I do not understand why you are not sticking to topic, Second Amended Complaint, filed 01/12/2017 , posted 01/16/2017 , 3:56:17 p.m. Eastern Time here: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...er vs Penn State Second Amended Complaint.pdf
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I do not understand why you are not sticking to topic, Second Amended Complaint, filed 01/12/2017 , posted 01/16/2017 , 3:56:17 p.m. Eastern Time here:http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...er vs Penn State Second Amended Complaint.pdf
I am saying it's irrelevant to the decisions made in 2001. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Then what is your explanation for why they remain under indictment?
again his sworn testimony is it was reported, it was in his notes. Emails? What emails were admitted as evidence in a court of law. Curley? Spanier? What do they have to do with what GS did? Prove him wrong, no one has.
I'm saying the topic of this thread is: 3rd parties named in 2nd amended complaint in Spanier v PSU, members of the PSU Board of Trustees in 11/2011.
So I'll ask again because there's a lot going on. Why do you choose to post on the McAndrew Board?
I don't know, but that doesn't change what happened in 2001. That doesn't change their own damning testimony.
Heaven forbid CSS file motions to dismiss charges when their rights are getting flagrantly violated by the state! Seems they were right to do that since most of the charges have been quashed due to violation of their rights during the state's kangaroo court GJ process involving bastions of integrity baldwin (repping CSS), fina and his bff feudale. What a joke.
The main reason for delay was the judge taking YEARS to rule on these pretty straightforward motions re: SOL and ex post facto
The longer term "sycophants" are perhaps a gauge of of the angst that Spanier is feeling. He added one paragraph and some of the posters have come up with embellishments that even Spanier is not using.
Ah, according to Dranov's testimony in the Sandusky trial, it was because McQueary was upset he couldn't state what he saw.
The part that claim as being "ex post facto" was decided already. Further, the bulk of the charges (but not the perjury) were upheld on appeal. The is is asking to add conspiracy charges.
I do not understand why you are not sticking to topic, Second Amended Complaint, filed 01/12/2017 , posted 01/16/2017 , 3:56:17 p.m. Eastern Time here:http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...er vs Penn State Second Amended Complaint.pdf
And the 3rd parties named in said document, members of the PSU Board of Trustees.
I personally am annoyed that the men responsible for this whole thing get a huge pass here while others who were left to deal with the fallout get crucified. And that doesn't mean that those people made good choices (they didn't... nearly everything done up to and through the Freeh report presentation was deplorable... none of those BOT members should be celebrated). It's disturbing that people get attacked on here because they don't follow the conspiracy theories. What's even worse is that people from the outside look on this board and are appalled by some of the stuff that is posted here. The Sandusky supporters who think he is innocent are the absolute worst.
I do not understand why you are not sticking to topic, Second Amended Complaint, filed 01/12/2017 , posted 01/16/2017 , 3:56:17 p.m. Eastern Time here:http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...er vs Penn State Second Amended Complaint.pdf
And the 3rd parties named in said document, members of the PSU Board of Trustees.
Let's hear your conspiracy theory about how C/S/S, in an act that defies all logic, decided to water down the report to TSM. What was the motivation to do such an irrational and stupid thing?
Well because I am responding to other posters, and I think they are on topic.
The question relates to naming Lubert. Was he named because of something he'd done or because he was elected chairman? If the former, why is Spanier adding him now? What "new stuff" did he discover?
Spanier targeting Lubert
Discussion in 'BWI / McAndrew Board' started by ChiTownLion, Tuesday at 12:43 PM.
Second Amended Complaint, filed 01/12/2017 , posted 01/16/2017 , 3:56:17 p.m. Eastern Time here: http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/Graham Spanier vs Penn State Second Amended Complaint.pdf
And the 3rd parties named in said document, members of the PSU Board of Trustees.
Don't you know? Bringing a watered down report to folks who you have zero control over and are required to look into any and all incidents is the best way to cover something up!
Its an interesting idea. My hunch/best guess is if the police dept. had received an anonymous call in 2001 that JS was molesting a kid it probably would have gone no where. Maybe they would have logged it into a book somwhere but I doubt even that would happen. That is, of course, assuming that by 2001 the State College Police dept's phone line wasn't still being routed to Joe and Sue Paterno's kitchen.
Maybe when you tell them that the event was just "horseplay" instead of a possible sexual assault....
You are the one giving the men responsible for this a huge pass. If MM saw something worthy of calling the authorities over, the only people in a position to do so where MM, his dad and Dranov the night of the incident. Once they went the administrative route, the only person in that chain capable of interpreting Sandusky's behaviors and notifying the authorities is JR at TSM. You give all those people a free pass and focus on the only people who did exactly what they were supposed to do... simply because it makes PSU look bad.
