FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Not very. Grand jury witnesses are normally allowed to speak about their testimony if they want.
I would imagine, though the cows out of the barn... that the notion is to have an unbiased jury.
If any of the gagged people speak, it would be big news.
However, anybody on that jury already will have an opinion, on this case. Most likely somewhat under or misinformed, but everyone has some opinion.
If someone in jury selection claims not to have heard about this, I'd move to strike anyway, because they are either lying or have been living in a Unabomber shack or something.
Good question. I hope we find out soon. Interesting that the 4 (thought it was 3 but it's 4) were all involved in the 1998 investigation.
Will be interesting to see how jury selection proceeds. I expect a lengthy witness list.
That's coming from the presentment, right? We do know that they took an enormous leap with McQueary's testimony. Certainly gives me reason to think they would do the same with the testimony of others.
What stops the OAG from offering a plea deal to Curley & Shultz? At this point, it would be very reasonable to offer them a misdemeanor charge with a suspended sentence & no fines. I leave Spanier out only because he's suing PSU & taking a plea would likely torpedo that.
I get the impression that they've not yet been offered that good of a deal. But I think most lawyers would strongly recommend that they take something like that. They are both at career's end, and even a win doesn't "clear" their names in the eyes of many who have locked in their opinions. Going to trial has a real risk, with little upside for them.
I get that WE want the truth. But why would those two guys who've already been through the ringer risk their own golden years for what WE want?
I get the impression that they've not yet been offered that good of a deal. But I think most lawyers would strongly recommend that they take something like that. They are both at career's end, and even a win doesn't "clear" their names in the eyes of many who have locked in their opinions. Going to trial has a real risk, with little upside for them.
I get that WE want the truth. But why would those two guys who've already been through the ringer risk their own golden years for what WE want?
They were already offered a deal, long ago, that said no prison time and no pension penalty. They said no.
I'm not sure where the pension penalty thing came from.
I'm not sure where the pension penalty thing came from.
I hadn't heard that, thanks.
But still ... that was abstract -- now a trial looms weeks away. And several charges have been dropped already.
Neither side, of course, wants to lose altogether. I think at this point the state has to go forward or have a deal, they've already dropped so much.
But the 3 guys, they still face prison time, and unless they are 100% certain of the outcome (with a jury, and a toxic issue, who can be), they have to be taking deep breaths & thinking hard now.
I like everyone else on this board (probably) wants to see a trial, for the truth, and I also root for these guys. But I wonder if they will find some way to plead to something, something better than previous offers, that makes the trial and the risk go away for good.
He did after the Ganim story.
Harmon is, I think. Possibly someone from CYS; several have dropped of the radar as you noted. Possibly Ganter.
Sloan?
No, that is coming out of Schultz's grand jury testimony. It was released that preliminary in 12/11.
Now, the AG's premise was that he was lying, but even assuming he was 100% truthful, something gave Schultz the impression that Sandusky was grabbing the boys genitals. He also insisted in that testimony that it had been reported to a child protective agency. Of course, nobody heard of the agency investigating it, there was no police report, no one at any agency remembered investigating it, and Schultz couldn't state what agency.
Yes. It was reported he testified before the grand jury.
I am pretty sure that deal is still on the table. I don't sense that there are any deep breaths being taken. They didn't pick the lawyers that they picked in order to negotiate a deal. Things could change, I guess, but right now they are winning the game of chicken. How many charges remain?
As for silenced guys, we can all come up with names of people who must know stuff, but have remained invisible. Ganter. Garban. Harmon. Have they all been silenced by a judge, or by their own cowardice?
Last edited:
If you knew you were innocent and had seen all the evidence and believed that the evidence supported your innocence, would you cut a plea deal in which you admit to crimes that allowed children to be molested?
I wouldn't.
One of the best posts I have EVER seen on the topic. Five stars, and if I could, I'd give you TEN stars for this post amigo.
Bingo. These were heinous crimes. None of these men, in a million years, would have willingly allowed crimes like this to happen had they truly known. They do not want to be remembered as individuals who would have, either.
And if you keep quiet, that is exactly how you will be remembered. You want the truth? Sack up and take the stand.
Last edited:
Are the deals offered if they "flip" or implicate Spanier in some way? This is what we've heard, but I don't know if anyone close to the situation has corroborated.
At any rate, maybe there is nothing to flip about, and now it's just a hope that the Prosecution gets out of this with something.
The early deals were about flipping, no doubt. They gave up on that a long time ago. The strategy probably changed when everybody realized that there was nothing in the Freeh Report that was going to help them out.
LOL. I may have to have someone pick it up for me as I'm not sure I know how to post a pic.
Can you help a brother out?
I'm your huckleberryLOL. I may have to have someone pick it up for me as I'm not sure I know how to post a pic.
Can you help a brother out?
I know that to be true.
But if you are 100% innocent, and your friends & family believe in you, and you aren't going to be in the workforce anymore anyway ... and there was even a 1% chance that a rouge jury convicts you just because "there's no way they would charge an innocent guy and take it this far," at some point you've gotta think - take a deal.
Bullshit. This is pedophilia and if you have a shred of decency and integrity, you walk up to the stand and you make a stand. Period.
Especially if the OAG has flipped this guy. He's bulletproof.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_9b431e64-f3ee-11e2-99d8-0019bb30f31a.html
I'm your huckleberry
And to think that ole Matt Broderick had that on the set the whole time and was only thinking about the kid in the Red Wings jersey, lmao.
I would think the only caveat would be if a gag order would be in place ? Would think these guys are dying to talk.., write a book.., sign a movie deal? If a plea requires them to remain silent... It's a major loss both for their reputations and monetarily...
Not bullet but probation and a $200 fine as opposed to Seven years and a $20,000 fine is a good indication.
Steve Sloan was an ADA in the Centre County DA's Office at the time who was a very close friend of the DA at the time, Gricar. He was listed in one of Ganim's articles as being involved in the 1998 Sandusky case.
He also released the Dictaphone message from 1998.
Last edited:
