Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.

[LaJolla Lion]

Knew what exactly? Be specific!

Knew Jerry was investigated! You knew the answer to that,,,don't play a f--king idiot with me!!!

“After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell them about the information we received and tell them we are aware of the first situation.”

 

[Lion8286]

Knew Jerry was investigated! You knew the answer to that,,,don't play a f--king idiot with me.

Yeah, it's LaJolla's job to play the f--king idiot!!

 

[PSU Dave]

Paterno certainly had more prestige than McQueary. Paterno was more secure in his position and would be more likely to get the AD and the vice president to respond quickly.

It terms of their legal duties, they both complied.



However, the witness's duty was to either call Childline/911 or report it to his supervisor; either was a legitimate course. McQueary did that, and so did Paterno.



Apparently none.

Is it "none" or "apparently none". HUGE difference.

 

[towny87.1]

Knew what exactly? Be specific!

It will be interesting next week when even your own buddy Tim contradicts all of the nonsense you have been posting about the emails over the past 4 years.

After giving their revised statements to investigators and admitting before the judge they blocked the 2001 incident from being reported. Once they take the stand the question will be do they put it on graham or joe for telling them not to report it.

 

[L.T. Young]

They were. It's called prosecutorial misconduct.

MM and Joe Paterno's GJ testimony say otherwise.

You keep pretending Curley and Schultz are victims of a vast conspiracy.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yeah, it's LaJolla's job to play the f--king idiot!!

Just go Bob's route...don't like what you hear...stick your finger in your ears and ignore it. I guess it's better to play one than actually go through life as one. I sense a ton of confusion on your part like WTF just happened and is going on. I get it...don't be mad at me for it though.

 

[Lion8286]

It will be interesting next week when even your own buddy Tim contradicts all of the nonsense you have been posting about the emails over the past 4 years.

After giving their revised statements to investigators and admitting before the judge they blocked the 2001 incident from being reported. Once they take the stand the question will be do they put it on graham or joe for telling them not to report it.

You don't know the answer to that towny?? I thought you had ALL the answers?? lol

 

[francofan]

It will be interesting next week when even your own buddy Tim contradicts all of the nonsense you have been posting about the emails over the past 4 years.

After giving their revised statements to investigators and admitting before the judge they blocked the 2001 incident from being reported. Once they take the stand the question will be do they put it on graham or joe for telling them not to report it.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. If you think that Tim and/or Gary are going to throw Spanier under the bus, I think you will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Nitt1300]

So many opinions, so little information...

 

[towny87.1]

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. If you think that Tim and/or Gary are going to throw Spanier under the bus, I think you will be sorely dissappointed.

only you can't see that they already have...................

 

[Lion8286]

Just go Bob's route...don't like what you hear...stick your finger in your ears and ignore it. I guess it's better to play one than actually go through life as one. I sense a ton of confusion on your part like WTF just happened and is going on. I get it...don't be mad at me for it though.

Good one LaJolla!! I suppose you know exactly how this will play out?? No, you don't. Who's kidding who, right??

 

[Bayou Lion]

Look it up it's called testimony.

It will be interesting next week when even your own buddy Tim contradicts all of the nonsense you have been posting about the emails over the past 4 years.

After giving their revised statements to investigators and admitting before the judge they blocked the 2001 incident from being reported. Once they take the stand the question will be do they put it on graham or joe for telling them not to report it.

That's if they take the stand. As a part of GS's top secret security clearance there's a very good chance C & S got interviewed about this incident. Changing their story now may mean they committed perjury in a federal investigation. Good luck with that one if true.

 

[francofan]

only you can't see that they already have...................

Please do enlighten me. The OAG gave Curley and Schultz a plea bargin agreement that dismisses the felony charges and only keeps a misdemeanor charge while Curley and Schultz avoid jail time and keep their pension. It remains to be seen if they will have to testify, but I seriously doubt they are going to be central to the prosecution case against Spanier. Again, let's see how it plays out.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Good one LaJolla!! I suppose you know exactly how this will play out?? No, you don't. Who's kidding who, right??

No I don't know how it will play out, but apparently my opinions on what I think may happen with them testifying (if a trial occurs) bothers a few people here. It's not a huge leap to make after they took a deal. Usually with deals, there are two sides to it. We'll drop these charges if you do X. Maybe the state just took the deal and said...see ya later..thanks. But they may also be using them to put heat on GS. It's entirely possible. It's not written in stone though...it's just a thought process.

