Official Graham Spanier trial thread.

[NittPicker]

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.

The prosecution must be in a tough spot if it's resorting to calling its own witnesses criminals. Ditka's argument was C/S/S told numerous people yet were so diabolical they watered down MM's story so they could say they told people without really telling people. They easiest way to avoid telling something is to not tell it at all. The prosecution's logic is pretty convoluted but all they need to do convince 12 people who don't know any better. Hopefully the jury remains focused on facts and not emotion.

EDIT: Did anyone even raise the question of what C/S/S hoped to gain by engaging in a conspiracy? Sure, they were worried about covering for a retired university employee.

 

[kevina001]

Surprised the defense didn't call a forensics expert to establish the emails as doctored by Freeh and co.

I'm not right about many things, but calling out Ray on how dumb that idea was and him being defiant about it.....well, I guess I was right.

 

[coveydidnt]

Surprised the defense didn't call a forensics expert to establish the emails as doctored by Freeh and co.

Hahaha hahaha

 

[bjf1991]

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?

As I've said elsewhere:

This trial was a case (from the standpoint of the 2 legal teams) of:

A Movable Object being confronted by a Resistible Force.

A legal pillow fight.

 

[nits74]

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.

Know what you're saying, but to put the question in the jurors' minds as to how this applies to what GS did or did not do in 2001 would have possibly defused any animus the jurors had as a result of this "victim's" testimony. Just my take.

 

[getmyjive11]

I'm not calling you names because I disagree with you. I'm calling you names because I don't like you.

Even better. A purely sophomoric reason.

 

[getmyjive11]

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?

His responsibility is to Penn State. He should have been confounded as to why this then alleged pervert was hanging around the football building. Why did no one think about safeguarding PSU?

 

[getmyjive11]

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.

I'm not sure how 12 people agree to convict Spanier with how things went down. I would be shocked if they did.

 

[roswelllion]

So you don't error on the side of caution in their position. Not too smart regardless. The second time you hear something it almost has to at least raise an eyebrow and it did. They had the right discussions but made the wrong final choice.

Certainly with the benefit of hindsight. Not so sure in real time.

 

[dontgojoepa]

His responsibility is to Penn State. He should have been confounded as to why this then alleged pervert was hanging around the football building. Why did no one think about safeguarding PSU?

He went to MM afterward and asked him if he was satisfied with how it was handled and MM told him he was. So you are suggesting that, despite not witnessing anything, hearing a watered down second hand account, reporting it to his superior and the head of campus police (who he thought was handling it), and then getting confirmation from the actual witness that he was satisfied with how it was handled, he should've ignored all that and taken matters into his own hands? Yeah - okay.

 

[getmyjive11]

He went to MM afterward and asked him if he was satisfied with how it was handled and MM told him he was. So you are suggesting that, despite not witnessing anything, hearing a watered down second hand account, reporting it to his superior and the head of campus police (who he thought was handling it), and then getting confirmation from the actual witness that he was satisfied with how it was handled, he should've ignored all that and taken matters into his own hands? Yeah - okay.

No, I'm saying that he should have ask why the hell this guy was allowed to be around his team. Why wasn't his access taken away if he was using it to shower with boys?

 

[Omar81]

His responsibility is to Penn State. He should have been confounded as to why this then alleged pervert was hanging around the football building. Why did no one think about safeguarding PSU?

Well, when Sandusky was retiring Joe was against him hanging around -- and at the very least was against him bringing minors around. Then when he learned of this incident in 2001, he reported it to his superiors. So it seems Joe was thinking about his responsibility to Penn State and to safeguarding PSU. Can't say as much about others, though.

 

[getmyjive11]

Well, when Sandusky was retiring Joe was against him hanging around -- and at the very least was against him bringing minors around. Then when he learned of this incident in 2001, he reported it to his superiors. So it seems Joe was thinking about his responsibility to Penn State and to safeguarding PSU. Can't say as much about others, though.

Correct, so why didn't he press the issue?

The decisions should have been made by CSS, but there is no way any coach wants a creep who showers with boys to have access to their facilities.

 

[WDLion]

His responsibility is to Penn State. He should have been confounded as to why this then alleged pervert was hanging around the football building. Why did no one think about safeguarding PSU?

Where are you getting Sandusky hanging around the football facilities? MM testified that he never saw him around the facilities after 2001.

 

[wensilver]

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Where are you getting Sandusky hanging around the football facilities? MM testified that he never saw him around the facilities after 2001.

An awesome opportunity to use the ignore feature

 

[getmyjive11]

Where are you getting Sandusky hanging around the football facilities? MM testified that he never saw him around the facilities after 2001.

I don't believe that I read anywhere that is access was revoked.

 

[Hotshoe]

His responsibility is to Penn State. He should have been confounded as to why this then alleged pervert was hanging around the football building. Why did no one think about safeguarding PSU?

Your own words, alleged. Joe by law, could have no other information forwarded to him. What is he now a mindreader as well? MM said he was very plain with Joe. Tim said MM said nothing of sexual behavior. Give it up, this isn't rocket science, it's the law and policy.

 

[getmyjive11]

Your own words, alleged. Joe by law, could have no other information forwarded to him. What is he now a mindreader as well? MM said he was very plain with Joe. Tim said MM said nothing of sexual behavior. Give it up, this isn't rocket science, it's the law and policy.

But yet he allowed himself to ask for updates in 98.

 

[Zenophile]

No, I'm saying that he should have ask why the hell this guy was allowed to be around his team. Why wasn't his access taken away if he was using it to shower with boys?

The intensity of your singular focus is really quite something.

 

[kevina001]

Unreal. This Victim 5 nonsense gets even better. Here is a hack job article written today about the Spanier case:

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Remorseful-Spanier-s/239568

Please pay attention to this detail:

John Doe testified that he was sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky in the summer of 2002, in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building. The witness said that he remembered the timing definitively because it came the summer after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It also came after Mr. Spanier and his colleagues decided against reporting Mr. Sandusky to the authorities.

Now let's review Victim 5's testimony during cross examination in the Sandusky trial:

Q: what caused you to recollect that this actually had occurred in the late summer of 2001 three years later, over three years later?

A: I sat down and thought about it..........And I recalled September 11th being a significant day that I remember and I knew it happened after my birthday and before September 11 of 2001.

HE CANNOT KEEP HIS STORY STRAIGHT! I REALLY WISH THE DEFENSE QUESTIONED THIS CON ARTIST!

 

[pandaczar12]

Correct, so why didn't he press the issue?

The decisions should have been made by CSS, but there is no way any coach wants a creep who showers with boys to have access to their facilities.

I'm assuming you've been unemployed your entire life, so you don't know that's not how large organizations work.

If you disagree with someone above you, you respectfully tell them your point of view, then you move on. You assume they are where they are because they know what they're doing.

 

[WDLion]

I don't believe that I read anywhere that is access was revoked.

They took his keys to all facilities. I would call that revoked.

 

[Zenophile]

But yet he allowed himself to ask for updates in 98.

And hey! Now you're an insider to '98. You're really going places today.

 

[mn78psu83]

The intensity of your singular focus is really quite something.

The man has it.

 

[wensilver]

 

[BobPSU92]

And hey! Now you're an insider to '98. You're really going places today.

 

[roswelllion]

What it it makes me question is if Paterno downplayed the incident on purpose and wasn't truthful. He calls it horseplay, MM said it was sexual, CSS goes with Paterno. Paterno then lies to the GJ. It certainly seems plausible.

MM testified he told Joe nothing sexual. How else who he the idea?

 

[capkrokus]

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."

This is such a joke. They are trying to discredit a witness that was called to the stand on behalf of the prosecution. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[colt21]

Or Paterno simply wanted nothing to do with this and did a lot of heeing and hawing. Maybe Paterno thought he conveyed that something of a sexual nature but Tim didn't see it that way. No one knows. I have an opinion that I think is reasonable, but I acknowledge that it is only an opinion (and it doesn't include Paterno being a mastermind). Why that would upset you, I do not know.

Repeat after me

"Joe did exactly what he should have, with that information, in his role, at that time!"

Nothing else matters with regards to Joe - he did what he was supposed to

I'll resurrect another statement I've said a long time ago......

If you can find another professional (actual professional in this field), in the State of PA that will go on the record and say otherwise, maybe i'll listen to you.......but.......save your time because you will not find that person!

 

[nits74]

Unreal. This Victim 5 nonsense gets even better. Here is a hack job article written today about the Spanier case:

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Remorseful-Spanier-s/239568

Please pay attention to this detail:

John Doe testified that he was sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky in the summer of 2002, in Penn State’s Lasch Football Building. The witness said that he remembered the timing definitively because it came the summer after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It also came after Mr. Spanier and his colleagues decided against reporting Mr. Sandusky to the authorities.

Now let's review Victim 5's testimony during cross examination in the Sandusky trial:

Q: what caused you to recollect that this actually had occurred in the late summer of 2001 three years later, over three years later?

A: I sat down and thought about it..........And I recalled September 11th being a significant day that I remember and I knew if happened after my birthday and before September 11 of 2001.

I REALLY WISH THE DEFENSE QUESTIONED THIS CON ARTIST!

He stole this line from Zielger. This is exactly what JZ used when questioning how MM and the OAG could have originally had the incorrect date of the Victim 2 shower incident. There is no doubt in my mind that either he or the OAG pirated this to legitimize the date. How amateurish.

 

[getmyjive11]

And hey! Now you're an insider to '98. You're really going places today.

That was per Tim and the emails.

 

[MtNittany]

 

[interrobang]

They're probably asking if they're still supposed to find Spanier guilty even though the state gave no case.

 

[nits74]

View embedded media

Why should that matter to them?

 

[getmyjive11]

MM testified he told Joe nothing sexual. How else who he the idea?

Sorry, I don't believe he was manipulated. I believe Joe was smart enough to read what MM was trying to tell him.

 

[kevina001]

There is no doubt in my mind that either he or the OAG pirated this to legitimize the date.

But did you notice he screwed it up? Testifies once he remembers it was BEFORE 9/11. Testifies the next time he remembers it was AFTER 9/11.

 

[nits74]

But did you notice he screwed it up? Testifies once he remembers it was BEFORE 9/11. Testifies the next time he remembers it was AFTER 9/11.

No, but good catch.

 

[kgilbert78]

View embedded media

They're probably asking if they're still supposed to find Spanier guilty even though the state gave no case.

I suspect that that is not far off the truth. Or they want confirmation of the "quote" used in the closing.

 

[Obliviax]

Sorry, I don't believe he was manipulated. I believe Joe was smart enough to read what MM was trying to tell him.

it really doesn't matter. Joe was not an authorized person to mount an investigation. Even if MM said that he witnessed a man being murdered, the best Joe could do was to tell him to call someone in authority. So if MM drew him a photo of JS and a kid on an etch-a-sketch, Joe's appropriate response would have been "lets take this to the AD". that's the rules and those are the procedures. anything else is bullshit.