ADVERTISEMENT

Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

Because I don't believe that. How many times do I need to say that I think TC and Gary are the biggest culprits in my mind? How many times do I need to say that I blame Paterno the least out off everyone involved? Are you coming to your conclusion simply because I think Joe deserves a small part of the blame?

Why are you so mad at me and my opinion on a case where no one knows all the details? No here can definitively say if they are right or wrong.


It's pretty simple. Let's start be recapitulating the world according to getmyjiveass:

1. McQueary tells Joe about seeing Sandusky do something "sexual" with a boy;

2. Joe meets with Curley and Schultz and tells them of his conversation with Mike and that Mike will be talking to them about it;

3. Mike meets with Curley and Schultz and tells them he saw Jer Bear cornholing a young boy;

4. Curley and Schultz formulate a plan which includes reporting the incident to the proper authorities. Plan is reviewed with with Spanier;

5. Curls calls Joe. After this conversation, the plan is altered and the incident is not reported.

So what accounts for the plan going from not being a coverup to becoming one?
 
No I'm not choosing anything

What you are choosing to do is to try and make this about Joe when it's not
I'm sorry, I thought everyone here wanted to see this trial move forward in order to get the truth? It looks like you're tunnel visioned on Spanier right now.
 
I'm not sure if this has been posted here - but Schultz testified that he was NOT at the meeting Sunday at Joe's house on February 11th. He said he distinctly remembered Curley telling him Monday morning prior to going to the weekly senior leadership meeting (drawing a blank on what they termed it - President's Council maybe?).
So another change in Gary's story??
 
It's pretty simple. Let's start be recapitulating the world according to getmyjiveass:

1. McQueary tells Joe about seeing Sandusky do something "sexual" with a boy;

2. Joe meets with Curley and Schultz and tells them of his conversation with Mike and that Mike will be talking to them about it;

3. Mike meets with Curley and Schultz and tells them he saw Jer Bear cornholing a young boy;

4. Curley and Schultz formulate a plan which includes reporting the incident to the proper authorities. Plan is reviewed with with Spanier;

5. Curls calls Joe. After this conversation, the plan is altered and the incident is not reported.

So what accounts for the plan going from not being a coverup to becoming one?
I'm not saying that Joe controlled the decision. It appears per the email that whatever Joe said to Curley made him te-think things. But that is an email from TC himself so who knows exactly what was said between him and Paterno. Maybe Tim was BS'ing Spanier and he decided to change the COA himself. Maybe Paterno told him something to change his mind. All I'm saying is that either one is a possibility. It's impossible to know though because Tim isn't talking and Joe is dead. So again I ask why my opinion bothers you so much when nobody here knows the details of what happened?
 
Seriously? I'm no lawyer, but I can't understand their approach to this. Can someone please explain?

Its hard to really understand what the testimony is based upon everything being a second hand report....

I think the strategy of the defense is basically that Spanier was never told there was any sexual connotations to the event. Curley certainly said he was never apprised of the sexual nature. Basically, the Jury has to find that Spanier should have reported once he was told Jerry was unsupervised in a shower with a boy.....
Not sure who else Spanier would call as a witness except maybe himself. With his education (which I believe includes a speciality in child abuse type issues) he would have to answer some uncomfortable questions...
I am conflicted about GS....It seems GS had the least information to deal with based upon what Curley and Schultz seemed to inform him of. On the other hand, GS probably had the most understanding of child abuse etc. of anyone, so he should have been extra cautious.
 
Its hard to really understand what the testimony is based upon everything being a second hand report....

I think the strategy of the defense is basically that Spanier was never told there was any sexual connotations to the event. Curley certainly said he was never apprised of the sexual nature. Basically, the Jury has to find that Spanier should have reported once he was told Jerry was unsupervised in a shower with a boy.....
Not sure who else Spanier would call as a witness except maybe himself. With his education (which I believe includes a speciality in child abuse type issues) he would have to answer some uncomfortable questions...
I am conflicted about GS....It seems GS had the least information to deal with based upon what Curley and Schultz seemed to inform him of. On the other hand, GS probably had the most understanding of child abuse etc. of anyone, so he should have been extra cautious.
Thank you.
 
I'm not really understanding your point. While a naked bear hug (which is what it sounds like Schultz was describing) could certainly be suspicious and/or a justification for reporting and getting an investigation, it doesn't intrinsically imply something sexual or illegal. What Schultz described could be consistent with "horseplay" which he reported to Spanier.
OK I took it to be inconsistant and worse than horseplay. If just horseplay was relayed to Spanier, I can't see how they could convict him. I sure hope that's the case.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT