Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
I don't think any of it matters to some here....they'll tow the line no matter what comes out for some reason. It will be very interesting to see what these two testify to against GS unless he knows he's f--ked now and rolls over too.
This is exactly NOT true. Juries are unpredictable.
By the same token, if the State knew they COULD prove their case, why would they offer the plea deal?
Ironically, if Football was really the religion at PSU that some claim, Jerry Sandusky would have never been allowed to start the 2nd mile in the first place. Who wants the busy defensive coordinator of a big time program distracted with running a children's charity? And if football really came that much before kids, Sandusky certainly would have not been allowed use the PSU football facilities after retirement for his charity's activities.
Is the article correct when it says they plead guilty to endangering the welfare of "children", plural? I thought it was a "child", or are there two different charges children/child that a person can be charged with?
Sure because any normal person (guilty or not) would want to put their life in the hands of a judicial system that awarded MM millions of dollars for doing nothing. Sign me up for that.
Somewhat true, but what will your thoughts be if they are testifying against GS? I imagine GS is now seeing what deal is out there for him as there may be a little more dirt than we were all aware of. I don't think the fear of a jury simply happened in the last 2-3 weeks...but feel free to think otherwise. I was one that thought they would go to trial because I didn't think the state had all that much on them...and I think I was wrong about that. I don't think it was some great new fear.
Guy who witnesses a sexual assault on a child and doesn't call police = given millions of dollars.
Guys who are told by a guy he witnessed a sexual assault on a child and don't call police = guilty of endangering children.
Makes sense.
And to top it off, the sexual assault that was witnessed to start all of this? It never happened. Just ask the "victim".
Guys who are told by a guy he witnessed a sexual assault on a child and don't call police = guilty of endangering children.
Makes sense.
And to top it off, the sexual assault that was witnessed to start all of this? It never happened. Just ask the "victim".
Below is the text of the law. This charge always seemed like a hell of a stretch to me, given these circumstances. How can S/C/S reasonably be shown to be "supervising the welfare" of a child they didn't know was on campus, and who wasn't there for any university-sanctioned event? This case was a travesty from the start, and I'm disgusted that good men were (apparently) frightened into a plea deal - although the decision seems reasonable, in view of the jury's insane verdict in the McQueary case ...
§ 4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.
(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child.
§ 4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.
(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child.
. Totally agree with this. JZ was the first person I saw talk about the plea deal and said no jail time. I'll guess we'll wait and see
I never did claim that football had anything to do with this. Can you point to even one post of mine supporting this?
Because now they can force Curley and Schultz to testify against Spanier or Judge Bocabella sentences them to jail. This increases the pressure for Spanier to fold. If he does, the public will never know the full truth. If the OAG thinks they have a case, then Spanier won't have a very enticing offer.
Meaning: In 1998 Gricar knew that he could prosecute Sandusky. He agreed not to if Sandusky "received help with the problem." Who did he say that to? Four empty walls of his office? The only people he could say that to were at PSU.
In other words, at least someone at PSU knew that there was a Sandusky problem since 1998. If one of those were in the line of people that handled McQueary, they would have known that Sandusky was a pedophile.
Why wouldn't TSM be the most able to "help" him out?
Hahaha, ok. I guess it's time for Dranov to get fitted for his jumpsuit, then.
u
Huh? you can go to prison on misdemeanors. Don't believe me?? Ask Don Blankenship where he's been for the last year
Agreed, so the person who actually witnessed whatever there was to witness in the locker room is awarded millions of dollars and that person's boss's boss gets charged with this. How does any of that make any sense? I try not to be a conspiracy theorist but obviously we don't see all that is going on behind the scenes here.
LOL
As if "we" actually pursued the truth LMAO
Aside from being concerned about their extremely narrow personal self-interests (409 / JVP / Football etc).......99.9% of "us" couldn't give a shit about that thing folks call the "truth".
That much is obvious.
And folks won't even have the decency to admit it.
5 years of talk from the acolytes of "we want a trial, bring it all out in the open, full transparency and we'll beat these charges in a court of law."
Then this.
Fully predictable.
Then this.
Fully predictable.
Yeah, no way he could have said that to Jack Raykovitz or anyone else at TSM, because it's not like Jerry had any dealings with kids through them or anything.
The state tried to crucify these guys, over charged them, spent millions doing so, and they are now walking out with a misdemeanor plea that probably results in very little, if any, jail time since they probably have crystal clear records. Nice job by the prosecuting attorneys and staff of the Commonwealth of PA (sarcasm).
