The only thing I would add is that Mom later tracked down Jerry to get her son a ticket to see him coach his last home game.
Spanier Avoids Jailtime?
- Thread starter didier
- Start date
The only thing I would add is that Mom later tracked down Jerry to get her son a ticket to see him coach his last home game.
That sure sounds like a pedophile.
You have to ask yourself these questions: How many men have you known over the course of your life that have showered alone with a non-related child? If you answer is not zero, how many of those men have held the child while alone with them in the shower? If the answer to that is not zero, how many of those men were in charge of agencies working specifically with at-risk youths where surely there was training on appropriate and inappropriate activities to engage in with the clients?
Look...its about time that you are exposed! I don't know whether you are involved in this crime, getting PAID to monitor all of this or are just sick yourself - it makes no difference.
My point has been - if the State of PA is willing to break every law possible by bringing PSU into a media-driven "production" in 2011 concerning Sandusky by a "Story" constructed with "professional (meaning BOUGHT) witnesses to a crime that is largely (if not completely) fabricated - then what can you say with certainty about the validity of ANYTHING involving the PA legal processes that have occurred over the past 7+ years?
When those in government have the power to advance a "Whim" of a former OAG and then Governor - Corbett - with the help of HIS known "Cronies" (Noonan, Fina, Eisenbock, Baldwin, OGBOT members, Freeh) then what is being debated about Sandusky's Guilt is valueless.
What we do know is that THERE WAS NO REPORT of Sandisky actions IN 2001 that caused ANYONE - including MM's dad and Dranov, MM's girlfriend or ANY PSU officers - the alarm that would be normal for CSA! Without the MM rape "testimony" - there is no case against PSU and, without money - LOTS of money - likely no LEGALLY successful case against Sandusky..
This is a FACT - debate facts - not speculation and more CSA personal opinions. By advancing your valueless BS, all you are doing is TRYING to maintain the "Story" started in 2011 by the OAG.
This REAL LEGAL MATTER should only be how and why PA's corrupted court system worked so hard to maintain a legal fiction of a "Story". Because the REAL crime which occurred in 2001 at Penn State was NOT the media driven "Story" you continue to try to support, but why has Corbett's OAG crime syndicate gotten away with such an obvious and coordinated abuse of power.
Again, they are two separate stories. The OAG did not make up a story about Sandusky in a shower alone with a boy in ‘98. The OAG did not make up a story about Sandusky alone in a shower with a boy in ‘01. Did they take advantage of these facts to stick it to Penn State because of some childish vendetta? Certainly seems like that may have been the case. Did Sandusky give them a platform from which to attack? Absolutely.
Even the most ardent of Sandusky supporters must acknowledge that virtually everyone would have been convinced after 98 to never be in that situation again.
I'm willing to even give JS a pass with AM, who was about 14 and even lived for a period of time with the family.
However, when barred from PSU....why continue to go up the street to some hotel fitness area etc. At that point, JS had to have some recognition that his behavior was causing consternation with other adults.
I don't believe the majority of "victims" nor do I believe some of the stories of "forced anal rape" in his family room.
But by not following common sense, Jerry is responsible for giving his accusers the sword with which to slay him with.
The PSU 3 were framed....case closed.
Sandusky deserves a new trial.....because everyone should have a fair trial.
I think it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in this case. When someone lies.....to solicit a larger settlement, or to obtain a conviction....for whatever reason, do we then accept anything they say as truthful?
I'm willing to even give JS a pass with AM, who was about 14 and even lived for a period of time with the family.
However, when barred from PSU....why continue to go up the street to some hotel fitness area etc. At that point, JS had to have some recognition that his behavior was causing consternation with other adults.
I don't believe the majority of "victims" nor do I believe some of the stories of "forced anal rape" in his family room.
But by not following common sense, Jerry is responsible for giving his accusers the sword with which to slay him with.
The PSU 3 were framed....case closed.
Sandusky deserves a new trial.....because everyone should have a fair trial.
I think it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in this case. When someone lies.....to solicit a larger settlement, or to obtain a conviction....for whatever reason, do we then accept anything they say as truthful?
You are right that the INCIDENT in 2001 with Sandusky with "a boy in the shower" does open up the ability of the OAG and Corbett to construct a "story" of Sandusky criminal POSSIBILITY. The problem is the law does not use POSSIBILITY ALONE as a ruler for criminal actions. More importantly, the State of PA OAG (under the direction of a vendetta mined Governor Corbet) used a POSSIBILTY to "convict" Sandusky AND C/S/S. This does not concern you???? Do you see the real problem???
