I wouldn't have the patience to do it myself but when the trial is over I hope someone compares Freeh's opinion to the official court transcript in order to determine how many of Freeh's reasonable conclusions were outright bullshit.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.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Very plausible...and this is JS' true sick genius. He uses TSM, PSU Football, at-risk kids, and his own status to play the edge between affection and molestation. Anytime he is accused of something weird, he has an excuse. So it allowed him to be creepy for decades.
Does the 2001 issue rise to the level of criminal activity? given decades of circumstantial evidence, a jury said yes. But were CS&S's actions reasonable given what they new at that time? Tough call.
I think there is now a standard line here of everything should be asked of JR. No doubt he should have faced some of the heat and got none. The thing is TC had an email discussing DPW and then backing out of it. The look over there defense really hasn't played out all that well for anyone ever as Jack R simply slid out the back door in the middle of the night and nobody said a thing. It sucks, but IMO PSU was the one that was crushed by this so I'd at least like to know if it was justified in anyway at all. If TSM finally faces the music too...great, but I would still like the truth for better or worse.
There is a record, in the form of the emails and notes from 2001.
Since the one and only witness never felt the need to submit a written statement to anyone at PSU or UPPD, the admins did an informal off the record investigation. At any point MM could have asked that they do more but never did.
It's speculation but I'm guessing Mike never went on the record bc he couldn't verify any of his concerns since he couldn't see any hands/privates and never saw any sex acts, etc. (see dranov testimony - theres nothing about skin on skin contact and JS rubbing up against the boy - just the sounds and a shower where MM saw a kid peak his head around the corner and hand pull him back in). Dranov also said police didn't need to be told based on what he heard from Mike that night.
Its clear that MM was weirded out by the incident but IMO his conjecture about what JS may have been doing wasn't solid enough for him to take his report to police. Apparently Dr. d felt the same.
I agree completely. There is still a significant percentage of the general population in this country that believe in the ESPN/CNN media narrative and will never forgive "Penn State" for covering up a child sexual abuse situation and when/if they ever get a chance to punish PSU, they are going to take the opportunity to do so. I would be shocked if several of those people aren't on the jury and will pay little attention to the details of the trial and will vote to convict Spanier on something ... anything.
With the twists and turns in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. But I'd also remain unsure of with version was the actual truth.
I think it is a bit arrogant to think that the only smart people within the Spanier trial jury pool are on this website. This has been going on now for over five years and there are plenty of people who are disgusted with the Pa. legal system, our BOT, etc. and they don't even know this website exits. That is how we elected nine new Alumni delegates to the BOT, with the support of all of the Alumni, not just those on this website.
To think that it is a slam/dunk to get a jury to vote to convict Spanier without a few of the jury members wanting to vote to acquit and also willing to hang the jury is ignoring reality. The poll that showed that there were a slight majority who would convict a defendant under any circumstance just because it seems to be the right thing to do also has a large minority who wouldn't and might feel strong enough to hang the jury.
Curley and Schulz were not willing to take the chance, Spanier has been so we will have to see what happens.
To think that it is a slam/dunk to get a jury to vote to convict Spanier without a few of the jury members wanting to vote to acquit and also willing to hang the jury is ignoring reality. The poll that showed that there were a slight majority who would convict a defendant under any circumstance just because it seems to be the right thing to do also has a large minority who wouldn't and might feel strong enough to hang the jury.
Curley and Schulz were not willing to take the chance, Spanier has been so we will have to see what happens.
totally agree. when C&S are on the stand, if they testify that they told Spanier something illegal happened, the natural questions are "why didn't you do something?" "Why did you tell TSM that it was just creepy". It will come down to what C&S did versus what they claim they told Spanier. To get a conviction, the prosecution will have to overcome that inconsistency.
It's only "administrative-like". Sandusky wasn't an employee of Curley or Schultz.
Notes...yeah, probably should have been kept. It's not the first time notes were overlooked and it won't be the last.
Finally - they didn't investigate anything for the state. They [C&S] did their own fact-finding and due diligence to help them determine the proper course of action given the situation that was at-hand.
I'm sorry, what I meant was an official report which is usually held by an HR office representative. That is where an official record would have been maintained, but that never did occur. Just for CYA purposes I find it odd that never occurred. Then again we'll have to see what they testify to as maybe that picture becomes a bit clearer.
If Curley and Schutz say that they told Spanier it was a crime, not only will they have to explain why they didn't do anything...they will also have to explain that they weren't "paid off" in terms of a plea bargain, and are lying again to get out from under a felony conviction by lying about Spanier.
I expect they will say things along the lines of what they have always said "we were under the impression the issue was horseplay" or some similar verbiage.
How's that been working out so far?
Anyway, we will all know soon enough - so no need to speculate.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
That MAY be the problem. And it may be more accurate to say that's the fear of an informed someone who already knows where he thinks he comes out on the case, which is the very thing many here are concerned about. If there's one who finds not guilty, there's no conviction. Convictions are hard to win. If there is doubt, it's not guilty.
"People like you?" No knock on Wendy, but be careful with the generalizations. This isn't an ordinary trial. Everyone knew this case was coming. Safe to assume someone "like her" was hoping for a decision-making seat for arguably one of the biggest stories to hit central PA since TMI. It's a seat you probably wish you could have.
valid point....but I would argue, relative to the "hows that working out so far" that this is a paradigm shift. Instead of people reporting up through the OAG and invested in a conviction at any cost, you have a jury. I would also argue that lawyers get all caught up in serving case law while jury's don't give a crap about case law. Lawyers are not always good at explaining issues to juries; they always fall back to using legal terms. many lawyers spend little time in front of a jury and make the mistake of using the same practices in front of a jury, that they use in front of a judge and peers.
Not sure he needs to. Joe is not on trial. I can easily envision a scenario where Joe isn't even mentioned--as the damage has already been done to his reputation and Spanier's main interest is not getting convicted. I think it's a can of worms that no one will open. Neither the prosecution nor the defense need it.
Last edited:
Wendy, where are you getting that the "coach is anxious to know where it stands" email is from Schultz to Harmon? From the records I see, Curley sent an email to Schultz on 5/13/98 titled "Jerry" that reads "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Schultz replies "Tim, I understand that a DPW person was here last week; don't know for sure if they talked to Jerry. They decided to have a child psychologist talk to the boys sometime over the next week. We won't know anything before then." Curley follows up with Schultz two more times (5/19 and 5/30) for updates, and each time Schultz responds that there isn't an update and he'll get back to him when he hears something more.
At some point, Schultz forwards Curley's original "coach is anxious" email to Harmon, who writes to Schultz "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly." Schultz responds to Harmon "Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve this quickly."
Reading those emails, there are really only two options: Option one is that Curley was referring to Joe in his 5/13/98 email as being the coach anxious to know where the investigation stood. This makes the most sense, especially when coupled with Curley's 5/5/98 email to Schultz and Spanier, titled "Joe Paterno", which reads "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks." Option two is that Curley was attempting to solicit updates on Jerry's behalf from the police department about a criminal investigation into Jerry's behavior - which would be an incredibly troubling and inappropriate thing for him to do. There is also no reason why Harmon would feel the need to update Schultz on Curley's request that Jerry would be interviewed by DPW in that case because Jerry would clearly already be aware that he was interviewed.
At some point, Schultz forwards Curley's original "coach is anxious" email to Harmon, who writes to Schultz "The psychologist from DPW spoke with the child. They have not spoken to him. It is still my understanding that they intend to do this. I have also been advised that they want to resolve this quickly." Schultz responds to Harmon "Good, Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve this quickly."
Reading those emails, there are really only two options: Option one is that Curley was referring to Joe in his 5/13/98 email as being the coach anxious to know where the investigation stood. This makes the most sense, especially when coupled with Curley's 5/5/98 email to Schultz and Spanier, titled "Joe Paterno", which reads "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks." Option two is that Curley was attempting to solicit updates on Jerry's behalf from the police department about a criminal investigation into Jerry's behavior - which would be an incredibly troubling and inappropriate thing for him to do. There is also no reason why Harmon would feel the need to update Schultz on Curley's request that Jerry would be interviewed by DPW in that case because Jerry would clearly already be aware that he was interviewed.
