Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
This is what I have believed all along and nothing I have heard coming out of this trial has changed that opinion.
but but but Jemele Hill said 61 years of exemplary service was not enough for her to give him the benefit of the doubt
maybe 62 is the magic number for these knuckleheads
Fine by me, it's a guess and no different than anyone else taking a guess....right?
Amen. And I'm genuinely hopeful that Curley will elaborate on this at some point.
Could you two stop bickering so we all can get some real information here??
We stopped last night, dimwit. And I didn't realize we were the only two bickering. Seems like a lot of bickering going on without us.
There are any number of cases after Tim took over where Joe did not get his way with the athletic department. Joe did not take those issues public or complain about them in public after the decision was made.
I think that is equally wishful thinking on your part, without any evidence. You also have no idea, excepting your opinion.
It's also against the law. Especially in CSA cases. For a person in Joe's position, you are supposed to report--and stay hands off after the fact. There are many reasons for this, which I shall not (re)enumerate here but which anyone who has had training in this area knows.
I will note that I do work with LE as a civic leader in my community association(s) and block watch. When cases come up, we can only be told what is going on if that info has been released to the public. With active cases, the normal answer from LE is "I can't say". This happened to a buddy of mine who was helping LE with a drug case at his neighbor's house.
Had Joe asked, the only answer he should have been given was no answer.
And here I thought I had been following along. 
And I jump into BWI to get the latest low-down..... and I find - amazingly - that I was COMPLETELY OUT OF THE LOOP!!!!!!!!
I swear - I did not even know that Joe Paterno was on trial this week!!!!!!!!!!
I am outraged!!!
And I jump into BWI to get the latest low-down..... and I find - amazingly - that I was COMPLETELY OUT OF THE LOOP!!!!!!!!
I swear - I did not even know that Joe Paterno was on trial this week!!!!!!!!!!
I am outraged!!!
It's not against the law for Joe to ask why a guy suspected of CSA was still hanging around. It's not against the law for Joe to tell them that this should be reported.
How would you know about these cases then? I guess you're implying that Tim bragged about it after the decisions were made, if Joe didn't mention them ever?
This is exactly what I have been saying, FOREVER, when someone asks "Why wasn't TSM investigated????"
Why don't you come out and say what you really believe, that Joe orchestrated a coverup? You'll feel much better.
Read my lips:
1. I already posted on this Board I will wait and read the transcript.
2. You are consistently inaccurate. You claimed yesterday that the "after talking it over with Joe" was a 1998 email. It wasn't. It was a 2001 email. I am correct more than I am incorrect. Unlike Tim Curley who has cancer and Joe Paterno who had cancer and were undergoing treatments then and for Tim now, I have a highly accurate memory and don't need to check these facts very often. I make a few errors here and there, but not as often as you.
3. You received a homework assignment and a link from me last night.
You live in Maryland. Show me one or more of your 50 some articles where you investigated Arrow Ministries of Maryland, another branch of the Arrow Ministries incorporated in my state of Texas that absorbed the faulty Second Mile Charity and continued its unsafe children's programs.
Prove to me there's absolutely nothing hinky about the Arrow division operating in your state. This should take you a while so let me know when your investigation into something significant that might be adversely affecting at risk Maryland kids is complete.
Have a great day!
We knew before the decisions that Joe was against them: BTN and baseball were two. This is well documented. After? Crickets from Joe. In private? Who knows--but public is what's important here.
That's demonstrated respect for a superior. In public.
It appears that what he said in 2001 is different than what he said in 2010/2011 though.
I stand corrected then but what is with you and name-calling like child?
Because I don't believe that. How many times do I need to say that I think TC and Gary are the biggest culprits in my mind? How many times do I need to say that I blame Paterno the least out off everyone involved? Are you coming to your conclusion simply because I think Joe deserves a small part of the blame?
Why are you so mad at me and my opinion on a case where no one knows all the details? No here can definitively say if they are right or wrong.
You act like a dimwit, I'm going to call you one. Simple as that.
Now why don't you chastise other posters for bickering?? Yeah, that's not going to happen.
So whats happening today?
Has the defense called anyone?
I'm bored with reading "yesterdays" arguments, one can only argue in a circle for so long.
Nellie and Wendy. FWIW, two of my all time favorite posters.
This is different if an organization is being investigated. LE might be able to say in this case simply that an investigation is going on without being specific. But after 5 years, I doubt that there is such an investigation.
proud to call both of them "friend"
Beat me to it. Was wondering the same thing. Rather important day, wouldn't one think?So whats happening today?
Has the defense called anyone?
I'm bored with reading "yesterdays" arguments, one can only argue in a circle for so long.
I didn't make that point. BTN is the TV stuff. Probably some confusion on the part of the other poster there.
And I think Joe was for joining anyway.
I'm not sure if this has been posted here - but Schultz testified that he was NOT at the meeting Sunday at Joe's house on February 11th. He said he distinctly remembered Curley telling him Monday morning prior to going to the weekly senior leadership meeting (drawing a blank on what they termed it - President's Council maybe?).
No I'm not choosing anything
What you are choosing to do is to try and make this about Joe when it's not
You can't be this dumb. It doesn't matter who the AD was that Joe disagreed with. All that matters is that Joe didn't get his way.
Similar threads
