Again. Knew what, exactly? You're quoting testimony after Corbutt and the corrupt OAG blew up the world - maliciously I might add. What's he supposed to say? "You're all nuts. Showering w/ a kid isn't a crime. Sorry."
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Because juries have IQs of about 65
From page 339 of the Moulton Report, "With regard to the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, no individual, organization, or government agency contacted The Second Mile or Raykovitz about an investigation of Sandusky." Kevin L. Hand, Esquire's letter to Moulton in response to the report pertaining to Raykovitz and Genovese.
http://www.yardbird.com/pdfs/2014_06_23_REPORT_to_AG_ON_THE_SANDUSKY_INVESTIGATION-2.pdf
doh... thanks for verifying, but much ado about nothing. :-/
The only reason they are here is probably due to your craziness. You're toxic online.
I've got no trial experience at all but it sure seems like this is a lot of witnesses to get through in one day. It seems like MM and Dr d should take a couple/three hours parcing all of their statements.
Add her to the list of people I hate.
Spanier's lawyer Silver apparently didn't even try to challenge the "sexual" nature of MM's report from 2001. Instead it looks like the Spanier strategy will be to blame C/S for not either reporting the shower incident back to Spanier verbatim or simply telling Spanier they had it under control while he was away and there was no need for further discussion or involvement from Graham. Risk strategy at best, IMHO.
Witnessing and testifying is evidence.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Spanier-trial-opening-arguments-Paterno.html?mobi=true
I was on the road awhile , was this posted yet?
I was on the road awhile , was this posted yet?
Stupid strategy if this is indeed the case. Prosecution will argue that buck stops at the top.
thats not all, always cracks me up when ND fans make comments on this:
http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/...-accused-of-child-sexual-abuse-305192751.html
http://ndsmcobserver.com/2010/04/notre-dames-past-shows-university-not-immune-to-problems/
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_04_Fosmoe_VictimsTale.htm
Funneling can mean directing something from a large area into a small area. So, when we know that the state/CYS was taking large groups of at risk kids and directing them to TSM, they were literally funneling kids into TSM/JS foster home.
Any more brain busters?
I don't think they have to considering MM never told Spanier. It is what C&S told Spanier that will be important. If C&S were on trial, they would have to rip MM apart.
If that report is to be believed, looks like Schultz is also going to throw Paterno under the bus.
Not when schultz will testify that the word horseplay was never used to describe the incident and that they knew they needed to make a report, they messed up by not doing so and they were actually going to report the incident until Tim talked to Joe and changed his mind.
In my opinion Spanier can only hope that he can convince the jury that the crimes he is charged with do not apply to him by the specific letter of the law. I think that will end up being more for an appellate judge to sort through than a jury but it is impossible to predict a jury as it only takes 1 to say not guilty.
In my opinion, if you had called the police that Saturday morning we wouldn't have to read your opinions.
So, they're going to throw it back on the dead guy?
I'm not shocked--I called this a while ago.
Hold on. You wrote that but you never wrote who 'they' are. You eliminated Curley. Who are 'they'? Lubert et al by way of Schultz?
Easy out for him. Yeah it will be the fear of the jury making him do that. After all that is why he took the plea according to so many.
Excuse me, Einstein.
This would be a good time for me to use your favorite monkey gif, the one you've worn out responding to your fellow genius, pnnylion.
I think it's risky because by giving that away you also open up the possibility that C/S will now confirm the sexual language as part of the plea deal (3 vs 1) and the emails will appear to confirm it to a jury. We've been talking about the best way to win is to challenge MM, his multiple stories and coercion by the OAG for 5 years now. All of that is out the window as a strategy? Spanier is prepared to accept at face value there was a "sexual" report in 2001 by MM that somehow didn't reach his desk? Risky man.
The truth has no chance if this is their defense tactic.
If they thought there was a sexually abused boy involved, the notes and emails would have been entirely different. The boy would have been the focus of attention. Not whether Ol' Jer was going to be cooperative or what his appropriate use of the facilities should be going forward.
I'll say it for the 100th time. According to Spanier, the "only downside" could "only" be triggered by Jerry's actions in the future. If there was any thought that a boy had been abused, he would have been the elephant in the room. The possibility that he/his family would go to the authorities was a much more immediate and real "downside" than Jerry not hearing and acting upon their message.
The truth shall set you free!
Last edited:
Isn't that the objective for every defendant, in every trial, since forever? I'm not sure what else you expected. Arguing that the charges, based on specific laws, are not relevant is kind of the point of the whole process.
Take a breath.
This whole case revolves around some incident that occurred in 2001 that MM witnessed and was serious enough for TC to go to Raykovitz, Schultz to go to Courtney, and the OAG to spend 5.5 years prosecuting TC GS and GS.. Part of the OAG's case is no one from Penn State contacted the authorities. [police]
So A. Harmon ='s police
B. Harmon said "if he knew of the incident he would have investigated it"
C. If he investigated it seems to me PSU admin should be largely off the hook.
A = B =C
"What's he supposed to say" well the truth would be nice but realizing that may be too much I think the defense should go about trying to prove he did know. he has given them an opening and as I said both Ray and Towny seem confident Harmon was aware..
I bet they figured attacking Mike's account may turn off the jury, i.e. might be seen as questioning Jerry's guilt. This will all turn on that important term "horseplay" IMO. Where did it come from, who said it first?
LOL! I'm all over this one. Totally clueless but Hey: "My big brother is prosecuting the WRONG people!
I have this feeling that "certain witnesses for the Prosecution" are going to experience "cross-examination" like they've never experienced before.....and they won't be "properly prepared".
Last edited:
I'd wager you - at 20-1 odds - that isn't gonna ' happenI have this feeling that "certain witnesses for the Prosecution" are going to experience "cross-examination" line they've never experienced before.....and they won't be "properly prepared".