The real problem is that the State of PA has a hidden underbelly of criminals that CONTROL the laws, the courts, every trial and justice in general within the state of PA. THERE IS NO JUSTICE for the entire PA population under this situation - not just 8 paid "victims" (and others outside the SOL that got paid millions by the OGBOT accomplices) - but the entire state of PA is a victim - victims created under KNOWN and previously exposed abilities to abuse governmental power.
Willingly, or unknowingly, you are supporting a "Story" only - not FACTS, legal or otherwise.
What does make sense is the confirmation of this allegation of misdeeds when you look at OTHER expose crimes within PA - Kids-for-Cash (the pre-cursor to the PSU Heist) the Hershey Scool Sex Scandal - all under the watch of the SAME POLITICAL Gang of Thieves.
The Penn State Sex scandal was a construction by the OAG to advance a personal agenda of a number of political operatives. That collusion is the real crime and by continuing to support the "Story" you are giving these crooks the cover they need to evade the law!
This isn't that complicated. What was reported to C/S was serious enough to revoke Jerry's guest privileges to the PSU facilities, but not serious enough to dissuade Bruce Heim from offering up The Hilton Garden Inn as an alternative workout facility for Jerry to use with TSM kids. What was the real concern here? That a boy had been abused obviously wasn't it. Why would JR think simply having Jerry shower with swim trunks on was a viable compromise? If anyone, who among the players mentioned was actively enabling Sandusky's activities?
This, whatever this is, was entirely a Second Mile matter. However, a coordinated effort has been made to turn this into a Penn State scandal. It's been successful, largely because Penn State has actively sought blame, and that, to me, is the story that must be told.
Of course it concerns me, as I have said throughout the entirety of this ordeal. A grown man showering alone and having physical contact with boys also concerns me. I can be concerned about more than one thing at a time. My being concerned about both does not diminish my concern about either.
I would assume that you are also not only concerned with the OAG but also with a grown man showering alone with unrelated boys.
OK. How does that differ with what I said? Honestly, I’m not sure how it’s being seen that I am supporting the OAG. I don’t. But I also don’t support the “Jerry is innocent” crowd either. Separate issues.
Pendergrast?
According to reporter Sara Ganim, all jury members were “listening intently, wide-eyed.” One juror shook her head in sympathetic disgust as the prosecutor described the abuse that each child had allegedly endured.The rest of McGettigan’s opening statement summarized the various witnesses he planned to call, including Mike McQueary, who would, he said, describe “how he saw that defendant in a shower pressed up against the wall, with a small boy beneath him…his front to this little boy’s back moving back and forth.”[ii]After McGettigan’s opening statement, Amendola told the judge that his team had some objections to place in the record. “We didn’t want to interrupt Mr. McGettigan,” he explained. “We had an agreement.” Amendola apparently wanted to be friendly, to be liked, so he agreed not to voice objections during opening or closing statements. Karl Rominger demurred, but because Amendola was in charge and was personal friends with Sandusky, he remained silent. “On many occasions, I disagreed with Mr. Amendola,” he recalled. “However, I did not voice my disagreement because I did not want to undermine Mr. Amendola, who had the relationship with Mr. Sandusky.” Because Amendola had taken few major cases to trial, Rominger said “I felt I would be able to assist with trial objections and evidentiary issues more ably than Mr. Amendola.”[iii]Thus, Rominger belatedly objected to McGettigans photo array of the alleged victims, which were “stylized and cut for maximum emotional impact.” He asked for a mistrial or a limiting instruction to jurors not to consider the images as evidence. Cleland curtly denied his motions. Rominger objected that “the prosecution wrongly kept referring to the complaining witnesses as victims.” Cleland regarded the term as acceptable as a “matter of convenience” and would let the jury know that “we’re using the terms victims as a shorthand, [it] obviously means alleged.” Rominger objected to McGettigan’s use of the words humiliation, shame, and fear. “What they’re doing is essentially explaining why the witnesses said nothing.” This amounted to argument, not a presentation of facts.Similarly, McGettigan should not have argued that there was a huge amount of evidence for guilt. “There is no overwhelming evidence of anything at this point.” Cleland denied these as well as all the rest of his objections.[iv]Then it was defense attorney Joe Amendola’s turn. Early in 2009, upon learning of the Aaron Fisher allegations, Sandusky had first hired Amendola, a local State College practitioner.A former prosecutor, Amendola had switched to defense, taking on drinking-under-the-influence and rape cases. He had a reputation for negotiating favorable plea bargains but had taken relatively few cases to trial. He and McGettigan were the same age, but they were stark contrasts in many ways. McGettigan was abrasive and only recently engaged to be married for the first time. Amendola had a friendly, smiling demeanor that had seen him through several failed marriages, the most recent the result of an affair in which he impregnated his 16-year-old intern in 1997 when he was 48.Many observers, including Amendola himself, were surprised that Sandusky stuck with the home-town lawyer. Before Sandusky’s arrest, Amendola said, “I’m sure some big-name attorney is going to volunteer to represent him.”