Last edited:
FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
I can tell you point black why CSS were not charged a crime in 1998. They didn't commit any crime in 1998.
That, however, does not explain why the 2012 presentment spent five pages talking about 1998.
Tell me Coaster, didn't you realize that 1998 incident was reported to DPW and the police? No one could be charged with failure to report.
No crime was witnessed or reported in 1998, since it was just a mother suspicious of something.
Much like 2001, no crime was witnessed or reported, since it was just a grad assistant suspicious of something.
Much like 2001, no crime was witnessed or reported, since it was just a grad assistant suspicious of something.
That is your big reveal about '98? We all knew that already. I have no idea why '98 was so prominently discussed in the presentment, other than as background for an established pattern... of either grooming, or abuse, or false accusations. Tell us why it was.
As I mentioned, I believe that since '98 was investigated and found to be not criminal, that fact played against people believing that '01 was criminal. The mindset of a false accusation was likely the first thing to come to mind, either in '98 or '01. That, combined with an unclear allegation from McQ, and we have people thinking 'boundary issues'.
But you are saying that you have proof that has not previously been revealed, even to the defense, apparently. Is that why they won't release the particulars to them? To play 'gotcha', regardless of the legalities around that? And it is something that none of the 3 defendants would recall? An interesting idea, to say the least.
The Seasock report. And it was not determined no crime was committed, Gricar made the call not to prosecute .
Hmmm ... Elvis has entered the building... Seems to be some new potential information out there. I will follow along and see where this goes.
I did hear there was an interesting lunch in last couple weeks.
I did hear there was an interesting lunch in last couple weeks.
I'm horrible at the cryptic stuff. What does the "interesting lunch" mean dukie?
Interesting point.
Stuff implies that only C/S/S/P knew about JS. But while I do not believe they knew what they were dealing with, and that it is likely that others did (TSM folks, e.g.), it would be almost impossible to believe that only those 4 men other than JS knew about JS's crimes.
If those 4 knew (and again, I doubt it), then certainly a plethora of others knew as well, and probably well before any of those 4 did.
I don't support JS being innocent, but I have a very tough time reconciling how so many (supposed) victims did not report anything to LE or CYS or wherever throughout the years, even after the fact. Adults can tell when something is wrong (see '98). Kids who may be scared at the time outgrow that later in life and want to do the right thing. Someone, somewhere, would have had to report something along the way to the proper agencies, so says logic based on the numbers. That does not include the PSU football office.... but it could include TSM.
Well, if there was an "interesting lunch" there are two problems:
- they better have this documented five ways to Sunday because words aren't going to cut it 16 years later.
- why did they wait this long? and wouldn't that waiting be part of the conspiracy?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
And on the other side you now have Anthony Lubrano saying the sh|t storm is about to hit and he is confident and armed with information. He is moving forward .... Whom to believe? I know where I put my money...
An old quote and an anonymous investigator but worth bringing up since I hadn't seen it repeated:
"An investigator in the case told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday that 'a lot of entities besides Penn State University had a hand in this.'"
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...new-of-abuse-allegations/stories/201111090158
"An investigator in the case told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Tuesday that 'a lot of entities besides Penn State University had a hand in this.'"
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...new-of-abuse-allegations/stories/201111090158
The 1998 background is to help prove they covered up 2001. They all knew about JS behavior, so 2001 was not a complete surprise. They also knew it was reported and investigated by multiple parties. So the fact that 2001 was not reported must mean a cover up.
Simple to interpret the prosecutors charging documents. What else are you reading into this?
As for your other claims about C/S/S/P knowing about JS, I sure hope it is more than someone making accusations that can't be proven. We have seen enough of that nonsense from the insurance claims.
Not necessarily, I found out yesterday that an old f
That's a fair take. I have heard that the prosecution can show they knew about 1998, but who knows? We will see in a few months.
That's a fair take. I have heard that the prosecution can show they knew about 1998, but who knows? We will see in a few months.
Meh.. we've heard a lot of people say similar things. People with blogs. People here.
I won't believe anything until I seen it.
My doubt began with a certain blogger and his/her claim that Erickson was, at the time, under federal investigation and that an arrest was imminent.
I have more faith in Lubrano than anyone else, but it's not a lot of faith. And that has nothing to do with him personally but is a direct result of the people who claim that certain things are happening, or that they know something, but haven't actually produced anything.
Tired of both cryptic posts and the 'I know something but can't tell you' posts. This trial can't get here soon enough.
Amen. And many of those claims aren't worth the virtual paper on which they're printed. We've got some folks here now who are openly auditioning for The Platters.
dookie has been pulling this nonsense here for years. Of course, he never delivers the goods. He's just yanking our chains wishing his brother came out of this mess looking better.
He's not yanking any chains. In a white collar case like this, not all evidence will be released prior to a trial. This is not a dead body and a murder suspect, or a stolen car. It's allegations that Penn State officials handled it improperly.
And to prove that it will take testimony and evidence of communications that are most likely not publicly available at this time.
And to prove that it will take testimony and evidence of communications that are most likely not publicly available at this time.
Duh?
Of course folks at PSU "knew about" 1998 (to one degree or another)
You think that is earth-shaking news? Seriously?
Good Grief
If Hawking and Einstein were having a conversation about Theoretical Physics...... Elvis would - apparently - jump in with:
"But, but, but ....... 2+2=4!!!!!"
"Uh, yeah Elvis. Thanks for your contribution" ....
Last edited:
Putting aside making the evidence known to the public....
Doesn't this evidence need to be shared with the defense? (I don't know for certain, so a legit, if perhaps naive, question from me).
Schultz's atty has indicated that all evidence has already been presented in prelims. If they are aware of this 'new' evidence, and it would have to be something that at least one of CSS are aware of if they are involved, it is curious to me that none of them would make a deal of some sort to get in front of and away from potentially damaging evidence. What am I overlooking or unaware of?
Edit: and as this is being discussed here, I highly doubt that the CSS Attys remain in the dark about it, even if the evidence was not previously shared.
I'd say the allegations are about a little more than that.
And any "evidence" would be in the defense's hands due to discovery. So, the defense should be formulating a strategy to handle said evidence. I think there are those that will try to convince us that there is going to be some Matlock/Perry Mason surprise to shock everyone.
I think we all just want to see this thing be resolved in a fair manner. Emphasis on the word "fair."
I wasn't really trying to pick on Dukie. I appreciate the bind he's in. He's been more civil than I think I would have been in a similar situation. It's just that he was the latest to go the cryptic route.
There have been many here who post cryptic nonsense or 'I know something but can't tell you' nonsense that sends the board into days of guessing games and speculation.
As we've seen for 5 years now- 99% of this stuff is nonsense or totally meaningless but it's weeks of drama and the usual back and forth with the handful of posters who like to stir the pot.
I just wish people would post what they know and stand behind it. If you can't stand behind it then don't post it.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Thank You that was going to be my question. My understanding was all evidence has to be presented and the defense allowed to look at everything. My thinking most judges are not going to allow some sort of Matlock gotcha evidence to be presented in court without the defense's knowledge. Can it happen... sure. But I can't see most judges allowing it, although in PA's court system I guess anything is possible.
It's the only remaining front on which they can hope to achieve any measure of victory. Simply deny them this.
You never know--as I recall, Martha Stewart spent time in jail--yet the transaction she was hit with perjury about turned out to be adjudged a completely legal transaction which never should have been on the criminal system's radar in the first place. Law can be odd sometimes.
Both you and I need to give up on this. We've been beating that drum for a very long time to no avail.
Regarding potential evidence I started this thread a couple weeks ago about the evidence OAG has that has not been made public. I would expect at least some of these items to come to light during trial.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/sandusky-css-penn-state-unknown-info.164833/
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/sandusky-css-penn-state-unknown-info.164833/
I'd say the allegations are about a little more than that.
When will the AG hold a press conference with the left placard showing dropped charges crossed out?
