimony of MM regarding what he did/didn't say to CSS becomes a relative non-issue....and, quite frankly, so should CSS's testimony (should they choose to take the stand).....with regard to the decade-old conversations.
1 - If this issue is a key component of the Prosecution's case, we are all in for a real mess.
At best it would become a classic "He Said/She Said" situation. But it is much, much worse than just that.
2 - It flat out just isn't fair to MM.
If the Prosecution was even willing to move forward with proffering indictments for the offenses charged, they damn well have a responsibility to "pin things" on more than MM's testimony vs CSS's testimony.
If this case goes forward they damn well better have an abundance of tangible evidence to support the accusations (not to mention something with a hell of a lot more weight than "Her Honor"s nonsense)
Do they? Maybe we will see....if we ever have a trial. I have heard conflicting opinions on the State's case....but none of us will know with any certainly unless/until a trial occurs.
3 - No one - NO ONE -should be expected to be able to retrieve accurate, detailed information from conversational or "eyewitness" experiences nearly a decade in the past.
In this case, this applies to MM, CSS, and ANYONE who is asked to relate occurrences strictly from memory.
In the BEST CASE scenario, such recollections are "iffy".
Such information becomes exponentially LESS valid when:
A - The incidents were "stress inducing"
B - Additional post-event information (or mis-information) is provided to the "witness".
These events are the poster child for both "A" and "B". That could be an entire day long discussion in and of itself.....and much of it centers on the role of the investigators and prosecutors of this case.....particularly with regard to item "B", but that is a whole 'nother issue.
I am not good at this whole "linking" thing, but if you want to gain some perspective, here is one relevant study (you can probably find it online or in a decent academic library). It looks primarily on methods to mitigate the processes (including post-event information) that effect accurate recall....but also sheds a lot of light on the processes themselves:
"How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social Postwarnings and the Monitoring of memory characteristics." Gerald Echterhoff
This particular study focuses on eyewitness recall (ie, the MM aspect of this case), but other studies of recall have the same types of findings for the type of recall we would place the CSS and other witnesses testimonies under. There is a lot of this research out there.....and it is overwhelmingly consistent with respect to the issues involved in the whole CSS case.
No, I'm not a Clinical Psychologist or PhD Researcher, but the basic studies in these areas are clear and definitive enough for a reasonably intelligent layman to comprehend (which probably excludes the typical Jury, alas, but I digress).
4 - If we boil it all down to layman's terms, I think it is a fair summation to say:
No way, no how, would any competent professional think it is right to make determinations on something as impactful as criminal trials, based upon decade old recollections of high stress events....recollections distorted through HUGE injections of post-event (mis)information....recollections unaided by ANY substantive contemporaneous records (that is ANOTHER story unto itself....why did NO ONE keep any substantive contemporaneous notes of the conversations which supposedly took place during the initial stages of these events?).
I believe it is a fair summary of the data to say (borrowing from some of the studies):
Biased beliefs, once implanted in a person's mind, persevere.....even in the face of debiasing instructions. The degree of bias in increased when compounded by stress / time lapse / external (mis)information and other factors - ALL of which were abundantly present wrt the recall of ALL of the witnesses in this case.
With respect to THIS particular situation, what this means is:
If MM says "We discussed rape"
and
C or S says "We discussed inappropriate behavior"
There is a VERY real probability that neither party is lying.....even if one of the statements is absolutely true.
That is why you damn well better have a full spectrum of evidence - which the Prosecutors may or may not have - before you move forward with the charges that were presented.
5 - When/If CSS ever go to trial, the Prosecution will have the opportunity and obligation to present a thorough. "beyond a reasonable doubt", case against CSS.
If they do.....then we can ALL put to bed the circle-jerking about what "word" MM used, "would have said..." conjecture, and the irrelevant post-game analysis of every line of "recall" testimony. We would all be a lot better off.
If they do not....then the Prosecutors owe one hell of a lot more than an apology to EVERYONE involved.....including the witnesses that they hung out to dry.
____________
I have no idea when or if we will see the CSS come to trial.
