It indicates that they was something that did endanger children. Therefore, the prosecution is legitimate (though it might not be successful).
FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
It indicates that they was something that did endanger children. Therefore, the prosecution is legitimate (though it might not be successful).
The prosecution was more responsible for the delays than C/S/S. And quite obviously, the passage of time has allowed C/S/S to knock out most of the charges against them via law and motion. Which suggests that these charges were not very well considered to begin with.
That is incorrect. CSS actually appealed the judge's decision to allow the perjury charges to go forward. That is almost unheard of in Pennsylvania.
Further, most of the charges remain. What was removed was perjury and related conspiracy charges (and Spanier's summary failure to report).
CR 666:
Do you take the window air conditioner out in the winter or do you leave it in all year?
Question....MM was a civil trial. C/S/S is a criminal trial. They are two completely different animals. In MM's civil trial, the burden of proof is very low. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof in on the prosecution, the innocent until proven guilty thing.
Second....I am 10000% sure that C/S/S will have some really, really good lawyers, not the yahoo's that were defending PSU in the MM trial or Amendola. And really good lawyers don't screw things up and will absolutely destroy MM on the stand. Just look how many times MM has contradicted himself. Dranov and John McQueary will have to get on a stand and be crossed by some relentless lawyers. John McQueary is not going to get away with saying he doesn't remember anything like in the JS trial.
These charges will be dropped, it is just a matter of how the state and AG's office can do it and not look bad. They know they have a loser and state prosecutors don't like taking loser cases. Politics is making this continue along, but eventually the AG office will stop it and move along.
Second....I am 10000% sure that C/S/S will have some really, really good lawyers, not the yahoo's that were defending PSU in the MM trial or Amendola. And really good lawyers don't screw things up and will absolutely destroy MM on the stand. Just look how many times MM has contradicted himself. Dranov and John McQueary will have to get on a stand and be crossed by some relentless lawyers. John McQueary is not going to get away with saying he doesn't remember anything like in the JS trial.
These charges will be dropped, it is just a matter of how the state and AG's office can do it and not look bad. They know they have a loser and state prosecutors don't like taking loser cases. Politics is making this continue along, but eventually the AG office will stop it and move along.
The fact that it took FIVE YEARS to make a "first day of law school" ruling to toss based on the SOL .......... I can't imagine anything more telling as to what the State was doing here
Must cost a fortune to heat that place. What's the price of kerosene up there now a days?
With the few charges that remain - any involvement wrt MM, will be, IMO, minimal at best....... So I think folks will finally be able to get off of that horse, for better or worse
Which - IMO - is what should have been the case from Day 1
CSS weren't the only ones hanging by the balls for 5 years
I've written a lot about that unholy ass-humping by the AG folks, going back 4-5 years now........ and I've seen nothing in 5 years that didn't reinforce those thoughts.
It's just too damn sad
Too many folks f$cked over
And none of the f$ckers will likely ever have to pay
I agree. I go for the intelligent type.
So, let me know if I have this straight.
The guy that witnessed Sandusky with a kid in the shower, but didn't think calling the police was the right idea, isn't charged with EWOC.
The guys that McQueary first told about the incident (instead of police) while it was going on and shortly after (yet didn't think it was worth calling police) isn't charged with EWOC.
Three guys who hear about the incident a week later, who were given no detail as to any perceived criminal seriousness, are charged with EWOC.
The guy that witnessed Sandusky with a kid in the shower, but didn't think calling the police was the right idea, isn't charged with EWOC.
The guys that McQueary first told about the incident (instead of police) while it was going on and shortly after (yet didn't think it was worth calling police) isn't charged with EWOC.
Three guys who hear about the incident a week later, who were given no detail as to any perceived criminal seriousness, are charged with EWOC.
My gut tells me having this trial in Dauphin county is not going to bode well for C S S. I believe their request for a different county and separate trials were both denied by the judge. I bet every troll on Pennlive is salivating to get on that jury. The fact that the 3 are being tried together vs. separately in a county that hosts the state capital - something stinks in Harrisburg.
