Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal

[Royal_Coaster]

Yes, have you ever had one over 14?

I seriously doubt that, dude. It's obvious that you're obsessed with this case, to the point where if Spanier were walking along College Avenue and stopped suddenly, they'd have to surgically remove your nose from his ass.

I think they should put you on the stand. I can imagine all the fun stuff the defense attorneys would put out there about you.

 

[Ceasar]

I agree that it is unlikely to be an issue in court, unless Spanier was greatly familiar with the technique of "grooming." (I was not and would have missed it.) I have not seen anything that would involve that.

I seriously doubt if Schultz and Curley would testify without a plea deal. I would expect Spanier's lawyer really would not want him on the stand.

IMO Curley and Shultz have to testify. Assuming MM testifies that he told them of an assault, even if he is damages on cross but not destroyed, they have to refute his testimony. I don't see any way for them to be acquitted without testifying, absent a complete destruction of MM. Spanier may be able to get away with not testifying as, if the jury concludes MM did not report an assault, then there is no jeopardy for him.

 

[yorklion12]

I agree that it is unlikely to be an issue in court, unless Spanier was greatly familiar with the technique of "grooming." (I was not and would have missed it.) I have not seen anything that would involve that.

I seriously doubt if Schultz and Curley would testify without a plea deal. I would expect Spanier's lawyer really would not want him on the stand.

Just curious. Why do you think Spaniers lawyers wouldn't want him on the stand?

 

[interrobang]

MM's big issue in his testimony is that he's never said what he told C/S/S, just that he thinks he got his message across that it was a serious issue.

 

[Stufftodo]

IMO Curley and Shultz have to testify. Assuming MM testifies that he told them of an assault, even if he is damages on cross but not destroyed, they have to refute his testimony. I don't see any way for them to be acquitted without testifying, absent a complete destruction of MM. Spanier may be able to get away with not testifying as, if the jury concludes MM did not report an assault, then there is no jeopardy for him.

I don't think they will be able to refute. I suspect that, by the time McQueary reported, Curley and Schultz had already known that that Sandusky had a "problem." I further suspect that the OAG was able to determine that, and will produce witnesses to it. I also suspect that the OAG found this information by late summer of 2012.

I think this is the reason the 11/01/12 presentment goes into detail about 1998. CSS are not charged with committing any crime in 1998 (and I don't suspect them of any in that year).

Just curious. Why do you think Spaniers lawyers wouldn't want him on the stand?

It is generally a bad idea to do that; they will have to believe that Spanier didn't read the e-mails he was responding to.

MM's big issue in his testimony is that he's never said what he told C/S/S, just that he thinks he got his message across that it was a serious issue.

That doesn't explain the call to Courtney, nor Schultz's notes and e-mail. They were acting as if it was a CSA incident. The most damning part of the Freeh Report are in the appendixes.

 

[Stufftodo]

I seriously doubt that, dude. It's obvious that you're obsessed with this case, to the point where if Spanier were walking along College Avenue and stopped suddenly, they'd have to surgically remove your nose from his ass.

I think they should put you on the stand. I can imagine all the fun stuff the defense attorneys would put out there about you.

Actually, my focus has not been on Spanier; he, however has been the talking the most and filing suits.

I'd be happy to testify and bring documents along. You'd be surprised just how un-involved I started out being in this. LOL!!! You might think of it more like providing probable cause.

They'd have a field day with things like, oh, I didn't think Paterno should be fired, and that the Board failed to ask enough questions in 2011. Really pro-Board and Paterno stuff.

 

[Ceasar]

I don't think they will be able to refute. I suspect that, by the time McQueary reported, Curley and Schultz had already known that that Sandusky had a "problem." I further suspect that the OAG was able to determine that, and will produce witnesses to it. I also suspect that the OAG found this information by late summer of 2012.