But I do know that unless/until it does:
All of this consternating about recollections of decade old / distorted / externally-influenced / conflicted / hi-stress events.......and the parsing of every word of testimony regarding such recollections.....doesn't do anyone much good. In the end. ALL OF IT better be relatively insignificant in the criminal prosecution.....or the entire situation is permanently FUBAR.. In the meantime, the circle-jerking has the potential to unfairly damage a lot of folks.
If we had not been waiting FOUR GD YEARS to see this case come to some sort of disposition, we would not have subjected ourselves and everyone associated with it to so much turmoil. Let's hope we don't go another decade waiting for the "system" to shit or get off the pot.
Anyway....just one person's thoughts.
. -
Last edited:
Didn't she tell the 3 it was no big deal and they didn't have to review any notes or bring anything to hearing? Now that's what I call a sandbag
Actually, that's not a problem at all. Who is telling the truth is not relevant in the scope of ethical practice of law. Even if we assume all 3 were lying, that doesn't make it appropriate to violate their rights to prevent them from testifying. That is, if they want to take the stand and commit perjury, it's up to the prosecution to prove they are lying.... NOT violate their rights to drum up charges in an attempt to keep their testimony out of the Sandusly Trial.
That was the testimony of at least one of them. Seems pretty clear that she is giving individual legal advice in that regard and AT A MINIMUM had a duty to disclose who she really represented at that point in time. She failed to do so and I assure you, it was not an oversight.
Baldwin will be disbarred for this and Spanier (at least) has a pretty good malpractice case against her waiting in the wings.
Boy wouldn't this be interesting. I would think that PSU wouldn't be on the hook here to cover any damages Spanier might win since the whole premise would be that she was his personal counsel.
Do you think there is any chance at all that the Good Leaders of Dear Old State wouldn't find it appropriate to spend OUR money to cover "Her Honor"s liabilities?
Do you think there is any chance at all that the Good Leaders of Dear Old State wouldn't find it appropriate to spend OUR money to cover "Her Honor"s liabilities?
I don't think it is just "her honor". I think its possible that Joe was the shiny object to distract the media from the BoT's participation in all of this. In fact, hearing that CB separated C & S in the car and may have misled them going in, may have been a set up.
The BOT has been in bed with politicians and the second mile for decades. Is it possible that politicians protected JS so that TSM could be protected? All of them made money off of transactions in the county. Was TSM some kind of money laundering, or similar clearing house, that provided a portal to money and influence? Just throwing it out there.
Probably a variation of Cash for Kids.
Kids got in trouble and ended up referred to 2nd Mile (as opposed to juvie, etc.)...likely with letters of sponsorship/recommendation from prominent individuals stating that these kids deserved a second chance. Referrer receives some sort of consideration/compensation. TSM gets credit for taking a referral.
I really think it is all a given up to that point. Now, extrapolating that out...somebody might wonder if the DA uncovered the scheme and became despondent.
Of course, all those letters are likely shredded now. I mean, we know things were shredded.
Last edited:
Right...and one has to wonder why. We are starting to see many of these "charities" are clearinghouses for people that want to further non-charitable interests (think the Clinton Foundation, for example).
I'm sure they would love to, but I would be very interested in the logic they would try to use to justify it. After all, if this case were to go to trial wouldn't that by its nature mean that it was for her personal representation of him (or should I say failure to properly represent him personally), rather than her role as PSU General Counsel. Then again as it is now they just do what they want to do regardless of their fiduciary responsibility.Do you think there is any chance at all that the Good Leaders of Dear Old State wouldn't find it appropriate to spend OUR money to cover "Her Honor"s liabilities?
I think we would both feel VERY comfortable wagering the mortgage money that PSU would/will pick up the tab for any of Baldwin's costs.
Really? Can't you imagine this: she attends a GJ session that she wasn't allowed to attend unless she personally represented them, and failed to object when identified by them as their counsel.
With board members this stupid, it's a wonder PSU still functions. Think how great it could be if it had competent leadership.
This dingbat could have solved the whole situation by simply realizing that she was in way over her head and getting help from outside counsel. She never should have gone near a courtroom.
This junkie has an answer for everything. Ask any junkie and they will tell you junk is the answer for everything.
I got a new answer: Sandusky gets a real trial ( re trail ) and wait for it:
Trump Trump Trump !!!
N i t t a n y A m e r i c a
