The poll is on page 14 from Exhibit H of Sandusky's 2nd Amended PCRA petition. Which is on page 187 of 254 for the entire 2nd amended PCRA.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY SECOND AMENDED PCRA PETITION.pdf
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
The poll is on page 14 from Exhibit H of Sandusky's 2nd Amended PCRA petition. Which is on page 187 of 254 for the entire 2nd amended PCRA.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY SECOND AMENDED PCRA PETITION.pdf
Well that should finally put that to bed. Time for the trolls like GMJ to eat crow and admit they were wrong.
As of yesterday - the state provided the average citizen with ZERO fact that Spanier covered anything up or diverted anything.
All they did was make the average citizen wonder who the HELL is this Gary guy?
Yeah, everyone wanted to hear the red-headed grad assistant tell his story - but the fact remains that everyone else said "horseplay" and who the HELL IS GARY? I WANT TO HEAR FROM GARY.
Who claims they saw a child being raped in a deserted locker room shower and thinks slamming a locker before running home to tell his father about what he saw while never, ever taking the personal initiative to notify the police of what he states he was sure was sexual abuse?
Probably the same guy.
Last edited:
would you stop bring the Pennlive crap over here, Please.
If any of us are interested or want to know whats going on over there we'll look it up.
I don't give a rats ass what anyone over there says, thats why I'm on this board.
No and I clearly answered that in my post that you quoted so I'm not sure why you keep asking the same question. I'd still like to hear from Tim whether or not that was the message he conveyed to Jack.
I don't disagree but what could have been asked beyond that without an objection being raised? Raykovitz can only testify to what Curley said to him. It wouldn't fly if he was asked who looked into it and who they talked to. Since Curley supposedly made that statement only he can explain it. And no, I'm not defending Raykovitz. I'd love to see the guy strapped to a polygraph and mercilessly interrogated.
If DPW was doing anything, didn't they have to be notified of..........something? If Schultz, and more likely Harmon knew that DPW was discussing anything, why did DPW do.......nothing in terms of eventually responding ........via email?
I totally agree...it makes no sense and I hope the question gets asked.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.
As Wendy said, Graham Spanier is on trial, not PSU. Spanier's attorney is defending Spanier, not PSU (though it's pretty clear that some here would like him to do the latter). If the jury can't make the distinction, it won't be because Spanier's attorney contributed to their confusion.
I wonder what's going on over at the pennlive board... any updates?
i surely don't know if GSpan will get convicted or not - still a lot of trial to go before one could even think of making a prediction-
But for a State's case that amounts to - effectively - nothing, I think the chances of a conviction are infinitely more probable than they should be (for a lot of reason, but most certainly including the bewildering "we aren't gonna go there" move by thebDedense counsel yesterday)
It is what it is - and I'm sure nothing I do or say will change that.
I'm not tied in any way to GSpan - don't know the man at all, and even I am amazed at what seems to be continuing to transpire. I can't imagine how "friends and family" would feel.
But for a State's case that amounts to - effectively - nothing, I think the chances of a conviction are infinitely more probable than they should be (for a lot of reason, but most certainly including the bewildering "we aren't gonna go there" move by thebDedense counsel yesterday)
It is what it is - and I'm sure nothing I do or say will change that.
I'm not tied in any way to GSpan - don't know the man at all, and even I am amazed at what seems to be continuing to transpire. I can't imagine how "friends and family" would feel.
Oh great. I'm trying to calm the bees down with smoke and your poking the nest with a stick.
Bootstrap Johnny is trying to make out with pnny and Andrea is getting jealous. They are now all crying together and having a group hug and pnny just keeps yelling...Jerry was framed.
Really?
You can't ask him:
"Is that how you would normally handle a report that your Founder was in a situation with a naked boy - that caused concern on the part of a witness?"
You can't ask him:
"Are you/were you ever aware of ANY other incidents/reports/investigations of JS in the past?"
You can't ask him:
"Do you - the leadership of the 2nd Mile - have protocols for such a situation? Are there requirements - rules, regulations - to be followed?"
All of which give a jurist an easy "alternative target" to focus the blame that they will most certainly want to assign- - - especially after the Kline V5 Circus comes to town.
Good God
What's the point?
Everyone can say "PSU is not on trial".......
But that don't necessarily make it so.......and it hasn't made it so in other court actions to date.
Maribeth Roman Schmidt reported and I quote, "While Mike McQueary was on the stand, as the prosecution asked him when/where he heard Sandusky was arrested, he answered that the OAG called him to tell him they were about to leak the GJ presentment. He caught himself as soon as he said it and the prosecutor jumped right to him being in the Phila airport seeing his picture all over the news."
She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.
Uh, hello, shouldn't bells have gone off then, "about to leak the GJ presentment."
She said she heard it with her own ears and saw him catch himself with her own eyes.
Uh, hello, shouldn't bells have gone off then, "about to leak the GJ presentment."
Mike's girlfriend at the time. I do not know if she will testify. I do not know if those notes will be make public.
I get where you're coming from but Raykovitz was a prosecution witness who was being cross-examined by the defense. At that point the defense is limited to asking questions which deal with information brought forth by that witness during direct examination. The judge won't allow cross-examination questions to stray too far from that. If the defense feels Raykovitz can be of benefit to them they can certainly call him as a witness when they present their case. If that happened the prosecution cross-examination would be restricted to information revealed during the defense direct examination.
Like most others I believe TSM being protected for some shady reason. However, just because Raykovitz is under oath doesn't mean the defense can ask anything. It has to be relevant to the case and TSM isn't on trial. I believe TSM should be on trial but nobody in Harrisburg cares what I think.
Last edited:
So will DeadSpin and others retract their fake news article...I think we know the answer.
http://deadspin.com/5925408/freeh-report-joe-paterno-knew-in-1998
http://deadspin.com/5925408/freeh-report-joe-paterno-knew-in-1998
A few quick thoughts. Spanier/his lawyers are walking a tight rope. In all likelihood there is not going to be any hard evidence that points to Spanier directing the report from MM to be buried (unless Shultz drops a bomb). But as others point out he is in danger of simply being the only person the jury can punish. So he does not want to do anything that could potentially alienate anyone on the jury. Therefore they decided not to push back on MM, being content to simply point out MM never spoke to Spanier about this, therefore it really makes no difference what MM told Curley and Shultz.
With respect to Raykovitz I think they were content to establish that TC never reported any type of abuse (if MM told TC he witnessed abuse and PSU wanted to cover it up, why go to Raykovitz at all?). I would not worry too much about Raykovitz' retort that TC told him PSU investigated and hence TSM had no need to. Raykovitz knows PSU is not the entity to investigate this type of allegation and TSM should have reported it. IMO this will come back in closing arguments by the defense.
Finally, IMO, if Charles Thompson's recap on Pennlive is accurate, the biggest bombshell, by far, was Courtney's testimony that Shultz told him MM reported horseplay. Spanier is presumably going to testify to the same thing. So if you believe Courtney why would you not believe Spanier as well?
IMO this entire case right now comes down to Shultz' testimony, and maybe to a lesser degree, Curley. If they testify to what they have in the past - MM was vague, sounded like horseplay, Courtney never advised them they had a legal duty to report,,,,, basically the case is over and Spanier may not even testify.
Now, with all that said, the jury can do anything they want regardless of evidence.
With respect to Raykovitz I think they were content to establish that TC never reported any type of abuse (if MM told TC he witnessed abuse and PSU wanted to cover it up, why go to Raykovitz at all?). I would not worry too much about Raykovitz' retort that TC told him PSU investigated and hence TSM had no need to. Raykovitz knows PSU is not the entity to investigate this type of allegation and TSM should have reported it. IMO this will come back in closing arguments by the defense.
Finally, IMO, if Charles Thompson's recap on Pennlive is accurate, the biggest bombshell, by far, was Courtney's testimony that Shultz told him MM reported horseplay. Spanier is presumably going to testify to the same thing. So if you believe Courtney why would you not believe Spanier as well?
IMO this entire case right now comes down to Shultz' testimony, and maybe to a lesser degree, Curley. If they testify to what they have in the past - MM was vague, sounded like horseplay, Courtney never advised them they had a legal duty to report,,,,, basically the case is over and Spanier may not even testify.
Now, with all that said, the jury can do anything they want regardless of evidence.
That has been at the center of this thing from day one. MM- A gambler, sexter, and liar. See any relationship between these traits?
Last edited:
So, this is another thing freeh got wrong. Freeh claimed no one at psu ever followed up with Mike. If freeh would have bothered himself to review the 12/16/11 prelim he would have known that assertion to be false. Yet here it is repeated again by MM that TC called MM directly a few days later to follow up and told him they revoked guest privileges and told TSM.
Well then, why even go to TSM if Tim were going to lie?
I could be wrong but I believe it's common knowledge to those close to the case that initially Paterno did not remember anything substantive from his 2001 meeting with Mike. He had to be "refreshed" by Mike and others before his GJ testimony which lead to the phrase "sexual in nature."
Not sure. That was not brought up. Either Sassano & Feathers were not "continuously interfacing" on this, Sassano was spinning his wheels tracking down TV Guides , or he's lying
One plausible means to reconcile all that Here is how Curley 'gets around it':
The "investigation" that occurred was that of an HR/Administrative-like investigation and due diligence. Despite McQ saying he was very clear to all involved that something sexual and illegal occurred, actions suggest otherwise. His own father refutes his story. Therefore, C&S pursued this as an administrative investigation to see what happened. Think of it as fact-finding. When they collected their facts, their decision was that nothing criminal occurred. However, they [C&S] felt that the boundaries were getting too close. So they told Sandusky: No more kids.
Since the belief was that nothing ilegal and criminal occurred, C&S don't risk making false and/or slanderous accusation when speaking to others about Sandusky. Hence they say it was investigated and resolved. But, we do not want Jerry bringing kids to the school.
It all hangs together
Last edited:
I hope I never am put in a situation where my freedom is placed in the hands of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Great question...would be nice if Tim clarifies this one way or the other. Yet I bet the question never gets asked. Why back out of telling DPW is another good question that hopefully gets asked.
Well its really tough for him to know these things since he didn't or wasn't allowed to interview the main characters that were actually involved. (sarcasm intended).
The other one (being Joe himself) he (Louis F.) lied about his "attempts" to interview Joe.
I put all the fall out from the dog and pony press conf. that Louis F. did squarely on the BOT.
Because thats what they, Surma, Garvin, Peetze wanted. It was never about finding out what really happened. It was about petty jealousies, hurt feelings and egos.
Very logical. However, logic has not prevailed in this since day one.
Sounds plausible, but HR type investigations usually had/have decent records as it can become a legal issue at any time in most cases. There should be a record of this if your theory is true and even so back in 2001. They didn't do HR investigations for the state via word of mouth.
I think this scenario is exactly what happened. People don't realize that Sandusky wielded much more influence than Paterno in and around the Centre County community. But the OAG and our BoT decided to replace "Sandusky's influence" with "Penn State Football" and the rest is the sad history. Our BoT was a willing participant with the OAG due to several members' direct connection to TSM and employment/career stature.
Last edited:
Similar threads
