ADVERTISEMENT

Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

Not surprising...pretty good assumption that some kind of decision would be made today...why keep all his stuff in his hotel room ? Why not check out...nothing there IMO...

I often check out when I think I'm going to be done so my company doesn't get charged for another night in a hotel, and I want more travel flexibility. I often check right back in when things don't go as planned.
 
I know all those close to MM absolutely deny this....what else would they say. However, raise your hand if you would be surprised that Mike was coerced by investigators? It would explain a great deal. MM might have been put between the proverbial rock and hard place. Investigators threatening him or Pop with charges etc. It is very much in character with how The Commonwealth operated in this case.
 
I know all those close to MM absolutely deny this....what else would they say. However, raise your hand if you would be surprised that Mike was coerced by investigators? It would explain a great deal. MM might have been put between the proverbial rock and hard place. Investigators threatening him or Pop with charges etc. It is very much in character with how The Commonwealth operated in this case.
very likely
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU Dave
Every jury so far has taken McQueary's word at face value.
That's an assumption on your part. Because every jury punished PSU and JS, doesn't mean they did it because of MM's bullet proof testimony. No one needed MM when they had the media doing their testimony for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU Dave
Every jury so far has taken McQueary's word at face value. Even the charge that Sandusky was acquitted for was basically the jury taking McQueary's testimony at face value.

Wasn't Sandusky found not guilty of three of four charges that pertained to that night?
 
Wasn't Sandusky found not guilty of three of four charges that pertained to that night?
4 out of 5.

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
 
I know all those close to MM absolutely deny this....what else would they say. However, raise your hand if you would be surprised that Mike was coerced by investigators? It would explain a great deal. MM might have been put between the proverbial rock and hard place. Investigators threatening him or Pop with charges etc. It is very much in character with how The Commonwealth operated in this case.

and remember, the PA State Police absolutely knew of his gambling on college football games... a fact that if it came out would have ended his coaching career immediately
 
4 out of 5.

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

Gotcha. Thanks.
 
and remember, the PA State Police absolutely knew of his gambling on college football games... a fact that if it came out would have ended his coaching career immediately

Speaks to his character. He was willing to take that risk knowing there were consequences, just like sending pics of his junk to coeds.
I'm sure towny, dukie, and lar don't see those flaws though.
 
Speaks to his character. He was willing to take that risk knowing there were consequences, just like sending pics of his junk to coeds.
I'm sure towny, dukie, and lar don't see those flaws though.
Too bad the Jury didn't.
 
I know all those close to MM absolutely deny this....what else would they say. However, raise your hand if you would be surprised that Mike was coerced by investigators? It would explain a great deal. MM might have been put between the proverbial rock and hard place. Investigators threatening him or Pop with charges etc. It is very much in character with how The Commonwealth operated in this case.
I can understand why you might reasonably think that........ but I would doubt it.
("and that's all I've got to say about that" :) )
 
Every jury so far has taken McQueary's word at face value. Even the charge that Sandusky was acquitted for was basically the jury taking McQueary's testimony at face value.

Face value? You mean his testimony that "some kind of intercourse was going on"? Or am I getting versions of his testimony mixed up? Words matter right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU Dave
That's an assumption on your part. Because every jury punished PSU and JS, doesn't mean they did it because of MM's bullet proof testimony. No one needed MM when they had the media doing their testimony for them.
4 out of 5.

Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.

Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.

Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.

Guilty of four out of five. Not guilty on one - involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

According to this attorney the difference between rape and IDSI is as follows:

"Per os" in the first description refers to the mouth, meaning IDSI generally refers to rape involving oral or anal penetration. Rape is typically charged in instances involving vaginal penetration.

So when McQueary testifies that he didn't see penetration, the jury could logically conclude that the state's charge of penetration wasn't supported. In other words, they could have believed him, but still returned a not guilty verdict on that charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baconking1
Speaks to his character. He was willing to take that risk knowing there were consequences, just like sending pics of his junk to coeds.
I'm sure towny, dukie, and lar don't see those flaws though.
He's a Loser in my mind starting with the night he walked in the locker room and did nothing. Too many people give him a free pass like he was some young undersized kid who couldn't do anything to protect the young boy. Sorry, he should return any cash judgement to Penn State for his role in all of this and go find a real job like the rest of us.
 
Guilty of four out of five. Not guilty on one - involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

According to this attorney the difference between rape and IDSI is as follows:

"Per os" in the first description refers to the mouth, meaning IDSI generally refers to rape involving oral or anal penetration. Rape is typically charged in instances involving vaginal penetration.

So when McQueary testifies that he didn't see penetration, the jury could logically conclude that the state's charge of penetration wasn't supported. In other words, they could have believed him, but still returned a not guilty verdict on that charge.
Considering JS would die in jail on the ridiculous V8 convictions alone, acquittal on that one count doesn't really mean that much, does it? But keep standing up for your heroic whistle blower.
 
He's a Loser in my mind starting with the night he walked in the locker room and did nothing. Too many people give him a free pass like he was some young undersized kid who couldn't do anything to protect the young boy. Sorry, he should return any cash judgement to Penn State for his role in all of this and go find a real job like the rest of us.


Where does the totally sociopathic, disturbed, crooked Matt Sandusky fit into all of this complete and total bullshit?
 
At this point, I'd take that conclusion to this mess.
For sure. Hung jury, GS walks & kicks Freeh's arse in civil case due to TC blowing up Freeh's assertion that JVP instructed him to go with the alternate plan.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT