Josh Shapiro seeks the death penalty for Graham Spanier

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
Your interpretation of the events that lead to the fallout you describe is incorrect. The fallout you describe did happen, but it should not have. It only did because of media malpractice, OAG corruption and BOT incompetence.
Maybe it shouldn't have happened, but if PSU reports the 2001 incident McQueary is out of play and the opportunity for all that you describe to happen is significantly diminished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
I will disagree with you on one thing. I do not think "BOT incompetence" was the reason. IMO it was jealousy and petty personal vandettas from the BOTS.
This is a fair take, although it may be semantics. I think there were a few members of the BOT who had vendettas and the rest of the BOT was too incompetent to stop the rogue actors.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Maybe it shouldn't have happened, but if PSU reports the 2001 incident McQueary is out of play and the opportunity for all that you describe to happen is significantly diminished.
PSU did not have "report worthy" information nor was PSU in a supervisory capacity of TSM kids, nor was Sandusky an employee.

Expecting them to report it is unrealistic, based on the information we know now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

MJG-90

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
4,584
5,735
1
Maybe it shouldn't have happened, but if PSU reports the 2001 incident McQueary is out of play and the opportunity for all that you describe to happen is significantly diminished.

PSU did not have "report worthy" information nor was PSU in a supervisory capacity of TSM kids, nor was Sandusky an employee.

Expecting them to report it is unrealistic, based on the information we know now.

Both of these posts are correct. PSU should not have had to report based on the law at the time. If they had reported, their exposure is almost zero and maybe the Sandusky trial never even happens.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,861
40,024
1
Baltimore, MD
This is a fair take, although it may be semantics. I think there were a few members of the BOT who had vendettas and the rest of the BOT was too incompetent to stop the rogue actors.
Yea good point about the others Mimi was too interested in the opera and Jesse Arnell was too far away and old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
PSU did not have "report worthy" information nor was PSU in a supervisory capacity of TSM kids, nor was Sandusky an employee.

Expecting them to report it is unrealistic, based on the information we know now.

Why is it unrealistic? Even Spanier recognized at the time that not reporting exposed PSU to risk.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Why is it unrealistic? Even Spanier recognized at the time that not reporting exposed PSU to risk.
This demonstrates that you have no idea what happened in this case.

That is not what the email says at all. The only risk was POTENTIAL risk in the future. There was zero risk based on the 2001 (2000) incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
This demonstrates that you have no idea what happened in this case.

That is not what the email says at all. The only risk was POTENTIAL risk in the future. There was zero risk based on the 2001 (2000) incident.

Guess what? He was right. And now he's going to jail for it.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Both of these posts are correct. PSU should not have had to report based on the law at the time. If they had reported, their exposure is almost zero and maybe the Sandusky trial never even happens.
I'm not actually sure this would have mattered.

The catalyst for the Sandusky trial was Aaron Fisher, not Allan Myers.

Once the OAG decided they were moving forward with this, I'm not sure PSU reporting the MM story would have mattered. Unless Jerry had been arrested in 2001, the "why didn't Joe do more" narrative would still have been parroted by every media hack.

If PSU has reported 2001, PSU may have had an argument for denying civil claims, but my guess is they would not have (because they had the philosophy of throwing money at non-vetted accusers to make this go away).
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
That and he didn't cover his ass.
When the OAG and judge are out to get you, no amount of ass covering will be effective.

Appreciate that the singular misdemeanor charge that he was convicted of was not a law when he supposedly broke it. The is the definition of ex post facto, which is un-Constitutional. That is mind boggling that the courts upheld this conviction.
 

MJG-90

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
4,584
5,735
1
I'm not actually sure this would have mattered.

The catalyst for the Sandusky trial was Aaron Fisher, not Allan Myers.

Sure, but the OAG kept digging because they knew Aaron Fisher wasn't going to be enough. Once they landed McQueary, the case was on. And that never happens if what McQueary saw had been reported to CYS.
 

slykens

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2016
888
974
1
That is mind boggling that the courts upheld this conviction.
You must be new to court watching.

Courts will frequently re-interpret laws and the Constitution or make it up as they go to get the outcome they desire, regardless of fairness. Even in the old Soviet Union his ex post facto conviction would not have been permitted.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
When the OAG and judge are out to get you, no amount of ass covering will be effective.

Appreciate that the singular misdemeanor charge that he was convicted of was not a law when he supposedly broke it. The is the definition of ex post facto, which is un-Constitutional. That is mind boggling that the courts upheld this conviction.

