And this was a prosecution witness? Ouch
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Maybe after meeting with Mike, they felt it didn't require a report to DPW based on the previous conversation with WC. I still don't understand the delay in meeting with Mike though.
'Coach' was Jerry??? That is new. I am assuming Tim is going to speak about his discussions with Joe in 1998 and 2001.
The fact that Legal Counsel was sought will stick with the jury. It shows that advice was sought, there was no "conspiracy" and the fact still remains that Spanier was not in this loop. It was all Gary doing the information gathering and decision making. Gary is not on trial - Dr. Spanier is.
We will have to see what happens today when Gary gets on the stand.
That's how it came across in the email discussion as the state presented it up on the screen. It was Harmon and Schultz discussing 1998 and DPW. Coach (Jerry) was anxious to know where DPW was on their findings.
The state unknowingly destroyed Freeh's "they knew about 1998 and followed it closely" bullshit story.
The state unknowingly shot holes thru Freeh's "coach is anxious to know" bullshit email - that was in the email thread with Harmon & Schultz discussing DPW and where DPW is with regards to the minor in 1998. Coach is Jerry.
I'm curious as to what testimony you feel supports those conclusions?
This needs repeated and repeated. Until it becomes fact.
Reminds me of an old post by @BuffaloLion:
This needs repeated and repeated. Until it becomes fact.
Reminds me of an old post by @BuffaloLion:
Dranov and McQueary senior clearly had the same conclusion. That is why they told him to report it to Joe. An administrative issue, not an alleged crime.
so MM testified that the police called him to warn him they were going to "leak the story". Jeebus. In addition, if Curley and Schultz thought JS had broken the law, why would they call second mile and report it as horsing around? I mean, why report it half way? You'd either cover it up and not report it to anyone, or you'd tell them what MM said and blow the cover on all of this stuff.
It is brilliant, in a horrible way. Simply brilliant media manipulation.
JockstrapJacobs and his platoon of PL/Pitt poofters have been up all night agonizing that Spanier may get off, and making up goofy excuses why he shouldn't. "Andrea" DiMorphio is beside shimself. There has been limited troll activity here because PL is feeding them.
Nobody gives a crap about Penn Live and your obsession with Penn live. Talk about it over there.
Now the new judge in the JS PCRA hearing is fudged. There's the newly discovered evidence that's required for a new trial. I guess MM better clear his calendar for Friday to testify again in Bellefonte.
Let's review what happens to those who leak...
Let me save everyone the time needed to get further trial details. Here is what is happening and what will happen.
First (and foremost) - this has NEVER been a legal issue for any of the actions taken by the OAG and the State of PA. Face it….based upon the State of PA's (OAG) continuous actions, the state does not care a whit about any victims or preventing crimes in the future!!!!
This has ALWAYS been a political assassination!! As I have stated NUMEROUS times in the past - the political DNA here is beyond compelling. This has ALWAYS been a politically-driven, negative public relations campaign, conducted in the media in the same manner as what you see when there is a political opponent someone needs to "take out" as a means to get elected. Troll patrol...I’d love to see you "debate" this fact!!! In this debate we can all listen to the "crickets".
What has been the formula used here is this...
1) control the information which would normally be used as "evidence" to prove/disprove
2) create, through the corrupt (and on "payroll") media allies, MISINFORMATION - the misinformation is centered in edited statements, possible - but less than "most likely" OPINIONS (A/K/A allegations) which can be promoted to the public in "emotionally-charged" labels. Make sure to use these "labels" as a means to shout down any opposition or discussion of facts which "challenge the Story".
3) Apply the standards of law anyway the State of PA wants – i.e. Perjury charges against Penn State (on technicalities of testimony) - yet just plain forget about 100% certified perjury by state investigators (so many examples here it would take pages to cover SOME of what we have seen over 6 years!)
4) FOCUS on the "One-Term Tommy" prize - Nail Paterno, Spanier, PSU Football - make them all APPEAR guilty without anything like reasonable LEGAL evidenc. Create crimes which hide the crimes of the State of PA.
5) Use each legal process as a method of promoting "reasonable to assume" guilt (no real facts needed) so that your on-going negative media barrage APPEARS to be legally based - when, in fact, it is all MEDIA ILLUSION
(6) Continuously use the “time misalignment” factor as a way to back-fill manufactured "could bes" in your constructed “Story”. With enough time, ANYTHING can be alleged and the issue alleged CAN NOT BE 100% proven FALSE! (Check why we have laws on Statutes Of Limitations)!