Well:
IIRC, and I don't have a transcript here in front of me, but I believe the question was posed to TC wrt "other incidents of abuse".....or something along those lines (though I am certainly NOT interested in parsing every word)
Given that someone with even rather detailed familiarity of "1998" - - - - - which really shouldn't be the case, given the "supposed" procedures in place when investigating such allegations.......but I think we all agree that in the "real world" those procedures are not always as "letter of the law" as they are written.....so for the sake of argument lets assume that TC WAS aware - with a fair amount of depth and breadth - of the 1998 incident - - - - He would reasonably be expected know it as something along the lines of:
__________
- 2nd Mile kid's Mother upset to find that JS was taking post-workout showers w Kid
- Cops/Welfare Agencies (of some sort) notified and investigate
- Upon investigation, no reasons found to pursue.....non-issue/no charges/no repercussions"
__________
That doesn't necessarily read like an "abuse" incident....does it?
Now, maybe one could "debate" over it for hours (or years?
).....But in any case, given that the parameters for "Perjury" - - - - - Oath, Intent, Falsity, and Materiality - - - - are what they are, to use THAT (the questions/answers wrt "1998") as the sole (or primary) source of a Perjury claim - is just silly, IMO.
From time to time I "hear" of mountains of evidence piled up vav TCur, GSch, and GSpan.....(and - from time to time - JVP).
But....I never see it.
If it exists, I would certainly like to see it........truly.
I won't say "Id be more interested than ANYONE involved, in having that evidence come forward" - because there may be folks who would be EVEN MORE interested than I.......but, rest assured, I'd be in that "upper centile" of folks who would like to see it ALL spilled out on the deck (like the guts of that Louisiana shark in Jaws).
Given the long track record of the Prosecutors who have been involved in this case - - - in every "high-profile" case they have ever F-ed up....which would be ALL of them - - - the absence, to date, of that mountain of evidence is - to say the least - disconcerting.
For the 1000th time, what is the motivation for them to water it down? Please back up your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Its an interesting idea. My hunch/best guess is if the police dept. had received an anonymous call in 2001 that JS was molesting a kid it probably would have gone no where. Maybe they would have logged it into a book somwhere but I doubt even that would happen. That is, of course, assuming that by 2001 the State College Police dept's phone line wasn't still being routed to Joe and Sue Paterno's kitchen.
If there had been a note in GS's notes logging that he called childline or police, likely there wouldn't have been charges against CSS, and most of the "scandal" would have been focused other places rather than on PSU.
Now, I expect the tin hat patrol to say he WAS the head of police. But that's intellectually dishonest. If Mike had come across a dead bloody kids body that night, we'd all expect him to call someone other than his Dad, a Doctor, his coach, and Shultz.
At the time when this went down, Penn State and Spanier in particular were in the news every day due to SexFaire scandal, where among other things, an admitted pedophile was invited to & did speak on campus. Spanier himself was grilled in Harrisburg for 4 hours by State Congress. More than sufficient temptation to want to "water the report down." It would be human nature to do so.
The men responsible for this are the ones who made the conscious decision to take a problem emanating from 1402 S Atherton and hold Old Main accountable for it. And that is a fact.
I agree, but there are two sets of "responsibility" here. The first group is responsible for what the did/didn't do in 2001.
The men you mention only came into this story 10 years later, when this resurfaced. They too handled it poorly. But there might not have been anything to handle had it been dealt with differently in the first place, in 2001.
Sorry, but in regards to 2001, PSU got sucked into it and our representatives failed us.
Who do you feel are the "men responsible for this whole thing who are getting a huge pass"?????? That will go a long way to maybe helping you understand what really happened here, and eliminate some of your feelings of a "conspiracy".
Yup. Working the case from 2017 - 2001, this is a brilliant observation.
It would be human nature to either report what you heard, or not report it at all. Given all that was going on, logic would dictate that they would want to give a full report to avoid future scandal.
Please stop trying to rationalize a watered down report.
Soooo, Joe Paterno has suffered no ill effects of this situation(huge pass)? Curley/Schultz and Spanier have suffered no ill effects of this situation(huge pass)? I will agree that MM's father and Dranov have received a Huge Pass. Heck, even MM has been awarded millions of dollars for not doing more... Let me ask another question. Do you believe that any members of the OGBOT who knew of the allegations, and didn't act, have received a huge pass?
Well:
IIRC, and I don't have a transcript here in front of me, but I believe the question was posed to TC wrt "other incidents of abuse".....or something along those lines (though I am certainly NOT interested in parsing every word)
Given that someone with even rather detailed familiarity of "1998" - - - - - which really shouldn't be the case, given the "supposed" procedures in place when investigating such allegations.......but I think we all agree that in the "real world" those procedures are not always as "letter of the law" as they are written.....so for the sake of argument lets assume that TC WAS aware - with a fair amount of depth and breadth - of the 1998 incident - - - - He would reasonably be expected know it as something along the lines of:
__________
- 2nd Mile kid's Mother upset to find that JS was taking post-workout showers w Kid
- Cops/Welfare Agencies (of some sort) notified and investigate
- Upon investigation, no reasons found to pursue.....non-issue/no charges/no repercussions"
__________
That doesn't necessarily read like an "abuse" incident....does it?
Now, maybe one could "debate" over it for hours (or years?
But in any case, given that the parameters for "Perjury" - - - - - Oath, Intent, Falsity, and Materiality - - - - are what they are, to use THAT (the questions/answers wrt "1998") as the sole (or primary) source of a Perjury claim - is just silly, IMO.
From time to time I "hear" of mountains of evidence piled up vav TCur, GSch, and GSpan.....(and - from time to time - JVP).
But....I never see it.
If it exists, I would certainly like to see it........truly.
I won't say "Id be more interested than ANYONE involved, in having that evidence come forward" - because there may be folks who would be EVEN MORE interested than I.......but, rest assured, I'd be in that "upper centile" of folks who would like to see it ALL spilled out on the deck (like the guts of that Louisiana shark in Jaws).
Given the long track record of the Prosecutors who have been involved in this case - - - in every "high-profile" case they have ever F-ed up....which would be ALL of them - - - the absence, to date, of that mountain of evidence is - to say the least - disconcerting.
actually the specific question was "do you know of any other incidents" but I know you added the abuse part to fit your square peg into the round hole.
I was actually going to nominate you for the BOT because I wanted to be one of the only 4 people who do, but I am just a towny..... so turns out I can't help you out.
I have no angst whatsoever. I have it on pretty good authority that CSS don't, either.
You've basically got it right......I'm sure Jimmy W could cite chapter and verse of the entire chronology
From a practical standpoint, GJ proceedings in PA (and the GJs in this fiasco, for sure) "work" like this......which is why nearly every state in the Union no longer use them (I forget the exact breakdown by state - but you could look it up):
1 - Prosecutors have a case that they "can't make"......don't have the evidence to bring charges wrt whatever alleged crime they are investigating.
2 - The Prosecutors compel a list of folks that they feel are relevant......and bring them into a room......and ask them the questions they want to ask them (there is no opportunity for the relevant "defendants" - based on the alleged crimes being investigated - to present or compel any evidence ......or, even to know they are being investigated)
3 - The Prosecutors perform these acts in front of a group of spectators (AKA the Grand Jury)
4 - After presenting the arguments they want to present, the Prosecutors draw up a document (a "Presentment") which outlines what they believe the testimony provided
"This all sound good to you guys?"
5 - The spectators - who may or may not have even heard the testimonies - may or may not read the "Presentment"......but in either case, they respond with:
"Sure, whatever. Can we go home now - - - - or is it time for lunch?"
6 - The Prosecutors now go forward with their case - knowing it has been "blessed" by the sacred rites of the PA Grand Jury.
That is the "Justice" system in PA under the Grand Jury process.
Next question?
________________
https://www.nacdl.org/criminaldefense.aspx?id=10372&libID=10345
"....William J. Campbell, former federal district judge in Chicago: “Today, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”
What this means is that the grand jury is a secret ex parte proceeding where the evidence is presented by the prosecutor and the grand jury votes whether to indict without ever hearing from the court or defense counsel.
Under these circumstances the grand jurors tend to bond with the prosecutor and indict when the prosecutor indicates there should be an indictment.
The grand jury today functions primarily as a tool of the prosecutor. Employing the power of compulsory process in a secret proceeding, the prosecutor investigates and determines, with virtually no check, who will be indicted and for what...."
The grand jury that voted on the presentment did not hear McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz testify. That grand jury only heard what prosecutors chose to read into the record.
At Linda Kelly's press conference, she was asked how the grand jury assessed the credibility of McQueary as compared to Curley and Schultz. She stumbles a bit a before saying, “I’m sure as grand juries do that they assess credibility based on what the person says in the grand jury.”
You can read more details here: https://jmmyw.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/the-grand-jury-presentment/
It has all relevant links, including where the ham sandwich analogy originated.
Fine....as I said....I didn't have a transcript in front of me:
"Do you know of any other incidents" is just fine - - - - as I said, I am not interested in parsing words (as has been done for the last five years - which you should be aware of as well as anyone), and I will accept that you have the exact verbiage correct.
I fail to see how that affects any aspect of what I posted
There were 2 critical pieces of evidence they did not have:
1. a clear witness report, and
2. the certainty we have in 2017 of Sandusky's guilt.
And no amount of mental gymnastics will make them retroactively have those 2 items in 2001.
