Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

[MJG-90]

We are all tied up here trying to figure out what people meant, what they saw, what they might have said, etc.. But what it comes down to is based on the lives that all the participants led, who is really the most trustworthy? See poll in other thread to respond. This is truly a case of "one of these things is not like the others".

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/poll-who-would-you-trust-most.246955/

 

[PSU2UNC]

Snedden was ready to be a witness at Spanier's trial, but Spanier's defense decided not to call him because they thought the State had not made their case. In hindsight, Spanier regreted not calling him to the stand.

I think part of their reasoning for not calling Snedden was that Snedden believes that Sandusky is innocent. Had he said that in court (i.e. under cross examination) that would not have played well with the jury.

 

[AvgUser]

Who do you consider credible in this case?

Gazillion dollar question!

Practically nobody in this case is/was credible. Any and all testimony has been shown to contain falsehoods and outright lies.

 

[AvgUser]

Tim Curley plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to protect children. Do you consider that credible?

Curley essentially had no choice. The charge was bogus and did not apply to him in context or in timing (i.e., law did not apply). Same as Spanier

 

[AvgUser]

Curley’s word is that he failed to protect the welfare of children.

Where's Uncle Lar? Curley never said that.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Strawman arguments are unproductive and a waste of time, imo.

I'd prefer to see posters state their case and their reasons why they disagree with another person, rather than try to put words into another's mouth when it is clear that is not what the other person means.

Classic strawman = classic poor approach to a discussion. But then, maybe you are saying you want a low-quality discussion?

If we believe Tim Curley, then he have to believe that he believes he is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

 

[Connorpozlee]

He was an objective investigator who was paid to find out what happened unlike Freeh who was paid to offer an opinion that was consistent with his client's (old guard BOT and former Governor Corbett) wishes.

Snedden was ready to be a witness at Spanier's trial, but Spanier's defense decided not to call him because they thought the State had not made their case. In hindsight, Spanier regreted not calling him to the stand.

He was not a part of the situation as it unfolded, correct? He was an outsider looking in. Credible or not credible he is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

 

[PSU2UNC]

If we believe Tim Curley, then he have to believe that he believes he is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

You are either being intentionally obtuse, or you don't understand how plea deals work.

 

[indynittany]

If we believe Tim Curley, then he have to believe that he believes he is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

False. We have to believe that Curley did not believe he would get a fair shake.

 

[pandaczar12]

Curley’s word is that he failed to protect the welfare of children. Do I think Curley and Schultz were guilty of that? I don’t think so, but I do not know all the nuances of the law. But if we are going to take them at their word in other things then we have to take them at their word that they failed to protect the welfare of children.

Do you have a statement you can link where he said this? Because his plea does not equal "his word". He was backed into a corner.

For example, I was caught in a traffic ticket scam one time. They pull you over and then do you a "favor" by making the offense "failure to follow traffic control device", but they fill out the ticket with the details on you speeding. So the ticket is incorrectly filled out, it's missing information, they did not follow the vehicle code for the minimum time and distance they had to follow me to ascertain I was speeding. I knew I wasn't speeding, I did all the research, had a state trooper write a letter to the judge about how the ticket was BS. The local cop didn't even show up, which I always thought meant my ticket got tossed... not true. The judge commended me on my work, but then told me it was all moot since the citation was not for speeding, it was for failure to follow traffic control device. Which is basically a fantasy citation that can't be disputed, especially since the local cop wasn't present. He told me that he could have the charge re-filed to speeding, which had double the fine, and came with points if I was convicted. This also required another trial date, and another day of vacation. But I knew at that point the fix was in, cut my losses and plead guilty to failure to follow traffic control device. I wasn't speeding, I didn't fail to follow a traffic control device. Pleading guilty was my admission that they had me stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I had no better option. Same for Curley, sometimes you have to just realize that the fix is in.

 

[Connorpozlee]

This speaks to the "credibility" of the system and the process. You question Tim's credibility without acknowledging how corrupt Corbett and the OAG have been from day one.