I think this is the reason the 11/01/12 presentment goes into detail about 1998. CSS are not charged with committing any crime in 1998 (and I don't suspect them of any in that year).
Even if they knew he had a problem, and the AG can prove that, they still have nothing to report if MM did not report that he witnessed abuse. In other words, say MM testifies that he told them he witnessed Sandusky and a boy "horsing around" but nothing more, then it makes no difference if they knew he had a problem, there is nothing that needs to be reported since there would not be a report that warrants being forwarded to the authorities. Just my .02 but if the state argues that MM really did not report anything other than he got a creepy feeling, and that based on CSS having knowledge that JS had a problem, this should have been enough, that won't fly. In fact the defense could likely get a directed verdict. The state must prove that MM clearly and unequivocally reported a criminal assault.



It is generally a bad idea to do that; they will have to believe that Spanier didn't read the e-mails he was responding to.



That doesn't explain the call to Courtney, nor Schultz's notes and e-mail. They were acting as if it was a CSA incident. The most damning part of the Freeh Report are in the appendixes.

 

[Zenophile]

No, but is obvious that I hurt yours.

You and I are still friends. And I'll even promise to not call you a liar anymore (provided, of course, that you don't decide to intentionally misrepresent the facts again).

 

[Stufftodo]

You and I are still friends. And I'll even promise to not call you a liar anymore (provided, of course, that you don't decide to intentionally misrepresent the facts again).

It sounds like you might be in Mensa.

 

[yorklion12]

I don't think they will be able to refute. I suspect that, by the time McQueary reported, Curley and Schultz had already known that that Sandusky had a "problem." I further suspect that the OAG was able to determine that, and will produce witnesses to it. I also suspect that the OAG found this information by late summer of 2012.

I think this is the reason the 11/01/12 presentment goes into detail about 1998. CSS are not charged with committing any crime in 1998 (and I don't suspect them of any in that year).



It is generally a bad idea to do that; they will have to believe that Spanier didn't read the e-mails he was responding to.



That doesn't explain the call to Courtney, nor Schultz's notes and e-mail. They were acting as if it was a CSA incident. The most damning part of the Freeh Report are in the appendixes.

Spanier has already testified in MM civil case and gave a deposition in the PMA case where he discusses his emails from 2001.

 

[didier]

OAG filed two entries per defendant yesterday. Under seal but may be opened Monday. Appears it's likely the pretrial motions that Boccabella said were due by Feb 27.

 

[Zenophile]

It sounds like you might be in Mensa.

Only by comparison.

 

[Stufftodo]

Spanier has already testified in MM civil case and gave a deposition in the PMA case where he discusses his emails from 2001.

Only by comparison.

Only by comparison.

Not be admission.

Ah, that will be on the final.

 

[LionFanStill]

Good luck getting anyone on the jury to believe he didn't know about 98.

It doesn't matter if he knew about 1998! JS was cleared by the experts in 1998, who determined the allegations were false. That will actually help the defense. Why would anyone question the "experts" about that determination in 2001? Nobody questioned them in 1998. Nobody questioned them in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 either! In fact, it wasn't until 2011, when the news broke and WE started asking questions, that there were any really deep questions about the "experts" decisions. Fluff from all of them until we stood up. In fact, they're still giving fluff responses.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Actually, my focus has not been on Spanier; he, however has been the talking the most and filing suits.

I'd be happy to testify and bring documents along. You'd be surprised just how un-involved I started out being in this. LOL!!! You might think of it more like providing probable cause.

They'd have a field day with things like, oh, I didn't think Paterno should be fired, and that the Board failed to ask enough questions in 2011. Really pro-Board and Paterno stuff.

We know where your focus has been. Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar.

They'd have a field day with you on the stand alright, but it won't be with the kind of questions you mentioned. It will be more about your relationships with certain people in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and State College. The kind of questions the lawyers already know the answers to.

 

[Stufftodo]

It doesn't matter if he knew about 1998! JS was cleared by the experts in 1998, who determined the allegations were false. That will actually help the defense. Why would anyone question the "experts" about that determination in 2001? Nobody questioned them in 1998. Nobody questioned them in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 either! In fact, it wasn't until 2011, when the news broke and WE started asking questions, that there were any really deep questions about the "experts" decisions. Fluff from all of them until we stood up. In fact, they're still giving fluff responses.

Sandusky wasn't "cleared" in 1998. He was not prosecuted. That is the difference. And the answer to why Sandusky was not prosecuted in 1998, will become very important, I expect. .

RC, please tell me about these "relationships." I do know a number of folks in Philadelphia, many from college, who I've known for decades. I do know a few people in Centre County, but, of course, I did go to college there. Can think of perhaps three or four people in Harrisburg that I have met or talked to by phone or in person over the last 20 years.

Oh, please, great sage, tell me of these "relationships." Does it involve the Trilateral Commission, the Jesuits, Freemasons, Bilderburg Group, Illuminati, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Alien Grays? Is the entire city of Philadelphia involved?

Come on RC; let's hear about it, because:

 

[Stufftodo]

We know where your focus has been. Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar Gricar.

They'd have a field day with you on the stand alright, but it won't be with the kind of questions you mentioned. It will be more about your relationships with certain people in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and State College. The kind of questions the lawyers already know the answers to.

I will give you one past "relationship" that can be discovered that will be mind-blowing if it comes out. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis.

LOL. LOL. LOL!!!

 

[colt21]

Sandusky wasn't "cleared" in 1998. He was not prosecuted. That is the difference. And the answer to why Sandusky was not prosecuted in 1998, will become very important, I expect. .

RC, please tell me about these "relationships." I do know a number of folks in Philadelphia, many from college, who I've known for decades. I do know a few people in Centre County, but, of course, I did go to college there. Can think of perhaps three or four people in Harrisburg that I have met or talked to by phone or in person over the last 20 years.

Oh, please, great sage, tell me of these "relationships." Does it involve the Trilateral Commission, the Jesuits, Freemasons, Bilderburg Group, Illuminati, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Alien Grays? Is the entire city of Philadelphia involved?

Come on RC; let's hear about it, because:

Now you're just wrong

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Sandusky wasn't "cleared" in 1998. He was not prosecuted. That is the difference. And the answer to why Sandusky was not prosecuted in 1998, will become very important, I expect. .

RC, please tell me about these "relationships." I do know a number of folks in Philadelphia, many from college, who I've known for decades. I do know a few people in Centre County, but, of course, I did go to college there. Can think of perhaps three or four people in Harrisburg that I have met or talked to by phone or in person over the last 20 years.

Oh, please, great sage, tell me of these "relationships." Does it involve the Trilateral Commission, the Jesuits, Freemasons, Bilderburg Group, Illuminati, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Alien Grays? Is the entire city of Philadelphia involved?

Come on RC; let's hear about it, because:

He absolutely was cleared by the named "Judicial Authority" on the matter under PA CPS Code - you're full of $hit as per usual, go figure.

 

[Stufftodo]

Now you're just wrong

The choice was made not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998. Even in Harmon's e-mail to Schultz on June 1, 1998, he (Harmon) wrote:

"He [Sandusky] was advised that since no criminal behavior was established that the matter would be closed as an investigation."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212.html

p. 174

Not being able to "establish" "criminal behavior" does not mean that none extisted. It is like a verdict of "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent."

Also note that in those emails there discussed the DPW investigation and not the criminal investigation by the DA. At worst the most that DPW could do was effectively prevent Sandusky from passing a background check for working with children.

He absolutely was cleared by the named "Judicial Authority" on the matter under PA CPS Code - you're full of $hit as per usual, go figure.

Note that DPW is incapable of pursuing criminal charges, one way or the other.

And while you are looking at those, please provide a link to the "Judicial Authority" claim.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The choice was made not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998. Even in Harmon's e-mail to Schultz on June 1, 1998, he (Harmon) wrote:

"He [Sandusky] was advised that since no criminal behavior was established that the matter would be closed as an investigation."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212.html

p. 174

Not being able to "establish" "criminal behavior" does not mean that none extisted. It is like a verdict of "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent."

