Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Blah, blah, blah.
Talk about accountability. You have repeatedly stated that Joe knew about 1998. You be accountable and show me how you know this. Other than Curley's testimony, which Paterno unfortunately cannot challenge, you have zero solid evidence that Joe knew. Even if he did know, what did he know? Curley did not go into particulars. Show me exactly what he knew and substantiated evidence of what he knew
Now answer those questions or shut your piehole.
After the past two days, I doubt Spanier testifies. I don't see anything to be gained, especially if the investigator who wrote his fed clearance report testifies. Essentially, there doesn't appear to be anything to rebut.
I hope Stuff's ban is lifted so he can come back and say he was wrong, although he never took me up on my offer. If Spanier is found guilty on some charge, I'm sure he would he would love to be back and say he was right even though he was wrong about everything.
I hope Stuff's ban is lifted so he can come back and say he was wrong, although he never took me up on my offer. If Spanier is found guilty on some charge, I'm sure he would he would love to be back and say he was right even though he was wrong about everything.
An APB has been posted for elvis. Apparently he's left the building.
Exactly. I don't feel like this was anything of significance. The groundbreaking thing would be if we learned what specific information Curley relayed to Paterno.
I doubt Paterno knew any information about 1998 that, in 2001, would have impacted his reaction to what MM told him.
"On cross-examination, Silver, Spanier's lawyer, pointed out that today on the witness stand, Schultz had described McQueary's reporting of the shower incident as Sandusky standing behind the boy, with his arms around him.
"That's the first time we've heard that version," Silver said, pointing out to the jury that only after he became a coopering witness did Schultz start singing the prosecution's tune."
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/curley-schultz-score-for-defense.html?m=1
"That's the first time we've heard that version," Silver said, pointing out to the jury that only after he became a coopering witness did Schultz start singing the prosecution's tune."
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/curley-schultz-score-for-defense.html?m=1
The emails back Tim's claims. Sorry not many are going to try and claim this anymore, but you can hold out. It basically backs up everything I stated about you. Now Tim is the liar too. The emails however tell a different story and they back his testimony. I said a few won't believe some things no matter what. They are dug in behind a fake line. Good job on raising your hand the highest there.
Spanier may be found guilty of child endangerment, but it is clear that there was NO Cover Up, and the defense hasn't even started yet.
What's funny is I wasn't a Joe fan otherwise. I think he set the program back years by staying way past his prime. That said, he shouldn't have Sandusky dumped on his grave.
Funny thing is you think the topic is up for debate still. Awesomeness!!! Don't you change!!! You won!!! Wink, wink. He had no idea about anything in 98.
I suppose that's because MM was made out to be a lying POS. His sexual testimony was refuted by the prosecution's own witnesses. His lies have fueled this whole thing and he needs to be held accountable.
He'd be a fool to testify. Even if the jury convicts on emotion, which would be the only possible way, it would be reversed on appeal.
The state hasn't made a case as far as I can see from the updates and articles.
Yeah not often does the prosecution call witnesses that conflict each other.
No problem I think you and pnny are the only 2 left that think that. Congrats there!!!!
Does anyone know what Schultz's plea deal entails? Curley is no jail time b/c of his health, but didn't see reference to Schultz.
They have made absolutely no case. None. Now, throw in "beyond a reasonable doubt" and there is no way they should convict. But, I fear with Bocabella's urging and the Victim 5 routine, they find a way.
Thanks, but we're far from the only two.
Still waiting for answers to my questions. You know you just can't skip over the hard ones.
Anyone want to speculate on how Schultz & Curley's testimonies impact PSU appeal of MM whistleblower suit? I'm not sure it does cause the ruling was that PSU took actions against him for being a whistleblower, which prevented his job prospects. Not sure if their testimonies change those findings.
The entire idea of Curley and Schultz being witnesses for the prosecution seemed weird to me. The only way they would support the prosecution's case is by basically saying they were lying the past 5 years. When they struck a plea deal, I actually thought part of it would be that they wouldn't have to testify at all. That would have allowed the prosecution to yammer on about a conspiracy without having Tim and Gary being around to contradict them.
So you are saying that Paterno may have committed perjury and screwed CSS and PSU in the process?
Obviously, it was not since no one has indicated that they were told about anything sexual.
Perhaps McQueary thought he conveyed that, but certainly no one else got the message. He probably should have been more direct if he thought something sexual occurred, like saying "I saw something sexual occur" instead of whatever washed down story he said to them.
Sure, but if you look at the email from TC that had "after talking to Joe..." in it, it's clear that Paterno held a ton of weight. Maybe he knew that he could put enough doubt in TC's mind? Who knows... the only thing that is for certain is that someone lied.
No not at all. Do you know the traditional legal elements of perjury? Look them up.
Why are you so fixated on Joe - after today's testimony it seems to be a pretty unhealthy fixation
This case has NOTHING to do with Joe and testimony thus far has proven the the Freeh report is crap, there was no "coverup", and he properly reported to his superiors
So what is your point
GS is on trial - not Joe
For sure. Curley said that it was his decision to go with the alternate plan, so that blows up the Freeh Report right there.
You are waaaay off man
TC specifically refuted what you are implying here
Get over it already -
Because, TC let everyone know that Paterno lied about 1998. He knew about it. TC then said that Paterno told him only about "horseplay" and not of something of a sexual nature. So who is lying? TC or Paterno? It's one or the other. Take your pick.
Funny, old man. We're obviously keeping you up late.
Now go to sleep, wake up in the morning, take your Geritol, and try answering my questions.
i have been out and about and haven't had time to read up on the days activities. I usually have more opportunity to follow this but have been tied up. It seems that early on tim has lied about several things including knowing about 98. It seems that Schultz version changed a bit as well to be a little more serious but not sure how that ties anything to spanier regarding the specific law.
Tims health must be really affecting his memory he just couldn't recall anything today
So we shall see what happens tomorrow.
That's fine, but then you have to go back to Paterno. The reason that MM's original testimony was believable was because Paterno said that he also conveyed something of a sexual nature to TC. So again, who is lying? TC or Paterno?
Jive - you lost! Get over it
All last week you and your buddies acted like there was some kind of huge bombshell coming this week - well the prosecution case is done with not so much of a sparkler from your side
Similar threads
