Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[NittPicker]

And for this reason, I do not accept posts here stating that Curley and Schultz screwed up in 2001. In retrospect, they have regrets, but based on what they were told in 2001 and what they knew in 2001, I think they believed they were doing the right thing. There was no malice. It's also not as though they kept this to themselves and therefore made the decision on their own. They talked to Spanier, courtney, and raykovitz (the mandated reporter) about it in 2001.

If I read the accounts correctly, the defense's opening statement emphasized the dangers of hindsight bias. The prosecution witnesses helped with that since those involved testified they didn't suspect any criminal conduct. Of course that was based on what they knew AT THAT TIME. Sandusky was a pillar of the community, state approved as an adoptive/foster parent, etc. I suspect the defense's closing argument will again implore the jury to put themselves in the shoes of the 2001 Graham Spanier who never spoke to MM. The prosecution witnesses who did speak to MM have testified they didn't think anything sexual took place yet Spanier was somehow supposed to know? Conspiracy? The trial is a farce.

 

[kgilbert78]

He'd be a fool to testify. Even if the jury convicts on emotion, which would be the only possible way, it would be reversed on appeal.

The state hasn't made a case as far as I can see from the updates and articles.

Check the CSA case with the Philly Archdoicese. It was reversed on appeal. The PA Supremes reinstated it,essentially saying that an ex post facto law is ok, if you can figure out a way to make/twist the old law into being equivalent to the new one (which was made to fix the old one). You can;t make this stuff up.

 

[getmyjive11]

Totally agree...there were MANY who failed here. BUT...the blame mainly went against Paterno...Was Joe perfect ? No. Was he equipped to handle something like this or did he REALLY know what was going on? No. Not in my opinion.

You say Mike was clearly stunned and needed guidance. Then why isn't Joe afforded the same support?

I can't imagine what my 70+ year old father born in the 1930's would do if approached with this same info...He would not say " This guy is having anal sex...or this guy is raping a young boy"...he would not.

He would have set something along the lines of horseplay...because he really would not have grasped what was going on.

Heck..much younger men...Mike's dad..Dranov...even they did not REALLY know what to do.

If this happened today...totally different story...education and awareness on child abuse is 20x better then it was just 10-15 years ago.

I'm probably just babbling...there are NO winners here...BUT one man was raked across the coals..his name ( temporarily) was stricken from the record books..he is associated with a pedophile case and not what he did throughout his career...he was singled out as the villain ( the GP really does not know or care about the rest of the characters in this sad affair).

So..is it fair...to keep "blaming the dead guy"?

No...it's not.

I'm not a JoeBot as people like to call Paterno supporters...however I do believe in fairness.

Mike...walks away with a multi million dollar lawsuit based on what is potential "earnings" would have been and a sympathetic jury...Mike...is as guilty as anyone in this case...as are Raykovitz , Curley , Schultz , Corbett , Surma and Coward Old Guard BOT etc etc...

I don't disagree with any of that although I still think that Joe deserves a small part of the blame. Not nearly to the degree that the media and Freeh would like you to believe, but he should have pressed TC about it when he saw that Jerry was still hanging out at the football facilities months later.

 

[DarkCock]

And for this reason, I do not accept posts here stating that Curley and Schultz screwed up in 2001. In retrospect, they have regrets, but based on what they were told in 2001 and what they knew in 2001, I think they believed they were doing the right thing. There was no malice. It's also not as though they kept this to themselves and therefore made the decision on their own. They talked to Spanier, courtney, and raykovitz (the mandated reporter) about it in 2001.

You conveniently failed to mention that he talked to Tom Harmon in 2001.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/07/former_penn_state_police_chief.html

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

 

[Lion Lineage]

Sure, but if you look at the email from TC that had "after talking to Joe..." in it, it's clear that Paterno held a ton of weight. Maybe he knew that he could put enough doubt in TC's mind? Who knows... the only thing that is for certain is that someone lied.

Well, according to Curley's recent testimony, his decision to report had nothing to do with the conversation with Joe.

 

[getmyjive11]

Well, according to Curley's recent testimony, his decision to report had nothing to do with the conversation with Joe.

The emails condradict that.

 

[Obliviax]

I don't disagree with any of that although I still think that Joe deserves a small part of the blame. Not nearly to the degree that the media and Freeh would like you to believe, but he should have pressed TC about it when he saw that Jerry was still hanging out at the football facilities months later.

..and, of course, "pressing Curley" is against the NCAA guidelines...but whatever.

 

[kgilbert78]

Then why would he reference Joe in his email the way that he did? Clearly, Joe himself had an effect on Tim's decision.

Joe, being a former military man and understanding chain of command, likely told TC to do what he thought best. Which TC did. That of course goes against the narrative that Joe ran everything (which is easy to disprove on at least two points--the baseball stadium and joining the BTN).

 

[kgilbert78]

..and, of course, "pressing Curley" is against the NCAA guidelines...but whatever.

..and the law.

 

[Obliviax]

The emails condradict that.

Not true...you have no idea what Curley and Paterno talked about.

it is likely they compared notes on what MM told to both of them in separate meetings. If the message from MM to Joe was inconclusive, vague and unclear, Curley could have made written that email and made his decision to skip calling the police. And that would have had zero pressure and influence from Paterno.

 

[nits74]

To be clear this post is why you have no credibility. You're clearly trying to point to any scintilla of evidence that implicates Paterno in some seedy cover-up. Regardless of what Joe did or did not know, the 1998 incident was investigated by police and determined to be unfounded. A missed opportunity that could have prevented the 2001 incident. You're clearly not interested in helping to solve the real problem.

She's nothing but a grandstanding fraud.

 

[Lion Lineage]

The emails condradict that.

No they don't. That's your interpretation of the e-mails. Curley could just as easily have said: After sleeping on it... . Could be his conversation with Joe played a part in him not reporting it, but that doesn't mean Joe told him not to report it, nor does it mean Joe discouraged him. Joe may have said to Tim that he had no idea what to do, which is why he went to Tim in the first place, and Tim may have thought: You know what, this is my call. I'm the AD and I'm not comfortable with reporting it.

You can interpret that e-mail in a myriad of ways. You just choose to grasp onto Freeh's non-sequitors as being gospel.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Not true...you have no idea what Curley and Paterno talked about.

it is likely they compared notes on what MM told to both of them in separate meetings. If the message from MM to Joe was inconclusive, vague and unclear, Curley could have made written that email and made his decision to skip calling the police. And that would have had zero pressure and influence from Paterno.

You can't say it's not true one way or the other as we don't know. The way the email is worded sucks for sure and there is no way around that. Yes it could have gone down as you described, but let's not forget when the kill the Freeh report thing all started it was Joe was never called coach and never knew about 98...well we now know that was wrong so it's not a huge leap to make, but it cannot be proven. The problem is I doubt we have find out what the conversation really entailed.

 

[lionville]

Check the CSA case with the Philly Archdoicese. It was reversed on appeal. The PA Supremes reinstated it,essentially saying that an ex post facto law is ok, if you can figure out a way to make/twist the old law into being equivalent to the new one (which was made to fix the old one). You can;t make this stuff up.

That retrial decision is due tomorrow and in light of the trouble wit Rufus this week I would be surprised if the decision to retry Lynn is upheld. Of course, it is PA and a Philly judge so maybe I should reconsider.

 

[kgilbert78]

I would suggest that you don't know how memory works. I challenge you to remember details from any conversation from 16 years ago. Even if you THINK you remember, the chances of your memory being accurate are pretty slim. If fact, it's entirely possible if you work hard at trying to remember something you will actually reconstruct a false memory.

Having had to testify once in a minor case (give a depo, actually), while I remembered the generalities of the situation, I had a hard time remembering if I was actually remembering what happened at the time or if I was remembering a memory of a memory. Much of my answer was "I don't recall".

 

[Osprey Lion]

Like Paterno, Curley said "I wish I had done more". Joe "With hindsight"
and Curley "At the end of the day". The semantics of the latter quotes aside,
both knew/know they let Sandusky slide and rued that decision.

 

[kgilbert78]

Judges can overturn convictions, they can't overturn not guilty verdicts.

Except in Italy....

 

[Zenophile]

You conveniently failed to mention that he talked to Tom Harmon in 2001.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/07/former_penn_state_police_chief.html

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

Did you know that the below is one of the provisions to which all Rivals message board users must agree prior to joining?

By signing up to post on Rivals' message boards, you agree that if Rivals blacklists you, you will cease and desist from posting on the message boards. If you are blacklisted, and subsequently sign up under new account(s) for the sole purpose of disrupting the message boards in any manner, you will be liable for damages to Rivals in the amount of fair compensation for time spent by Rivals staff and/or publishers in addition to any lost profits or revenues caused by your disruption and costs of collection of these damages, including attorneys fees. Due to difficulty in Rivals assessing these damages and costs, you agree that the minimum damage from violation of this provision will be $10,000 (without limitation on Rivals' ability to prove actual damages in excess of this amount).​

 

[Osprey Lion]

Joe, being a former military man and understanding chain of command, likely told TC to do what he thought best. Which TC did. That of course goes against the narrative that Joe ran everything (which is easy to disprove on at least two points--the baseball stadium and joining the BTN).

Anybody who believes Paterno thought Curley was his superior is living in Neverland.

 

[Zenophile]

The emails condradict that.

Only if you want to believe that they do.

 

[mn78psu83]

Did you know that the below is one of the provisions to which all Rivals message board users must agree prior to joining?

By signing up to post on Rivals' message boards, you agree that if Rivals blacklists you, you will cease and desist from posting on the message boards. If you are blacklisted, and subsequently sign up under new account(s) for the sole purpose of disrupting the message boards in any manner, you will be liable for damages to Rivals in the amount of fair compensation for time spent by Rivals staff and/or publishers in addition to any lost profits or revenues caused by your disruption and costs of collection of these damages, including attorneys fees. Due to difficulty in Rivals assessing these damages and costs, you agree that the minimum damage from violation of this provision will be $10,000 (without limitation on Rivals' ability to prove actual damages in excess of this amount).​

Is it $10,000 per new handle?

 

[ThePennsyOracle]

Is it $10,000 per new handle?

I can think of at least one person who would be majorly screwed.

 

[PearlSUJam]

You conveniently failed to mention that he talked to Tom Harmon in 2001.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/07/former_penn_state_police_chief.html

In 2001, and shortly after Shultz would have received McQueary’s account of the Lasch Building incident involving Sandusky, Harmon testified that Schultz asked him an out-of-context question about documentation of the 1998 report.

Harmon stated that in that conversation Schultz never mentioned that there had been a new allegation concerning Sandusky.

“I would have remembered if he had ever suggested that there had been another incident,” the former chief said.

If there had been, Harmon testified, he would have seen to it that his officers contacted the Centre County District Attorney’s office “and pursue it as an investigation.”

Harmon said he would have done so because, given the 1998 incident, there would have been “sufficient suspicion” about child abuse.

Don't you have "Stufftodo"?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Did you know that the below is one of the provisions to which all Rivals message board users must agree prior to joining?

By signing up to post on Rivals' message boards, you agree that if Rivals blacklists you, you will cease and desist from posting on the message boards. If you are blacklisted, and subsequently sign up under new account(s) for the sole purpose of disrupting the message boards in any manner, you will be liable for damages to Rivals in the amount of fair compensation for time spent by Rivals staff and/or publishers in addition to any lost profits or revenues caused by your disruption and costs of collection of these damages, including attorneys fees. Due to difficulty in Rivals assessing these damages and costs, you agree that the minimum damage from violation of this provision will be $10,000 (without limitation on Rivals' ability to prove actual damages in excess of this amount).​

Wow...pnny may owe a couple hundred grand, you should really let him know this.

 

[baircub1!]

I don't disagree with any of that although I still think that Joe deserves a small part of the blame. Not nearly to the degree that the media and Freeh would like you to believe, but he should have pressed TC about it when he saw that Jerry was still hanging out at the football facilities months later.

Yes...but "should have , would have , could have " for a football coach in his 70's dealing with this crap was beyond comprehension.

Again..I don't see how those that defend Mike...based on the date this happened...his age...etc and clearly having a MUCH better understanding of what he thought was happening...gets the free pass not given to JoePa...

Again...no one wins in this case...but some have lost a lot more than others and though this may not be popular...but handing out millions to Sandusky's SON...unfortunately have some of us with a little doubt that all these kids were victims...some OBVIOUSLY were...

 

[Zenophile]

You can't say it's not true one way or the other as we don't know. The way the email is worded sucks for sure and there is no way around that. Yes it could have gone down as you described, but let's not forget when the kill the Freeh report thing all started it was Joe was never called coach and never knew about 98...well we now know that was wrong so it's not a huge leap to make, but it cannot be proven. The problem is I doubt we have find out what the conversation really entailed.

Did you see what Curley testified to yesterday?

- That he did not believe Sandusky was a pedophile in 2001 or in 1998 but did believe he had boundary issues.
- That he genuinely believed & still believes the actions they took in 2001 were appropriate for the facts they had in 2001
- That he is deeply & genuinely remorseful for the missed opportunity that is clear in hindsight.​

 

[pandaczar12]

Yeah, it's silly of my to use the only sworn testimony we have from Paterno. Crazy, I know.

Testimony that wasn't cross examined, was qualified multiple times, and has never been heard to verify it's accuracy. So yeah, it is crazy to ignore all other input and focus on his worthless testimony.

 

[Lion Lineage]

Like Paterno, Curley said "I wish I had done more". Joe "With hindsight"
and Curley "At the end of the day". The semantics of the latter quotes aside,
both knew/know they let Sandusky slide and rued that decision.

I hope a lot of people are saying that;

Mike McQueary, his dad, Dr. Dranov, Jack Raykovitz, Ray Gricar - if he were alive. He had a shot at shutting Sandusky down in '98 and passed. Any more you'd care to add? How about Bruce Heim?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Did you see what Curley testified to yesterday?

Yes. Jerry groomed them and they kicked around the idea of calling DPW so there was some thought to something may be wrong. They did not...not sure what your post was meant for, but it really doesn't confirm or refute anything I posted.

 

[kgilbert78]

Anybody who believes Paterno thought Curley was his superior is living in Neverland.

Except that's how he acted going forward.

 

[PSU Dave]

Yep...he's taken the higher road for sure.

Are you saying when "We the Board" go low, dukie goes high?

 

[Osprey Lion]

I hope a lot of people are saying that;

Mike McQueary, his dad, Dr. Dranov, Jack Raykovitz, Ray Gricar - if he were alive. He had a shot at shutting Sandusky down in '98 and passed. Any more you'd care to add? How about Bruce Heim?

Just because the list is long doesn't mean you can delete those you like.

 

[ga.lion]

I agree that we should always address each other respectfully. But let's be honest dukie, Mike is not immune to criticism here (on this board or in any other forum). He is not some martyr who was the true hero in all of this. Mike himself has testified that he could have handled the situation in a better fashion. As C/S said yesterday, they could have done the same. Everyone involved in this affair could have done something differently that changed the final outcome. Everyone made mistakes.

The fact is Mike says he witnessed a sexual assault. And he chose not to go right to police. That was his choice. And he alone has to live with it.

I don't think Mike has ever really lied. I think he added to and/or altered his story 10 years after the fact based on pressure from the prosecution to align with the new revelations coming out and help build its case. The prosecution needed to establish that someone actually witnessed Sandusky in a sexual situation with a minor, and Mike was that person. I think Mike believed 10 years later that he tried to report a sexual assault at the time. But sadly I don't think the message got through.

Regardless, after hearing C/S finally speak I don't think that anyone directly involved in this situation should be pointing fingers at anyone else. And I mean anyone, including Paterno. They all had a hand in it.

But none of what they did or didn't do was criminal. Sandusky alone is the criminal.

I think he has altered his story to the tune of millions......just my opinion

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Are you saying when "We the Board" go low, dukie goes high?

No, not the board as a whole. Plenty can converse with him in a respectful manner, but a handful are absolute pricks to him and he takes it very well. Much better than I probably would...more power to him.

 

[Zenophile]

Yes. Jerry groomed them and they kicked around the idea of calling DPW so there was some thought to something may be wrong. They did not...not sure what your post was meant for, but it really doesn't confirm or refute anything I posted.

Apologies; allow me to clarify: It provides us with context for any conversation about Jerry in 2001 (or 1998). Whether you believe that Tim and Joe discussed the issue ad nauseum or as a passing reference, the notion that "Joe knew" or "they knew" has now been officially refuted by a firsthand party and under oath.

 

[Osprey Lion]

Except that's how he acted going forward.

You have no idea how he acted. That's just how you wish he acted.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Apologies; allow me to clarify: It provides us with context for any conversation about Jerry in 2001 (or 1998). Whether you believe that Tim and Joe discussed the issue ad nauseum or as a passing reference, the notion that "Joe knew" or "they knew" has now been officially refuted under oath.

That was basically what I was saying to obli as we don't know what that discussion was. It's a far cry from Joe knew nothing about 98 to well maybe they didn't talk that much about it.

 

[AWS1022]

Of course I would say that TC is likely the one lying. I have been trusting Paterno's testimony throughout this case. With that being said, none of us can say with absolute certainty which one is lying.

Scorpion and the frog...we have 61 years of evidence of the type of person Paterno was. Not with absolutely certainty, but with pretty damn convincing evidence. If anyone in this case (MM, TC, some of the victims, etc) has earned the right of the benefit of the doubt, clearly it's Joe Paterno. When you're in a high profile public postion for that many years and there are no examples of doing the wrong thing or being shady, it's a pretty safe bet he would not do so in this type of situation. Yet so many are anxious to believe others in this case and not believe the one who has a long history of doing right. Blows my mind.

 

[ga.lion]

I don't disagree with any of that although I still think that Joe deserves a small part of the blame. Not nearly to the degree that the media and Freeh would like you to believe, but he should have pressed TC about it when he saw that Jerry was still hanging out at the football facilities months later.

Seriously.....Joe was the head football coach. Never asked Mike to alter his story or hide the truth. Passed the info on to his boss and there in lies his responsibility. If Mike believed sexual activity was going on in that shower he should have called the police and gotten the child away from Jerry until the authorities arrived. There in lies the real failure in all of this............

 

[Phil's Rug]

Just because the list is long doesn't mean you can delete those you like.

Nor does it mean you can only focus on one or two names

 

[Zenophile]

That was basically what I was saying to obli as we don't know what that discussion was. It's a far cry from Joe knew nothing about 98 to well maybe they didn't talk that much about it.

I agree provided that we acknowledge the complete absence of evidence that Joe knew any details about 1998.