 

[PSU2UNC]

MM and Joe Paterno's GJ testimony say otherwise.

You keep pretending Curley and Schultz are victims of a vast conspiracy.

Two things:

1) You don't understand what perjury if you think that MM and JVP's GJ testimony means that C/S/S perjured themselves.

2) It's not a vast conspiracy. The OAG trumped up charges to keep C/S/S from testifying in the Sandusky trial. That's a pretty specific (not vast) conspiracy.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I wonder when and what charges they would have pled guilty to if they hadn't been spending Penn State's money on their defense?

 

[Lion8286]

No I don't know how it will play out, but apparently my opinions on what I think may happen with them testifying (if a trial occurs) bothers a few people here. It's not a huge leap to make after they took a deal. Usually with deals, there are two sides to it. We'll drop these charges if you do X. Maybe the state just took the deal and said...see ya later..thanks. But they may also be using them to put heat on GS. It's entirely possible. It's not written in stone though...it's just a thought process.

Couldn't the deal have also been about the prosecution wanting "something" to show after 5 years?? Maybe the prosecution realized that their case was not near a slam dunk to get a conviction, while at the same time C/S didn't want to take even a slight chance at jail time? That this plea deal was a compromise, with no promise to testify?

Am not sure how much C/S testifying, and potentially having to contradict their earlier sworn testimony, would help the prosecution. I think the defense might have a field day with that.

 

[Stufftodo]

This is a straw man argument. No one's claimed that reporting to his supervisor wasn't one of MM's legal options.

It's your ridiculous assertion that he and Paterno are somehow indistinguishably equal parties that's being challenged.

As I have indicated, I speak of legal duty. Both Paterno and McQueary clearly carried out their legal duties, and carried them out timely.

You want to create some sort double standard, not based on anything except your own opinion. There are people out there that, doing the same thing draw the same conclusion about Paterno. And you complain about that.

You complained about Noonan's "moral duty" comment. So do I. He should have been concerned with legal duties.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Couldn't the deal have also been about the prosecution wanting "something" to show after 5 years?? Maybe the prosecution realized that their case was not near a slam dunk to get a conviction, while at the same time C/S didn't want to take even a slight chance at jail time? That this plea deal was a compromise, with no promise to testify?

Am not sure how much C/S testifying, and potentially having to contradict their earlier sworn testimony, would help the prosecution. I think the defense might have a field day with that.

How is the defense going to explain the emails between them in addition to their testimony. It's quite possible the state just did this to save face, but I think that is some very wishful thinking right now.

 

[L.T. Young]

Two things:

1) You don't understand what perjury if you think that MM and JVP's GJ testimony means that C/S/S perjured themselves.

2) It's not a vast conspiracy. The OAG trumped up charges to keep C/S/S from testifying in the Sandusky trial. That's a pretty specific (not vast) conspiracy.

So MM said he reported something sexual. Joe Paterno confirmed he reported something sexual. C/S claim nothing sexual was ever reported.

That points to C/S lying under oath. Now there are emails and hand written notes too.

Keep pretending it's all a bad dream.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

23 pages dedicated to two men that are no longer associated with Penn State, and will forever be linked to a child molester.
Not. Worth. It.

Slow walk is an understatement.
They brought it to a crawl.

Why are you participating in this discussion after making your opinion known that it is not worth it?

 

[Ceasar]

Couldn't the deal have also been about the prosecution wanting "something" to show after 5 years?? Maybe the prosecution realized that their case was not near a slam dunk to get a conviction, while at the same time C/S didn't want to take even a slight chance at jail time? That this plea deal was a compromise, with no promise to testify?

Am not sure how much C/S testifying, and potentially having to contradict their earlier sworn testimony, would help the prosecution. I think the defense might have a field day with that.

Let me say something really naïve about "the deal". Maybe the new AG took an objective look at the case and concluded Curley and Shultz were guilty of EWOC and nothing more. So he offered them the opportunity to plead to that charge alone. And maybe Curley and Shultz always intended to take responsibility for that and this was the first time they were given that opportunity. IMO that is plausible. And if that is the case perhaps Spanier has been offered the same deal but is not willing to plead, at least not right now.
I'm not sure how much value there is in testimony from Curley and Shultz. In theory there is nothing more damning that that necessary to gain a conviction for EWOC (otherwise why offer the plea if they have evidence against the others). I think we know from the e-mails Curley and Shultz were the lead guys on this and Spanier was being filled in as "the plan" developed. The damning evidence against Spanier, IMO, is his own e-mail in which he wrote that the down side of not reporting is if there is another incident it will look bad for PSU. Certainly he will explain what he meant by that but it will be used to argue a narrative that he was more concerned about PR.

