Now It Begins - 1st Assault on the Attorney General in the "PSU" Case

than a Calculus professor who has written his own book?

Had a similar experience, where the Calc prof was terrible. Didn’t learn much from his lessons so at night a couple of us got together, used the book, and completed the assignments. After getting the right answers and him marking our HW wrong, we asked what was wrong with it. His reply, “the author of this book has his own ideas and I have mine. Since we are in MY class, we will use MY methods.”

I’ve never been so close to assaulting somebody in my life.

printed on the circuit board of some electronics item I took apart one time. Engineers are weird man.

there’s not a molar in my mouth that hasn’t been rooted, drilled, filled or capped.

I feel better now. Since I don’t have a degree and all.

“innocent until proven guilty” just a tad longer, shall we?

It’s good to read that these are “assumptions”, but let’s not go all MSM until more of the facts are developed.

expire for employees in PA State Government on their last payday in June because new budget years start on July 1st and the trend under Ridge, Rendell and Corbett has been to reduce retirement benefits in some fashion with each new budget year as employees are expected to pitch-in anew to help balance the new budget. By taking an “early out” a State employee’s previously promised retirement benefits are locked in. I remember when Sandusky retired it was under this situation because I lost one of my staff in that retirement window. I also retired early from PA State Government in another window in June of 2004 in order to lock in my retirement benefits that were promised my whole career. Depending on the severity of the “broken promise” there have been 4,000 to 6,000 State workers that have retired in June in some of the past tight budget years (so many that the system is overwhelmed.)

Sorry for the rant, but I have seen comments that have suggested Sandusky retired for sinister reasons and there really is a more reasonable reason that applies to easily more than 10,000 other State employees under the past three Governors. And yes, PSU employees are covered under PA’s State employee retirement system.

I’m not sure that the value of Fb outweighs the ridiculousness that it inspires.

who lied?

Well it’s Curley and Schultz vs McQueary with no possibility of corroboration.
Even if JoPa told them the boy was brutalized it doesn’t change what they say they heard from McQueary

McQueary asserts that he was emphatic about some kind of intercourse and here the prosecutor asks and Curley is emphatic that he heard nothing of that sort. It’s clear the prosecution used that terminology in the presentment and they feel that Curley and Schultz were told about a specific type of assault.
I think we all know that Mike has been all over the place in his depictions of what he observed in two 1 or 2 second glances after hearing 2 or 3 slapping sounds.

Curley states at the beginning he has no clear recollection of what specifically was said but in trying to get to a solution to the problem I believe he offered his best explanation of his thought process leading up to 1) Informing Spanier
2) Informing Sandusky of the decision that he would not be allowed to put them in this position again
and in my mind most importantly
3) Turning it over to Jack Raykovitz and The Second Mile because Jerry was their employee or consultant. Second Mile was the place where the kids were the responsiblity and Second Mile had the relationship and expertise to deal with this problem

Curley did not believe Mike’s observations constituted evidence of criminal activity. He believed it was inappropriate social activity not suitable for Penn State and he wanted Raykovitz and Second Mile to deal with it.

I think that is perfectly acceptable under the circumstances. It’s a pro active reasonable response.
And as far as perjury goes Curley could have said “I do not recall” but he tried to back his way through his actions to the reasoning behind them without having a specific recall of the words used by McQueary but he knew for certain he did not hear what the prosecutors put in the presentment.

This is not a viable perjury case and our hindsight may lead us to wish Tim and Gary had done it differently but given the same set of circumstances I believe I would have assessed Mike’s rather crazy statements about a 45 second locker room visit and two glances and I would have gone to Raykovitz because it truly was his problem.

“Aw crap, do we really need to give the defense specifics? Why can’t these guys just shut up and go away, they’re totally screwing up our case.”

But I think it gets you to trial. If written entire briefs, that could be summarized with “I didn’t say it was strong evidence”.

CAN NOT be established by uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, unless they are inconsistent statements under oath.

Ergo, MM alone cant say they are lying. someone else has to know they are lying and say they know MM said it to them that way, or its uncorroborated and the case is dismissed.

But my personal opinion, and the opinion I’d have if I were a Judge, would be to let the jury decide.

I mean, come on. He told his dad, JVP and the Grand Jury that he saw “something of a sexual nature” but tells Curley & Schultz “horsing around”. That doesn’t make any sense, and we’re not required to abandon all common sense to the rules of admissibility.

I don’t believe Curley and Schultz, and and one of the reasons is Joe Paterno’s testimony. I can’t see dismissing the case on a sufficiency/weight of evidence charge. But if goes the other way I’d certainly understand why it did.

Also note the incremental, sedate move from “problem” to “pathology.”

It was a JOKE. Hence the “Seriously”, right after it.

And, jesse.? Talk about an intellectually dishonest arguing style – this, and the shit OctaShields pulls, and for good nature, everybody who thinks I’m a troll?

yeah. Much worse than just being aggressive.