But that's not accurate. Mike never said that and in fact the naked bear hug thing was from the 98 incident I believe where he would pick the boy up to the showerhead
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
But that's not accurate. Mike never said that and in fact the naked bear hug thing was from the 98 incident I believe where he would pick the boy up to the showerhead
The event in question was a golf outing well after the shower incident and well before the shit hit the fan. Before death threats. Before the public knew.
How prudent do you think that is now?
If the evidence presented doesn't fit the charges, or if the charges were never applicable, then the ideal vision of justice that we are lead to believe is that the judge shouldn't pass that to the jury. Once it gets there, the chances of correcting interpreting the law drop.
Given that the judges didn't toss charges previously on SOL or the crafty OAG logic to invent a crime in 2001 based on a law revised six years later, no one has confidence that the law is applied as blindfolded as lady justice claims. I think a fast verdict would be worse than not as at least the jury is being diligent or is divided if they take some time.
I agree. Really though, he doesn't have much choice when he chooses to throw himself out here and defend his brother.
In much the same way some find a way to nuance things so it makes Paterno a saint, Dukie does the same to take any degree of failure away from his brother.
We can exhaust each other with words and explanations. Empirical evidence in this case is clear. Dranov and Sr. didn't think what Mike reported should be reported to LE or CPS. Joe was not a factor. He merely did his job of putting A in touch with B. Curley and Schultz after speaking with Mike didn't call LE and we assume they didn't contact CPS directly. Jack Raykovitz after hearing from Tim didn't do much except see that Jerry got access to a local hotel fitness center. Does this sound like Mike reported a child being molested? Stop already! Either Mike was coerced by LE and OAG to embellish his story or he felt genuine guilt at not doing more. It is the ONLY logical explanation.
Love how you trolls talk out of both sides of your mouth.
1) There was a cover up to protect the football program.
2) If they just would have reported it, PSU would have been fine.
Those two ideas are contradictory. Of course PSU would have been fine if they reported, that's why the cover up narrative never made any sense. The problem is that EVERYONE involved has testified that there was nothing to report, except the actual witness who keeps changing their story.
NOTE: I realize you didn't bring up the cover up aspect in your post, so spare us the fake troll outrage aimed at distraction. I'm making a general point.
Schultz testified that he remembered McQueary telling them that he had seen Sandusky in the shower, behind a boy, with his arms around the boy. He testified that he didn't think anybody said they were naked, but that was assumed.
Then why the heck did he tell Joe that he was ok with how it was handled?? That's always puzzled me.
The basic misinformation concerning what a jury is required to do and not do. This continues to upset me greatly!!
IT IS NOT....."they're going to incorrectly interpret the law..." It is their job (and their ONLY JOB) to decide if the LAW applies to the situation. HUGH Difference. Interpreting the Law is the Judge's responsibility - NOT the Jury's. They have NOT been schooled in its details, reasons or historical applications. This is why our legal system is being eroded by the continuous "Boiling of the Legal Frog" by distortions of core legal reasons and practices. The Jury is the last line of defense in the chain which has been designed to insure our courts obtain Justice.
What we see here and what is all too common, legal decisions are now just a case of "who can deceive the Jury the most effectively with the confusions of the law". We have lost the core principal of real justice ---- that those representing each side can only target ways of how the case can be presented so that the laws involved are known to the jury and (most importantly) the conditions surrounding the Law in each case point out WHY a Guilty or Innocent verdict.!!!
The complexity of the law is being used here to ONLY DECEIVE the jury. The DECEPTION OF WORDING ALONE used in the description of the laws is the ONLY THING THAT PA has going for it - What else is new!!!.
The State has only one "a-b-c" plan....(a) focuses on theatrics - (b) Create "Reality TV" interviews of "victims" - (c) Link a 6+ year old PR campaign that creates a groundless "Penn State Criminality" EMOTIONAL (not Legal) response.
The State knows that this is wrong - This is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THEIR SWORN DUTIES..... They act only to elicit, not Justice, but POLITICALLY MOTIVATED injustice!!!!
I'm not a lawyer but if a jury cannot arrive at 'not guilty' after 6 hours of discussion, it sure seems like a defense should have been mounted
I agree. As clear cut as this case seemed, there is no legitimate reason that it should be taking this long unless they're looking for something to convict him on. Some on this jury want to reward the OAG their trophy. This is not an entirely honest jury.
I say the verdict will be in by 10:30. Jurors want another day off from work and it's a Friday. Do not discount this fact! It's human nature.
He flipped out around you? And how exactly was that helpful? Are you a police officer?
If he was that sure of and upset by what he saw he should have flipped out around a police officer. I will refrain from calling him any names, but good grief!
Or any job where you manage more people than you can personally know.
