Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[lionville]

Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."

She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.

Calling AG Shapiro......Shapiro......

I believe you have an obligation to prosecute grand jury leaks. Here's sworn testimony that a witness was made aware that a GJ leak was forthcoming, and said leak took place. KK was tried and convicted for the same. YOU NEED TO PROSECUTE THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!

 

[BBrown]

Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."

She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.

Yikes. Which begs the question....Why are some Grand Jury leaks more "illegal" and jail worthy than others?...
Something I've wanted to know since the whole Kane shit storm started.
(semi TIC since I'm pretty sure I know the answer). Just thought I'd throw it out there again.

 

[bjf1991]

Question for Towny and Dukie..
When did you and your family find out Mike was told that the GJ presentment was going to be leaked? So essentially Mike was aware of another crime and didn't voice his displeasure as well as your family. We are seeing a pattern here....

So now we know Mike did nothing publicly to change the false language in the presentment and did nothing to indicate his dissatisfaction with the GJ presentment being leaked which included that false language and inflamed the masses.

The language of the GJP certainly "fanned the masses" .......... to say the LEAST!

How that "document" was made public (leaked?) is certainly a VERY significant issue which should have opened a focus into the operations of the OAG ......FIVE YEARS ago.
It should have, but, alas, it never did.

That said, FWIW:
Whether or not MM used the term "leak" to describe the GJP release .....whether of not he (MM) used that term, and whether or not someone at the OAG used that term in talking w MM... is wholly irrelevant (by about 10 degrees of separation ) to the current issue - - - the EWOC trial of GSpan.

 

[psudukie]

I would be willing to bet Mike did not use the word leak.

I would also say this testimony occurred before ... where roughly a week before the release of presentment oag notified psu of coming indictments, they also notified Mike ... and Mike immediately notified Fran and I believe a call from dean may have occurred at this time. No one in our family including Mike knew what was in the presentment.

I believe jimmy w can confirm some or all of this.


Am I answering you question or am I missing something?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Is there a reason you are confusing what type of "investigation" an untrained non-child pro would be talking about

as compared to the type of "investigation" Jack Raykovitz as a trained child psychologist specifically named in the PA CPSL as required to not only report but to implement a safety plan for his at-risk clients was obligated to initiate?

You can only keep pointing your finger at the other guy for so long. Nobody is saying TSM or Jack shouldn't have faced the music, but you don't get a free get out jail card all of the time just because someone else did. It's odd how some that want the whole truth only can circle back to TSM over and over and over again. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been investigated, but if you want the whole truth...you sure as hell want to know IF Tim said that and why in the hell he said it. He may not even said that, but it sure seems like an interesting point if you are looking for the whole truth. It's downright scary how anything daring to question Tim goes right back to TSM...it's almost a knee jerk reaction for a few here. Maybe Jack just lied his arse off...but what if he didn't. A fair question to ask and maybe one that never gets answered.

 

[lionville]

Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."

She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.

Further proof this guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[bplionfan]

At this point the only thing that matters is what's presented at trial. The PMA deposition means nothing. Besides, the identity of "coach" is meaningless as it pertains to Spanier's defense.

Well it is another piece to help cut to shreds the Freeh report narrative that Joe followed 1998 closely.

 

[Zenophile]

At this point the only thing that matters is what's presented at trial. The PMA deposition means nothing. Besides, the identity of "coach" is meaningless as it pertains to Spanier's defense.

His response was germane to a question posed earlier today.

 

[Raffycorn]

I can.

“The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years.”
​

The totality of "the evidence" Freeh refers to is this third person "coach" reference we are currently discussing.

OK. In my opinion, I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that he "followed it closely" with the evidence available. I do, however, think the available evidence leads to a conclusion that Curley kept Joe informed of the 1998 investigation in some unknown level of detail. I think it's far more likely that Curley was referring to Joe in those two emails than Jerry.

In the grand sense, I don't think it matters too much either way as far as Spanier's guilt is concerned - but I found it pretty curious that Harmon seemed to say that "coach" absolutely referred to Jerry and that only Harmon, Schultz and DPW were involved when the evidence available doesn't support that conclusion.

