Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[SmithtonLion]

I never said that. A reasonable person reading the email that included "after talking to Joe..." would come to the conclusion that what Joe told him made him re-think things.

No. A reasonable person knows that people who know "they might have a problem if we go this route and Jerry doesn't stop" will write things that are factually true, but misleading as a way to cover themselves.

For example - after eating a bowl of cereal (or talking to Joe), I've changed my mind about reporting JS to CYS.

See how that works? It is true that I changed my mind after eating a bowl of cereal. But that doesn't mean the bowl of cereal had anything to do with it. But I've left the impression that it is my eating of the cereal that changed my mind.

To be clear - I think they ALL knew deep in their hearts that Sandusky was a pedophile, just as everyone knew in 1998. Everyone was hoping that someone else would deal with it.

 

[SmithtonLion]

Lots of talk about who knew what about the 1998 investigation and what it means.

I've always thought that it was surely the case that EVERYONE knew that something was going on in 1998 with Sandusky.

I've always thought that normal people don't want to know any more than they have to know about pedophilia. If you tell me that someone I know is a pedophile, I'm going to ask you who the Flyers are going to draft this year. Or if you washed your car recently, or something interesting like that.

So, I've always thought that everyone knew there was an investigation, and that at the end of that investigation, JS was walking around, a free man.

So, after knowing that JS was once investigated and cleared (well, the truth is that he wasn't charged, which doesn't mean he is "cleared"), isn't it easier to convince yourself that these new allegations are just JS doing the same thing he was doing in 1998?

To me, that's what happened - people really did have enough to know, BUT given the gravity of the situation, and the circumstances (pedophilia - a truly bizarre defect that no one is equipped to understand), they talked themselves into downplaying it.

Now, after all that has happened, they look back and wish they would have handled it differently. To me, that doesn't make them criminals, or even bad people....just people who were unequipped to handle what was thrown in their laps.

Isn't that really what this has looked like all along?

 

[Zenophile]

I agree that Joe knew Jerry was being investigated. I don't agree that Joe knew anything other than that simple fact. For me that changes nothing.

Well said. +1

Also Mr. Curley is still with us and may be able to clarify.

 

[Zenophile]

Exactly. I don't feel like this was anything of significance. The groundbreaking thing would be if we learned what specific information Curley relayed to Paterno.

I doubt Paterno knew any information about 1998 that, in 2001, would have impacted his reaction to what MM told him.

+1 here also.

 

[Zenophile]

Because, TC let everyone know that Paterno lied about 1998. He knew about it. TC then said that Paterno told him only about "horseplay" and not of something of a sexual nature. So who is lying? TC or Paterno? It's one or the other. Take your pick.

What's the difference between 1998 and 2011?

 

[Zenophile]

That's fine, but then you have to go back to Paterno. The reason that MM's original testimony was believable was because Paterno said that he also conveyed something of a sexual nature to TC. So again, who is lying? TC or Paterno?

Or perhaps McQueary lied in his testimony this week in which he made clear that he did not use "sex" or sexual terms in his report to Paterno.

 

[Zenophile]

That's great and all, but you didn't answer my question. Who do you feel is lying? TC or Paterno?

Or McQueary.

 

[Zenophile]

According to unofficial notes by those at the trial, McQueary said he didn't report anything sexual to Paterno which disproves your theory. We will have to wait for the transcripts to confirm his exact words.

Amen.

 

[interrobang]

I think there's a huge difference between knowing *of* 1998 and knowing any details of 1998.

 

[rudedude]

I always go back to one simple fact that any sane, logical person would not dance around with. WTF is an older man doing showering with a young boy at 10 o'clock at night in a supposedly empty locker room area? I think a lot of people thought old Jer was weird and odd but no one made the next leap to really press the situation and, unfortunately, it came back to bite them in the ass in 2001.

That being said, this case was all judged and prosecuted on hindsight bias, unfortunately. The prosecution brought in their witness who reports being molested on PSU property post 2001. My problem with this is has this ever been investigated or vetted or is it just another "pay the man" situation? That is a huge issue to me in all of this but that ship has sailed.

