Curley takes the stand
- Thread starter mvc81
- Start date
Judge says "raise your right hand...put your left hand on the bible...TAKE OFF YOUR HAT... put your left hand on the bible...raise your right hand...TAKE OFF YOUR HAT...
Sorry but that 3 stooges skit was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read "Curley takes the stand".
Coach is anxious!
Comments section is interesting. The PITTsburgh newspapers always close the comment section but all others open them up. There is a surprising amount of people who see thru the shenanigans these 4 people went thru to cover up Sandusky's crimes.
Comments section is interesting. The PITTsburgh newspapers always close the comment section but all others open them up. There is a surprising amount of people who see thru the shenanigans these 4 people went thru to cover up Sandusky's crimes.
Last edited:
Good stuff.
If I'm defending Spanier, I'm hammering on two fronts on cross. 1. Have Curley reaffirm again and again that he never communicated directly with Spanier and 2. He's a prosecution snitch who has a deal and so he'll testify that the moon is made of cheese to save his own ass.
If I'm defending Spanier, I'm hammering on two fronts on cross. 1. Have Curley reaffirm again and again that he never communicated directly with Spanier and 2. He's a prosecution snitch who has a deal and so he'll testify that the moon is made of cheese to save his own ass.
The best thing with the PennLive articles are the comments. I encourage all to be entertained into the insanity known as WE ARE
I'm really surprised that most comments over the past 3 days have ripped into how Penn State handled this versus supporting them since Harrisburg is knee deep in Penn State country.
Yes. That is proper protocol. You only discuss things like this with the head cheese, which was Joe. Underlings get the second hand Email.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/0...rget2box_default_#incart_target2box_targeted_
The worm has turned .
The worm has turned .
That's all the defense has to bury in the minds of the jurors. Reasonable doubt. Case closed.
What in the hell would McQuery have to gain by bringing any of this up in the first place then? What in the hell would Curley have to gain by obfuscating things now? That would be the entire basis of who I was going to believe.
Curley is not on trial. He's a prosecution witness that plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and did WONDERS for the defense ON THE WITNESS STAND.
WOW. But can't they go back to testimony by the Grand Jury. Under oath, Joe testified that McQueary told him that he saw something of "a sexual nature". And all of that. What Curley just testified flies completely in the face of that.
Obviously there is lying. But you have JoePa's testimony to the GJ, wouldn't that be supportive to McQueary's testimony over what Curley just lied I mean testified to.
WOW. Come on prosecutors do your job and connect the dots.
"The only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it,"
Graham Spanier
Graham Spanier
It is plain as day... but he will get off. It has already been arranged, which is why we got the first two pleading guilty. They are now safe and Spanier can claim they never told him it was sexual. Game. Set. Match.
Last edited:
That's the dynamic of trials. As much as you prep a witness, you just never know.
I have no idea what the prosecution has in their bag, but somehow you have to bolster McQuery and destroy Curley through impeachment. Not fun if you're the prosecution. I'm sure Prosecutor didn't want to start out like this
Sadly, this could be true. You don't make a plea deal and then have your witness do this crap. I hope there was a contingency.
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA VS
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!! THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!
No conspiracy. Just the nature of trials. Expect the unexpected because surely it will happen. What the "unexpected" will be, you just can't predict.
Curly did testify that Paterno knew of the earlier allegations which directly contradicts Paterno:s grand jury testimony.
But it is right there. Right there. Either Joe Paterno was whacked and/or lying, or Curley is lying on the stand. Because one completely betrays the other statement. Both given under oath, depicting completely two different stories.
Or...as I thought (and I am sure you and many others) this trial is a charade and just a matter of completing the task and moving on, putting it behind everyone as a memory. And that is what I think exactly is and will happen.
But again...connecting the dots. Joe said "it was something sexual in nature". Which means......then Joe never informed them or they are lying. I think the one thing that is obvious, the only person not lying is McQueary.
Not saying not "possible", but in 26 years of doing trials, I've never seen a trial lawyer take a dive. Just not in our DNA. We'll go down like the knight on the bridge in Monty Python in search of the holy grail, before letting off the gas. It's an ego thing if nothing else. Just doesn't happen.
Remember, one of the original charges against Curley was Perjury in the grand jury presentment. SO he's no stranger to lying under oath.
Unfortunately that charge, and any mention of it in this proceeding, went out the window when PedState counsel was allowed to represent both the University and the individual defendants before the grand jury.
The State AG office has been Keystone Kops since the very beginning of this fiasco of a prosecution.
Marky Mark may be right, the fix may be in here!
How can the state put this guy on the stand if they know this is his testimony, and still want a guilty verdict?
Cardinal rule in trial lawyering, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to!
Unfortunately that charge, and any mention of it in this proceeding, went out the window when PedState counsel was allowed to represent both the University and the individual defendants before the grand jury.
The State AG office has been Keystone Kops since the very beginning of this fiasco of a prosecution.
Marky Mark may be right, the fix may be in here!
How can the state put this guy on the stand if they know this is his testimony, and still want a guilty verdict?
Cardinal rule in trial lawyering, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to!
And it seemed that the defense trial lawyer knew all the answers Curley would give.
Geez I got my hopes up I thought the thread said Curly Gets The Chair?
He lucked out again!
I'll stay optimistic and tuned in it still might happen!
He lucked out again!
I'll stay optimistic and tuned in it still might happen!
Last edited:
I believe Spanier had several meetings about Sandusky with lawyers in the room. I'd hammer this home for as long as the judge would allow.
With Curley on the stand, I get him to confirm the math on the thousands of student-athletes and hundreds of coaches under his supervisor; resulting in hundreds of infractions that he needed to report on, including ones by coaches. And that the Sandusky case was the only one, or one of a tiny handful, that the president was made aware of... and he had multiple meetings over...with lawyers asking questions, and offering advice.
Why did Spanier discuss this with lawyers if he thought nothing illegal went down? Why the email from him regarding the change in plan away from calling police and child welfare services, where he talks about the risk of 'failure to report'? There is no legal requirement to report towel snapping or similar 'horsesplay'.
You don't need a smoking gun here, you just need to make his Sargent Schultz routine look ridiculous.
With Curley on the stand, I get him to confirm the math on the thousands of student-athletes and hundreds of coaches under his supervisor; resulting in hundreds of infractions that he needed to report on, including ones by coaches. And that the Sandusky case was the only one, or one of a tiny handful, that the president was made aware of... and he had multiple meetings over...with lawyers asking questions, and offering advice.
Why did Spanier discuss this with lawyers if he thought nothing illegal went down? Why the email from him regarding the change in plan away from calling police and child welfare services, where he talks about the risk of 'failure to report'? There is no legal requirement to report towel snapping or similar 'horsesplay'.
You don't need a smoking gun here, you just need to make his Sargent Schultz routine look ridiculous.
Good afternoon for the prosecution after stumbling with Curley earlier.
I will say, this whole "reporter" liability thing is troubling to me.
I will say, this whole "reporter" liability thing is troubling to me.
Both curley and schultz are on record saying paterno knew about the 98 incident. So we know JOE KNEW, but anyone with a brain already knew JOE KNEW! If he lied about the 98 incident its likely he knew before that. There is evidence they knew long before 98.
Schultz testimony more forthcoming.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/spanier_said_everything_was_ha.html
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/spanier_said_everything_was_ha.html
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tune in tomorrow (Thursday) morning for a big site announcement!
- Latest: KennyHeisman8
-
Womens team will be one and done today..how long do we- Latest: LeftCoastPanther