If I was Curley or Shultz

[WeR0206]

That's NOT what they admitted. They pled guilt to EWOC. That's it.

Elvis really is working overtime these days. He somehow keeps forgetting the admins didn't plead guilty to conspiracy, obstruction, or anything along those lines.

They essentially admitted to making a mistake which resulted in a misdemeanor.

The state spent millions of dollars and years of time and walked away with two misdemeanors, that has to be some kind of record.

This is the same MO seth williams used on the philly #blingsting democrats, who ironically had less in unreported gifts than seth himself. Overcharge folks to pressure them into a wrist slap plea deal then act like its some huge victory.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Elvis really is working overtime these days. He somehow keeps forgetting the admins didn't plead guilty to conspiracy, obstruction, or anything along those lines.

They essentially admitted to making a mistake which resulted in a misdemeanor.

The state spent millions of dollars and years of time and walked away with two misdemeanors, that has to be some kind of record.

This is the same MO seth williams used on the philly #blingsting democrats, who ironically had less in unreported gifts than seth himself. Overcharge folks to pressure them into a wrist slap plea deal then act like its some huge victory.

To be fair, isn't part of a plea dropping some of the charges in exchange for something in return...like testimony? If you didn't take things off the table, the incentive to plea kind of goes away.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It certainly doesn't make them believable....but what about the emails and notes that the state will provide to basically back up their claims? I have no doubt that will be the card the defense plays as it's typical, but the emails and notes in conjunction with their testimony will probably be a bit more credible than just their words alone. I have a feeling these two will go from victims afraid of a fair trial to a-holes that threw PSU under the bus to save themselves really quickly. Mistakes were made all over. State Agencies, judicial system, TSM, and even some at PSU. I know it's common drum beat to ask why not everyone else and it's a legit question, but at some point is anyone going to raise an eyebrow and say....hmmm, maybe these 3 really did botch this thing up in a bad way. I didn't want to believe it, but it's looking like more and more that I was off base there.

Unless their are new notes and emails that we haven't seen yet, I do not believe that the notes and emails are conclusive. Just as they were not conclusive when we first saw them years ago.

I'm honestly not convinced that C/S testify for the OAG. I really don't see how they are going to be a big help to the case. I think the OAG doesn't want to go to trial and only Spanier's moral high ground (or stubbornness if you prefer) is preventing this from being totally over. If it does go to trial, the OAG wanted C/S out of the picture because it much easier to battle one defense team rather than three.

 

[bdgan]

I thought the same about Mike M. for the last 5 years.

What would he have done if he moved away? He stuck around town to be near his family and to sue PSU.

 

[sluggo72]

Unless their are new notes and emails that we haven't seen yet, I do not believe that the notes and emails are conclusive. Just as they were not conclusive when we first saw them years ago.

I'm honestly not convinced that C/S testify for the OAG. I really don't see how they are going to be a big help to the case. I think the OAG doesn't want to go to trial and only Spanier's moral high ground (or stubbornness if you prefer) is preventing this from being totally over. If it does go to trial, the OAG wanted C/S out of the picture because it much easier to battle one defense team rather than three.

I think you are right. I would not be surprised to see the state drop their case vs GS on Monday, and then the judge, reverse the peas of TC & GC and drop their charges as well. Stranger things have happened.

 

[PSU2UNC]

To be fair, isn't part of a plea dropping some of the charges in exchange for something in return...like testimony? If you didn't take things off the table, the incentive to plea kind of goes away.

But the something in return in this case might be the guilty plea itself.

In most cases, neither side wants to go to court because juries (and sometimes judges) are unpredictable. If you can negotiate a mutually agreeable plea deal, that's usually what you will do.

If the OAG had no confidence in their case (which they shouldn't have) but couldn't drop the charges (for political reasons), then they could offer a plea to extremely minimal charges (which is what they did) to make it go away while sort of saving face (you get to have newspaper articles proclaiming that the PSU admins pled guilty to cover up)

What is telling to me is that Spanier didn't take this sweetheart of a deal. That should tell you something about his confidence in his defense.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Unless their are new notes and emails that we haven't seen yet, I do not believe that the notes and emails are conclusive. Just as they were not conclusive when we first saw them years ago.

I'm honestly not convinced that C/S testify for the OAG. I really don't see how they are going to be a big help to the case. I think the OAG doesn't want to go to trial and only Spanier's moral high ground (or stubbornness if you prefer) is preventing this from being totally over. If it does go to trial, the OAG wanted C/S out of the picture because it much easier to battle one defense team rather than three.

Interesting take...didn't think of it that way, but I disagree and think they will be testifying. Their testimony to go along with the notes and emails will not paint the prettiest of pictures. Separately they may not be conclusive, but together they are pretty solid. I don't think they took the plea without knowing they will have to testify, but we'll just have to see. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think if GS's trial occurs that they will be called.

 

[sluggo72]

Interesting take...didn't think of it that way, but I disagree and think they will be testifying. Their testimony to go along with the notes and emails will not paint the prettiest of pictures. Separately they may not be conclusive, but together they are pretty solid. I don't think they took the plea without knowing they will have to testify, but we'll just have to see. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think if GS's trial occurs that they will be called.

how do you authenticate the emails?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

how do you authenticate the emails?

Ask the people on the stand if they sent that email for one or recognize the email. Is that your email and did you send it...yes...what is the defense going to say...no it's not when the header has to and from on it? I think we're a little beyond that right now. That was a good strong theory about 3 years ago, but if these two take the stand...I don't think the question of authenticity of the notes and email come into play.

 

[BBrown]

What would he have done if he moved away? He stuck around town to be near his family and to sue PSU.

IDK maybe he could get that job as a stock boy in another state.
At the very least I would have booked after I won my suite and not fooled around with
baiting deer.

 

[sluggo72]

Ask the people on the stand if they sent that email for one or recognize the email. Is that your email and did you send it...yes...what is the defense going to say...no it's not when the header has to and from on it? I think we're a little beyond that right now.

they could say, I don't remember, it is so long ago.

 

[lionville]

I thought the same about Mike M. for the last 5 years.

Mike will need some cosmetic work even if he changes name and relocates. He can afford it I suppose.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

they could say, I don't remember, it is so long ago.

You're right they could try that and then they could also admit to it being their email too. Again...great theory 2-3 years ago...not really anymore. The defense for dummies time has kind of passed.

 

[sluggo72]

You're right they could try that and then they could also admit to it being their email too. Again...great theory 2-3 years ago...not really anymore. The defense for dummies time has kind of passed.

well again I agree PSU2UNC, I don't think their pleas deals involve testifying against GS. But we will see soon enough!

 

[elvis63]

Snow melts away, bullshit stays.

Bullshit is in the eye of the beholder until someone shines the light of truth on it .

People have to get to work , so snow must be moved to get on the road .

 

[elvis63]

well again I agree PSU2UNC, I don't think their pleas deals involve testifying against GS. But we will see soon enough!

They do involve that and there is no deal. They are testifying with hope the judge goes easy on sentencing.

Not a move of an innocent man.

 

[elvis63]

You're right they could try that and then they could also admit to it being their email too. Again...great theory 2-3 years ago...not really anymore. The defense for dummies time has kind of passed.

You are correct , that's definitely not working. And isn't anyone reading that article which clearly stated what they admitted to? In sworn statements.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

well again I agree PSU2UNC, I don't think their pleas deals involve testifying against GS. But we will see soon enough!

Fair enough, but if GS doesn't plea out this week....look for them to testify. One way or the other...but I have a feeling it will be for the state and not GS.

 

[elvis63]

That's NOT what they admitted. They pled guilt to EWOC. That's it.

That was part of the deal.

Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.

They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011.

See this? Penn live article today .

Reading comprehension issues ?

 

[sluggo72]

Fair enough, but if GS doesn't plea out this week....look for them to testify. One way or the other...but I have a feeling it will be for the state and not GS.

all three were offered the same deal, it just wasn't TC, GaryS. it was all three. So if all three were offered the same deal, who would they be testifying against? If the State was offering all 3 the same deal, does the state really want to go to trail on this? I think GS called their bluff. But again we will know soon enough.

 

[PSU2UNC]

That was part of the deal.

Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.

They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011.

See this? Penn live article today .

Reading comprehension issues ?

Do you really think Penn Live is a good source for this?

Do you understand that when you plead guilty to something, there are "magic words" that you have to say as part of your admission of guilt? They did not come up with these words. The OAG told them exactly what to say. That doesn't mean it's true, it just means they had to say it to get their EXTREMELY generous plea deal.

 

[bdgan]

IDK maybe he could get that job as a stock boy in another state.
At the very least I would have booked after I won my suite and not fooled around with
baiting deer.

I don't think he got his money yet due to appeal. He might still leave before it's all done.

 

[elvis63]

They spelled out what they did, they admitted they knew , they admitted that they purposely did not report it and interfered with a proper report , and admitted they had a legal duty to do so.

This plea and their testimony shows all charges were valid . It shows they lied. It shows their actions directly led to more child being placed in danger, one at PSU.

Read it again, this isn't just legal Ts and Is being crossed and dotted, this plea allows the AOJ to say they dun it and they k

Do you really think Penn Live is a good source for this?

Do you understand that when you plead guilty to something, there are "magic words" that you have to say as part of your admission of guilt? They did not come up with these words. The OAG told them exactly what to say. That doesn't mean it's true, it just means they had to say it to get their EXTREMELY generous plea deal.

Ad hominem, but yeah, it's a good source . They quoted the prosecutors.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Read it again, this isn't just legal Ts and Is being crossed and dotted, this plea allows the AOJ to say they dun it and they k


.

Even spelling mistakes aside, you are 100% wrong about this.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

Doesn't matter who I am , they took a plea and admitted to covering it up.

Elvis63, I'd like to know more about the admissions to a cover up.

Certainly they plead guilty to an offense of knowingly preventing or interfering with a report. And that may mean a cover-up. But it may also mean, they screwed up and didn't do what they should have done, knowing there was real danger. May mean other things. Where they fall on that spectrum isn't yet clear to many of us--although you seem to be right that we'll know soon enough.

Please identify what you think best identifies C's/S's mindset based on publicly available information:

1) they knew the danger if they were wrong about Jerry and chose incorrectly,
2) they knew the danger and covered it up, not caring whether they were right or wrong,
3) they knew JS was sexually assaulting kids (like MM was clear, it was CSA) and covered it up,
4) Other: ________________

Much of this discussion seems to be folks believing the answer isn't clear yet and you seem to think they're missing something, in denial, etc.. (I"m not asking for a book, just to understand.)

 

[crazytoadie]

Having immunity from perjury prosecution doesn't mean that they would be believable witnesses.

Cross examination: "So you lied about this last time you testified?"
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: But we are supposed to believe you now?
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: Did you accept a plea bargain in exchange for this testimony?
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: No further questions.

This line of thought is very naive. The common juror understands why a defendent would lie to avoid prosecution. The immunity gives protection to correct this and if C/S testimony is consistent with their guilty plea (I.e. they acknowledge failure to go far enough in their plan) then the jurors will find them more believable than Spanier. Even if Spanier testifies, the OAG now has two witnesses that acted in consultation with him who are willing to admit the wrong to the court. The jurors will perceive that if C/S were innocent that they would have at least gone to trial rather that to admit guilt, so the jurors decision is reduced to whether Spanier was involved, not whether a crime was committed. Spaniers odds of prevailing at trial fell dramatically just by the plea of C/S and the odds were not in his favor to begin with.

The only way he gets off is if C/S admit they withheld info from him and that it was all on them. If the do so, you can expect the OAG and judge to be unhappy with that outcome and to be less lenient in sentencing.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

They spelled out what they did, they admitted they knew , they admitted that they purposely did not report it and interfered with a proper report , and admitted they had a legal duty to do so.

This plea and their testimony shows all charges were valid . It shows they lied. It shows their actions directly led to more child being placed in danger, one at PSU.

Read it again, this isn't just legal Ts and Is being crossed and dotted, this plea allows the AOJ to say they dun it and they k



Ad hominem, but yeah, it's a good source . They quoted the prosecutors.

Whoa! Looks like you already answered my question. Where do I find the information-facts (beyond the plea itself) to support what you're saying? What quotes? Please provide.

 

[bdgan]

They spelled out what they did, they admitted they knew , they admitted that they purposely did not report it and interfered with a proper report , and admitted they had a legal duty to do so.

This plea and their testimony shows all charges were valid . It shows they lied. It shows their actions directly led to more child being placed in danger, one at PSU.