The Third Circuit disagrees, but maybe they're corrupt too. Probably no point in taking it to the Supreme Court, even if PSU is paying the tab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Sure, but the OAG kept digging because they knew Aaron Fisher wasn't going to be enough. Once they landed McQueary, the case was on. And that never happens if what McQueary saw had been reported to CYS.
Maybe?? But maybe they keep digging and find other alleged victims. Recall, Sara Ganim "found" a bunch of victims for the OAG.

It certainly would have helped if PSU had reported 2001, but unless Jerry had been arrested then, I think PSU still pulled into the media hurricane with "Why did they do more?"

Which is ridiculous and unfair.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,861
40,024
1
Baltimore, MD
Maybe?? But maybe they keep digging and find other alleged victims. Recall, Sara Ganim "found" a bunch of victims for the OAG.

It certainly would have helped if PSU had reported 2001, but unless Jerry had been arrested then, I think PSU still pulled into the media hurricane with "Why did they do more?"

Which is ridiculous and unfair.
Didn’t Sarah get some of her “found” victims from weird uncle Bernie? Who IMO was a pedophile himself.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
Art said:
More rationalization. Spanier made a bad decision. His first reaction when the Sandusky mess was referred to him should have been, "Get this thing out of hear. Send it to where it belongs."
I agree, if he would have only sent the report of horseplay to "where it belongs"... the second mile, who had responsibility for JS and the teen, none of this would have happened. :rolleyes:

MJG-90 said:
It might be unprovable, but given that PSU was not in hot water over '98 (other than having to pay out money to the "victim"), which was reported, I think it's a pretty safe assumption. McQueary was the "big witness" that turned this into a case. If his report gets to CYS, PSU is then out of the crosshairs -- and probably out of the crosshairs for every payment they made as well.

I'm pretty sure Curley testified that he did not report McQueary's statement to CYS. Schultz testified that he thought Tim did only to find out later Tim did not. So pretty certain we know that it was not reported to CYS, just the second mile.

Comparing 1998 to 2001 is apples and oranges. When you consider what the OAG did to ensure a conviction in 2001, it's a pretty safe assumption that a report (that would have been likely expunged from the records) would have made zero difference. Even if it wasn't expunged, do you think that would have made the OAG grow a conscious and play fair? Of course not, they would have said "PSU made only one report, in a case when they knew that no abuse occurred in the showers to AM, but covered up multiple other instances." THE FIX WAS IN!

I seem to remember a story recently, maybe on big trial or somewhere, that showed evidence that a report was made.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,391
6,621
1
Maybe it shouldn't have happened, but if PSU reports the 2001 incident McQueary is out of play and the opportunity for all that you describe to happen is significantly diminished.
hindsight is almost always 20/20. carry on
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,391
6,621
1
I agree, if he would have only sent the report of horseplay to "where it belongs"... the second mile, who had responsibility for JS and the teen, none of this would have happened. :rolleyes:



Comparing 1998 to 2001 is apples and oranges. When you consider what the OAG did to ensure a conviction in 2001, it's a pretty safe assumption that a report (that would have been likely expunged from the records) would have made zero difference. Even if it wasn't expunged, do you think that would have made the OAG grow a conscious and play fair? Of course not, they would have said "PSU made only one report, in a case when they knew that no abuse occurred in the showers to AM, but covered up multiple other instances." THE FIX WAS IN!

I seem to remember a story recently, maybe on big trial or somewhere, that showed evidence that a report was made.
So here is my question. It has been said if PSU had just reported it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE
Dranov did not say report to CYS or police or even Jerry's employer
2nd mile hears of the incident and doesn't investigate or report it anywhere despite Js being an employee and the alleged vic likely one of their kids.
PSU has a retired employee gets a report and reports it to JS employer.

I truly don't understand why PSU is MORE culpable than those other parties who were both clearly more knowledgeable about such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
224
138
1
So my "interpretation of what happened is incorrect?" Joe's statue is till there, no one went to or is going to jail, PSU's coffers have hundreds of millions of dollars more, and none of those nasty stories ever appeared. I need me some of that pixie dust.
Yes all of that happened because of corruption and greed. We all know the results but apparently you think the causes were all The PSU executives fault. The AG corruption and BOT deflecting all blame had nothing to do with the results. Interesting! Most BOT members all knew Jerry for many Years and were involved in his charity. Why didn’t they know? because there was nothing to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
Yes all of that happened because of corruption and greed. We all know the results but apparently you think the causes were all The PSU executives fault. The AG corruption and BOT deflecting all blame had nothing to do with the results. Interesting! Most BOT members all knew Jerry for many Years and were involved in his charity. Why didn’t they know? because there was nothing to know.
So Spanier knew he and PSU were going to get screwed no matter what so he decided to not take the only defense available? If it makes you happy believing that, carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
224
138
1
So Spanier knew he and PSU were going to get screwed no matter what so he decided to not take the only defense available? If it makes you happy believing that, carry on.
You make me happy. Yes mistakes were made but some decisions were made to receive money and notoriety. Spanier made management mistakes with no intention of personal gain.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
You make me happy. Yes mistakes were made but some decisions were made to receive money and notoriety. Spanier made management mistakes with no intention of personal gain.

