Not necessarily. It could also trigger a reaction that 1998 wasn't a false alarm as they had thought, therefore ensuring they get 2001 right becomes even more important. I don't know which way would be more natural given the nature of the human brain, I'm no expert. But I think it's dishonest to think that only one or the other is possible. How Curley and Schultz reacted, we do not know. I suspect that because they knew 1998 was investigated more thoroughly by the proper authorities that they would be more likely than not to align with your take, but we don't know for sure.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Juries often make rulings based on emotion--this is especially true in civil cases but can be true in criminal cases as well. This is a high emotion case.
Edit: Heck, it's pretty emotional on a lot of fronts for me as well. And rightly so. We should be furious at CSA for one--and anyone who has anything to do with it. And at folks who would use it for their own political gain for another.
If this is true, I don't feel quite as bad about things. It will be conflated and spun the other way by the press of course.
So basically you are saying that because they knew that the proper authorities had done a thorough investigation in 1998, that would lead them to believe that it wasn’t a false alarm. That makes no sense.
Last edited:
Doesn't work that way. You only get to deal so often. But then again you did have musical chairs in the OAG's office the entire time.
Yeah, because it is an attempt to validate the original narrative in its entirety. Further, with respect to this trial, it is an attempt to validate Tim's testimony (be it accurate or not). In other words he didn't plead guilty only because he was offered a deal; he plead guilty because he is. He now becomes more credible to the jurors. That said, I really don't know, other than tangentially, what he adds to the prosecution. It's a play on emotions more than anything.
he was referring to the terms related to describing what MM told joe as "horseplay", not anything like conditions that Joe put on any response, only the "horseplay" stuff joe said MM told him
Edit for clarity. You misread what I said. I agreed with you, but am not ruling out the opposite.
Last edited:
That's been evident since day one of this tragedy. The reactions of everyone he told are consistent with MM being uncomfortable with what he saw not anal rape.
Please explain how knowing that the experts did a thorough job in 1998 would make them think that the experts didn't do a thorough job in 1998.
Exactly. It sure is fortunate and convenient that many can skip right by the real failure that paved the way for all others.
Yo Matt Miller! You have just earned the nickname Charlie Tuna Junior.
Yes Charles Thompson 1 is Charlie Tuna and there has been a running theme song for quite a while now. You can Tune a Piano, but you can't Tuna Fishwrap is how it all started, IIRC.
Last edited:
I don't consider that a "false alarm", I consider it as they couldn't definitively find that he assaulted the kid but he was inappropriate at best.
So yes, in 2001 the possibility that he was simply inappropriate would certainly play into it, yes. However, so would the possibility that it went further than that, hence, the reason to let the agencies deal with it. The fact that it was inappropriate back in 1998, he was investigated by the police and they decided they didn't have enough to charge him, and then 3 years later ole dude is back at it again. He heeded none of the warnings issued to him in 1998? You don't find that problematic at all?
I think you're missing the part of the brain that triggers red flags? Nobody is saying they didn't thoroughly investigate in 1998 but it should still raise alarm that it happened again in 2001, merely three years later. At what point does the switch from "inappropriate" to "possible abuse" go on? Are you suggesting it wouldn't even occur to you? To add, it apparently occurred to Schultz because he contacted Wendell Courtney for advise, but chose not to heed it.
He was "cleared" by the professionals, that means no crime had occurred. End of discussion.
I think you're missing the part of your brain that processes logic. He worked with troubled youth, it is not out of the realm of possibility that multiple people would accuse him of something falsely.
So basically you're saying because he was cleared by the professionals, 2001 is okay because...cleared by the professionals in 1998. I think you don't realize what you're saying, but hey...end of discussion. Agree to disagree.
BOOM
Schultz tells the truth
Prosecution rests.
Court recessed until tomorrow.
Schultz tells the truth
Prosecution rests.
Court recessed until tomorrow.
No doubt that will be big time misreported. Thanks for clarifying
You must not come around here very often or you would know Charles Thompson's nickname. Do you not even know who wrote this article you clipped from? Matt Miller is now Charlie Tuna JR. Standard nomenclature.
Have you ever read Clemente? http://www.paterno.com/expert-reports/jim-clemente.aspx#.WNLbzYb3aEc
Great transcript you are providing here. NOT.
That's pretty much what I said--is that there is a possibility, but he tried to tell us human nature would not consider it.
I do not want to quote R. but--the Commonwealth clearly had no case without C&S. The case they do have was quite small, given how short their presentation was. Doesn't seem the surprise witness was called (no surprise) if the prosecution rested. And we should be done with this shortly. Looks like Friday for the end of the trial was a good guess.
Dropping isn't the correct term. The original plan clearly called for an OPTIONAL report to CYS. It may seem like semantics but it's important. Dropping would imply that Curley went against the original called for plan. But the fact is he just chose a path that the three of them had decided from the beginning was a legitimate option.
The denizens of BWI would wholeheartedly agree that not reporting was a mistake and that this was especially obvious in hindsight.
Last edited:
This is where you are wrong: the 1998 incident was deemed "unfounded" by DPW. No merit. Nothing. They could have made a finding "in the middle" but they didn't; they determined it to be "unfounded". A finding of "unfounded" is reserved for those incidents that are, literally, fabricated. Basically if I call Dpw today and say "lyndj is abusing kids". They investigate and make a finding that it is "unfounded" since it was made up. That prevents anyone (including your employer) from EVER using the made up claim against you (and for good reason).
Now apply this to 1998 and how Curley and Schultz reacted to a report of the same type of thing in 2001. Error in hindsight in not going to DPW? Perhaps. But not criminal and certainly not a cover up. My God They cooperated fully in 1998 when JS was actually their employee; why the hell would they cover for him 3 years later when he wasn't even employed there anymore? Makes ZERO sense.
So what happened?? Is R correct and the prosecution has rested? What did Schultz say?
Schultz has regrets. Wow. A Perry Mason moment for sure.
Maybe, maybe not. According to Courtney, Schultz contacted him wanting to know what they should do about a reported incident that involved "horseplay" in the showers with a minor.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football The Official 2025 DC Search Thread (1/24 UPDATE - PENN STATE LOOKING GOOD?)....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