 

[nits74]

Calling AG Shapiro......Shapiro......

I believe you have an obligation to prosecute grand jury leaks. Here's sworn testimony that a witness was made aware that a GJ leak was forthcoming, and said leak took place. KK was tried and convicted for the same. YOU NEED TO PROSECUTE THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!

The part about MM "catching himself" right after he said this is very telling on several levels. What an orchestrated sham this is.

 

[BBrown]

OK. In my opinion, I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that he "followed it closely" with the evidence available. I do, however, think the available evidence leads to a conclusion that Curley kept Joe informed of the 1998 investigation in some unknown level of detail. I think it's far more likely that Curley was referring to Joe in those two emails than Jerry.

In the grand sense, I don't think it matters too much either way as far as Spanier's guilt is concerned - but I found it pretty curious that Harmon seemed to say that "coach" absolutely referred to Jerry and that only Harmon, Schultz and DPW were involved when the evidence available doesn't support that conclusion.

From your lips to Louis F's. ears.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Yikes. Which begs the question....Why are some Grand Jury leaks more "illegal" and jail worthy than others?...
Something I've wanted to know since the whole Kane shit storm started.
(semi TIC since I'm pretty sure I know the answer). Just thought I'd throw it out there again.

All leaks are created equal.

Some leaks are more equal than others

 

[roswelllion]

Given the Prosecution's "same old song and dance" witness list:

I think it is pretty safe to assume (like 95+%) that barring Curley or Schultz going "completely off the reservation" with startling, heretofore unreleased information (I don't expect that to happen - but you never know, and we will find out soon enough) the state likely has absolutely zero case against Spanier.

No more than they did back in 2011
No more than they did at his preliminary hearing - when the charges should never have been moved forward (but were 100% locks to move forward through the typical District Magistrate deputy-dog stage)

That doesn't mean he won't get convicted.
Because? Because it's a jury trial.

And, in a case like this, It is highly likely that the jury will demand to "blame someone". Especially after Kline brings his dog-and-pony show to the parade - - - which brings up a whole 'nuther topic we should be discussing - but not right now.
Thus far - the only person the jury is being given the option of "blaming" is GS.
(And the defense team wet the bed - bewilderingly - on this critical issue with the acquiescence to the JR testimony)


Anyway - Day 2 coming up ........ and I'm sure it will draw a lot of interest.


Couple things to keep in mind wrt "jury trials":

1 - As opposed to a discussion among individuals, in a trial setting it is often/usually the case that once an opportunity to delve into an issue is bypassed, that opportunity is GONE forever (on occasion the opposition may open the door for calling a "rebuttal" witness to revisit an issue - but that is the exception)

2 - When the Jury goes back into seclusion to deliberate, you don't have an atmosphere of a PhD dissertation committee - where you have a panel of educated experts who are going to logically dissect the information they were presented with. What you have is a panel of emotional, often intellectually limited "folks". And they render decisions - often (usually?) - that have much more to do with "what they think should happen", rather than "what the rule of law dictate"

3 - The attitudes and biases of the jury, if they were not already established before the trial, are often going to be established very early in the proceedings. It is what it is ....... and once established, and allowed to fester, they are VERY hard to overcome



Looking at "Day 1" of Spanier v Pennsylvania, there were several disconcerting aspects - - - none more so than the cross of JR.

It was - IMO - the most critical event of Day 1 (and nothing else came close)

JR's depiction of the TC meeting......essentially that "TC told me they already handled it".....was left untouched......bewilderingly untouched.
The net result? The Jury now has the impression that PSU (and make no mistake, for this jury, PSU is personified in the visage of Graham Spanier) lied to not only MM, but also to the folks at the 2nd Mile.

