How does Curley "te(sic)-think things" when he was given a report of sodomy by Mike? How can Joe offer an argument to not report something that Joe was told was "sexual"? There are only two possible conclusions: 1) they agreed to a coverup; or 2) the description of the incident that Mike gave to both men wasn't as crystal clear as Mike would have us believe. Take your choice.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
How does Curley "te(sic)-think things" when he was given a report of sodomy by Mike? How can Joe offer an argument to not report something that Joe was told was "sexual"? There are only two possible conclusions: 1) they agreed to a coverup; or 2) the description of the incident that Mike gave to both men wasn't as crystal clear as Mike would have us believe. Take your choice.
I saw nothing today that made me think differently of Paterno and his actions/testimony. Curley did not say he shared specific details with Joe. He kept him apprised.
Likewise, no guy that has witnessed that should wait ten days to be spoken to about it.
Hey now...if it was a "normal" case he wouldn't be there chasing a mic or camera.
Witnessed what? At the time Curley and Schultz were brought into the situation, they only had Joe's description to go by. If, for whatever reason, his description wasn't of something fraught with urgency, that can account for the length of the interval.
I have no doubt that if the defense called Ziegler he'd be on the stand in a flash. Another instance where tragedy and comedy intersect.
Correct--that poster got that part wrong. But the BTN and baseball were valid examples given.
Also, you have, again, added something that hasn't been claimed. No one said that Tim did things without telling Joe (though he likely did). That's not the point of the discussion. The point is that Joe treated Tim as his superior. As in the case of his testimony about this specific case--when MM came to Joe, Joe looked up in the handbook what he was supposed to do, which was call his superior--TC. Which he did.
And treating someone as your superior doesn't mean you won't have disagreements with them. It means at the end of the day, when the discussion is complete, you treat them as your superior. From all public indications, that's what Joe did.
Ha...I predicted this yesterday. By resting without calling a witness, you are saying the state's case is so weak, you don't NEED to defend. I am sure they got this message across to the jury.
Ziegler was not in the courtroom today - did not hear closing arguments. Just an FYI.
neither were you. but did you give him the stink eye YESTERDAY??
btw, must kill you to see him walking around IN PENNSYLVANIA a free man
you SOOOOOO wanted him in jail for 9 years
The attorney to whom they talked testified that that they never described sexual assault, so it's not inconsistent.
Defense basically asked if there was even a charge by any of the witnesses.
..and why should he? Not a single witness claimed that Spanier knew of anything beyond "horseplay" which is what Curley and Schutz claimed. MM never talked to him.
No, what I want is for him to stop harassing victims. Quite simple really.
Who cares? Why do you care? You and your client Matt want him arrested again?
My prediction, they nail Spanier on the misdemeanor that the other two plead guilty to for some unknown reason, despite obviously doing what they thought was right.
Love the thought.......
But if one took all the "optimism" in the Universe.......compressed it down to fit into one tiny capsule........
And then had an ocean full of those capsules.........
That would not be enough "optimism" to seriously think that would happen
How about this...Tim calls GSch and tells him what MM told him. TC calls JVP back...JVP says, "You guys deal with it, it's not my job. JS doesn't work here anymore and I told Erickson that I didn't want him around the Lasch building or to have kids on campus. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen! He over-ruled me so leave me out of it...Sandusky is your problem now, not mine!"
And I think both C/S testimony have given the jury an "out" in terms of who dropped the ball... failed here and from what I have read...it seems both men admitted that they could have done more...
Not sure how this turns out...but really don't think either men testifying helped the prosecution...the only thing that may have helped was Victim 5 who gets up and gives an emotional testimony.
So basically...Prosecution playing the emotional game...
I truly wonder if they ever REALLY thought they had a case against Graham...who knows?
Matt S. could have been a PSU graduate as well. As it turns out, he didn't want to work for anything in his life. Go figure.
Do you think every accuser who got a multi-million dollar payment from PSU is telling the truth?
Barry, I like your brand of optimism.Love the thought.......
But if one took all the "optimism" in the Universe.......compressed it down to fit into one tiny capsule........
And then had an ocean full of those capsules.........
That would not be enough "optimism" to seriously think that would happen
Similar threads
