What will everybody say on this board if our three administrators case never goes to trial? Will we have some people mad at the administrators lawyers for not pushing for a trial? What will be the reaction to something like this?
What will be the reaction if this happens?
- Thread starter SEPATOPTEN
- Start date
I would say that it proves that the State never had a case to begin with. It was all a ploy to either shut them up or to cause one to turn on another. And while the first was achieved, the second was a major failure on the prosecutors part, thankfully.
Think that depends on whether the Paternos' case goes to trial. If the Paternos' case does not go to trial and C/S/S don't go to trial, that will be a bad thing, because pretty much everyone wants to see the whole story told under oath. Well, maybe not the BoT folks, Freeh, or the NCAA...
Many want to see this go to trial. I am sure the lawyers will be OK if they don't have to defend their clients.
My hope would be that we'd hear their side of the story anyway. That's part of why Penn State has been painted into a corner for "covering up a pedophile in the name of protecting a football program."
There will still be trials. Paterno's aren't settling, and from what I hear, Spanier is not going to settle with his civil suit if it muzzles him. CSS were indicted in part to keep them silent, and that aim is not going to be achieved.
I see one of these trials as the best way to effect some long overdue rehabilitation and refurbishment of Joe's legacy. That is my strongest wish. But not far behind that is the desire to see some serious shade thrown on the BoT cabal. I just cannot fathom how these cretins have managed to remain in power this long, and that there has been no public accounting of their actions.
The only way I will be pissed if it doesn't go to trial is if a "gag order" is one of the conditions (is this even possible?). If this never goes to trial I at least want to hear directly from C/S/S what their side of the story is all about.
Some have said the admins will be fairly vocal if no criminal trials happen, I don't think that will be the case cause of all the civil ligation in play. In particular... Mikes suit... Has a very broad scope of coverage .... I am not familiar with the parernos suit but everyone says it goes to trial... If mikes suit goes to trial many people will have to remained tight lipped or plead fifth etc.
Lots left to play out. Where it goes no one really knows. I remain very confident in where thing are.
Lots left to play out. Where it goes no one really knows. I remain very confident in where thing are.
There is no guarantee that a trial gets you the full story given rules related to what evidence my be submitted and I don't see any of CSS testifying at a trial. I want the truth like anybody else but I just don't know that a trial really gets you all that closer to it. If the charges are dropped then I think you will see CSS give their side via some medium.
IMHO, if CSS are convicted than Freeh will be viewed as completely vindicated, Paterno's legacy is pretty much permanently destroyed, this message board will be unbearable, and Penn State as I knew it is pretty much gone forever and is never coming back (that may already be the case to some extent). At that point it would also be extremely difficult to convince anyone of any narrative other than what the public currently believes occurred.
IMHO, if CSS are convicted than Freeh will be viewed as completely vindicated, Paterno's legacy is pretty much permanently destroyed, this message board will be unbearable, and Penn State as I knew it is pretty much gone forever and is never coming back (that may already be the case to some extent). At that point it would also be extremely difficult to convince anyone of any narrative other than what the public currently believes occurred.
If the case against C/S/S does not go to trial because it ends up being determined that their constitutional and, or, legal rights were violated, as I believe will end up being the case - the former with respect to the the prohibition of the enactment of ex post facto state laws - Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 and the latter the bizarre ACP debacle with respect to Cynthia Baldwin - then so be it. In that case, it would be a result of justice and the rule of law prevailing if they never went to trial. I realize that the perjury charge might still be tried if they only succeed on the issue of the establishment of a law ex post facto with respect to failure to report. That is a difficult charge upon which to get a conviction though.
There will be some disappointment, but the job of their attorneys is to argue the points of law to the fullest. If that means they are successful in having the charges dropped completely, then they've done their job well.
I'd personally like to see a trial and hear the testimony, but I'm not C,S, or S.
Last edited:
Why indict at all if you if you want to keep them silent? That just does not make any sense to me. You eventually have to put up or shut up.
SEPA must have been the last émigré arriving from Dopeville this week.
Mad at the ACCUSED if the case doesn't go to trial?
WTF.....sounds like the Circle-Jerkers are floating some incredibly desperate trial balloons.
In case no one told you Dopey #8....it ain't the DEFENDANTS job to convene a trial.
If the State wanted to have this trial 2 years ago......we would have had this trial 2 years ago.
Why doesn't the State have any urgency to actually convene this trial? Any number of reasons, and many reasonably debatable. But the idea that a trial won't occur because the DEFENDANTS would rather not?
If it were up to the DEFENDANTS, I have a funny feeling that the number of criminal cases actually convened in this country would drop a bit......down to the number that only Chuck Norris can divide by.
What a GD moron......you boys can't come up with any better strawman diversions than that? Really?
For now:
I know the defendants have filed motions which have prolonged the court cases but it's been four years. Think about that. Four damned years. It hasn't been all the fault of the defendants. The prosecution knows they have a crap case but nobody wants to be known as the person who withdrew or dismissed the charges even if said charges are crap. It's not the responsibility of C/S/S to go to trial in order to expose the truth. All the prosecution needs to do is pull the wool over the eyes of 12 people so why risk it? If I was a defense attorney I'd push to have all charges dismissed with prejudice. That way nothing will be held over the head of my client who can then go public with any information he sees fit.
Remember - Fina and the boys say they have a "slam dunk" case here.
Now....maybe they do, or maybe they don't. If they do, we know sure as shit that there is some OTHER reason that they haven't been interested in taking the case to trial (despite being in "limbo" for a longer period of time than what it took to battle out WW2).
On the other hand, the last "slam dunk" case they prosecuted.....they were actually able to buy a plea to "Conflict of Interest" - with no jail time and no fine. The defendant was DEVESTATED! Thank goodness after all that time, effort, and $$$, they were able to win such a complete victory for the forces of justice.
When these guys say they have a "slam dunk" case - you have to look at their track record to know what they are talking about. It may mean something a bit different from what most folks would expect.
Wait a second here. You must not have noSEPA must have been the last émigré arriving from Dopeville this week.
Mad at the ACCUSED if the case doesn't go to trial?
WTF.....sounds like the Circle-Jerkers are floating some incredibly desperate trial balloons.
In case no one told you Dopey #8....it ain't the DEFENDANTS job to convene a trial.
If the State wanted to have this trial 2 years ago......we would have had this trial 2 years ago.
Why doesn't the State have any urgency to actually convene this trial? Any number of reasons, and many reasonably debatable. But the idea that a trial won't occur because the DEFENDANTS would rather not?
If it were up to the DEFENDANTS, I have a funny feeling that the number of criminal cases actually convened in this country would drop a bit......down to the number that only Chuck Norris can divide by.
What a GD moron......you boys can't come up with any better strawman diversions than that? Really?
For now:
Your the only guy so far that has to turn this post into a demean fest. The reason I posed that question was because we had guys on here who said Corman should have taken his case to trial after the NCAA agreed to his terms. Instead of asking me why I asked that question of the board you automatically decide to defame me. Look I don't like you and you don't like me so do me a favor and at least ask before you jump to a conclusion that is false.SEPA must have been the last émigré arriving from Dopeville this week.
Mad at the ACCUSED if the case doesn't go to trial?
WTF.....sounds like the Circle-Jerkers are floating some incredibly desperate trial balloons.
In case no one told you Dopey #8....it ain't the DEFENDANTS job to convene a trial.
If the State wanted to have this trial 2 years ago......we would have had this trial 2 years ago.
Why doesn't the State have any urgency to actually convene this trial? Any number of reasons, and many reasonably debatable. But the idea that a trial won't occur because the DEFENDANTS would rather not?
