Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[bjf1991]

I

Again, his claiming that he plead guilty because he felt he should have done more is utter BS. It was for more obvious reasons. I'm not there, but Spanier's defense should have taken him apart on that. That line was fed to him by the prosecution.

I imagine your premise is correct (in fact, i'd say it is incredibly highly likely) ....... but I'm not sure if there is any reason to care?

Is there? (That's a serious question - I'm not sure if I'm missing something)

 

[PSUSignore]

I was referring to YOUR hindsight bias, not theirs.

They knew that 1998 was a "false alarm" in 2001. Human nature would be to assume that 2001 was just another false alarm.

Not necessarily. It could also trigger a reaction that 1998 wasn't a false alarm as they had thought, therefore ensuring they get 2001 right becomes even more important. I don't know which way would be more natural given the nature of the human brain, I'm no expert. But I think it's dishonest to think that only one or the other is possible. How Curley and Schultz reacted, we do not know. I suspect that because they knew 1998 was investigated more thoroughly by the proper authorities that they would be more likely than not to align with your take, but we don't know for sure.

 

[dshumbero]

Mike McQueary is a jack off nothing more. Oh, yes a LIAR!!!!!!!

 

[kgilbert78]

Asked point-blank by Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte whether the version of events he heard about the 2001 shower incident from either eyewitness Mike McQueary or late Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno - who McQueary first reported to - was described as sexual activity, Curley said: "No sir."

This is a pretty big deal.....Spanier might walk because of this quote...Even though he got a sweetheart deal, Curley refuses to back MM. That is huge. Only way jury can convict GS is if they find that based on the limited information that Curley gave him, that he should have reported....

Now that Curley has testified, I wonder if they recall MM to crucify him. Not sure what their strategy is.

Juries often make rulings based on emotion--this is especially true in civil cases but can be true in criminal cases as well. This is a high emotion case.

Edit: Heck, it's pretty emotional on a lot of fronts for me as well. And rightly so. We should be furious at CSA for one--and anyone who has anything to do with it. And at folks who would use it for their own political gain for another.

 

[kgilbert78]

Two different emails. The 1998 "anxious to know" one was testified to yesterday by Harmon as Jerry Sandusky . The 2001 email "touched base with the coach" was testified to today by Curley as being Paterno.

If this is true, I don't feel quite as bad about things. It will be conflated and spun the other way by the press of course.

 

[mn78psu83]

I


I imagine your premise is correct (in fact, i'd say it is incredibly highly likely) ....... but I'm not sure if there is any reason to care?

Is there? (That's a serious question - I'm not sure if I'm missing something)

No. There is not.

 

[pandaczar12]

I suspect that because they knew 1998 was investigated more thoroughly by the proper authorities that they would be more likely than not to align with your take, but we don't know for sure.

So basically you are saying that because they knew that the proper authorities had done a thorough investigation in 1998, that would lead them to believe that it wasn’t a false alarm. That makes no sense.

 

[ApexLion]

I imagine the deal evolved as the years went on.

Doesn't work that way. You only get to deal so often. But then again you did have musical chairs in the OAG's office the entire time.

 

[nits74]

I


I imagine your premise is correct (in fact, i'd say it is incredibly highly likely) ....... but I'm not sure if there is any reason to care?

Is there? (That's a serious question - I'm not sure if I'm missing something)

Yeah, because it is an attempt to validate the original narrative in its entirety. Further, with respect to this trial, it is an attempt to validate Tim's testimony (be it accurate or not). In other words he didn't plead guilty only because he was offered a deal; he plead guilty because he is. He now becomes more credible to the jurors. That said, I really don't know, other than tangentially, what he adds to the prosecution. It's a play on emotions more than anything.

 

[lj4heisman1]

This quote from Pennlive is nonsense:

"Were Curley and Schultz eager to adopt Paterno's terms, either because it was more comfortable for everyone going forward, or because McQueary didn't do an effective enough job in coloring in the details?"

Paterno's terms--sounds an awful lot like blaming the dead guy, via media reporting anyway. Joe clearly said, and again it is much more believable, that he passed it on to those who would know better how to handle it. Suddenly it is "Paterno's terms."

Was it covered why it took 10 days to meet with McQ?

he was referring to the terms related to describing what MM told joe as "horseplay", not anything like conditions that Joe put on any response, only the "horseplay" stuff joe said MM told him

 

[PSUSignore]

So basically you are saying that because they knew that the proper authorities had done a thorough investigation in 1998, that would lead them to believe that it wasn’t a false alarm. That makes no sense.

Edit for clarity. You misread what I said. I agreed with you, but am not ruling out the opposite.

 

[lionville]

You know, I was never sure who was lying, however, the more I hear the testimony and past statements, I am inclined to sayMM was not clear to anyone!!! I really think the Dr and his dad would have reacted much differently if he told them the sexual version!!!