(6) Use the "power of the state" to promote a legal climate that CAN NOT FAIL – it’s core components are all based on technicality of what APPEARS to be legal - but these issues are all skewed well beyond what REAL legal justice allows.
We have seen this "formula" (and it IS A FORMULA) used by the State of PA to engineer its "Trophy Kill" for over 6 years. It is continuing in this "Trial" and will not stop until the final KILL is made! (funny, but I thought Kangaroos where endangered species).
The trial will go like this....the State will continue to parade "Sandusky Guilt" images in front of the jury - the Judge will make sure that the real issue - that of the crimes of malicious prosecution and legal misconduct – remain hidden from the jury. Any attempt to expose these critical issues will be struck down by our hand-selected, “out-of-retirement” judge (sound familiar??? - remember..its a "formula").
The State will hang its hat on extended interpretations of biased legal “words and descriptive phrases” – i.e. “Spanier’s conspiracy of silence” covered up for Sandusky’s dozens of new victims” and that, without this "criminal action" our crack Police and Child protection agencies would have prevented these “new victims”.
CRITICAL FACT....The State NEEDED to obtain C/S “admissions of guilt” (the media’s terms – not reality!) as it needs to continuously reinforce the misinformation pool that the State requires for insuring its “Tainted” Jury Pool will be deceived. Linkage of ONLY negativites to anything associated to PSU is ESSENTIAL for this deception method to succeed.
The testimony obtained from here on out will rely on all the techniques we have seen in the past so that the REAL crimes committed by those whose political interests need protection can use this absurd ^ year old absurd story constructed as permanent protection. The real issue of this trial is NOT about Spanier and PSU…it is about TSM involvement with Politics (remember $650K in “donations”) and the POTENTIAL CRIMES that some within the State of PA are conducting in a money laundering operation and “Protection Racket” for Pedophiles with MONEY & INFLUENCE!!! ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!
DECEPTION is what this case is built on…it relies on the Power inherent in the State of PA to create its own standards of enforcing the laws and it is justified by a corrupt, connected media providing the public with “managed news”.
As long as those who started this State of PA cover-up can influence the courts….PA should save the money….the “trial” results will only be what the State promotes – the Hell with reality.
This is a sad statement, but, unfortunately, an accurate one!
I’m going to remember this if I ever get into a car accident, I’ll just tell the insurance company that I investigated it and it was the other person’s fault.
So he thought that the people he desperately wanted to work for were covering up CSA, and he still desperately wanted to work for them? So he decided to not “rock the boat”… Isn’t that the definition of EWOC?
Sometimes those closest to the situation are the most deceived. I knew a girl who suddenly, and in a very jerry springer like fashion had a baby. No one knew she was pregnant, she never showed. She told everyone she had no idea she was pregnant, and until this day her very close family still believes that. She told me “of course I knew I was pregnant”.
If you were in the courtroom and listening to Harmon speak, he was going thru this email chain. It was he and Gary discussing DPW. He was keeping Gary appraised adn that DPW was involved. CYS claimed a conflict of interest because of their relationship with Jerry. The "Coach is anxious to know" email is in this thread with Harmon and Schultz discussing DPW and where "they are" with regards to their decision on the boy whom we now know as Victim 6.
Joe Paterno was never mentioned in the courtroom with regards to this. It was only Jerry.
Whatever kind of case the state produces -a convincing one or weak- the following upsetting post comes to mind that was posted by one of our members…..
Last edited:
When JR was questioned by the defense team, wherein he stated that after talking to TC that he spoke with JS about staying off PSU campus.... did the defense ask JR if he asked JS if the kid was from TSM? Seems to me that in his position that he would have been "mandated" to at least inquire if the shower kid was "one of there own". If he didn't ask, wasn't he guilty of endangering one of the children that he and his organization were responsible for?
What I find odd is Mike and members of your family claiming Mike actually saw something sexual, years later. When in fact your dad testified Mike called him minutes after the shower incident and told him he saw nothing more than Jerry in the shower with the boy.
Hi gang, sorry I'm late, did I miss Court Reporter Roxine posting yesterday that Mike McQueary spilled the beans on the OAG leaking the Grand Jury presentment?
And...
Refresh my memory (if it's not numbers it's not important) - didn't Raykovitz, Poole and Heim immediately do the land deal with Penn State after this meeting? Weren't Poole and Heim on the PSU BOT at the time? SM paid a pittance and then flipped it a few years later for millions.
And...
Refresh my memory (if it's not numbers it's not important) - didn't Raykovitz, Poole and Heim immediately do the land deal with Penn State after this meeting? Weren't Poole and Heim on the PSU BOT at the time? SM paid a pittance and then flipped it a few years later for millions.
Day 1's Key Event - and it ain't good
Given the Prosecution's "same old song and dance" witness list:
I think it is pretty safe to assume (like 95+%) that barring Curley or Schultz going "completely off the reservation" with startling, heretofore unreleased information (I don't expect that to happen - but you never know, and we will find out soon enough) the state likely has absolutely zero case against Spanier.
No more than they did back in 2011
No more than they did at his preliminary hearing - when the charges should never have been moved forward (but were 100% locks to move forward through the typical District Magistrate deputy-dog stage)
That doesn't mean he won't get convicted.
Because? Because it's a jury trial.
And, in a case like this, It is highly likely that the jury will demand to "blame someone". Especially after Kline brings his dog-and-pony show to the parade - - - which brings up a whole 'nuther topic we should be discussing - but not right now.
Thus far - the only person the jury is being given the option of "blaming" is GS.
(And the defense team wet the bed - bewilderingly - on this critical issue with the acquiescence to the JR testimony)
Anyway - Day 2 coming up ........ and I'm sure it will draw a lot of interest.
Couple things to keep in mind wrt "jury trials":
1 - As opposed to a discussion among individuals, in a trial setting it is often/usually the case that once an opportunity to delve into an issue is bypassed, that opportunity is GONE forever (on occasion the opposition may open the door for calling a "rebuttal" witness to revisit an issue - but that is the exception)
2 - When the Jury goes back into seclusion to deliberate, you don't have an atmosphere of a PhD dissertation committee - where you have a panel of educated experts who are going to logically dissect the information they were presented with. What you have is a panel of emotional, often intellectually limited "folks". And they render decisions - often (usually?) - that have much more to do with "what they think should happen", rather than "what the rule of law dictate"
3 - The attitudes and biases of the jury, if they were not already established before the trial, are often going to be established very early in the proceedings. It is what it is ....... and once established, and allowed to fester, they are VERY hard to overcome
Looking at "Day 1" of Spanier v Pennsylvania, there were several disconcerting aspects - - - none more so than the cross of JR.
It was - IMO - the most critical event of Day 1 (and nothing else came close)
JR's depiction of the TC meeting......essentially that "TC told me they already handled it".....was left untouched......bewilderingly untouched.
The net result? The Jury now has the impression that PSU (and make no mistake, for this jury, PSU is personified in the visage of Graham Spanier) lied to not only MM, but also to the folks at the 2nd Mile.
This is a severely damaging mistake (IMO) and will be a huge hurdle to overcome moving forward
I'll get into some other examples when more time is available.
It is always better to observe these things in person - - - but there were a handful of situations that appear to have been FUBAR-ed
Given the Prosecution's "same old song and dance" witness list:
I think it is pretty safe to assume (like 95+%) that barring Curley or Schultz going "completely off the reservation" with startling, heretofore unreleased information (I don't expect that to happen - but you never know, and we will find out soon enough) the state likely has absolutely zero case against Spanier.
No more than they did back in 2011
No more than they did at his preliminary hearing - when the charges should never have been moved forward (but were 100% locks to move forward through the typical District Magistrate deputy-dog stage)
That doesn't mean he won't get convicted.
Because? Because it's a jury trial.
And, in a case like this, It is highly likely that the jury will demand to "blame someone". Especially after Kline brings his dog-and-pony show to the parade - - - which brings up a whole 'nuther topic we should be discussing - but not right now.
Thus far - the only person the jury is being given the option of "blaming" is GS.
(And the defense team wet the bed - bewilderingly - on this critical issue with the acquiescence to the JR testimony)
Anyway - Day 2 coming up ........ and I'm sure it will draw a lot of interest.
Couple things to keep in mind wrt "jury trials":
1 - As opposed to a discussion among individuals, in a trial setting it is often/usually the case that once an opportunity to delve into an issue is bypassed, that opportunity is GONE forever (on occasion the opposition may open the door for calling a "rebuttal" witness to revisit an issue - but that is the exception)
2 - When the Jury goes back into seclusion to deliberate, you don't have an atmosphere of a PhD dissertation committee - where you have a panel of educated experts who are going to logically dissect the information they were presented with. What you have is a panel of emotional, often intellectually limited "folks". And they render decisions - often (usually?) - that have much more to do with "what they think should happen", rather than "what the rule of law dictate"
3 - The attitudes and biases of the jury, if they were not already established before the trial, are often going to be established very early in the proceedings. It is what it is ....... and once established, and allowed to fester, they are VERY hard to overcome
Looking at "Day 1" of Spanier v Pennsylvania, there were several disconcerting aspects - - - none more so than the cross of JR.
It was - IMO - the most critical event of Day 1 (and nothing else came close)
JR's depiction of the TC meeting......essentially that "TC told me they already handled it".....was left untouched......bewilderingly untouched.
The net result? The Jury now has the impression that PSU (and make no mistake, for this jury, PSU is personified in the visage of Graham Spanier) lied to not only MM, but also to the folks at the 2nd Mile.
This is a severely damaging mistake (IMO) and will be a huge hurdle to overcome moving forward
I'll get into some other examples when more time is available.
It is always better to observe these things in person - - - but there were a handful of situations that appear to have been FUBAR-ed
Last edited:
Yes. But I wonder the same about the father, MM and dr dranov too.
It will be interesting. Just from the snippets I'm reading it seems that both Curley and Shultz are more responsible for this than Spanier.
I gotta say though, even if Curley told Raykovitz that it had been investigated, there should have been a bit more of "just wear shorts when your showering with kids" from Jack.
I think that is complete bull shit.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]Refresh my memory (if it's not numbers it's not important) - didn't Raykovitz, Poole and Heim immediately do the land deal with Penn State after this meeting? Weren't Poole and Heim on the PSU BOT at the time? SM paid a pittance and then flipped it a few years later for millions.[/QUOTE]
Poole and Heim ever being on the PSU BOT is news to me. Where did you get that.
you maybe confusing "beholden to" with "member of"
Poole and Heim ever being on the PSU BOT is news to me. Where did you get that.
you maybe confusing "beholden to" with "member of"
Interesting. Given the amount of documented communication between the two teams, you'd think that the OAG could have given the Freeh team a heads up about this misattribution.
The better question is why in the hell would Curley say such a thing? Which agency investigated this...him and Schultz? I know everyone wants to understand why Jack and TSM never even got a second look which is crazy, but how in the world is Tim going to get around those comments on the stand? You have MM saying it was sexual and TSM saying it was investigated, but not by DPW or any law enforcement agency. You starting to see a pattern here...it's no wonder they took the plea. I'd be afraid of a jury if I was telling other people an investigation occurred when that didn't happen.
McAndrew Board jury - NOT GUILTY! Exonerated and deified.
PennLive jury - GUILTY! Drawn and quartered and thrown into a ravine.
Jury of his peers - Only the Shadow knows.
Ron Schreffler Detective 25 years 1972
May 4th 1998 - Mother called Ron about her 11 year old son. He recognized him as a Second Mile kid. 23 page interview.
(note - I am not impressed with Schulte's style of questioning)
CYS John Miller and Centre County DA were contacted.
Lauro and he went to the victim's residence and went over the items of apparel Sandusky gave the boy (which would have been a red flag for Lauro, but I digress) and they discussed how to get answers from Jerry.
Schreffler did not have a conversation with the PSU3 on 1998.
1998 was put into the UPPD crime log for suspected child abuse. May 13 they set up the sting. May 19 Jerry called the boy again and showed up at the house. The mother questioned him . "I would ask for your forgiveness....I wish I were dead"
Jerry Lauro and Schreffler June 1 interview Jerry at Lasch. Gricar could not prove there was any sexual assault independent of a confession from Jerry and could not file charges. The 1998 police log was then changed from "suspected child abuse" to "administrative information" - this is something they would title road closures and that sort of thing with. It was changed by Tom Harmon.
Defense:
Behavior was not illegal as deemed by State College PD. The PSU 3 had NO involvement in relabeling the file to Administrative Information.
Tom Harmon Dir of UPPD retired 2005
Gary Schultz was Harmon's immediate supervisor. Jerry was known nationally for his work with troubled children. Tom Harmon spoke with Gary Schultz about 1998. Vic 6 mom came into the police station and wanted to make a report.
Sunday - East Area Lockers used by the football team, alone with Jerry, worked out and showered.
He did not talk to the mother. He told Schreffler to call the DA for guidance. The 2nd boy was interviewed by Schreffler several days later. He called Gary and related the nature of the report. May 6 1998 email from Schultz titled "incident involving children" - subsequent conversations before that. He was keeping Gary appraised and that DPW was involved. CYS claimed a conflict of interest because of their relationship with Jerry.