 

[WeR0206]

Couldn't the deal have also been about the prosecution wanting "something" to show after 5 years?? Maybe the prosecution realized that their case was not near a slam dunk to get a conviction, while at the same time C/S didn't want to take even a slight chance at jail time? That this plea deal was a compromise, with no promise to testify?

Am not sure how much C/S testifying, and potentially having to contradict their earlier sworn testimony, would help the prosecution. I think the defense might have a field day with that.

Not only did they give prior testimony in GJ's and prelims, etc. but C/S gave statements on the record to the FIC investigator. If they did try to testify against Spanier (as opposed to just repeating what they've been saying) then they will be pretty easy to impeach. See baldwin for similar scenario (had nothing bad to say about Spanier to the FIC guy then a few months later and proffer letter in hand she suddenly does a 180 for the state).

I think the FIC report (something TC and Schultz don't have) is what's giving Spanier the extra confidence to call the states bluff. Well see.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Guess you weren't around when the OAG was caught retroactively changing the dates of victim 9's abuse to give the appearance that it stopped before Corbett's investigation began. Par for the course with these guys.

 

[PSU2UNC]

So MM said he reported something sexual. Joe Paterno confirmed he reported something sexual. C/S claim nothing sexual was ever reported.

That points to C/S lying under oath. Now there are emails and hand written notes too.

Keep pretending it's all a bad dream.

Paterno's testimony is vague, was never cross examined and we've never even seen the transcript, we've only seen a transcript of someone reading it into evidence at another proceeding.

MM has had multiple testimonies that were of very different levels of specificity/certainty. I would believe the C/S/S testimonies over his, especially considering it is multiple testimonies against one person.

Setting that aside for a second, even if there are two conflicting sets of testimonies that does not necessarily mean one party is lying, and definitely doesn't mean one is perjury. Please take a second to google the required elements for a perjury conviction, because I don't think you understand those.

 

[Lion8286]

How is the defense going to explain the emails between them in addition to their testimony. It's quite possible the state just did this to save face, but I think that is some very wishful thinking right now.

Am not sure what e-mails you are referring to. Are these "new" e-mails or the ones from the Freeh report?

 

[L.T. Young]

Paterno's testimony is vague, was never cross examined and we've never even seen the transcript, we've only seen a transcript of someone reading it into evidence at another proceeding.

MM has had multiple testimonies that were of very different levels of specificity/certainty. I would believe the C/S/S testimonies over his, especially considering it is multiple testimonies against one person.

Setting that aside for a second, even if there are two conflicting sets of testimonies that does not necessarily mean one party is lying, and definitely doesn't mean one is perjury. Please take a second to google the required elements for a perjury conviction, because I don't think you understand those.

I hear you on perjury. That said.....

The idea that Paterno's testimony was altered or read into the record improperly is ludicrous. This is where the vast conspiracy comes in.

Believe what you like. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Am not sure what e-mails you are referring to. Are these "new" e-mails or the ones from the Freeh report?

Read my other posts where I quoted the one email from Tim. It was in response to indy and not hard to find anywhere.

 

[coveydidnt]

Not only did they give prior testimony in GJ's and prelims, etc. but C/S gave statements on the record to the FIC investigator. If they did try to testify against Spanier (as opposed to just repeating what they've been saying) then they will be pretty easy to impeach. See baldwin for similar scenario (had nothing bad to say about Spanier to the FIC guy then a few months later and proffer letter in hand she suddenly does a 180 for the state).

I think the FIC report (something TC and Schultz don't have) is what's giving Spanier the extra confidence to call the states bluff. Well see.

It would be inexplicable if TC & Shultz did not testify. They cannot take the 5th since they have made their pleas.

