Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
That's great and all, but you didn't answer my question. Who do you feel is lying? TC or Paterno?
I bet if the state ever even answers questions about why no one from TSM (cough cough Raykovitz) was charged they will hide behind SOL, not like they cared about that when trying to charge the PSU admins though...smh.
So Curley said that Joe persuaded him not to report the incident to the authorities? I'm sure you have a citation for that.
Yeah, this is all wrapped up so your Puppet Masters are moving on to the next shitstorm....The Paterno Case...
What he rethought was to tell Sandusky before informing TSM. You need to read more.
I don't think that they testified to that either way. Since both stated that they did not think that they were dealing with anything criminal, the prosecutor couldn't go there and I suspect defense counsel thought it was better to let the dogs sleep.
Pennlive stated Schultz did report horseplay to Spanier.
"Did Mike McQueary ever tell you that what he saw was horseplay?" Ditka asked.
"No," Schultz said.
"Did you ever tell Graham Spanier that this was horseplay?" the prosecutor continued.
"Yes," Schultz replied. "That's what Joe Paterno told us, that (Sandusky) was horsing around."
I read the whole thing. It's pretty apparent that the original plan was to inform DPW and TSM. Curley said after talking to Joe he was uncomfortable with the plan and that he wanted to talk to JS first. If JS was cooperative, he would only tell TSM. If not, he would inform both groups.
Joe had an effect on his decision.
Thanks. This is really getting murky. I think Schultz testified that MM told him that JS was behind the kid with his arms around him, which is contrary to what he told Spanier. How does a jury deal with that.
I'll answer your misguided question with a better question
Based on today's testimony, which is actually relevant to the case, who do you think is lying-Mike M or Tim C?
Have to wonder what Joe ever did to getmyjive to drive him batshit crazy.
I'll happily answer your question after you answer mine, since I asked mine first.
You read the whole what? The decision was made by three people. Which one had ultimate authority? Or did Joe speak with Spanier and influence his decision, too?
You're still Reaching Jive
TC testified that he made the decision correct?
Again, why the fixation on Joe - he has nothing to do with this
MM actually talked directly with TG and GS
Curley had a very poor memory on things that would make him look bad but seemed to recal certain things perfectly .
I'd say he's lying .
I'd say he's lying .
Yours has no relevance - mine does
But I'm guessing you missed that point altogether
I'm not really understanding your point. While a naked bear hug (which is what it sounds like Schultz was describing) could certainly be suspicious and/or a justification for reporting and getting an investigation, it doesn't intrinsically imply something sexual or illegal. What Schultz described could be consistent with "horseplay" which he reported to Spanier.
Probably nothing. Dumb jackass works for PSU and just falls into line. Debits and credits are his biggest challenge.
By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net
With their recent plea bargains in hand, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz showed up at the Penn State sex abuse trial today to testify against their old boss, former PSU President Graham Spanier. And by day's end, they seemed to have scored more points for the defense then they did for the prosecution.
Curley, the former Penn State athletic director who is battling lung cancer, seemed extremely uncomfortable with his role as a cooperating witness for the prosecution in front of a courtroom packed with many Penn State loyalists, including football icon Franco Harris. On the witness stand, Curley professed an amazing lack of memory about most of the key events in the official Penn State sex abuse story line.
"I can't recall the specifics," Curley said about a meeting he had with former football Coach Joe Paterno to discuss what Mike McQueary heard and saw in his infamous 2001 visit to the Penn State locker room. "I have no recollection of that particular encounter," Curley said about a Sunday morning powwow he and Schultz had at Paterno's house to discuss what McQueary witnessed in the showers. "I don't recall what his [Paterno's] response was."
About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up," but he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."
About another meeting with Spanier and Schultz in the president's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."
Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?
"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.
"No," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.
"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.
Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?
"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the boy in the shower with Sandusky.
But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."
Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.
"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.
And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about his boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?
"No, he didn't," Curley said.
Well, what did he say?
"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.
The prosecutor reviewed for the jury's benefit Curley's guilty plea on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. In the guilty plea, Curley admitted that he "prevented or interfered with" the reporting of a case of suspected sex abuse, namely the boy Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Sandusky.
"You know other kids got hurt" after the McQueary incident, the prosecutor asked Curley.
"That's what I understand," Curley said.
With such a poor memory in so many questions I don't trust his more soecifuc answers .
If Curley wanted to go to the trouble of lying under oath, he could have done something more compelling that basically take the blame for everything himself.
This is infinitely more important to PSU's culpability than anything Paterno said. Paterno's call to Curley essentially had one objective, get Curley and Schultz to discuss it with Mike and get his first hand report. That objective was met. Anything McQueary said to Curley and Schultz is far more important than what Paterno told them initially since he was the witness.
I think there are only 3 scenarios based on the testimony. Did Curley and Schultz get a report of sexual abuse like MM claims, and then tell Spanier horseplay as Schultz testified? If so, they messed up big time. Did MM report something other than abuse, causing Schultz to tell Spanier the same? If so, McQueary is full of it. A third possibility is McQueary reported sexual abuse but that message wasn't received for some reason, and Schultz was still truthful in his horseplay report to Spanier. Then it's simply an accidental oversight, but obviously one with a massive impact.
Because whatever Joe told him had a clear effect on his decision. Joe testified that he told TC one thing and TC testified that he told him something else. Surely you can see what the issue is...
The 10 years later 'sexual nature' quote from Joe was all Jive ever talked about. Over and over, endlessly. What's he got now? Ningun de nada.
If Curley wanted to go to the trouble of lying under oath, he could have done something more compelling that basically take the blame for everything himself.
I think it's very possible that MM reported sexual abuse (maybe not forcefully), Paterno said it was horseplay (maybe because he was uncomfortable, or maybe for other reasons) and TC and Gary just went with the horseplay. I have long speculated that Spanier was simply just following people he trusted because he never spoke to MM or Paterno about it. Could it all be just a terribly handled incident? Sure. But you still have testimonies that don't line up. Someone lied, that is clear.
With such a poor memory in so many questions I don't trust his more soecifuc answers .
But, but, but TC was going to be your hero witness just last week.
Well he was silent for 10+years
According to unofficial notes by those at the trial, McQueary said he didn't report anything sexual to Paterno which disproves your theory. We will have to wait for the transcripts to confirm his exact words.
Similar threads
