Which is probably what the deal is. It's not even a little wink and it wasn't when they took the plea...you had to know they would testify.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
I have never understood the significance of this. Sandusky was his DC, fall camp was going to open shortly and his DC was under some type of investigation (don't recall if there was ever testimony Joe was told what type of investigation). Of course Joe would be anxious to know what was up. Same as Franklin would be anxious to know if he learned Pry had some sort of issue that might impact his status with the staff. I see nothing at all wrong with Joe being anxious to know.
Joe claimed he was never aware of 1998....so that's the rub there.
It does surprise me that the Judge wasn't up front about it but then maybe thats me not fully understanding how all this works.
As someone else pointed out, isn't it possible that Joe didn't know the nature of the investigation? I'm no lawyer, but I remember it being pointed out that it may have been unlawful for Joe to have known. Don't know if that is accurate. Please chime in if you know more about that aspect.
I agree, neither email proves Paterno knew anything specific about Sandusky or the investigation. Hopefully Curley will clear that up.
Though I have to say this testimony ends my defense of Curley. He lied to the GJ...flat out lied. I don't fault him for his decisions during the actual events w/ Sandusky, but I will not defend him anymore either.
Last edited:
Joe didn't hedge...he said he had no knowledge of a 1998 investigation. even if he wasn't culpable, it would show he either lied about 1998 or didn't remember (at 84, that's possible). If he lied, then why?
Let me know the next time you are in the desert so I can sell you a bucket of sand.
Interesting quote from McQueary. "Never discussed anything sexual with Joe" unrelated to this case but for 6 years the "other side" has repeatedly brought up Joe's famous "it was something sexual" quote.Now we hear he never discussed "something sexual with joe" interesting indeed.
Yep...something like Dunn wanted to know was even once a theory there as it was something totally different. I forget what the line was, but there was something also there about how Joe was addressed as Joe and not coach IIRC. Not really a huge revelation to me at this point in time. Seems like there were multiple PR wars going on when this all broke out. Sifting through both sides BS is a full time job.
I still don't understand why he would lie about it. As has been brought up countless times, the 1998 investigation and subsequent "exoneration" of JS could have led these guys to think that 2001 was just more of the same. Mistake in judgement, of course.
I believe that their thought in 2011 before the Grand Jury was something along the lines of "if they know we knew about 1998, and knew in 2001 that DPW, police and CYS investigated in 1998, we'll look really, really bad for deciding not to get DPW, CYS and the police involved in 2001. So it's better to just say we didn't know about 1998 when we heard about 2001."
A series of them. Again, I don't fault them for making the wrong call on Sandusky (I think they were likely heavily influenced by Jerry's stature and relationships w/ BoT members)...but there is just no excuse not to tell the truth to the GJ. He lied, it's a sad revelation.
Kentucky, can you refresh my memory - what did TC lie about? So much involved here I have lost track of some testimony. Thanks.
Now it will be interesting to see if he lied about what MM said to him at the GJ or if that is even touched.
Wasn't Joe asked about knowledge of previous ABUSE ALLEGATIONS re: JS and 1998? If so maybe all he knew was JS was looked into and cleared for something but Joe didn't know exactly what for?
Again this all goes back to the reason why SOL exist. It's crazy to be parsing the recollection of an 80 yr old about something that happened 15 yrs in the past that was determined to be a nothing burger if he did know about it.
Surely this is possible, if not probable. I just hope the defense asks Curley, Schultz, and Spanier something along the lines of, "At any time in 2001, did you suspect that Jerry Sandusky was a serial pedophile? Did you know anyone who suspected that Jerry was a serial pedophile?"
So where is Scott or Wick with the indisputable evidence that Joe was not told of the 1998 incident
In what world do witnesses control the investigation? McQueary did what he was asked to by his questioners. They didn't ask for him to fill out a report, so he didn't. The burden is on Curley/Schultz to control the interview/investigation not McQueary.
Just sit back and watch how quickly people turn on TC and Schultz....from all sides.
Joe stumbled in his answer, as with the rest of his testimony. He initially started to answer that he may have heard rumors, but then said he couldn't honestly say that he did. He did tell Sally Jenkins that he didn't know about 1998
I agree. My question was rhetorical (i.e. it was stupid to lie about that). I think Raffy's explanation is plausible.
