Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
Schultz was under the impression it involved genital contact. At least that is what he testified to.
Here is the quote:
Q
Did you, nevertheless, form an impression about what type
of conduct this might have been that occurred in the locker
room?
A
Well. I had the impression that it was inappropriate . Telling
you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that
there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and
maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals
or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf
Something he was told gave Schultz that impression that it was "maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort." It was something that gave Schultz impression that he should call Courtney about the situation and that he should sid down and develop the "plan," which included calling DPW. You know, that "impression."
The topic is actually Spanier refiling his civil suit against Penn State. I guess he thinks it is the "humane" thing to do, right, Zeno?
Roberto does not want this in court. They just raised and she is trying to get this to go away.
Last edited:
If you read a lot more of that transcript than just that question, you clearly see the attorney was trying to bait Schultz into a soundbyte quote. Schultz was goaded into saying that if he had to made an out of the blue guess as to what would make MM come to them about it, that's what he thought would have to happen. . Not that that's what he was told happened or what he thought happened.
Last edited:
The attorneys know all about the innuendo questions and the baiting. This is why they didn't flip and aren't taking a plea. None of the stuff that happened before this will be relevant to this, once it enters a courtroom.
Which is why these guys are muzzled.
Which is why these guys are muzzled.
Changing the subject when you're called out for misrepresent falsehoods as facts to support your fantasy argument might be an effective strategy in the pennlive comment sections or on Gricar's forum, but it won't work here.
You want the respect of fellow alumni? Earn it.
Last edited:
Nothing in the transcript says that. It was not a "guess" but his "impression." While Schultz claimed he couldn't recall what the exact words were, that was his "impression."
An "impression" of what was being reported triggered his call to Courtney. Likewise an "impression" caused him to develop a "plan" to call DPW.
Of course, Schultz could take the stand at the trial and explain how this wasn't the case, right?
I just posted the source. You can read it yourself and so can anyone that clicks the link. If you don't want to, that is not my problem. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make hiim drink. I guess your case, that applies to parts of the horse as well.
This could be quite relevant and isn't "innuendo." Schultz could have said that he didn't form an impression based on what McQueary was telling him. If he was being honest, that was his impression.
"Innuendo" is a "hint, insinuation or intimation," about a person or thing that is derogatory. The question was:
"Did you, nevertheless, form an impression about what type
of conduct this might have been that occurred in the locker
room?"
That does not insinuate that Schultz had formed an impression or what any impression was.
Keep lying Zerophile.
I've been here for a while, so it is about a month late. I quoted the testimony and provided a link to it. You can:
A. Read it, and see if I am correct.
B. Not read it.
We have to the track record of the people who insisted that there was nothing wrong at Penn State, that Sandusky was innocent, and even that the charges would be dropped.
You are free to console yourself by thinking it is all a lie, but reality will intervene.
You can find the effects of reality on this thread, in this post:
Wensilver doesn't get it, and you don't get it.
Insisting that your fantasy is fact doesn't make it so. I've read Schultz's entire testimony.
Why are so so instistent about misrepresenting it? Is it because the argument is a fantasy?
Don't know what he said, but I'll give you the reason:
Fear. The train is coming right at them, and they know it. Why they think that putting a couple of neurotic revolting losers on an internet forum will make a difference, is beyond me, but these putzs reflect the fear that their handlers/owners/employers are feeling every single goddamned day, now that the day of reckoning is approaching.
The idiotic misconception that repeating a lie a zillion times makes it true shows true stupidity and naivete. These losers are too lightweight to have lived thru this strategy having failed in real life, as most of us have. They have no ****ing idea, because they are nobodies.
Fear. The train is coming right at them, and they know it. Why they think that putting a couple of neurotic revolting losers on an internet forum will make a difference, is beyond me, but these putzs reflect the fear that their handlers/owners/employers are feeling every single goddamned day, now that the day of reckoning is approaching.
The idiotic misconception that repeating a lie a zillion times makes it true shows true stupidity and naivete. These losers are too lightweight to have lived thru this strategy having failed in real life, as most of us have. They have no ****ing idea, because they are nobodies.
He was asked his "impression" of what was being reported to him and he stated it. Since he stated that the impression was "...maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort, is kind of the impression that I had."
I understand, you think a "liar" is someone who posts what you don't like and provides the source documents, right Zero?
The fear of that is going to court, and it a fear that CSS have.
The lies we see here are that Sandusky is innocent, the case will be dropped, it's a weak case, and, oh, there is big conspiracy with Corbett still pulling the strings, all claims that I have seen on the that two weeks. Those are the lies. They have been repeated to te point where they are laughable.
The problem is, many who is laughing thinks it all of Penn State like that.
Last edited:
A liar is someone who intentionally misrepresents the facts.
And you, my friend, are a person who has (by any objective measure) misrepresented facts in this very thread. Does that make you a liar? It may. I couldn't possibly comment.
Seriously? With Spanier's history a trial is the last thing his attorneys want.
Just imagine the prosecution entering a study into evidence (authored by Spanier) that concludes sexual contact between an adult and a child under 12 or 13 would have no impact, and it would be interpreted as "play".
Like I said, people can click the link and read it for themselves. That is the fact. I was not the one giving testimony; Schultz was. If you have a problem with it, take it up with him.
