Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Isn't there a McAndrew rule about responding to your own original post?
Kinda like talking to yourself?
Last edited:
So C/S/S supposedly formulated a plan together but Curley is taking sole responsibility for dropping the part of the plan which called for taking MM's story to CYS? So why is this trial even happening??
Fair enough--but my point was that there's usually another, true motive behind the given one in any situation. I've run into that many times. Had Armstrong been French, or only won 4, nothing happens. IMHO.
This quote from Pennlive is nonsense:
"Were Curley and Schultz eager to adopt Paterno's terms, either because it was more comfortable for everyone going forward, or because McQueary didn't do an effective enough job in coloring in the details?"
Paterno's terms--sounds an awful lot like blaming the dead guy, via media reporting anyway. Joe clearly said, and again it is much more believable, that he passed it on to those who would know better how to handle it. Suddenly it is "Paterno's terms."
Was it covered why it took 10 days to meet with McQ?
"Were Curley and Schultz eager to adopt Paterno's terms, either because it was more comfortable for everyone going forward, or because McQueary didn't do an effective enough job in coloring in the details?"
Paterno's terms--sounds an awful lot like blaming the dead guy, via media reporting anyway. Joe clearly said, and again it is much more believable, that he passed it on to those who would know better how to handle it. Suddenly it is "Paterno's terms."
Was it covered why it took 10 days to meet with McQ?
You know, I was never sure who was lying, however, the more I hear the testimony and past statements, I am inclined to sayMM was not clear to anyone!!! I really think the Dr and his dad would have reacted much differently if he told them the sexual version!!!
Asked point-blank by Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte whether the version of events he heard about the 2001 shower incident from either eyewitness Mike McQueary or late Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno - who McQueary first reported to - was described as sexual activity, Curley said: "No sir."
This is a pretty big deal.....Spanier might walk because of this quote...Even though he got a sweetheart deal, Curley refuses to back MM. That is huge. Only way jury can convict GS is if they find that based on the limited information that Curley gave him, that he should have reported....
Now that Curley has testified, I wonder if they recall MM to crucify him. Not sure what their strategy is.
This is a pretty big deal.....Spanier might walk because of this quote...Even though he got a sweetheart deal, Curley refuses to back MM. That is huge. Only way jury can convict GS is if they find that based on the limited information that Curley gave him, that he should have reported....
Now that Curley has testified, I wonder if they recall MM to crucify him. Not sure what their strategy is.
I'm shocked that this is included in the Pennlive article but was excluded from the AP article on Curley's testimony. The AP article was heavily slanted towards all things Paterno.
"In fact, the action -- because it did not include alerting police or child welfare officials to McQueary's report -- became a major missed opportunity for law enforcement that permitted Sandusky to find at least three more victims."
I have seen absolutely nothing that makes me believe that the opportunity missed in 2001 would have turned out any differently than the actual opportunity they had in 1998.
I have seen absolutely nothing that makes me believe that the opportunity missed in 2001 would have turned out any differently than the actual opportunity they had in 1998.
+100. He could have saved a ton of lawyer fees, angst and more importantly stress that didn't do his cancer recovery any good.
I don't, for a minute, believe that he just had this "epiphany" last week.
Like referring to yourself in 3rd person?Isn't there a McAndrew rule about responding to your own original post?
By whom? I recall that people have posted that the three ought to take a deal, but that doesn't mean that anything was offered.
Look for the real motive behind the given one.
To be fair, I'm not exactly sure what that might be, given that many of the original players who made the original charges are now off the stage.
Disclaimer: This is pure speculation.
Could have gone something like this:
Investigators: Mike, we are told you witnessed Jerry in the shower with a young boy. Is that true?
Mike: Yes.
Investigators: Is that all you saw?
Mike: Yes. I wasn't sure what I saw, actually.
Investigators: We are investigating Jerry because we have evidence that he is a serial pedophile. Was he abusing that boy in the shower?
Mike: He may have been. I'm not sure what was going on. I heard some sounds, and saw Jerry and a boy in the shower. It kind of freaked me out, so I slammed my locker and left.
Investigators: You didn't do anything to break it up?
Mike: No, other than slamming my locker.
Investigators: Mike, you witnessed a serial pedophile in the shower alone with a boy, and you didn't do anything to stop it? You could be charged with child endangerment! However, as the only eyewitness to Jerry's crimes, we can really use your help. Instead of being one of the bad guys in this story, you could be the hero........
How was he ever going to explain away the emails? The fear of a jury is real...no doubt, but when the evidence doesn't exactly exonerate you...you're also a bit more fearful of that jury too. Maybe he could have beaten the charges, but he looks pretty smart for taking that deal right now.
That's possible, which also means that the terms might not have become acceptable until recently.
Maybe, but they've gotten many from other countries, including Contador. Ironic he was on Lance's team, then gets caught for doping.
His dad previouly testified Mike told him he witnessed nothing sexual.
Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Or by his own advocate. Consider that he was able to accept some level of responsibility without A) claiming legal guilt or B) angering the judge who's going to sentence him.
It's obvious from Spanier's initial statement in 2011 that he has (had?) a ton of respect for Tim and Gary. Unless it's absolutely necessary to the verdict, I wouldn't expect his lawyers to do anything that tears them apart on the stand.
True--but once you start to unravel a thread, you never know where it will end up.
I suspect the operative word now is "had" not "has".
Except that Tim already has testified that he will serve no jail time due to "health reasons".
I think that is an excellent point. Curley, one of their prize witnesses whom they made a deal with to testify, protected Spanier by saying he (TC) was never told of a sexual situation by MM so he clearly never told Spanier there was a sexual situation witnessed. I don't know how you could convict GS after that.
Now you are confusing "pointing fingers" with pointing out there are two kinds of investigations? Sounds more like you're the one with an agenda here.
Two different emails. The 1998 "anxious to know" one was testified to yesterday by Harmon as Jerry Sandusky . The 2001 email "touched base with the coach" was testified to today by Curley as being Paterno.
And Socrates was afforded the opportunity to formulate his own sentence.
Purposely pissing off one's judge(s) is inadvisable.
I was referring to YOUR hindsight bias, not theirs.
They knew that 1998 was a "false alarm" in 2001. Human nature would be to assume that 2001 was just another false alarm.
Yes, and the Pitt and PL trolls are trying to spin that.
They should spin their fingers up their asses.
I don't care who they are, they are incorrect. If they want to spin they need to go to PennJive .
I
I imagine your premise is correct (in fact, i'd say it is incredibly highly likely) ....... but I'm not sure if there is any reason to care?
Is there? (That's a serious question - I'm not sure if I'm missing something)
I imagine your premise is correct (in fact, i'd say it is incredibly highly likely) ....... but I'm not sure if there is any reason to care?
Is there? (That's a serious question - I'm not sure if I'm missing something)
Similar threads
