Josh Shapiro seeks the death penalty for Graham Spanier

[francofan]

I am interested in the case because the truth matters. Joe Paterno's dying wish was for the truth to be known. I believe that one day the truth will be evident because too many people know what actually happened for the truth to be burried forever. I hope the truth becomes evident while Jerry Sandusky and/or Graham Spanier are still with us.

 

[Art]

I am interested in the case because the truth matters. Joe Paterno's dying wish was for the truth to be known. I believe that one day the truth will be evident because too many people know what actually happened for the truth to be burried forever. I hope the truth becomes evident while Jerry Sandusky and/or Graham Spanier are still with us.

Troof ain't happenin' unless McQueary fesses up to being a liar. You seen Slim around?

 

[MJG-90]

Believe the fairy tale that the OAG with the BOT's help sold in 2011 if you want.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions that should demonstrate whether your opinion is grounded in reality or not.

• Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001? NO
• Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower? NO
• Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual? NO
• Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender? NO
• Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness? NO
• Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God? NO
• Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker? NO
• Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent? NO
• Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror? NO
• Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case? NO
• Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case? NO
• Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed? NO

I answered "NO" to each question. Still doesn't dismiss Art's point that one of those three should have reported McQueary's concern to CYS (or whatever their initials are). It's all hindsight, but by doing just that, PSU wouldn't be in any trouble at all, Paterno's legacy and statue are intact, etc. Gary Schultz even seems to indicate that one step step should have happened and I believe testified that he thought Curley had reported to CYS.

All that said, I understand why they didn't. They didn't think anything happened in the shower. They weren't told of anything other than the shower kinda creeped out the redhead. Even Dr. Dranov testified to that effect.

But still, knowing of the '98 incident and that it had been reported, I'd like to think I'd have erred on the side of CMA and reported him again -- knowing that it was a similar report to the prior report -- and let the professionals decide how to proceed.

 

[Art]

I answered "NO" to each question. Still doesn't dismiss Art's point that one of those three should have reported McQueary's concern to CYS (or whatever their initials are). It's all hindsight, but by doing just that, PSU wouldn't be in any trouble at all, Paterno's legacy and statue are intact, etc. Gary Schultz even seems to indicate that one step step should have happened and I believe testified that he thought Curley had reported to CYS.

All that said, I understand why they didn't. They didn't think anything happened in the shower. They weren't told of anything other than the shower kinda creeped out the redhead. Even Dr. Dranov testified to that effect.

But still, knowing of the '98 incident and that it had been reported, I'd like to think I'd have erred on the side of CMA and reported him again -- knowing that it was a similar report to the prior report -- and let the professionals decide how to proceed.

Bingo. The major fly in this ointment is why call Wendell Courtney if none of the three thought there was an issue.

Sitting in Spanier's chair I'm thinking that I've got this fvcking idiot on my campus showering naked with a kid at an hour when no one is around. With nothing more I'm asking myself why I have to deal with this shit. Easiset way to dispose of it: a) refer it to the police and/or CYS and maybe put the fear of God into the Grinning Baboon; and b) bar the stupid shit from campus.

 

[Obliviax]

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.I answered "NO" to each question. Still doesn't dismiss Art's point that one of those three should have reported McQueary's concern to CYS (or whatever their initials are). It's all hindsight, but by doing just that, PSU wouldn't be in any trouble at all, Paterno's legacy and statue are intact, etc. Gary Schultz even seems to indicate that one step step should have happened and I believe testified that he thought Curley had reported to CYS.​

All that said, I understand why they didn't. They didn't think anything happened in the shower. They weren't told of anything other than the shower kinda creeped out the redhead. Even Dr. Dranov testified to that effect.

But still, knowing of the '98 incident and that it had been reported, I'd like to think I'd have erred on the side of CMA and reported him again -- knowing that it was a similar report to the prior report -- and let the professionals decide how to proceed.

I totally agree. But in my mind, it is like telling a hot girl who just got raped that she was asking for it. Just because C/S/S were either naive, incompetent or naive/incompetent doesn't give the prosecution to trash good people and a good organization. Two wrongs does not make a right. People have this notion that the prosecutor is doing his job; prosecuting. from the American Bar Association's job description of a prosecutor:
'

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.​

​

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor​

​

 

[MJG-90]

I totally agree. But in my mind, it is like telling a hot girl who just got raped that she was asking for it. Just because C/S/S were either naive, incompetent or naive/incompetent doesn't give the prosecution to trash good people and a good organization. Two wrongs does not make a right. People have this notion that the prosecutor is doing his job; prosecuting. from the American Bar Association's job description of a prosecutor:
'

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.​

​

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor​

​

Sure. My main point was that if the trio had reported the incident, we never have a "Penn State Scandal". Heck, Jerry might not have ever been prosecuted. Seems the case gained most of its momentum based on McQueary's misrepresented grand jury testimony. Without that testimony, there is nothing to misrepresent. And they probably don't uncover several other accusers. OR, if Sandusky was found to be molesting the child, it all blows up then and Penn State is fine because they reported it properly.

But as I said in my initial post, this is all hindsight. I understand why they didn't report.

 

[Obliviax]

Sure. My main point was that if the trio had reported the incident, we never have a "Penn State Scandal". Heck, Jerry might not have ever been prosecuted. Seems the case gained most of its momentum based on McQueary's misrepresented grand jury testimony. Without that testimony, there is nothing to misrepresent. And they probably don't uncover several other accusers. OR, if Sandusky was found to be molesting the child, it all blows up then and Penn State is fine because they reported it properly.

But as I said in my initial post, this is all hindsight. I understand why they didn't report.

yep...totally agree. I also add the complete lack of note-taking which is mysterious.

 

[PSU2UNC]

yep...totally agree. I also add the complete lack of note-taking which is mysterious.

I'd argue if it was a non-issue, that explains the lack of notes. I don't take copious notes during my plethora of weekly meetings. If I write it down, it is really important. If it is not important, it probably doesn't get written down.

 

[Art]

I'd argue if it was a non-issue, that explains the lack of notes. I don't take copious notes during my plethora of weekly meetings. If I write it down, it is really important. If it is not important, it probably doesn't get written down.

So if it's a "non-issue" why call an outside attorney?

 

[AvgUser]

Still doesn't dismiss Art's point that one of those three should have reported McQueary's concern to CYS (or whatever their initials are).

So... what about the fact that they reported it to Dr Jack? You know him, the professional and head of TSM who stated under oath that he was a proper authority to report the incident? Dr Jack had that information back in 2001.

 

[Art]

So... what about the fact that they reported it to Dr Jack? You know him, the professional and head of TSM who stated under oath that he was a proper authority to report the incident? Dr Jack had that information back in 2001.

Raykovitz wasn't "a proper authority" no matter what he said. Curley should have known better.

 

[PSUSignore]

Penn State did bar Jerry from bringing TSM kids on campus after the incident which made sense. Barring Jerry from campus seems excessive to me.

Barring someone that has ignored a warning from police to not shower with kids and at best has boundary issues and lacks the intelligence to never be 1x1 with at risk youths and at worst is a repeat child sex abuser is in no way excessive.

 

[ouirpsu]

Troof ain't happenin' unless McQueary fesses up to being a liar. You seen Slim around?

We know what the Grand Jury indictment said, but has McQueary ever been asked, point blank and under oath, what he saw in the shower and what he told Joe he saw in the shower? I seem to recall PSU lawyers not wanting to go there during his wrongful termination suite against the university (I assume because it wouldn’t have helped), but can’t recall any other times such an opportunity has arisen, even in Sandusky’s trial. Am I missing something?

 

[MJG-90]

So... what about the fact that they reported it to Dr Jack? You know him, the professional and head of TSM who stated under oath that he was a proper authority to report the incident? Dr Jack had that information back in 2001.

That clearly wasn't enough in the eyes of the corrupt PA judicial system. Maybe you're missing the point that I was simply doing a hindsight analysis of what would have kept PSU out of the crosshairs.

 

[AvgUser]

Raykovitz wasn't "a proper authority" no matter what he said. Curley should have known better.

Why wasn't he a proper authority?

Dr Jack was the head of the organization from which the children were being supervised. Jerry was apart of TSM. Seems like one of the perfect persons to act upon the incident. He was certainly a mandated reporter.

 

[PSU2UNC]

So if it's a "non-issue" why call an outside attorney?

To make sure it was a non-issue.

 

[AvgUser]

That clearly wasn't enough in the eyes of the corrupt PA judicial system. Maybe you're missing the point that I was simply doing a hindsight analysis of what would have kept PSU out of the crosshairs.

And my point was... They actually DID report the incident to a proper authority. Could the situation have been handled better? Yes. If they did report to Dr Jack, then the reporting obligation was satisifed.

 

[Obliviax]

I'd argue if it was a non-issue, that explains the lack of notes. I don't take copious notes during my plethora of weekly meetings. If I write it down, it is really important. If it is not important, it probably doesn't get written down.

well, it was a different time, to be sure. But JS was once already accused and MM was a person on the coaching staff. Id have had a TON of notes and reasoning in my files on that one.

 

[MJG-90]

And my point was... They actually DID report the incident to a proper authority. Could the situation have been handled better? Yes. If they did report to Dr Jack, then the reporting obligation was satisifed.

I'm not arguing your point. I'm arguing you arguing my point. Had they reported to CYS, this thread and thousands like it probably don't exist. They did report to Jack, and this thread exists. So, which "proper reporting" authority keeps PSU out of the crosshairs? I'm not asking which "should have" been enough. I'm asking, with hindsight, which "would have" more likely done the trick?

 

[PSU2UNC]

well, it was a different time, to be sure. But JS was once already accused and MM was a person on the coaching staff. Id have had a TON of notes and reasoning in my files on that one.

JS was already once accused and the accusations were unfounded. This colors their actions in 2001.

MM was a person on the coaching staff. He did not tell them that a crime occurred.

 

[Obliviax]

JS was already once accused and the accusations were unfounded. This colors their actions in 2001.

MM was a person on the coaching staff. He did not tell them that a crime occurred.

OK....but I have to disagree with "Accusations were unfounded". They were considered unactionable in terms of being able to get a conviction. I do agree that the MM Shower incident, in and of itself, was also unactionable. But that still doesn't give anyone a pass for not investigating it, documenting it or reporting it properly. I am not accusing these men of breaking the law, but of incompetence in this regard.

 

[AvgUser]

I'm not arguing your point. I'm arguing you arguing my point. Had they reported to CYS, this thread and thousands like it probably don't exist. They did report to Jack, and this thread exists. So, which "proper reporting" authority keeps PSU out of the crosshairs? I'm not asking which "should have" been enough. I'm asking, with hindsight, which "would have" more likely done the trick?

At this point, who knows? What we have seen/learned over the past ten years is that:
1. MM was bullied in to alleging he witnessed an anal rape of a ten year old boy.
2. Law enforcement perjuring themselves
3. Prosecution attorneys using illegal tactics and leaking GJ information to win a case
4. Five people whom MM reported the story to all shared the same impression of what they were told
5. The likelihood that the incident occurred two months prior to the time anyone at PSU was made aware of the event.
6. Alicia Chambers stating that JS was a pedophile, but not actuing upon it in 1998.


Yes, calling CYS/DPW might seem like the obvious "Duh, no kidding" course of action. But, there are a lot of guilty people here not named Graham Spanier (or TC or GS) who caused a six-sigma chance of happeneing to be realized.

 

[bdgan]

I am interested in the case because the truth matters. Joe Paterno's dying wish was for the truth to be known. I believe that one day the truth will be evident because too many people know what actually happened for the truth to be burried forever. I hope the truth becomes evident while Jerry Sandusky and/or Graham Spanier are still with us.

Few care about the truth at this point. Besides, it's impossible to prove that people didn't know something.

Seriously, what could come out that would change the narrative? A few "victims" admitting they lied? That won't happen and the public would assume the rest of them were telling the truth anyway. McQueary saying he lied? Don't hold your breath.

 

[Art]

To make sure it was a non-issue.

LMAO.

"Hello, Wendell, this is Gary Schultz. Gotta situation here. JerBear was seen showering with a kid, but they wasn't doing nothin', ya know, just horsin' around. Need ta know whether I got to report that to anyone."

If that was the nature of his call than he's even dumber than I think he is.

 

[Art]

Why wasn't he a proper authority?

Dr Jack was the head of the organization from which the children were being supervised. Jerry was apart of TSM. Seems like one of the perfect persons to act upon the incident. He was certainly a mandated reporter.

