If I was Curley or Shultz

[WeR0206]

But it's hogwash in everybody's eyes because they failed to keep their own records of having done that. What happened to CYA on their end? They failed at one of the most basic executive tasks--keeping records. Where's the email to Raykovitz, where's the response? ok.

How do you know there aren't any records, notes, etc.?? All we've seen is what freeh/oag wanted us to see. Why didn't freeh include the text of the email from Schultz to Harmon on monday 2/12/01? Freeh only showed Harmon's response. Hmm, I wonder why??

Why didn't MM, the one and only witness, ever file an official police report to document his story if he was so sure about it? There are a lot of unanswered questions. Hopefully GS takes it to trial and we'll get some answers.

 

[WeR0206]

McQueary would have faced the strongest cross from C/S's lawyers because they were the ones with direct meeting with MM. If he didn't tell them what he claimed to, they were they ones that could refute that.

Spanier never directly talked to MM, so what he must establish is what C/S told him not so much as what MM told C/S. Spanier cannot totally refute MM without C/S testimony, which less likely to happen, and be of less value now that they have admitted guilt. Again, this was a move to strenghten the case by removing obstacles to contradict the OAG story. Today there are fewer obstacles to having MM's testimony hold up than at the beginning of the week. C/S were the best hope to dash MM's testimony, not Spanier.

I agree that C/S taking a plea is a win for the state. They wanted nothing to do with C/S going to trial b/c then they would have to expose MM and EXACTLY what he said to C/S, and his actions in 2001 to all kinds of cross examination. He may still be called during Spanier's trial. Which is why I think the state is desperate to get Spanier to plead out as well.

One could also argue that C/S took the pleas because they were the only admins who spoke directly to MM. Spanier could say, if C/S try to testify against him, that the two guys who just plead guilty to EWOC watered down the story they told Spanier. It's Spanier's word against C/S at the point. It would get interesting in court to see how it would play out.

 

[lyndj]

How do you know there aren't any records, notes, etc.?? All we've seen is what freeh/oag wanted us to see. Why didn't freeh include the text of the email from Schultz to Harmon on monday 2/12/01? Freeh only showed Harmon's response. Hmm, I wonder why??

Why didn't MM, the one and only witness, ever file an official police report to document his story if he was so sure about it? There are a lot of unanswered questions. Hopefully GS takes it to trial and we'll get some answers.

Why didn't Schultz' camp release his email to Harmon themselves?

 

[WeR0206]

Why didn't Schultz' camp release his email to Harmon themselves?

I have no idea, maybe because Schultz was following advice from his lawyer (I'd bet money that this email and others were requested during discovery though)? Maybe Schultz' team was given a gag order and would be in trouble for sharing evidence with the public?

If the email was bad for Schultz/supported the current narrative you'd be damned sure freeh would have trumpeted it from the roof tops. But he didn't. Instead he chose to mention it in a footnote. Hmmm. I think this is because this email proves Harmon knew about 2001.

Same thing goes with WC's actual notes from this talk with Schultz. Even though PSU could waive ACP at any point so we could see exactly what Schultz told WC and exactly what WC advised Schultz to do (to see if he followed the advice or not), we have never seen those details and freeh never included them--he only included what billing code WC used instead of the results of his research. That doesn't seem odd to you? If those notes supported the current narrative then freeh/PSU would have gladly shared them with the public IMO.

 

[lyndj]

I have no idea, maybe because Schultz was following advice from his lawyer (I'd bet money that this email and others were requested during discovery though)? Maybe Schultz' team was given a gag order and would be in trouble for sharing evidence with the public?

If the email was bad for Schultz/supported the current narrative you'd be damned sure freeh would have trumpeted it from the roof tops. But he didn't. Instead he chose to mention it in a footnote. Hmmm. I think this is because this email proves Harmon knew about 2001.

Same thing goes with WC's actual notes from this talk with Schultz. Even though PSU could waive ACP at any point so we could see exactly what Schultz told WC and exactly what WC advised Schultz to do (to see if he followed the advice or not), we have never seen those details and freeh never included them--he only included what billing code WC used instead of the results of his research. That doesn't seem odd to you? If those notes supported the current narrative then freeh/PSU would have gladly shared them with the public IMO.

One of the more curious things in this case is Wendell the lawyer. Schultz ever going to speak out about his solicited advice?

 

[BobPSU92]

At what number of posts do you gain credibility? Even you had to join this forum at some point.

We'll let you know.

 

[PSU2UNC]

McQueary would have faced the strongest cross from C/S's lawyers because they were the ones with direct meeting with MM. If he didn't tell them what he claimed to, they were they ones that could refute that.

Spanier never directly talked to MM, so what he must establish is what C/S told him not so much as what MM told C/S. Spanier cannot totally refute MM without C/S testimony, which less likely to happen, and be of less value now that they have admitted guilt. Again, this was a move to strenghten the case by removing obstacles to contradict the OAG story. Today there are fewer obstacles to having MM's testimony hold up than at the beginning of the week. C/S were the best hope to dash MM's testimony, not Spanier.

Spanier attorneys have all of the discovery including any depositions of MM.

If C/S won't testify, then you have to imagine they will bring MM to the stand about what MM told C/S (e.g. if MM didn't tell C/S abuse, then obviously C/S didn't tell S abuse).

The OAG had offered plea bargains to the admins a long time ago because they know their case is garbage. All three know they are innocent, which is why they didn't take the pleas. When their efforts to get the charges dismissed failed (which is still amazing by the way), they had to become concerned that they wouldn't get an impartial jury (see also: the MM whistleblower proceedings) and decided that pleading to a misdemeanor (again, equivalent to vandalism) was the smartest way to go.

The OAG is trying to get ANY win out of this. Because the media is biased and because the general public is stoopid (sic) the pleas by C/S appear to be that, but they are not.

 

[bjf1991]

The one sure thing that happened this week - with the CS pleas:

The breadth of any possible illumination ...... of just what the f$ck went down - and why, and by whom.......
got waaaaaay smaller.

Like, as an analogy - the breadth of "discovery" was reduced from an entire beach, down to a single grain of sand


2nd Mile? Forgettaboutit

Wendell C? Forgettaboutit

Raykovitz? Forgettaboutit

Heim? Forgettaboutit

"Her Honor" Baldwin? Forgettaboutit

PSU BOT? Forgettaboutit

Fina? McGettigan? Lubert? DPW? Corbett? Etc etc etc?
Whatever slim chances that might have ever existed?- - Forgettaboutit


What's left? Not much


How many folks have screwed the pooch in this entire legal cluster-f$ck? Chuck Norris couldn't count that high


End result? Exactly what so many have desired from the start........Forgettaboutit

 

[WeR0206]

The OAG is trying to get ANY win out of this. Because the media is biased and because the general public is stoopid (sic) the pleas by C/S appear to be that, but they are not.

I call this maneuver the ol' Seth Williams bait n switch. Blow a bunch of hot air in the press then end up with a few wrist slap pleas to misdemeanor then declare some glorious victory to the press who gladly obliges since they were blowing the horn for the prosecutor since day one.

 

[towny87.1]

The one sure thing that happened this week - with the CS pleas:

The breadth of any possible illumination ...... of just what the f$ck went down - and why, and by whom.......
got waaaaaay smaller.

why won't tim and gary's statements to investigators last week be illuminating, I would also think the public record from the hearing this past monday for their guilty pleas would also be quite illuminating. We have all wanted them to take the stand and now they will. how will the admins taking the stand testifying against graham next week be less illuminating then the two not taking the stand in their own defense

all of your other forgetaboutits were already just that before their guilty pleas.

 

[bjf1991]

why won't tim and gary's statements to investigators last week be illuminating, I would also think the public record from the hearing this past monday for their guilty pleas would also be quite illuminating. We have all wanted them to take the stand and now they will. how will the admins taking the stand testifying against graham next week be less illuminating then the two not taking the stand in their own defense

all of your other forgetaboutits were already just that before their guilty pleas.

Depends on how limited your focus is - - - What your interests and concerns are - - - vav whether or not you have desires to see what folks often refer to as "the truth".

Or not

C'est La Vie



The number of folks actually interested in "the truth"? The non-conflicted, non-abridged, non-self interested, unfiltered, unprocessed "truth"?

Damn few. A lot fewer than most would like to admit....... than most WOULD admit.
I've run into plenty of folks over the years since 2011.
Talked with a lot of folks
Met some folks I just as soon wouldn't have - - - met some folks who were a blessing.

When all was/is said and done....the number who are truly interested in the non-conflicted truth? Not many.
One of the reasons that the "the more I'm around people, the more I like my dog" quote rings so much truer these days.

"It is what it is" - and "it has been what is has been", for 6 (or 10, or 20) years

Monday's actions certainly gave that opportunity a swift kick in then nuts.

Just like every other "outcome" over the last decade.

No reason to think that is ever likely to change.