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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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
Why not put Snedden on the stand? What's to lose?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.Why not put Snedden on the stand? What's to lose?
Someone was talking about this (this "failure to launch" by the Defense) from the moment the trial started.Why not put Snedden on the stand? What's to lose?
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.Why not put Snedden on the stand? What's to lose?
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 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.
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.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
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.
Why not put Snedden on the stand? What's to lose?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 limitationsAl 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.
I remember @wensilver fuming over something that Ditka did and I didn't think it was closing but you could be right.
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.
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 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.