Also note that in those emails there discussed the DPW investigation and not the criminal investigation by the DA. At worst the most that DPW could do was effectively prevent Sandusky from passing a background check for working with children.



Note that DPW is incapable of pursuing criminal charges, one way or the other.

And while you are looking at those, please provide a link to the "Judicial Authority" claim.

More of the moron's mouth-diarrhea....the Judicial Authority under CPSL marks the case either "Indicated" or "Unfounded". Not only was 1998 marked unfounded, but Sandusky was declared completely innocent by DPW in their report.

 

[Stufftodo]

He absolutely was cleared by the named "Judicial Authority" on the matter under PA CPS Code - you're full of $hit as per usual, go figure.

More of the moron's mouth-diarrhea....the Judicial Authority under CPSL marks the case either "Indicated" or "Unfounded". Not only was 1998 marked unfounded, but Sandusky was declared completely innocent by DPW in their report.

As noted, DPW cannot make a criminal determination, one way or the other. "Founded," "unfounded" and "indicated" are not a criminal determination. The whole process is civil and the maximum "penalty" is not being able to get a clearance to work with children.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

As noted, DPW cannot make a criminal determination, one way or the other. "Founded," "unfounded" and "indicated" are not a criminal determination. The whole process is civil and the maximum "penalty" is not being able to get a clearance to work with children.

Wrong dumb@ss, initial determination is made by named Judicial Authority under the Code - especially when the incident occurred while the child is participating in the program of a DPW Licensed Children's Charity at the time of the incident. You're flat wrong that Sandusky could be prosecuted for an "Unfounded Report" by the named Judicial Authority (i.e., experts) - especially when the Judicial Authority literally declared Sandusky "completely innocent" and his behavior perfectly normal given the circumstances of the charitable program being offered.

 

[Stufftodo]

Wrong dumb@ss, initial determination is made by named Judicial Authority under the Code - especially when the incident occurred while the child is participating in the program of a DPW Licensed Children's Charity at the time of the incident. You're flat wrong that Sandusky could be prosecuted for an "Unfounded Report" by the named Judicial Authority (i.e., experts) - especially when the Judicial Authority literally declared Sandusky "completely innocent" and his behavior perfectly normal given the circumstances of the charitable program being offered.

Please cite anything that supports your claim.

So far, the only claim I find of the term "Judicial Authority" in statute refers to a juvenile charged with a crime. In that case it is the court, not an agency.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.027..HTM

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Please cite anything that supports your claim.

So far, the only claim I find of the term "Judicial Authority" in statute refers to a juvenile charged with a crime. In that case it is the court, not an agency.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.027..HTM

I already cited where it is named - CPSL. You're full of $hit as per usual dumb@ss and you continually regurgitating the same mental masturbation over and over doesn't advance your position.

 

[Stufftodo]

I already cited where it is named - CPSL. You're full of $hit as per usual dumb@ss and you continually regurgitating the same mental masturbation over and over doesn't advance your position.

Well, I just did a search of that act for the term "Judicial authority," and it did not come up. It is not in the definitions section.

The link is here: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter3490/subchapatoc.html You are free to try it yourself and I'd be willing to look at a specific section if you would cite it?

Perhaps I should ask who told you this?

 

[21Guns]

Just curious. Why do you think Spaniers lawyers wouldn't want him on the stand?

Well somebody doesn't. It's been 5 and a half years lmao.

 

[indynittany]

.....That doesn't explain the call to Courtney, nor Schultz's notes and e-mail. They were acting as if it was a CSA incident. The most damning part of the Freeh Report are in the appendixes.

That's not true at all. They were acting like Sandusky had boundary issues and was at risk of a he said/he said scenario and they were trying to prevent one going forward.

