That seems like a safe bet given the track record. Having said that, the prosecution case, or at least what I have seen of it, was exceptionally weak connecting anything to Spanier. Much weaker than I even expected.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
That seems like a safe bet given the track record. Having said that, the prosecution case, or at least what I have seen of it, was exceptionally weak connecting anything to Spanier. Much weaker than I even expected.
The "touched base with coach" e-mail was in 1998. And it sounds like Curley did say that was Paterno. However, that e-mail doesn't say much of anything about what Paterno would have been told.
The "coach is anxious to know" e-mail is also from 1998 was a completely different correspondence (and a bit later). It's not clear to me that Curley confirmed this to be Paterno so if Harmon did state it was referring to Sandusky, that would be a big difference.
Means nothing concrete. Keeping someone apprised does not imply that anything substantive was communicated to Paterno.
Well I'm sure Joe's notes from 1998 willl reflect this since he took notes on just about everything he did.
Stopped caring what outsiders think. Most others got that. You really struggle reading what I type. I think you assume what I type more so than actually reading what I type. C/S kind of showed where they dropped the ball. Not exactly a win for those 2. If you thought they came out shining, so be it. I'll disagree there.
I think it was always a stretch that Paterno was never told anything about the 1998 investigation. But it is far from clear what details he may have been told -- it's quite possible/even likely that Curley relayed a summary like "Sandusky was invested by child protection but it turned out to be nothing" and probably was never told anything specific.
Under oath I have to disagree with you. There was nothing dishonest about his answer to the unspecific question. Read the testimony and you will understand what I am saying.
Are you referring to the Sally Jenkins article days before he died?
I
"It was sexual in nature."
"It was sexual in nature?"
Read these two quotes aloud and tell me if you think they are identical.
You can play that game but prior to 2001 would also include 98. I know some will deny it, but the emails weren't bogus and Tim backed it up. If you want to think Joe somehow didn't understand what the state or even Sally met, you're not being objective IMO.
Paging Ray Blehar and I forgot his handle on here, is it @rmb297 ?
Once again you were unclear.
Never said they came out shining, but considering the original charges I would call it a win. Guess you have your own reading comprehension issues.
Now you can go back to yelling at clouds.
Except that MM reported that he watered it down for Joe. So there's that.
Hard to say. Jury could conclude that it was all a big conspiracy and what would you expect two co-conspirators to say. Strange things happen during deliberations.
That's fine no ill will...I just don't agree. Both OAG and Sally phrased those questions as asking Paterno about knowledge of sexual behavior and he said I had no knowledge. For me that's not lying or even misleading.
Phrasing and context are so critically and frankly annoyingly important for every minute detail in this case.
Agree, it was exceptionally weak. Closing arguments will be interesting. But, I expect the prosecution to pull a Corbett with a "remember the boy in the shower" routine only this time in reference to #5. It's all they really got, but given the climate I expect the jury to buy it. Hoping I'm wrong, but I don't have the faith in humanity that many do.
P.S. We all know the prosecution really doesn't give a shit about "the boy in the shower". He was just a willing means to a pathetic end. Also I expect the judge's instructions to the jury to be biased against the defense. No surprise there.
Last edited:
I think that was basically it in a nutshell. I doubt he got many details but just a status update and vague reasons as to what. I just won't play the he didn't know card.
Totally disagree with you about the state. Again read the transcript. It's not about the date. He was asked about "inappropriate sexual conduct" between Sandusky and young boys. Not sure what Paterno knew or didn't know specifically, but that was never alleged in 1998 by the victim or his mother and certainly, right or wrong, that was not what the investigation found.
Exactly ...JVP followed it up with "I don't know what you call it". Just like in the "My Cousin Vinny" movie. Ralph Machio said "I shot the clerk", but it was a question, and not a statement. This is lost when reading transcript.
I get it, you cannot ever admit when you are wrong. You don't need to keep proving it. People who can read understand what is being said.
Ralph's sat at a lot of court proceedings
Now if you have a second witness that can testify that the first testimony was false in some way, you can bring that in on defense...
But I'm not holding out hope. That only happens in the movies.
Also I give no credence at all to what Sally printed. She clearly had an agenda and it wasn't pro-Paterno. The Paternos made a big mistake letting that wolf in sheep's clothing in the door.
Where in the numerous instances that you were wrong have you admitted it?? I'll wait. . .
Hey maybe your family needs to apologize for you, but I don't.
Get back to yelling at clouds now.
Lubrano posted this on facebook
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/curley-schultz-score-for-defense.html?m=1
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/curley-schultz-score-for-defense.html?m=1
Tim stated clearly today Joe knew about 98. The emails validate what he stated. It's not a maybe anymore. He knew Jerry was investigated in 98. For 5 years people denied this and the email link, but I won't now. I still don't think it was malicious, but he knew.
I agree that Joe knew Jerry was being investigated. I don't agree that Joe knew anything other than that simple fact. For me that changes nothing.
The way judges have been ruling the past 5 years in this case, I'd not expect it.
And the state might just be happy with a win now even if they lost on appeal. They get the PR.
I was wrong about plenty of things. Joe didn't know about 98. He did. CSS will not plea. They did. PSU was an 8 win team last year. I can go on and on with bad predictions I have made. My family certainly has nothing to apologize for where as who ever raised you was a failure morally and ethically since you have no accountability. You want to be a perma dick, have at it DB!
Just making sure, but Schultz's version of the shower incident...that's the 5th or the 6th different incarnation so far?
The thing is the whole Joe never knew about it card was played and then doubled down on by a few. So some people ran with that as if it couldn't be possible. Well it was and now those blanket denials seem silly to me. It gained nothing in the end. That was my only point as it does not prove this massive cover up occurred.
You've been wrong about a few recruiting commitment predictions too...but not many! Have to give credit where it's due
How did today's court proceedings go? All you need to know is that Towny is silent.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Football The Official 2025 DC Search Thread (1/24 UPDATE - PENN STATE LOOKING GOOD?)....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-