That's one juror. The foreman admitted they made a mistake in convicting Spanier.
Graham Spanier speaks out about false narrative that he was convicted on
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Would you like to comment on the federal investigation that conclude there was no cover up? I'd tend to believe that over 12 jurors who were subjected to a corrupt OAG prosecution.
LOL. I have first hand experience with federal background checks and they are ABSOLUTELY a federal investigation and are far more honest than anything the OAG did.
You just keep proving how close minded you are on this topic.
I do not recall that post from Anthony but he is certainly in the "Truther" camp on this. If you can point me to that post, I will review it.
The emails show they knew it was only horseplay. This is irrefutable. MM's testimony has changed at every turn AND he complained to the OAG that his grand jury testimony was being misrepresented in the presentmet.
Keep trying though. Your mom thinks you are doing great!
Why would a school who’s image is doing the right thing, want to protect that image by covering up the alleged crimes of an ex-employee that nobody particularly liked? When they could just continue to do the right thing and turn him in?
You could have stopped with you knew Tim C. and Rick D. Just based on that whose side would you believe. That my friend isn't close. Full disclosure It sounds like I was a couple hears ahead of you. i don't remember Rick but I knew Tim and it is hard to find straighter shooter.
Last edited:
I thought it might have been the guy who drove the equipment truck for PSU. Or maybe he was from the other board.
Is WHCANole Frank Fina with a lot of extra time on his hands? I remember an animated cartoon, that I believe JZ put out about the PSU coverup. It made it pretty clear that with everyone knowing it couldn't possibly be considered a coverup. If someone still has a link on file I'd like to see it again, thanks in advance!
speaking of conspiracy. nuts and this whole case everyone should take a deep breath and think about this.
Think about this for a minute.
. In 2001 you have a crime that has a statute of limitations of 2 years.
. 10 years later the judge suggests the 2 year SoL is an going 2 years because the cover up is ongoing.
. and we have NO VICTIM that was allegedly endangered.
One simple question. Who is the child Spanier endangered and continue to endanger for 10 years?.
Last edited:
There is a legal term called standing that suggests in order for a suit to move forward the the person needs to show someone or some party was harmed. Tell me who was harmed in this case. MM can't, the prosecution can't, The millions of dollars floated by the BoT can't, The Second Mile can't.
I completely disagree with this statement and I'm one that generally believes Sandusky likely belongs behind bars. The only email evidence of this nature that I recall is the one that stated something to the effect of "coach is anxious to hear about where this stands." For me, that is not an indication that Joe was part of the group making the decision, it could just as likely mean that he was excluded from that group and wanted to hear the outcome of what they decided upon without his input. It's possible Joe was part of making the decision, but it's not clear whether he was or wasn't based on this email.
So then what conspiracy, specifically, were they charged with committing? And wouldn’t that conspiracy be related to their supposed desire to cover up the crime to protect the university?
To cover something up, you don’t leave an email chain. And you definitely don’t tell other people, such as Jack Raykovitz. And you certainly would tell your witness to keep his mouth shut (MM says he was never told that).
That you’re here spouting off the media narrative practically by the book tells me you have an agenda.
And he said ALL the jurors believed there was a coverup. Are they conspiracy nuts?
Of course they believed that. It's a convenient motive to explain why Curley, Schultz, and Spanier did what they did. But there is no evidence of a "coverup." They may be guilty of monumental stupidity, but not a coverup.
This is Lubrano: https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...-scandal-to-start-in-2021.285749/post-5482802
The emails never mention horseplay. McQueary said he never used the term and Schultz backed him up. That term came from Paterno. The actions they took regarding MMs report show they did not think it was "horseplay". Horseplay would have never been reported by MM much less taken to Spanier. Illogical it's a benign term. Laura Ditka pointed that out at Spanier's trial.
I have extensive experience as well and they are a federal investigation on the person and whether they are a security risk. That's all. Snedden was not put on the stand for a reason and the media has not picked up on it because a BACKGROUND investigation (and I doubt you know what they are based on your comments) would never be a sufficient investigation by one guy against the team Freeh had to look at the entire event. The only real FEDERAL investigation on the scandal resulted in a fine against Penn State.
Conspiracy to endanger a child. Raykovitz wasn't told anything actionable. In fact Curley exonerates him.
The foreman is one juror as well. Were you attempting to discount one juror's opinion using the opinion of another juror? In any event it does not matter because they rendered a legal decision.
Probably the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church, Boy Scouts and even the US Army did so. BTW, Sandusky was a beloved figure in State College. You just don't like him now.
See, institutions are important but they can corrupt people who are too attached to them. They will protect the institution (and icons associated with it) at all costs. Tim Curley fits the bill perfectly. He owed his entire professional life to Joe Paterno and Penn State. He took the bullet for the team.
Last edited:
This is the famous "after talking it over with Joe" email that was in the Freeh report.
I don't know. You can go back and forth all you want. To me, the story of Joe Paterno is a classic tragedy.
A good man, great coach, and American icon...who stayed in the job far too long and was done in by ordinary human frailties.
People on both sides want to make Joe into a black-or-white saga. According to one side: a hero...and then victim. The other side: a con artist and villain who was never what he was billed to be.
But I think the truth, as is often the case, lies in the middle. Not in the territory of black or white...but rather gray. Where most things are.
In the end, I'll remember Joe for being "Joe." At his best, he represented the best...in coaching and life. Which is why his death in disgrace (justified or not) was heartbreaking.
As for Sandusky, I hope the mf-er rots in Hell, which is the proper destination for those who prey on children.
A good man, great coach, and American icon...who stayed in the job far too long and was done in by ordinary human frailties.
People on both sides want to make Joe into a black-or-white saga. According to one side: a hero...and then victim. The other side: a con artist and villain who was never what he was billed to be.
But I think the truth, as is often the case, lies in the middle. Not in the territory of black or white...but rather gray. Where most things are.
In the end, I'll remember Joe for being "Joe." At his best, he represented the best...in coaching and life. Which is why his death in disgrace (justified or not) was heartbreaking.
As for Sandusky, I hope the mf-er rots in Hell, which is the proper destination for those who prey on children.
This might be the stooopidest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You’re saying they were accused of conspiring to endanger a child? That doesn’t make any sense. Now if you’re saying they were accused of conspiring to cover up what they knew and that endangered children, then okay I get that. But they were found not guilty of conspiracy.
Read the jurors comments again. You need to understand that a conspiracy is not a coverup.
Last edited:
You have a point with his staying too long. That is I believe the root cause of his disgrace.
Nothing I've read indicates that Curley, Schultz and Spanier ever discussed the need to protect the Penn State "brand" or the football program. Maybe if Spanier had considered that he would have taken different action.
At that same trial, Dr Jack admitted on the stand, under oath, that he was informed of the infamous shower incident.
Cover-up and conspitracy theory officialy and 100% debunked right then and there!
But he was told essentially nothing about it and Curley admitted that under oath. MM told Joe (corroborated by Joe) that it was sexual. Curley and Schultz say he didn't tell them that but the jury and I think they are lying. I believe MM told them it was sexual. Their actions show that IMHO.
I get the difference. But you aren’t getting that in this case the two things are interrelated. Can’t have the coverup without the conspiracy.
Sure you can. That's why the jury asked for extra instructions about the law. CSS conspired to protect Penn State not to endanger a child. That's why Spanier got off that charge. That's the way the law is written.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm familiar. "After talking it over with Joe I'm uncomfortable with what we agreed as next steps." What is "it?" Who is "we" and does "we" include Joe? What were the previously agreed to next steps being referenced? What was the suggested change to the action plan? Objectively this email proves nothing, it only raises more questions unless there is more context. The email is inconclusive at best.
It's possible that Curley reviewed a plan of action with Joe, Joe disagreed and recommended something else, and this is how Curley expressed a recap of that conversation. It's also possible that he didn't discuss the action plan with Joe at all and he simply met with him to get more context about something, and that Curley decided on his own accord that he was no longer comfortable with the prior action plan given the additional context. It's also possible that the prior agreed action plan was soft and Curley's discomfort could have been that it wasn't tough enough, either with or without the Joe's input specific to the action plan.
The good old Pa judicial system during it's finest hour. The only liscensed child psychiatrist and mandatory reporter of TMS admitting he knew and not doing anything to protect the children under his care. That total responsibility fell on the PSU 3 and Joe. What a travesty of justice. One term Tommy, Dr Jack and Fina should have seen a prison cell not the PSU 3!
You can start with his long history of blunders at the FBI, you can start here and here to catch you up with the rest of the world. Those are just the tip of the failure iceberg. Then you could try and find one person who thinks that his conclusions are supported by the document, and that he interviewed key players. Good luck finding anything but articles ripping apart his PSU report, and evidence his own team didn't even believe the conclusions were supported.
So I guess a better question is... how is he not disgraced? I mean "no one authoritative has said so."
Correct, because (Occam's Razor) there was nothing to tell. Do you think they decided to inform a mandated reporter outside the university a toned down version of the incident you think they were actively covering up?!?!?!
Not true. But if it was true, then ALL the blame falls on MM for not notifying the proper authorities in a timely manner.
You can believe MM told them it was sexual, just like you can believe the earth is flat… doesn’t make it true. Their actions show that he didn't tell them it was sexual.
Apples and Oranges. Sandusky didn't work for PSU, the victim (who is on the record saying no abuse occurred) didn't go to PSU. Now if you want to claim the PSU admins were covering up for the TSM for some reason, you might have a point if they had any connection to TSM. I don't believe they did, but I do believe that many of PSU BOT did in have TSM connections, which might explain why they handled the situation so terribly and threw the admins under the bus.
BTW, Sandusky was a beloved figure in State College. You just don't like him now.
It doesn't matter if he was a beloved figure in State College, it is common knowledge that those working at PSU did not like him, especially JVP. This is just another in a long line of details you are wrong about.
Help me here. I thought Spanier was convicted for the boy in the shower MM talked about. To my knowledge that person has never been identified.
I am jumping in the middle here but the email above was in regards to the 1998 incident. We’ll never know Joe’s knowledge BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER. That was investigated and JS was effectively cleared. Just a wise up and stay from kids from the POLICE.