Jut when I think this couldn't get stupider......

 

[francofan]

Barring someone that has ignored a warning from police to not shower with kids and at best has boundary issues and lacks the intelligence to never be 1x1 with at risk youths and at worst is a repeat child sex abuser is in no way excessive.

I don't believe the Lauro and Schreffler issued a warning to Jerry to not shower with kids, but only not to shower with ZK. Jerry's recollection of what happened is that as he was being told that he was in the clear, he was concerned about ZK's feelings as ZK might be unable to enjoy football games or other activities so he asked about what sort of parameters his relationship with ZK should their be going forward. Lauro and Schreffler said that it would be ok to go to football games with him but not ok to work out or shower with him. After this meeting, in the years 1998 - 2011, Jerry and ZK maintained a friendly relationship where Jerry took ZK to many football games but never showered or worked out with him.

 

[AvgUser]

Jut when I think this couldn't get stupider......

What a well-thought, well-written, logical and comprehensive answer to a legitimate question. Your insights and lack of bias are unparalleled.

 

[francofan]

Few care about the truth at this point. Besides, it's impossible to prove that people didn't know something.

Seriously, what could come out that would change the narrative? A few "victims" admitting they lied? That won't happen and the public would assume the rest of them were telling the truth anyway. McQueary saying he lied? Don't hold your breath.

I beg to differ. I think alot of people care. WTBOH podcast already has 200,000 downloads. The families of Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Schultz absolutely do care. So do some of the Paterno family. People who care about Joe Paterno's legacy care. People who care about Penn State's legacy also care. People who are for truth and justice care.

Something that could come out is a "Making of a Predator" series on Netflix or another major outlet. The Making of a Murderer series went viral. This story is alot more compelling and this story is actually true.

Another thing that could happen is that Sandusky's habeus corpus appeal in the federal courts could gain traction resulting in the facts of the case being well known and Sandusky's innocence becoming evident.

There are certainly other things that might happen to change the narrative and I believe something will in my lifetime. Too many people the truth of what happened for it to remain burried forever.

 

[francofan]

OK....but I have to disagree with "Accusations were unfounded". They were considered unactionable in terms of being able to get a conviction. I do agree that the MM Shower incident, in and of itself, was also unactionable. But that still doesn't give anyone a pass for not investigating it, documenting it or reporting it properly. I am not accusing these men of breaking the law, but of incompetence in this regard.

I believe when CYS investigates an accusation of CSA, they determine that either the accusation is founded and worthy of further investigation or unfounded and, after a period of time, the records must be expunged and destroyed. There is no gray area. In regard to the 1998 incident, the accusation was determined to be unfounded. However, while the records of the incident were supposed to be expunged; they obviously weren't and were used to help convict Sandusky.

 

[bdgan]

I beg to differ. I think alot of people care. WTBOH podcast already has 200,000 downloads. The families of Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Schultz absolutely do care. So do some of the Paterno family. People who care about Joe Paterno's legacy care. People who care about Penn State's legacy also care. People who are for truth and justice care.

Something that could come out is a "Making of a Predator" series on Netflix or another major outlet. The Making of a Murderer series went viral. This story is alot more compelling and this story is actually true.

Another thing that could happen is that Sandusky's habeus corpus appeal in the federal courts could gain traction resulting in the facts of the case being well known and Sandusky's innocence becoming evident.

There are certainly other things that might happen to change the narrative and I believe something will in my lifetime. Too many people the truth of what happened for it to remain burried forever.

I'm on your side on this but a hundred thousand PSU fans is nothing in a country with a population of over 300 million.

You didn't answer my question about what information could come out that would change the narrative. A Netflix series or Sandusky appeal are forums for information but the are not themselves information.

 

[Obliviax]

I believe when CYS investigates an accusation of CSA, they determine that either the accusation is founded and worthy of further investigation or unfounded and, after a period of time, the records must be expunged and destroyed. There is no gray area. In regard to the 1998 incident, the accusation was determined to be unfounded. However, while the records of the incident were supposed to be expunged; they obviously weren't and were used to help convict Sandusky.

my understanding as well but that does not mean C/S/S had to destroy their records and that is my problem with them...I don't blame their inaction but not documenting the crap out of it was crazy bad.

