- Bruce Beemer has your so called "short straw"
funny that you have such strong opinions and yet pretty clear you haven't been paying any attention.......................
Freeh "exposed" Fina's OTHER email problem.
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
- Bruce Beemer has your so called "short straw"
funny that you have such strong opinions and yet pretty clear you haven't been paying any attention.......................
Probably best for this thread to be euthanized.
Its all conjecture......and the "you know who's" will be coming soon.
Barry, are you referring to these guys....I forget their names:
I'm surprised the crap hasn't begun already. There is no evidence C,S & S were involved in malfeasance of any kind.
Please feel free to post that "laundry list" here or a link to where we can find it.
This 3/30/2012 filing includes the list of potentially perjurious statements. The commonwealth noted that "any or all of these statements will support the charge of perjury, and that it is not required to prove the falsity of every identified statement".
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ion-for-Bill-of-Particulars-March-30-2012.pdf
It's worth noting that this is a list of isolated statements. As noted in the following 2/14/2012 memo from Schultz's attorney, perjury must be assessed in the context of the defendants entire testimony. See bottom of p.12:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ltz/Schultz-Memorandum-of-Law-Feb-14-2012.pdf
The entire GJ testimony from Curley & Schultz was read into the record at the 12/16/2011 preliminary hearing. Curley testimony starts p.178; Schultz testimony starts on p.204:
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf
Law on Perjury: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...M&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=49&mobile_choice=suppress
§ 4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense under this section if he retracted the falsification in the course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section, except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
Well, looking through that "laundry list" it's pretty hard to see how towny can claim "Only a very small part of the perjury charges relate to what MM specifically told Curley and Schultz."
It is almost entirely related to what McQueary told them.
If the prosecution is basing its case on the conversations w/MM ....and the gibberish from Miss Daisy.......the case is a non-starter.
If that is the case, and this entire prosecution was based on just that, C/S/S AND MM...ALL ought to be suing the prosecutors' office for malfeasance: C/S/S for Malicious Prosecution, and MM for being hung out like a Pinata.
BUT, we don't know if there may be a mountain of evidence that indicates some subterfuge going on behind the scenes (related to CSS). We just don't know.
Based on the history of Fina and the Boys wrt "Slam Dunk" cases, I think Vegas would make that possibility a real big underdog (but, hey, Jacksonville State nearly upset Auburn).......but the bottom line is we simply won't know unless/until there is a trial (if then)....which makes the "time it by the movement of glaciers" process of getting to trial all the more "interesting".
Exactly. The perjury charges are based on their GJ testimony, most of which revolves around what MM told them in 2002....(even though the actual date was 2001).
When you factor in that apparently CSS didn't even have legal representation at the GJ when they were led to believe they did and testified that they did, their GJ testimony isn't exactly a solid foundation to be basing any charges on let alone perjury!
There was a point in the 12/16/11 prelim (page 69) where MM was asked by Roberto to recall exactly what he told Dr. D. (to see if if corroborated what MM told TC) and the state objected due to irrelevance (huh..how in the eff is that NOT relevant, especially when dealing with perjury charges??) and of course Hoover sustained the objection.
In fact, Roberto made it a point to get on the record on page 69 that the state's vehemence in preventing her from going into this area lead her to believe Dr. D's version doesn't corroborate MM's version.
There is also another bill of particulars from 2013 - The second round of charges - below is a link to spanier's I will see if curley and schultz are available online
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...endant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars.pdf
Yes this info is public -
both the conspiracy charges below were dropped a long time ago - I don't think people pay close enough attention to notice and even when it is mentioned on the boards there is too much other noise from name calling etc... for people notice
Conspiracy - Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func (withdrawn)
Conspiracy - Perjury (withdrawn)
Thanks for that. Do you happen to know which filing mentioned that by any chance? There so many I lose track after a while.
At least half of the items on that list relate to what McQueary told CS in 2001 and in turn, what they told Spanier.
If you think that's a "small part" you need to retake basic math.
