Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
"If they let Spanier free he will be back out in the world making sure other pedophiles still have access to their victims!" /media and liberal loons
Mike could not tell them he saw that because he did not witness that. He told his dad he saw nothing other than Jerry in the shower with a boy. Probably for the 100th time I am posting this testimony....
It is the most reliable testimony because Mike called his dad minutes after he walked in the locker room.Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
And for Mike to convey that he was certain that they knew what he was talking about is, well, absurd.
What a shame.Mike could not tell them he saw that because he did not witness that. He told his dad he saw nothing other than Jerry in the shower with a boy. Probably for the 100th time I am posting this testimony....
Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Mike could not tell them he saw that because he did not witness that. He told his dad he saw nothing other than Jerry in the shower with a boy. Probably for the 100th time I am posting this testimony....
Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Hence, we have the $hit show we now have.
The same person as you or anyone else associated with Penn State is labeled as enabling
Yet another poster who doesn't like hearing things that are true so they make up their own version. Oh well...your theories were so great.
Former Pa. attorney general: Tim Curley, Gary Schultz case a ‘miscarriage of justice’
By Mike Dawson - mdawson@centredaily.com
A former Pennsylvania prosecutor thinks charges against ex-Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were a “miscarriage of justice” resulting from the disputed role of in-house university lawyer Cynthia Baldwin.
Walter Cohen, who was acting attorney general in 1995 and a first deputy attorney general from 1989 to 1995, offered a scathing review for the defense lawyers of Curley and Schultz, who wanted to have Cohen testify as an expert witness at a hearing in December. The review, in a signed affidavit, was filed in Dauphin County Court under seal, and it was just unsealed by the judge last week.
Cohen didn’t mince words in his review, saying prosecutors, the judge presiding over the grand jury and Baldwin herself failed Curley and Schultz. He said if it weren’t for those failures, the two wouldn’t have been charged in the first place.
Cohen arrived at his opinion after reviewing a number of documents in the case, such as the grand jury presentments, transcripts, and letters between Baldwin’s lawyer and the lawyers for Curley and Schultz.
“Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley suffered the complete deprivation of their rights to counsel,” Cohen wrote. “In fact, the harm to them was even worse than if they had no counsel at all. They believed they had an attorney who would protect their interests.
“The result here was a miscarriage of justice that improperly led to criminal charges being placed against two witnesses whose rights were violated.”
According to grand jury transcripts and arguments made by the two men’s lawyers throughout the case, Curley and Schultz believed Baldwin was representing them when they appeared to testify to the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky in January 2011.
But the men apparently became targets during their testimonies, and when Sandusky was indicted months later in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury and failure to report abuse properly.
The defense lawyers have asked for the criminal case against their clients to be dismissed because they say Baldwin first violated grand jury secrecy by being present for their testimonies. The defense lawyers charge that Baldwin later violated attorney-client privilege when she testified against them to the grand jury in October 2012.
Baldwin’s lawyer, Charles De Monaco, has said very little publicly, but he has defended Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice and former university trustee.
“The suggestion by anyone that Ms. Baldwin did not fulfill her ethical and professional duties to the Pennsylvania State University and its agents and administrators, or testified untruthfully, is untrue,” De Monaco said in December when the issue flared up again after a court hearing.
Here’s how Cohen sees the issues pertaining to Baldwin’s representation:
Baldwin prepped Curley and Schultz ahead of their grand jury appearances, and owed them “loyalty, confidentiality and competent representation.” But Baldwin had a conflict of interest in representing both of them, didn’t get a waiver of the conflict of interest and did not represent them adequately during their grand jury appearances.
The judge supervising the grand jury, Barry Feudale, believed Baldwin was the attorney for Curley and Schultz, but he and the prosecutor in charge should have challenged the joint representation of the two men.
Further, Cohen said, if Baldwin was only representing Penn State, as she has maintained after her role came into question, then she had no business being in the grand jury room, as it was a violation of grand jury rules.
Cohen said he’s seen that judges and prosecutors are vigilant about grand jury secrecy and forbid lawyers who don’t represent witnesses from being in the grand jury room. He posits that Baldwin’s presence at the grand jury shows that either everyone involved believed she represented Schultz and Curley or there was “at least tacit approval” by the prosecutor and judge to overlook the law.
