Like it or not, you're the newbie. You'll need to do a little better than using italics as proof here.
There is no need to prove it here. There may be a need to prove it in court.
Like it or not, you're the newbie. You'll need to do a little better than using italics as proof here.
PSU2UNC: I think you are correct on this, but am wondering if perhaps the prosecution's argument is that C/S/S were providing "education and training" to kids/victims who were on campus for these events, and were therefore "persons supervising the welfare of a child" within the meaning of Section 4304(a)(3). I think that's quite a stretch if all PSU did was make facilities available and third parties (e.g., TSM) actually operated these events.
I hope not. After all of this mess, I think everyone should know the truth.What are the chances the state offers to drop the charges in exchange for a lifetime gag?
I understand. But Spanier was indeed a target at that time ("no comment" was the OAG's response about this).Right, Spanier wasn't charged at this time either. I'm also not saying whether it'd be right for Joe to be charged, just that I wouldn't have been surprised if it occurred.
And here's a post that's overqualified for the "feigned stupidity" thing.As long as that's uncertain, the boy could have been a Penn State student. After all, there are kids as young as 14 admitted some years.
I understand. But Spanier was indeed a target at that time ("no comment" was the OAG's response about this).
Stufftodo: Some may find your posts annoying, but I find them highly interesting. As comic entertainment. You seem to have assumed Cruisin's role here quite seamlessly. Keep up the good work.They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
There is no need to prove it here. There may be a need to prove it in court.
Welcome to BWI. Put up or shut up. Your call.There is no need to prove it here. There may be a need to prove it in court.
And here's a post that's overqualified for the "feigned stupidity" thing.
Not even close.Since your wife works for the team responsible for much of this mess, methinks you protest too too much, my friend.
They are the ones that want the case to go forward.
I think they have something that will prove it and have had it since August 2012, at the very latest.
Who are you again?If I understand it correctly, the argument (and they cited precedent) was that there was a continuous effort to conceal the 2001 incident. They not only charged with endangerment and corruption of minors, but with conspiracy to commit both.
As Nixon supposedly said in the Hiss case, "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." He should have heeded his own warning about 25 years later.
Not even close.
Edit: But we can still be friends.
No one here cares what you think about anything frankly. If this was a bar and not a message board, someone would have shown you the parking lot/dumpster area in detail by now. Keep running your mouth.There is no need to prove it here. There may be a need to prove it in court.
No one here cares what you think about anything frankly. If this was a bar and not a message board, someone would have shown you the parking lot/dumpster area in detail by now. Keep running your mouth.
If this was a court, someone might be asking for a plea deal.
Remember, the initial date was given as 2002. At the time I chalked that up to mistake or carelessness. Now I chalk it up to an intentional attempt to mislead the court to fall within the SOL. I'm betting the latest ruling here regarding the SOL will be appealed now and we'll see the charges thrown out.The SOL for the "failure to report" was a laughable situation from the start.
The FTR was all based on the 2001 situation - - - - which was already past the SOL on the initial filing
The AG made the (insanely ridiculous) argument that the failure to report was an "ongoing act" - since they "failed to report" the 2001 incident , and continued to FTR every day since ......... . Doesn't take a legal scholar to LOL at that (and yet it took 5 years to toss it)
The EWC IS being pursued, as best I can tell, as a "ongoing act".......beginning in 2001 (or before - well have to see what if any evidence is presented if things go to trial) and the EWC continued on .........basically, a "conspiracy" to EWC
That is a 1000 X more reasonable argument than the one wrt FTR, but still a tough hurdle to overcome, I would think
If you had a brain, you'd take it out and play with it.If this was a court, someone might be asking for a plea deal.
The state has offered CSS at least 3 different plea deals so far. They have almost begged them to take one of them. They were sure they would. But they didn't. And they won't.
Four to five years ago this was probably rehashed a thousand times over on this board. But, this is worth commenting on again. It is stunning - absolutely stunning - that this air tight case and Grand Jury against Sandusky et al could not even get the right YEAR. Right there there should have been floodlights flashing that this entire set of allegations was a farce and a precursor of every thing that has happened since.Remember, the initial date was given as 2002.
How was JS supposed to provide an alibi for an alleged incident when he didn't know when it occurred? I think one exact date was mentioned the entire trial.Four to five years ago this was probably rehashed a thousand times over on this board. But, this is worth commenting on again. It is stunning - absolutely stunning - that this air tight case and Grand Jury against Sandusky et al could not even get the right YEAR. Right there there should have been floodlights flashing that this entire set of allegations was a farce and a precursor of every thing that has happened since.
I can tell you that the defense has no fear of this. None.
And, these are good lawyers with good connections. They know the score.
If a corrupt OAG, a lapdog judge, and a clueless jury can convict JS on the janitor story, then all bets are off. Sorry.I believe the thinking has changed on that, if in fact Graham ever said that. It's not consistent with their approach.
The state has offered CSS at least 3 different plea deals so far. They have almost begged them to take one of them. They were sure they would. But they didn't. And they won't.
If a corrupt OAG, a lapdog judge, and a clueless jury can convict JS on the janitor story, then all bets are off. Sorry.
My question: isn't all evidence subject to discovery? STD refers to something he thinks will be enough. We're not talking about some Perry Mason surprise. The Defense would know what this key piece of evidence is. No?
Was their go to play. Then he went to work for Seth.Another thing about this out of control OAG. Funny nothing ever leaked out about C/S/S. The "leak" is their go to play, and yet....nothing.
Ziegler spoke to Spanier after the mcqueary verdict and told Spanier that based on the insanity of the mcqueary verdict CSS are screwed if they go to trial - the public has been permanently poisoned. Spanier agreed with Ziegler. I think CSS are screwed if this goes to trial and if they are found guilty it doesn't matter what the bullshit is behind the verdict- it is over and so is any chance at redeeming Paterno's legacy. The worst thing that could happen is for this case to go to trial even though I believe this case has always been a joke.
Depends on the jury. CSA cases generate highly-pitched emotions that can obscure evidence. And this is McQ's word against C/S/S word. McQ has held up in 2 cases now, JS and his civil suit.
I'm a hell of a lot less confident of an acquittal than most of the guys here.
Well, I know they have something.
Like it or not, you're the newbie. You'll need to do a little better than using italics as proof here.
kind of.
remember the OAG first tried to put this incident in 2002
once it was established to have occurred in Feb 2001, it was outside the SOL.
THEN they argued . . . the law changed in 2007, so they are literally being charged for FTR in 2007 for an incident from 2001, even as the OAG also acknowledged in its amended filing that they were not required to have reported ANYTHING in 2001.
The OAG said, when the law changed in 2007, C/S/S SHOULD have known to report what happened in 2001.
friggin mind bending, eh?
March 20th is the scheduled date for the trial on remaining charge(s).