I don't know if you tweet but this is what I think as well. Been saying it for two days.I have this feeling that "certain witnesses for the Prosecution" are going to experience "cross-examination" line they've never experienced before.....and they won't be "properly prepared".
The one thing that amazes me about this case to this day is that both friends and foes of PSU make the same mistake over and over again.
They continuously, repeatedly, and without hesitation use 2012 news and even now 2017 knowledge to make judgements on actions that occurred a decade or more before. It's like everyone is HG Wells or Marty McFly.
They continuously, repeatedly, and without hesitation use 2012 news and even now 2017 knowledge to make judgements on actions that occurred a decade or more before. It's like everyone is HG Wells or Marty McFly.
From DuncPSU on TOS (I think he got it from PennLive):
"The defense will attempt to defuse eyewitness then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary's gripping account of seeing Sandusky in an apparent sexual situation with a boy in the Lasch Football Building by noting that Spanier never heard directly from McQueary."
"As the administrators' planned to deal with Sandusky, Silver argued that email threads discovered by investigators many years later will show that the collective decision not to report the former coach to police or child welfare officials - while ultimately a failed decision - was in fact the farthest thing from a coverup."
"Silver also contended evidence will show that McQueary, head coach Joe Paterno and others who clearly knew about the 2001 allegation were never told by Graham Spanier that they should keep things quiet."
In closing, Silver admonished the jurors against letting the case become some sort of referendum on whether Spanier and his aides handled the Sandusky situation perfectly.
Rather, he said, their sole duty is to determine whether Spanier's "conduct at the time - before anyone knew the end of the story - was criminal behavior.
"Is he a criminal," Silver said, looking back at his client, "for agreeing to a plan to bar Jerry Sandusky from bringing kids on campus, and to tell the head of The Second Mile what had been reported?"
Silver appealed to jurors to let Spanier walk out of court just as he entered - as an innocent man.
"We're going to urge you to reject that effort to criminalize well-intended decisions."
=======================================
'It was sexual:' Mike McQueary takes the stand at Graham Spanier's child endangerment trial
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/mike_mcqueary.html#incart_river_home
"Without a doubt," McQueary said.
"They said they would look into it and investigate it. They would take is seriously," he said of the result of his meeting with Curley and Schultz.
Another week or so went by before Curley called to tell him that Sandusky was going to be banned from bringing children into Penn State's athletic facilities and that they were going to report the incident to officials at the Second Mile charity for disadvantaged kids that Sandusky founded, McQueary said
Yet he said he still saw Sandusky in the athletic facilities after that, and didn't hide his disgust at the situation. After Sandusky was arrested a decade later, and it became clear that he was a main witness in the case, Penn State officials took his keys and banned him from campus buildings, McQueary said.
Silver didn't heap any abuse on him during cross-examination that lasted only a few minutes.
Instead, Silver focused on what McQueary told Spanier about the shower incident.
"Dr. Spanier never talked to me about any of that," McQueary said.
"Nobody ever told you to keep your mouth shut?" Silver asked.
"No," McQueary replied. "I've never had a conversation with Dr. Spanier about that."
When Silver asked if he is sure he told Curley and Shultz that he believed he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy, McQueary replied, "That's the message that I certainly gave, that it was sexual."
"The defense will attempt to defuse eyewitness then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary's gripping account of seeing Sandusky in an apparent sexual situation with a boy in the Lasch Football Building by noting that Spanier never heard directly from McQueary."
"As the administrators' planned to deal with Sandusky, Silver argued that email threads discovered by investigators many years later will show that the collective decision not to report the former coach to police or child welfare officials - while ultimately a failed decision - was in fact the farthest thing from a coverup."
"Silver also contended evidence will show that McQueary, head coach Joe Paterno and others who clearly knew about the 2001 allegation were never told by Graham Spanier that they should keep things quiet."
In closing, Silver admonished the jurors against letting the case become some sort of referendum on whether Spanier and his aides handled the Sandusky situation perfectly.
Rather, he said, their sole duty is to determine whether Spanier's "conduct at the time - before anyone knew the end of the story - was criminal behavior.
"Is he a criminal," Silver said, looking back at his client, "for agreeing to a plan to bar Jerry Sandusky from bringing kids on campus, and to tell the head of The Second Mile what had been reported?"
Silver appealed to jurors to let Spanier walk out of court just as he entered - as an innocent man.
"We're going to urge you to reject that effort to criminalize well-intended decisions."
=======================================
'It was sexual:' Mike McQueary takes the stand at Graham Spanier's child endangerment trial
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/mike_mcqueary.html#incart_river_home
"Without a doubt," McQueary said.
"They said they would look into it and investigate it. They would take is seriously," he said of the result of his meeting with Curley and Schultz.
Another week or so went by before Curley called to tell him that Sandusky was going to be banned from bringing children into Penn State's athletic facilities and that they were going to report the incident to officials at the Second Mile charity for disadvantaged kids that Sandusky founded, McQueary said
Yet he said he still saw Sandusky in the athletic facilities after that, and didn't hide his disgust at the situation. After Sandusky was arrested a decade later, and it became clear that he was a main witness in the case, Penn State officials took his keys and banned him from campus buildings, McQueary said.
Silver didn't heap any abuse on him during cross-examination that lasted only a few minutes.
Instead, Silver focused on what McQueary told Spanier about the shower incident.
"Dr. Spanier never talked to me about any of that," McQueary said.
"Nobody ever told you to keep your mouth shut?" Silver asked.
"No," McQueary replied. "I've never had a conversation with Dr. Spanier about that."
When Silver asked if he is sure he told Curley and Shultz that he believed he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy, McQueary replied, "That's the message that I certainly gave, that it was sexual."