I believe that latter is possible, but not the first. Joe knew what they were asking about and the tenor of the emails, if Curley testified that "coach" was Paterno and it would be disingenuous to say what he said. But, at 84 and sick, he could have forgotten.
Regardless, Joe still did what he was supposed to do in 2001. There is no evidence of a cover up or Joe's participation in anything like that.
Reality is that Joe's testimony, interviews, etc are pretty unreliable. Most everyone is hanging their hat on it either way.
He testified as below. Considering Jerry wasnt charged with any inappropriate sexual conduct for 1998. So would lend credence to Joe not being aware of the inappropriate sexual conduct of 98.
Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?
Mr. Paterno: I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it.
Agree...and I have no problem with his testimony...his interview with Jenkins is another kettle of fish.
I remember reading when this whole thing first broke that Jerry Dunn the BB coach was in contract discussions at the time of the email and the he was anxious about the progress.
Last edited:
Good grief! "he did not feel it was inappropriate enough to contact the police" How can that be consistent with anything MM is now saying.
Joe was not directly asked about the '98 incident by the GJ questioner. He was specifically asked if he "knew" of any other "inappropriate sexual conduct" between Sandusky and young boys. Joe's answer was that he did not know of it but may have heard a rumor. The questioner asked no follow up questions. Not sure what he knew or didn't know in '98 or even remembered a decade later, but pertaining to '98 that was certainly not a lie.
Curley testified he spoke with Joe Paterno in 1998 and kept him apprised throughout the investigation.
Curley testified Joe Paterno used the words "horse play" - not McQueary- when reporting to Curley and Schultz. Testified that McQueary never said sexual.
Curley lied in open court today and had his memory refreshed with a transcript of his plea testimony regarding Graham Spanier's involvement in coming up with the initial plan. This was not displayed in court but was handed to Curley and the defense attorney.
It felt like Curley was protecting Spanier.
Schultz testified after lunch. 2:00 pm trial resumes.
Curley testified Joe Paterno used the words "horse play" - not McQueary- when reporting to Curley and Schultz. Testified that McQueary never said sexual.
Curley lied in open court today and had his memory refreshed with a transcript of his plea testimony regarding Graham Spanier's involvement in coming up with the initial plan. This was not displayed in court but was handed to Curley and the defense attorney.
It felt like Curley was protecting Spanier.
Schultz testified after lunch. 2:00 pm trial resumes.
Curley confirmed "coach" in 1998 emails was Coach Paterno.
Curley said he took the plea because he "should have done more"
That isn't very hard to believe since Jerry was the DC at the time. I would think he would be very interested in what was found out about Jerry for better or worse.
I can't find the direct transcript right now. But at a minimum he lied about what he knew specifically about the 1998 investigation.
I didn't realize Seth was responible for this law. Wow.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/how-bad-law-in-msgr-lynn-case-came-back.html
By Ralph Cipriano
For BigTrial.net
In a Harrisburg courtroom today, Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State University, went on trial on two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.
Sadly, as anyone back in Philadelphia familiar with the case of Msgr. William Lynn knows, the state's original child endangerment law doesn't apply to Spanier for the same reason it didn't apply to Lynn. The law also doesn't apply to former PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley or former PSU Vice President Gary Schultz, both of whom pleaded guilty to violating it last week.
The irony is that on the same day Spanier went on trial for allegedly violating a state law that doesn't apply to him, the man behind the making of that bad case law -- Philadelphia District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams -- was indicted by the feds on 23 counts of bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, and wire fraud.
It's a shame the feds also didn't indict Williams for corrupting the law. Because that's exactly what he did.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing," said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte. "Evil thrives when men do nothing."
Not really Mr. Schulte. In Pennsylvania, evil seems to thrive when prosecutors get their hands on a lurid case of sex abuse, and the media gives them carte blanche to run with it. The results in both Philadelphia and Harrisburg -- state-sponsored witch hunts and bad case law.
Let's start with Philadelphia. Back in 2005, a grand jury that investigated sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia used subpoenas to pry loose the church's so-called secret archive files -- 45,000 pages of sex abuse records hidden in a safe that chronicled the sins of 63 abuser priests who had raped and molested hundreds of innocent child victims.