Exactly what did they admit that they knew? And don't say something stupid like "everything".

How does this pleading guilt to a misdemeanor prove that other charges they didn't plead to are valid?

 

[PSU2UNC]

This line of thought is very naive. The common juror understands why a defendent would lie to avoid prosecution. The immunity gives protection to correct this and if C/S testimony is consistent with their guilty plea (I.e. they acknowledge failure to go far enough in their plan) then the jurors will find them more believable than Spanier. Even if Spanier testifies, the OAG now has two witnesses that acted in consultation with him who are willing to admit the wrong to the court. The jurors will perceive that if C/S were innocent that they would have at least gone to trial rather that to admit guilt, so the jurors decision is reduced to whether Spanier was involved, not whether a crime was committed. Spaniers odds of prevailing at trial fell dramatically just by the plea of C/S and the odds were not in his favor to begin with.

The only way he gets off is if C/S admit they withheld info from him and that it was all on them. If the do so, you can expect the OAG and judge to be unhappy with that outcome and to be less lenient in sentencing.

Again, I'm on record as saying I do not believe that either Curley or Schultz testifies.

But if they do, they are not rock star witnesses.

 

[marshall23]

Exactly what did they admit that they knew? And don't say something stupid like "everything".

How does this pleading guilt to a misdemeanor prove that other charges they didn't plead to are valid?

As usual the blind are reading tea leaves.

 

[L.T. Young]

Having immunity from perjury prosecution doesn't mean that they would be believable witnesses.

Cross examination: "So you lied about this last time you testified?"
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: But we are supposed to believe you now?
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: Did you accept a plea bargain in exchange for this testimony?
C/S: Yes.
Cross examination: No further questions.

I guess it's a good thing the prosecution has MM, Joe's GJ testimony, and incriminating emails.

Not to mention:

Redirect

Prosecution: Can you explain to the court why you weren't honest with the GJ?

C/S: I knew not reporting suspected
CSA was a crime. I was afraid of the legal consequences and ashamed I allowed a predator to keep victimizing children.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

To be fair, isn't part of a plea dropping some of the charges in exchange for something in return...like testimony? If you didn't take things off the table, the incentive to plea kind of goes away.

Yes to the give an take. Not necessarily to the incentive. There's certainly the element of deal-making. What it involves depends on the strength of the case.

May be dropping a slam dunk for earth-shattering testimony v. more important target.

Or may be dropping a toss-up for a sure thing. But getting a small win (whoever/however defined) and foregoing a trial in exchange is sometimes enough.

 

[crazytoadie]

What report did MM give Curley/Schultz? The same report he gave his dad and Dr. Dranov? OK.....

Agree, but the OAG is not incline to prosecute relatives or friends of the key witness as it undermines the witness and diminishes cooperation. The real issue is why Dr. Raykovitz and Bruce Heim didn't also endanger children moreso that C/S. Raykovitz allowed Sandusky to be around TSM children and foster for number of years afterward with no apparent protection other than "keep you pants on Jerry". Colossal failure and hard to see why he should retain his license. Heim admitted to being informed and gave Jerry access to his hotel facilities, which is the opposite of what C/S did in restricting him. Hard to imagine how those actions weren't equally as perilous given that Raykovitz was a mandated reporter.

 

[L.T. Young]

how do you authenticate the emails?

Spanier has essentially done that already in his New Yorker interview.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Oh, and they are testifying.

"...They conceded a legal duty to do that and as a result of that inaction, the men admitted, prosecutors could show Sandusky continued to have access to boys and, in fact, abused another boy in Penn State's football facilities before his eventual arrest in 2011.

Chew on this. They admitted they covered it up . Deal with it...."

Throughout this case we have viewed every accusation based upon a catalog of information assembled at a 2011+ time frame. We have watched every "Troll Patrol" member use the same form of deception that the OAG used in assembling its case against Penn State - the "time misalignment" method of creating a logically reasonable conclusion. Then to insure maintaining the "illusion" they want to promote, these "Trollers" hand select negative "sound bites" to summarize very complex issues into simple, negative emotionally-based images.

By using this method of "refining reality" the OAG has been able to create the "potentially criminality" it needs to restructure the real worrld of 2001 events. We should be aware that this "augmented" viewpoint can not be considered ACCURATE because the actions which were taken 15 years ago did not have the benefits of today's extended pool of information on Sandusky.

