Can you be more specific?
Lost in the mail?
In the shredder?
In the burn pile?
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Can you be more specific?
Lost in the mail?
In the shredder?
In the burn pile?
It doesn't matter if the sounds were sexual or not, MM thought they were so the event should have been reported. It was a massive failure by those men to take it to Joe instead.
If I suspected you of being mentally ill, am I justified in reporting you to Torrence State Hospital?
While we are waiting for the creative way the OAG devises to influence the results of this trial and the media storm that is sure to follow. I want to re-question the "Troll Patrol" about MM's testimony - pick any version of his testimony you like!
Do you agree that MM's testimony was the linchpin for all PSU involvement in the Sandusky Crimes?? If that is the case, then wouldn't be reasonable that if MM's testimony was proven FALSE, anything Penn State would NOT be involved in the past 6 years??
I want to know (based on the troll patrol's expert legal minds and experience) where was the last time they can remember where ONE piece of testimony by THE KEY (and only) witness to an event was refuted (at least in its most damning LEGAL content) by multiple "third-party" witnesses. Would this then remove the Penn State "Criminal Football Culture" connection from Sandusky's activities???? Or would you be able to describe why without the concept of "observing a sexual act" you could have a CRIME here.
Now I REALIZE that after the fact you could SPECULATE that a crime COULD have occurred - but SPECULATION is not FACTUAL and irrelevant to the legal charges unless you can accurately describe some special features of what you speculate. Remember...your testimony has only 2-3(4:best case) SECONDS observing in less than perfect visual conditions. Also, in that time frame, any definable and REASONABLE sounds would also be hard identify. If you use the standard of what is "reasonable" when applied to the total situation in this observation...the "sounds" observed could also only be SPECULATION.
How do you justify that MM's testimony AFTER 2001 is not anything but SPECULATION. IT certainly is not FACT - in any form - legal or logical!
Finally...even if you do figure a "clever way" to invoke some kind of justification to MM's changing story - How do you explain the entire ACTION PATH taken by EACH of the INDEPENDENT persons MM spoke to in 2001?? All the testimony used by the State in this trial is POST 2001 - its is inherently 15+ years OLD, subject to interrogation influences (bias) and therefore unreliable as facts.
I'm betting you can't answer this request to understand how you feel the core evidence of this case applies as the OAG has publicly stated! - Why? Because (as you in your heart know)...IT IS A LIE!! This one lie alone is what "should" have been seriously exposed in prior court activities with MM.
My guess - NONE of the "Troll Patrol" traditional responders will answer any part of this. Best that can be expected is some form of personal attack. I'm betting on "...your nothing but a JoeBot Pedophile Enabler who needs a new "Tin Hat"...". Not great, but it is in line with usual kind of personal attacks for anyone questioning this seriously suspicious testimony.
Depends on whether you're more concerned about your career than the person who may have been murdered...
No, it was first a massive failure of MM. Then it was a massive failure of his father's. Then Dr. Dranov. Joe did report it, as he was told by PSU policy. Then you have Curley, Schultz, Raykovitz and Spanier. (oh yeah, forgot his GF in there).
So why is Spanier on trial and not JR or Dr. D?
I was talking about MM, Dr. D and Mr M. And yes, everyone knows that HR should have been charged. No argument there.
PA is as corrupt as Miami-Dade County. And that is saying something.
I could only give you opinions on that question. The 'why' doesn't really matter. It should have been done.
I'm embarrassed to live in this state. I'd love to hear how they arrived at this verdict.
Not good for GS of course, but good in regards to it is OFFICIAL. NO COVER UP
What a joke..
President of a higher education facility for adults... and tabbed with being responsible for someone else's kid.
8 years... I'll be gone from this state.
I actually agree with you for once, at least Joe did exactly what he was supposed to do.
Remember they weren't suspected sexual sounds, they were I don't know what you'd call it... suspected sounds of a sexual nature, which is a bunch of meaningless words when strung together.
I have no idea how they can come to that conclusion...none at all.
Similar threads