Yeah, Spankie made a management mistake that cost PSU about a quarter bil. Coulda bought Eric the Fat his art museum, Ms. Excellence her swimmin hole, a lot's of toys for CJF. Make everybody happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
BOT member Barbara Doran posted the following on the ps4rs facebook page and a link to the associated Penn Live LTE by the jury foreman:

The jury foreman said this at the time of former President Graham Spanier’s trial: that he and the jury have made a grave mistake in arriving at a guilty verdict.
It is my fully considered opinion, after literally years of research on our – Penn State’s - role in the Sandusky scandal, along with many fellow alumni trustees, both current and former, that the vilification of Graham and the rest of his leadership and of Penn State, was grossly unjustified.
I attended President Spanier’s trial in full, to hear first-hand, unfiltered, the testimony of former AD Tim Curley, former CFO Gary Schultz, and the former Executive Director of Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, as they testified UNDER OATH, that they each thought that Mike McQueary’s description of the infamous shower incident was of “horseplay,” not sexual abuse, and had told then-President Spanier that.
(Indeed, I remember vividly, the memorable comment from Raykovitz, Second Miles’ top leader, that he subsequently had simply told Jerry Sandusky to wear swim trunks when showering with boys.)
The Freeh report noted that Gary Schultz consulted with Penn State’s then counsel, Wendell Courtney, about the incident and concluded, wrongly -- without having ever talked to Schultz or Courtney about what was actually said -- that Schultz must have been worried it was sexual abuse.
Again, UNDER OATH, Wendell Courtney testified that Schultz did not ask whether he had to report sexual abuse but if, because someone had reported a suspicious incident, he had to report it. Courtney told him he did not. (And further testified that having known Gary Schultz for some thirty years, it was inconceivable that Schultz, known for his honesty and integrity, would not report sexual abuse had that even remotely been suspected.)
We have unfinished business to attend to as regards the Sandusky impact on Penn State, but right now, Graham Spanier deserves to be vindicated and the full truth of his role more widely known, without political interference from the state and others.

 

BrianS

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2001
8,279
2,738
1
Josh Shapiro's days are numbered!! (Has to do with the 2020 election.)
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
The bullshit that none of this would have happened if reported should stop already. Would have, could have, should have......who knows for certain a report wasn't made? It would have been unfounded and expunged from any record. You can't prove there was or was not. That is a fact. The OAG knew this....fools keep swallowing it.
What is a fact is that it was reported to Raykovitz who was a contract employee of CYS and a mandated reporter. Dranov a mandated reporter, heard what MM said and testified he saw or heard nothing that he felt he needed to report.
Why were Curley, Schultz and Spanier prosecuted and not Dranov, John McQueary and Jack Raykovitz? If you can twist your logic into the 3 PSU administrators being negligent or not covering their asses......how in God's name do you explain Dranov, McQueary and Raykovitz escaping prosecution?
If you are stupid enough to believe that none of this would have happened if a phone call had been made, you believe that Harmon never asked Schultz why he was looking for the Sandusky file on '98 and please DM me about a bridge for sale.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
100,256
43,349
1
BOT member Barbara Doran posted the following on the ps4rs facebook page and a link to the associated Penn Live LTE by the jury foreman:

The jury foreman said this at the time of former President Graham Spanier’s trial: that he and the jury have made a grave mistake in arriving at a guilty verdict.
It is my fully considered opinion, after literally years of research on our – Penn State’s - role in the Sandusky scandal, along with many fellow alumni trustees, both current and former, that the vilification of Graham and the rest of his leadership and of Penn State, was grossly unjustified.
I attended President Spanier’s trial in full, to hear first-hand, unfiltered, the testimony of former AD Tim Curley, former CFO Gary Schultz, and the former Executive Director of Second Mile, Jack Raykovitz, as they testified UNDER OATH, that they each thought that Mike McQueary’s description of the infamous shower incident was of “horseplay,” not sexual abuse, and had told then-President Spanier that.
(Indeed, I remember vividly, the memorable comment from Raykovitz, Second Miles’ top leader, that he subsequently had simply told Jerry Sandusky to wear swim trunks when showering with boys.)
The Freeh report noted that Gary Schultz consulted with Penn State’s then counsel, Wendell Courtney, about the incident and concluded, wrongly -- without having ever talked to Schultz or Courtney about what was actually said -- that Schultz must have been worried it was sexual abuse.
Again, UNDER OATH, Wendell Courtney testified that Schultz did not ask whether he had to report sexual abuse but if, because someone had reported a suspicious incident, he had to report it. Courtney told him he did not. (And further testified that having known Gary Schultz for some thirty years, it was inconceivable that Schultz, known for his honesty and integrity, would not report sexual abuse had that even remotely been suspected.)
We have unfinished business to attend to as regards the Sandusky impact on Penn State, but right now, Graham Spanier deserves to be vindicated and the full truth of his role more widely known, without political interference from the state and others.