I don't understand the question.

Are you implying that people accused of crimes never plead guilty to lesser crimes (even though they are innocent) because they do not want to "roll the dice" with a jury and risk more severe penalties?

Or are you implying that by using this very common tactic that they lose credibility?

Please clarify.

I am saying that if we declare Tim Curley to be credible (which I really have no problem with) why do we throw out the credibility of his guilty plea? It seems like cherry picking to me. “He’s credible but he’s not really credible when he plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child”.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Curley essentially had no choice. The charge was bogus and did not apply to him in context or in timing (i.e., law did not apply). Same as Spanier

He had a choice. Spanier went to court.

 

[Bob78]

If we believe Tim Curley, then he have to believe that he believes he is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

Of course we don't have to believe that. He knows he is not guilty. Most everyone knows that, including the OAG and certainly the OGBOT. Some of us believe him because we know him, and have talked with him. I believe he is credible in every aspect of what he maintained for so many years. The final plea he was forced to take certainly does not change that. That is not cherry picking.

Ignoring the whole of the judicial process in this specific case(s) is what is dangerous to a worthwhile conversation. Ignoring the realities, ignoring the empathy we should feel for C/S/S while knowing what we know about the whole saga is dangerous to reality. Knowing what we all know about this, I would argue that pleading guilty to a misdemeanor after 5 years of fighting the various charges was the sane, and therefore far less dangerous path to take. They had little choice by the time the trial came along, as you well know. As I said, if they can find a way to put good people like Tim and Gary in jail, they can figure out something for any of us. And each person needs to decide what is in their own best interests at that point.

Tim and Gary are 100% credible, and have been through each step of the process. The OAG played dirty, not Tim or Gary.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You are either being intentionally obtuse, or you don't understand how plea deals work.

I don’t like when we deny things that are fact. Tim Curley chose not to go to trial. He chose to plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child. Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child, whether we agree with that or not. That was not through a decision of a jury of his peers but by his own doing.

 

[Bob78]

He had a choice. Spanier went to court.

Choices are weighed based on odds of success in cases such as these. Tim knew his odds of success in going through a trial were slim and none. His best option was to do what he did.

You know all this, you're just being argumentative for no apparent reason, and your rationale, such as it is, is never going to change any rational minds or get any thoughtful person to agree with your stated take. You know that, too.

 

[indynittany]

I don’t like when we deny things that are fact. Tim Curley chose not to go to trial. He chose to plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child. Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child, whether we agree with that or not. That was not through a decision of a jury of his peers but by his own doing.

If someone were to put a gun to your head and tell you to lie or die, what would you do?

 

[KnightSlayer]

I don’t like when we deny things that are fact. Tim Curley chose not to go to trial. He chose to plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child. Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child, whether we agree with that or not. That was not through a decision of a jury of his peers but by his own doing.

You remind me of the pigeon strutting around the chessboard acting like you won something.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

It's ironic that you point this out - It's ultimately this whole thread -- and the whole book this thread is about. I highly doubt any of the other commentators in this thread have bothered to read the book. FrancoFan especially like to base his knowledge on oped's and book reviews and not from source material.

But hey - Malcolm Gladwell HIMSELF says that he doesn't fully research the topics he writes about. He says it's much more fun to cherry pick a few provocative sources and run with that.

Your comparison between Freeh and Snedden is valid. They were both paid to lean towards an outcome, were both biased with personal goals and feelings, and each failed to interview key players. Have you seen the transcripts of Snedden's interviews with any of the Sanduskys, any of the Paternos, other Penn State coaching staff members, MMQ, John McQ, Dranov, Raykovitz, or any of the alleged victims? No? That's because he didn't talk to ANY of those people. Calling him credible on this (Sanducky specifically) is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's ironic that you point this out - It's ultimately this whole thread -- and the whole book this thread is about. I highly doubt any of the other commentators in this thread have bothered to read the book. FrancoFan especially like to base his knowledge on oped's and book reviews and not from source material.

But hey - Malcolm Gladwell HIMSELF says that he doesn't fully research the topics he writes about. He says it's much more fun to cherry pick a few provocative sources and run with that.

Your comparison between Freeh and Snedden is valid. They were both paid to lean towards an outcome, were both biased with personal goals and feelings, and each failed to interview key players. Have you seen the transcripts of Snedden's interviews with any of the Sanduskys, any of the Paternos, other Penn State coaching staff members, MMQ, John McQ, Dranov, Raykovitz, or any of the alleged victims? No? That's because he didn't talk to ANY of those people. Calling him credible on this (Sanducky specifically) is absolutely ridiculous.

Wait, how was Snedden paid to lean towards an outcome?

He was not. He was doing a federal government security clearance. There is no "leaning" in those investigations.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I don’t like when we deny things that are fact. Tim Curley chose not to go to trial. He chose to plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child. Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child, whether we agree with that or not. That was not through a decision of a jury of his peers but by his own doing.

OK, let's try this another way.

Re-read Curley's testimony at the court proceedings where he pleads guilty to his one misdemeanor count. Does he sound like he believes he is guilty or does he sound like he is taking a plea deal to avoid jail time because he knows the court case is unwinnable due to biased jurors?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I am saying that if we declare Tim Curley to be credible (which I really have no problem with) why do we throw out the credibility of his guilty plea? It seems like cherry picking to me. “He’s credible but he’s not really credible when he plead guilty to failing to protect the welfare of a child”.

Cool, so you are being purposefully obtuse. I understand your strategy now.

 

[AvgUser]

If we believe Tim Curley, then he have to believe that he believes he is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. Cherry picking when we believe somebody is credible is dangerous.

The same holds for McQ

Mike in email: Ummm, Jonelle, I never said I witnessed Anal Rape.
Mike in Court: Ummm, I am certain I was clear what i communicated to P, C&S.

 

[AvgUser]

He had a choice. Spanier went to court.

The juror survey that was conducted indicated that the majority of persons interviewed felt that someone should pay for the crime even if they weren't guilty.

Spanier's decision from his juty confirmed that survey's credibility.

Curley and Schultz had no choice!

 

[Connorpozlee]

The same holds for McQ

Mike in email: Ummm, Jonelle, I never said I witnessed Anal Rape.
Mike in Court: Ummm, I am certain I was clear what i communicated to P, C&S.

Sure, if you believe Mike McQueary to be credible.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The juror survey that was conducted indicated that the majority of persons interviewed felt that someone should pay for the crime even if they weren't guilty.

Spanier's decision from his juty confirmed that survey's credibility.

Curley and Schultz had no choice!

Paying for the crime as posited in that survey meant and included discipline by the employer, not just the courts.

That's why it said should they be punished even if ther was no crime? You're just being obtuse.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Choices are weighed based on odds of success in cases such as these. Tim knew his odds of success in going through a trial were slim and none. His best option was to do what he did.

You know all this, you're just being argumentative for no apparent reason, and your rationale, such as it is, is never going to change any rational minds or get any thoughtful person to agree with your stated take. You know that, too.

He likely had the same odds as Spanier. Spanier lost at trial, then won on appeal.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Paying for the crime as posited in that survey meant and included discipline by the employer, not just the courts.

That's why it said should they be punished even if ther was no crime? You're just being obtuse.

That's not what the survey said at all. It did not mention the employer.

In the context of a prospective juror survey, the implication is "punishment by the court" not anything outside of that context.

Nice try though.

 

[WyomingLion]

He likely had the same odds as Spanier. Spanier lost at trial, then won on appeal.

Most people do not have unlimited funds to continue to fight in court. The OAG fights with our money and can outlast most common folk. I believe someone was paying the legal bill for Spanier.

 

[Bob78]

He likely had the same odds as Spanier. Spanier lost at trial, then won on appeal.

Spanier lost to the same misdemeanor charge Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to. They were threatened to have felony and other charges reinstated if they did not cooperate with the OAG's wishes. It is not as simple as a binary choice, as you seem to argue for whatever reason. The nuances and the enormous risk and following consequences tilted the scales immeasurably.

To argue otherwise is to argue for the sake of arguing, which I think is what you are doing. And not very well, CPL.

 

[RussianEagle]

I think part of their reasoning for not calling Snedden was that Snedden believes that Sandusky is innocent. Had he said that in court (i.e. under cross examination) that would not have played well with the jury.

Probably the same reason they refused to cross examine so-called Victim 5 Mike Kajak, despite the fact that this guy could have been easily destroyed in the stand.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Probably the same reason they refused to cross examine so-called Victim 5 Mike Kajak, despite the fact that this guy could have been easily destroyed in the stand.

I'm not doubting you, but can you expand on that? I don't recall the details of that particular victim's testimony. Thanks!

 

[86Engineer]

indynittany said: ↑

Not "children"....."child"!

One count of failing to protect the welfare of a child who, in his own words, was not then or ever in danger.

To add perspective, Tim and the others executed steps to prevent Sandusky from showering alone with young boys going forward. When informed of the same incident, Jack Raykovitz took steps to ensure that Jerry could continue showering alone with young boys. What does that say about how this thing went down?

You don’t have to convince me that the Second Mile folks skated away pretty easily from this.

You really didn't answer the question. He wasn't asking about a specific person(s).

 

[nits74]

He had a choice. Spanier went to court.

That means nothing. Not an apt comparison.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Most people do not have unlimited funds to continue to fight in court. The OAG fights with our money and can outlast most common folk. I believe someone was paying the legal bill for Spanier.

I believe the same people were paying Curley and Schultz’s bills weren’t they?

 

[Connorpozlee]

Spanier lost to the same misdemeanor charge Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to. They were threatened to have felony and other charges reinstated if they did not cooperate with the OAG's wishes. It is not as simple as a binary choice, as you seem to argue for whatever reason. The nuances and the enormous risk and following consequences tilted the scales immeasurably.

To argue otherwise is to argue for the sake of arguing, which I think is what you are doing. And not very well, CPL.

Alas, Spanier took that enormous risk and eventually won.

 

[indynittany]

IMO, this thread has gone way off the track.

Gladwell said Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno got screwed over. Earlier in this thread, I said we know who was harmed by the false narrative and that we should be examining who and what benefited. Can we name names? I'll start.

Tom Corbett
Louis Freeh
Sara Ganim
Mark Emmert
John Surma
Mike McQueary
Jack Raykovitz
Cynthia Baldwin
Jonelle Eshbach
Andrew Shubin

 

[Connorpozlee]

That means nothing. Not an apt comparison.

It does mean something. It means that Graham Spanier is not legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child. By pleading to the charge, it means Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It does mean something. It means that Graham Spanier is not legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child. By pleading to the charge, it means Tim Curley is legally guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child.

Legally guilty and actually guilty are often time two very different things.

 

[Bob78]

Alas, Spanier took that enormous risk and eventually won.

Did the OAG threaten him with reinstating felony and other charges if he did not cooperate with them?

I don't know the answer. But he did not have other charges imposed, and we know that C/S did have that hanging over them if they did not cooperate.

There was enormous risk for all, and as I said earlier, at that point, each person has to do what is best for themselves. Tim and Gary chose wisely, imo, and yet were still betrayed by the judge going back on the assurance of no jail time.

And, yes, they are all as credible as can be regarding what they maintained all along wrt McQ's report.

 

[indynittany]

I believe the same people were paying Curley and Schultz’s bills weren’t they?

The legal bills of Curley and Schultz were paid by the university. I don't know about Spanier's whole bill, but I remember the one alumni elected trustee (former head of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) stepped in to help him at one point. Maybe for his appeals? I'm drawing a blank on the guy's name. Lord?