I'm still marveling over the brass the commonwealth displayed in making Raykovitz a prosecution witness.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Oh I got that, but my point is that the state never really felt the need to walk down the path. The cameras weren't lined up outside Jack's house.
It's hard to say since TSM/JR were never really investigated and were allowed to park a shredder truck outside TSM and destroy God knows what.
We don't know if he was groomed/fooled just like everyone else or if he was invovled in a cover up. That's why we are all so pissed at the OAG's conduct during this whole charade.
Regardless of his intent, JR did NOT follow the law re: 2001 and it isn't right that the state is holding Spanier and college admins to a higher standard than the person who had duty of care over TSM kids.
If anyone should have seen through JS' grooming of the community via his "boundary issues" during showers it was JR. He ran the charity and had oversight of the kids/JS and his charity received numerous complaints about JS' boundary issues and they didn't do a damned thing.
That's one interpretation. But there are others.
JR reported that he was told there was an investigation and nothing inappropriate happened. Curley has already plead guilty to reckless endangerment, so JR's testimony is unchallenged.
Best case scenario for Spanier is that the jurors believe TC lied not only to JR but to GS as well.
STD warned us there'd be a surprise witness who would seal the deal. And you all refused to believe him.
I do. I have long been suspicious of him because of his position as a child psychologist working with at risk children. He knows more to begin with: signs of abuse, signs of a perpetrator, protocols, etc.
From what I read, his testimony screams lies to me. A real child psychologist at the helm of this kind of charity for good reasons would be beside himself with remorse.
And this is all you need to know. Was Jerry so important as a cash cow? No idea, but there had to be a reason to do nothing. Or, did Jack already know? My guess is he did and did nothing but cya.
Well, that's all MM told TC... or anyone else involved. have you not been paying attention?
One would think the media dolts in attendance would start to finally ask questions about TSM/JR and their whole role in enabling JS' crimes they are so outraged over and why they were allowed to ride off into the sunset without so much as a misdemeanor charge, etc...smh
How they haven't already started asking, "wait, why isn't JR the one on trial here?" is beyond me.
They probably wanted to protect the reputation of the charity!
Remember too that JS was writing love letters to these children. I think it is safe to assume Raykovitz saw more than the athletic department ever did re: Jerry's behavior with kids AND he knew how to interpret this behavior. And he talked to at least some of the kids as a therapist.
A little "long" on the supposition there DarkCock...
That number will likely come down on appeal. Regardless, I don't think it's anything to celebrate. No one IMO should have walked away from this thing with millions of dollars (save the truthful victims). Especially not the only eyewitness who didn't intervene to stop what he believed was the sexual assault of a child.
Mike doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake, but he doesn't deserve praise or millions of dollars either. He's like everyone else here, he could have done more.
Then Jack calls Bruce and tells him to give JS keys to a hotel work out room to replace PSU facilities when he's with little kids.
delco, the legal processes don't always go the way many anticipate. That said, i wouldn't draw any conclusions from how this case ends (regardless of outcome) with regards to the Paterno Family lawsuit, or Spanier's lawsuit against Freeh.
As NittPicker pointed out, this trial has nothing to do with the issues in the Paterno Family lawsuit.
As for the Spanier's civil suit against Freeh, I guess that certain outcomes in this trial may have some impact on the civil lawsuit, but as NittPicker mentioned, to some extent the trial contradicted Freeh's conclusions, which should enhance those aspects of Spanier's lawsuit.
That's right and the $64,000 question. Besides MM, who was the witness, there is nobody more responsible for reigning in JS's actions. TSM was the inflection point and where all complaints would have been compiled and a pattern discerned from history. honestly, I have nothing against JR, but I wonder about the disproportionate application of the law...and that is the part that stinks to high heaven. How could someone possibly charge Spanier and not JR?
Don't we all feel silly now.
Then I'll change my original statement to "McQueary doesn't need any help from me, judges and juries find him believable". There, now the judge's $5M is covered.
I try very hard not to speculate; however: does it not seem that this Reykovitz character has been protected through all this, somehow?
Why, yes, yes it does. So my speculation is that he's got something to hide, and I conclude that he had bad intentions from the very start of this nightmare.
We'll never know, unfortunately. There is an awful lot of things that we'll never know about this situation.
And you missed my tic response.
Again, if I'm a juror I'd be asking why would TC go to JR at all if he were attempting to protect Sandusky or the school's image. Just say nothing.
Absolutely. I may be incorrect. But I was responding to the posters who speculated that the jurors believe C/S/S acted appropriately. I think that's an even bigger stretch. But who knows?
I don't know, but just enjoy their absence for now.
If Broadhurst was still around, I'd assume it was Eat'n Fart.So what did the jury have for lunch? Hot potato? Half-baked chicken? Since it's Friday, lox?
This focus on Raykovitz seems odd. Spanier didn't talk with Raykovitz. So, whatever Curley said to Raykovitz doesn't seem relevant unless Curley was acting on Spanier's orders. And, didn't Curley testify that he alone decided what to say? I suppose that Raykovitz's response to the information might be a good barometer as to whether Spanier acted "recklessly" when he decided on his course of action, but again, we don't know that Raykovitz had exactly the same set of information as Spanier.
So what did the jury have for lunch? Hot potato? Half-baked chicken? Since it's Friday, lox?
Barron's onion dip!
Smells like where will I get more attention if I'm prosecuting this case to me.. I'm not sure Dr. Jack is some evil guy either, but it is very odd how they never really got a look.
I believe that informing TSM was part of the "Plan" that was approved by all three: CS&S. as such, spanier's fingerprints are on it...and he did assist in informing someone outside of PSU.
That fact is NEWS to you? After all these years?
Not for nothing, 'cause not everyone is going to be equally "obsessed" with following this stuff.
But, WOW!!
Or, am I being Captain Oblivious to your TIC post???
What's kinda' scary is that either way, I am quite confident that AvgUser is much more "up to speed" than the AvgJuror
And back to the animus between Corbett and GS we go.
only on bwi is 5 most of 12
Similar threads
