Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
I agree that this is what SHOULD happen. If I were on the jury I would be stating the same thing... the prosecution wasn't even able to connect Spanier to most of the testimony and those that did admit to communicating with him admit they stated it was horseplay. Case closed. As to what actually WILL happen, who knows.
I read the transcript, and just read it again. There was one "bad" encounter with Sandusky in the shower. No sex act. And the year it occurs could be any of three that he testified to.
I don't think they could do that in this case. The prosecution didn't make a case for the charges at all.
And this is why I think the defense should have cross examined. He's a grown man and inconsistencies such as these need to be pointed out.
That's a looser, you look like you are defending JS and get guilt by association. You are best off to take your medicine, mitigate it, and move to something more in your favor.
That would have been risky. Dissecting an alleged victim's testimony isn't a good look if you want any sympathy from the jury.
From Maribeth (PS4RS) on Facebook: Jury instructions were clear and instructive that defendant has a clean slate of innocence. The burden is on the state to prove his guilt to the highest standard. Judge also reinforced to jury that they could not hold it against Graham that he did not testify. The defendant does not need to prove anything. Not testifying is not an admission or reflection of guilt.
What then would he be able to testify to? I wrote a report and found this? But that report would be based on interviews?
From what I posted in another thread:
Victim 5, or the "John Doe victim".
He originally testified that he was abused in 1998. Then he "remembered" that it was really in 2002, to make it after the McQueary incident and put Penn St squarely on the hook. Or was it 2001? Not even he and the prosecution's lawyers can keep the lies straight. This from the Sandusky trial transcript:
Q: Okay, did there come a time when the defendant asked you if you wanted to work out?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, that's the only time you worked out with the defendant?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this in 2002?
A: Yes.
Q: In 2001, you would have been 12, about to turn 13?
A: Correct.
Don't even have their story straight when on the stand.
Then he goes in and describes his "molestation" (as it is reported) which does not even remotely involved a sex act.
Then later:
Q: When approximately was it, to the best of your recollection, that the defendant took you into the shower and did the things you testified to?
A: At the end of summer.
Q: Of? What year?
A: 2001.
WHY IS NO ONE BRINGING THIS UP?? They can't keep their bogus story straight at all.
On cross examination:
Q: ....you indicated to the investigator that you thought it was during the 1998 football season; does that sound about right? That is referring to the shower situation. Your answer: you went um-hum, meaning that you had nodded approvingly. Was that a separate incident or the same incident just the wrong time frame?
A: It was the same incident just an incorrect time frame.
Q: And when did you determine that it was the wrong time frame.
A: When I sat down and figured out what grade I was in reference to what year it was.
Ok. OR, when you sat down with your lawyer and figured out what year would be most advantageous to your bank accounts.
I don't care how bad it looks to question a "victim". I'd make this guy talk until he screwed up. It probably wouldn't take long.
Victim 5, or the "John Doe victim".
He originally testified that he was abused in 1998. Then he "remembered" that it was really in 2002, to make it after the McQueary incident and put Penn St squarely on the hook. Or was it 2001? Not even he and the prosecution's lawyers can keep the lies straight. This from the Sandusky trial transcript:
Q: Okay, did there come a time when the defendant asked you if you wanted to work out?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, that's the only time you worked out with the defendant?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this in 2002?
A: Yes.
Q: In 2001, you would have been 12, about to turn 13?
A: Correct.
Don't even have their story straight when on the stand.
Then he goes in and describes his "molestation" (as it is reported) which does not even remotely involved a sex act.
Then later:
Q: When approximately was it, to the best of your recollection, that the defendant took you into the shower and did the things you testified to?
A: At the end of summer.
Q: Of? What year?
A: 2001.
WHY IS NO ONE BRINGING THIS UP?? They can't keep their bogus story straight at all.
On cross examination:
Q: ....you indicated to the investigator that you thought it was during the 1998 football season; does that sound about right? That is referring to the shower situation. Your answer: you went um-hum, meaning that you had nodded approvingly. Was that a separate incident or the same incident just the wrong time frame?
A: It was the same incident just an incorrect time frame.
Q: And when did you determine that it was the wrong time frame.
A: When I sat down and figured out what grade I was in reference to what year it was.
Ok. OR, when you sat down with your lawyer and figured out what year would be most advantageous to your bank accounts.
I don't care how bad it looks to question a "victim". I'd make this guy talk until he screwed up. It probably wouldn't take long.
seems positive. basically, judge told the jury to concentrate on the facts of the case.
See, here's another opinion of yours that is unfounded, that I'm bothered by what you write. Reality is that you're a target-rich environment and the opportunity is simply too good to pass up.
Yes, but couldn't the defense just point out that he originally claimed abuse in 1998 and then later changed it to 2001? If '98, Spanier's lack of action did not lead to endangerment.
When do you file your tax returns, after lunch?
A better person would not have just laughed audibly upon reading this.
Last edited:
You would and you're probably a nice guy. I would, and I'm and SOB so I'd do it just to stay in practice. But the defense attorney is trying to win the case and there is nothing to be gained. It would be another matter if the victim were suing PSU for seven-figures (don't know whether to laugh or cry over that).
Reading first/second hand accountants from this trial got me to thinking about story of Clarence Darrow inserting a wire into his cigar to hold the ash from falling (up to 4-5 inches) while the prosecution gave their closing... the ash, seemingly defying gravity as it failed to fall, was supposed to distract the jury from the closing statements.
And we know this guy was going to be the one they could "use" this week - - - being that he is a Lubert/Kline customer.
The other guys are all out spending their $$$$$
I'm just not in the business of calling people names because I don't agree with them.
Probably this heaping pile of horseshit:
"Don't be fooled for one second. They (Curley and Schultz) are criminals, and what they said (Wednesday) only served to further their conspiracy," Ditka said.
Or this even bigger one:
But Ditka asserted Spanier, Curley and Schultz in fact did conspire to keep McQueary's account from independent investigators and, for those they did tell as part of their action plan, they carefully rationed watered-down versions of the story so there would be no follow-up.
""They were the keepers of the facts, and they spun and soft-shoed and backpedaled those facts until this looked like nothing."
Or this one:
In the '98 case, Ditka said, the trio's emails openly referenced "Jerry" and "Joe Paterno" and "DPW," for the state Department of Public Welfare, which helped investigate the incident in which no charges were filed.
In 2001, however, Ditka argued, the administrators were using more coded language like "the individual," referring to Sandusky, "the organization," referring to the Second Mile, and "the other organization," referring to the DPW.
That was intentional, she asserted, because having been through 1998 and hoping, as Schultz testified Wednedsday, "that Jerry would learn his lesson," they now knew they had a "Sandusky problem" that they couldn't let go public.
And the whipped cream and cherry on top of the horseshit:
Arguing that the three administrators, with Spanier's personal endorsement, chose to put the protection of Penn State's reputation ahead of the safety of children, Ditka closed with this challenge:
"They went down the wrong path. You can go down the right path. Find him (Spanier) guilty of everything."
He became a victim after realizing $$$ was on the table. He testimony reads as someone who heroically escaped Sandusky's rape attempt the FIRST time they worked out together. There was no "grooming" process, which is always cited as the reason all the other victims were compliant in their abuse and didn't come forward until after undergoing psychotherapy. Yet, he "amazingly" did not tell anyone until the Sara Ganim article came out and a couple of his buddies flipped on Jerry.
Even Ray Blehar thought this guy was a joke.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/only-victim-found-not-credible-by-jury.html
I'm not calling you names because I disagree with you. I'm calling you names because I don't like you.
My point was that the inconsistencies in the dates of the shower do apply to Spanier, as the prosecution is saying that if he had acted in 2001 none of this would have happened to this victim.
Based on the closing argument summaries I've read, it seems that the prosecution's close kept referring to a bunch of things that they didn't prove during the trial. They also called out their own witness for suddenly becoming forgetful and lying (Curley). If you simply listened to the closing arguments and try to find testimony from the trial that proves it beyond a resonable doubt, you can't.
Then if he can't, he has no responsibility. If you don't think Joe should have made a decision, how the hell is he responsible? Thank you. Common sense, law, 1, you?
I understand, and don't disagree. The point is the jury isn't being distracted by emotion. The facts of the case all align with Spanier. If they want facts to acquit, they are all their. On the other hand, if they are looking for someone to blame, due to emotion, keeping that dude on the stand one minute than longer plays right into that trap.
I'm no lawyer so can someone answer me this: Is it typical for the prosecution to question the credibility of prosecution witnesses and to call them criminals in their closing arguments?
Nor I, but I have much less faith in the jury process than you.
It has been my opinion that the 3 admins would go down in court. I think it's a travesty if they do, but when you have the state Supreme court doing what they did in the Philadelphia archdiocese case, it was the smart way to bet.
Emotion is all they have to hitch their wagon to. Shows what pure garbage this whole thing is.
Right? And further, if the prosecution put them on the stand knowing they would further their conspiracy, doesn't that make the prosecution part of the conspiracy?
Surprised the defense didn't call a forensics expert to establish the emails as doctored by Freeh and co.
Similar threads
