Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
I can make this statement
Then McQueary family and dandysky families have never socialized. A hello at little league games when mike was young yes... was Dottie in my store a couple times yes... after 2001 no... not once... they were never family friends. Mine played at psu ha was a coach... I do not think mine has ever socialized with jerry ever that I am aware of. Now if you think mike was going to say drop a charity event he committed too tats fine. If during the event a fan said hey let me get a picture with my son...mike should of said no way and caused an odd scene e that's fine too everyone has an opinion. Here's the fact mike not us have ever socialized with the Sandusky family before or after2001/2002
Then McQueary family and dandysky families have never socialized. A hello at little league games when mike was young yes... was Dottie in my store a couple times yes... after 2001 no... not once... they were never family friends. Mine played at psu ha was a coach... I do not think mine has ever socialized with jerry ever that I am aware of. Now if you think mike was going to say drop a charity event he committed too tats fine. If during the event a fan said hey let me get a picture with my son...mike should of said no way and caused an odd scene e that's fine too everyone has an opinion. Here's the fact mike not us have ever socialized with the Sandusky family before or after2001/2002
His knowing or not knowing about 98 is still unknown. Joe doesn't get to give his side. He said he didn't know. Perhaps that's correct or maybe he forgot. The guy was in his 80s and in terrible health.
It doesn't matter. That question doesn't changet one iota relative to what happened. Like the scumbag media joe is getting attention here and it's ridiculous.
The McQueary family should learn to contact police if they witness alleged crimes.
Going to football coaches and giving horseshit stories when an allegedly serious crime was committed is pathetic.
I'm sorry but I have nothing but disgust for Mike. That said I know I'm not God and I should not sit in judgment on anyone but that's how I feel.
I have no problem with an opinion...I have some myself but tend to keep them to direct face to face conversations.
OK. If you're saying that Mike was sure he witnessed Sandusky commit a sexual assault and reported one in 2001...and subsequently went to a TSM charity event where he posed in a picture with Sandusky...then I find those series of events very hard to digest.
I remember going with my father we sat outside memorial stadium in the car to make sure mike would not have a problem.
Fact
Fact
I don't believe anything you write. I'm only responding to let you know that I forgot to put you on ignore. I won't forget again...goodbye.
Schultz said that they should have reported to DPW back on 2001...... and said (in so many words, but certainly words as heard by the jury) that GSpan kiboshed the reporting of 2001.
And folks insist that the state didn't give the jury anythIng to go on? That is exactly what the jury needs to justify a EWOC
Now - the Defenae Counsel, if they were not napping through the proceedings, could have EASILY debunked both contentions
BUT...THEY...DIDN'T
And GSpan may be convicted because of it
FWIW - I tried (as best I could) to get in direct contact with those folks - GSpan and Defense Consel - earlier in the week. To TRY to warn/persuade them (because it was relatively obvious "where they were going", and that where they were going was down a shit hole)
Their decision not to cross JR - while maybe not as impactful of the GSpan verdict - was, IMO, an incredible kick on the nuts for anyone who actually wants "the truth" in this scenario.
And that REALLY gets my goat
Anyway:
So i am sure I may have a bias to consider
GSpan may or may not end up being convicted - Juries are unpredictable - but if Defense Counsel was 1/2 as competent in a courtroom as Amendola was....... GSpan is having a "victory dinner" tonight
Just a reminder. You have until April 18th this year to file your taxes.
Just catching up on the day's events and I have not read any posts since noon, so forgive if anyone else has made these observations:
I saw several frustrated people as to why the jury is taking so long. This could be a good thing, because it appears they have at least one Henry Fonda a la 12 Angry Men who was asking for definitions.
Here are tweets on that topic as I gathered the info:
I saw several frustrated people as to why the jury is taking so long. This could be a good thing, because it appears they have at least one Henry Fonda a la 12 Angry Men who was asking for definitions.
Here are tweets on that topic as I gathered the info:
No need to ask. The prosecution witnesses made the defense's case for them, IMHO.
I believe there may indeed be at least one Henry Fonda by the questions asked about definitions.
The 2001 email is "after talking it over with Joe" where Curley does so and still sticks to the plan.
Just curious - will you respect the jury's decision, regardless of how it comes down?
In other words - if they say "not guilty" - I'm assuming you'll say they got it right, yes?
Will you say the same if it's guilty?
I said before I thought it was 50/50 they convict on any of the three charges. I still have that opinion. And I accept the verdict of the jury regardless of the outcome.
