If you are trying to say that these guys should also have been charged with a crime if Curley and Schultz were, then I agree with you 100%.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
If you are trying to say that these guys should also have been charged with a crime if Curley and Schultz were, then I agree with you 100%.
My feelings on OJ? I feel like he is a convicted criminal. I feel like he went through a trial and was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and the waiter. I feel like the jury got it wrong but I can’t tell you for sure that they did. I feel like it could have been his son that did it.
I don’t think I have an agenda. I just don’t like the surety with which people state some things that they don’t know to be fact. I feel like people have gotten so twisted up in this thing that logic goes by the wayside. Not much different than what the media did with Joe. They went from making statements starting with “if....” to just leaving that part out and talking about the situation in definitive statements. It evolved pretty quickly in Joe’s case, but it was dangerous.
You pled guilty to a misdemeanor you say you didn’t commit. That was a choice you made. You can deny that all you want, but you are still legally guilty of that crime. People can now refer to you as a traffic scofflaw and have legal backing to do so. Tim Curley, like you in your traffic violation, may not believe he committed that crime. When he agreed to that plea deal he gave people the ability to refer to him as a child endangerer and have legal backing to do so.
So if you are willing to admit that the jury made a mistake in the OJ case, you then must accept that it occasionally happens that juries make mistakes.
Therefore, you must admit that it is not impossible that the jury made mistakes in this case.
Holy crap! I don’t think I’ve ever said otherwise. I don’t know where you are getting that from.
Are you referring to Sandusky or Curley/Schultz/Spanier?
I do believe that your stance that Curley should be referred to, or at the very least is, a convicted criminal is the basis for PSU2UNCs comment. You’ve dug your heels in firmly without due consideration of the (lack
Of?) facts surrounding the matter
Curley did not have a trial though. If you want to say the juries got it wrong in the Spanier and Sandusky trials, have at it. Fact is that Curley is guilty of failure to protect the welfare of a child. It’s not conjecture, it’s not opinion. It’s fact.
It’s weird that it’s even a discussion.
Come on man. It’s not that hard to see the nuance. People get pressured into making plea deals all the time. It is a calculation even for people who are innocent. Do I want to risk going to jail for a long time because the lynch mob is out to hang anyone even remotely associated with Penn State or take a slap on the wrist? And you aren’t debating some esoteric point of semantics. You are making a point whether you believe you are or not. If you were not you would have last this go many pages ago.
A discussion that you initiated and have been perpetuating for days.
The point I am making is pretty clear. It is a fact that Tim Curley is guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child. There is nothing esoteric about it. That is a fact. I’m not having the the semantical debate.
I don't know why people are still engaging you on this topic.
Can we also say that the commonwealth failed to prove even one of the 15 felonies of which C/S/S were charged? And doesn't that fact negate the entire OAG/BOT/Freeh narrative?
People were going to refer to him as that and much worse regardless of legal backing. They would have done so even if had gone to trial and been acquitted. I guarantee you the vast majority of people don’t even know what he pled guilty to.
This was a media driven circus fed by an unscrupulous and corrupt OAG. Curley had to make his decision with that as the backdrop. Spanier came to a different decision and it damn near bit him in the ass (actually still might I guess depending on what Shapiro does). Even if Spanier never goes back on trial, people will still refer to him as a pedophile enabler, etc.
So, a law does not even apply to him yet for some mysterious reason he felt as if the best course of action was to plead guilty to a lousy misdemeanor. And you want that to be his epithet?
I’m disappointed in you in this situation.
Good point.
The prosecution's two star witnesses, former PSU administrators Curley and Schultz, were so ineffective that even the prosecutor wound up trashing both of them during her closing argument.
"Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," Ditka told the jury. "They're criminals."
"Tim Curley," she declared, was "untruthful 90 percent of the time."
"Gary Schultz, I would suggest to you was more truthful," she said, but that was because he wound up crying on the witness stand. Crying because he was guilty, Ditka told the jury.
The verdict upset Penn State loyalists.
Al Lord, a member of the university board of trustees, told reporters that he was "blown away."
"You can't endanger children if you set Jerry loose because you don't know Jerry's a pedophile, and frankly that's what this case is about," Lord said.
Curley and Schultz got "seven freaking times" but that Spanier turned it down "because he knows he's innocent and he's a man of integrity."
"I wish I could say the same thing for the prosecution," Lord added.
Former football star Franco Harris told reporters that he felt bad for Sandusky's victims, but he added, "There is no way that Penn State wanted to harm kids. I mean, that's the furthest from the truth. So, that's the part that still has to be fought."
The defense was facing an uphill climb from day one. The main obstacle: a jury pool tainted by six years of saturation media coverage of the Penn State sex scandal. It was coverage that sadly displayed an unhealthy lack of skepticism for the story line fed to reporters by prosecutors and Louie Freeh. He's the former judge and FBI director who claimed to find evidence of a "callous and shocking" coverup at Penn State by top officials.
But even the jury today did their part to continue to unravel the official Penn State story line. The Dauphin County jury rejected the conspiracy charge in the case; the jury also found no continuing course of criminal conduct in the misdemeanor committed by Spanier.
A 2013 poll of Dauphin County residents commissioned by one of the defense attorneys in the case showed how biased the potential jury pool was, thanks to media malpractice. The poll, part of an unsuccessful campaign for a change of venue, found that 46.9 percent of those questioned in Dauphin County agreed with the statement that even if Penn State officials like Curley and Schultz did nothing illegal, "they should be punished."
Seventy percent of the people polled in Dauphin County agreed that "from very early on, officials like Curley and Schultz knew exactly what was going on with Sandusky."
Some 64.9 percent agreed that "the culture at Penn State and in the Penn State athletic department tolerated Sandusy's behavior."
And 62.6 percent agreed that "Curley and Schultz helped to create the culture at Penn State that tolerated Sandusky's behavior."
So it was no surprise that Deputy Attorney General Ditka was able to obtain a conviction by offering up no new facts, but by endlessly reprising the story of Jerry Sandusky, the naked child-molesting "animal" lurking in Penn State's showers.
Like spectators at a frontier hanging, the citizens of Dauphin County can now go on with their lives secure in the knowledge that they did their part to clean up the sex abuse scandal at Penn State.
After court was adjourned, the saloons of Harrisburg were open for business.
How can someone be guilty of a law that didn't apply to them? Even if they plead guilty to it
OJ is not a convicted murderer, so how can you feel like he is? Since he did not agree to a plea deal, he did not give people the ability to refer to him as a murderer and there is no legal backing to do so. Yet you ignore that because of how you feel. That's a double standard.
Traffic tickets are typically not misdemeanors, especially receiving the lowest one they can give. It's certainly not a criminal citation. I didn't commit the citation I plead guilty to, I had 3 other people in the car mystified as to why I was getting pulled over. Turns out that it's a small town known for running traffic ticket scams, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is difference between legally guilty, and actually guilty. We all understand this, you don't need to explain "legally guilty". But you don't seem to understand that not everyone who is legally guilty, is actually guilty. Question, which child specifically did Curley legally endanger?
It's just a misdemeanor that Curley plead to, it's not the sort of thing that people use to attach labels to the person... yet you want to. Hence why it seems like you have an agenda. You hear people say stuff like "oh that guys a felon". When is the last time you heard someone say "that guy is a misdemeanor"?
When did I say that I want that to be his epithet? What I said is that it is attached to him. That was a choice he made. I understand that there are completely reasonable factors that would lead him to that decision. I don’t think I have denied that anywhere in this discussion. But I am also not going to ignore the fact that he is officially guilty of that charge, whether I agree with it or not.
No double standard at all. I watched the OJ trial and it seemed to me that he was guilty. That was my opinion, after seeing all of the testimony. The jurors found him not guilty so he is legally not guilty of murder. There was no trial of Tim Curley. I did not see testimony relating to his guilt or innocence. My gut feeling on him is that he was not guilty, but that is an opinion based on a gut feel without a trial. Legally, he is guilty of failing to protect the welfare of a child.
Raykovitz?
You don't even need to go beyond the Raykovitz testimony at the Spanier trial to prove perjury by Raykovitz. At the Spanier trial during cross-examination, Raykovitz contradicted his earlier testimony that Sandusky was not involved in counseling or giving therapy to Second Mile boys.
Raykovitz testified on page 20 of the transcript that "Jerry volunteered that it was a Second Mile child" in the Penn State shower with him in 2001.
That was a bombshell admission that Spanier's lawyer completely failed to address.
Raykovitz's testimony made clear that he condoned Sandusky working out alone with a Second Mile boy and showering alone with a Second Mile boy. Raykovitz didn't tell Sandusky not to be alone with a Second Mile boy. All Raykovitz recommended in 2001 was that Sandusky wear a swimsuit when showering with a Second Mile boy after a workout.
Spanier's lawyer missed numerous opportunities when he crossed Raykovitz. Prosecutors portrayed Raykovitz as a professional psychologist, which was misleading because on the internet he is listed as a licensed child psychologist. Spanier's lawyer should have asked him how many of his patients have been children.
Raykovitz should have been asked how many reports to Childline he or others at Second Mile made.
He should have been asked if CYS ever notified Second Mile of Sandusky being accused of child abuse in 1998.
I could go on and on about pertinent questions that Spanier's lawyer failed to ask Raykovitz.
I think the issue here is that the OAG spent 6 years and $ millions of taxpayer dollars to prosecute these cases. It was not going to come away empty handed. The narrative must be preserved!
Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus of English at Cal-Berkely, writes an excellent article on Malcolm Gladwell's chapter on the Penn State fiasco and desribes how Galdwell in effect proves that Sandusky is innocent. Because the topic is so toxic, he could not get anybody to publish the article so he self-published. He takes Gladwell to task for stating that he has no idea if Sandusky is guilty as charged. Crews published an epic review of Mark Pendergrast's well reserached "The Most Hated Man in America" in Skeptic magazine and follows it up with another well researched piece on what happened and what didn't happen in the Penn State/Sandusky saga.
To put this in perspective, a Well known defender of pedophiles references another well known defender of pedophiles, accused apparently by his own family, and then we get to the OP ... who is himself a defender of a convicted pedophile, who admits visiting in prison, and making social overtures to Dottie Sandusky.
Malcolm Gladwell has not ever even come close to claiming Jerry was innocent.
Malcolm Gladwell has not ever even come close to claiming Jerry was innocent.
Most people haven't suggested anything more than JS did not receive a fair trial. Questioning the prosecution in this case is hardly defending a pedophile.
In fact, if you are as confident in Sandusky's guilt as you pretend, you should be more irate than anyone about the irregularities (putting it politely) that occurred regarding Sandusky's trial. In a case that is supposedly open and shut, why the hell did the OAG have to make up stuff? Why did they have to lie to victims/witnesses about what other victims alleged? Why did they have go to such great lengths to make this a PSU scandal? Why risk a mistrial when you've got the goods on the guy?
Sandusky's trial was patently unfair with serial instances of prosecutorial misconduct and totally ineffective defense counsel.
I agree with Mark Pendergrast, John Snedden, Ralph Cipriano, Dick Anderson, Jeff Byers, John Ziegler, and Frederick Crews that the case against Sandusky is very weak and there is not just reasonable doubt, but real doubt in the prosecution's case against Sandusky.
Not really.
About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up." But he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."
About another meeting Curley and Schultz had in President Spanier's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."
Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?
"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.
"No," Curley said.
Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.
"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.
Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?
"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the alleged victim.
But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."
Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.
"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.
And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about that boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?
"No, he didn't," Curley said.
Well, what did he say?
"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.
The prosecutor reviewed for the jury's benefit Curley's guilty plea on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. In the guilty plea, Curley admitted that he "prevented or interfered with" the reporting of a case of suspected sex abuse, namely the boy that Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Sandusky.
"You know other kids got hurt" after the McQueary incident, the prosecutor asked Curley.
"That's what I understand," Curley said.
On cross-examination, Spanier's lawyer, Samuel W. Silver, asked Curley about his guilty plea. The defense lawyer specifically wanted to know who was it that Curley prevented or interfered with to keep that person from reporting a suspected case of child sex abuse.
Faced with the chance to finger Spanier, Curley blamed only himself.
"I pleaded guilty because I thought I should have done more," Curley told Silver. "At the end of the day, I felt I should have done more."
Silver, seemingly delighted with that answer, ended his cross-examination after only a couple of minutes.
"I appreciate your candor," Silver told the witness. The prosecutors, however, appeared to have a different opinion of Curley's performance while they glared at him.
The day in Dauphin County Court began with the prosecution calling a couple of witnesses who worked as assistants to Gary Schultz, and used to do his filing.
Joan Cobel recalled how Schultz told her about a manilla folder he was starting with Jerry Sandusky's name on it.