Schultz wrote:

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare

For Schultz to have written that while suspecting Jerry had abused a child, he would have been suggesting they would need to involve DPW if he denied doing it, but not involve DPW if he admitted to it. That's a ridiculous assertion on its face. However, it makes perfect sense that Schultz would want to involve DPW if Jerry denied having 'boundary issues', but not feel it necessary if he admitted it. Read the note again alternately substituting 'abused a child' and 'boundary issues' for "a problem". Mine is the only reasonable interpretation.

Schultz later wrote:

1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d

Again, ridiculous to assert that Schultz believed they were dealing with CSA and merely recommended that Jerry "avoid" bringing kids to Lasch. He would have been far more adamant about it. Furthermore, his use of the word "alone" suggests that he wasn't even recommending that Jerry never bring kids to the facilities, just that he not be alone with one when he does. Again, their concern was to prevent a future he said/he said scenario.

Spanier wrote:

"...The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it...."

This is an if/then scenario. It's impossible to argue that Spanier believed their "only" vulnerability could be triggered by a subsequent incident. Had he understood a child had been abused, the risk of that boy or his family going to the authorities would have been the elephant in the room, not the possibility it might happen again..

They were trying to prevent a repeat of the '98 situation. That's all.

 

[Stufftodo]

That's not true at all. They were acting like Sandusky had boundary issues and was at risk of a he said/he said scenario and they were trying to prevent one going forward.

Schultz wrote:

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare

For Schultz to have written that while suspecting Jerry had abused a child, he would have been suggesting they would need to involve DPW if he denied doing it, but not involve DPW if he admitted to it. That's a ridiculous assertion on its face. However, it makes perfect sense that Schultz would want to involve DPW if Jerry denied having 'boundary issues', but not feel it necessary if he admitted it. Read the note again alternately substituting 'abused a child' and 'boundary issues' for "a problem". Mine is the only reasonable interpretation.

Schultz later wrote:

1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d

Again, ridiculous to assert that Schultz believed they were dealing with CSA and merely recommended that Jerry "avoid" bringing kids to Lasch. He would have been far more adamant about it. Furthermore, his use of the word "alone" suggests that he wasn't even recommending that Jerry never bring kids to the facilities, just that he not be alone with one when he does. Again, their concern was to prevent a future he said/he said scenario.

Spanier wrote:

"...The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it...."

This is an if/then scenario. It's impossible to argue that Spanier believed their "only" vulnerability could be triggered by a subsequent incident. Had he understood a child had been abused, the risk of that boy or his family going to the authorities would have been the elephant in the room, not the possibility it might happen again..

They were trying to prevent a repeat of the '98 situation. That's all.

The 1998 situation will be key. Spanier was not talking about "another" incident.

If there was no problem, why worry about going to the authorities?

Look at your argument. Spanier is, according to you, telling his underlings that if Sandusky admits to having abused the child, or a "problem," then there is no need to call DPW? However, if Sandusky says it didn't happen, it should be reported to DPW. I somehow doubt that this will be Spanier's defense.

Also, it relies on there being no Sandusky "problem" in 1998 and, at least, breaking his promise he made in 1998.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Sandusky wasn't "cleared" in 1998. He was not prosecuted. That is the difference. And the answer to why Sandusky was not prosecuted in 1998, will become very important, I expect. .

RC, please tell me about these "relationships." I do know a number of folks in Philadelphia, many from college, who I've known for decades. I do know a few people in Centre County, but, of course, I did go to college there. Can think of perhaps three or four people in Harrisburg that I have met or talked to by phone or in person over the last 20 years.

Oh, please, great sage, tell me of these "relationships." Does it involve the Trilateral Commission, the Jesuits, Freemasons, Bilderburg Group, Illuminati, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and Alien Grays? Is the entire city of Philadelphia involved?

