Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.

[kgilbert78]

u

Huh? you can go to prison on misdemeanors. Don't believe me?? Ask Don Blankenship where he's been for the last year

There is a big difference, however (and mind you, I'm betting they get jail time). With a felony conviction on your record, you lose a lot of rights as a citizen (voting being one of them). With a misdemeanor, you don't--even if you do do some jail time.

This reminds me a lot of the Martha Stewart case. She was eventually put in jail for perjury--but perjury about what eventually was deemed a *legal* transaction that the government really had no business asking her about in the first place. But they'd spent so much time on trying to get her for illegal transactions that they had to get something out of it. Add to that the point that she really wasn't a likeable person and the jury was going to be hard to sway to her side of things.

 

[Obliviax]

This is good news if you were concerned about media coverage of the trial. Spanier needs to follow suit.

Agree....note how it allows both sides to "declare victory"? This is not a coincidence. But I'll point out the state prosecuted this for six years and probably north of $10,000,000 and got a misdemeanor.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

If you can't see what actually makes sense by now, you never will .

What makes "sense" is that if Gricar wanted Sandusky to get "help" as the poster said, he would gone to the State Licensed and educationally trained Professional that handled him.

You want a football coach, athletic Director, and University Administrator doing your brain surgery? Or a trained, licensed brain surgeon? If Gricar didn't go to Raykovitz and the Second Mile, with the State's obvious urging that he covered it up, everything we have always heard about him is pure garbage. He was as crooked as the Ace of Spades.

I find it VERY hard to believe that Raykovitz and the Second Mile weren't informed.

 

[kgilbert78]

You offer deals just like cases settle, to guarantee an outcome and there's not enough time and money to try them all.

Most traffic courts, for example, will offer you a deal (or variations thereof) where essentially they get the money from the fine (calling it "court costs") but don't hit you with points if you take a ticket to court.

 

[BobPSU92]

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.

They spoke to legal counsel outside the university and they spoke to jack raykovitz, head of the second mile and mandated reporter.

 

[L.T. Young]

I was wondering the same. Maybe when the judge decided to reinstate a conspiracy charge that the superior court already quashed they saw the writing on the wall?

Who knows, but it sounds like Spanier (the state's case against him is the weakest IMO) is riding this out. Should make for some interesting court sessions.

You don't actually believe this, do you?

Spanier's story is complete BS. I'm dead serious, there's zero doubt he's lying about what he knew. He knew about 98 in 2001, period. It's a ridiculous lie to say otherwise.

 

[kgilbert78]

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.

Unfortunately, while not to constitutional standards, almost anyone accused of anything dealing with CSA is pretty much guilty until proven innocent. In this case the logic was. "was a child (or children) in danger?" If you answer "yes"--then the logic is that "someone must be guilty of it".

But I also think that Joe was proven right: "Old Main screwed up". I don't think it was intentional. I don't think it was to "protect football". But they didn't handle it right.

 

[manofsteel200]

I knew Mike was meeting with Joe and he would handle correctly (which he did). If I would have known that Tim and Gary were going to cover it up it seems in hindsight I should have called the police.

It seems that harmon was informed that same weekend so maybe calling the police wouldn't have changed things. Sandusky ended up in jail where he belongs and maybe any other events change that doesn't happen.

Sorry, who is towny? Dad McQueary?

 

[wbcincy]

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.

What makes you think they're pleaing to (a)(1) and not (a)(2)? It seems pretty obvious (a)(2) is what they'd be pleaing to, and it doesn't say a word about them "supervising the welfare."

 

[kgilbert78]

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.

Just out of curiosity, do you know when this statute took effect? Ex post facto or not?

 

[Stufftodo]

Why wouldn't TSM be the most able to "help" him out?

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.

Because it happened at PSU; it wasn't happening at TSM. We can now add up a few things:

1998

1. Gricar removed Arnold, his designated abuse person, from the case.

2. Gricar never interviews Victim 6.

3. Gricar not only decides not to prosecute before DPW makes it decision, but before Schreffler interviews Sandusky.

Now, we still don't know if it is related or not, but there was scheduled meeting with the principal investigatory, Gricar, Sloane, and Ganter on 10/13/98.