In addition, Cohen said, the pre-testimony interviews that prosecutors and state police had with Schultz and Curley should have been a red flag. Authorities indicated to Baldwin that an incident reported to Schultz and Curley involved the sexual assault of a young boy.
“This was a materially different story than that which Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley were prepared to tell,” Cohen said. “Ms. Baldwin should have alerted her clients that they were at serious risk of prosecution for perjury and failure to report child abuse, based on the information she received from the prosecutors.
“However, she did nothing to act on this information, with disastrous results for her clients.”
Cohen said that Baldwin should have recognized hostility during those pre-testimony interviews, too, and should have discussed seeking immunity with Curley and Schultz.
Cohen said that the public records show that Baldwin didn’t explain to Curley and Schultz their rights against self-incrimination. If they had invoked the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury testimonies could have stopped, and they would have had more time to consider options.
Cohen also recounted a conversation he had with Feudale on Oct. 22, 2012, that led to his opinion about Curley and Schultz.
Feudale had just wrapped up a discussion with a witness to the statewide grand jury in Harrisburg who was represented by Cohen. Feudale wanted a quick word with Cohen, who he’d known for quite some time.
Feudale told Cohen he would never allow a lawyer into the grand jury room with a witness unless he was sure the lawyer represented the witness. But, because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, Feudale couldn’t divulge to Cohen which proceeding he meant.
Cohen figured it was about Curley and Schultz, because Cohen had made critical public comments about prosecutors bringing charges in light of Baldwin’s role.
It wasn’t until sometime later that Cohen realized the timeliness of Feudale’s chat. The day he met with Cohen, Feudale had just had a discussion with Baldwin over her offering testimony to the grand jury where she sat and listened to Curley and Schultz testify more than a year before.
Baldwin testified to the grand jury Oct. 26, 2012.
“This testimony offered by the person who the judge and both witnesses thought was their counsel just compounds the initial injustice that they suffered at the hands of the supervising judge and (the) chief deputy attorney general,” Cohen wrote.
By Mike Dawson - mdawson@centredaily.com
A former Pennsylvania prosecutor thinks charges against ex-Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz were a “miscarriage of justice” resulting from the disputed role of in-house university lawyer Cynthia Baldwin.
Walter Cohen, who was acting attorney general in 1995 and a first deputy attorney general from 1989 to 1995, offered a scathing review for the defense lawyers of Curley and Schultz, who wanted to have Cohen testify as an expert witness at a hearing in December. The review, in a signed affidavit, was filed in Dauphin County Court under seal, and it was just unsealed by the judge last week.
Cohen didn’t mince words in his review, saying prosecutors, the judge presiding over the grand jury and Baldwin herself failed Curley and Schultz. He said if it weren’t for those failures, the two wouldn’t have been charged in the first place.
Cohen arrived at his opinion after reviewing a number of documents in the case, such as the grand jury presentments, transcripts, and letters between Baldwin’s lawyer and the lawyers for Curley and Schultz.
“Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley suffered the complete deprivation of their rights to counsel,” Cohen wrote. “In fact, the harm to them was even worse than if they had no counsel at all. They believed they had an attorney who would protect their interests.
“The result here was a miscarriage of justice that improperly led to criminal charges being placed against two witnesses whose rights were violated.”
According to grand jury transcripts and arguments made by the two men’s lawyers throughout the case, Curley and Schultz believed Baldwin was representing them when they appeared to testify to the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky in January 2011.
But the men apparently became targets during their testimonies, and when Sandusky was indicted months later in November 2011, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury and failure to report abuse properly.
The defense lawyers have asked for the criminal case against their clients to be dismissed because they say Baldwin first violated grand jury secrecy by being present for their testimonies. The defense lawyers charge that Baldwin later violated attorney-client privilege when she testified against them to the grand jury in October 2012.
Baldwin’s lawyer, Charles De Monaco, has said very little publicly, but he has defended Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice and former university trustee.
“The suggestion by anyone that Ms. Baldwin did not fulfill her ethical and professional duties to the Pennsylvania State University and its agents and administrators, or testified untruthfully, is untrue,” De Monaco said in December when the issue flared up again after a court hearing.