Come on RC; let's hear about it, because:

Well, Mr. Reynolds Wrap, I believe some of those relationships were brought up by Zenophile on page 4 of this thread. I'm sure you remember, you had an intestinal cramp when it happened. And I did say "some." There are others that were brought to my attention. You're all over the internet like horseshit. Add in all the times other mention you-- and some of them are quite colorful and informative-- and it makes for an interesting read.

Like I said, you're not going to surprise anyone with your alleged Perry Mason moment. You think this is Las Vegas and what you say here stays here?

 

[Stufftodo]

Well, Mr. Reynolds Wrap, I believe some of those relationships were brought up by Zenophile on page 4 of this thread. I'm sure you remember, you had an intestinal cramp when it happened. And I did say "some." There are others that were brought to my attention. You're all over the internet like horseshit. Add in all the times other mention you-- and some of them are quite colorful and informative-- and it makes for an interesting read.

Well he mentioned Lauro and Richard Houston, who I determined via a Google was the name of Lauro's supervisor (it came up in a Blehar post, ironically). I will be more than willing to testify in court that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never had any interaction with either. You could be Lauro, so I can't say "never." Please, subpoena me and ask.

I had checked Lauro previously, and he didn't go to Penn State. I checked to see if there was a Richard Houston that was an alumnus; there wasn't.

And these other supposed connections are? I will admit to knowing numerous people and having some surprising mutual acquaintances.

Like I said, you're not going to surprise anyone with your alleged Perry Mason moment. You think this is Las Vegas and what you say here stays here?

I'm not, but OAG may; it is probably included in discovery. It isn't so much a Perry Mason moment, but one creating probable cause. Keep in mind it has already happened.

I already said that when the trial was under way, I will be revealing it.

 

[L.T. Young]

The abstract indicates he interviewed college students, so it wasn't something directly on underage sex. http://www.jstor.org/stable/583048?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It possibly could be used to establish that Spanier was familiar with human sexuality generally, but I'd be surprised if a judge would let it in unless Spanier claimed that he never heard of pedophilia or possibly grooming.

Edited to add:

Here is a listing of some of Spanier's academic work (publish or perish). There are a few that conceivably could touch on pedophilia, but the bulk of it looks like it deals with marriage and divorce from a sexual standpoint.

http://www.jstor.org/action/doAdvan...=all&c3=AND&c6=AND&c4=AND&f1=all&f0=au&f5=all

I know what the study was. It doesn't change the conclusion he came to. It undermines the notion that his email, which he's admitted to writing, couldn't possibly be in reply to a report of something sexual.

He was willing to subscribe to Kinsey's data. That's a big problem for him if this sees the inside of a courtroom.

We're not talking about one sentence in a study about swinging. I'm not just looking to hang him. This is a guy that tries to shrug off language in an email as completely ridiculous to interpret as it reads, but it turns out that it essentially lines up with a conclusion he came to in an academic study.

 

[indynittany]

...Look at your argument. Spanier is, according to you, telling his underlings that if Sandusky admits to having abused the child, or a "problem," then there is no need to call DPW? However, if Sandusky says it didn't happen, it should be reported to DPW. I somehow doubt that this will be Spanier's defense....

That's not my argument at all. First of all, those were Schultz's notes. My argument is that it's perfectly reasonable for Schultz to advise involving DPW if Jerry denied having boundary issues, because it was obvious in light of what happened in 2001 that he did, given what had also happened in 1998. OTOH, if Jerry understood that his behavior was inappropriate and could put his reputation, along with those of TSM and PSU, at risk, they could work with him to change it before a real problem arose. Again, this was about prevention.

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore Feature.

 

[marshall23]

The stretch to make Spanier's academic studies admissible or relevant in this case is Gumby like. LOL How far the "mighty" have fallen.

 

[wensilver]

So let me get this straight again.

We have a single instance of a few quick glances into a bathroom mirror, hearing "3 slapping sounds" and less than a minute overall of what somebody observed that was just so clearly "anal rape" concerning a "victim" that our state has never produced, which is now a half-billion dollar debacle, because it was obviously a "conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of a minor" by "the most powerful leaders at PSU" "for fear of bad publicity" "football" yada yada.

Yet scores of MSU women repeatedly complained to MSU trainers, coaches, Title IX staff and psychologists, going into great detail with these people about their own victimization and sexual abuse by an MSU employee in MSU athletic facilities for years, and their state attorney general is not charging any of these powerful leaders at MSU with conspiring to cover up the abuse of these women and girls. Because - due process.

Mkay. I'm in the Twilight Zone.

 

[Stufftodo]

That's not my argument at all. First of all, those were Schultz's notes. My argument is that it's perfectly reasonable for Schultz to advise involving DPW if Jerry denied having boundary issues, because it was obvious in light of what happened in 2001 that he did, given what had also happened in 1998. OTOH, if Jerry understood that his behavior was inappropriate and could put his reputation, along with those of TSM and PSU, at risk, they could work with him to change it before a real problem arose. Again, this was about prevention.

Your argument makes it sound like if Sandusky said he had a problem, they wouldn't tell DPW. "Boundary issues" would not be abuse and therefore would not trigger a call to DPW. So, under this defense, if Sandusky has "boundary issues," and admits it, it doesn't require a call to DPW, but if Sandusky doesn't admit it, it does require a call to DPW?

The stretch to make Spanier's academic studies admissible or relevant in this case is Gumby like. LOL How far the "mighty" have fallen.

I think that they would be inadmissible, unless they could show that he had a good understanding of what grooming was. Looking at the abstracts, it doesn't look like they deal with CSA.

Spanier, despite some bombastic claims, does not claim expertise in child molestation techniques.

 

[dshumbero]

Your argument makes it sound like if Sandusky said he had a problem, they wouldn't tell DPW. "Boundary issues" would not be abuse and therefore would not trigger a call to DPW. So, under this defense, if Sandusky has "boundary issues," and admits it, it doesn't require a call to DPW, but if Sandusky doesn't admit it, it does require a call to DPW?

Enough of your shit Jacobs. Stick to Penn Lie.

 

[Stufftodo]

Enough of your shit Jacobs. Stick to Penn Lie.

Oh, please, tell Spanier to offer this defense, PLEASE!!!!!

 

[Ceasar]

I know what the study was. It doesn't change the conclusion he came to. It undermines the notion that his email, which he's admitted to writing, couldn't possibly be in reply to a report of something sexual.

He was willing to subscribe to Kinsey's data. That's a big problem for him if this sees the inside of a courtroom.

We're not talking about one sentence in a study about swinging. I'm not just looking to hang him. This is a guy that tries to shrug off language in an email as completely ridiculous to interpret as it reads, but it turns out that it essentially lines up with a conclusion he came to in an academic study.

If the prosecution gets this deep into the weeds they have lost the case. Sort of like the OJ case; the more detailed the state got about DNA science the less attention the jury paid.
This CSS case is very simple and comes down to one thing and one thing only - what did Mike M tell Curley and Shultz? That's it. If the jury believes he clearly said he witnessed an assault then in all likelihood they will be convicted and their only hope at acquittal is if they can make the argument that this does not matter as they were not mandated reporters regardless of what they were told. And that is a matter of law, not fact, hence the effort to get the charges thrown out before a trial.
If the jury does not believe MM told them he witnessed an assault then they will be acquitted as, even if they were mandated reporters, they are not required to report creepy and inappropriate behavior.
Again, the case is very simple and if the state tries to make it complex they will be in trouble. Just my .02. By the way, one other thing to consider. MM won his civil case (let's assume the PSU appeal does not go anywhere). That fact raises the question of just how motivated a witness he may be at this trial. He is on record at his civil trial in praising Curley as a good man. Could it be that he will use this trial to give a payback to the AG for misrepresenting his GJ testimony and to try to rehabilitate his reputation in the greater PSU community that feels he was less than truthful? I believe that concern is present in the OAG.