Schultz remembers and Spanier doesn't.
You want a lie, let's talk about what Mike "would have told them"?
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
You want a lie, let's talk about what Mike "would have told them"?
Fair enough. So who was Mike referring to, since we know your dad wasn't out of town and Joe wasn't out of town?
No offense to your father, but just because he testified to it, doesn't make it so.
But assuming he was in town as you say, who could Mike have been referring to in that email?
Thats what Im confused about and was asking for clarification on. So Mike was referring to Joe being out of town? Why would that have any meaning with regards to your dad not attending the meeting with Mike and Joe?
the only logical thing is what I posted in #1244 on my edit. However Dukie said thats not it. This is very confusing. I assumed it was a pretty simple thing especially since Dukie asked me what I needed clarification on and now Im even more confused.
OK, then please translate said bad grammar. Who was out of town the night before and why mention it?
Maybe causing confusion is dukie's goal. He is a mcqueary.
That would be a nice and quick way to be done with it. Just chalk it up to bad grammar.
Could the night mike called from lasch and the 3 men met at your parents house not be the same day before MM went to Joes? You gotta see why that email is somewhat of a question mark right?
So either:
1) Mike wrote a nonsensical email mentioned something that either wasn't true and/or wasn't germane to the correspondence. That's troubling to me.
2) Your assertion isn't true (although I'd note that it is interesting that you say they met on the night Mike called from Lasch; not the night that Mike saw Jerry at Lasch).
Actually that explains everything to me. They all met the night of the incident. I guess now the question is how long did Mike wait to tell Joe because apparently to him (Mike). Your dad wasnt at the meeting with Joe because he was out of town the night before.
Its reasons like the above people "claim" MM story has changed a few times. Im not sure how you can even spin it as bad grammer
I think its more interesting that he doesnt clarify that the night they met and the phone call were the day before he met with Joe. I guess since Mike still thought it was 2002 at the time of this its possible but wouldnt you at least remember a few days sequence
My god unc I am trying to answer a basic question this isn’t the courtvof law .... go analyz css testimony as carefully and get back to me. Again this board questions every ffibg thing about mije and rarely questions others... and I am biased?
Obviously the night mike called from lasch is one and the same as the incident... wtf?
Three trials and this meeting time and event sequences never doubted by defense teams etc..., sobyour saying your smarter than the 14 million spent by css attt?
I am not trying to be a dick but this is complete bs by you guys.
Obviously the night mike called from lasch is one and the same as the incident... wtf?
Three trials and this meeting time and event sequences never doubted by defense teams etc..., sobyour saying your smarter than the 14 million spent by css attt?
I am not trying to be a dick but this is complete bs by you guys.
Maybe Mike is trying to explain why he didn't go to Joe that night.
Im guessing they
I never said that and I appreciate you responding. Im just questioning why Mike would tell her your dad wasnt in the meeting because he was out of town the night before.
Frankly Ive never even seen it reported that your dad was there with Joe and Mike so Im unsure what he was correcting. Its just a very odd statement to make without over analyzing because Mikes story all along to my knowlegde was he saw X, called his dad, left and met his dad and dr. D, met with Joe the next day. BUT now here is an email where he states his dad was out of town the day before he met joe.
I never said that and I appreciate you responding. Im just questioning why Mike would tell her your dad wasnt in the meeting because he was out of town the night before.
Frankly Ive never even seen it reported that your dad was there with Joe and Mike so Im unsure what he was correcting. Its just a very odd statement to make without over analyzing because Mikes story all along to my knowlegde was he saw X, called his dad, left and met his dad and dr. D, met with Joe the next day. BUT now here is an email where he states his dad was out of town the day before he met joe.
These comments were at a time when Mike was getting hammered publicly. He was trying to defend himself...Joe not being home that night explains why he waited until the next morning, Mike slamming the locker door explaining why he didn't stop JS, Mike saying he spoke to Schultz and the police at the time. Whether any or all of that is accurate is up for debate, but I think that is why Mike was likely saying these things.
I agree that makes sense. However, the most powerful thing he could have said is, "I was only in the room for a few seconds.....and I wasn't sure what was really happening." Of course, that would not have been met with a favorable response by the OAG. When you look at the empirical evidence, that is the only explanation. Dr. D heard nothing that he felt needed intervention by law enforcement. No matter when the conversation took place. After Curley explained to Mike how the issue was dealt with, we have no record of complaints from MM, JM, Dr.D........again empirical evidence that no one was really sure what was going on.
I agree...but this all supports my theory that he embellished his GJ testimony from what he told Joe, Curley and Schultz. By that point, he was caught between the police, public perception and the PSU administration. Embellishing these things that you point out, is just more embellishment; it is a pattern.
Curley and Schultz were told that MM saw something weird through a mirror but nothing criminal. He only suspected something criminal. For C & S, they didn't know who the victim was, JS wasn't saying, and MM didn't see anything criminal. Only with a ton of victims claiming abuse was it actionable. Once it became actionable, MM embellished his GJ testimony, at the urging of prosecutors, but that left PSU admin high and dry. MM had no idea the damage he was doing to erstwhile friends and co-workers.
Last edited:
so you are confirming it was Feb 2001 as the date MM met with Dad and DD?
TC? he wasnt there, so how would he know?
That’s what I thought, too. It was a hastily written email. My attempt at deciphering it is in this post:
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/ray-blehar-mm-caught-in-lie.187121/page-5#post-3033868
It’s not up for interpretation.
From the New Yorker:
Spanier’s memory of the 1998 incident:
I have no recollection. I am aware, as I said in my letter to the board of trustees, that I was apparently copied on two e-mails. I didn’t reply to them. The first e-mail that I saw didn’t mention anybody’s name. It simply said something to the effect of “The employee will be interviewed tomorrow,” something like that, no name mentioned. Then, about five weeks later, I think it was, I was copied on another e-mail that said, “The interview has been completed, the investigation has been completed, nothing was found, Jerry felt badly that the kid might have felt badly,” I’m not quoting directly, of course—“And the investigation is closed and the matter is behind us.”
Spanier had seen the e-mails after the investigation broke, in 2011. His response when asked if he had any independent memory of the 1998 events:
I have no memory, and I still don’t today. I can’t even swear that I saw those e-mails. Because first of all, back in that era, every so often, maybe once a month, our I.T. folks would say, “All the e-mails today have been lost, if you were expecting any you need to write people and tell them to resend them because the system went down.” Honest to goodness, I had no recollection of 1998, didn’t in 2001, have no recollection now, what I’m telling you I’m only for the sake of not wanting people to think that I’m hiding something. I apparently was copied on those two e-mails, but it obviously didn’t raise any awareness in my mind to the point where I went back and said, “Who are we talking about? What’s the issue? Is there a problem with somebody, do we need to push further?” I don’t recall any conversations, and it was also obviously not on my radar screen when, in 2001, something popped up again.
There quite literally couldn’t have been a more relevant topic in 2001 than the 98 incident. Curley even referenced “the first situation” in an email Spanier replied to. Are we really to believe it wasn’t discussed? Only if you’re a fool.
Schultz’ testimony simply confirmed what was already obvious.
It is also a pattern that MM cannot compose a complete, coherent English sentence if his life (or employment) depended on it.
Similar threads