This is a severely damaging mistake (IMO) and will be a huge hurdle to overcome moving forward

I'll get into some other examples when more time is available.
It is always better to observe these things in person - - - but there were a handful of situations that appear to have been FUBAR-ed

Given the Prosecution's "same old song and dance" witness list:

I think it is pretty safe to assume (like 95+%) that barring Curley or Schultz going "completely off the reservation" with startling, heretofore unreleased information (I don't expect that to happen - but you never know, and we will find out soon enough) the state likely has absolutely zero case against Spanier.

No more than they did back in 2011
No more than they did at his preliminary hearing - when the charges should never have been moved forward (but were 100% locks to move forward through the typical District Magistrate deputy-dog stage)

That doesn't mean he won't get convicted.
Because? Because it's a jury trial.

And, in a case like this, It is highly likely that the jury will demand to "blame someone". Especially after Kline brings his dog-and-pony show to the parade - - - which brings up a whole 'nuther topic we should be discussing - but not right now.
Thus far - the only person the jury is being given the option of "blaming" is GS.
(And the defense team wet the bed - bewilderingly - on this critical issue with the acquiescence to the JR testimony)


Anyway - Day 2 coming up ........ and I'm sure it will draw a lot of interest.


Couple things to keep in mind wrt "jury trials":

1 - As opposed to a discussion among individuals, in a trial setting it is often/usually the case that once an opportunity to delve into an issue is bypassed, that opportunity is GONE forever (on occasion the opposition may open the door for calling a "rebuttal" witness to revisit an issue - but that is the exception)

2 - When the Jury goes back into seclusion to deliberate, you don't have an atmosphere of a PhD dissertation committee - where you have a panel of educated experts who are going to logically dissect the information they were presented with. What you have is a panel of emotional, often intellectually limited "folks". And they render decisions - often (usually?) - that have much more to do with "what they think should happen", rather than "what the rule of law dictate"

3 - The attitudes and biases of the jury, if they were not already established before the trial, are often going to be established very early in the proceedings. It is what it is ....... and once established, and allowed to fester, they are VERY hard to overcome



Looking at "Day 1" of Spanier v Pennsylvania, there were several disconcerting aspects - - - none more so than the cross of JR.

It was - IMO - the most critical event of Day 1 (and nothing else came close)

JR's depiction of the TC meeting......essentially that "TC told me they already handled it".....was left untouched......bewilderingly untouched.
The net result? The Jury now has the impression that PSU (and make no mistake, for this jury, PSU is personified in the visage of Graham Spanier) lied to not only MM, but also to the folks at the 2nd Mile.

This is a severely damaging mistake (IMO) and will be a huge hurdle to overcome moving forward

I'll get into some other examples when more time is available.
It is always better to observe these things in person - - - but there were a handful of situations that appear to have been FUBAR-ed

I agree this was "big testimony" and coulda/shoulda really been taken apart by council. Why if TC said nothing to see here
did he still report to the board,
have a meeting with Jerry
say what he was alleged to have said to Tim about "if you think etc'
and legally was required to investigate no matter what Tim said

I posted as much on some thread but Art I think answered pretty well.
JR's testimony really didn't touch Spanier. [Never talked to him]
Actually TC's report to JR and GS report to Courtney help GS. [nothing sexual]

So short of bombshell [something in writing] between TC/GS and Spanier all of this "nothing to report stuff will support Spanier's claim or make TC/GS claims very contradictory.

Not good for us who want "PSU to get vindicated but probably good for Spanier.

 

[bjf1991]

I understand that. But if Spanier's attorney plays it that way, he loses.

We'll see. Hard for either of us to prognosticate from the "cheap seats"....not with any certainty anyway.

I think one thing we would agree on:

From 2011 up through today, the Prosecution - in the Spanier case - has yet to provide any evidence that would cause any non-conflicted person with an above room temperature IQ to even consider conviction.

 

[bplionfan]

I would be willing to bet Mike did not use the word leak.

I would also say this testimony occurred before ... where roughly a week before the release of presentment oag notified psu of coming indictments, they also notified Mike ... and Mike immediately notified Fran and I believe a call from dean may have occurred at this time. No one in our family including Mike knew what was in the presentment.

I believe jimmy w can confirm some or all of this.


Am I answering you question or am I missing something?

Thanks for the reply. I believe there were others in the courtroom who heard the same thing. Using the word bet is probably not the best term to use...

 

[DarkCock]

I can.

“The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years.”
​

The totality of "the evidence" Freeh refers to is this third person "coach" reference we are currently discussing.

Not entirely true. On Oct. 13, 1998 Ray Gricar met with Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, and Fran Ganter in the football building. Are we to believe they didn't discuss Sandusky? And are we to believe Paterno was completely oblivious to the meeting?

 

[psudukie]

Pretty sure same testimony regarding this is in the civil trial mike had in October. I really don't think there is something new here

Could I be wrong sure just as you could be.

 

[dshumbero]

Little more than a week after he pleaded guilty to a child endangerment charge, Tim Curley strode into a Dauphin County courtroom Wednesday morning to testify against his former boss, ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier.

And as his questioning got under way, Curley, formerly Penn State's athletic director, told the jury he never directly spoke to Spanier during the probe of a May 1998 child-sex allegation against Jerry Sandusky.

However, Curley said, Spanier was copied on an email chain that traced the course of the investigation, which at the time didn't result in charges being filed against Sandusky, the football team's defensive coordinator.

Curley babbles about emails. The OAG is so full of shit with Spanier, all of their gongee.

 

[pandaczar12]

Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."

She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.

Maybe this "slip up" is Mike's way of finally doing the right thing.

The problem with this is how would any of them make that determination without the kid? That is a huge leap of faith, given what Schultz knew from 1998. I'd like to hear how they made that determination, particularly when they were being advised by general counsel to go to DPW, just in case, which is obviously the appropriate action. I don't believe they did anything with malicious intent, but man, what a big mistake in judgement at that time.

Again... without hindsight bias, what they knew about 1998 in 2001 was that JS was investigated and cleared by the professionals.

 

[Diego Badman]

Not entirely true. On Oct. 13, 1998 Ray Gricar met with Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, and Fran Ganter in the football building. Are we to believe they didn't discuss Sandusky? And are we to believe Paterno was completely oblivious to the meeting?

I've always been fascinated with the assumption that Joe had to know. People hide stuff from "the boss" all of the time in any organization. They certainly keep personal items from him or her. And that is not nefarious. If it is personal, then there is not an obligation to tell the boss. I think people need to realize that while Joe was a large figure, to think stuff wasn't kept from him is really a stretch. I guess, as more testimony is delivered, we will see. And even then, Joe can't rebut that testimony.

 

[Ceasar]

Little more than a week after he pleaded guilty to a child endangerment charge, Tim Curley strode into a Dauphin County courtroom Wednesday morning to testify against his former boss, ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier.

And as his questioning got under way, Curley, formerly Penn State's athletic director, told the jury he never directly spoke to Spanier during the probe of a May 1998 child-sex allegation against Jerry Sandusky.

However, Curley said, Spanier was copied on an email chain that traced the course of the investigation, which at the time didn't result in charges being filed against Sandusky, the football team's defensive coordinator.

Curley babbles about emails. The OAG is so full of shit with Spanier, all of their gongee.

And Curley said he has an agreement that he will not be sentenced to prison due to health issues. Maybe the Judge should be asked why he misspoke - after Curley entered his plea the Judge said there was no agreement that would tie his hands. IMHO this is a problem when a Judge grandstands with little regard for the truth.

 

[joeparules]

If there was a "bombshell" it would be known to Spanier and his lawyers and he would have taken the plea. My guess is the prosecution has no physical evidence to prove GS heard anything more than horseplay and only has the ever-changing story of MM who never talked directly with GS? If true then logic would dictate a not guilty outcome, but after the JS trial where he was convicted on charges with no victim and only a third hand witness you never know here in PA!

 

[nits74]

And Curley said he has an agreement that he will not be sentenced to prison due to health issues. Maybe the Judge should be asked why he misspoke - after Curley entered his plea the Judge said there was no agreement that would tie his hands. IMHO this is a problem when a Judge grandstands with little regard for the truth.