 

[Cletus11]

Let me say something really naïve about "the deal". Maybe the new AG took an objective look at the case and concluded Curley and Shultz were guilty of EWOC and nothing more. So he offered them the opportunity to plead to that charge alone. And maybe Curley and Shultz always intended to take responsibility for that and this was the first time they were given that opportunity. IMO that is plausible. And if that is the case perhaps Spanier has been offered the same deal but is not willing to plead, at least not right now.
I'm not sure how much value there is in testimony from Curley and Shultz. In theory there is nothing more damning that that necessary to gain a conviction for EWOC (otherwise why offer the plea if they have evidence against the others). I think we know from the e-mails Curley and Shultz were the lead guys on this and Spanier was being filled in as "the plan" developed. The damning evidence against Spanier, IMO, is his own e-mail in which he wrote that the down side of not reporting is if there is another incident it will look bad for PSU. Certainly he will explain what he meant by that but it will be used to argue a narrative that he was more concerned about PR.

I think you are about right. The prosecution has drug this on forever as everybody knew there was not much of a case but politically they could not drop all the charges. SO the new DA comes in and wants to get rid of this mess. He offers up a good deal to C/S for misdemeanor only and the judge agrees in chambers he will go light on the sentencing to include no jail time. C/S take the deal as going to a jury trial on felony charges, no matter how slim of chance of guilty, is a huge thing. So pleading to misdemeanor gets this whole thing behind them. Prosecution has to safe face a little by saying C/S will testify at Spanier trial. Considering C/S have testified already, doubtful anything new comes out.

 

[Roxine]

Am not sure what e-mails you are referring to. Are these "new" e-mails or the ones from the Freeh report?

It is my belief that there are additional emails that may be brought to light in Spanier's case (if it goes to trial - my gut feeling is he will also accept a plea):

I'm trying to find, but can't seem to locate, the transcript of a court proceeding where an IT expert spoke about discovering pre-2000 emails on a remote server and recovering PSU emails related to this matter. He was a forensic IT guy - and his name is just escaping me...These were turned over to the OAG. If anyone can remember which court case, I would appreciate your help in finding the transcript (there have been so many!) I will keep looking.

I did find the two following interesting items:

From a 2014 article: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-penn-state-spanier-email-request-20140910-story.html

"An attorney for ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier asked a judge Wednesday to order prosecutors to turn over internal emails previously thought destroyed but recovered for a review of the Jerry Sandusky investigation."

"It strains credulity that there would be only three email exchanges within the 20 million recovered emails that were responsive to the defendants' numerous discovery requests," she wrote.

And, new information from the latest filing in the Spanier v. Penn State case filed this week: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...AND NEW MATTER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.pdf

"Penn State admits that, on November 14, 2012, it sent individuals from its IT Department to Dr. Spanier's home to retrieve the desktop computer, laptop, iPad, and associated electronics it previously had provided to Dr. Spanier, admits that it terminated Dr. Spanier's access to the University's computer network, and that it directed IT support personnel not to contact Dr. Spanier."

 

[Royal_Coaster]

It's was modeled on Big Brother, which still has 1 on 1 access, by definition. There are also friend fitness 1on1s all over the state & country.

In other words, lots of guys just like Jerry are taking showers with young boys under the guise of a program funded by state governments and tons of donations from people. . And you're OK with it. Noted.

 

[mn78psu83]

It is my belief that there are additional emails that may be brought to light in Spanier's case (if it goes to trial - my gut feeling is he will also accept a plea):

I'm trying to find, but can't seem to locate, the transcript of a court proceeding where an IT expert spoke about discovering pre-2000 emails on a remote server and recovering PSU emails related to this matter. He was a forensic IT guy - and his name is just escaping me...These were turned over to the OAG. If anyone can remember which court case, I would appreciate your help in finding the transcript (there have been so many!) I will keep looking.

I did find the two following interesting items:

From a 2014 article: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-penn-state-spanier-email-request-20140910-story.html

"An attorney for ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier asked a judge Wednesday to order prosecutors to turn over internal emails previously thought destroyed but recovered for a review of the Jerry Sandusky investigation."

"It strains credulity that there would be only three email exchanges within the 20 million recovered emails that were responsive to the defendants' numerous discovery requests," she wrote.

And, new information from the latest filing in the Spanier v. Penn State case filed this week: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/GRAHAM SPANIER VS PENN STATE ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.pdf

"Penn State admits that, on November 14, 2012, it sent individuals from its IT Department to Dr. Spanier's home to retrieve the desktop computer, laptop, iPad, and associated electronics it previously had provided to Dr. Spanier, admits that it terminated Dr. Spanier's access to the University's computer network, and that it directed IT support personnel not to contact Dr. Spanier."