Great post but there is a middle eastern proverb:

Bark3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
The bullshit that none of this would have happened if reported should stop already. Would have, could have, should have......who knows for certain a report wasn't made? It would have been unfounded and expunged from any record. You can't prove there was or was not. That is a fact. The OAG knew this....fools keep swallowing it.
What is a fact is that it was reported to Raykovitz who was a contract employee of CYS and a mandated reporter. Dranov a mandated reporter, heard what MM said and testified he saw or heard nothing that he felt he needed to report.
Why were Curley, Schultz and Spanier prosecuted and not Dranov, John McQueary and Jack Raykovitz? If you can twist your logic into the 3 PSU administrators being negligent or not covering their asses......how in God's name do you explain Dranov, McQueary and Raykovitz escaping prosecution?
If you are stupid enough to believe that none of this would have happened if a phone call had been made, you believe that Harmon never asked Schultz why he was looking for the Sandusky file on '98 and please DM me about a bridge for sale.
No one claims or recalls making a report so I thinks it's safe to say that none was made.

You are correct that it's impossible to predict what would have happened if a report had been made. However, if it had, the McQueary story line is likely to be a non-starter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

MJG-90

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
4,584
5,735
1
Would have, could have, should have......who knows for certain a report wasn't made? It would have been unfounded and expunged from any record. You can't prove there was or was not. That is a fact. The OAG knew this....fools keep swallowing it.
Curley admitted he didn’t make a report. Schultz said he thought Curley reported it. I think it’s clear it wasn’t reported.
Why were Curley, Schultz and Spanier prosecuted and not Dranov, John McQueary and Jack Raykovitz?
This is the million dollar question in my mind.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
Curley admitted he didn’t make a report. Schultz said he thought Curley reported it. I think it’s clear it wasn’t reported.

This is the million dollar question in my mind.

Gonna take a stab at this, but it doesn't quite work. No one testified that they told Dranov. McQueary pere, or Raykovitz of an incident of sexual assault. Magic Mike testified that he did tell Curley and Schultz that he saw that.

Which leaves us with Spanier. Magic Mike never talked to Spanier and no one testified that they described sexual assault to him. So there's the hole in my theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
I thought Dranov and Mikey’s daddy both took the stand in at least one of the legal proceedings related to this debacle.
That's my recollection as well, but I'm pretty sure they didn't testify that the Magic One told them he saw JerBear doing a kid. And Mikey never testified that he told them that.

They were probably called to set a time line and as lead ins to the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
No one claims or recalls making a report so I thinks it's safe to say that none was made.

You are correct that it's impossible to predict what would have happened if a report had been made. However, if it had, the McQueary story line is likely to be a non-starter.
I believe Gary in his GJ testimony, said he thought a report was made to the same agency that was involved with 98. In any case my point stands, the OAG could not prove that a report was not made and expunged. Also, Harmon comically said he never asked Gary why he (Gary) queried about the 98 report.....I'm gonna go out on a limb and call him a liar......so law enforcement was well aware of the "incident."
Harmon enjoyed the guard all Commonwealth shield for playing his part.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
Curley admitted he didn’t make a report. Schultz said he thought Curley reported it. I think it’s clear it wasn’t reported.

This is the million dollar question in my mind.
It had to be because MM played nice.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,710
1
I believe Gary in his GJ testimony, said he thought a report was made to the same agency that was involved with 98. In any case my point stands, the OAG could not prove that a report was not made and expunged. Also, Harmon comically said he never asked Gary why he (Gary) queried about the 98 report.....I'm gonna go out on a limb and call him a liar......so law enforcement was well aware of the "incident."
Harmon enjoyed the guard all Commonwealth shield for playing his part.

Attorney General doesn't have to prove anything unless Schultz can come up with some more compelling information about a 2001 report, particularly since he didn't file a report for the 1998 incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole