Full interview with Snedden starts at 19:00
I just want to know WHERE THE HELL HAS THIS GUY BEEN since Freeh torched the place
I just want to know WHERE THE HELL HAS THIS GUY BEEN since Freeh torched the place
Sassano begs Snedden for info that contradicts Freeh/OAG
- Thread starter wensilver
- Start date
For those who don't want to listen to Ziegler, former FBI Special Agent John Snedden stated that, based upon his six month long security clearance investigation for the DHS on Spanier, he was 100% sure that Spanier was innocent of all charges. Snedden was set to testify for Spanier's defense but his team decided against putting any witnesses on the stand.
Ask Atty. Silver and Spanier. Snedden said he wanted to testify. He was trying to reach the defense team as to when, meaning which day. They emailed him 'not today'. He responded 'not today or not at all'. They came back with 'not at all'. I may have used different words than Snedden but that's the gist. Snedden was in NY ready to roll to HBG.
Turns out they had everything to gain.
Someone
was talking about this (this "failure to launch" by the Defense) from the moment the trial started.and Someone
was stating that it could very well (in addition to all the more important damage) also lead to GSpanier being tagged with a convictionMost here - and elsewhere (especially "elsewhere") - said that was baloney, and the "brilliant" Defense team was "making all the right moves"
And the brilliant defense team - in addition to all the other damage they caused - was left with their pants around their ankles and their dicks waving in the breeze.........at the hands of a couple of Night-School Law Grads with WalMart wardrobes.
I can't figure this out either and posted that in the trial thread. Just not sure what he could testify about, but certainly if you have someone of his stature do an investigation and finds nothing, cannot understand why you wouldn't use him.
If you're talking about Snedden, according to him, the Report wasn't his to make public or release. Sassano's request for the Report was not through official channels, but apparently under the table according to Snedden's interview.
If I understood Zig right, Spanier's attorneys at least used SOME of Snedden's Report to correct Schultz on a couple of issues.
Snedden utterly eviscerates Toxine's crappy little "he went to Penn State" comment.
it is beautiful
it is beautiful
Just more crap that doesn't make sense.
There is way too much crap in this whole thing that doesn't make any sense at all. Way too much to merely blame on entropy.
There is way too much crap in this whole thing that doesn't make any sense at all. Way too much to merely blame on entropy.
Spanier and his attorneys got what he/they deserved as far as I am concerned - a very public "GUILTY" verdict. Do I think he was guilty of any cover up, etc.? No, that's not what I mean.
I mean they got exactly what they deserved (a guilty verdict) because of the incredible stupidity and arrogance of them for not putting up any type of defense when the opportunity to do so was dropped right in their laps in the form of the ability to do a thorough beat-down of JR/TSM in a cross examination and the opportunity to provide a very strong character witness in the form of Snedden.
Instead, they took the JS appproach to defense - sit there and refuse to take the stand to proclaim your innocence.
At this time, I couldn't care less about their appeal strategy and whether or not the verdict is ever overturned. Just go away as far as I am concerned - you blew it big time.
Their attorneys couldn't believe he got convicted of anything. There wasn't one piece of information that showed that Spanier was informed of anything other than he was told of horseplay. His two lieutenants made a recommendation based on their research showed "horseplay". Even the prosecution ripped her own witnesses accounts (Curley and Schultz).
What Spanier's attorneys screwed up was underestimating that the jury would feel compelled to find Spanier guilty of something, anything, to placate the powers that be. At the end of the day, their "guilty" verdict defies legal definition.
Al Lord alluded to it: it looks like one or two held out for some kind of punishment (from the jury). It was Friday afternoon after two days....just give the guy a slap on the wrist and everyone goes home. Pure speculation but that's what it smelled like to me.
And...they probably had a plan realizing that IF any conviction ( since he was found guilty of the same thing C/S plead to...EWOC) that they could easily win on appeal especially with EWOC.
I mean...it's not what they were "hoping" for BUT they had to know that there was no way GS would spend any time in jail OR ultimately (after any appeals) be found guilty...
This continues to be a Marathon for them..eventually...slowly...clear Spanier's name while also suing the crap out of Freeh-Clown...
So then they just got their Law Degrees? Hell I'm about as "law" and "court" stupid as you can get but even I know not to depend on what you THINK juries will do.
That still doesn't explain why they didn't even try and put up a defense and counter act some of the accusations of the Prosecution.
If that was their plan it was a really stupid plan.
There's no guarantee he "wins easily on appeal".
I'm starting to think it was arrogance by Spanny and his Lawyers and it backfired.
After the Prosecution completes its case, and before the Defense presents one: could Spanier's lawyers have asked for a directed verdict and avoided a tainted jury?
My guess is that Snedden wouldn't have bee able to testify to much at all, his opinion would have been irrelevant at trial.
In the end, the jury decided that once Spanier was told that a naked man was having horseplay in the shower with a naked boy on a Friday night, he should have just called the police....
In the end, the jury decided that once Spanier was told that a naked man was having horseplay in the shower with a naked boy on a Friday night, he should have just called the police....
Two reasons...a vigorous defense begins to look guilty. Ever hear the line "he doth protest too much." Secondly, I think they thought they won via slam dunk. And a vigorous defense shows their hand in the civil trail.
By guess is that Spanier's attorneys were thunderstruck at the decision...I know i am.
I'm not even talking "vigorous defense" just rebut or refute some of the more egregious testimony or grandstanding comments by Ditka.
and yes I've heard that line countless times but if I'm fighting for my life or credibility in a court room your damn skippy I"m going to protest.
The grandstanding comments by Ditka were in closing arguments, IIRC, after the decision to rest was already made.
I remember @wensilver fuming over something that Ditka did and I didn't think it was closing but you could be right.
Al Lord also mentioned that the AOG offered GS a plea 7 times that equated to what he ended up with, and then the AOG had the gall to grandstand like they got a victory. If GS takes the plea then he can't appeal. Now he can appeal & make it go away due to the statute of limitations
If she did something unethical during trial, the defense can object. But in closing arguments, just about anything goes. She bent the rules, but unless the judge steps in to back her down, she wins. In this case, she won and Spanier's judges didn't do a good enough job refuting it. IMHO, If I was on a jury and the trail attorney throws her very own star witnesses under the bus, I wouldn't even take the time to consider it. I mean, by calling your star witnesses liars, you basically told the jury that there is reasonable doubt! You can't pick and choose to believe what your own witnesses say.
but that's our legal system. i can give you a million examples.
after watching the trials of the officers involved in the Freddy Gray case here in Balto. and seeing whats going on in the MM whisteblower and now this farce I would never choose a jury trial. That being said I'm not sure I'd even want a judge trial in what I'm seeing occurring in PA.
Yikes. I guess I'll just have to remain a law abiding citizen.
after watching the trials of the officers involved in the Freddy Gray case here in Balto. and seeing whats going on in the MM whisteblower and now this farce I would never choose a jury trial. That being said I'm not sure I'd even want a judge trial in what I'm seeing occurring in PA.
Yikes. I guess I'll just have to remain a law abiding citizen.
Yeah...judges are tightly aligned with the DA and prosecuting attorneys. Jury's give WAY too much credibility to the govt authorities. People haven't caught up to the fact that they just want convictions, "fair" and "justice" are just words taught in grade school.
This is why attorney's often tell their clients to settle no matter how solid their case is. No good options.
Could be...thinking of course that the Prosecution's accusations so outrageous did not even warrant a response.
OR...just taking a wild look at the other side...understanding the local poll that was done months ago? on the role the 3 played in this tragic tale...they somehow knew they would NOT get out a complete Not Guilty verdict and thus wanted to not show all of their cards up front?
Just a thought...crazy thought but a thought...
after watching the trials of the officers involved in the Freddy Gray case here in Balto. and seeing whats going on in the MM whisteblower and now this farce I would never choose a jury trial. That being said I'm not sure I'd even want a judge trial in what I'm seeing occurring in PA.
Yikes. I guess I'll just have to remain a law abiding citizen.
I'd remind you that, even if you don't like the guy, both MM and Paterno were "law abiding citizens" as far as we know today. Sometimes you are just put in a bad situation.
I've got an acquaintance that got into a fight with his GF so he left (with his 10 year old daughter) to let everyone calm down (so far so good). Unbenounced to him, a neighbor in his apartment complex hear the fight and called the cops. A cop pulls up as he's walking down the street and starts to question him. Everything is cool, even tone, no yelling, no accusations. when the cop realizes that he stopped the correct guy, he gets very physical without reason (all caught on video). The cop doesn't know that my acquaintance's father is a cop as well so he knows his rights. The cop starts yelling, calling him names, and threatening to tase him. My acquaintance is trying to keep from getting arrested in front of his ten year old daughter and says this repeatedly and asks the cop to calm down and he will be happy to be cuffed and taken away. Cop pulls him from in front of the camera and my acquaintance says he wants to stay in front of the camera. Cop says that is the very reason why he is pulling him away. My friend says that it is OK because it is being audio recorded. Cop says "well, things things are foolproof and often don't work" as he shows my fiend how he can easily unplug the microphone. All of this is caught on tape.
The prosecutor charged him with five counts (some felonies, some misdemeanors). They drop them to a single misdemeanor when they are told the guy is filing against the city for harassment, brutality and false arrest. In negotiations, my friend learns that the city is bringing every force to bear, including dragging it out for five years, to make him plead to a M with no jail time or fine...because this would kill his civil suit. Net net, they are going to make him pay tens of thousands of dollars and spend tens out thousands of (soft) dollars so that they can escape a politically and financially damaging civil suit. This is a cut and dried case were a cop admits to threatening and harrassing on the tape itself.
Similar threads
