I might be wrong, but pretty sure cross exam is limited to the things the witness testified about?
Some questions for lawyers about Spanier defense
- Thread starter Keyser Soze 16801
- Start date
We may be done with them - - - but the game is already over.
Nothing is going to erase the two guilty pleas by TC and GS
GSpan - if/when the conviction is overturned, will do so via a "technicality" (in the eyes of everyone who didn't know up front this was a BS prosecution)
And - and I know this matters to you - JR was on the stand - for the first and only time ever in this entire ordeal - - - - and he walked away.
Are you happy that they put the final nail in the "opening up the door the 2nd Mile" coffin?
For EVER. For F-ing EVER.
Even when the GD ball was set up on a tee for them....... and it was in their best interests to open that door - which was obvious to a blind man - and THEY STILL WOULDN'T DO IT.
I'll tell you this - Ira Lubert ain't the only one who wants to keep that door closed.
That "goal" is F-ing dead. D...E...A...D
Forever.
And we've got assholes and dildos going around waving their hands about the F-ing Freeh Report?
The F-ing Freeh Report....... "By God, we are going to debunk the Freeh Report!!!!!!!!"
Big F-ing deal.
All because "our" F-ing "Ivy Leaguers" are idiots, pussies, or something worse.
In case you're wondering (I doubt you are
)Yeah, I say F them.
And I haven't even started with - and I won't, not now - the folks who are even more contemptible.
A LOT more contemptible.
Last edited:
As I wrote, I think they cut a deal to reach the verdicts because they wanted to not miss out on their weekend plans (big sales at Wal-Mart).
BTW, I love Wal-Mart (not a paid advertisement).
Lundy,
To be more precise, Wendell Courtney recommended a report to Centre County. It is on page 81 of the Freeh Report. In fact, it is a two pronged plan:
Advise CYS of what happened w/Sandusky in the shower & advise CYS of the action PSU is taking to limit Sandusky's access to the showers.
It is unfortunate that Schultz's attorney conflated DPW and CYS then wrote in a legal document that Schultz wouldn't have said he thought he reported it if he saw his notes. His notes didn't rule out a report to CYS and can be interpreted as Part 2 of Courtney's plan.
Part 1 - contacting CYS had to be accomplished within 48 hours of the first notification PSU got -- which was 8AM on the 10th. Schultz's note was dated the 12th -- the day the report was legally due.
There's no reason to believe Schultz wouldn't have followed Courtney's legal advice.
And if Schultz's attorney reviewed the law, he easily could have argued a report was made to the county, just as Gary testified about at the grand jury.
The law in effect in 2001 stated an oral report could have been made to the county. However, without the name of the child, the county can't do anything with it.
§ 6313. Reporting procedure.
(a) General rule.--Reports from persons required to report under section 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse) shall be made immediately by telephone and in writing within 48 hours after the oral report.
(b) Oral reports.--Oral reports shall be made to the department pursuant to Subchapter C (relating to powers and duties of department) and may be made to the appropriate [child protective service] county agency. When oral reports of suspected child abuse are initially received at the [child protective service] county agency, the [child protective service] protective services staff shall, after seeing to the immediate safety of the child and other children in the home, immediately notify the department of the receipt of the report, which is to be held in the pending complaint file as provided in Subchapter C. The initial child abuse report summary shall be supplemented with a written report when a determination is made as to whether a report of suspected child abuse is a founded report, an unfounded report or an indicated report.
Gary's legal representation really screwed up.
There was a sale at Walmart? F***.
Well, Tim didn't report it, that's for sure.
But the bottom line is that the Commonwealth couldn't have proven a report wasn't made and Gary's attorney should have made them attempt do so.
The evidence of a failure to report, up to this point, was Sassano checking with Lauro to see if he heard anything in 2002 and a question asked to Carole Smith at CYS is she had heard of a 2002 report. Pretty weak.
BTW, from what Gary testified to at the Spanier trial, it seemed like the plea deal had an amazing effect on his ability to recall information.
Tim's plea deal was better than Gary's. His recollection of details was terrible -- and the prosecutor accused him of lying 90% of the time.
Last edited:
I'll just say that quite a few attorneys involved in this mess and related messes are avid readers of the blog --- and let me know that.
My former web-site Sandusky Reports was referenced on page 4 of the Moulton Report.
If you read some of the legal filings in the Spanier cases, you'll see my work in there. It's publicly available and not copyrighted. Anyone can use it.
The "Erickson Notes"........what ever happened to them? If you are at liberty to say.
It's no mystery that I've become friends of sorts with Dr. Spanier.
The Chronicle of Higher Education had a story on it.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-behind-ex.html
As the story says, he and I have breakfast now and again when I'm in State College.
"Law enforcement" (I'm leaving it vague) has a copy of them. Of course, I have my copies too.
And I did share them with a few in the media who have gained my trust.
If so, it will be on Federal charges for embezzlement and tax evasion -- related RICO statutes.
There are no statutes of limitations on those crimes.
Whatever happened to US Attorney Zubrod? Did he retire without finishing his investigation?
He retired and apparently left the investigation with the attorney assisting him on the case.
Why do I fear that this is the last known photograph of his assistant:
According to this release, updated November 10, 2016, the assistant is still there.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/divisions
Talking to the mirror again? I second Wendy's response to you, because the facts are out, you nimrods don't like it, and we are all tired of the likes of you.
WEN I think your spell check messed up what you were trying to say...
My question to her was very narrow: If the jury pool was impossibly poisoned, how was Spanier found not guilty on 2 counts?
