jmmyW Question.
- Thread starter dshumbero
- Start date
Old article (2 years) still relevant.
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article42846450.html
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article42846450.html
I was surprised by Judge Boccabella's recent orders. But at this point, I think the trial goes forward on March 20th.
Even though Boccabella denied the interlocutory appeal on 2/28, every prior interlocutory appeal has been denied - and there have been at least three of those - and yet the PA Superior Court heard the Baldwin ACP appeal anyway, without an approved interlocutory appeal.
While CSS could all file an immediate appeal to the PA Superior Court to get the remaining charges thrown out, I think they would probably refuse to hear it since the trial is scheduled to start so soon.
(But maybe I just hope they wouldn't choose to hear an immediate appeal - I'm kinda getting tired of waiting around for some resolution.)
I thought CSS all made solid legal arguments on why the remaining charges should be thrown out. That the FTR charges were thrown out and the EWOC charges remained doesn't make a whole a lot of sense. All those charges stem from the same actions/inactions and in theory have the same statute of limitations.
I suspect it was Roberto's absurdity argument that forced Boccabella to drop the FTR charge. It seems the same argument could've gotten rid of the EWOC charges.
I had also been hoping to see a formal Bill of Particulars. Judge Boccabella denied the CSS motion for producing one, which is totally at odds with his words to the commonwealth back in October.
In the event any of CSS are convicted, I'm sure there will be appeals, and I think they'd have a strong chance of having convictions overturned, simply based on how much the Commonwealth had to reach in filing charges regarding statute of limitations, ex post facto, whether CSS fit definitions in the CPSL, and what exactly the course of conduct was which is what bumped EWOC from a misdemeanor to a felony. I doubt that these "matters of law" will be argued in front of a jury. The Judge will instruct the jury on what elements of the law have to be assessed against whatever the testimony is. But CSS attorneys do have an opportunity to submit recommended jury instructions (see below).
I wish Judge Boccabella had issued opinions along with his recent orders so we could get an understanding of his rationale.
@didier had pointed out there were a bunch of filings on the docket sheets for Curley & Schultz on 2/27. Since he pointed that out, Spanier has made filings as well. In total, there were 9 filings from Curley, 11 from Schultz, and 7 from Spanier. These were all filed on 2/27.
Boccabella's 2/1 order that scheduled the trial to start jury selection on 3/20 also required that CSS make filings by 2/27 to submit: a. Jury voir dire questions, b. Any motions in Limone, and c. Requested jury instructions.
After the 2/28 order denying the interlocutory appeal, PennLive got a quote from Spanier's attorney:
http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/former_penn_state_administrato.html
Sam Silver, Spanier's lead trial counsel, said he was disappointed with the judge's ruling, but prepared to continue the fight at trial.
"We now have a trial date fast approaching, and we look forward to a long-awaited opportunity to vindicate Doctor Spanier before a jury," Silver said.
"We now have a trial date fast approaching, and we look forward to a long-awaited opportunity to vindicate Doctor Spanier before a jury," Silver said.
So as far as I can tell, CSS attorneys are busy getting ready for trial.
Despite my surprise at Bocabella's orders, I am looking forward to the trial and finding out what everyone has to say under oath.
Always enjoy your posts. What is your background/profession if you don't mind?
As I stated previously (don't recall if you saw it) the more serious charges that Pokeafella had dismissed were tied to Cynthia Baldwin. The OAG wanted no part of that. This sleight of hand by Pokeafella had what he left and reinstated are not tied to Baldwin.
Baldwin is the albatross around the neck in this colossal goat eff that no one wants any part of. Everyone wants someone else to stop the can kicking. This is the kind of case that ruins public careers and the Judges know this better than anyone.
IMO, I think CSS are toast at this point if it's going to trial (regardless of the evidence) and a conviction will automatically validate freeh and crush any remaining doubt in most people's eyes. At that point, Paterno's legacy is destroyed and so is PSU as a viable entity.
Last edited:
Funny how they are willing to roll the dice on that, eh?
You missed my main point - not surprising. I expect you will cum in your pants if that happens.
Well, uh, they have their freedom to lose, remember? And the plea deals were quite benign for them, that you may recall they have turned down. In spite of having very good counsel.
And yet, here we are.
I ignored your point because I don't speak conspiracy, imo regardless of the evidence people like you will still maintain their innocence.
The witness list will be very interesting to see.
Also waiting to see if we get a Friday afternoon unsealing of the OAG's filings from Monday. It will take a while to go through the defendants filings but I expected the OAG's to be unsealed soon. Could be waiting for the Friday evening tune-out
I see you were assigned to be the village idiot troll for this thread.
How does this happen? Do you and your troll compadres (jive, stufft, and coveyd) draw straws? Play rock, paper, scissors? Or is there a strict schedule? Threads that start on Friday are yours, kind of thing. Are you allowed to jump into a thread where another troll is already trolling? Or is there a strict protection of territory?
Here's the rub..PL failed to start a Joe, JS or C/S/S thread but did post some stupid shit about Kane that got less than 10 hits. This is their schtick, the Friday bullshit binge.
Still waiting for EWOC charges to be filed against the McQuearys, Dranov, and TSM...
Thanks. I'm an engineer. I'm guessing you missed that one time I posted about engineering stuff. That's ok. I realize the topic can be kinda boring to some. I did try to put some bounce into it --> https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...-driving-etiquette.105546/page-4#post-1584339
I've often wondered about how it works with the paid trolls. Back in the day, when there were more of them, they'd show up like clockwork in certain threads, chipping in and supporting each other. I assumed that one of them was charged with keeping an eye on the board, and then when something came up the others would get contacted somehow. Now that the budget has been cut, it's a much more spare operation. We hardly ever see any of the old classics anymore, although we did predict that much. They must somehow work out a weekend/evening coverage schedule, since usually there's only one of them around at any given time anymore.
Can someone explain this logic as I have seen it adopted by several posters. Let's say CSS all knew of 1998. Why is that relevant? My belief is this case all comes down to what MM told Curley and Shultz, nothing more. If MM said something to the effect of "I saw JS and some kid horsing around in the shower, nothing sexual but I thought I should mention because it was inappropriate". In that instance Curley and Shutlz did not receive a report of sexual abuse so clearly they did not have to report it regardless of 1998. Am I wrong about this?
There is no point to bringing up 98 since it wasn't PSU who did that investigation. The problem unfortunately will be that "sexual nature" quote regardless of the "I don't know what you would call it". If that is admissible in this case (not a lawyer), that will have to be explained because it gives McQueary some corroboration of his story. Otherwise it would be CSS's word vs McQueary. What I don't understand is that telling TSM should destroy the prosecution's case. Maybe someone here can explain why it doesn't. How do you conspire when you go to TSM?
Sandusky had been showering with kids for years in front of others - I believe even Fran Ganter testified in a deposition that he never saw an issue with this; Bruce Heim said basically the same thing. Since nothing came out of 98' and Sandusky had been showering with kids for years, 2001 was basically seen as a non event as people had become desensitized to Sanduky's behavior. The only party that should be questioned and held accountable based on 98' is the commonwealth of Pa. - that was their golden opportunity to stop Sandusky and they blew it. Yet no one in the media, the state House of Representatives, state senate, the governor's office, the oag, etc has ever thought to question or investigate that failure by the commonwealth's law enforcement and child welfare agencies. Why is that? Because Joe Paterno's name isn't attached to such an investigation and there isn't any notoriety in such an investigation - but everyone cares about the kids right? I'm sure elvis63 cares about the kids - I'm sure he and the other assholes on this board have all contacted their local state rep and state senator to demand such an investigation to try and stop the next Sandusky that is most assuredly out there. For the record, I called both my state rep and state senator sometime after Sandusky was convicted about why no one in state government had launched an investigation as to what happened in 98' and how Sandusky could have built this charity (right under the noses of law enforcement and child welfare agencies) and gotten away with what he did for over 30 years including fostering and adopting a number of kids. You would think the commonwealth would be interested in trying to learn from mistakes to try and stop the next Sandusky - right? You know what I heard back from my state officials - zilch, nada - not even a form letter response. Yea, but everyone cares about the kids - right?