And it illuminates the bias of this judge, which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.

 

[nits74]

If there was a "bombshell" it would be known to Spanier and his lawyers and he would have taken the plea. My guess is the prosecution has no physical evidence to prove GS heard anything more than horseplay and only has the ever-changing story of MM who never talked directly with GS? If true then logic would dictate a not guilty outcome, but after the JS trial where he was convicted on charges with no victim and only a third hand witness you never know here in PA!

Add to this, MM being awarded millions because O'Brien had the audacity to want to choose his own coaching staff. Talk about going up against a stacked deck.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And Curley said he has an agreement that he will not be sentenced to prison due to health issues. Maybe the Judge should be asked why he misspoke - after Curley entered his plea the Judge said there was no agreement that would tie his hands. IMHO this is a problem when a Judge grandstands with little regard for the truth.

Does that really surprise you? It was almost a given.

 

[PSUPALY]

OK. In my opinion, I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that he "followed it closely" with the evidence available. I do, however, think the available evidence leads to a conclusion that Curley kept Joe informed of the 1998 investigation in some unknown level of detail. I think it's far more likely that Curley was referring to Joe in those two emails than Jerry.

In the grand sense, I don't think it matters too much either way as far as Spanier's guilt is concerned - but I found it pretty curious that Harmon seemed to say that "coach" absolutely referred to Jerry and that only Harmon, Schultz and DPW were involved when the evidence available doesn't support that conclusion.

I'm sorry.....how do we know this?

 

[joeparules]

Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."

She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.

Uh, hello, shouldn't bells have gone off then, "about to leak the GJ presentment."

This may not be totally relevant to the current trial, but if this was captured on a transcript I would think it would be HUGE for the appeal of MM's whistle-blower case!? If he knew the GJ presentment was intentionally leaked by the OAG and never brought that to light before I seriously hope MM rots in hell!!! That was clearly the linchpin in this entire shit storm!

 

[dshumbero]

Paterno had to be destroyed so this whole PL/Corbett/OAG fart fest would work.

 

[roswelllion]

The better question is why in the hell would Curley say such a thing? Which agency investigated this...him and Schultz? I know everyone wants to understand why Jack and TSM never even got a second look which is crazy, but how in the world is Tim going to get around those comments on the stand? You have MM saying it was sexual and TSM saying it was investigated, but not by DPW or any law enforcement agency. You starting to see a pattern here...it's no wonder they took the plea. I'd be afraid of a jury if I was telling other people an investigation occurred when that didn't happen.

Well I agree with your question "why in the hell would Tim say such a thing?" but maybe disagree if i understand your premise. [the only reason why Tim would say this would be to actively be covering up] I simply don't believe JR here.
. why would TC even go to JR to tell him nothing
JR had a responsibility to investigate no matter what Tim told him so why take the risk.
Logic would suggest JR might ask a few questions like - who did the investigation, who was the kid, was he one of ours [TSM] how would Tim answer those simple questions?
Furthermore if nothing why go to the board, and talk to Jerry, and if he did talk to Jerry why wouldn't he ask Jerry who the kid was? Way to many holes for me but I guess we'll find out later from Tim

 

[Ceasar]

Does that really surprise you? It was almost a given.

LaJolla - no jail time does not surprise me. The fact that a Judge publically contradicted this does surprise me. I would expect a Judge to at least be as smart as every other Judge in America who remain silent if they are embarrassed by the fact that they approved a plea deal with no prison time.

 

[bjf1991]

And Curley said he has an agreement that he will not be sentenced to prison due to health issues. Maybe the Judge should be asked why he misspoke - after Curley entered his plea the Judge said there was no agreement that would tie his hands. IMHO this is a problem when a Judge grandstands with little regard for the truth.