Here’s how Cohen sees the issues pertaining to Baldwin’s representation:
Baldwin prepped Curley and Schultz ahead of their grand jury appearances, and owed them “loyalty, confidentiality and competent representation.” But Baldwin had a conflict of interest in representing both of them, didn’t get a waiver of the conflict of interest and did not represent them adequately during their grand jury appearances.
The judge supervising the grand jury, Barry Feudale, believed Baldwin was the attorney for Curley and Schultz, but he and the prosecutor in charge should have challenged the joint representation of the two men.
Further, Cohen said, if Baldwin was only representing Penn State, as she has maintained after her role came into question, then she had no business being in the grand jury room, as it was a violation of grand jury rules.
Cohen said he’s seen that judges and prosecutors are vigilant about grand jury secrecy and forbid lawyers who don’t represent witnesses from being in the grand jury room. He posits that Baldwin’s presence at the grand jury shows that either everyone involved believed she represented Schultz and Curley or there was “at least tacit approval” by the prosecutor and judge to overlook the law.
In addition, Cohen said, the pre-testimony interviews that prosecutors and state police had with Schultz and Curley should have been a red flag. Authorities indicated to Baldwin that an incident reported to Schultz and Curley involved the sexual assault of a young boy.
“This was a materially different story than that which Mr. Schultz and Mr. Curley were prepared to tell,” Cohen said. “Ms. Baldwin should have alerted her clients that they were at serious risk of prosecution for perjury and failure to report child abuse, based on the information she received from the prosecutors.
“However, she did nothing to act on this information, with disastrous results for her clients.”
Cohen said that Baldwin should have recognized hostility during those pre-testimony interviews, too, and should have discussed seeking immunity with Curley and Schultz.
Cohen said that the public records show that Baldwin didn’t explain to Curley and Schultz their rights against self-incrimination. If they had invoked the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury testimonies could have stopped, and they would have had more time to consider options.
Cohen also recounted a conversation he had with Feudale on Oct. 22, 2012, that led to his opinion about Curley and Schultz.
Feudale had just wrapped up a discussion with a witness to the statewide grand jury in Harrisburg who was represented by Cohen. Feudale wanted a quick word with Cohen, who he’d known for quite some time.
Feudale told Cohen he would never allow a lawyer into the grand jury room with a witness unless he was sure the lawyer represented the witness. But, because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, Feudale couldn’t divulge to Cohen which proceeding he meant.
Cohen figured it was about Curley and Schultz, because Cohen had made critical public comments about prosecutors bringing charges in light of Baldwin’s role.
It wasn’t until sometime later that Cohen realized the timeliness of Feudale’s chat. The day he met with Cohen, Feudale had just had a discussion with Baldwin over her offering testimony to the grand jury where she sat and listened to Curley and Schultz testify more than a year before.
Baldwin testified to the grand jury Oct. 26, 2012.
“This testimony offered by the person who the judge and both witnesses thought was their counsel just compounds the initial injustice that they suffered at the hands of the supervising judge and (the) chief deputy attorney general,” Cohen wrote.
It bought a lot of shots at the bars in Myrtle Beach last weekend.
Wouldn't it be nice, if:
After 6 Years of the same old bullshit,
The PA OAG put on a case against a defendant, wherein the case wasn't centered on:
What was said by some witness - - - who never spoke to the defendant?
And on what was heard by some defendant - - - who never even spoke to the witness?
Here we are - MM word parsing, Year 6.
The first five years, apparently, were not enough.
When Curley and Schultz took their pleas (which was, for me, a horrible, horrible scenario - - - not due to their guilt or innocence, but because it was just another in the long line of interminably drawn out "situations" that coulda' been illuminating - but died a virgin) the one item I proffered that COULD be a silver lining coming from the pleas was that possibly the case remaining could be conducted WITHOUT the conflating of the MM parsing.
For the most part - that turned out to be an unrealized hope, in the courtroom.
Even less than that in the "social conversation" arena
Alas
After 6 Years of the same old bullshit,
The PA OAG put on a case against a defendant, wherein the case wasn't centered on:
What was said by some witness - - - who never spoke to the defendant?
And on what was heard by some defendant - - - who never even spoke to the witness?
Here we are - MM word parsing, Year 6.
The first five years, apparently, were not enough.