"Impossibly poisoned" and 2 not guilty verdicts are contradictory don't you think?
I understand your point. But maybe it is as simple as they didn't report it.Well, Tim didn't report it, that's for sure.
But the bottom line is that the Commonwealth couldn't have proven a report wasn't made and Gary's attorney should have made them attempt do so.
The evidence of a failure to report, up to this point, was Sassano checking with Lauro to see if he heard anything in 2002 and a question asked to Carole Smith at CYS is she had heard of a 2002 report. Pretty weak.
BTW, from what Gary testified to at the Spanier trial, it seemed like the plea deal had an amazing effect on his ability to recall information.
Tim's plea deal was better than Gary's. His recollection of details was terrible -- and the prosecutor accused him of lying 90% of the time.
It takes real guts to pretend to have notes when you can't establish chain of custody or authentication.
Please, keep it vague, wouldn't want anyone to know that "law enforcement" in your tin foil mind is a night security guard at a Walmart. (kidding)
Actually, what Ray means is that the FBI has an implant in his brain and so obviously they have seen everything he's seen. As he's pointed out numerous times, it takes the Feds as much as 10 years to complete an investigation, so we are only a few years away from finding out the truth. HAHAHAHAHA
Why didn't Spanier's team use any of your info on the doctored emails to help bolster their case?
Sorry, that was probably unnecessary snark. But I guess we can put to bed any validity to that theory.
I think both you and Ziegler do great work. I think it would be best if you guys stuck to uncovering FACTS and supportable conclusions. The facts alone are bad enough in this case to show how screwed up this whole fiasco was. The unsupportable conspiracy theory aspects of your work takes away from the credibility of all the great stuff you do. Just my opinion.
Some, I think, because they actually care about justice. I know a couple. That said, I'm not sure that could characterize some of the yahoos at the AG's office.
Kevin,
Thanks for the compliments and the criticism. Both are welcome.
There's a lot of things Spanier's legal defense team should/could have done to win this case.
As for unsupportable conspiracy theories -- it ain't over til the fat lady sings -- and she's already sung some of the initial verses.
Cheers!
Ray
Well, Tim didn't report it, that's for sure.
But the bottom line is that the Commonwealth couldn't have proven a report wasn't made and Gary's attorney should have made them attempt do so.
The evidence of a failure to report, up to this point, was Sassano checking with Lauro to see if he heard anything in 2002 and a question asked to Carole Smith at CYS is she had heard of a 2002 report. Pretty weak.
BTW, from what Gary testified to at the Spanier trial, it seemed like the plea deal had an amazing effect on his ability to recall information.
Tim's plea deal was better than Gary's. His recollection of details was terrible -- and the prosecutor accused him of lying 90% of the time.
I've said this over a dozen times. It was up to the prosecution to prove that a report(s) weren't filed, not the defense to prove that it/they were. Why his attorneys stuck their fingers up their asses on this one is incomprehensible. If anything was "blown" during the trial, this was a major gaff. Are they really that stupid?
THAT is an important - and troubling - question
Regardless of the prioritization of the numerous "gaffs"
(though I wouldn't use the word "gaff" for a considered and willful dereliction on the part of the GSpan "team")
I don't believe a word Courtney said. If I'm fielding a call like that, then I write an advice memo to the client so there is no doubt. I find it extremely odd and frankly incompetent on Courtney's part to not have have more documentation of his "advice." The fact that there wasn't more documentation from Courtney supports the "not sexual" version.
Wendy: there was a case in Huntingdon County in which a woman posed as a lawyer for about 10 years until she was tripped up by some other, real lawyers. The discovery was accidental, but these lawyers took the time to do some investigating and were able to provide the AG's office a starting point for its investigation.
She could have been charged and tried on countless issues, but the AG's office chose to only pursue those which required the minimum work. In essence, the AG's office took the work done by the lawyers who discovered the crime and regurgitated it.
She was found guilty, and it was a felony, but the conviction was on a fraction of what she could have been charged with.
Local lawyers were angry how the AG handled this.
The judge--after conviction--let the AG know that they were lazy and did not represent the people as the State should have.
Seems a number of things were not documented (or retained).
No, but I don't view that as indicative of any intentional mischief on anyone's part. I don't believe any of them thought Jerry was abusing children. Thus, they took a more laissez-faire approach. Unfortunately, they were wrong. That said, if anyone had more responsibility it was Raykovitz. The transcript of his recent testimony is just incredible...incredible.
Evidence suggests that Baldwin may have had a role in the lack of documentation and questionable evidence in this case.
Interesting that Schultz had notes of discussions involving Curley and Spanier, but no notes or emails regarding discussions with Harmon and Courtney. Also, no notes from the meeting with Mike.
Bottom line is that anything that could have been exculpatory is missing from the record.
Good point. The thing a lot of folks tend to forget is that Schultz was retired and came out of retirement just in time for the crap to hit the fan. In the meantime, when Schultz's replacement (Horvath??) was there for a year or two in 2008/2009 (I don't recall off the top of my head the specific years) Baldwin could have easily went into the "secret" folder and removed items without Schultz even knowing about it (because he was no longer in the office and left his "secret" folder in the office). This is all speculation but Baldwin had the motive, means, and opportunity to "scrub" Schultz's file before handing it over to the OAG and freeh.
Even if Schultz thought some documents were missing there'd be nothing he could do about it unless he made copies of the files before retiring, which I doubt he did since he left the originals in the office when he retired and didn't know he would need them later down the road to save his hide.