The defendants (some of them anyway), filed for a "change of venue"....... Which was denied in this latest ruling
So I'm quite certain they feel the same way
Now - you wanna' get real "righteous"?
Ponder this .........
Why was the trial "located" in Dauphin County to begin with?
ANSWER: The rationale given was that the underlying "acts" - the offenses - were committed in Dauphin County - - - specifically, Perjury in front of the Grand Jury
Of course, those charges are now dead........ And any "acts" regarding the remaining charges certainly have no connection to Dauphin County.
Now, FWIW, I'm not sure if Centre County would be any less "difficult" for CSS....... I'm not sure where would be the most appropriate place for a trial.......
But I sure as hell know that having it in Dauphin County, especially after the defendants did make that argument for change of venue, makes as much sense as wiping BEFORE you sh$t.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried
Good point - I would hope that the attorneys for the PSU 3 would get information from PennLive on the identity of their commentors. It's pretty clear many are there just to poison the jury pool.
While I generally agree, the differences between the State College and Harrisburg headlines about the same event are notable:
State College: "Judge Tosses Failure to Report Charge Against Ex-Penn State Administrators"
Harrisburg: "Former Penn State administrators get new trial date in Sandusky child endangerment case "
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Ha! Great minds think alike... I thought the same thing myself. First thought maybe I missed something or misread an article, when all I saw was administrators get new trial date. ** Then I remembered the media mindset.... We MUST continue to control the narrative....
Last edited:
I would, considering the fact the lead prosecutor said he found no evidence Joe participated in any cover up. Joe was going to be a prosecution witness.
Notice how the conspiracy gang calls him "the lead procescutor" when talking about THIS part. Then they"ll call him Fap Fina a few posts later when they want to discredit.
What a covey of tinfoil hat hypocrites.
I agree with your underlying sentiment, but what you write above is more relevant to the FTR charges than the EWOC charges. The EWOC charges (as discussed above) will revolve around the OAG trying to argue that C/S/S prevented or interfered with a report of child abuse being made. Unless there is bombshell evidence that we haven't seen, that's just a loser before it leaves the starting gate. And I have to imagine that if there was bombshell evidence out there, C/S/S would have taken one of the multiple plea deals that they have been offered.
It honestly doesn't matter where the trial is at. This jury pool was tainted from day 1. From the GJP wording of what MM told Joe. To the BOT never demanding due process play out. To Freehs grandstanding PC followed by the actions of the NCAA. I could go on and on. Just about every action that has taken place has basically told everyone that these men are guilty. Facts be damned.
Still amazes me that not one media person has ever thought to ask the OAG why they threw the book at non CSA expert college admins yet didnt charge a single person at the state licensed charity (where all the victims came from) whose officers received multiple complaints and did nothing, never even set up a safety plan as required! How's that not EWOC?? How has not one media person gotten outraged over JR Heim and Poole riding off into the sunset without so much as a wrist slap?!?
Also for the state to prove that MM reported "suspected abuse" (instead of vague report of inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable - which is C/S'version corroborated by numerous people) they will need someone to corroborate MM's side of the story, that he actually reported suspected abuse to C/S not just some vague story with a bunch of assumptions. With Dranov's most recent testimony that what he was told hours after the incicent wasn't bad enough to call police or CYS, good luck with that. Even JM ("at least a very inappropriate action") doesn't back up MM's version.
I have a feeling CSS' lawyers are going to shred MM's credibility (by confronting him with his numerous conflicting statements and actions) if this ever sniffs a court room. But who knows wtf you are gonna get in the PA kangaroo courts...
Where should it be held? I wouldn't presume to say....... I really haven't thought about it - and even if I did, I'm not sure if I'd have an educated opinion
What I do know is that there are not "only two options"......... The trial could be held anywhere - - - and certainly, given the nature of the remaining charges, there is absolutely no rationale that would justify "Dauphin" as being placed above ANY location in the state
I know that the defendants (at least some of them, maybe all three) put forward cogent "change of venue" pleadings
Given that - which is a "known" - it seems clearly "cockward" that the Judge would simply respond with "Denied" ......... When there are absolutely no reasons to anchor the case to "Dauphin"
There are not even any logistical issues with placing the trial anywhere in the state ........ Hell, Eby himself isn't even a "Dauphin County Guy"
He could sit in a courtroom anywhere in the state, just as he could in Harrisburg
It wouldn't take one hour more, or one hour less, to have the trial in any county of the Commonwealth
When you smell a stink - you surely are justified in checking whether or not the food is spoiled.
I don't know where the best "local" would be
I don't want to assume too much vav Judge Eby
But when something gives off a stink, I sure as hell am gonna' be pretty cautious about ingesting it ........ It certainly raises a flag that Eby (or whomever is involved) ought to have their actions watched with a very critical eye
That's my takeaway from the denial of COV
I will agree with this much:
Citing ANYTHING Fina stated - even the so-called exoneration of JVP - as being worth ANYTHING at all, is something I would not want to do
Nothing has ever left that man's mouth, that wasn't intended solely to further whatever self-interests have his attention at the moment
bwifan
Well-Known Member
After seeing my friend jailed for 12 years and now all charges thrown out when it was found out the judge and federal prosecutor were working together behind the scenes, it scares me to think what could go on in the state and local courts
IMO, along with the lives of Curley, Spanier, and Schultz, Paterno's legacy is at stake here as well as PSU's permanent reputation and existence (figuratively speaking) moving forward. It is imperative that CSS walk on these charges, or it is over - everything.
As crazy as this may sound, Shapiro's handlers believe he could one day be President.
Presuming this goes to trial, can C/S/S go on the offensive? By that I mean can they call witnesses such as Raykovitz or Heim and have their lawyers question them under oath about their knowledge? In effect they wouldn't just be defending their *perceived* inaction but also shifting the focus onto others, which could ultimately help us find out what the Second Mile knew. I'm not educated in law so I don't know what is permissible as a defendant. Both Heim and Raykovitz testified to the GJ so I don't know if they would be protected by that or not.
They can if the Judge admits it as relevant. The potential argument the prosecution will make is they should have reported to the authorities, not to TSM, and making Raykovitz aware did not meet their burden. No idea if that is a winning argument or not.
Neither. Zimmerman and Anton are R's, Shapiro is a D. They both worked against Shapiro, Anton more so. Zimmerman is no longer actively involved in politics, though he does contribute financially.
Sure they could - - - - unless the Bench somehow steps in to suppress it (which would certainly be "wrong" and a bastardization of the process.......would the Bench do that? Who knows?)
Now - WILL CSS do that?
We may find out
But most certainly, in the defense of EWC, it is of primary interest to discuss the actions CSS took wrt their "report to Raykovitz, Heim, and the 2nd Mile"........... Without question
[QUOTE
="WeR0206, post: 2620013, member: 10338"]Still
Also for the state to prove that MM reported "suspected abuse" (instead of vague report of inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable - which is C/S'version corroborated by numerous people) they will need someone to corroborate MM's side of the story, that he actually reported suspected abuse to C/S not just some vague story with a bunch of assumptions. With Dranov's most recent testimony that what he was told hours after the incicent wasn't bad enough to call police or CYS, good luck with that. Even JM ("at least a very inappropriate action") doesn't back up MM's version.
I have a feeling CSS' lawyers are going to shred MM's credibility (by confronting him with his numerous conflicting statements and actions) if this ever sniffs a court room. But who knows wtf you are gonna get in the PA kangaroo courts...[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail there. It will be MM's word versus C/S/S word on what happened. And Mike will have to convince a jury that what he told C/S/S was different then what he told his father and Dranov. And MM will have to convince a jury of why he didn't report anything if he thought it was a real assault. Based on everything we have seen in jury transcripts, I don't think that case for the prosecution will be very strong.
="WeR0206, post: 2620013, member: 10338"]Still
Also for the state to prove that MM reported "suspected abuse" (instead of vague report of inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable - which is C/S'version corroborated by numerous people) they will need someone to corroborate MM's side of the story, that he actually reported suspected abuse to C/S not just some vague story with a bunch of assumptions. With Dranov's most recent testimony that what he was told hours after the incicent wasn't bad enough to call police or CYS, good luck with that. Even JM ("at least a very inappropriate action") doesn't back up MM's version.
I have a feeling CSS' lawyers are going to shred MM's credibility (by confronting him with his numerous conflicting statements and actions) if this ever sniffs a court room. But who knows wtf you are gonna get in the PA kangaroo courts...[/QUOTE]
You hit the nail there. It will be MM's word versus C/S/S word on what happened. And Mike will have to convince a jury that what he told C/S/S was different then what he told his father and Dranov. And MM will have to convince a jury of why he didn't report anything if he thought it was a real assault. Based on everything we have seen in jury transcripts, I don't think that case for the prosecution will be very strong.
It most certainly is RELEVANT. I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the charges at hand.
Of course, the actions of the Bench/Judiciary to date bring EVERYTHING into question
I beg to differ......totally different sets of circumstances in that trial. The MM case was only to determine if MM was treated fairly by PSU once he reported things in 2001. The issue of the accuracy of his report was not in question or a determining factor. The incident, in and of itself, was not on trial. It was also a civil matter, and not criminal (again, a totally different paradigm).
For the CSS trial, it is criminal (a major issue but one I won't dwell on at this time). But at the heart of the matter is the value and clarity of MM's recounting of what he had seen and what CSS did to follow up on that matter. MM and his friends will be front and center for the entire trail. In fact, that IS the trail.
Mike has an out on this one. He has stated that he thought he was talking to the police when he spoke to Schultz.
No need to beg to differ. I think we are both on the same page regarding the dynamics of the upcoming CSS trial.
If anyone wants a preview of what's to come if the trial does happen just take a look at the questioning of MM and JM by Roberto (pages 67-85) and Farrell (pages 140-158) respectively in the 12/16/11 prelim (link). I don't think those two will be enjoying it very much.
One of the first things Roberto asked MM was what he reported to Dr. Dranov (b/c the state needs someone to corroborate MM's side of the story). Beemer immediately objected due to relevance (huh? did he forget one of the charges included perjury??) and of course it was sustained by the corrupt biased judge. But then Roberto went on to say the following which I think will give us preview of what's to come....
Page 69:
"For the record note my objections, and for the record, I mean, I think the Commonwealth's vehemence in preventing me from going into this area would lead me to believe that Dr. Dranov's testimony doesn't corroborate MM's testimony."
Lo and behold we find out during the MM whistle blower testimony that Dr. D does NOT corroborate MM, not in the least.
The best JM could do to corroborate MM was to say the matter was at least very inappropriate and perhaps sexual in nature. Really? MM supposedly reports that he is certain JS raped a kid and that's the language JM uses to describe it?? Something stinks here...
Also according to MM in the 12/16/11 prelim, MM claims he reported to Curley an extremely sexual act that he THOUGHT was intercourse. Ok lets assume that really happened. Then also according to MM in the 12/16/11 prelim, TC called a few weeks later to follow up with PSU's action plan (which didn't involve JS getting hauled off in cuffs or even someone from UPPD taking his official statement so a real criminal investigation could get started) and MM expressed NO dissatisfaction and never said MORE needed to be done besides revoking JS' guest privileges and informing TSM. The former doesn't jive with the latter. Not in the least. How were JM/Dr. D/MM not making a big stink of things once they realized the admins were supposedly placating them??? Either the admins response to MM's report was adequate or not at the time. According to the one and only witness he was ok with their plan, at least he was from the admins point of view.
We even have guys like Heim admitting in the PAPER that he told JR not to inform the rest of the board about TC's report. Yet the OAG doesn't think there's anything to dig into re: TSM? Come on now... SMH.