(which makes me wonder why Courtney & Schultz would be confused as to which entity to call - DPW or CYS?)
No crime occurred so they removed it from the crime log.
OAG Prosecutor put these emails up as exhibits. The "coach is anxious to know" email is in the thread with Harmon and Schultz discussing DPW and where they are with (victim 6).
Harmon was called by Schreffler that the DA did not find it criminal. Schreffler and DPW did talk to Jerry on June 8. After that there was no talk of 1998 until 2001 happened.
Harmon changed the report to Administrative - he did not put it int he shared record system, it risked unauthorized disclosure and might reveal Sandusky and his involvement. He did not discuss it with Schreffler.
Back then in 2001 records were scanned into image files and stored at campus records. Schultz would not have had any copies of 1998. Only the DA would.
Harmon was not made aware of the 2001 incident. He was not made aware that Jerry could not bring any children into the athletic facilities.
Defense:
DPW and the DA concluded no assault and no criminal behavior. Schultz did not influence 1998, same for Curley, nor did Spanier.
The PSU3 did not instruct Harmon to relabel the report.
He had no conversation with the PSU3 about any "bad publicity" of 1998.
---BREAK----
May 4th 1998 - Mother called Ron about her 11 year old son. He recognized him as a Second Mile kid. 23 page interview.
(note - I am not impressed with Schulte's style of questioning)
CYS John Miller and Centre County DA were contacted.
Lauro and he went to the victim's residence and went over the items of apparel Sandusky gave the boy (which would have been a red flag for Lauro, but I digress) and they discussed how to get answers from Jerry.
Schreffler did not have a conversation with the PSU3 on 1998.
1998 was put into the UPPD crime log for suspected child abuse. May 13 they set up the sting. May 19 Jerry called the boy again and showed up at the house. The mother questioned him . "I would ask for your forgiveness....I wish I were dead"
Jerry Lauro and Schreffler June 1 interview Jerry at Lasch. Gricar could not prove there was any sexual assault independent of a confession from Jerry and could not file charges. The 1998 police log was then changed from "suspected child abuse" to "administrative information" - this is something they would title road closures and that sort of thing with. It was changed by Tom Harmon.
Defense:
Behavior was not illegal as deemed by State College PD. The PSU 3 had NO involvement in relabeling the file to Administrative Information.
Tom Harmon Dir of UPPD retired 2005
Gary Schultz was Harmon's immediate supervisor. Jerry was known nationally for his work with troubled children. Tom Harmon spoke with Gary Schultz about 1998. Vic 6 mom came into the police station and wanted to make a report.
Sunday - East Area Lockers used by the football team, alone with Jerry, worked out and showered.
He did not talk to the mother. He told Schreffler to call the DA for guidance. The 2nd boy was interviewed by Schreffler several days later. He called Gary and related the nature of the report. May 6 1998 email from Schultz titled "incident involving children" - subsequent conversations before that. He was keeping Gary appraised and that DPW was involved. CYS claimed a conflict of interest because of their relationship with Jerry.
(which makes me wonder why Courtney & Schultz would be confused as to which entity to call - DPW or CYS?)
No crime occurred so they removed it from the crime log.
OAG Prosecutor put these emails up as exhibits. The "coach is anxious to know" email is in the thread with Harmon and Schultz discussing DPW and where they are with (victim 6).
Harmon was called by Schreffler that the DA did not find it criminal. Schreffler and DPW did talk to Jerry on June 8. After that there was no talk of 1998 until 2001 happened.
Harmon changed the report to Administrative - he did not put it int he shared record system, it risked unauthorized disclosure and might reveal Sandusky and his involvement. He did not discuss it with Schreffler.
Back then in 2001 records were scanned into image files and stored at campus records. Schultz would not have had any copies of 1998. Only the DA would.
Harmon was not made aware of the 2001 incident. He was not made aware that Jerry could not bring any children into the athletic facilities.
Defense:
DPW and the DA concluded no assault and no criminal behavior. Schultz did not influence 1998, same for Curley, nor did Spanier.
The PSU3 did not instruct Harmon to relabel the report.
He had no conversation with the PSU3 about any "bad publicity" of 1998.
---BREAK----
It just blows my mind that someone would want to work for someone who they think covered up CSA. Who does that?
Wow very interesting.
And this is why the Freeh report was such a load of shit.
You cant, well you can but you shouldn't, make a report defaming someone and trashing a University without speaking or interviewing the players that were central to the entire scandal.
Similar threads