I don't know if there was a specific filing but I believe it was 9/19/2013 when those conspiracy charges were withdrawn
from April 13 2011
To this day you still don't know who the witness was
Spanier - No
lol
Did they inform you whether Joe Paterno had been informed and was in any way involved in the relay of information
Spanier - His name was never mention to the best of my recollection
lol
Was there any discussion about reporting the matter to the police or children and youth or any other type of public agency
Spanier - No
lol lol lol
Was there any discussion or information provided to you about any prior allegations against Mr. Sandusky involving children
Spanier - No
lol
Were you ever informed before 2011 that there had been an allegation in 1998 that Sandusky was in one of the PSU showers with two young men and that contact had occurred
Spanier - No
lol
This is just way to easy.......
Your LOLs are not proof of anything. I think you have an inflated idea of McQueary's importance in the Penn State universe prior to 2011. In 2001 Spanier wouldn't have known who Mike was and it wouldn't have mattered. Mike isn't mentioned in any of the correspondence. The 1998 incident wasn't mentioned in any of their correspondence.
Your problem is that your idea of perjury has absolutely nothing to do with what actually constitutes perjury. Forgetting some detail from 10 years ago is not perjury. This case is unwinnable for the prosecution and they know it.
I figured his post for what it was...worthless. There is no evidence of malfeasance to date.
It is easy to LOL....until you remember that the questions (aside from the first and last ones) were regarding his initial conversations with C/S.....and the GJ was ostensibly concerned with the activities of Sandusky.
With that in mind.......and given the parameters of a "Perjury" charge......not so much, even if one has difficulty believing that all of the answers were completely "forthcoming".
And you have to wonder - wouldn't you - why NOTHING was brought forth in the preliminary hearing that would provide ANY substantiation of the charges. NOTHING.
Did the Prosecution forget to present a case? IDK....but one would sure think that is something that should be addressed. From where I sit, there are three options:
1 - They forgot to present a case
2 - They chose to not present a case (interesting possibility)
3 - They don't have a case
I would guess that you would feel it was "#2" (no pun intended)
Given the track record....I wouldn't rule out any of the three.
It is easy to LOL....until you remember that the questions (aside from the first and last ones) were regarding his initial conversations with C/S.....and the GJ was ostensibly concerned with the activities of Sandusky.
With that in mind.......and given the parameters of a "Perjury" charge......not so much, even if one has difficulty believing that all of the answers were completely "forthcoming".
And you have to wonder - wouldn't you - why NOTHING was brought forth in the preliminary hearing that would provide ANY substantiation of the charges. NOTHING.
Did the Prosecution forget to present a case? IDK....but one would sure think that is something that should be addressed. From where I sit, there are three options:
1 - They forgot to present a case
2 - They chose to not present a case (interesting possibility)
3 - They don't have a case
I would guess that you would feel it was "#2" (no pun intended)
Given the track record....I wouldn't rule out any of the three.
In April 2011 do you think Spanier was being truthful when he said he still didn't know MM was the witness.
Yes or No
It doesn't matter....but the answer to your question - if the question is "what is my gut feel" - is that I don't think so.
At the same time....if it were "I" presiding over that Preliminary Hearing, the case against Spanier never would have moved forward.
Barry as we have talked I understand the lack of information.... I get due process... Which they are receiving.... I believe in presumption of innocence. I also believe that the witness not accused of any wrong doing should be extended the same courtesies.... He of course has not at least as far as these boards are concerned... Mike has been called a liar a coward a low life ... His family has also been accused of those same types of things. We will see where it ends.... I have reason to be confident.... Even as many truths have yet to be learned.
Barry let me remind you here ... Who is the easiest out in this for all those who have been accused .. Who's the easiest scape goat?
Barry let me remind you here ... Who is the easiest out in this for all those who have been accused .. Who's the easiest scape goat?
I have strong feelings as to who are the greatest Scoundrels in this whole thing.......and it ain't anyone who has been accused, or anyone who has taken the witness stand.
As you know, I've felt that way for a long time.....and everything I have seen to date provides more and more support for that position.
Unfortunately, some (though I think - and hope - not the majority) see this as a Witness vs The Accused issue......and I simply don't think that is the right way to view things.....(I am quite certain that that element has to be very "hard to take", from a personal viewpoint)
In many ways - it is analogous to another issue we talk about often...the whole Republican/Democrat thing. It is far easier for those folks to try to align "the unwashed masses" by pointing to the other, and saying "those guys" are the enemy. They NEED to do that, because if the "unwashed masses" ever engaged their collective brains, they would realize that both of those groups - The R AND the D politicians are the ENEMY.
All of us - I think - would benefit from "engaging our brains" in this matter.....and recognize who the real "bad guy" is. Or, at least, the worst of the "bad guys". Nature of the beast is...that doesn't always happen, and it is unfortunate.....and I know you and yours have paid quite a price for that.
Before 2009 did Mike ever tell you that he was sure that Sandusky was having some kind of sexual intercourse with a male minor in the Lasch Building?
Yes or no.
Like I said, you clearly don't understand what the crime of perjury is and how it must be proved.
Law on Perjury: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...M&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=49&mobile_choice=suppress
§ 4902. Perjury.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.
(b) Materiality.--Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding. It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial. Whether a falsification is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
(c) Irregularities no defense.--It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an irregular manner or that the declarant was not competent to make the statement. A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to have been duly sworn or affirmed.
(d) Retraction.--No person shall be guilty of an offense under this section if he retracted the falsification in the course of the proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and before the falsification substantially affected the proceeding.
(e) Inconsistent statements.--Where the defendant made inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
(f) Corroboration.--In any prosecution under this section, except under subsection (e) of this section, falsity of a statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.
I actually knew there was zero chance for you to be able to just answer yes or no
but laughable at the same time you don't think it matters if Spanier was truthful or not -
The 3 amigos being less than truthful is what allowed the OAG to have their own version of what happened - Allowed others to avoid scrutiny that should have been held accountable and I will also say it is what allowed the BOT to fire Joe and put all of this on football. The people that their truthful testimony would have implicated are the very same people who shit on them and Joe
but it doesn't matter .....
If Harmon was involved from that very same weekend in 2001 it changes everything and yet neither the OAG or PSU want to admit that
check out from the thread when someone hits you with an actual dose of reality ...........
good day !!!!
You have clearly missed the point that I have made dozens of times - I don't care if they committed perjury or not and I especially don't care if they are found guilty or not
What is clear is they lied to investigators - and yes it does matter ..........................
Oh FFS, you are a slippery snake. This conversation started when you said that Curley "has to worry about perjury" and then when we pointed out that is BS you backtrack and say that you don't care if he committed perjury.
Obviously he has to worry perjury since he has felony charges hanging over his head - do you think I care if he is found guilty or not - It just isn't the case -
There is a huge difference between cheering for someone to be found guilty (which you will never be able to find where I have come close to doing that) vs. if they told the truth they wouldn't be in the position they are now. Not sure why it surprises me that you can't see that difference when you are so far from reality but I guess it still does .......
I think all that has to be established in a preliminary hearing is a prima face case in order to move forward. The bar is very low and in favor of the prosecutors...so they show as few cards as possible. Basically most of what was presented was from the Freeh Report so it was already in public domain. I would suspect the OAG has other cards...although whether they amount to smoking guns or duds remains to be seen.
THAT is NOT what I said. I absolutely answered your question......I said my gut feel is that "I don't think so".....how much more directly can I answer that????
I don't think it matters "what I think" wrt the Court Case....and it doesn't.....does it?
Good Lord man.....read what I wrote......not what you want to think.
I'll accept your apologies in advance...since I gotta' check outahere.
(F&ckin' Marines
Barking at the wrong tree.....but doing it with authority!!!!!)The only person who isn't telling the truth is Mike McQueary. Dukie doesn't want to answer the question that I asked (and that I've asked before) because he knows that damn well that Mike never said anything to him in 2001 about Jerry having sex with a child. Mike saw something that looked suspicious to him. It was strange to see Sandusky in the showers with a teenager and he was right to be suspicious about it. He asked his dad and Dranov what to do. He didn't tell them anything about Jerry having sex with a child and he sure as hell didn't say something different to Curley and Schultz. THAT is the truth, and if McQueary had stuck to the truth, it would have saved Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars and a lot of pain.
There isn't any more. We've seen all there is to see. The case is a farce.
Similar threads