Does this mean, for example, that in PA the Governor is now personally responsible for any crime committed in the state? I mean, he supervises the state....
And he should have lost his job. The boss is responsible for what happens on his watch. But it's not automatically criminal to make such a mistake.
How about Mike just calls the police after leaving the locker room and LEAVING the kid behind with Jerry. Wouldn't have had to rely on anyone else. What a concept, eh?
Just speculation, but anyone think the jury asked for the definition of "supervision" because they were confused by the Curley/Schultz pleas? Maybe they are saying to themselves, why on Earth would they plead guilty to the EWOC charge, unless, perhaps, we misunderstand what the word "supervision" means in the legal context.
So you believe McQueary when he says that Joe Paterno asked him later if he was ok, and he said yes, but you don't believe McQueary when he says he told Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz that what he saw was "over the line." "wrong," with Paterno (out of respect didn't use sexual terminology like sodomy or intercourse) but that Joe understood what he was saying, and "extremely sexual" with Curley and Schultz. That they understood it to be sexual?
There are a few reasons they could have taken the plea, one being they didn't want to take a chance on getting a jury as stupid as this one appears to be.
Why not? Judges do it all the time now....
In fact, that's why we are here, due to the PA Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, where they went ex post facto--against the Constitution.
Exactly. If he was so afraid, before any public scrutiny or pressure, it's because he SAW SOMETHING WORTH REPORTING. Then he got the whole band in on it and they all not only stayed quiet, but were most interested in Mike's welfare.
I have no problem with Dukie, even though I disagree with him on a number of points. I'd be happy to have a beer with him. I wish more posters were like him. He has been very classy in a trying situation.
And how exactly did MM know what they were thinking? He's not exactly Mensa material so for him to put forth what others were thinking is hardly convincing. ALL HE HAD TO SAY WAS "I SAW JERRY SANDUSKY SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A BOY IN THE LASCH SHOWERS" to any of these people, and he passed on that. Which leaves me no choice but to discount anything he says. He is after all, a gambler, a sexter, and a fraud.
Jury just doing their due diligence. Acquittal is coming. It's all part of the script.
OK, this description is why it's hard for me to digest Mike's actions (and continued inaction) after his initial report. And dukie please chime in here if you want.
If Mike was that angry at Sandusky (presumably because he was certain that he witnessed Sandusky commit a sexual assault on a child), then why didn't he keep going with the whistle blowing after Curley followed up with him? He was the only eyewitness.
If Mike was "flipping out" at the mention of Sandusky's name, then how could he have been satisfied with how PSU responded to his report? If he wasn't satisfied that PSU handled the situation in a correct manner, he had an obligation to go further with the whistle blowing (that in fact is the literal definition).
Yeah, because the former is not self-serving but the latter is. Self-serving testimony is to be discounted.
In the case of Paterno, it doesn't matter. Joe didn't see a thing. Even if MM said he had witnessed a mass execution 8 hours earlier, Joe was guided by the process (that is in place even today, by NCAA decree): Report it to your boss and make sure that it is also known outside of the sports vertical reporting structure. Then, let those experts handle it and don't get involved.
There's two reasons why his statement to Joe that he was ok would be more reliable than his testimony as to how he described the conduct to Joe/Curley/Schultz. First, the statement to Joe that he was okay with how it was handled, is a statement against his interest. It doesn't serve him any benefit and in fact undermines his story somewhat. Generally, those statements are deemed more credible (in fact, such statements are an exception to hearsay since they are considered more reliable at law). Second, I think MM was pretty clear that, when describing the conduct to Joe, Curley and Schultz, he couldn't remember the exact words but recalled the severity what he conveyed. That's a huge distinction and leaves a lot open to interpretation as to what MM thinks he may have conveyed (10 years ago mind you) versus how Joe/Curley/Schultz interpreted what he conveyed.
Mike also wouldn't have been paid $12 million dollars if he had just called the police, so thank god he didn't.
Nope...goes to motivation. we know why MM might tweak the facts about that night. For God's sake, he ran away! I understand the shock he may have experienced, but he ran away. But he has no motivation to cover for Paterno so why would he lie about that? Joe's dead and his reputation is just as dead. There is nothing that can be done to resuscitate it. Thus, no motivation of MM's to tell the truth other than it is the truth.
Well if you look at the jury questionnaires there was overwhelming consensus they were guilty. None of these jurors want to be known as pedo enablers. I will be shocked if they come back with not guilty verdict.
Agree, the double standard here with some off is off the charts. Look at the reaction a few have when you say Joe did know of the 98 investigation. Not that he knew of all the details, but saying he was aware...and people freaked out over it. Hell some here were/are trying to deny it. No anger there with a few though as one can do no wrong and the other is the devil. It makes for a real objective discussion if you simply block out what you don't like to hear.
Last edited:
Similar threads