 

[Zenophile]

That's partly the problem. The more often that you think about something, the more likely that you are to insert a false memory into your recall.

A critical component in his case -- and maybe the most critical. Excellent point, UL.

 

[colt21]

Because whatever Joe told him had a clear effect on his decision. Joe testified that he told TC one thing and TC testified that he told him something else. Surely you can see what the issue is...

You're wrong and it was proven yesterday in court

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Okay, so Joe knew about an investigation in 1998 and it's not possible that he had no recollection of it by 2011/12? If your experience doesn't allow for that possibility consider yourself fortunate.

He was 80 so yeah it's possible. By the time he took the stand it was a decade later and more than that from the original incident. That isn't what was said by the poster denying he knew anything at all. That isn't even up for debate anymore as he was aware of the original investigation at one point in time. Whether or not he forgot will never be known now. A ton of people missed the boat here Art, but PSU took the hit. Why, we still don't really know why.

 

[swordsman_l]

Because whatever Joe told him had a clear effect on his decision. Joe testified that he told TC one thing and TC testified that he told him something else. Surely you can see what the issue is...

That's not tru. Maybe Curley was using Pateerno as a sounding board, and changed his mind with no input from Paterno at all, not even minimal.

It's as if I met someone named gmj, had a mostly pleasant but somewhat awkward conversation, and came away with the impression that gmj was a bright guy.

Then, as the events of the day wore on,and I replayed the convo in my head, I changed my mind.

The next morning, I write I my journal " after sleeping on it,I decided that gmj is a fool". Did I revers my impression because I had a good night sleep?

 

[LundyPSU]

Schultz's handwritten notes from his meeting with Tim Curley BEFORE they talked to McQueary say the original plan included to contact the DPW if JS didn't 'confess'. If anything, it suggests that the original plan was to confront, then they decided not to, but eventually Curley went back to the original plan.

Here's his notes dated the day after he and Curley met with Paterno.

The exact words are:

"unless he 'confesses' to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned w child welfare."

So there was no change in plans. It was optional from day one (or day three depending on when you start the clock).

It didn't seem optional in the later email from Gary to Tim. But again, difficult to understand context, etc. We also don't know how their conversation with Mike influenced their decisions.

 

[PSUCYCLING]

No. A reasonable person knows that people who know "they might have a problem if we go this route and Jerry doesn't stop" will write things that are factually true, but misleading as a way to cover themselves.

For example - after eating a bowl of cereal (or talking to Joe), I've changed my mind about reporting JS to CYS.

See how that works? It is true that I changed my mind after eating a bowl of cereal. But that doesn't mean the bowl of cereal had anything to do with it. But I've left the impression that it is my eating of the cereal that changed my mind.

To be clear - I think they ALL knew deep in their hearts that Sandusky was a pedophile, just as everyone knew in 1998. Everyone was hoping that someone else would deal with it.

Agreed. It's the power pillar of the community pedophiles have. No one wants to make the move out of fear of being wrong.

 

[kentuckycb]

I think there's a huge difference between knowing *of* 1998 and knowing any details of 1998.

There is. "Touching base" could mean so many things. And if you go back and read the GJ transcript and even the Jenkins interview it's clear to me that Paterno answered that he knew of no other sexual allegations against Sandusky. He wasn't asked specifically about Curley's email, what it meant, or if Curley alerted him at all about an investigation. The point of both lines of questioning was to establish whether Paterno was told specifically of any other abuse allegations. I believe he answered honestly. And if Paterno forgot that Curley gave him a brief "heads up" some 10+ years later at his age, then so be it.

After hearing C/S finally speak, it surprises me that anyone (who is being objective) would feel strongly that Paterno knew anything specific about Sandusky (other than McQ's report). Clearly there wasn't a lot of succinct communication among the ranks at this time. And as we all know, Paterno didn't use email.

If Paterno truly lied to protect Curley or himself, then he's wrong. And I await that factual evidence. I haven't seen anything thus far that proves it.

 

[Chris92]

You know what's missing in all of this, the prosecution not entering into evidence the audio(or transcript) of the initial MM interview with investigators. I'm sure that would clear things up. Now, I wonder why that wasn't used by the prosecution? As a reminder, 1/2 of the PSP crack team that conducted the infamous V4 taped interview was in on the MM interview.

 

[Chris92]

Yes, I think that Tim should remember SOMETHING about this. I'm sorry that he is sick, but his lack of recollection is BS. He has had over half a decade to remember those things and nothing? Nothing at all? Not even a vague recollection? I'm not asking for Tim to give details, just a summary of what was said. He couldn't even do that.

Two word for you, Omar McNeil. Go back and read his deposition of the capstone project of his career and count how many times he had no recollection of conversations and meetings that took place just 3-5 years earlier.

 

[dshumbero]

Two word for you, Omar McNeil. Go back and read his deposition of the capstone project of his career and count how many times he had no recollection of conversations and meeting that took place just 3-5 years earlier.

McNeill was the clown who admitted that testimony of "witnesses" and interviewees was not protected by ACP. There was no coverup, except by the OGBoT, OAG, TSM, Corbett the string puller and his cronies. The poofter Corbett needs to be brought to justice.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

There is. "Touching base" could mean so many things. And if you go back and read the GJ transcript and even the Jenkins interview it's clear to me that Paterno answered that he knew of no other sexual allegations against Sandusky. He wasn't asked specifically about Curley's email, what it meant, or if Curley alerted him at all about an investigation. The point of both lines of questioning was to establish whether Paterno was told specifically of any other abuse allegations. I believe he answered honestly. And if Paterno forgot that Curley gave him a brief "heads up" some 10+ years later at his age, then so be it.

After hearing C/S finally speak, it surprises me that anyone (who is being objective) would feel strongly that Paterno knew anything specific about Sandusky (other than McQ's report). Clearly there wasn't a lot of succinct communication among the ranks at this time. And as we all know, Paterno didn't use email.

If Paterno truly lied to protect Curley or himself, then he's wrong. And I await that factual evidence. I haven't seen anything thus far that proves it.

I'm not sure anyone knew the actual specifics as most investigators aren't going to get into the weeds. You know what they want you to know and not much more. I don't think there were daily briefs provided to anyone or anything like that, but I don't doubt C/S were totally naive to it either. I believe Schultz's notes kind of hinted at least to the idea of that, but I could be wrong there.

Tim as an AD had to keep Joe in the loop because Jerry was his DC. It probably was at a pretty high level as as I stated above I'm not sure how much detail they were provided and actually passed on. We'll just never really know exactly how little or much was passed up and down the line. In terms of Spanier's trial, there has been no smoking gun saying he instructed anyone to cover anything up....not even remotely close to it. I'm still a firm believer that they made mistakes, but they were far from the only ones. It seems to me that C/S dropped the ball a bit and made one very bad decision in not going to DPW. As an administrator you error on the side of caution, but I wonder if personal relationships and Jerry's grooming people for years simply weighed to much on their ultimate decision. The witch hunt really hasn't resulted in much of a net positive anywhere.

 

[AWS1022]

Because, TC let everyone know that Paterno lied about 1998. He knew about it. TC then said that Paterno told him only about "horseplay" and not of something of a sexual nature. So who is lying? TC or Paterno? It's one or the other. Take your pick.

That's an easy pick and should be for anyone. Gee, I wonder who's lying, the guy that's alive and trying not too come off too badly so he can live the rest of his life or the dead guy who's not here to defend himself. Even you can probably guess on that one.

 

[bdgan]

Can somebody clarify TC's testimony on 2 points?

1. Did he clearly say that it was his decision not to call DPW and that Joe didn't influence that decision.
2. The "coach wants to know" comment, was that 98 or 01 and was it Joe or Jerry?

 

[psudukie]

Good morning... dies anyone know if wensilver posted her notes from yesterday as of yet?

Couple quick thoughts. I think Tim clearly didn't want t to testify seems with out seeing transcripts it was a lot of I don't recalls... recalls Joe using term horseplay recalls mike not using horseplay, Joe was aware of 98 and wanted updates, in grand jury he was certain mike described horse play but in trial could recall conversation other than not sexual. At the end he has feeling of responsibility and pleads guilty. Pretty non commutable and not truly credible when looking at its entirety. I am biased no doubt but that is just my opinion.

Gary seemed a bit strong but was still wishy washy... the description he provides of orientation of boy jerry hands is extremely similar to mine testimony in his trial. I would suggest a very sexual position. Certainly seems to make point that graham was kept aware of 98, 01.. and that graham was included on decisions made in 01

Bp we had a discussion yesterday on the leak comment after consulting the encyclopedia on these events... I think you will know which poster... him and Marybeth don't see eye to eye on what was said and he wants to see transcripts. I will take his word for now.

One last point. Mike has not lied on the stand has not embellished. He has been direct and doesn't use terms of I don't know I don't recall I can't remember. I would appreciate that until some has proof that mine lied on stand to stop calling him the liar in this affair. It is simply false. The record actually shows other gave lied or misremembered I don't go around spewing gate and liars at them.

There are those in attendance that have heard some strange peeplexibg comments from the left side of court. People should really watch what they say.

Always appreciate the discussion when done with some level of politeness and listening g and exchange of ideas.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Can somebody clarify TC's testimony on 2 points?

1. Did he clearly say that it was his decision not to call DPW and that Joe didn't influence that decision.
2. The "coach wants to know" comment, was that 98 or 01 and was it Joe or Jerry?

Not sure on #1, but as I understand #2 TC clarified it was Joe about the 98 investigation. Someone feel free to correct me there, but that was my take from yesterday.

 

[Art]

He was 80 so yeah it's possible. By the time he took the stand it was a decade later and more than that from the original incident. That isn't what was said by the poster denying he knew anything at all. That isn't even up for debate anymore as he was aware of the original investigation at one point in time. Whether or not he forgot will never be known now. A ton of people missed the boat here Art, but PSU took the hit. Why, we still don't really know why.

I don't really put much stock in what most posters recount here.They often get it wrong, or ignore nuance. Hell, this case is so complicated and has dragged on for so long, I can't keep everything entirely straight. I try checking the record when I can find it.

 

[dshumbero]

Good morning... dies anyone know if wensilver posted her notes from yesterday as of yet?

Couple quick thoughts. I think Tim clearly didn't want t to testify seems with out seeing transcripts it was a lot of I don't recalls... recalls Joe using term horseplay recalls mike not using horseplay, Joe was aware of 98 and wanted updates, in grand jury he was certain mike described horse play but in trial could recall conversation other than not sexual. At the end he has feeling of responsibility and pleads guilty. Pretty non commutable and not truly credible when looking at its entirety. I am biased no doubt but that is just my opinion.

Gary seemed a bit strong but was still wishy washy... the description he provides of orientation of boy jerry hands is extremely similar to mine testimony in his trial. I would suggest a very sexual position. Certainly seems to make point that graham was kept aware of 98, 01.. and that graham was included on decisions made in 01

Bp we had a discussion yesterday on the leak comment after consulting the encyclopedia on these events... I think you will know which poster... him and Marybeth don't see eye to eye on what was said and he wants to see transcripts. I will take his word for now.

There are those in attendance that have heard some strange peeplexibg comments from the left side of court. People should really watch what they say.

Curley's testimony did nothing but help Spanier. Even the PL tool Chuckie "Cholls" Thompson admitted that in his latest article.

 

[bjf1991]

Agreed. Someone is going to write one hell of a book when this is over. I'm betting Spanier's is almost finished. A couple of more pages...

If Spanier's defense continues to "punt", GSpan may have a LOT of free time to spend writing it.

 

[kentuckycb]

I'm not sure anyone knew the actual specifics as most investigators aren't going to get into the weeds. You know what they want you to know and not much more. I don't think there were daily briefs provided to anyone or anything like that, but I don't doubt C/S were totally naive to it either. I believe Schultz's notes kind of hinted at least to the idea of that, but I could be wrong there.

Tim as an AD had to keep Joe in the loop because Jerry was his DC. It probably was at a pretty high level as as I stated above I'm not sure how much detail they were provided and actually passed on. We'll just never really know exactly how little or much was passed up and down the line. In terms of Spanier's trial, there has been no smoking gun saying he instructed anyone to cover anything up....not even remotely close to it. I'm still a firm believer that they made mistakes, but they were far from the only ones. It seems to me that C/S dropped the ball a bit and made one very bad decision in not going to DPW. As an administrator you error on the side of caution, but I wonder if personal relationships and Jerry's grooming people for years simply weighed to much on their ultimate decision. The witch hunt really hasn't resulted in much of a net positive anywhere.

Hopefully at some point Curley can shed some more light on Paterno's involvement. Frankly, I think he owes that to Paterno's family, namely Sue.

Regardless, there are no winners here. Once again society has replaced a teaching moment with scandalous click-bait. Sadly, future abused children are the biggest losers.

 

[baconking1]

Good morning... dies anyone know if wensilver posted her notes from yesterday as of yet?

Couple quick thoughts. I think Tim clearly didn't want t to testify seems with out seeing transcripts it was a lot of I don't recalls... recalls Joe using term horseplay recalls mike not using horseplay, Joe was aware of 98 and wanted updates, in grand jury he was certain mike described horse play but in trial could recall conversation other than not sexual. At the end he has feeling of responsibility and pleads guilty. Pretty non commutable and not truly credible when looking at its entirety. I am biased no doubt but that is just my opinion.

Gary seemed a bit strong but was still wishy washy... the description he provides of orientation of boy jerry hands is extremely similar to mine testimony in his trial. I would suggest a very sexual position. Certainly seems to make point that graham was kept aware of 98, 01.. and that graham was included on decisions made in 01

Bp we had a discussion yesterday on the leak comment after consulting the encyclopedia on these events... I think you will know which poster... him and Marybeth don't see eye to eye on what was said and he wants to see transcripts. I will take his word for now.

One last point. Mike has not lied on the stand has not embellished. He has been direct and doesn't use terms of I don't know I don't recall I can't remember. I would appreciate that until some has proof that mine lied on stand to stop calling him the liar in this affair. It is simply false. The record actually shows other gave lied or misremembered I don't go around spewing gate and liars at them.

There are those in attendance that have heard some strange peeplexibg comments from the left side of court. People should really watch what they say.

Always appreciate the discussion when done with some level of politeness and listening g and exchange of ideas.

Mike said sexual , Schultz testifies to a naked bear hug, Curley can't recall anything except mike didn't say it was sexual .
Someone is lying and I believe it's Curley. Naked bear hugs combined with knowledge of a prior investigation should have them running to report , it waiting ten days to talk to the guy who saw something.

 

[getmyjive11]

You mean the coverup that included Dr. Dranov, MM, the entire McQueary Family, Schultz, Courtney, Curley, Spanier, Paterno and Jack Raykovitz.....to name a few....getmyjizzonmyself?

Yeah, the one where no one talked until 10 years later. That one.

 

[getmyjive11]

Man, getmyjive.. piece of advice: pack up and leave while you still can! Save your face.. whatever that's worth. Move on you say? Hell no! Its people like you who helped spread this false narrative in the first place. So kindly excuse us while the true penn staters (wensilver et al) do all they can to reverse this bs and right the wrongs that have been done by people like you.

You are trying to reverse something when you don't even know what happened.

 

[getmyjive11]

That's partly the problem. The more often that you think about something, the more likely that you are to insert a false memory into your recall.

Possibly, but you wouldn't testify that you don't recall anything.

 

[bplionfan]

Good morning... dies anyone know if wensilver posted her notes from yesterday as of yet?

Couple quick thoughts. I think Tim clearly didn't want t to testify seems with out seeing transcripts it was a lot of I don't recalls... recalls Joe using term horseplay recalls mike not using horseplay, Joe was aware of 98 and wanted updates, in grand jury he was certain mike described horse play but in trial could recall conversation other than not sexual. At the end he has feeling of responsibility and pleads guilty. Pretty non commutable and not truly credible when looking at its entirety. I am biased no doubt but that is just my opinion.

Gary seemed a bit strong but was still wishy washy... the description he provides of orientation of boy jerry hands is extremely similar to mine testimony in his trial. I would suggest a very sexual position. Certainly seems to make point that graham was kept aware of 98, 01.. and that graham was included on decisions made in 01

Bp we had a discussion yesterday on the leak comment after consulting the encyclopedia on these events... I think you will know which poster... him and Marybeth don't see eye to eye on what was said and he wants to see transcripts. I will take his word for now.

One last point. Mike has not lied on the stand has not embellished. He has been direct and doesn't use terms of I don't know I don't recall I can't remember. I would appreciate that until some has proof that mine lied on stand to stop calling him the liar in this affair. It is simply false. The record actually shows other gave lied or misremembered I don't go around spewing gate and liars at them.

There are those in attendance that have heard some strange peeplexibg comments from the left side of court. People should really watch what they say.

Always appreciate the discussion when done with some level of politeness and listening g and exchange of ideas.

Appreciate the follow up Dukie. I want to see transcripts also. But I also wouldn't put it past the prosecution to have that scrubbed from the transcripts. Thats the nature of the corruption in this state. Here is the thing, there is ZERO chance Mike remembers everything he said 16 years ago. Its not proof of lying to say you don't remember. Someone who says they remember everything they said 16 years ago is lying. Your father said he didn't remember 6 mos after testifying. He was obviously lying?

 

[dshumbero]

You mean the coverup that included Dr. Dranov, MM, the entire McQueary Family, Schultz, Courtney, Curley, Spanier, Paterno and Jack Raykovitz.....to name a few....getmyjizzonmyself?

LOL!

 

[getmyjive11]

Or perhaps McQueary lied in his testimony this week in which he made clear that he did not use "sex" or sexual terms in his report to Paterno.

Everyone knew he didn't use sexual terms. We knew that for years now. That doesn't mean that he didn't convey something sexual occurred.

 

[getmyjive11]

You're wrong and it was proven yesterday in court

Not at all. TC and Paterno have conflicting testimonies. You are choosing to believe Tim's.

 

[pandaczar12]

Everyone knew he didn't use sexual terms. We knew that for years now. That doesn't mean that he didn't convey something sexual occurred.

Watching you flail around was fun at first, now it's just getting sad. I feel bad for you.

 

[AvgUser]

Good morning...
One last point. Mike has not lied on the stand has not embellished. He has been direct and doesn't use terms of I don't know I don't recall I can't remember. I would appreciate that until some has proof that mine lied on stand to stop calling him the liar in this affair..

Good morning. I want to take issue with what you wrote here.

I don't think Mike has lied on the stand. However, a common thread keeps coming up that simply make no sense at all.

Mike says he was clear that he communicated that abuse was occurring. But, nobody to whom he spoke interpreted what he said as abuse. The actions they took very simply indicate that they did not think abuse or anything criminal occurred. Their immediate response was not, "OMG, let's call the police now!"

It started that Friday night when his dad and Dranov both said that they did not think what they heard warranted a call to police. Then it continued to JoePa, and then C&S. Nobody who heard the description was alarmed. Everyone who heard the story from Mike behaved the same way. So, though I don't think Mike lied, I also think the evidence of disparate parties actions confirm that he did not communicate very clearly to anyone. Mike has said as much himself that he was vague and nondescript for a variety of reasons. I don't know how you can interpret it any other way.

Don't take too much offense to "Mike Lied'. Realize that Mike was not very clear to anyone, and that is the reason why $200+M has been wasted.