[v] But Sandusky, who was known for his sometimes naïve loyalty to friends and colleagues, stuck with Amendola, and besides, no big-name attorneys wanted to take on the toxic case.After McGettigan’s masterful performance, Amendola’s opening statement was embarrassingly lame. “This is a daunting task,” he began. “I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure how to approach it. The Commonwealth has overwhelming evidence against Mr. Sandusky.” It’s difficult to imagine a worse defensive posture than talking about the “overwhelming evidence” against his client, particularly when his colleague, Karl Rominger, had just objected to McGettigan’s use of that phrase.Rominger winced, since Amendola had just “cast Mr. Sandusky as guilty in the minds of the jurors,” he thought.“I never had a case like this in my life,” Amendola continued, “and I can assure you I never will again.” But, he said, he had to make an opening statement, even though it seemed hopeless. “We can pack it in now and say, ‘Gee whiz, we don’t have a chance.’”He compared his task as “similar to climbing Mount Everest from the bottom of the hill.” He said that he was David to the government’s Goliath, and he complained about the “boxes and boxes of materials to go through.”Finally, Amendola said that he needed to “figure out how we can present Mr. Sandusky’s case to you so that you will understand that he’s innocent.” If he expected to convince the jury of his client’s innocence, he certainly had a strange way of approaching it. He asserted, without much conviction, that “There are no victims in this case…because victims only come about after you twelve determine they’re victims.”
This is why I believe that JS had a problem. Any normal person would have been scared sh!tless after what happened in 1998. Also, I'm stunned that TSM allowed anybody affiliated with the program to have 1 on 1 contact with troubled youth. Yet their leadership walked away with their reputation intact.
I agree that half the "victims" fabricated stories in order to cash in. This is why I'm skeptical whenever I hear decades old claims of abuse. It's a sad world we live in.
The PSU 3 were framed by our own BOT who were more concerened about covering their rear ends than they were about defending the honor of our university. As far as I'm concerned they framed all of us alumni as well.
Heim was in dreamland. Clueless.
Heim also claimed that Penn State's AD TIm Curley told his charity that nothing inappropriate happened.
Of course, if that were true, then why did Curley bother to meet with the charity to inform them that Sandusky was banned from using the facilities with Second Mile kids?
Heim's story doesn't hold (shower) water.
Furthermore, Heim contends that the charity didn't do anything wrong and that they didn't think Jerry was a pedophile. As I wrote here, the charity did plenty wrong. Some of their actions should have resulted in criminal charges.
But the remaining question is: what did they know (about Sandusky) and when did they know it?
Remember that was the task of Lynne Abraham to find out -- until someone decided that finding out wasn't necessary because the charity was closing its doors.
Well, guess what?
Contrary to popular rumor, The Second Mile (TSM) didn't close its doors in 2012, 2013, or 2014. As of August 31, 2013 the charity still had $4.1 million in assets. That filing was provided to the IRS on January 12, 2015.
If you want to separate facts from Heim's and everyone else's fiction in this scandal, follow the money.
Financial Disclosures = No Knowledge of the 1998 Incident
According to the Commonwealth's Public Welfare Code (PWC) and Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), Centre County CYS was required to notify TSM of Sandusky's 1998 investigation and ensure that a protection plan was put in place. The 1998 police report confirms no such plan was put in place because Sandusky continued to access - stalk - children while under investigation.
The "county agency" was also required (by the PWC) to notify TSM at the conclusion of the investigation. In a Patriot News interview, former TSM fund raiser, Bonnie Marshall, stated that former TSM Executive Director, told her the charity was only aware of the 2001 incident prior to learning about Aaron Fisher's allegation in 2009.
The financial records (disclosures) appear to confirm TSM was unaware of Sandusky's close call in 1998, but the records show the 2001 incident was very much a serious concern for the charity.
That's because, in this long, twisted saga, MM has NEVER been questioned/cross-examined under oath and in front of a jury by a competent lawyer actually seeking to get him to disclose what he saw AND what he told others he saw.
Showering alone with TSM kids was inappropriate and C/S said as much. It was also a lawsuit waiting to happen. Again, I refer to Schultz's notes: "Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch." One angry mom filing a civil suit was all it would take to make PSU "vulnerable".
A youngster running on wet tile floors might sound like slapping sounds.
Bottom line is if the kid was not in distress he wasn't being raped.