If it were up to the DEFENDANTS, I have a funny feeling that the number of criminal cases actually convened in this country would drop a bit......down to the number that only Chuck Norris can divide by.
What a GD moron......you boys can't come up with any better strawman diversions than that? Really?
For now:
Until you have something more than an inane "argument" to post - with the intent of diverting attention away from the obvious culprits (the State and the Prosecutors):
[Sorry....is that another "demean fest"? Shame on me
]
I want justice to be served and as much of the truth to become known as possible. With the limited information currently available, I have no way of knowing the best way to accomplish that, so I will have to rely on people I trust, like the Paternos, and Divine Providence, to achieve those ends. In the end, I believe we will have both truth and justice.
Curley isn't the one who fired Mike and (maybe) breached his contract. Mike's case is not a threat to any of them.
Can the Commonwealth drop the C/S/S case is such a way that they still remain at risk? Could this muzzle them from providing open statements or testimony in Paterno or other suits going forward?
C/S/S lawsuit does not go to trial. It was a ruse by OAG to keep them in check and stop them from testifying in JS trial.
I prefer it goes to trial.
I prefer it goes to trial.
What makes any of you believe that the three of them will do anything other than clam up, if the charges are dropped? You better believe that if those charges go away, you won't hear another whisper from any of them. As Kevin Spacey said in "The Usual Suspects"...."and like THAT, they'll be gone...".
I have no idea why I or anyone would be mad at C/S/S for not pushing for a trial, the whole idea from their point of view is to avoid a trial at all costs. No one can predict with absolute certainty how a trial is going to go, although given the passing of the years, I think it less likely that a jury will render a verdict based on emotion, rather than evaluating the testimony.
I think it's safe to say that 99.99% of PSU alums and fans would like to hear the C/S/S side of the story without any constraints. We might be able to determine some facts and maybe even "the truth". With Joe gone, there will always be a puzzle piece missing, so that's something to think about, even though I think Joe is a very, very small part in this affair.
Spanier has been pretty vocal to date - not sure why anyone would think he would not be even more vocal
If the charges are dropped.
If the charges are dropped.
Yes I agree about avoiding a trial all costs. The reason I asked that was some folks were upset that Corman did not push his suit to trial even though he was being handed the victory by the NCAA. The two cases are apples and oranges apart but I was wondering if there were folks out there who think a trial is needed for some vindication and would they harbor contempt for the administrators lawyers like they did Corman and his lawyers.
There have been over 30 posts to my thread and nobody has reacted like you. I would prefer to have a civil discussion but If you feel the need to continue the feud I am pretty much powerless to stop you.Until you have something more than an inane "argument" to post - with the intent of diverting attention away from the obvious culprits (the State and the Prosecutors):
[Sorry....is that another "demean fest"? Shame on me
I'm pretty sure that they want to clear their names. If Curley and Schultz didn't care about that, they would have taken the deals they were offered to flip on Spanier.
This is key and, even though I am betting that the final ruling on the whole ACP debacle will end this case, supports the notion that they are firm in their innocence.
So basically, even if the prosecution's case totally collapses and never makes it to court, you're going to claim that the prosecution was right all along?
Why am I not surprised.
Innocent till proven guilty applies to C/S/S if the case does not go to court for whatever reason.
Wouldn't disagree with that Doc, but I nevertheless agree with 21Guns in his fervent wish that C/S/S take the stand. If their criminal cases are dismissed, they will presumably be free to talk about the subject, but people will make a distinction between out of court statements and testimony under oath. For their sakes, I hope they don't have to go to trial. However, in the unlikely event they DO go to trial, I will appreciate the opportunity to hear their side of the story given under oath and subject to penalty of perjury.
Spanier's lawsuit against Freeh will shed light on a lot of issues. Moreover, Paterno family lawsuit will do the same. Truth will be discovered sooner or later.
I personally would not clam up at that point. Heck, I'd go prehistoric.
However, I am think that the three of them are peaceful men compared to me.