Elvis63 and the rest of the "Troll Patrol" use this misalignment fact, in addition knowing that the scales of justice in PA courts are tilted well out of line with obtaining normal legal results to promote their version of the "Story". Here...the ultra high level statement "...they admitted they covered it up..." is just more of how this form of deception has been used throughout this fiasco.

I do not know what was their thinking in 2001...At the worst case, I envision that they could have SUSPECTED Sandusky could have a problem, but AT THAT TIME, the LEGAL evidence on which all decisions were made reasonably excluded taking any more drastic action than what was taken. All of these "mistakes" (that's the worst case term for 2001 actions) made at the time only appear "criminal" when they are bent through a lens constructed by misinformation created and promoted over the past 5+ years. They all rely on time-misalignment to allow a restructured image of why things were done and they all require you ignore the fact that these decisions were made based on the certainty of LEGAL evidence available.

It is VERY IMPORTANT that we look at all 2001 actions based on 2001 knowledge! Nothing that DEFINITIVELY existed in 2001 confirmed that Sandusky was criminally involved with his TSM "kids". It is only when we re-filter our evaluation of Sandusky through the charges made by the OAG and then "confirmed(?)" by Freeh (remember... no collusion or conspiracy here!!) that the "cover-up" and "criminality" of C/S/S actions has even a 1% chance of being truth.

Which brings me to the point of this post - Justice requires real evidence which can be properly vetted and is unbiased in how it is obtained and legally presented. I challenge anyone to show where ANYTHING in this case meets these two basic criteria of justice. What we have seen from ALL sources - OAG, legal processes, "outside investigators" and others providing "hidden legal pressures" - is that someone - something - some outside source - is creating a chain of "misinformation" on which the public "Story" is based.

The fundamental truth of the unfair and deceptive properties of Time misalignment is shown by the legal concept of statute of limitations.

The high-level statement of "Chew on this. They admitted they covered it up . Deal with it...." does not focus on anything like what is a more accurate statement..."They chose the certainty of a "stretched" misdemeanor charge over the potential results that could be obtained in a courts system where justice can only be a minor "option" in outcome.

Based upon the TOTAL activities we have seen over the past 5+ years, these "outside forces" are willing to do anything to insure the existing "Story" continues to seem reasonable to the public. This way the real coverup of criminal corruption at the State Level and the REAL criminal activities of TSM will remained buried.

 

[Stufftodo]

Like Ray Lange did?

That was merely his wife's maiden name, not an alias.

If Curley or Schultz get up on the stand and say that MM told them it was sexual in nature (and not horseplay) and then Spaneir instructed them to bury it, I see the chance of that happening as about zero. Basically means C/S knowingly let a child molester on the loose for what reason. C/S, if they testify, will say the same thing they have said all along, that MM was vague and never said anything of a sexual nature occurred.

I expect that they will testify that McQueary reported a sexual assault. I don't have any reason for Curley to lie in the grand jury to protect Raykovitz, but we'll see.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I guess it's a good thing the prosecution has MM, Joe's GJ testimony, and incriminating emails.

Not to mention:

Redirect

Prosecution: Can you explain to the court why you weren't honest with the GJ?

C/S: I knew not reporting suspected
CSA was a crime. I was afraid of the legal consequences and ashamed I allowed a predator to keep victimizing children.

MM will get killed on the stand.

Joe's GJ testimony won't be help. "I don't know what you call it" will be front and center.

The emails that you say are incriminating the defense will say are exonerating.

 

[WeR0206]

How many children were hurt bc of Raykovitz lack of action of looking into TC's report (he was required to look into any and ALL incident reports)?

PSU admins had no control over JS' access to kids. JR and Heim sure as hell did and the state instead threw the book at the admins only to get a single misdemeanor charge for each. Justice served? I don't think so.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

As usual the blind are reading tea leaves.

Has Elvis63 left the building?

 

[L.T. Young]

MM will get killed on the stand.

Joe's GJ testimony won't be help. "I don't know what you call it" will be front and center.

The emails that you say are incriminating the defense will say are exonerating.

Outside of this echo chamber these tiny little things you desperately cling to mean very little.