Tim Bream
- Thread starter jerseylion109
- Start date
I have attended all but one day of the Preliminary Hearing thus far (I missed the third day) including today's hearing.
Listening to the testimony today from a retired PA State trooper, the judge believed the former trooper had "good service" on Mr. Bream hence the upcoming Contempt hearing on August 30th. SPM advised the court based on her conversation with Mr. Bream's lawyer late this morning that she expects Mr. Bream's lawyer to try and quash the subpoena. Absent success, I expect Mr. Bream to take the fifth on the stand.
I believe strongly in due process so I will reserve judgment. However, I too have questions.
Listening to the testimony today from a retired PA State trooper, the judge believed the former trooper had "good service" on Mr. Bream hence the upcoming Contempt hearing on August 30th. SPM advised the court based on her conversation with Mr. Bream's lawyer late this morning that she expects Mr. Bream's lawyer to try and quash the subpoena. Absent success, I expect Mr. Bream to take the fifth on the stand.
I believe strongly in due process so I will reserve judgment. However, I too have questions.
Agree completely ona written summary of the meeting. Suggested e-mail as the most efficient way of disseminating it.
General practce in my firm, is that the fewer people involved in a preliminary meeting like this the better the likelihood of getting good information. That suggestion was first made by our general counsel who says that she's the last one who should be called to the meeting, unless you're dead sure that there is legal liability on the part of the firm. Fortunately, we have very few meetings of this nature.
Well, practices are usually closed to the public so...
True, but unless Bream has food and water stashed away somewhere, he has to come out sometime. Shouldn't be hard to figure out where.
Give them time, they will figure out a way to call your assertions wrong and unreasonable.
No need to stir up crap and turn the thread into sh#t. Most people here seem to be on the same page.
I'm sorry, but that poster got attacked until it became clear that Bream was in trouble. And that was with his assertion being totally reasonable from the start.
He wasn't the problem in this thread.
Which assertion? That he lied to Franklin, when there is no evidence that he even spoke to Franklin? Indeed, it's not even clear that he spoke to anyone given that he managed to doge service of a subpoena for how long?
By all means. Why wait for the facts when we can react with emotion?
ESPN won't wait for the facts, that's for certain. We'll see a scroll by Monday.
Perhaps. The question then is PSU prepared to be out in front of it? My confidence level isn't high, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Wow, shots fired. If you have a bone to pick with something I said in an earlier post, by all means point it out rather than making some vague statement asserting that I have no idea "how things work in places like Centre County." And what is a "similarly structured area?" Are geographical areas "structured?" .
Last edited:
While I understand what your saying, I think the school really doesn't need anymore bad publicity and since this is a personal issue for Bream, a paid leave of absence should suffice for now. He's being accused of telling his frat bros to delete video. It needs to be proven but they named him. School needs to deal with it.
That's difficult to say without knowing particulars. The response should describe the inquiries made by PSU regarding Bream's conduct, qualified that they were limited by an on-going legal investigation, and how they matched up against PSU's determination of what to do. Hope is that they did indeed ask questions. If they didn't, they deserve what they get and heads should roll.
So, I havent read all 300 posts in this thread, but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
1) Having a 50 yo man live in a frat house as an "advisor" is a problem waiting to happen. When said guy has a prominent position at PSU compounds the problem for PSU. Did anyone in the AD sign off on this decision? I hope not.
2) I aint no lawyer, but why was the statement that Piazza cited for underage drinking struck form the record? Seems pretty relevant to me. For those who dont know PA underage drinking laws: First citation--lose driving license for 3 months. Second--lose for 1 year. Third--lose for 2 years. It seems that the defense attorneys would now have a strong (who knows if its true) argument--"Tim asked us not to take him to the hospital, because another underage would lead to loss of his license for 1 year". And yes, he would get cited if brought to the hospital drunk and underage. I know this for a fact.
3) this getmyjive dude is sort of a dick, isnt he?
1) Having a 50 yo man live in a frat house as an "advisor" is a problem waiting to happen. When said guy has a prominent position at PSU compounds the problem for PSU. Did anyone in the AD sign off on this decision? I hope not.
2) I aint no lawyer, but why was the statement that Piazza cited for underage drinking struck form the record? Seems pretty relevant to me. For those who dont know PA underage drinking laws: First citation--lose driving license for 3 months. Second--lose for 1 year. Third--lose for 2 years. It seems that the defense attorneys would now have a strong (who knows if its true) argument--"Tim asked us not to take him to the hospital, because another underage would lead to loss of his license for 1 year". And yes, he would get cited if brought to the hospital drunk and underage. I know this for a fact.
3) this getmyjive dude is sort of a dick, isnt he?
Your last statement is agreed upon almost unanimously.
1. Yeah, not the brightest idea.
2. Because it had nothing to do with making sure the kid didn't get up and fall down the stairs again would be my guess.
FFS, you've got a bunch of pledges that have to do what you tell them. Lock him in a room with a hurl bucket and make pledges check on him every ten minutes.
3. @getmyjive11 is just a cynical guy who knows how to internet. The two go hand and hand.
1. This DA has is doing a great job of trying it in the media and limiting the jury pool. "Welcome to Pennsylvania."
2. I absolutely love it when trolls fight with each other.
2. I absolutely love it when trolls fight with each other.
You're clearly not grasping why it's big deal and why they should have known.
1. As an employee of the university, and living somewhere that required him to oversee the behavior of students, they should know.
2. Why would he want to live there? I can think of a couple reasons that could be problematic and would require the university going over some ground rules to protect themselves.
3. 1&2 are more than enough reason for it to be policy that an employee of the university informs them if he is living somewhere that requires additional responsibilities over students.
I'm not assuming or accusing him of anything. I'm pointing out there's plenty of reason the school should have known.
Was he "required to oversee the behavior of students?" I don't know whether that was the case or not, but I do not believe he was obligated to oversee the activities of the undergraduate live in members of Beta merely because he lived there temporarily. Perhaps you have information I do not.
I didn't answer because it is not a relevant question. He lived there, so why ponder about ifs and buts?