The city was enraged. So was District Attorney Lynne Abraham and a grand jury. But in their 2005 report, Abraham and the grand jury concluded that they couldn't indict any of the priests because their crimes had been successfully covered up over decades by a couple of former archbishops -- John Krol and Anthony Bevilacqua -- so that none of those sex crimes fell within the statute of limitations.
Abraham and the grand jury also concluded that they couldn't indict Msgr. Lynn or Cardinal Bevilacqua for endangering the welfare of children. Because the state's original child endangerment law didn't apply to supervisors, the grand jury report stated. The law only applied to people who had direct contact with children, such as parents, teachers or guardians who had "knowingly endangered" the welfare of a child.
So what did D.A. Lynne Abraham do? She led a statewide campaign to amend the original state child endangerment law to include supervisors, an amendment passed by the state legislature in 2007.
In 2011, however, a new politically ambitious Philadelphia district attorney, Rufus Seth Williams, and another grand jury looked at the same 1972 child endangerment law. And they concluded without explanation that the original child endangerment law did apply to crimes that allegedly happened in 1998-99, not only to Msgr. Lynn, but also to three other priests, as well as a lay teacher.
Msgr. Lynn went to trial in 2012 and was convicted on a single count of endangering the welfare of a child. In 2013, however, the state Superior Court overturned that conviction. The appeals court ruled that D.A. Williams's application of the child endangerment law was "fundamentally flawed." Because Msgr. Lynn didn't even know "Billy Doe," the altar boy who was allegedly raped by a priest with a prior history of abuse.
In his successful appeal, Lynn's lawyer, Thomas Bergstrom, argued to the state Superior Court that Lynn was charged ex post facto," or after the fact, under the standards of the 2007 law that was amended to include supervisors.
That's just what happened to Spanier, Curley and Schultz. They were supervisors accused of not doing enough to respond to reports of possible sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in 1998, when a mom complained about Sandusky taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Which led to the discovery of another 10-year-old who had also taken a shower with Jerry.
Those alleged incidents, however, were reported to both the police, the district attorney and to a couple of county child welfare agencies, all of whom found that no crime was committed.
The next incident happened in 2001, when Mike McQueary made his now famous visit to the Penn State locker room and heard and then saw Sandusky in the shower with another boy. This was the incident that McQueary reported to Paterno. Who reported it to Schultz and Curley. Who allegedly told Spanier, as well as the child psychologist who was the head of Sandusky's Second Mile Charity.
As in the Msgr. Lynn case, the alleged crimes in the PSU case, which happened in 1998 and 2001, all predate the 2007 amending of the state child endangerment law to include supervisors.
What made the PSU prosecutions possible was a 2016 decision by the state Supreme Court, which overturned the Superior Court reversal of the Lynn conviction. How did the state's highest court do that? By reinterpreting the original meaning of the 1972 state law to say that it originally meant to include supervisors.
In reinterpreting the original law written in 1972, the state Supreme Court played some word games. The state's highest court also had to ignore the practical 40-year history of the state's child endangerment law, where it was only applied in some 300 cases only to people who had direct contact with children, such as parents teachers and guardians.
To reinterpret the child endangerment law, the state Supreme Court also had to ignore D.A. Abraham's statewide crusade to change the law to include supervisors. And the state legislature's decision to amend the law to include supervisors.
That's why in Harrisburg today, the protagonists were left to play more word games. To see if the prosecutors would succeed in their crusade to put Graham Spanier behind bars for allegedly endangering the welfare of children he never even met.
Today's star witness was McQueary, the tall, redheaded former graduate assistant who allegedly blew the whistle on Jerry Sandusky with his famous visit to the Penn State showers. Amazingly, the story McQueary tells has only improved with age in the sixteen years since it happened.
"I heard slapping sounds," McQueary told the jury. "The slapping sounds alerted me that something more than a shower was going on."
"I looked over my right shoulder" into a mirror in the locker room, he said, and he saw Sandusky standing behind the boy who was "right up against him."
McQueary said he took a step to his right, about six inches, he said. And this time he looked directly into the shower. And he "saw the same exact thing."