I'm not saying it does. I've always maintained PSU's culpability and Jerry's guilt or innocence are two
separate issues.
In my view, the PSU administrators didn't do anything wrong. Once Jack Raykovitz was informed, PSU should have been out of the discussion. What the OGBOT did to Joe Paterno is one of the most cowardly and evil things I've ever witnessed.
What I don't understand is why any of this would have happened if Jerry is innocent? Yet, as I've looked at this case over the years, I do not believe any of these kids were sexually assaulted in the PSU facilities. And I do think there were egregious actions by the OAG in the manner in which they prosecuted Jerry's case. Whether he's guilty or not, the man did not receive a fair trial.
But look at the cases. Not one in which the other side cared or wanted to get at what he saw/said.
Think about what we were told in the beginning about what happened that night and PSU's response. Think about the press conference held to announce Curley and Schultz's indictments at the very same time as Jerry's. Huge, equally prominent photographs of Curley, Schultz and Sandusky sat on easels on that stage. Think about Noonan's remarks about Paterno, a witness for the prosecution. The most unprofessional thing I've ever seen! Corbett should have fired him on the spot. It's certainly clear now why he did not.
I'll agree that it's arguable that C/S/S/P did not know what they were dealing with. And for a long time, I thought grooming was taking place at the very least. However, when factoring in everything we've learned since then, including an emphatic statement made by Alan Meyers and given to the Sandusky defense in which he states he was not abused that night or ever, plus emails that prove the OAG embellished MM's testimony, I also think it's arguable they acted exactly how they should have acted under the circumstances.
Penn State and Joe Paterno were destroyed with intent. This was the case manufactured for that purpose.
To me the real question has not and probably never will be answered- who was it that was so important that their involvement with the Second Mile required such a massive diversion so that their role was never known?
Sure Corbutt hated Spanier and Joe for not supporting him politically, but that doesn't explain the lengths they went to to focus all attention in PSU's direction at the cost of millions to the University.
They were protecting somebody. I know enough to make some semi-educated guesses, but that's not really knowing.
Sure Corbutt hated Spanier and Joe for not supporting him politically, but that doesn't explain the lengths they went to to focus all attention in PSU's direction at the cost of millions to the University.
They were protecting somebody. I know enough to make some semi-educated guesses, but that's not really knowing.
My guess is that the board was protecting themselves. We know some of them were on the board of both organizations. Were Second Mile board members personally liable if the organization was sued? We know that PSU board members were not. That is probably your answer right there.
Deeper political connections would not surprise me either. But it's unknowable. As you said, it was total diversion. It was media malpractice that there was no digging into TSM. A shady organization to say the least - and the organization where JS actually worked.
Or was it a good organization being used by shady people? Just asking.
Well look at who founded it and what its target audience was. Yes, that was shady.
But Indy, I think you made the leap a few years from believing the admins were screwed over to believeing they were screwed over and Jerry is innocent.
I’m not going to change your mind, I know. But if Jerry Sandusky was not alone in a shower with a boy on two separate occasions, there would not be a case to manufacture. It defies logic to think that was just innocent naïveté, but that is your prerogative.
Not.
Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."
About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.
Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.
After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.
That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.
In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.
That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.
On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”
"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly reportwhat he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."
But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and,"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."
On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."
Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was "a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.
What do Snedden's comments have to do with fairfaxlion's assertion that the BOT was focused on protecting themselves?
This message brought to you courtesy of Jerot the bot.
I suspect the operation may have pimping kids to a small circle of rich perverts
Agreed. It’s a weird denial with a few and Jerry. Just one big goofy accident from a guy that was running a multi million dollar a year charity. The world was just out to get him.
I don’t believe for a minute that Jerry was running the charity. Not in any way shape or form.
I actually think it is more likely that there were financial irregularities involving some powerful people. Doesn't anyone else think that it is strange that Corbett approved a large state grant to TSM months before the Sandusky indictment? I have no evidence but would not be surprised if there were kickbacks to politicians, money laundering or both. Why did those shredder trucks pull up to TSM so fast?
This has to be why BOT crooks did what they did... charitable donations with kick-backs.
Or perhaps that story was floated by someone(s) to distract from something else. There's never been any evidence put forward to support it.
Why did it cost $300,000 to run a program that was 100% volunteer driven? ( the 1-1 program w a kid and mentor can’t remember the name but it was a line idem in their financial disclosure)
No, that was one of George H. W. Bush's '1,000 Points of Light'. It was an organization that attracted people like Arnold Palmer and Franco Harris to serve on its board. And its founder was beloved and supported by many to succeed Joe Paterno as HC.
Similar threads