You can yell and scream and pout and complain but none of that will change what Schultz claimed, under oath. And that was:
Well. I had the impression that it was inappropriate . Telling
you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that
there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and
maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals
or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf
Dude, he's suing everybody in sight. He has turned down several plea deals. Your problem is that you believe everything that you hear.
Do his actions suggest someone who is afraid of the truth? No, I didn't think so.
That might not be admissible, however. Some of the things that he has said, his letter to the Board, his various interviews, and his civil filings would be. Footnote 25 in the presentment noted that Spanier continued to make false statements.
The suits have been an attempt at public relations, and very poor ones because they have had so much trouble. He had appealed numerous times, including in federal court, to get the charges dropped; he only had success with perjury and related charges and failure to report.
I'm just being honest about what will happen if this goes to trial.
It's possible that the lawyers for C/S/S tear MM apart on cross and not much else is needed for acquittal.
It's also possible MM holds up enough to force other factors to come into play.
If Spanier takes the stand he's going to lead a very lonely life after his cross at the very least. There's so much ammunition for a competent lawyer to go after him with.
He seems very willing to take his chances. Which is something that the BOT is very clearly not willing to do. We'll see how the prosecutors really feel, as well. They are hoping against hope for a plea deal, after thinking for the longest time that they could call the shots on that. Only a very obtuse individual could possibly interpret the responses of the last 5 years of CSS as people who are afraid to tell the world what they know.
And if they lose this case, a lot of heads are going to roll.
And if they lose this case, a lot of heads are going to roll.
Good luck getting anyone on the jury to believe he didn't know about 98.
Nobody seems too worried about the ultimate result. Do they seem to you to be concerned? Have you seen any of them lately?
Spanier alone among the defendants that actually tried to get the case dismissed in federal court. That was about 2 1/2 years ago. He lost: http://www.mcall.com/news/nationwor...en-kane-lawsuit-dismissed-20140726-story.html
Spanier does not want to go to court in the criminal trial. He knows what's coming.
Blehar is right about 1998 being important, but wrong about where to look for problems. You do not have to go beyond the borders of Centre County to figure out what happened. Start with how the DA at the time handled the case. Look at the details. Nobody in Harrisburg was directing him.
Brilliant retort, you must have made the dean's list. LOL.
I think with you, it would be more like Meagan's List.
My point was - "It depends on what your definition of immoral is" was Spanier's on the record comment/defense of having a NAMBLA leader speak on campus, and this was contemporaneous with the events of this case. There is no way this isn't brought up in the trial.
More of the Litany of Jacobs, pure PL bullshit. That's all you're good for. You hope for all this irrelevant crap to be brought into play. It won't be. The only thing you bozos have right is Mike being torn apart on the stand.
Believe everything I hear? I've actually done the legwork and I'm going by the available facts. With Spanier that includes his version of events because he's given interviews.
You refuse to even entertain the idea he might be lying to save his reputation.
As far as suing Freeh, the conclusion of the report being wrong doesn't mean Spanier is totally innocent. I don't think there's evidence to support a conspiracy of silence, that included Paterno, to protect football. There were other reasons to keep it in house.
Besides, Freeh didn't interview Curley and/or Schultz. Without them Spanier's free to claim whatever he wants and at worst the court finds against him.
No, but is obvious that I hurt yours.
He did write one on "swingers" in the early 1970's, I think. I have not heard about any on pedophilia specifically. He did a book review on "Human Sexuality in a Changing Society (Book)," in the early 1980'sso he is familiar with the topic of human sexually generally.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/11587771/human-sexuality-changing-society-book
I would question if any of that would be admissible. An academic can write a paper about Hitler, but that wouldn't make him a Nazi.
Last edited:
Yes, Sexualization and Premarital Sexual Behavior by Graham Spanier
It was one of the variables in girls for the study. Why only girls I'm not sure? He took the hypothesis straight from Kinsey's data and concluded it was accurate.
The abstract indicates he interviewed college students, so it wasn't something directly on underage sex. http://www.jstor.org/stable/583048?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
It possibly could be used to establish that Spanier was familiar with human sexuality generally, but I'd be surprised if a judge would let it in unless Spanier claimed that he never heard of pedophilia or possibly grooming.
Edited to add:
Here is a listing of some of Spanier's academic work (publish or perish). There are a few that conceivably could touch on pedophilia, but the bulk of it looks like it deals with marriage and divorce from a sexual standpoint.
http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvan...=all&c3=AND&c6=AND&c4=AND&f1=all&f0=au&f5=all
Last edited:
Think we're getting pretty far astray here. This type of testimony would not be admissible nor would it be helpful to the prosecution. The only issue that is really in play in these trials is what did MM tell Curley and Shultz. That's it, If the jury believes he told them he witnesses a sexual assault, then the focus shifts to whether CSS conspired to cover up the allegation.
This is actually a very simple case and is going to come down to the credibility of MM and the 3 defendants, all of whom will testify IMO. One thing that would concern me if I were the prosecutor is MM's testimony in the civil trial vs. PSU when he testified that Curley is a good man (and IIRC went even further than that). That description will run counter to what the prosecution will want the jury to believe.
I agree that it is unlikely to be an issue in court, unless Spanier was greatly familiar with the technique of "grooming." (I was not and would have missed it.) I have not seen anything that would involve that.
I seriously doubt if Schultz and Curley would testify without a plea deal. I would expect Spanier's lawyer really would not want him on the stand.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football Initial PFF Grades for Penn State vs Kent State- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley