Great points....like someone speeding in icy weather. Perhaps it was on purpose (to endanger a child) but by reckless disregard.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Great points....like someone speeding in icy weather. Perhaps it was on purpose (to endanger a child) but by reckless disregard.
time......no verdict will surprise me. I sat on a jury where more than a few said they wanted to "at least get a free lunch out of it" even though we were all in agreement well before chow time. Another juror said she wanted to vote for prosecution because she didn't like the way the defense attorney looked/talked. Other totally irrelevent and irrational comments during deliberations not based on judges charge of questions to jury. So who knows.....but should be soon enough
I said this in the other thread but I'm going to repeat it here....(how is Ditka allowed to straight up mislead the jury and imply the PSU admins had some sort of control over JS in 2001??):
Ditka sounds like an unethical p.o.s. lawyer to me. How in the world can she stand in front of the jury with a straight face and during closing remarks claim the PSU admins did nothing after 2001 to keep a leash on JS?!? Is she unaware that JS didn't work for PSU anymore and had ZERO control over JS' access to kids and that PSU admins directly told the people who did, TSM, about 2001?? PSU had no leash, JR did and he didn't even put a collar on JS. He suggested to have him wear swim trunks, not even to stop showering with kids due to the boundary issue PSU was complaining about. Never fulfilled his mandatory reporter role and inform CC CYS. Ditka has no outrage over that whatsoever.
I get Wendy's rage now. Unreal.
I agree Joe knew Jerry was investigated. Do we know if Joe knew what or why he was imvestigated? Do we know what final report Joe received? If we do I have missed all this
So, if Curley and Schultz lied is Ditka going to charge them with perjury? Revoke any deals?
Judge decides sentencing. He knows what they stated last Monday and can make a decision based on that.
Well clearly SOMEBODY believed Ray. I wonder how many other people think those emails were forged.
I honestly don't get all the focus on 1998. People point to that as if knowledge of that investigation should somehow impute knowledge that JS was a pedophile when the 2001 allegations arose. I don't necessarily think that follows and, in fact, the converse may be equally true. I mean, isn't it possible that, even if Joe had knowledge of the 1998 investigation, when he heard about another incident in 2001 his first assumption may be that it's probably nothing (just like in 1998) and dismiss it off-hand since JS had already been investigated and cleared in the past? I mean - isn't this exactly how pedophile's groom the community? JS was probably constantly "horsing around" and close with kids all the time and in full view so that if and when anyone heard of him being inappropriate - it was just Jerry being Jerry and, while seemingly inappropriate or awkward, probably exaggerated (just like in 1998) and nothing serious.
While I DO consider State Prosecutors as having a higher obligation - - - since they, ostensibly, serve at OUR behest - with the charge of serving the interests of "justice" - - - but nearly every lawyer (who serves as an advocate) will do whatever they can to help "their side" win.
There is a reason folks don't tell jokes about a bus load of Mathematicians going over a cliff
Please don't give us any ideas. A case could be made for an exception to that ruleWhile I DO consider State Prosecutors as having a higher obligation - - - since they, ostensibly, serve at OUR behest - with the charge of serving the interests of "justice" - - - but nearly every lawyer (who serves as an advocate) will do whatever they can to help "their side" win.
There is a reason folks don't tell jokes about a bus load of Mathematicians going over a cliff
except I wouldn't want to piss off Urschel.And if Spanier is found " Not Guilty"...if this Jury (?) would find that he ( Spanier) was not involved in any conspiracy...wouldn't that have some influence on what the judge decided for C/S ?
I mean...its the Prosecuting Attorney who has lumped them all together..yes?
The problem I see is everyone has already determined "Penn State" to be guilty. Therefore anyone associated with Penn State is guilty. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty, JVP has been determined guilty, we as alumni and fans have been determined guilty, so I can't see how the president of the university won't be determined to be guilty.
While I DO consider State Prosecutors as having a higher obligation - - - since they, ostensibly, serve at OUR behest - with the charge of serving the interests of "justice" - - - but nearly every lawyer (who serves as an advocate) will do whatever they can to help "their side" win.
There is a reason folks don't tell jokes about a bus load of Mathematicians going over a cliff
Q: Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? A: He worked it out with a pencil.
Q: What is the difference between a methematician and a large pizza? A: A large pizza can feed a family of four
Just for you BJF:
Applying For A Job There are three people applying for the same job. One is a mathematician, one a statistician, and one an accountant. The interviewing committee first calls in the mathematician. They say "we have only one question. What is 500 plus 500?"
The mathematician, without hesitation, says "1000." The committee sends him out and calls in the statistician.
When the statistician comes in, they ask the same question. The statistician ponders the question for a moment, and then answers "1000... I'm 95% confident."
He is then also thanked for his time and sent on his way. When the accountant enters the room, he is asked the same question: "what is 500 plus 500?" The accountant replies, "what would you like it to be?"
They hire the accountant.
So if previously Spanier, Curley, and Schultz had conspiracy charges dropped, then why is the jury asking about a definition of conspiracy? I thought the charge was EWOC?
So if someone leads an exemplary life for 60 years but gets drunk and kills his nagging
wife he should "get the benefit of the doubt"?
Not if he kills his wife. If he kills you, then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Your analogy is terrible.
If someone leads an exemplary life for 60 years and then is told a watered down version of someone potentially abusing their wife... yes he should get the benefit of the doubt.
Since they've pled guilty Spaniers outcome won't affect sentencing. How well their statements match with what they said yesterday will be more important.
Wow...so if what they said when pleading guilty matched what they said in the courtroom...was this a smart move by the Prosecution ?????
If you are the nagging wife? Yes - - - - in fact, he should get a medal
Still waiting.........
Follow Sue Snyder on Twitter for updates. They're all hanging out on the 5th Floor outside the courtroom
Follow Sue Snyder on Twitter for updates. They're all hanging out on the 5th Floor outside the courtroom
How dense do you have to be to think Spanier was in a position of supervision over those kids?
Charles Thompson @ChasThompson1 4m4 minutes ago
More
Another set of questions from jury in Spanier case. 1
These dealt with definition of supervision of children, and 2/3
Charles Thompson @ChasThompson1 3m3 minutes ago
More
Whether conspiracy means agreement to commit a crime.... or that a crime resulted from action.
More
Another set of questions from jury in Spanier case. 1
These dealt with definition of supervision of children, and 2/3
Charles Thompson @ChasThompson1 3m3 minutes ago
More
Whether conspiracy means agreement to commit a crime.... or that a crime resulted from action.
This doesn't sound good. Should be pretty straightforward stuff. It would have to be frustrating to be on a jury if you actually had a brain.
Similar threads