"Don't look at it," Cobel recalled Schultz advising her about the Sandusky file, which was kept under lock and key.
"He never used that tone of voice before," Cobel conspiratorially told the prosecutor.
Lisa Powers, a former spokesperson for PSU and a speechwriter for Spanier, told the jury how she "kept feeling that something wasn't right" about the Sandusky rumors that reporters were asking her about. She recalled that when she asked another Penn State official about what was really going on with Sandusky, she was told, "The less you know the better."
The implication was that a big sex scandal was brewing at Penn State. Whether the jury buys all this hokum is another matter.
The prosecution, which rested its case today after only two days of testimony, seemed to be playing up the drama in the absence of hard factual evidence against Spanier.
Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, got Powers to tell the jury how Spanier insisted on posting statements from lawyers defending both Curley and Schultz on the university's website after the sex scandal broke.
Then Ditka got Powers to admit that while the university was posting those defenses of Curley and Schultz, it didn't run a statement expressing sympathy for Sandusky's alleged victims.
Ditka also managed to give a speech, in the form of a question, asking Powers if Spanier told her "they did nothing to locate that child that was in that shower with Jerry Sandusky."
To hammer home the plight of the alleged victims in the scandal, the prosecution put "John Doe" on the stand, a 28-year-old known previously at the Sandusky trial as "Victim No. 5."
Judge John Boccabella seemed to cooperate with the theatrics. John Doe was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. And when he came out to testify, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no spectator used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness.
Conditions during the short Spanier trial have bordered on the draconian. The judge typically wants spectators seated in his courtroom by 8:30 a.m. Anybody who shows up late can't get in. Anybody who leaves the courtroom can't come back. Nobody can talk. And anybody caught using a cell phone not only in the courtroom, but anywhere on the fifth floor of the courthouse, faces a contempt of court rap that carries a penalty of six months in jail.
So believe that accused pedophiles deserve no defense? No day in court? Just hang them in the town square as soon as they are charged? SMFH.
The issues you describe have been shown over and over again to be
Not unique to this case
And
Specifically to this case, and in general,both, has been found OK.
1
How about after they are convicted and completely out of appeals? Can we stop making excuses for them then?
Okay, according to a corrupt system that will go to any extreme in order to avoid reopening this can of worms.
So it's OK to:
1) Falsify a grand jury presentment?
2) Leak said presentment when it should have remained sealed?
3) Allow/encourage state troopers to lie under oath?
Shall I list more example of how this is not "OK"?
But he has yet to get a fair shake. He has more appeals and more days in court coming up.
I believe his best chance will be a habeus corpus appeal at the federal level where the judges are more likely to rule based on the law as opposed to public opinion.
The facts and evidence are out there for anyone willing to do a little digging. I recommend Pendergrast’s excellent book “The Most Hated Man in America,” John Snedden’s redacted report on his investigation for Spanier’s security clearances renewal, Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog, framingpaterno.com, Malcolm Gladwell’s Penn State chapter in his latest book, and Professor Frederick Crews’s review of Pendergrast’s and Gladwell’s book to name a couple of good places to look to become well versed in the key facts of the case.
I will list another example, one that got Frank Fina and Cynthia Baldwin in hot water with the legal displinary board and that was compelling a lawyer to testify against clients that they were representing.
Alas, he had his day in court. All appeals thus far have been denied. If he gets an appeal approved, he will get another day in court, which is fine with me. But to say he has not had his day in court, which was said earlier, is not true.
I guess a flawed/biased/corrupt day in court is better than no day in court, but it certainly isn't how the judicial system is supposed to work.
You are correct that he has had a day in court, but I don’t believe he has had his day in court. All defendants have a right to a fair trial. I don’t believe his trial was anything close to being fair.
Just a small point of clarification here Franco. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the disciplinary recommendations against Fina and Baldwin actually stemmed from the C/S/S cases.
I agree that these are linked (i.e. if Fina is a demonstrated "bad actor", that casts doubt on a lot of his actions in the Sandusky case; and some of news that came out of the C/S/S grand jury (i.e. related to Baldwin) certainly influenced public opinion as it affected the Sandusky trial.
Sorry for the correction, but I'm sure Hippo (or Lajolla or whatever) will chime in telling you how wrong you are (which you aren't on macro-scale).