Sure they have to share it , but I would not believe the word of his atty as Gospel. Attys don't say , yeah my guy did it. They are defending their client and will maintain their innocence.
My post about a lunch is maybe being read to much into my apologies for that. I think I was trying to point out that I. This town all the players have supporters and non supporters. Some of those on both sides have gone through great effort to keep parties informed of what they see hear etc.
The lunch comment was meant as s way of saying people watch things on behalf of all those who are involved.
I would like to make one point maybe directed at lionlurker in particular. I realize he is so e how close to tim and I appreciate his comments. To say anyone who is stepping into a courthouse as a defendant, as a witness as a plaintiff isn't nervous is a bit naive to me. Tgat is not cased on anything other than my two cents.
Sorry for the cryptology....
The lunch comment was meant as s way of saying people watch things on behalf of all those who are involved.
I would like to make one point maybe directed at lionlurker in particular. I realize he is so e how close to tim and I appreciate his comments. To say anyone who is stepping into a courthouse as a defendant, as a witness as a plaintiff isn't nervous is a bit naive to me. Tgat is not cased on anything other than my two cents.
Sorry for the cryptology....
The plea deals are still on the table. And being ignored.
And to Dukie, I get what you mean about the nervous comment. I think that perhaps a better way to state that is to say that there is a high degree of confidence. I think everybody understands how utterly crooked the state criminal justice system is now, but unlike the JS trial, the defense attorneys are now adults. It's going to make a huge difference. They have already set the table for appeals in numerous ways just in case, but that is just them doing their jobs.
I myself still think that this trial will never happen. It's going to get delayed again and again, somehow, until everybody involved has been dead for 15 years. Then they will finally drop the charges. And I'm only being partially facetious. If this trial ever actually happens, there is just way too much to lose, by opening up Pandora's box.
And to Dukie, I get what you mean about the nervous comment. I think that perhaps a better way to state that is to say that there is a high degree of confidence. I think everybody understands how utterly crooked the state criminal justice system is now, but unlike the JS trial, the defense attorneys are now adults. It's going to make a huge difference. They have already set the table for appeals in numerous ways just in case, but that is just them doing their jobs.
I myself still think that this trial will never happen. It's going to get delayed again and again, somehow, until everybody involved has been dead for 15 years. Then they will finally drop the charges. And I'm only being partially facetious. If this trial ever actually happens, there is just way too much to lose, by opening up Pandora's box.
Last edited:
Well... I would think the three and their Lawyers would know something and therefore would have done a deal some time ago...
This is likely just more BS.
If there are 3 rd parties involved who would testify... Those names have to be made available to the defense prior...yes? Ie cross examination ?
Thank You that was going to be my question. My understanding was all evidence has to be presented and the defense allowed to look at everything. My thinking most judges are not going to allow some sort of Matlock gotcha evidence to be presented in court without the defense's knowledge. Can it happen... sure. But I can't see most judges allowing it, although in PA's court system I guess anything is possible.
It may revolve around testimony, which hasn't been given yet. There may have been depositions, which both sides would be aware of, but no one knows what will actually come out at trial.
There may be witnesses or evidence which is not "admissible" in the case right now, that one side or the other thinks they may be able to bring in through testimony.
Some of that is just priceless. You note that Kane, as a supervisor, had the legal authority to restrict the uses of her employees' computers. First, I believe that many of those porn e-mails were sent before Kane became AG. Second, many of the people in that group of people exchanging porn e-mails were judges, or other people over whom Kane had zero authority. But it is no business of the AG at all? She should ignore a ring of prosecutors and judges exchanging porn e-mails, when those same prosecutors and judges are handling sexual assault, gender discrimination, and domestic abuse cases within the state of Pennsylvania? Ever heard of the term "appearance of impropriety?"
Your last sentence, above, was the funniest of all. Should we now laud the porn dogs for helping publicize the plight of women with breast cancer?
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Placing multiple FutureCasts in favor of Penn State- Latest: Sportfan2017
-
-