About Tree Climbers, Inc
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/45-4729500
This organization has not appeared on the IRS Business Master File in a number of months. It may have merged with another organization or ceased operations.
This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted.
I'm curious to see those 990s that WERE filed and where the money went
Don't forget, Roxine registered the website and charity under her business name . . . all money is fungible . . .
Bear in mind my brain is oatmeal anymore of 5 years of garbage, spin, lies & gaslighting - but sitting there yesterday listening to Harmon very matter-of-factly working thru the email thread with the prosecutor..boom, boom, boom..."coach" meant Jerry to me.
Paterno was never part of the colloquy - its was Harmon, Schultz & DPW and Jerry was anxious to know what DPW's stance was
Last edited:
Why are you so concerned about defending Freeh's work?
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Right. And I would add that the generalization re: lawyers at trial shouldn't be too much of a concern for Graham Spanier in this case.
I couldn't tell you what Freeh's conclusions were on the subject. The report itself has always been pretty much rubbish to me - the exhibits are the only things that carry any value.
And "coach" being Jerry doesn't make sense to me in the context of those emails - especially with the email that Harmon didn't see from Curley to Schultz and Spanier. I can see why Harmon thought "coach" was Jerry - and it's probably why he referred to Jerry as "him". But that interpretation makes far less sense to me - and if it is correct, it's completely inappropriate (at its most innocent) for Curley to be trying to get updates on the DA's and DPW's investigation in order to funnel them to the guy being investigated.
Question for Towny and Dukie..
When did you and your family find out Mike was told that the GJ presentment was going to be leaked? So essentially Mike was aware of another crime and didn't voice his displeasure as well as your family. We are seeing a pattern here....
So now we know Mike did nothing publicly to change the false language in the presentment and did nothing to indicate his dissatisfaction with the GJ presentment being leaked which included that false language and inflamed the masses.
When did you and your family find out Mike was told that the GJ presentment was going to be leaked? So essentially Mike was aware of another crime and didn't voice his displeasure as well as your family. We are seeing a pattern here....
So now we know Mike did nothing publicly to change the false language in the presentment and did nothing to indicate his dissatisfaction with the GJ presentment being leaked which included that false language and inflamed the masses.
I can.
“The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years.”
The totality of "the evidence" Freeh refers to is this third person "coach" reference we are currently discussing.
Is there a reason you are confusing what type of "investigation" an untrained non-child pro would be talking about
as compared to the type of "investigation" Jack Raykovitz as a trained child psychologist specifically named in the PA CPSL as required to not only report but to implement a safety plan for his at-risk clients was obligated to initiate?
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.
Harmon testified in the pma deposition (which I can't find attm) that he was pretty certain 'Coach' was Joe.
Yes Wendy, but to Barry's point, you (an intelligent and rational person) are not on this jury. The pool was tainted and in general he is right. Jury selection is slanted toward the uneducated and less intelligent. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in concluding this is far from a jury of Spanier's peers.
I just want to thank the folks on this thread for a good discussion on this topic. It is highly welcome to view some reasoned points made on the topic, even if all of the posters here don't fully agree.
(BTW, I do have some posters on ignore, but I still see 27 messages on this thread).
(BTW, I do have some posters on ignore, but I still see 27 messages on this thread).
The problem with this is how would any of them make that determination without the kid? That is a huge leap of faith, given what Schultz knew from 1998. I'd like to hear how they made that determination, particularly when they were being advised by general counsel to go to DPW, just in case, which is obviously the appropriate action. I don't believe they did anything with malicious intent, but man, what a big mistake in judgement at that time.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Unfortunately, I agree with you on that very important point. The prosecution has that advantage, which reduces the constitutional advantages for the defense.
At trial that still only gives a hung jury. That is, unless they can add a compelling case on top of the metaphorical head start.
At this point the only thing that matters is what's presented at trial. The PMA deposition means nothing. Besides, the identity of "coach" is meaningless as it pertains to Spanier's defense.
thanks for the reminder of what a conclusion jumper Freeh was; more leaping ability than anyone at the NFL combine
talk about weak "evidence"
Similar threads
