Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[Obliviax]

Curley confirmed "coach" in 1998 emails was Coach Paterno.

Curley said he

that was a predetermined comment, IMHO (took the plea because he "should have done more"). What he really said was "I had no choice if I wanted to spend a few years of my life in peace". Why? He refers to his health. He states he took it because he is ill and did so with the proviso he'd no serve time in prison.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

Not sure i agree, why couldn't you ask
did you ask Mr Curley for any details - no
did you ask Mr Curley if he knew the child- no
did you ask if the child was from TSM

 

[PSU Dave]

Curley confirmed "coach" in 1998 emails was Coach Paterno.

Curley said he took the plea because he "should have done more"

With the benefit of hindsight, there are many who wish they had done more.

 

[Raffycorn]

I remember reading when this whole thing first broke that Jerry Dunn the BB couscous was in contract discussions at the time of the email and the he was anxious about the progress.

The emails regarding the investigation in 1998 have been repeatedly conflated with what appears to be discussions about Jerry Dunn's job status in emails discussing the 2001 situation. It made no sense for "Jerry" to be Jerry Dunn in the 1998 investigation emails because Jerry Dunn would have very little reason to be interested in the status of DPW's investigation into Sandusky showering with boys, which is what Schultz responded to that email with.

In 2001, though, Curley includes in an email to Spanier: "I may need to touch base with you regarding the basketball situation towards the end of next week. We will play next Thursday and pending the outcome of the next two games I will need to make a recommendation to you next Friday. I am planning to meet with the other person (who I presume is Sandusky) next Monday on the other subject."

But that's the only email where it makes any sense whatsoever for Dunn to be the subject of conversation.

 

[pandaczar12]

Curley testified he spoke with Joe Paterno in 1998 and kept him apprised throughout the investigation.

That doesn't mean JVP knew any details of the investigation, simply that there was an investigation... that ultimately lead to JS being cleared.

YAWN!

 

[pandaczar12]

that was a predetermined comment, IMHO (took the plea because he "should have done more"). What he really said was "I had no choice if I wanted to spend a few years of my life in peace".

He should have said "with the benefit of hindsight".

 

[Zenophile]

Agree...and I have no problem with his testimony...his interview with Jenkins is another kettle of fish.

I see your point, but IMHO it's not an issue. There's absolutely no evidence to indicate that Joe was ever informed about the nature of the '98 issue.

Conversely there's an abundance of evidence that Joe was compulsively honest.

 

[kentuckycb]

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.

Forgive me for not trusting your anecdotal account of what Curley said. You have an agenda. Please be more specific.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

So a question for the legal eagles. Can the defense say in the cross examination of Curley and Schultz, these two men have both pleaded guilty to EWOC in this case. That might allow the jury to say okay these are the two who did it, because I agree the jury will want to punish someone

 

[LaJolla Lion]

That doesn't mean JVP knew any details of the investigation, simply that there was an investigation... that ultimately lead to JS being cleared.

YAWN!

Bottom line is he did know about 98 which is understandable. Jerry was his DC and his AD was keeping him in the loop. It's not like that is a crazy thing to happen. The thing is you keep talking about how Jerry was cleared in 98 which he was....but a second report on the same guy from a young man on your staff sure as hell is going to peak your interest even if it is watered down. Again...a ton of PR BS was put out by the state and those thinking they were protecting Joe...you have to kind of sift through it sooner or later. Do I think Joe hid it...Nope, but his conversation about them f--kng this thing up kind of rings true a little bit now.

 

[clickhere 01]

I am Referring to the Sally Jenkins article.

JENKINS: People have speculated that you had knowledge of the 1998 police investigation. You didn't hear any whispers, rumors, reports before Mike McQueary spoke to you in 2002?







PATERNO: I had never heard a thing.

 

[Zenophile]

JENKINS: People have speculated that you had knowledge of the 1998 police investigation. You didn't hear any whispers, rumors, reports before Mike McQueary spoke to you in 2002?

PATERNO: I had never heard a thing.