Braden Cook - LINK - (article, not the transcript)

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. If you think that Tim and/or Gary are going to throw Spanier under the bus, I think you will be sorely disappointed.

You're right, they're to busy helping get Jerry out of jail after they were exonerated.

 

[kgilbert78]

I hear you on perjury. That said.....

The idea that Paterno's testimony was altered or read into the record improperly is ludicrous. This is where the vast conspiracy comes in.

Believe what you like. We'll find out soon enough.

How do you transcribe the sentence "Let's eat Grandma"? Where you put a comma makes a big difference--especially to Grandma. A reading of a transcription can lose things like inflection and tone which could make a big difference in interpretation. The second grand jury didn't get to hear that. No conspiracy here.

As you note however, we'll find out soon enough.

Maybe.

This case has taken so many turns that if we suddenly found out that the entrance to the Land of Oz was under Beaver Stadium, I'd not be too surprised.

 

[mn78psu83]

How do you transcribe the sentence "Let's eat Grandma"? Where you put a comma makes a big difference--especially to Grandma. A reading of a transcription can lose things like inflection and tone which could make a big difference in interpretation. The second grand jury didn't get to hear that. No conspiracy here.

As you note however, we'll find out soon enough.

Maybe.

This case has taken so many turns that if we suddenly found out that the entrance to the Land of Oz was under Beaver Stadium, I'd not be too surprised.

So until Monday ...

 

[psudukie]

78... I think that is the mental outlook. Let's see what happens next, what facts are presented and what the implications are.

Clearly of things that have come up in five years this is a big event but not all the information on the event are known yet.

Don't mean to use toms phrase again but it's appropriate. Some will likely ok better some will look worse.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

It is my belief that there are additional emails that may be brought to light in Spanier's case (if it goes to trial - my gut feeling is he will also accept a plea):

I'm trying to find, but can't seem to locate, the transcript of a court proceeding where an IT expert spoke about discovering pre-2000 emails on a remote server and recovering PSU emails related to this matter. He was a forensic IT guy - and his name is just escaping me...These were turned over to the OAG. If anyone can remember which court case, I would appreciate your help in finding the transcript (there have been so many!) I will keep looking.

I did find the two following interesting items:

From a 2014 article: http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-penn-state-spanier-email-request-20140910-story.html

"An attorney for ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier asked a judge Wednesday to order prosecutors to turn over internal emails previously thought destroyed but recovered for a review of the Jerry Sandusky investigation."

"It strains credulity that there would be only three email exchanges within the 20 million recovered emails that were responsive to the defendants' numerous discovery requests," she wrote.

And, new information from the latest filing in the Spanier v. Penn State case filed this week: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/GRAHAM SPANIER VS PENN STATE ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT.pdf

"Penn State admits that, on November 14, 2012, it sent individuals from its IT Department to Dr. Spanier's home to retrieve the desktop computer, laptop, iPad, and associated electronics it previously had provided to Dr. Spanier, admits that it terminated Dr. Spanier's access to the University's computer network, and that it directed IT support personnel not to contact Dr. Spanier."

How's your counseling of the dozens of girls raped by Nassar out at MSU going? It's a godsend to have someone like you who "cares so much about the children."

 

[WeR0206]

How's your counseling of the dozens of girls raped by Nassar out at MSU going? It's a godsend to have someone like you who "cares so much about the children."

I was just about to ask the same thing. Roxine doesn't seem to care about any other child abuse victims except for those of JS and attempting to paint the PSU admins as his sole enablers, seems odd to say the least.

What about when the Tutko case came to light? I don't remember Roxine stopping by to express outrage over that....

 

[Royal_Coaster]

So now you are threatening someone over this? Get a GD grip. Disagree with someone but see the line. Schultz damn well knew about 98. That isn't even up for debate. Wow some of you are totally losing your shit now.

1. You still didn't answer the original question. Saying someone "had to" know or "damn well" knew doesn't cut it. Even then, how is knowing about an investigation that produced no charges from the DA and was unfounded by the state "proof" that they "knew" Sandusky was a pedophile?
2. Wow, now you're seeing threats in any post you don't like? I think you're the one who needs to get a grip and stop playing victim because people don't immediately genuflect upon reading your gems of wisdom, and conceding you know it all.