The third time he looked directly at Sandusky and the boy, who were now facing him, McQueary said. And this time they looked back at McQueary and separated from each other.
The prosecutor, standing next to the jury, used hand gestures to show that McQueary, as a lowly graduate assistant, was way down at the bottom of the PSU football "food chain." And that Joe Paterno, the iconic coach, was way up at the very top when McQueary went to see old Joe to tell him what he heard and saw in the shower.
Paterno, McQueary said, was "like a grandpa" to him. And Grandpa was upset when he heard that one of his former assistant coaches might have been molesting a kid.
"He kind of slumped back in his chair," McQueary said, continuing to show an amazing recall for 16-year-old details. "His eyes looked sad."
What did McQueary tell Gary Schultz, the prosecutor asked.
"I told him I saw Jerry molesting a boy," McQueary stated in a booming voice. As for how Schultz could have interpreted what McQueary told him as "horseplay," McQueary was just as definitive.
"I have never ever used the word horseplay in my life," McQueary said. And it wasn't horseplay that he saw Sandusky engaging in with that boy in the shower.
"I saw Jerry molesting a boy in the shower, yes, ma'am," McQueary told the prosecutor.
On cross-examination, however, McQueary said he had never personally discussed the shower incident with "Dr. Spanier."
Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/how-bad-law-in-msgr-lynn-case-came-back.html#gtEAkb2m3OOsI12m.99
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/how-bad-law-in-msgr-lynn-case-came-back.html
By Ralph Cipriano
For BigTrial.net
In a Harrisburg courtroom today, Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State University, went on trial on two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.
Sadly, as anyone back in Philadelphia familiar with the case of Msgr. William Lynn knows, the state's original child endangerment law doesn't apply to Spanier for the same reason it didn't apply to Lynn. The law also doesn't apply to former PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley or former PSU Vice President Gary Schultz, both of whom pleaded guilty to violating it last week.
The irony is that on the same day Spanier went on trial for allegedly violating a state law that doesn't apply to him, the man behind the making of that bad case law -- Philadelphia District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams -- was indicted by the feds on 23 counts of bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, and wire fraud.
It's a shame the feds also didn't indict Williams for corrupting the law. Because that's exactly what he did.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing," said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte. "Evil thrives when men do nothing."
Not really Mr. Schulte. In Pennsylvania, evil seems to thrive when prosecutors get their hands on a lurid case of sex abuse, and the media gives them carte blanche to run with it. The results in both Philadelphia and Harrisburg -- state-sponsored witch hunts and bad case law.
Let's start with Philadelphia. Back in 2005, a grand jury that investigated sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia used subpoenas to pry loose the church's so-called secret archive files -- 45,000 pages of sex abuse records hidden in a safe that chronicled the sins of 63 abuser priests who had raped and molested hundreds of innocent child victims.
The city was enraged. So was District Attorney Lynne Abraham and a grand jury. But in their 2005 report, Abraham and the grand jury concluded that they couldn't indict any of the priests because their crimes had been successfully covered up over decades by a couple of former archbishops -- John Krol and Anthony Bevilacqua -- so that none of those sex crimes fell within the statute of limitations.
Abraham and the grand jury also concluded that they couldn't indict Msgr. Lynn or Cardinal Bevilacqua for endangering the welfare of children. Because the state's original child endangerment law didn't apply to supervisors, the grand jury report stated. The law only applied to people who had direct contact with children, such as parents, teachers or guardians who had "knowingly endangered" the welfare of a child.
So what did D.A. Lynne Abraham do? She led a statewide campaign to amend the original state child endangerment law to include supervisors, an amendment passed by the state legislature in 2007.
In 2011, however, a new politically ambitious Philadelphia district attorney, Rufus Seth Williams, and another grand jury looked at the same 1972 child endangerment law. And they concluded without explanation that the original child endangerment law did apply to crimes that allegedly happened in 1998-99, not only to Msgr. Lynn, but also to three other priests, as well as a lay teacher.
Msgr. Lynn went to trial in 2012 and was convicted on a single count of endangering the welfare of a child. In 2013, however, the state Superior Court overturned that conviction. The appeals court ruled that D.A. Williams's application of the child endangerment law was "fundamentally flawed." Because Msgr. Lynn didn't even know "Billy Doe," the altar boy who was allegedly raped by a priest with a prior history of abuse.