It's a shame he's not around to clarify.

 

[kevina001]

JENKINS: People have speculated that you had knowledge of the 1998 police investigation. You didn't hear any whispers, rumors, reports before Mike McQueary spoke to you in 2002?







PATERNO: I had never heard a thing.

That would technically accurate, because Joe didn't speak to McQueary about this in 2002.

Way to do your legwork, Sally, you friggin hack.

 

[Mixolydian]

It's a shame he's not around to clarify.

I believe he was hospitalized within days of that interview, and dead shortly thereafter.

 

[getmyjive11]

It's a shame he's not around to clarify.

The clarification is that he lied to Sally.

 

[getmyjive11]

That would technically accurate, because Joe didn't speak to McQueary about this in 2002.

Way to do your legwork, Sally, you friggin hack.

Everyone thought it was 2002 at the time of the interview.

 

[kevina001]

Ziegler is maintaining that Curley didn't even know the details of the 1998 investigation. Was that discussed today in his testimony?

 

[kentuckycb]

JENKINS: People have speculated that you had knowledge of the 1998 police investigation. You didn't hear any whispers, rumors, reports before Mike McQueary spoke to you in 2002?







PATERNO: I had never heard a thing.

Sorry, doesn't prove anything. Paterno clearly could have meant I never heard a thing specifically about the investigation itself, i.e. meaning he didn't know Jerry was being investigated for potential child abuse. Just because Curley announced an investigation to Paterno means nothing without more context and specifics.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

From the Jenkins article:

Paterno insists he was completely unaware of a 1998 police investigation into a report from a Second Mile mother that Sandusky had inappropriately touched her son in a shower. The inquiry ended when the local prosecutor declined to bring charges. “You know it wasn’t like it was something everybody in the building knew about,” Paterno said. “Nobody knew about it.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...usky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html

 

[dshumbero]

The clarification is that he lied to Sally.

The implication is you're an idiot. No, not implication, fact.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Ziegler is maintaining that Curley didn't even know the details of the 1998 investigation. Was that discussed today in his testimony?

And how in the hell would he know what Tim knew...Tim has emails on the subject, but didn't know anything? At what point do you wake up and realize that JZ is feeding you a line of BS.

 

[WeR0206]

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.

So now you're back to the tired old argument that MM had to be told by the admins that he needed to fill out/file a police report if he wanted it formally looked at? Please. You also keep forgetting that C/S were NOT professional or child abuse investigators. MM took a report of what he claims now to be suspected criminal activity and gave it to some college admins to do an informal side bar looking into things. He never filed a police report until 9 years later.

MM was the one and only witness so the admins were taking their cues from him, not the other way around. It's incumbent on the only witness to make sure the people he trusted to handle his report did so to his satisfaction. He gave the admins no reason to believe they mishandled his report since they followed up with him and he didn't say one damned word about them needing to do more based on what he reported to them. That failure is on him and no one else.

 

[jerseylion109]

sooo should we be expecting headlines soon and being on the bottom scroll of ESPN?

 

[kevina001]

And how in the hell would he know what Tim knew

Um, because he's at the trial, listening to his testimony.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Um, because he's at the trial, listening to his testimony.

Well your post makes zero sense. Of course Tim knew something about 98...that really isn't even up for debate.

 

[BobPSU92]

As I recall, someone would had to have violated the law to have informed Joe of the '98 investigation since Joe was not involved. So if Joe knew ( ), who broke the law by telling him and why?

 

[kevina001]

Well your post makes zero sense. Of course Tim knew something about 98...that really isn't even up for debate.

Well, we are debating it, so I guess it is!

Obviously Curley knew SOMETHING about the investigation, but how much? I, like you, would assume he knew the details. Ziegler is saying he didn't. So I'm asking what was said today that made Ziegler come to that conclusion?

 

[TheCandyMan]

Joe claimed he was never aware of 1998....so that's the rub there.

He not only "claimed" it, he testified to it under oath.

 

[kgilbert78]

I see your point, but IMHO it's not an issue. There's absolutely no evidence to indicate that Joe was ever informed about the nature of the '98 issue.

Conversely there's an abundance of evidence that Joe was compulsively honest.

Which most of the rest of the world does not care about.

And I was wrong to think there would be no mention of Paterno in the trial. The prosecution is essentially putting Penn State on trial to win the jury and will do anything to get a conviction.

 

[Raffycorn]

Ziegler is maintaining that Curley didn't even know the details of the 1998 investigation. Was that discussed today in his testimony?

We know with certainty from the 1998 emails that Curley was aware that University Police and DPW were investigating an incident between Jerry and more than one boy. He knew that a child psychologist was brought in to talk to the boys about what happened. And he knew that University Police and DPW met with Jerry, determined that no criminal behavior occurred, that the investigation was closed, and that Jerry was emotional about how it affected the child.

What we can safely presume - although not specifically mentioned in emails - is that Curley was aware that whatever was being investigated occurred on campus because University Police were involved. I think we can also safely presume that Curley, as an intelligent adult, had likely considered that there aren't too many possible crimes that might occur involving a child that might demand that DPW and a child psychologist become involved. We also know that there were substantive discussions about the investigation that took place outside of emails, because the earliest email we have in the chain demonstrates that Curley was aware of the situation and that DPW was going to get involved.

 

[Zenophile]

The clarification is that he lied to Sally.

Did you know Joe?

 

[PSU Dave]

sooo should we be expecting headlines soon and being on the bottom scroll of ESPN?

Let's wait until Spanier presents his side.

 

[indynittany]

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.

You could save a lot of trees by just listing the ones that weren't!

 

[Obliviax]

He not only "claimed" it, he testified to it under oath.

There is no bigger Joe defender than me but you are parsing words. If he didn't remember, that is understandable for an 84 year old guy who is mortally sick. But if he lied, you have to wonder why he lied. What was he hiding? Curley states, clearly, that Joe was aware of 1998 and being kept informed. Assuming Curley didn't lie, Joe did (or was too wasted to remember).

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Well, we are debating it, so I guess it is!

Obviously Curley knew SOMETHING about the investigation, but how much? I, like you, would assume he knew the details. Ziegler is saying he didn't. So I'm asking what was said today that made Ziegler come to that conclusion?

I doubt the investigators gave TC or anyone outside the investigation full disclosure on everything or much at all other than it was ongoing. That really isn't how investigations work...even more so if there are working relationships with some of he people involved. I'm sure JZ will have a few more gold nuggets to throw out there by the end of this one.

 

[Mixolydian]

He not only "claimed" it, he testified to it under oath.

No he actually didn't testify to it.

 

[WeR0206]

From the Lori Falce article re: Curley's testimony, Curley was the person who decided to remove DPW from the plan, not Joe.

Another "conclusion" freeh was wrong about.

 

[Zenophile]

He not only "claimed" it, he testified to it under oath.

Which would be conclusive evidence that he believed this to be true.

 

[Raffycorn]

As I recall, someone would had to have violated the law to have informed Joe of the '98 investigation since Joe was not involved. So if Joe knew ( ), who broke the law by telling him and why?

On May 5, 1998 Curley told Schultz that he had touched base with the coach (Joe). There's no evidence that anyone other than Curley discussed anything with Joe in 1998.

The "why" is pretty clear, IMO: Jerry was Joe's defensive coordinator, and I think any head coach would want to know that their defensive coordinator was being investigated by police for a potential crime against children.

 

[roswelllion]

That doesn't mean JVP knew any details of the investigation, simply that there was an investigation... that ultimately lead to JS being cleared.

YAWN!

Interesting, so JVP says he knows of know other sexual situations with jerry but may have heard some rumors. Backtrack to 98 my words here "Joe ,JS is being looked into for some issues with a kid' JVP keep me posted, follow up nothing to see hear was investigated and nothing happened" 12 years later I could easily remember well i was never aware of anything but may have heard some rumors. Seems completely consistent to me