Look, Tim and Gary, (and probably Gram) were negligent, at best, in how this whole ordeal was handled. Ultimately something was reported to them and they chose to handle it internally rather than get outside forces involved. Joe Paterno didn't do anything wrong. This was always a Curley and Schultz deal with Spanier negligently signing off on it. This plea accurately reflects that same scenario.
Look, Tim and Gary, (and probably Gram) were negligent, at best, in how this whole ordeal was handled. Ultimately something was reported to them and they chose to handle it internally rather than get outside forces involved. Joe Paterno didn't do anything wrong. This was always a Curley and Schultz deal with Spanier negligently signing off on it. This plea accurately reflects that same scenario.
Agree. I've sat on enough juries to know that the outcome can be not what a reasonable person would expect. I would never place my fate in the hands of a jury if I could otherwise find an acceptable outcome, especially give the emotion with which this case is charged.
Could Schultz and Curley spend jail time? Given they haven't got a written deal that suspends jail time, of course they could. But the lack of a written deal sounds a lot to me like the prosecutor is asking for cooperation and will suggest no jail time when sentencing occurs. Judge will be free to do as he wants, but if they cooperate as they are hoping, not sure they'll see jail time at all.
Their plea doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty either. People will accept pleas for no jail time and a fine/community service/probation if that's possible, some people just aren't big risk takers. That's not to say it's right, but going in front of any jury is always a risk, and even if the jury's verdict gets overturned later for whatever reason, that's still years in prison spent most likely.
As far as a "poisoned jury pool," I'm really not sure this is the case. I'm not sure how to prove there is no such thing, but I've seen other explosive cases where jury pools were alleged to be poisoned, yet they came back with favorable defense verdicts anyway. George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony stand out to me as famous examples. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it's probably over exaggerated.
The key in remembering this plea deal is it's best for Schultz and Curley, they were offered and took it. Maybe they had aversion of going in front of a jury, maybe they know they're guilty and want to lessen punishment. We don't know their personal motivations. But it's awfully interesting to watch people who staunchly deny all of this receive this news.
Their plea doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty either. People will accept pleas for no jail time and a fine/community service/probation if that's possible, some people just aren't big risk takers. That's not to say it's right, but going in front of any jury is always a risk, and even if the jury's verdict gets overturned later for whatever reason, that's still years in prison spent most likely.
As far as a "poisoned jury pool," I'm really not sure this is the case. I'm not sure how to prove there is no such thing, but I've seen other explosive cases where jury pools were alleged to be poisoned, yet they came back with favorable defense verdicts anyway. George Zimmerman, OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony stand out to me as famous examples. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it's probably over exaggerated.
The key in remembering this plea deal is it's best for Schultz and Curley, they were offered and took it. Maybe they had aversion of going in front of a jury, maybe they know they're guilty and want to lessen punishment. We don't know their personal motivations. But it's awfully interesting to watch people who staunchly deny all of this receive this news.
Why the heck would he go to "Penn State"?????? What the heck do a bunch of jocks know about pedophilia??? Why wouldn't he go to the licensed State Child Psychologist and the State Licensed Organization that handled him????
Are you insinuating Gricar was brain dead stupid??? That makes absolutely NO sense.
You offer deals just like cases settle, to guarantee an outcome and there's not enough time and money to try them all.
If doing so turns 3 felonies into 1 misdemeanor, then yes you do.
More shocking news, kjb and getmy jive ran right over to the main board and are fanning the flames with the infantiles....
That's right....the prosecution is very, very powerful and can make life miserable in so many different ways. I mean, a 6 year pursuit yielding a pled out misdemeanor? At some point, you've got to fold your cards and move on with life. At this age, they are retired and have no place to go. Their reps have been ruined and there is no hope of further employment....they've gotten worn out.
The caveat is if they agreed to turn on Spanier. That remains to be seen.
But the reporting is a maximum of $10,000. My guess is they pay something like $1500. Again, we'll see.
Will John Ziegler go away now?
This is good news if you were concerned about media coverage of the trial. Spanier needs to follow suit.
Was he involved in 98? I think that is where the line was crossed any why these guys took the deal. Just a guess, but pointing the finger at everyone else doesn't do a damn thing anymore. It's like being that parent whos kid got caught doing something stupid and blaming everyone else but your own kid. This isn't a fear of juries or a the PA court system in play and you can almost feel GS will be next to take a deal or those two will testify against him at his trial.
So,according to Ray, college administrators would be able to help Jerry with his problem but a person with a PhD in psychology who is director of a charity for children would be clueless about such an idea.
If you weren't guilty of anything at all, you probably don't. What will you say if they are testifying against GS? I think that goose is cooked now to be honest and I bet he too takes a deal.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Running Recruit Visitors List (2025 Spring Edition)- Latest: NittanyNation51