Now these things happen.

August 2012, I turn this over to OAG.

October 2012, 1st week, Sloane gets arrested for a relatively small amount if drug use; he is talking to his supplier over Facebook. He faces 7 years and a large fune, at least 5 digits.

November 1, 2012, Spanier indicted, Curley and Schultz re-indicted.

February 28, 2012, Ganter retires with one day's notice and cancels a presser with the Altoona Mirror

July 2013, Sloane takes a plea deal, gets probation, and a $100 fine.

That all could be coincidental, or not. OAG doesn't keep me briefed.

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.

Yes, because PSU is the main employer in Centre County and has huge resources. TSM doesn't and Sandusky has a controlling role in it.

 

[GTACSA]

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.

Here's another take.

The only testimony the state would appear to have against Spanier is Curley and Schultz, who have already testified they weren't told anything by Mike other than horsing around. Now they have pleaded guilty to Endangering based on what Mike told them.

After their cross examination is completed there just might be more than enough reasonable doubt to return a not guilty verdict.

Time will tell.

 

[BuckWi03]

They were convinced they wouldn't get a fair trial due to a tainted jury pool and a corrupt legal system?[/QUOTE

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lau...AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=928#imgrc=QwcZzG4Q15biTM:
conspiracy theory meme

 

[elvis63]

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.

Exactly. And it goes back to 98.

 

[indynittany]

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.

I could agree with you here, if only Jack Raykovitz was charged with something.....anything!

 

[kevina001]

But I also think that Joe was proven right: "Old Main screwed up". I don't think it was intentional. I don't think it was to "protect football". But they didn't handle it right.

When people keep saying they just want the truth to come out, I think this is it. All signs point to this. Not some grand conspiracy or cover-up. Just a simple mistake.

Curley and Schultz aren't guilty of a crime, nor is Spanier. There was no ill intent. No matter what all of those with 20/20 hindsight want to believe, these guys had no idea that Jerry Sandusky could be a serial pedophile. Without hindsight, it takes a pretty big leap to go from "Jerry was in the Lasch Building showering with a kid" to "Jerry is molesting dozens of kids". They had no inkling that they were dealing with a pedophile. If they did, they would have acted differently. Protecting the schools reputation doesn't even make any sense in this context, but it makes for a nice media narrative.

 

[IANit]

I knew Mike was meeting with Joe and he would handle correctly (which he did). If I would have known that Tim and Gary were going to cover it up it seems in hindsight I should have called the police.

It seems that harmon was informed that same weekend so maybe calling the police wouldn't have changed things. Sandusky ended up in jail where he belongs and maybe any other events change that doesn't happen.

Where did you get that? If Harmon was informed how is that not the same as calling the police and if he swept it under the rug why isn't he charged?

 

[PSU_Nut]

Ziegler does not believe all victims were liars. He believes several were manipulated into believing they were abused using "repressed memory theory".

I find it very interesting that most of these victims remained friends with Sandusky until well into adulthood, despite the fact that none were gay. I understand that someone molested as a boy will be afraid to admit it to others, but to remain friends with your molester even after you had ample opportunity to get him out of your life seems absurd.

Perfect example of the ignorance you find that most people have of sex abuse victims. When a young person is abused they will often stop or slow down the mental maturity process. That why it common to see many behaviors that is not typical for a person of that age. Bed wetting is a very common one in teens who have been abused when they were younger. Another common defense mechanism is to be friends or even say they love their abuser. It is easier for them psychologically to think that the abuser was doing it to them because they loved them not because they wanted to get off sexually. Remember the abuse really took a toll on them mentally so they are not going to rationalize things like you and I would. That is why many victims go on and have many other behavioral issues as teens and adults.

 

[kgilbert78]

Here's another take.

The only testimony the state would appear to have against Spanier is Curley and Schultz, who have already testified they weren't told anything by Mike other than horsing around. Now they have pleaded guilty to Endangering based on what Mike told them.

After their cross examination is completed there just might be more than enough reasonable doubt to return a not guilty verdict.

Time will tell.

Trusting in reasonable doubt on a CSA case is quite risky, however. I can see him foregoing that risk if the right offer is made. This case has been like kryptonite, however. Any one who gets close to it gets smeared (like Kane).

BTW, I've always thought that it was correct to fire Spanier. Until now, I didn't tend to think he was criminally responsible (I'm still doubtful--but less than I was). But as the head of the university, he was responsible for what happened on his watch.

 

[elvis63]

Where did you get that? If Harmon was informed how is that not the same as calling the police and if he swept it under the rug why isn't he charged?

Maybe he has an informal deal? Testify and you're in the clear.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Here's another take.

The only testimony the state would appear to have against Spanier is Curley and Schultz, who have already testified they weren't told anything by Mike other than horsing around. Now they have pleaded guilty to Endangering based on what Mike told them.

After their cross examination is completed there just might be more than enough reasonable doubt to return a not guilty verdict.

Time will tell.

Is it possible that, in lieu of "official" agreements re: jail time, that Schultz/Curley have been granted immunity for their testimony against Spanier?

 

[wbcincy]

Just out of curiosity, do you know when this statute took effect? Ex post facto or not?

The law was around in 2001, though with different wording. The (a)(2) section appears to have come about in 2006. Regardless, when you plea guilty to a reduced charge, it's often a legal fiction.

 

[PSU_Nut]

Probably not. Suspended sentences or probation for an extended period of time I imagine...but that is just a straight up guess. I also imagine GS is now on the clock.

Correct which is pretty much in line with what someone with no prior arrest would get for similar charges.

 

[kgilbert78]

When people keep saying they just want the truth to come out, I think this is it. All signs point to this. Not some grand conspiracy or cover-up. Just a simple mistake.

Curley and Schultz aren't guilty of a crime, nor is Spanier. There was no ill intent. No matter what all of those with 20/20 hindsight want to believe, these guys had no idea that Jerry Sandusky could be a serial pedophile. Without hindsight, it takes a pretty big leap to go from "Jerry was in the Lasch Building showering with a kid" to "Jerry is molesting dozens of kids". They had no inkling that they were dealing with a pedophile. If they did, they would have acted differently. Protecting the schools reputation doesn't even make any sense in this context, but it makes for a nice media narrative.

They are now. Legally. Fair or not. CSA is a third rail, though. People expect hindsight to be foresight--as unfair as it is.

 

[wbcincy]

Is it possible that, in lieu of "official" agreements re: jail time, that Schultz/Curley have been granted immunity for their testimony against Spanier?

They already pled guilty, so immunity from what?

 

[BuckWi03]

They were convinced they wouldn't get a fair trial due to a tainted jury pool and a corrupt legal system?[/QUOTE

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...dTSAhUB24MKHXD2AZwQMwgyKAgwCA&iact=mrc&uact=8

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

They already pled guilty, so immunity from what?

Perjury when testifying against Spanier.

 

[kgilbert78]

Correct which is pretty much in line with what someone with no prior arrest would get for similar charges.

I'm expecting jail time--reduced for Curley due to health (as I recall, he's fighting cancer, isn't he?). They have to have something to show for it.

 

[elvis63]

You don't actually believe this, do you?

Spanier's story is complete BS. I'm dead serious, there's zero doubt he's lying about what he knew. He knew about 98 in 2001, period. It's a ridiculous lie to say otherwise.

Correct .

 

[psu7113]

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.

I think the key section in the case of CSS would be 4304a2, as opposed to 4304a1.

 

[WeR0206]

Exactly. And it goes back to 98.

How does anything re: PSU go back to 1998? If you are trying to suggest that PSU admins exerted some type of influence over the local DA and CYS/DPW then isn't that more of an indictment on those agencies for taking their cues from some college admins instead of doing their damned jobs?

Please do explain...

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Because it happened at PSU; it wasn't happening at TSM.

So the victims were all Penn Students? For you to sit there and say with a straight face that TSM had nothing to do with any aspect of this case, and there was no need for them to become involved or be informed is ridiculous.

Burn, baby, burn!

