What is your take on Dr. Jack's full acceptance of the investigation claim?
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Liar Paradox territory here. Truth? What's 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.
Based on the evidence that we have seen, he is not guilty of EWOC and conspiracy.
This is confounded by the opinion poll/survey of potential jurors by county that said that the majority of people surveyed thought that even if C/S/S didn't do anything illegal they deserved to be punished. So that's pretty awesome (not sure if we do sarcasm font over here, but that's what that is). This is also why Tim and Gary took a plea to a very minor offense.
I would say if Day 2 goes similar to Day 1 (and I'd hope it would actually go better than Day 1 since Day 1 was prosecution witnesses), then Graham has a 75% chance of being found not guilty. Just my humble opinion.
Here's the thing: If the cross examination of JR appeared so bewilderingly and obviously lacking to you, why didn't it appear that way to GS? GS is a bright guy and the questions for JR had to have been planned in advance so, what gives? Forgive me, please, because I don't know crapola about court procedures, allowable questioning etc., but we keep hearing about poor lawyering. What is it?
That's not the way these sort of cases are defended. Usually, the defense attorney for the CEO (all the underlings have pleaded guilty, as here) cross examines each witness very closely, attempting to elicit contradictions (which, according to this board should be easy to do with McQueary).
The argument is by the time the message got to the CEO, it was hopelessly garbled and he made the best decision under the circumstances.
Maybe the defense attorney decided not to cross examine McQueary because he knew McQueary would eat his lunch, as he has every attorney who has tried to cross examine him. Maybe the defense attorney figured that since Schultz's and Curley's trial testimony will be 180 degrees opposite their GJ testimony, he'll have a much easier time cross examining them (query: since the CT of appeals has already found that C and S didn't get adequate representation in front of the GJ, can their previous testimony be used against them?).
To be honest, I have no idea what to think on that until Tim testifies. If Tim backs that story then I honestly don't know what to think. If Tim denies that, then maybe Dr. Jack was protecting himself there which is still possible. Part of me wants to say he is FOS, but it's hard to until Tim takes the stand. If Tim does admit to telling Jack that...he did a good thing by only getting a misdemeanor on his record.
Yes, my bad. Heim and Poole major contributors to Penn State, lots of business deals between all of them*. But according to the Freeh Report, page 79 and other mentions: "On July 24, 2001, Schultz met with leaders of the Second Mile and agreed to sell a
parcel to the Second Mile for $168,500.371 The University had bought the property in 1999 for $168,500.372 On September 21, 2001, less than eight months after the Sandusky incident, the Board approved the sale of a parcel of land to the Second Mile."
The report doesn't point out that this might have been a conflict of interest and might have been a factor in Raykovitz's conversation with Sandusky. Just lining up the dates is all I'm sayin'.
* I read this on pages 135-136 of Wounded Lions by Ronald A Smith.
Well...... Spanier's defense team accepted it
How f$cked is that?
Is there EVER going to be anyone willing to open that door?
It appears not
----------------
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
So regarding an investigation, you'd be OK with the CEO of a children's charity taking an Athletic Director's word for it?
It does seem unlikely now.
In Silver's defense, his charge is to defend Spanier (not Penn State).
Mike McQueary
Interviewed by Ditka.
Re 2001 - Mike recalls his shoes story, heard showers running, heard slapping sounds, door was propped open, he knew someone was in the locker room taking a shower.
Need a key to get in at this time of night.
Mike gesticulates from his chair on how he turned to his right and saw into the shower from a mirror. Jerry naked with a youth. Hardly any movement. Jerry behind the boy stomach to back - moving slowly.
He placed the shoes in the locker, slammed his locker door. Jerry and the boy both looking directly at Mike. Went straight upstairs to his office and called his dad.
He did not see Jerry leave the building. He may have called his girlfriend at the time.
He tried as best he could to tell his dad what he had seen. Dad decided he needed to get Dranov's advice on what to do. Dranov came to the house. Mike tried to explain, they decided to let Joe Paterno know.
It was not normal for a Grad Assistant to show up at Joe's house, especially in the morning.
Coach and Mike sat at the kitchen table, he relayed what he had seen. Mike did not talk about any "sexual" things with Coach. "I believe so" when asked if he said "skin on skin contact" to Coach.
A week to 10 days later Mike heard from Curley to speak at the BJC. Joe did tell Mike earlier that Mike would get a call. Mike met with Tim and Gary in a small conference room. He told Tim and Gary he saw Jerry molesting a boy. Never once did he ever say "horseplay" or "horsing around". They spent 15 minutes altogether.
They said they took it seriously and would investigate it. Curley did most of the talking.
Tim is Joe's boss. Gary oversaw Athletics and the Police Department.
Curley called Mike back - they had looked into the incident. They took away Jerry's keys and told Jery not to bring any kids to campus. Contacted Second Mile - at least that's what Curley told Mike.
Mike thought they had put restrictions on Jerry. Over the years Mike would mention it to co-workers. He did not see Jerry with any kids after that.
Next time he heard about Jerry was in 2010 - AG investigators were at Mike's house, spoke to wife. Mike not there. When Mike heard about Jerry's arrest he was on his way to Boston and was in an airport. The AG's office called him. Mike had heard rumors a week earlier about arrests being imminent. He spoke with Frank Ganter and said "you gotta call Tim. These guys are in trouble".
Defense:
Kristen (Burns) Long knew of Mike's 2001 story. Mike never gave any details to co-workers. Mike didn't feel he needed to tell the exact details of the incident whenever he saw Jerry around campus. Mike did not tell anybody he thought Tim and Gary's response was inappropriate. Mike does not know of anything that was told to Spanier other than what was discussed in emails.
Ditka comes back and stresses again that Mike was below these university decision makers.
John McQueary
Wife answers the phone "It's Mike and there's something wrong". Mike was shaky, he wondered if Mike was in a car accident. "inapporopriate". "where are you now?" "where's the boy?" "I don't know" Dad told Mike to get out of there.
Went to the back of the house. I heard what was going on. Yes, they saw me.
Dr. Dranov - McQ's boss - an active PSu alumnus - John called him to come to the house and relayed the story.
The plan was to go to Joe. They proposed that night to speak to Joe.
John and Gary have worked together on a number of PSU healthcare providers issues. He works for a healthcare provider as the COO.
He and Dranov raised the issue with Gary in a business meeting. "Gary is a responsible man." "we heard rumblings about this before" "we looke at it and we came up emptyhanded". He asked Gary to look into it and Gary said that he would. He did not discuss the incident with anyone else at Penn State in an official capacity. He's never spoken with Curley or Spanier about the incident.
Interviewed by Ditka.
Re 2001 - Mike recalls his shoes story, heard showers running, heard slapping sounds, door was propped open, he knew someone was in the locker room taking a shower.
Need a key to get in at this time of night.
Mike gesticulates from his chair on how he turned to his right and saw into the shower from a mirror. Jerry naked with a youth. Hardly any movement. Jerry behind the boy stomach to back - moving slowly.
He placed the shoes in the locker, slammed his locker door. Jerry and the boy both looking directly at Mike. Went straight upstairs to his office and called his dad.
He did not see Jerry leave the building. He may have called his girlfriend at the time.
He tried as best he could to tell his dad what he had seen. Dad decided he needed to get Dranov's advice on what to do. Dranov came to the house. Mike tried to explain, they decided to let Joe Paterno know.
It was not normal for a Grad Assistant to show up at Joe's house, especially in the morning.
Coach and Mike sat at the kitchen table, he relayed what he had seen. Mike did not talk about any "sexual" things with Coach. "I believe so" when asked if he said "skin on skin contact" to Coach.
A week to 10 days later Mike heard from Curley to speak at the BJC. Joe did tell Mike earlier that Mike would get a call. Mike met with Tim and Gary in a small conference room. He told Tim and Gary he saw Jerry molesting a boy. Never once did he ever say "horseplay" or "horsing around". They spent 15 minutes altogether.
They said they took it seriously and would investigate it. Curley did most of the talking.
Tim is Joe's boss. Gary oversaw Athletics and the Police Department.
Curley called Mike back - they had looked into the incident. They took away Jerry's keys and told Jery not to bring any kids to campus. Contacted Second Mile - at least that's what Curley told Mike.
Mike thought they had put restrictions on Jerry. Over the years Mike would mention it to co-workers. He did not see Jerry with any kids after that.
Next time he heard about Jerry was in 2010 - AG investigators were at Mike's house, spoke to wife. Mike not there. When Mike heard about Jerry's arrest he was on his way to Boston and was in an airport. The AG's office called him. Mike had heard rumors a week earlier about arrests being imminent. He spoke with Frank Ganter and said "you gotta call Tim. These guys are in trouble".
Defense:
Kristen (Burns) Long knew of Mike's 2001 story. Mike never gave any details to co-workers. Mike didn't feel he needed to tell the exact details of the incident whenever he saw Jerry around campus. Mike did not tell anybody he thought Tim and Gary's response was inappropriate. Mike does not know of anything that was told to Spanier other than what was discussed in emails.
Ditka comes back and stresses again that Mike was below these university decision makers.
John McQueary
Wife answers the phone "It's Mike and there's something wrong". Mike was shaky, he wondered if Mike was in a car accident. "inapporopriate". "where are you now?" "where's the boy?" "I don't know" Dad told Mike to get out of there.
Went to the back of the house. I heard what was going on. Yes, they saw me.
Dr. Dranov - McQ's boss - an active PSu alumnus - John called him to come to the house and relayed the story.
The plan was to go to Joe. They proposed that night to speak to Joe.
John and Gary have worked together on a number of PSU healthcare providers issues. He works for a healthcare provider as the COO.
He and Dranov raised the issue with Gary in a business meeting. "Gary is a responsible man." "we heard rumblings about this before" "we looke at it and we came up emptyhanded". He asked Gary to look into it and Gary said that he would. He did not discuss the incident with anyone else at Penn State in an official capacity. He's never spoken with Curley or Spanier about the incident.
Is Spanier's lawyer the only one in the room who doesn't realize that "PSU" and "Spanier" are one and the same - in the eyes of this jury?
In this case, the CEO has to show that he was never told of the crimes of JS on that night in 2001. What MM has to say is, almost, immaterial. Crossing him simply makes him a more sympathetic figure. This isn't about legal statutes anymore. The worm has turned and how its about a jury and their point of view (which is entangled with emotions). From what I"ve read, MM's testimony works perfectly for the defense. Why mess with a good thing? The crux of the case is what C & S told Spanier. And, if C&S didn't feel the situation rose to the level of criminality (by their actions), why would they tell Spanier it did? That is the tale of the tape, when it is all said and done.
No, but I have a bigger problem with an AD lying to the children's charity CEO if that is the case. What good can come from fabricating an investigation? That still seems odd to me...someone lied or is lying. TSM should have always been investigated, but that isn't what occurred for whatever reason. Saying look over there at this point is a good diversion, but Tim has some real explaining to do as he may be the biggest reason TSM wasn't looked into if that is the case.
And what if Tim confirms this on the stand? If he denies it, someone needs to charge Jack for lying under oath then...right?
So, you are saying that the word they implicates Spanier? or were you paraphrasing the testimony..... was there any additional questioning and answers leading to conclusions about who 'they' were? Any questions about what they claimed to have done?
Seems like the opportunity for those questions presented themselves to both sets of counsel.
Seems like the opportunity for those questions presented themselves to both sets of counsel.
Here's what PPOracle JockstrapJon, and the rest of the Penn Lie asscracks don't want to get about Joe's "notes". Joe was concerned with an injury liability for children, not this bullshit about knowing of child abuse. And it's all irrelevant, regardless.
I just try to remember that this is a Pennsylvania jury in a Pennsylvania court, and to therefore expect a bizarre result.
Dr. Dranov
Friends and worked together. Nature of the call was unusual. He was working late in the office that night. John, Ann and Mike were at the house. Predominently the convo was with Mike and Dr. D.
Ann was not part of the convo.
Mike was shaken and nervous. Hands were shaking. He heard sounds - "sexual sounds". Dr. D did not get anymore.
Mike didn't see anything. A young boy looked around, made eye contact with Mike, an arm reaching around and pulling the boy. Highly innappropriate at best - at worst a sexual assault. Mike did not see it.
It had to be reported to your supervisor. Later he and Gary had a business meeting at their medical offices. John made it clear to Gary they were concerned about it. Gary told them years before it was investigated. They got the impression the university would follow up.
Second Mile was advised about Sandusky.
Randy Feathers was on the phone with Dranov discussing the 2001 incident and Dranov noticed the medical meeting syllabus behind his desk. He used that to determine the date of the incident. This medical meeting was Feb 12.
Defense:
Mike did not tell Dranov what he saw - but what Mike determined as "sexual sounds". They did not tell Mike to call campus police, CYS or 911.
A lot of this was hearsay but Dranov felt that Penn State needed to know. He did not feel is was inappropriate enough for Mike to call police himself.
Graham Spanier did not prevent anyone from ever reporting this incident to anyone.
Friends and worked together. Nature of the call was unusual. He was working late in the office that night. John, Ann and Mike were at the house. Predominently the convo was with Mike and Dr. D.
Ann was not part of the convo.
Mike was shaken and nervous. Hands were shaking. He heard sounds - "sexual sounds". Dr. D did not get anymore.
Mike didn't see anything. A young boy looked around, made eye contact with Mike, an arm reaching around and pulling the boy. Highly innappropriate at best - at worst a sexual assault. Mike did not see it.
It had to be reported to your supervisor. Later he and Gary had a business meeting at their medical offices. John made it clear to Gary they were concerned about it. Gary told them years before it was investigated. They got the impression the university would follow up.
Second Mile was advised about Sandusky.
Randy Feathers was on the phone with Dranov discussing the 2001 incident and Dranov noticed the medical meeting syllabus behind his desk. He used that to determine the date of the incident. This medical meeting was Feb 12.
Defense:
Mike did not tell Dranov what he saw - but what Mike determined as "sexual sounds". They did not tell Mike to call campus police, CYS or 911.
A lot of this was hearsay but Dranov felt that Penn State needed to know. He did not feel is was inappropriate enough for Mike to call police himself.
Graham Spanier did not prevent anyone from ever reporting this incident to anyone.
Maybe, but when dealing with 'a panel of emotional, often intellectually limited "folks" ' the only hope one has to prevail is KISS. Getting into it with Raykovitz only serves to further muddy things. What the defense accomplished yesterday was to get on record: a) that Raykovitz never discussed the matter with Spanier; and b) that Curley may have characterized the situation differently to Raykovitz than he might testify he did to Spanier. I think the defense is doing just fine under the circumstances.
It is what it is.
I won't even BEGIN to ponder the "why"s......
But I can certainly see the "what"s - as in what has transpired (in all of the cases in this fiasco - with this being the current one)
The "what"s are kinda hard to miss
No. It just suggests that Mike didn't tell them anything more damning than he told Joe.
If Tim confirms it, then he confirms it. If he denies it, there is no basis for a perjury charge. That's not how perjury works. Perjury is nearly impossible to prove. There MUST be corroboration. He said/He said doesn't do it. There has to be something more (despite the nonsensical charges OAG brought against the defendants in this matter). Those charges were of course a sham designed to get them to rollover or plead.
That's not my impression.
If I was on that jury - I would want to know who the hell this Gary guy is.
Gary was gathering all the information and making the decisions.
The state can try to blame "Penn State" - but "Penn State" is not on trial. Graham Spanier is.
At the end of the day yesterday - the state provided no compelling evidence.
They also "got on record" (including the only record that really matters - the minds of the jury) - without opposition- that PSU (in the person of GSpan's underling, Tim C) lied to the 2nd Mile vav how they treated the "report"
In a case where GSpan is charged with improperly handling a "report", I'm trying to think of anything more damaging, that they could have gotten "on the record".....but I'm not coming up with anything.
Alas
Just to make sure that we're on the same page, let's define our terms.
"Investigation" -- Having conducted interviews with a witness and an accused in a one-on-one situation does constitute an investigation in a business (or "administrative") setting. So we can argue about the quality of the investigation, but we cannot deny that one took place.
"Incident report" -- Curley's report to Rakovitz is that of "an incident." Irrespective of any other information he may have provided, Curley established a face-to-face meeting with Rakovitz for the singular purpose of informing him about an incident with a Second Mile official who had access to children via the Second Mile.
So, in fairness, let's rephrase the question: Are you satisfied that Dr. Rakovitz fulfilled his obligations in his response to this incident report?
I'm sure you would
You are likely twice as bright, and certainly 100,000,000,000,000 times more informed, than any member of the jury.
I hope - for GS sake - he has, by far, the most intelligent jury we have ever seen.
'Cause much as we may wish it so, unless this jury has twice the "community IQ" of every other jury in this entire fiasco - combined - they view GSpan as "PSU"
For God's sake - he was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY!! (Don't be surprised if the Pros uses that EXACT PHRASE multiple times on their close)
But why would he (Curly) lie about something so heinous? It makes no sense, at least to me.
I mean Sandusky had been gone from the program for 2 years at that point. It doesn't make any sense in trying to protect him.
That's the problem- people like you probably aren't on the jury, at least not many. It's likely an "average" group of central Pennsylvanians with an average IQ in the high 90s. How do you like a group like that making any critical decision?
So this has to be huge for the Paternos in their case right? The perception was created by Freeh that Coach in the emails was Joe and this verified him being involved in 98.
Similar threads
