WHAT is MSU Hiding ?

**Meddle** · December-22-21, 09:20 PM

And why are the courts being complicit?

Judge Scolds Prosecutors Trying Again to Charge Ex-MSU President in Nassar-Related Case

The Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed an earlier decision dismissing a case against former MSU President Lou Anna Simon due to insufficient evidence.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-scold...d-case-1662441

**JBMcB** · December-23-21, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

The Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed an earlier decision dismissing a case against former MSU President Lou Anna Simon due to insufficient evidence.

A charge of "lying to the police" is usually the charge of last resort when prosecutors *really* want to go after someone but have nothing of substance. You grill someone for hours and hours, then try to find an inconsistency in their testimony. *Any* inconsistency. You say you called someone in the first week of March four years ago when phone records show it was really the second week. That's a lie, and they'll prosecute you for it. Or they ask you a question in an interview once, then once again six months later. If you give a different answer, even slightly different, you get charged.

Usually these charges get piled on with other felony charges to try to force a plea deal, but when it's the *only* thing the prosecutor has to charge someone with, most likely they have nothing. If a judge is throwing the case out and yelling at prosecutors, they *definitely* have nothing.

**stinkytofu** · December-23-21, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

And why are the courts being complicit?

Judge Scolds Prosecutors Trying Again to Charge Ex-MSU President in Nassar-Related Case

The Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed an earlier decision dismissing a case against former MSU President Lou Anna Simon due to insufficient evidence.

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-scold...d-case-1662441

What are weird takeaway from that article.

If anything, it just shows there wasn't a big conspiracy at all at MSU given the President didn't cover anything up.

**13606Cedargrove** · December-23-21, 02:20 PM

JBMcB: This explanation makes a good case for having legal counsel present when questioning. If you are headed for an interview room - ask for a lawyer and keep quiet. Guilty or not guilty, what you say can be used against you - even if you make a mistake.

Originally Posted by JBMcB

A charge of "lying to the police" is usually the charge of last resort when prosecutors *really* want to go after someone but have nothing of substance. You grill someone for hours and hours, then try to find an inconsistency in their testimony. *Any* inconsistency. You say you called someone in the first week of March four years ago when phone records show it was really the second week. That's a lie, and they'll prosecute you for it. Or they ask you a question in an interview once, then once again six months later. If you give a different answer, even slightly different, you get charged.

Usually these charges get piled on with other felony charges to try to force a plea deal, but when it's the *only* thing the prosecutor has to charge someone with, most likely they have nothing. If a judge is throwing the case out and yelling at prosecutors, they *definitely* have nothing.

**Meddle** · December-23-21, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by stinkytofu

What are weird takeaway from that article.

It isn't just this article. They've been actively shunting inquiries since it happened.

**stinkytofu** · December-23-21, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

It isn't just this article. They've been actively shunting inquiries since it happened.

The article you posted explicitly countered your headline insinuation.

Apparently you now think this highly respected judge is also part of the cover up conspiracy.

**stinkytofu** · December-23-21, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

A charge of "lying to the police" is usually the charge of last resort when prosecutors *really* want to go after someone but have nothing of substance. You grill someone for hours and hours, then try to find an inconsistency in their testimony. *Any* inconsistency. You say you called someone in the first week of March four years ago when phone records show it was really the second week. That's a lie, and they'll prosecute you for it. Or they ask you a question in an interview once, then once again six months later. If you give a different answer, even slightly different, you get charged.

Usually these charges get piled on with other felony charges to try to force a plea deal, but when it's the *only* thing the prosecutor has to charge someone with, most likely they have nothing. If a judge is throwing the case out and yelling at prosecutors, they *definitely* have nothing.

+1

**Richard** · December-23-21, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by 13606Cedargrove

JBMcB: This explanation makes a good case for having legal counsel present when questioning. If you are headed for an interview room - ask for a lawyer and keep quiet. Guilty or not guilty, what you say can be used against you - even if you make a mistake.

Solid advice.

I have stood in front of a judge before and his exact words were

I am tired of people pleading not guilty,the prosecutors are here to make a deal,either make a deal with them or go to jail.

Thats why people talk though,they think if they do it will keep them out of jail,a short time in jail is better then a long time of jail that can happen when those looking to put you there like to rack up points in order to further their career goals.