I don't know what's happened to you, but you're making some strange bedfellows here recently.
Breaking from Pennlive Curley and Shultz plead guilty.
- Thread starter OXLion
- Start date
I don't know what's happened to you, but you're making some strange bedfellows here recently.
I was just responding to those in this thread saying to stop blaming MM....sry, the milk spilled ny MM that night will never dry up....
that said, yes lajolla, obviously many other ALSO bear large amounts of blame for this horror show, but the low hanging MM fruit is low hanging, because it is so clearly wrong
that said, yes lajolla, obviously many other ALSO bear large amounts of blame for this horror show, but the low hanging MM fruit is low hanging, because it is so clearly wrong
McQueary might not even testify at Spanier's trial. He had no contact with Spanier
Apparently 21Guns still hasn't figured out yet that JS set up the friend fitness program with TSM (with PSU permission to use facilities) as an excuse to desensitize folks about the notion of seeing him in th showers with kids. It was a normal occurrence. Its how these pillar of the community offenders operate.
Now, that being said it doesn't mean that the circumstances in 2001 didn't warrant it being treated seriously and reported outside of the school. But it was, to the child care experts running a state licensed children's charity who had direct control over JS access to kids. If TSM dropped the ball from there then that's on them.
If MM felt his report wasn't being treated properly he could have went to TSM and had a chat with them, express dissatisfaction to any of the PSU people he trusted with his report, place anonymous call to LE, call PSP, place anonymous call to childline, or a number of other things but he never did. Thats on him, not the admins.
That survey was conducted in September 2012 on behalf of Curley & Schultz, within two months of the release of the Freeh Report & NCAA sanctions.
See Appendix G at p.58 in Schultz's omnibus pretrial motion, filed on 10/31/2012, just one day before the second presentment was released that charged Spanier and added charges against Curley & Schultz.
At p. 15-17 in the omnibus motion, Schultz makes a motion (based on the results of that survey) that requests a "reasonable 'cooling off' period so as to avoid a jury pool tainted by the overwhelmingly negative press coverage". That phrase is in para. 63.a.
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...Schultz Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion 10-31-12.pdf
No one here knows what the plea agreement involved. But, it seems very unlikely that Tim and Gary would have been found not guilty to EWOC.
Thank you for sharing that, I hadn't read it before. That's a pretty damning yet unsurprising take on the situation. Thanks again to the BOT for their brilliant job regarding the Freeh report.
Based on the known facts I agree with you. However, based on Exhibit H in Sandusky's 2nd ammended appeal, I think there would have a been a very good chance that they would have been railroaded. With their freedom and pension on the line, I believe both Curley and Schultz were well advised to accpet the plea bargin.
It seems like the OAG maybe knew the felony charges were not very strong and may have wanted to give Curley and Schultz an out. The target from day 1 was Spanier. With Curley and Schultz pleading guilty to EWOC, the chances that Spanier gets railroaded and found guilty increases. A lot of the Dauphin County jury pool undoubedtly heard the news and I am going to guess may have the opinion of where there is smoke their is fire and may now be more inclined to think there was a cover-up. There is no doubt that Spanier is in the fight of his life. While he has good lawyers and facts on his side IMO, that may not be enough. It will be very interesting how this plays out.
One thing I will say, I don't believe this story is anywhere near its conclusion. It has legs and will be a topic of discussion on this board for years to come.
If you read Wendy's comment in another thread, she said Spanier was offered the same plea, but he declined saying he would rather go to jail as an innocent man than plead guilty when he is innocent. If that is the case, CS are not testifying against Spanier and the plea deals aren't to save the case against Spanier. It was simply a way for AG to save face and not have to go to trial. We will see, but people are speculating about things they don't know.
Just a good, solid, pillar of the community who loves to take naked showers with little boys. Sounds normal.
in the article itself
Curley and Schultz, in lengthy colloquies with current case prosecutors Laura Ditka and Patrick Schulte, acknowledged receiving McQueary's report and interfering with or preventing its transmission to police and child welfare officials.
Who prevented Mike and John McQueary, and Dr. Dranov from reporting to child welfare officials?
I would think the first question would be why did they lie about it in 2011 but I keep forgetting I am in bwi mcandrew lala land
And I could interpret this to mean that they didn't report it to police nor child welfare because MM's account wasn't criminal but horseplay. Instead, they decided to report what MM told them to TSM. This to me would be consistent with their actions. Anxiously await their testimony so we will hear from them rather than speculating from some article. Of course Towny, you are interpreting everything in favour of MM. You might be right, but I will wait until I hear testimony.
Yes. Mistakes were made, many of which were by McQueary and his Dad and his friend.Ummm, yeah no...you kind of lost credibility when you put on your pretend cape superhero. Mistakes were made and you get upset with MM...low hanging fruit in this case, but you're on to something.
MM is low-hanging fruit? Yes he is, and for a good reason. He ****ed up and is villain #2 in this whole thing, I don't care what you or anyone else has to say. In a situation where there are so few known true facts, this is the one and only thing anyone can cling to. You don't believe it? I don't care. Facts are facts, and this is about the only key fact we know.
Who would have been the individual(s) that were prevented from or interfered with by C/S? Has that person(s) come forward?
Best part is it was a TSM sanctioned one-on-one mentoring program that was instituted in counties all across Pennsylvania with the help of state grants. http://www.dailylocal.com/article/DL/20090315/LIFE01/303159992
Yep, Jerry basically went to Raykovitz and said "I want to take showers with young boys." And Jack said "Great idea! Let's do this all across the state." And the state said "What a great idea! Here's some grant money to help get things set up." So if anybody had an issue with Jerry showering with kids, all they had to be told is it what a TSM program, supported by the Commonwealth.
Let it out, let it all out. We don't know anything but facts are facts according to you. Clearly you're thinking straight. MM and a ton of people made mistakes. The thing is people at PSU knew about Jerry in 98 and did even less with more knowledge and life experience. It's unpopular to say but that tune will be very different when they sell GS and PSU up the river. I have a feeling the TC and Schultz defending comes to a screeching halt soon enough. Get MM all you need to, get him. Yell loud, scream, call him names. Pretty soon new targets will be there for you.
You've stated several times as a fact that Curley and Spanier knew about 1998. What is this based on? Hopefully it's more than this message that Stufft is saying he has that he has yet to produce here.
A document btw, he says he informed OAG about, who then used it to "lean on" the sender to the point where they arrested him and let him plead to a lesser charge in exchange for ? Hmmm, does anyone detect a pattern here by our beloved OAG? So basically, Jacobs admits to being a snitch.Wonder how that news would be received in his North Philly neighborhood.
You are MAJORLY deflecting. It is undeniable, McQueary screwed up bigtime and unequivocally. Don't try to deflect what he did (and didn't do) by saying someone else did something wrong too. I am not screaming, I am stating facts.
Your position is so laughable, I have to ask what your relationship is to McQueary. Because your defense of him is not based on any kind of logic. You want to keep fighting? Fine. You are wrong. Nothing you say will change that.
It's was modeled on Big Brother, which still has 1 on 1 access, by definition. There are also friend fitness 1on1s all over the state & country.
Sounds like something you'd make up, irondoc. Not your best story, but not your worst.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I agree with most of that post. It was excellent. Without disagreeing with you, here are my problems. I'm not sure Spanier was the target from day 1. Certainly he had enemies who'd like to see him fall. But if the two guys initially charged (C&S) were, it's hard to assume the facts are on Spanier's side. The facts may be on his side. And I hope they are. We haven't seen the body evidence yet.
My default presumption (as everyone's should be) is innocence. The MM story seems to have stopped at Schultz's desk (and Raykovitz's). Maybe the best cases truly were against C&S. But if the OAG is really this fixed on Spanier now (as PSU also seems to be), we have to ask ourselves whether there's some evidence indicating he said to stand down or something else. Wouldn't that be the key to the strongest case against him (if there is a strong case at all)? Maybe that evidence will be C or S saying so--and that's the logical fear at this point. But I don't see C & S agreeing to lie and say that in exchange for a deal in a case that never really seemed like a slam dunk against C&S. Who knows.
Maybe you're right and Spanier is in for the fight of his life. Maybe he was always the target. They're certainly a logical conclusions reached by many. But maybe the AG just got the best win it was likely to get. We just don't know what understandings have been reached. We'll just have to see what comes out.
Defending him how? By saying he screwed up? Ask dukie if they know me or if I know MM unlike Curley's crusagmders. Be mad at him, I passed that by about 3 years ago. You're so damn angry at him you totally ignore the big 3 and it's hitting the fan. You're probably still wishing MM never walked in on him still and Jerry was still free. Get a grip and you're irrational as hell.
Last edited:
So now you are threatening someone over this? Get a GD grip. Disagree with someone but see the line. Schultz damn well knew about 98. That isn't even up for debate. Wow some of you are totally losing your shit now.
Go find your imaginary friend and ask him .
In the real world there's about to be a trial . And there will testimony. And stuff will be said .