Anyone who didn't know there was a deal in place - vav "sentencing" - is a candidate for "Mr Ovlivious"

 

[kevina001]

I do, however, think the available evidence leads to a conclusion that Curley kept Joe informed of the 1998 investigation in some unknown level of detail. I think it's far more likely that Curley was referring to Joe in those two emails than Jerry

Curley testified today that "coach" was referring to Paterno.

Schulte presented Curley with email streams during which he and Schultz discussed the 1998 investigation. In one entry, Curley asked for an update and told Schultz, "I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted."

The coach mentioned in the email was head football coach Joe Paterno, Curley said. In another email seeking an update, Curley told Schultz that "coach is anxious to hear where it stands."

 

[wensilver]

 

[LaJolla Lion]

LaJolla - no jail time does not surprise me. The fact that a Judge publically contradicted this does surprise me. I would expect a Judge to at least be as smart as every other Judge in America who remain silent if they are embarrassed by the fact that they approved a plea deal with no prison time.

I would think at the time the deal was in place that ones testimony was a part of the plea so that is why no sentence could be tied to it. You don't cash the check if the work hasn't been completed? I was just under the assumption in most cases like this that the prosecution and defense knew what was on the line ahead of the testimony. That could be a bad assumption on my part...not a lawyer...far from it.

 

[Zenophile]

Not entirely true. On Oct. 13, 1998 Ray Gricar met with Schreffler, Ralston, Sloane, and Fran Ganter in the football building. Are we to believe they didn't discuss Sandusky? And are we to believe Paterno was completely oblivious to the meeting?

What did Sloane's dictaphone say about it?

 

[nits74]

LaJolla - no jail time does not surprise me. The fact that a Judge publically contradicted this does surprise me. I would expect a Judge to at least be as smart as every other Judge in America who remain silent if they are embarrassed by the fact that they approved a plea deal with no prison time.

The for "health reasons" is nothing more than a face saver ploy. What's the good judge's reason for Schultz's not serving jail time going to be; he wants him to enjoy his retirement?

 

[baconking1]

I would think at the time the deal was in place that ones testimony was a part of the plea so that is why no sentence could be tied to it. You don't cash the check if the work hasn't been completed? I was just under the assumption in most cases like this that the prosecution and defense knew what was on the line ahead of the testimony. That could be a bad assumption on my part...not a lawyer...far from it.

Make sense.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Well I agree with your question "why in the hell would Tim say such a thing?" but maybe disagree if i understand your premise. [the only reason why Tim would say this would be to actively be covering up] I simply don't believe JR here.
. why would TC even go to JR to tell him nothing
JR had a responsibility to investigate no matter what Tim told him so why take the risk.
Logic would suggest JR might ask a few questions like - who did the investigation, who was the kid, was he one of ours [TSM] how would Tim answer those simple questions?
Furthermore if nothing why go to the board, and talk to Jerry, and if he did talk to Jerry why wouldn't he ask Jerry who the kid was? Way to many holes for me but I guess we'll find out later from Tim

Very possible this was Jack's attempt to CYA, but I cannot just make that assumption without raising an eyebrow towards Tim either.

 

[kentuckycb]

Curley testified today that "coach" was referring to Paterno.

Schulte presented Curley with email streams during which he and Schultz discussed the 1998 investigation. In one entry, Curley asked for an update and told Schultz, "I have touched base with coach. Keep us posted."

The coach mentioned in the email was head football coach Joe Paterno, Curley said. In another email seeking an update, Curley told Schultz that "coach is anxious to hear where it stands."

We still don't know if the "anxious" coach was Paterno. The first email proves little.

 

[Ceasar]

I would think at the time the deal was in place that ones testimony was a part of the plea so that is why no sentence could be tied to it. You don't cash the check if the work hasn't been completed? I was just under the assumption in most cases like this that the prosecution and defense knew what was on the line ahead of the testimony. That could be a bad assumption on my part...not a lawyer...far from it.

I know what you are saying but as long as Curley and Shultz testify truthfully there should be no problems, regardless of which side it helps. If they don't testify truthfully one would expect perjury charges would be forthcoming. Curley did not hedge on his deal and said straight up, he has a deal, no prison time.