 

[bdgan]

Unfortunately, while not to constitutional standards, almost anyone accused of anything dealing with CSA is pretty much guilty until proven innocent. In this case the logic was. "was a child (or children) in danger?" If you answer "yes"--then the logic is that "someone must be guilty of it".

But I also think that Joe was proven right: "Old Main screwed up". I don't think it was intentional. I don't think it was to "protect football". But they didn't handle it right.

I don't think anybody ever argued that C&S handled things right.

FWIW I still think that MM gave a soft story to C&S because their testimony was consistent with MM's dad, Dranov, & Paterno (and each other's testimony).

 

[psulion2001]

Perfect example of the ignorance you find that most people have of sex abuse victims. When a young person is abused they will often stop or slow down the mental maturity process. That why it common to see many behaviors that is not typical for a person of that age. Bed wetting is a very common one in teens who have been abused when they were younger. Another common defense mechanism is to be friends or even say they love their abuser. It is easier for them psychologically to think that the abuser was doing it to them because they loved them not because they wanted to get off sexually. Remember the abuse really took a toll on them mentally so they are not going to rationalize things like you and I would. That is why many victims go on and have many other behavioral issues as teens and adults.

Right, but all the dummies on this board think that means they are liars because they have behavioral issues, drug problems, etc. If anything, it reinforces the fact that they were assaulted. Every sociological study ever says that those who are abused are exponentially more prone to drug use, criminal behavior, etc. It's a traumatic event that messes people up good, in many cases for life.

 

[Obliviax]

When people keep saying they just want the truth to come out, I think this is it. All signs point to this. Not some grand conspiracy or cover-up. Just a simple mistake.

Curley and Schultz aren't guilty of a crime, nor is Spanier. There was no ill intent. No matter what all of those with 20/20 hindsight want to believe, these guys had no idea that Jerry Sandusky could be a serial pedophile. Without hindsight, it takes a pretty big leap to go from "Jerry was in the Lasch Building showering with a kid" to "Jerry is molesting dozens of kids". They had no inkling that they were dealing with a pedophile. If they did, they would have acted differently. Protecting the schools reputation doesn't even make any sense in this context, but it makes for a nice media narrative.

Its a good point....kind of Occam's Razor. Curley and Schultz under performed. The state over charged. There is a big bruhaha over very little...end result is a traffic ticket.

 

[Bob78]

I knew Mike was meeting with Joe and he would handle correctly (which he did). If I would have known that Tim and Gary were going to cover it up it seems in hindsight I should have called the police.

It seems that harmon was informed that same weekend so maybe calling the police wouldn't have changed things. Sandusky ended up in jail where he belongs and maybe any other events change that doesn't happen.

If Harmon was informed, how was there any cover-up????? It's on Harmon to do his job once he was informed. If he allowed anyone to influence him otherwise, any cover-up is squarely on him.

 

[psu7113]

If MM was a mandated reporter, he'd be right there with those guys on trial....

Nope. Those charges were dismissed.

 

[Obliviax]

Perfect example of the ignorance you find that most people have of sex abuse victims. When a young person is abused they will often stop or slow down the mental maturity process. That why it common to see many behaviors that is not typical for a person of that age. Bed wetting is a very common one in teens who have been abused when they were younger. Another common defense mechanism is to be friends or even say they love their abuser. It is easier for them psychologically to think that the abuser was doing it to them because they loved them not because they wanted to get off sexually. Remember the abuse really took a toll on them mentally so they are not going to rationalize things like you and I would. That is why many victims go on and have many other behavioral issues as teens and adults.

These are great points. But I also have to point out that these were "at risk" boys anyway. They were in the program for a reason. Its all part of JS's evil genius. These kids were easily manipulated. But it is also why a kid could be convinced to pile on charges even if he was never abused himself.

 

[Stufftodo]

So the victims were all Penn Students? For you to sit there and say with a straight face that TSM had nothing to do with any aspect of this case, and there was no need for them to become involved or be informed is ridiculous.

Burn, baby, burn!

The only report they had, because the didn't look, was on campus. Sandusky was an employee at the time.

 

[Zenophile]

If you weren't guilty of anything at all, you probably don't.

I admire your conviction, however impractical it may be.

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.

I'm waiting to see like everyone else.