That's been evident since day one of this tragedy. The reactions of everyone he told are consistent with MM being uncomfortable with what he saw not anal rape.

 

[pandaczar12]

That's what I said.

Please explain how knowing that the experts did a thorough job in 1998 would make them think that the experts didn't do a thorough job in 1998.

 

[AvgUser]

"In fact, the action -- because it did not include alerting police or child welfare officials to McQueary's report -- became a major missed opportunity for law enforcement that permitted Sandusky to find at least three more victims."

I have seen absolutely nothing that makes me believe that the opportunity missed in 2001 would have turned out any differently than the actual opportunity they had in 1998.

Exactly. It sure is fortunate and convenient that many can skip right by the real failure that paved the way for all others.

 

[PSUSignore]

Please explain how knowing that the experts did a thorough job in 1998 would make them think that the experts didn't do a thorough job in 1998.

I just edited my prior reply, you misread my first post.

 

[Nellie R]

from Curley's testimony today:

From a historical standpoint, Curley's testimony -- riddled with contentions that he couldn't recall specifics -- added little to other key questions in the case, like the "after talking it over with Joe (Paterno)" conversation on Feb. 26 that he referenced by email when he proposed keeping the McQueary report in-house.

Asked Wednesday about what Paterno said in that conversation, in which Curley presumably updated the coach on an initial plan that called for notifying child welfare officials, Curley said only: "I don't recall the specific conversation or what his reaction was."

But Curley did take sole ownership of making the suggestion to drop the part of the plan that called for taking McQueary's report to child welfare officials.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/03/tim_curley_testifies_in_graham.html

Yo Matt Miller! You have just earned the nickname Charlie Tuna Junior.

Yes Charles Thompson 1 is Charlie Tuna and there has been a running theme song for quite a while now. You can Tune a Piano, but you can't Tuna Fishwrap is how it all started, IIRC.

 

[lyndj]

I was referring to YOUR hindsight bias, not theirs.

They knew that 1998 was a "false alarm" in 2001. Human nature would be to assume that 2001 was just another false alarm.

I don't consider that a "false alarm", I consider it as they couldn't definitively find that he assaulted the kid but he was inappropriate at best.

So yes, in 2001 the possibility that he was simply inappropriate would certainly play into it, yes. However, so would the possibility that it went further than that, hence, the reason to let the agencies deal with it. The fact that it was inappropriate back in 1998, he was investigated by the police and they decided they didn't have enough to charge him, and then 3 years later ole dude is back at it again. He heeded none of the warnings issued to him in 1998? You don't find that problematic at all?

 

[lyndj]

So basically you are saying that because they knew that the proper authorities had done a thorough investigation in 1998, that would lead them to believe that it wasn’t a false alarm. That makes no sense.

I think you're missing the part of the brain that triggers red flags? Nobody is saying they didn't thoroughly investigate in 1998 but it should still raise alarm that it happened again in 2001, merely three years later. At what point does the switch from "inappropriate" to "possible abuse" go on? Are you suggesting it wouldn't even occur to you? To add, it apparently occurred to Schultz because he contacted Wendell Courtney for advise, but chose not to heed it.

 

[pandaczar12]

I don't consider that a "false alarm", I consider it as they couldn't definitively find that he assaulted the kid but he was inappropriate at best.

So yes, in 2001 the possibility that he was simply inappropriate would certainly play into it, yes. However, so would the possibility that it went further than that, hence, the reason to let the agencies deal with it. The fact that it was inappropriate back in 1998, he was investigated by the police and they decided they didn't have enough to charge him, and then 3 years later ole dude is back at it again. He heeded none of the warnings issued to him in 1998? You don't find that problematic at all?

He was "cleared" by the professionals, that means no crime had occurred. End of discussion.

 

[pandaczar12]

I think you're missing the part of the brain that triggers red flags? Nobody is saying they didn't thoroughly investigate in 1998 but it should still raise alarm that it happened again in 2001, merely three years later. At what point does the switch from "inappropriate" to "possible abuse" go on? Are you suggesting it wouldn't even occur to you?

I think you're missing the part of your brain that processes logic. He worked with troubled youth, it is not out of the realm of possibility that multiple people would accuse him of something falsely.

 

[PSUPALY]

Yo Matt Miller! you have just earned the nickname Charlie Tuna Junior.

 

[lyndj]

He was "cleared" by the professionals, that means no crime had occurred. End of discussion.

So basically you're saying because he was cleared by the professionals, 2001 is okay because...cleared by the professionals in 1998. I think you don't realize what you're saying, but hey...end of discussion. Agree to disagree.

 

[Roxine]

BOOM

Schultz tells the truth

Prosecution rests.

Court recessed until tomorrow.

 

[bplionfan]

Two different emails. The 1998 "anxious to know" one was testified to yesterday by Harmon as Jerry Sandusky . The 2001 email "touched base with the coach" was testified to today by Curley as being Paterno.

No doubt that will be big time misreported. Thanks for clarifying

 

[Nellie R]

You must not come around here very often or you would know Charles Thompson's nickname. Do you not even know who wrote this article you clipped from? Matt Miller is now Charlie Tuna JR. Standard nomenclature.

 

[Zenophile]

I don't consider that a "false alarm", I consider it as they couldn't definitively find that he assaulted the kid but he was inappropriate at best.

So yes, in 2001 the possibility that he was simply inappropriate would certainly play into it, yes. However, so would the possibility that it went further than that, hence, the reason to let the agencies deal with it. The fact that it was inappropriate back in 1998, he was investigated by the police and they decided they didn't have enough to charge him, and then 3 years later ole dude is back at it again. He heeded none of the warnings issued to him in 1998? You don't find that problematic at all?

Have you ever read Clemente? http://www.paterno.com/expert-reports/jim-clemente.aspx#.WNLbzYb3aEc

 

[Nellie R]

BOOM

Schultz tells the truth

Prosecution rests.

Court recessed until tomorrow.

Great transcript you are providing here. NOT.

 

[lyndj]

Edit for clarity. You misread what I said. I agreed with you, but am not ruling out the opposite.

That's pretty much what I said--is that there is a possibility, but he tried to tell us human nature would not consider it.

 

[mn78psu83]

Juries often make rulings based on emotion--this is especially true in civil cases but can be true in criminal cases as well. This is a high emotion case.

You were saying? Just got pretty emotional.

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Some info from WNEP's Nikki Krize:

https://twitter.com/NikkiKrize

 

[kgilbert78]

I do not want to quote R. but--the Commonwealth clearly had no case without C&S. The case they do have was quite small, given how short their presentation was. Doesn't seem the surprise witness was called (no surprise) if the prosecution rested. And we should be done with this shortly. Looks like Friday for the end of the trial was a good guess.

 

[lyndj]

Have you ever read Clemente? http://www.paterno.com/expert-reports/jim-clemente.aspx#.WNLbzYb3aEc

Yes, I read that some time ago and agree with it.

 

[UncleLar]

So C/S/S supposedly formulated a plan together but Curley is taking sole responsibility for dropping the part of the plan which called for taking MM's story to CYS? So why is this trial even happening??

Dropping isn't the correct term. The original plan clearly called for an OPTIONAL report to CYS. It may seem like semantics but it's important. Dropping would imply that Curley went against the original called for plan. But the fact is he just chose a path that the three of them had decided from the beginning was a legitimate option.

 

[Zenophile]

BOOM

Schultz tells the truth

Prosecution rests.

Court recessed until tomorrow.

The denizens of BWI would wholeheartedly agree that not reporting was a mistake and that this was especially obvious in hindsight.

 

[Pennoyer]

I don't consider that a "false alarm", I consider it as they couldn't definitively find that he assaulted the kid but he was inappropriate at best.

So yes, in 2001 the possibility that he was simply inappropriate would certainly play into it, yes. However, so would the possibility that it went further than that, hence, the reason to let the agencies deal with it. The fact that it was inappropriate back in 1998, he was investigated by the police and they decided they didn't have enough to charge him, and then 3 years later ole dude is back at it again. He heeded none of the warnings issued to him in 1998? You don't find that problematic at all?

This is where you are wrong: the 1998 incident was deemed "unfounded" by DPW. No merit. Nothing. They could have made a finding "in the middle" but they didn't; they determined it to be "unfounded". A finding of "unfounded" is reserved for those incidents that are, literally, fabricated. Basically if I call Dpw today and say "lyndj is abusing kids". They investigate and make a finding that it is "unfounded" since it was made up. That prevents anyone (including your employer) from EVER using the made up claim against you (and for good reason).

Now apply this to 1998 and how Curley and Schultz reacted to a report of the same type of thing in 2001. Error in hindsight in not going to DPW? Perhaps. But not criminal and certainly not a cover up. My God They cooperated fully in 1998 when JS was actually their employee; why the hell would they cover for him 3 years later when he wasn't even employed there anymore? Makes ZERO sense.

 

[kgilbert78]

You were saying? Just got pretty emotional.

So what happened?? Is R correct and the prosecution has rested? What did Schultz say?

 

[jerseylion109]

Boom what?

 

[interrobang]

So, McQueary changed his story again and Curley clearly has sold out for his plea.

 

[Mixolydian]

Boom what?

Schultz has regrets. Wow. A Perry Mason moment for sure.

 

[jerseylion109]

okay he has regrets....why is that a big deal?