Downplays why? What is the motivation? And how do you keep it quiet? There was no mechanism of control.
It's much more plausible that McQ was intimidated by the prosecution and beefed up his story 10 years later.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Downplays why? What is the motivation? And how do you keep it quiet? There was no mechanism of control.
It's much more plausible that McQ was intimidated by the prosecution and beefed up his story 10 years later.
There's a big difference between an open courtroom transcript and one coming from that clown show of a GJ room. You know, that same GJ courtroom complete with a judge that was relieved of his GJ duties and a disgraced prosecutor emceeing the show.
Wendy's summary from yesterday was the best coverage of testimony I saw.
And I am fairly certain that is what they believed at the time. They made a big and fairly understandable misjudgment based on ALL of the dynamics at the time. None of us would have wanted to be in their shoes. But some of the more delusional would have handled it perfectly even then I am sure...
But McQueary is on record, twice after his testimony yesterday, that he didn't report that it was sexual to Paterno in 2001. So where did Paterno get that from in his GJ testimony? That's the part that doesn't add up. If Paterno didn't know that in 2001 it's not possible for him to intentionally downplay the incident as you suggest. Curley's and Shultz's testimony today only strengthens that, they said the term horsing around came from Paterno.
No logic in your thinking since MM spoke directly to TC afterwards and per TC said nothing sexual.
Paterno said several times in 7 minutes that he did not know what it was. Ignore this baiting freak.
Somehow your statement rings hollow here, since many of your past posts seem to yearn for your pound of flesh to be taken from Paterno/PSU. At least you'll be able to return to Maryland now that your "crusade" is complete.
Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Tim supposedly describe it as horseplay to TSM. At least if your believe JR, which I do not.
It's plainly obvious now that Paterno was "refreshed" by McQ and/or felt bad for him and wanted to back him up against the admins.
Indeed. Joe had a long history of being honest, probably to a fault. He was someone who absolutely did not hestitate in doing or saying something that might be unpopular or difficult. In fact, he reveled in it. Was he perfect? Of course not. Had he ever told a lie of some sort over the course of his life. Sure. Who hasn't. But to suggest that someone with his track record would callously, intentionally turn a blind eye to child sex abuse is just patently absurd.
I know that, but Paterno also said it was sexual. Neither can be ignored. The odd thing is that Paterno's GJ testimony seems to be the only place where it being reported as sexual in 2001 is remotely corroborated, aside from what McQueary says. But McQueary's statements haven't been corroborated by anyone - Dranov, Curley and Shultz have all disagreed with that under oath.
I'm certain that if we heard Paterno's tone and voice inflection that most rational people would agree he didn't know what McQ really saw/heard/witnesssed.
Stuck at work all day but it'd sure be nice if someone could dig up a screenshot of TSM/JR's state mandate to initiate a "protection plan" upon receiving an incident report of any kind. THAT is what the newspapers should be reporting.
You don't have to ignore it, but the last thing he said in reference to the question was "I don't know what it was". Nobody, including the ear witness himself, responded in 2001 like it was sexual molestation.
So I guess you think MM perjured himself on the stand then?
Yes, and didn't I read years ago Scott Paterno also refreshed Joe's memory based on MM?
Completely agree with what I've bolded. It's another piece of evidence indicating this was all considered a much lesser issue back in 2001, but without hard evidence as such and the fact that everyone is out for blood on this case it makes the defense's job quite difficult, and unfairly so.
As others have pointed out, he did not say that. He used a meaningless phrase "sexual in nature" in his non-cross examined testimony, that we've never heard to verify it's accuracy, which he qualified multiple times that he "didn't know what to call it".
It is possible that Curley was not offered a plea until a few weeks ago. Prosecutors get cold feet on the eve of trial and will drop a lot of charges and take a plea rather than lose face if the Defendant walks on all charges.
Agreed. Someone is going to write one hell of a book when this is over. I'm betting Spanier's is almost finished. A couple of more pages...
Fair enough...a little too zealous there. I just think it's the only rational explanation of the inconsistency. And I know it's been presented as fact on many of the web outlets dedicated to this story.
I'm not sure how that's any different than what I've said. Paterno said it was sexual is my paraphrasing for the exact quote where he said it's "sexual in nature." And he also said a few times that he wasn't sure what it was. Both are part of his testimony making it largely inconclusive, but I'm not going to dismiss either the sexual comment or the "don't know what it was" comments to fit a desired conclusion for either side.
Except McQueary talked directly to Shultz and Curley, so he could have told them whatever he wanted.
Sexual in nature I don't know what you call it. Stop implicating Joe said MM witnessed a rape.
I'm doing no such thing. In fact McQueary himself has said twice under oath that he didn't say it was sexual to Paterno out of respect for him, as I stated above. I'm simply stating facts and trying to piece together the flow of information leading to Spanier, since it will impact his fate in this trial.
Sorry the question offended you. Let's take a different approach.
What's the diference between 1998 and 2011?
Sorry if I missed it....Was Paterno's GJ testimony introduced as evidence at the Spanier trial?
And if Charles Thompson is saying that, then it must have been one hell of a good day for the defense, and a disaster for the prosecution.
That and Roxine saying it was 50/50 before the defense even put on their case seem to be good news for the defense. But victim 5 did get emotional so...
Just caught up on today's postings. Good job everybody! Everybody seemed to fill their tole well.
From what I have read on this case, it sounds like the prosecution has presented a pretty good case against Curley and Schultz for charges they have already pled guilty to. I have seen nothing that even remotely indicates that Spanier is guilty. I don't even know what the defense will need to present.
From what I have read on this case, it sounds like the prosecution has presented a pretty good case against Curley and Schultz for charges they have already pled guilty to. I have seen nothing that even remotely indicates that Spanier is guilty. I don't even know what the defense will need to present.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football The Official 2025 DC Search Thread (1/24 UPDATE - PENN STATE LOOKING GOOD?)....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-