In his successful appeal, Lynn's lawyer, Thomas Bergstrom, argued to the state Superior Court that Lynn was charged ex post facto," or after the fact, under the standards of the 2007 law that was amended to include supervisors.
That's just what happened to Spanier, Curley and Schultz. They were supervisors accused of not doing enough to respond to reports of possible sex abuse by Jerry Sandusky in 1998, when a mom complained about Sandusky taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Which led to the discovery of another 10-year-old who had also taken a shower with Jerry.
Those alleged incidents, however, were reported to both the police, the district attorney and to a couple of county child welfare agencies, all of whom found that no crime was committed.
The next incident happened in 2001, when Mike McQueary made his now famous visit to the Penn State locker room and heard and then saw Sandusky in the shower with another boy. This was the incident that McQueary reported to Paterno. Who reported it to Schultz and Curley. Who allegedly told Spanier, as well as the child psychologist who was the head of Sandusky's Second Mile Charity.
As in the Msgr. Lynn case, the alleged crimes in the PSU case, which happened in 1998 and 2001, all predate the 2007 amending of the state child endangerment law to include supervisors.
What made the PSU prosecutions possible was a 2016 decision by the state Supreme Court, which overturned the Superior Court reversal of the Lynn conviction. How did the state's highest court do that? By reinterpreting the original meaning of the 1972 state law to say that it originally meant to include supervisors.
In reinterpreting the original law written in 1972, the state Supreme Court played some word games. The state's highest court also had to ignore the practical 40-year history of the state's child endangerment law, where it was only applied in some 300 cases only to people who had direct contact with children, such as parents teachers and guardians.
To reinterpret the child endangerment law, the state Supreme Court also had to ignore D.A. Abraham's statewide crusade to change the law to include supervisors. And the state legislature's decision to amend the law to include supervisors.
That's why in Harrisburg today, the protagonists were left to play more word games. To see if the prosecutors would succeed in their crusade to put Graham Spanier behind bars for allegedly endangering the welfare of children he never even met.
Today's star witness was McQueary, the tall, redheaded former graduate assistant who allegedly blew the whistle on Jerry Sandusky with his famous visit to the Penn State showers. Amazingly, the story McQueary tells has only improved with age in the sixteen years since it happened.
"I heard slapping sounds," McQueary told the jury. "The slapping sounds alerted me that something more than a shower was going on."
"I looked over my right shoulder" into a mirror in the locker room, he said, and he saw Sandusky standing behind the boy who was "right up against him."
McQueary said he took a step to his right, about six inches, he said. And this time he looked directly into the shower. And he "saw the same exact thing."
The third time he looked directly at Sandusky and the boy, who were now facing him, McQueary said. And this time they looked back at McQueary and separated from each other.
The prosecutor, standing next to the jury, used hand gestures to show that McQueary, as a lowly graduate assistant, was way down at the bottom of the PSU football "food chain." And that Joe Paterno, the iconic coach, was way up at the very top when McQueary went to see old Joe to tell him what he heard and saw in the shower.
Paterno, McQueary said, was "like a grandpa" to him. And Grandpa was upset when he heard that one of his former assistant coaches might have been molesting a kid.
"He kind of slumped back in his chair," McQueary said, continuing to show an amazing recall for 16-year-old details. "His eyes looked sad."
What did McQueary tell Gary Schultz, the prosecutor asked.
"I told him I saw Jerry molesting a boy," McQueary stated in a booming voice. As for how Schultz could have interpreted what McQueary told him as "horseplay," McQueary was just as definitive.
"I have never ever used the word horseplay in my life," McQueary said. And it wasn't horseplay that he saw Sandusky engaging in with that boy in the shower.
"I saw Jerry molesting a boy in the shower, yes, ma'am," McQueary told the prosecutor.
On cross-examination, however, McQueary said he had never personally discussed the shower incident with "Dr. Spanier."
Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/03/how-bad-law-in-msgr-lynn-case-came-back.html#gtEAkb2m3OOsI12m.99
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Takeaways from Jim Knowles's introductory press conference
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