When Curley and Schultz took their pleas (which was, for me, a horrible, horrible scenario - - - not due to their guilt or innocence, but because it was just another in the long line of interminably drawn out "situations" that coulda' been illuminating - but died a virgin) the one item I proffered that COULD be a silver lining coming from the pleas was that possibly the case remaining could be conducted WITHOUT the conflating of the MM parsing.
For the most part - that turned out to be an unrealized hope, in the courtroom.
Even less than that in the "social conversation" arena
Alas
Its probably just me but I really don't ever remember reading anything that said Mike saw a naked bear hug.
Maybe it was in another GJ testimony that wasn't "leaked"? Although, to be honest, I didn't know any of those existed.
Because the plea was signed so a bit of the CYA is gone. I'm not saying that is the reason, but it is certainly a possibility.
Excellent questions and ones I have been wondering about since this whole thing started.
Based on how it has been reported, Gary's testimony seems strange
Its probably just me but I really don't ever remember reading anything that said Mike saw a naked bear hug.
Maybe it was in another GJ testimony that wasn't "leaked"? Although, to be honest, I didn't know any of those existed.
He didn't and I'm almost positive Shultz is getting that from the 98 incident
Speaking of Balwin what ever happened to her? Last I heard she was "vacationing" abroad.
The behaviors of everyone involved tell a much better story of what MM communicated to Joe, Curley and Schultz than the vague memories of conversations from 16 years ago. The behavior of MM's father, Dr Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, even the Second Mile, all line up with MM not getting his message across even if he attempted to. You can fight over who said what and how it was stated but the more people talk, the more stories continue to evolve especially when someone's butt is on the line. MM has a lot on the line anytime he's in court. He has to maintain his story.
The thing is these guys just a few weeks back were model citizens who fell victim to the man....now they are both shady liars? Might be a hint of truth to both sides there, but it certainly is interesting that the bear hug in the shower reference came up. When they were in denial about this...it never happened. Curley didn't flinch on the sexual reference. It would be real interesting if one somehow gets a lighter sentence now.
There seem to be three alternatives.
1. Paterno said nothing or nothing of substance. Hard to see how that would change Curley's mind.
2. Paterno agreed with the course of action. Ditto.
3. Paterno objected to it being reported. This would explain the change.
In the same email, Curley says "I need some help on this one." Did Curley explain what he meant by that?
Of course, the big question is, why was the AD and the football coach still involved in this situation, two weeks after the incident. This was no longer an AD/football team problem at this point, if it ever was.
Also, was Curley asked why they didn't go back to the original plan after Sandusky initially denied being involved?
Think about it...if it's option #3, Curley would do well in prison because snitches get stitches and he stayed the course. Not to mention Joe has passed and if that really did occur he would have no reason not to point the finger there, but TC didn't. He also didn't bend his testimony when it came to what Mike said.
He's talking about a football game not a golf tournament and it's been well known that Mike played in that tournament only because it was a charity and he didn't know that Sandusky was involved when he committed to it. That's never been a secret.
Well, they are criminals and liars, what else can you say?
These are the kinds of witnesses you have to call in a conspiracy case.
Because he never said that. His testimony was clear that when Joe asked if he was ok it was in regard to his mental health not in regard to whether he was ok with the actions that C/S took. That's clear from his testimony and is the perfect example of people twisting his word so that THEIR stories, not Mike's, are mixed up.
"The football coach made me do it" isn't much of a defense, so it doesn't help Curley to point the finger at Paterno. On the other hand, it's probably in his self-interest to stay on the right side of the "Paterno People."
It'll be interesting to see what the judge does in sentencing Curley.
Question: I've seen it mentioned in multiple areas that Schultz now says he didn't learn of the incident until Monday, the 12th. He didn't meet at Joe's house on Sunday. Curley told him about it Monday. If that's indeed what he testified to...how can that be given that we know he consulted with Courtney on Sunday, the 11th? How could that not be challenged?
At this point in his life...he only has to be loyal to TC and his family. You're probably right that the dead coach changed my mind isn't going to win over many juries either. If fact it pretty much makes the case for the OAG. The thing is nobody has ever really hinted that Joe forced or really pushed that decision other than an email saying a discussion occurred.
That seems to bit of a stretch from what was reported originally. Or MM changed his mind again.
I will say this whole thing is beginning to remind me of the Dreyfus Affair....
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
