CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
Wow, you just compared a shower between a pedo and a boy to a fancy restaurant or concert. Holy crap...
No, that in itself was not a crime. Not in '98 and not in '01. Inappropriate? Absolutely! Stupid as hell? You bet! A lawsuit waiting to happen? Well now you know what C/S/S were worried about. Which is why he lost those privileges.
If it was so obvious he was grooming them to have sex with them, then why did Jack Raykovitz, a licensed child psychologist responsible for both Jerry and any TSM kid, try to enable that behavior by offering to have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower? Why would Bruce Heim risk his investment in the Hilton Garden Inn by offering those facilities to him?
Grooming is grooming. Jerry used Penn State. What do you use? Wine in a box?
Why are we still talking about this? Both boys are on record (when no money was at stake) stating that Jerry did not touch them sexually.
It's time to move past this and shine some light on the relationship between TSM and PSU, between Corbett and TSM, and I still suspect Hershey Foundation $$$ is involved.
Last edited:
Are you sure it's not a crime?
Your analogy is a very poor one Indy. Very poor.
Indy, why would he put himself in the shower naked, alone at night after being told to never do that again- and agreeing to it?
Are you saying that I should have invited women to a shower instead of dinner when I was single?? This can't be real....
Because he was a doofus who didn't think he was doing anything wrong, and was either too naive or too arrogant to see the risk.
I can't believe you're making this difficult. Jerry used Penn State and I imagine a lot of other tools to get what he wanted from these kids. And I'm also sure they appeared to the average person as the acts of a saint. He groomed kids in plain sight. Either that, or he's innocent. I'm no longer sure.
No matter how you slice it. V2 said he was never sexually abused by JS. V6 told the police that nothing sexual happened. The janitor case is totally bogus, especially since we now know the actual witness said the man he saw was not Sandusky. Then there's the guy who claimed JS tried to get funny with him on their first encounter, the only victim to claim that, who suspiciously agreed the date of his abuse was not in 1998, as he originally claimed, but in the summer of 2001, as was needed to be to keep the PSU checks flowing.
Imagine what would be happening if they couldn't hold PSU accountable for incidents after '01. Without PSU's hush money, those kids would be free to sue TSM directly. The truth might escape from its prison. Getting that date moved without piquing the interest of the media was critical, but with the likes of Sarah Ganim on the case, it was child's play for an operator like Corbett and a compliant BOT.
Not one of those cases should have seen the light of day. Not a single one. Somebody played fast and loose with the law to make this a Penn State scandal. I want to know why the BOT didn't fight back.
Last edited:
Do some people around here shower with clothes on? I'm not condoning his behavior, but I see no need for people constantly add "naked" to "in the shower".
You'd have to check with Jack "Just wear swim trunks" Raykovitz....
my point being that Joe met with Curley when the plan was to report it to DPW. Curley later changed his mind and didn't report it. Freeh and others speculated that Joe told Curley not to report it. But I also think it is reasonable that Joe left that meeting with Tim with the understanding it was being reported. Did he know it ultimately was not reported?
Seems like the Judge may have already made his decision
well . . . you left out an important step. Curley said he felt uncomfortable reporting Sandusky to DPW without talking to him first. Contacting DPW was ALWAYS on the table.
I think more likely Joe told Curley he needed to make sure he had his ducks in a row before reporting Sandusky.
and as many who actually WORK with children have stated, without question Joe would not and SHOULD NOT be involved with any report once he informed Curley.
This can't be overemphasized! Tim was uncomfortable going behind Jerry's back. He didn't propose excluding anyone. He simply proposed including JS. To which Spanier acknowledged would involve an additional step. And more importantly, Spanier gave this proposal his approval. Joe was not involved in the decision.
One other thing about this story that's really annoying me.
I have relatives who are staunch supporters of either of the two candidates in last year's election. All of whom are whining about the way their candidate was treated unfairly by the press, especially the way CNN picked on them. Yeah, I have all of them telling me Joe Paterno had to have known what Sandusky was doing, there was a story on CNN that said so.
My answer has been, oh well I guess everything they say about your candidate must be true too.
I have relatives who are staunch supporters of either of the two candidates in last year's election. All of whom are whining about the way their candidate was treated unfairly by the press, especially the way CNN picked on them. Yeah, I have all of them telling me Joe Paterno had to have known what Sandusky was doing, there was a story on CNN that said so.
My answer has been, oh well I guess everything they say about your candidate must be true too.
I think it's really funny that you nut jobs make statements that you and those of your ilk accept as facts
even though you have no idea what happened in those meetings among the fab four. Common sense
would indicate otherwise but cult members lack that.
Kids-for-cash judge wants new trial
JAMES HALPIN / PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
SHARE THIS
JAMES HALPIN / STAFF PHOTO Sandy Fonzo and supporters speak with the media Thursday in Harrisburg.
Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.
Image Gallery for Kids-for-cash judge wants new trial
HARRISBURG — Notorious kids-for-cash judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.’s effort to win a new trial got a boost Thursday when his trial attorneys, accused of being ineffective, took the stand and freely admitted they have no good explanation for failing to request a key jury instruction.
Testifying before a federal judge who will decide whether to vacate Ciavarella’s convictions, prominent defense attorney William Ruzzo, of Kingston, said he and his colleague Al Flora Jr., the former Luzerne County public defender, “absolutely” should have requested an instruction about the five-year statute of limitations related to some of the charges. In fact, the lawyers had not discussed whether to do so and testified that it was not part of any defense strategy.
“I did nothing in Mark’s interest by that conduct,” Ruzzo testified.
Ciavarella, 67, was convicted of 12 of 39 charges for accepting kickbacks in exchange for funneling juvenile defendants to detention centers built by wealthy developer Robert K. Mericle’s construction firm and operated by companies controlled by local attorney Robert Powell. Now six years into his 28-year prison sentence, Ciavarella is seeking to reverse his conviction on grounds his attorneys were ineffective.
At issue are Ciavarella’s convictions on counts of racketeering, honest services mail fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The problem, according to Ciavarella, is that on the verdict slip, jurors found that he violated federal law by accepting $1.6 million in kickbacks in January 2003, but indicated he did not violate the law regarding a $1 million payment in July 2005 and another $150,000 payment in February 2006.
His lawyer, Jennifer P. Wilson, of Duncannon, argues Ciavarella never should have been convicted on those counts because jurors found only the January 2003 payment was illegal, and that transaction took place more than five years before the indictment came down in September 2009.
While his attorneys sought dismissal of some charges on statute of limitation grounds in a pretrial motion that was denied, they did not seek dismissal on the racketeering and money-laundering conspiracy charges. They also failed to seek a jury instruction during trial informing the panel some of the crimes might have happened too far in the past.
In court Thursday, the attorneys agreed they had not discussed such a filing, and admitted the failure was not part of any strategic planning.
“I know I didn’t give any thought to raising it,” Flora said, explaining why he didn’t seek dismissal of the racketeering counts prior to trial. “What stuck in my mind was that the government had alleged sufficient predicate acts.”
The lawyers also acknowledged such an instruction could have strategically fit with their trial plan, which was to explain Ciavarella accepted “finder’s fees” rather than bribes.
“Our strategy was Mark only took the money gifted to him as a finder’s fee and that he had no reason to alter his judicial decisions because the juvenile facility was already built,” Ruzzo said, adding that the verdict was disappointing. “I thought that we presented a credible case.”
During cross-examination, federal prosecutors noted that despite the jury’s verdict slip, three of four counts of honest services mail fraud Ciavarella was convicted of are described in the indictment as happening inside the statute of limitations. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals previously reversed his conviction on the fourth count, which stemmed from an April 2004 financial disclosure statement.
Prosecutors also pointed out that Ciavarella’s racketeering convictions stemmed from conduct that occurred over a number of years, part of which was inside the period.
After hearing the testimony, Chief U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner noted that legal precedent requires him to reverse convictions in cases where attorneys fail to suggest instructions that would help their clients, unless the move is part of a legal strategy.
“Am I not constrained to find that trial counsel’s performance was deficient?” Conner asked.
The judge ordered the parties to submit further briefings on the issue, instructing the U.S. Attorney’s Office to address the legal precedent and the timing of the offenses. He also urged Wilson to further explore the timing of the mail fraud offenses and whether a jury might have acquitted Ciavarella if instructed on the statute of limitations.
The first filings are due two weeks from when the lawyers get a transcript of Thursday’s proceeding.
Ciavarella, who appeared in court dressed in an orange jumpsuit and wearing handcuffs, did not speak during the proceeding. He waved to about half a dozen of his family members seated in the front row, including his daughter.
About a dozen of his opponents sat across the aisle, including Sandy Fonzo, who in the past confronted Ciavarella outside federal court over the suicide of her son after placement in juvenile detention. She described the proceeding as “nerve-racking,” questioning how seemingly capable attorneys could have forgotten something that could result in a new trial for Ciavarella.
“He needs to just go away and give us peace so that we can heal. This is just — I can’t do this again,” Fonzo said, wiping her eyes outside the courthouse. “This is a nightmare, an absolute nightmare.”
The statute of limitations claim is only one of the avenues Ciavarella is using in seeking a new trial. While Wilson said Ciavarella is dropping a claim that prosecutors failed to provide him with evidence that could have impeached Mericle, he is still pressing forward with another appeal of the honest services mail fraud counts.
That action stems from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that held an official must exercise governmental power in order to be guilty of the crime. Ciavarella argues he did nothing in his official capacity as judge that caused Powell to hire Mericle, and therefore the payment Mericle gave Ciavarella did not amount to a bribe.
Contact the writer: ; 570-821-2058; @cvjimhalpin
JAMES HALPIN / PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
SHARE THIS
JAMES HALPIN / STAFF PHOTO Sandy Fonzo and supporters speak with the media Thursday in Harrisburg.
Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.
HARRISBURG — Notorious kids-for-cash judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.’s effort to win a new trial got a boost Thursday when his trial attorneys, accused of being ineffective, took the stand and freely admitted they have no good explanation for failing to request a key jury instruction.
Testifying before a federal judge who will decide whether to vacate Ciavarella’s convictions, prominent defense attorney William Ruzzo, of Kingston, said he and his colleague Al Flora Jr., the former Luzerne County public defender, “absolutely” should have requested an instruction about the five-year statute of limitations related to some of the charges. In fact, the lawyers had not discussed whether to do so and testified that it was not part of any defense strategy.
“I did nothing in Mark’s interest by that conduct,” Ruzzo testified.
Ciavarella, 67, was convicted of 12 of 39 charges for accepting kickbacks in exchange for funneling juvenile defendants to detention centers built by wealthy developer Robert K. Mericle’s construction firm and operated by companies controlled by local attorney Robert Powell. Now six years into his 28-year prison sentence, Ciavarella is seeking to reverse his conviction on grounds his attorneys were ineffective.
At issue are Ciavarella’s convictions on counts of racketeering, honest services mail fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The problem, according to Ciavarella, is that on the verdict slip, jurors found that he violated federal law by accepting $1.6 million in kickbacks in January 2003, but indicated he did not violate the law regarding a $1 million payment in July 2005 and another $150,000 payment in February 2006.
His lawyer, Jennifer P. Wilson, of Duncannon, argues Ciavarella never should have been convicted on those counts because jurors found only the January 2003 payment was illegal, and that transaction took place more than five years before the indictment came down in September 2009.
While his attorneys sought dismissal of some charges on statute of limitation grounds in a pretrial motion that was denied, they did not seek dismissal on the racketeering and money-laundering conspiracy charges. They also failed to seek a jury instruction during trial informing the panel some of the crimes might have happened too far in the past.
In court Thursday, the attorneys agreed they had not discussed such a filing, and admitted the failure was not part of any strategic planning.
“I know I didn’t give any thought to raising it,” Flora said, explaining why he didn’t seek dismissal of the racketeering counts prior to trial. “What stuck in my mind was that the government had alleged sufficient predicate acts.”
The lawyers also acknowledged such an instruction could have strategically fit with their trial plan, which was to explain Ciavarella accepted “finder’s fees” rather than bribes.
“Our strategy was Mark only took the money gifted to him as a finder’s fee and that he had no reason to alter his judicial decisions because the juvenile facility was already built,” Ruzzo said, adding that the verdict was disappointing. “I thought that we presented a credible case.”
During cross-examination, federal prosecutors noted that despite the jury’s verdict slip, three of four counts of honest services mail fraud Ciavarella was convicted of are described in the indictment as happening inside the statute of limitations. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals previously reversed his conviction on the fourth count, which stemmed from an April 2004 financial disclosure statement.
Prosecutors also pointed out that Ciavarella’s racketeering convictions stemmed from conduct that occurred over a number of years, part of which was inside the period.
After hearing the testimony, Chief U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner noted that legal precedent requires him to reverse convictions in cases where attorneys fail to suggest instructions that would help their clients, unless the move is part of a legal strategy.
“Am I not constrained to find that trial counsel’s performance was deficient?” Conner asked.
The judge ordered the parties to submit further briefings on the issue, instructing the U.S. Attorney’s Office to address the legal precedent and the timing of the offenses. He also urged Wilson to further explore the timing of the mail fraud offenses and whether a jury might have acquitted Ciavarella if instructed on the statute of limitations.
The first filings are due two weeks from when the lawyers get a transcript of Thursday’s proceeding.
Ciavarella, who appeared in court dressed in an orange jumpsuit and wearing handcuffs, did not speak during the proceeding. He waved to about half a dozen of his family members seated in the front row, including his daughter.
About a dozen of his opponents sat across the aisle, including Sandy Fonzo, who in the past confronted Ciavarella outside federal court over the suicide of her son after placement in juvenile detention. She described the proceeding as “nerve-racking,” questioning how seemingly capable attorneys could have forgotten something that could result in a new trial for Ciavarella.
“He needs to just go away and give us peace so that we can heal. This is just — I can’t do this again,” Fonzo said, wiping her eyes outside the courthouse. “This is a nightmare, an absolute nightmare.”
The statute of limitations claim is only one of the avenues Ciavarella is using in seeking a new trial. While Wilson said Ciavarella is dropping a claim that prosecutors failed to provide him with evidence that could have impeached Mericle, he is still pressing forward with another appeal of the honest services mail fraud counts.
That action stems from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that held an official must exercise governmental power in order to be guilty of the crime. Ciavarella argues he did nothing in his official capacity as judge that caused Powell to hire Mericle, and therefore the payment Mericle gave Ciavarella did not amount to a bribe.
Contact the writer: ; 570-821-2058; @cvjimhalpin
You're correct that nobody knows 100% for sure what happened. That said, it is not common sense to assume that Joe/C/S/S conspired to cover up for JS. You don't even have circumstantial evidence much less hard evidense.
Yea, that would be the Jeffrey Sandusky that the State of Pennsylvania placed with Jerry Sandusky via State-Administered Adoption, so what does USAToday do in their story - they run a big picture of Joe Paterno at the top of their story posted a half-hour ago (HIT THE LINK)??? What on earth does Joe Paterno have to do with the State of Pennsylvania granting custody of Jeffrey Sandusky to Jerry Sandusky's household via State-Run Adoption??? Unfreaking real and you have numbskulls on here saying, "What could corrupt politicians who were closely tied to Sandusky and TSM have to gain by blaming their failures on "the football coach" and corruptly using PSU as an Indemnification Company for The State's failures???
That I'm lying to myself with respect to the incidents that purportedly occurred on PSU property. Which of the cases I cited do you feel actually hold water?
Damn they are shooting their blanks early. If it was me I would have waited for a much bigger game before I brought this out. Say OSU or Michy.
LMAO...despite the PennLive bullshit of you and DiMaggio/mbe34 no one was "attacked" on Penn State property.
Some of you are truly fearful that Sandusky might get a new trial. Curious.
Get a wife and some common sense. Jerry did not receive a fair trial. Please provide me any credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that proves that he is a pedophile. I agree with NCIS Special Agent JohnSnedden that there is scant evidence of such and that the narrative of a political hit job is a much more likely occurrence than that of a CSA cover-up conspiracy.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
Not even you can argue the merits of the janitor case with a straight face!
You are the idiot that visited Jerry in prison, held his hand and bought his sob story but you have
the nerve to lecture me on common sense. You are a nut. Seek help.
Similar threads