Last edited:
Not a lawyer but I would think Paterno's testimony could not be admitted since it is not subject to cross examination but I will defer to the lawyers on that one. You bring up a good point about tsm since I thought the "reporting" requirement was defined in the law in part as "reporting or causing a report to be made". Since I believe tsm would be mandated reporters wouldn't reporting an incident to them fulfill the requirement of "causing a report to made"? I think a strong argument could be made on that point. As wensilver and others have argued to exasperation for the last 5 plus years how tsm has escaped scrutiny and accountability in this is mind boggling but hey it's all about the kids - right?
I believe a mandated reporter must report to CYS or DPW. If that is the case, reporting to TSM does not meet that requirement. That said, a report to TSM certainly goes to intent. Trying to prosecute someone for failure to report, based on a cover up theory, is next to impossible if it was reported to TSM. Conversely, failure to report based on one perhaps not understanding a legal requirement also would seem very difficult. This is where Courtney's testimony is critical. If he advised they did not have to report, again, it is going to be difficult to get a conviction IMO.
Sure.
Assuming that CSS, or some of them, knew since 1998 that Sandusky was a pedophile, they have a report that Sandusky was alone in shower with a young boy late at night while both were naked. It becomes a question of "known or should have known." It becomes virtually impossible, in that circumstance, not to believe that there is a possibility, a good one, that this was a sexual encounter.
Let me it this way:
1. You knew that Sandusky was a pedophile.
2. You knew that Sandusky agreed not to shower with boys again.
3. You get a report that a witness seeing Sandusky alone in a shower, late at night, with a boy.
What is the conclusion that the average juror would reach? Is it the likely that this could be abuse? Context is everything.
Don't even reply to him - arguing with him is like fighting a girl (though most girls are probably tougher). You can't win and his goal is just to annoy you by saying the most outlandish things.
If they knew they could get a conviction here, they'd have tried them years ago. They wouldn't have had judges sit on appeals for more than a year. They wouldn't have most of the charges thrown out. They wouldn't have guys not willing to flip on each other or take no-punishment plea deals. The handwriting is on the wall here. The AD, more than likely, wants nothing to do with this.
Eh, the more I ruminate, the more I'm convinced this never sees a courtroom. Something will happen between now and March 20th.
Eh, the more I ruminate, the more I'm convinced this never sees a courtroom. Something will happen between now and March 20th.
They might be able to get it in under Rule 804, and804A.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/225/chapter8/chap8toc.html
Notice that I said "assuming," to preface the question. The OAG will have to prove that. I'm betting that they can.
We will get a greater picture of this from the prosecution witness list. If we see, Ganter, Bradley, and/or Sloane, this will be the direction.
The people that have been slowing the case has been CSS, as with their current attempt to appeal. The OAG waiting with baited breath to get the evidence out there.
Further, where were these supposed offered. I have not seen any.
Last edited:
You should also note that Cohen served as a consultant to CSS, to the point of including something in one of their filings.
After this was pointed out, Cohen ceased being called on as an "independent" voice on the case. That is why you have not heard from him in a while.
Dranov testified that MM didn't tell him about anything that he felt needed to be reported to police. Why should we believe that MM told C/S more than he told his dad and family friend?
Dranov testified that McQueary was virtually incoherent and couldn't say anything,
Pretty much describes both you and Cohen.
Under your hypothetical there is no case against CSS. If the law required them to report an allegation of sexual abuse, your scenario is not sexual abuse. So what you are really saying is not only do they need to report abuse but also non-abuse that is weird behavior. I don't believe that is consistent with the law and if the prosecution were to make the argument that MM may not have reported abuse but based on history they still should have reported, that case most likely gets booted before the defense even puts on a case as the state will not have met their burden.
Similar threads