 

[Art]

What a well-thought, well-written, logical and comprehensive answer to a legitimate question. Your insights and lack of bias are unparalleled.

You call asking why an individual with no power to conduct an investigation is not "a proper authority" a legitimate question? The chain of stupidity just gets longer.

 

[WyomingLion]

Yeah, well they're doing their jobs. Spanier didn't.

Their job is to carry out the vendetta of the Governor?

Their job is to convict men with no criminal intent when the witness cannot even convince his own father that a crime was committed?

Their job is to file 25 felony charges and get one misdemeanor conviction? Poor job of doing their job. Good job of manufacturing a crime.

 

[Art]

Their job is to carry out the vendetta of the Governor?

Their job is to convict men with no criminal intent when the witness cannot even convince his own father that a crime was committed?

Their job is to file 25 felony charges and get one misdemeanor conviction? Poor job of doing their job. Good job of manufacturing a crime.

In Shapiro's case, his job is to put someone sentenced to a jail term in jail. That Spanier's attorneys, paid for by PSU, are incapable of preventing that just means that he needed to choose better attorneys. No the first mistake he made in this saga.

 

[bdgan]

LMAO.

"Hello, Wendell, this is Gary Schultz. Gotta situation here. JerBear was seen showering with a kid, but they wasn't doing nothin', ya know, just horsin' around. Need ta know whether I got to report that to anyone."

If that was the nature of his call than he's even dumber than I think he is.

More likely narrative: Hello Wendell. An employee reported that he saw a former coach showering with a kid and thought it was inappropriate. Are we required to report this?

Courtney told The New York Times in 2011 that he was never told of Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children, and if he had "any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty."

 

[YYZ86]

Raykovitz wasn't "a proper authority" no matte

Jut when I think this couldn't get stupider......

What a well-thought, well-written, logical and comprehensive answer to a legitimate question. Your insights and lack of bias are unparalleled.

Give it up. I made this point many years ago and many will never get it. They don’t understand what Raykovitz responsibility is when he was contacted. They don’t know what the law was at that time or don’t care.

 

[bdgan]

I answered "NO" to each question. Still doesn't dismiss Art's point that one of those three should have reported McQueary's concern to CYS (or whatever their initials are). It's all hindsight, but by doing just that, PSU wouldn't be in any trouble at all, Paterno's legacy and statue are intact, etc. Gary Schultz even seems to indicate that one step step should have happened and I believe testified that he thought Curley had reported to CYS.

All that said, I understand why they didn't. They didn't think anything happened in the shower. They weren't told of anything other than the shower kinda creeped out the redhead. Even Dr. Dranov testified to that effect.

But still, knowing of the '98 incident and that it had been reported, I'd like to think I'd have erred on the side of CMA and reported him again -- knowing that it was a similar report to the prior report -- and let the professionals decide how to proceed.

I don't understand why you think they should have reported this to CYS if they didn't think there was anything sexual.

I do think the administrators should have documented their conversation with MM and the rational for their response. That way it would be fully understood that this was about concern of a man with a youngster in a shower, not sexual assault.

 

[Art]

More likely narrative: Hello Wendell. An employee reported that he saw a former coach showering with a kid and thought it was inappropriate. Are we required to report this?

Courtney told The New York Times in 2011 that he was never told of Sandusky engaging in sexual misconduct with young children, and if he had "any idea that there was even remotely improper conduct with children on any day since the beginning of time, nothing in the world would have kept me from being absolutely certain that it was reported to the police immediately. That is my duty."

And in 2016, Courtney testified that he advised Schultz to report the incident, which Schultz characterized as "horseplay" to the authorities.

When you pay for advice, take it.

 

[Art]

Give it up. I made this point many years ago and many will never get it. They don’t understand what Raykovitz responsibility is when he was contacted. They don’t know what the law was at that time or don’t care.

Apparently a bunch of defense attorneys don't either.

 

[WyomingLion]

In Shapiro's case, his job is to put someone sentenced to a jail term in jail. That Spanier's attorneys, paid for by PSU, are incapable of preventing that just means that he needed to choose better attorneys. No the first mistake he made in this saga.

In Shapiro’s case, his job is to familiarize himself with the case, review the appeal and be certain that justice is served. I believe he has failed miserably and you can brush it off but that does not mean he did his job.