Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Pretty much agree.
Going by whats been reported, if that was the prosecutions case against Spanier it isn't very strong. All I see was that Shultz and Curley really f'd this up, it was almost like it was their trial.
It will be really interesting to see what the defense brings to the table.
Bottom line is Joe was right when he told MM that Old Main screwed this up. SMH.
Of course I would say that TC is likely the one lying. I have been trusting Paterno's testimony throughout this case. With that being said, none of us can say with absolute certainty which one is lying.
Last edited:
Duke, maybe you can clarify but this is the first time Ive heard mike on the stand say with certaintly he told tim and garry he "saw Js sexually molesting a boy". Up until this point it has been more of a "I would have said" "I made it clear" "they understood" "I know what I saw". Can you point to a another time that he said he came flat out and said those words to Tim and Garry? the first 3 (4 if you include his gf) he didn't even say that to.
Its been my only issue with mike up until this point. Ive been stating he sould have just come right out and said what he thought was going on instead of beating around the bush with everyone and this is this first time I think he is on record and saying he did come right out and say it.
He said he never used the words rape or anal intercourse. It was always, i would have said.
Appreciate all the updates from those attending in the court room. I don't trust anyone from the media to report accurately or completely. Interested in reviewing the transcripts. Seems that Mike, Tim, and Gary's testimony has been different (to different degrees) than previous testimony. But that needs to be confirmed in reading transcripts. Based on what has been reported, Gary's testimony was very strange. Tim finally received some good legal coaching in terms of testimony. One of the bigger failures in this mess (besides bad decisions in 2001) is not getting their own legal counsel in 2011 prior to their GJ testimony.
Mike's testimony has been coached up to the point that if his handlers told him he saw a camel molesting a clam he'd be able to say with absolute certainty that's what happened.
Problem I've always had with Mike is that his provable actions (or lack thereof by himself and no less than 5-6 people he related his story to) at the time gives a heck of a lot more insight into what he actually said and the urgency with which he said it...and means a lot more if we're trying to determine what he saw than any recollection of what happens in the context of Sandusky being investigated and convicted 10 and 15 years after the fact.
I completely disagree about Curly and Shutlz, INMO, they lost big time and completely f'd this up. I do agree the state is losing against Spanier but if this trial is any indication of the way a Curly Shultz trial would have gone then I completely understand why they took the plea.
As for Lajolla, I don't want to put words in his mouth and he's more than capable of defending himself, but I think he stopped caring what "other people think" not about issues facing C/S/S and Penn State again JMO from reading his posts.
This is all just a bunch of grandstanding bs. If Jerry molested kids, it's not Spanier's fault. Or Curley's, or Schultz's, or Joe's, or even Mike's. It is Jerry's. He should be punished for it.
This all reminds me of the Seinfeld series finale, when they all get arrested for not doing anything to help a guy getting robbed. It's absurd.
I am very, very confident that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz did not ever think that Jerry was a serial pedophile. They did what they thought was right. Leave them be.
This all reminds me of the Seinfeld series finale, when they all get arrested for not doing anything to help a guy getting robbed. It's absurd.
I am very, very confident that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz did not ever think that Jerry was a serial pedophile. They did what they thought was right. Leave them be.
Pretty much it. I don't care what people on other sites or teams fans think. They will root for their schools and have their own bias there just as I will root for PSU. C/S really had no choice to take the plea as it's pretty clear ...they made one really bad boneheaded decision. They have the emails outlining a decision not to call the DPW, but had it on the table. While GS was informed of this, he wasn't telling them not do do anything, but he did also talk about blowback for not calling someone. To say they came out looking good is a stretch. If anything I think Spanier can now go on the offensive a bit and he may save face...we'll see.
Pretty much agree.
As for the Sally Jenkins interview I kind of throw that out.
I know what my father was like in the last stages of his cancer and I wouldn't and didn't put stock into anything he said, albeit dad was on some pretty heavy meds at that point. I don't know but I'm guessing it was pretty similar with Joe.
We've always known that Mike was either a liar or a coward in this affair. Thank you for clarifying it for us.
Dukie, I have a great deal of respect for both your composure and contribution to the discussions here. My recent posts about Mike were made in the spirit of devil's advocacy and are absolutely not an indication of my position.
My sincere apologies if any offense was taken; none was intended.
Oh I didn't know Stuff got the boot. Is that what happened to Elvis as well?
I thought they weren't here because things weren't going the way they promised they would.
And it doesn't mean he did. That seems to be one of the flies in the ointment here.
I don't think there would be any impact. They, Curley and Shutlz were all ready either suspended or fired by that point. I would think that the whistlblower stuff is all on the BOT.
Always appreciate your posts. Right now, we have Dad, Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Scultz, TSM and MM (himself) not going to the police. Its hard to imagine that Mike saw something definitive and none of these people felt it was necessary to call the police. At the very least, you'd have to admit that Mike's eyewitness accounts in 2001 were "confusing".
Second, I share you thoughts on Curley. Its pretty clear he took the plea to get this behind him. He doesn't know how much time he has left and he is trying to protect his pension. He tried to slide between his plea commitment and not getting Spanier convicted. I think that is 100% clear. Curley was there by force.
Schultz was a little stronger, but felt he didn't have actionable info and therefore, could not have given Spanier actionable info. With what they have, I have no idea how the jury can come away with a guilty ruling. We'll see. Its very emotional and putting a victim on the stand was an effort to get an emotional, rather than logical, response. Dirty pool, IMHO.
I'd love to see a "not-guilty" ruling and chaulk it up to Mike thinking he said A and everyone else thinking they heard "B". Too bad for PSU and so many innocent people that have been forever damaged by this.
Quick question - does anyone know if, when prosecution rested, defense moved for a directed verdict? If they did not is it safe to assume they will do so this morning? I understand there is 0% chance of Judge granting such a request. That said, as I examine what I think was presented by the prosecution, there has not been any evidence presented that Spanier ever heard of a 2001 allegation of sexual abuse. Absent that I don't see how the prosecution has met their burden. Even their three main witnesses (MM, TC, GS) failed to make that accusation. The prosecution is basically making the argument - "Look, we know we don't have the evidence to convict Spanier; but we know what happened and you know what happened, so convict him..." Is this a fair summary?
Final point - IMO Spanier has a very difficult decision to make about whether to testify. Seems clear (at least to me) the prosecution has not met their burden so he should have no need to testify and risk being savaged by the prosecution and disliked by a jury. On the other hand, nobody wants to be convicted and spend the rest of their lives looking back regretting the decision not to stand up and speak for themselves. Very interested to see what he does; the safe call would be don't testify.
Final point - IMO Spanier has a very difficult decision to make about whether to testify. Seems clear (at least to me) the prosecution has not met their burden so he should have no need to testify and risk being savaged by the prosecution and disliked by a jury. On the other hand, nobody wants to be convicted and spend the rest of their lives looking back regretting the decision not to stand up and speak for themselves. Very interested to see what he does; the safe call would be don't testify.
I have to agree. I was more than willing to give MM the benefit of the doubt, because of the things I read and heard before he wasn't exactly sure of what he saw. But after yesterdays testimony it sure seems he saw a lot more than what was reported and if he was being truthful there wasn't anything ambiguous about it.
Bottom line he should have done more than slam his locker and tell his dad.
Zeno... I saw your context and you to me are an open minded rational poster. Trust me I don't expect everyone to agree...
Hope y'all have a good day.
Hope y'all have a good day.
So far in the trial, it seems the prosecutor/state at some point told C/S/S that some one needs to go to trial----you pick which one and we'll cut sweet plea deals for the other 2. Now they are going through the motions of a trial and Spanier will be found guilty of a single offense with minimal jail time and probation or something similar. A dog and pony show where the truth never comes out.
Just re-linking this article which lays out everything nicely. IMO, and IMO only, I believe that Mike was upset by what he experienced but I also believe he had been lobbying for a coaching position and this may have influenced his ultimate response to the situation. In the article, it is noted that Joe's first response to Mike when he came to talk to Joe was, there are no current coaching jobs. Hmm, now why would Joe say that as his first response to Mike?
There are many lenses in which to view this, but the bottom line is that no one really connected the dots enough to respond appropriately. The 1998 dismissal of the incident sure flavored everything going forward.
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand
There are many lenses in which to view this, but the bottom line is that no one really connected the dots enough to respond appropriately. The 1998 dismissal of the incident sure flavored everything going forward.
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/10542793/the-whistleblower-last-stand
Wait a minute, are you saying there are strategic reasons that people don't testify? According to some on this board, I thought that only guilty people refuse to testify on their own behalf.
Is getmyjive the old Marshcreek? Cause there hatred of all things Paterno seems to be very similar...either that or his Surma.
So you've been trusting the testimony of the guy whom you've also made clear in repeated posts that you believe is a liar.
Makes perfect sense.
Somebody start a Pat Devlin thread and see how long it takes him to respond, only way to be sure.
I don't hate Paterno and no... this is my only account. And I never even met Surma.
OK...but then you also have to throw dad and dr. dronov into that group as well. If MM was clear it was "sexual", all of them should be brought up on charges as all of them are equally culpable. or...mike was unclear and created confusion.
Its one of the two...which do you choose?
Getting fired, shamed and pleading guilty to a lesser crime is not winning. It's just not losing as bad.
That is not what Curley said. What he said was there were no deals made, but IF he was sentenced to jail, he could serve his sentence out at his residence IF he could provide medical documentation of the need to receive treatments. Paraphrasing here - not verbatim, but that's what he testified to.
To you second point, Curley DID perjure himself during open court yesterday. (again paraphrasing) he was asked in open court if Spanier was involved with he and Schultz in coming up with the initial 3 point plan - he said "no" - Ditka presented him (and the defense) with one page of his transcript from the plea trial hearing and asked him to refresh his memory. She took it back and asked him the same question again, to which he mumbled "yes"
Similar threads