I will accept it is their verdict. I will also accept that there are options if the wrong one is reached.
In 12 Jurors from this PA area, at minimum one (likely at least 4) are a smoker saying "SEQUESTER!!! -- in a nonsmoking hotel room!!! Get The F out of here! I'll vote whatever way makes this get done quicker!"
Last edited:
I don't understand the people who support MM (that he told about sexual details) and criticize Joe (that he knew about sexual details).
Didn't MM say that Joe was great about everything? How can he be great about everything and also have known JS abused kids and covered it up?
It seems to me you have to decide who you want to believe. Not both of them.
Didn't MM say that Joe was great about everything? How can he be great about everything and also have known JS abused kids and covered it up?
It seems to me you have to decide who you want to believe. Not both of them.
The problem is that GSpan did supervise children. Many Freshmen are 17 and some are even as young as 14. Of course there are many other events & things, as well as just guests & visitors to the campus where younger children are there. There is a day care onsite. He obviously, was ultimately in a supervisory role over all of that.
There's a huge grey area of interpretation that the jury must wade through. But the word "supervisory" and the definition offered by the judge makes at least that point quite clear.
What calls into question that he reported sexual assault to P/C/S is the fact that his own dad and Dranov didn't hear about sexual assault.
Is not "accepting" the verdict an option? Isn't that like saying I do not accept the weather?
You are making quite the stretch there with indicating Spanier' s role in supervising children. Is his designation that of a mandated reporter? No it wasn't. Can children be on campus, sure. Typically freshmen are really considered students, not children. There are other persons responsible for the supervision of children and that would be those so designated by their roles. This could include campus day care workers, counselors at camps, or, gee, even an adult who works for a child welfare agency and is directly responsible for the safety and supervision of the child enrolled in their program. You know, people like Jerry Sandusky, Jack Raykovitz, Kitty Genoese, etc. Was Spanier responsible for kids whose parents brought them to games? Was he their direct supervisor? I think not. Sorry but I don't agree with your view at all.
Last edited:
There's no grey area at all. Those at TSM were the supervisor and knew of 1998 yet did nothing. Wear swim trunks in the shower they said in the 2001 debacle! Then they let that A-HOLE go to a high school and assault another boy TEN YEARS LATER. Spanier and Joe should have done something about that too right? In hindsight, maybe TSM should have done more. Oh wait, TSM dissolved and we have no one else to blame in that organization. Nothing to see here!
Last edited:
And JR strolled onto the stand - - - and JR strolled off of the stand - - -
And NO ONE asked him a single question wrt his actions
NONE
I do not think I can comprehend a level of INCOMPETENCE that can explain that.
And if it's not due to Incompetence - every other possible explanation is far worse.
God help us
All of this is bad for business, and unfortunately it doesn't matter what we say or do.
Some day a book may be written, but we all know no one reads books anymore. It takes too much time. It's easier to let someone tell us what the story is. /S
Last edited:
He flipped out around me once when I merely mentioned Sandusky's name. At the time, I had no idea what set him off. Now, it's obvious. I'm sure being anywhere near Sandusky was much worse
If that's the case, why weren't the admins at Central Mountain charged? Using your interpretation, they were aware Sandusky was meeting with Fisher.
I agree. But it doesn't help Spanier that other people failed.
If anybody on the jury has a Brain, they are probably asking these questions, getting an answers from the judge, and wondering why Graham is on trial and not that guy the prosecution brought out from TSM named Jack
The trolling was so bad, the P-G had to disable comments on the Spanier Jury article.
That would have been my take too. Ditka shot herself in the foot with one of her statements in closing and let it slip Second Mile was the culprit.
"If you have the evidence you beat on the evidence. When you have no evidence you beat on the table"
Ditka beat on the table.
Well, actually she strode back and forth, jangled her charm bracelets, flipped her hair, kept pulling at her top to cover her broad chest (she's a big woman) and admonished the jury to just use your common sense ( forget that I gave you zero evidence)
All I can say is when the judge ran down all the elements the jury needed to find in order to list each charge as guilty - the state gave zero evidence.
0 + 0 is still 0
If - for some bizarre reason - the jury finds on ANY charge, then EVERY college president & upper admin here in the Commonwealth better find a new job. This sets a dangerous precedent and there is no f*cking way ANY quality person would EVER want that job.
Which just f*cked up things for college students and all those paying tuition for that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
***Ask The Staff -- Tuesday (Pre-Signing Day) Edition***- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley