Josh Shapiro seeks the death penalty for Graham Spanier

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
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.
If the OAG is charging someone with a crime (failure to report) they indeed are required to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a crime was committed. This generally applies everywhere, with the exception of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.....
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
If the OAG is charging someone with a crime (failure to report) they indeed are required to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that a crime was committed. This generally applies everywhere, with the exception of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.....

OAG maintains that it checked records, nothing was found. Schultz comes up with a weak counter. Schultz, of the three, should have done a better job documenting what took place.

Kinda like being charged with failure to file a tax return and not being able to provide any evidence that you did. You're toast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
OAG maintains that it checked records, nothing was found. Schultz comes up with a weak counter. Schultz, of the three, should have done a better job documenting what took place.

Kinda like being charged with failure to file a tax return and not being able to provide any evidence that you did. You're toast.
I don't give a shit if they say they checked records . Surely you don't buy that.....any report of horse play would have been removed many years prior....no record would exist. No, because you are required to keep tax records. There was no law that Schultz needed to keep a record of his meeting with MM or a record of any report that might have been made to child services. We also don't know what might have been in Gary's records because both Baldwin and the OAG had access to them. For all we know, Harmon may have been entrusted with making a phone call. He had a pretty good case of Commonwealth Dementia and he was treated with kid gloves for playing along.
This is ridiculous to even discuss.....you had 3 administrators essentially destroyed for endangering the welfare of a child.....a child that has never been identified.....has this ever happened anywhere else ever? Convicted under a statue that didn't exist when the alleged incident occurred.....and you are arguing it should have been better documented? OKIE DOKEY....I'm done here.
 

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
224
138
1
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.
What MM testified to and what he actually told them are miles apart. Logic would say that he told all involved at the time e same thing. He had no other incentive back then. His incentives changed 11 years later. Use common sense.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
I don't give a shit if they say they checked records . Surely you don't buy that.....any report of horse play would have been removed many years prior....no record would exist. No, because you are required to keep tax records. There was no law that Schultz needed to keep a record of his meeting with MM or a record of any report that might have been made to child services. We also don't know what might have been in Gary's records because both Baldwin and the OAG had access to them. For all we know, Harmon may have been entrusted with making a phone call. He had a pretty good case of Commonwealth Dementia and he was treated with kid gloves for playing along.
This is ridiculous to even discuss.....you had 3 administrators essentially destroyed for endangering the welfare of a child.....a child that has never been identified.....has this ever happened anywhere else ever? Convicted under a statue that didn't exist when the alleged incident occurred.....and you are arguing it should have been better documented? OKIE DOKEY....I'm done here.

For someone who did such a thorough job keeping records, Schultz offered a pretty lame account of it in his own defense.

Spanier and Schultz failed in their responsibilities to protect the University. That wasn't criminal, they shouldn't have gone to jail for it. But there's no excuse for their negligence. Being a "good man" is no substitute for being competent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
For someone who did such a thorough job keeping records, Schultz offered a pretty lame account of it in his own defense.

Spanier and Schultz failed in their responsibilities to protect the University. That wasn't criminal, they shouldn't have gone to jail for it. But there's no excuse for their negligence. Being a "good man" is no substitute for being competent.
The Board of Trustees failed in their responsibilities to protect the University.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
What MM testified to and what he actually told them are miles apart. Logic would say that he told all involved at the time e same thing. He had no other incentive back then. His incentives changed 11 years later. Use common sense.

I don't disagree. Problem is that when it came down to cases, C/S/S couldn't prove that he told them something different and when he lied in his testimony, the juries believed him. Their negligence left them and PSU defenseless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
The Board of Trustees failed in their responsibilities to protect the University.
Whoop-de-fvcking-do. By the time the BoT got involved, the die was cast. With nothing to contradict Magic Mike's testimony it was his account versus that of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. They believed him
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
Whoop-de-fvcking-do. By the time the BoT got involved, the die was cast. With nothing to contradict Magic Mike's testimony it was his account versus that of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. They believed him
The BOT didn't have to join the Corbett Army, sign the consent decree or give money away to unvetted claimants to the tune of a couple hundred million.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
The BOT didn't have to join the Corbett Army, sign the consent decree or give money away to unvetted claimants to the tune of a couple hundred million.

They also didn't have to commission the Freeh Report, which was their worst offense. But once the cases hit the courts, PSU's reputation was in the garbage heap. Might (note I said "might" not "would") have turned out better had Spanier and Schultz (i'm leaving Curley out because it wasn't his purview) done more work in 2001.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
I don't know if you kept up with all of this. But, the McChesney diary has this nugget:

"Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says they contacted cps"

Details from Blehar

So Blehar can produce a copy of said e-mail so that everyone can see its contents? I didn't think so. Contact McChesney to get her to expand on the note? Nah, why spoil a good story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
I don't know if you kept up with all of this. But, the McChesney diary has this nugget:

"Exculpatory 2.26 email is on the top & they came in the same order where he says they contacted cps"

Details from Blehar

Thanks for digging this up, I knew there was some information that a report had been made.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
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.
Yes, he does, actually. The burden of proof is on the OAG, not the defendant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blk902

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
Yes, he does, actually. The burden of proof is on the OAG, not the defendant.

Then Schultz needed a better attorney because his didn't motion for dismissal on the grounds that the state didn't meet its burden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Then Schultz needed a better attorney because his didn't motion for dismissal on the grounds that the state didn't meet its burden.
How often are such motions granted, especially when the judge is very clearly biased against the defense?
 

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
224
138
1
Then Schultz needed a better attorney because his didn't motion for dismissal on the grounds that the state didn't meet its burden.
It wouldn’t have mattered to the corrupt judge who wanted to get reelected.
 

OhHello

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2021
217
440
1
Just now seeing this. This Shapiro character needs to be disbarred. It is in no one's best interest for prosecutors to go this over the top in an obvious attempt to make a name for himself. The danger here is that today it is Spanier. Is it you tomorrow? We have to have professionals with some sense of applying power appropriately. This guy undermines faith in our legal system.
 

WyomingLion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Mar 30, 2016
582
1,226
1
Rocky Mountains
"It wouldn't have mattered," the universal excuse for someone not to do their job.
That phrase about not doing their job applies to Shapiro. The other day you said that his job was to make sure someone convicted served jail time. I replied that Shapiro’s job was to make himself familiar with the case, review the appeal and make sure that justice was served. He failed in his duty/job. You didn’t reply, I suspect because you know he failed in his job. You seem to dislike Spanier so much that it clouds your judgement and are happy with the result. Carry on.
 

BlueLion

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2004
5,052
456
1
Just now seeing this. This Shapiro character needs to be disbarred. It is in no one's best interest for prosecutors to go this over the top in an obvious attempt to make a name for himself. The danger here is that today it is Spanier. Is it you tomorrow? We have to have professionals with some sense of applying power appropriately. This guy undermines faith in our legal system.

It's one thing when the justice system steamrolls minorities but, doing it to a good white man makes it a tragedy.
 

Petch

Well-Known Member
Mar 28, 2012
2,371
3,336
1
"It wouldn't have mattered," the universal excuse for someone not to do their job.
Well, the BOT certainly didn’t do their job. Once the media descended and the BOT crapped their collective pants and threw Paterno under the bus, their only course was to justify their cowardice by hiring the corrupt Louis Freeh to do a hit job on everyone involved.…thus “justifying” their horrendous early actions.

Curley, Schultz and Spanier certainly made a mistake by not properly documenting what they thought was a non event…but powerful members of the BOT were purposefully destructive to the university and were never held accountable.
 

OhHello

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2021
217
440
1
It's one thing when the justice system steamrolls minorities but, doing it to a good white man makes it a tragedy.
Please. This has nothing to do with race. If anything, a miscarriage of justice of this proportion in a high profile case gives cover to prosecutors to steamroll minorities to another level if they want. Either the justice system is applied in a proportional manner to the crime and record or it is a vigilante system. Shapiro is making it a vigilante system and anyone that doesn't recognize the danger of that is disregarding history.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
That phrase about not doing their job applies to Shapiro. The other day you said that his job was to make sure someone convicted served jail time. I replied that Shapiro’s job was to make himself familiar with the case, review the appeal and make sure that justice was served. He failed in his duty/job. You didn’t reply, I suspect because you know he failed in his job. You seem to dislike Spanier so much that it clouds your judgement and are happy with the result. Carry on.

He's doing his job, you just don't like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
Well, the BOT certainly didn’t do their job. Once the media descended and the BOT crapped their collective pants and threw Paterno under the bus, their only course was to justify their cowardice by hiring the corrupt Louis Freeh to do a hit job on everyone involved.…thus “justifying” their horrendous early actions.

Curley, Schultz and Spanier certainly made a mistake by not properly documenting what they thought was a non event…but powerful members of the BOT were purposefully destructive to the university and were never held accountable.

No they didn't, but that excuses Schultz and Spanier from not doing theirs in some quarters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

KanePoster

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
2,269
3,674
1
31
Kane
He's doing his job, you just don't like it.
No, Wyoming is right - your hatred for a man has blinded you to the principles involved.

While I think we would all agree that a defense lawyer's job is to do everything possible to acquit his client, the prosecutor's job is to seek justice.

In this case, those involved in the judicial system did not seek justice, they sought to grandstand.
 

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
He's not. The job of the OAG is not "get convictions at any cost." (which is what they did here). In fact, the job of the OAG is not even "get convictions." The job is "pursue justice." That was not done here, even any way.
A Federal Appeals court happens to agree with the way he's doing his job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Art

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
51,117
18,712
1
No, Wyoming is right - your hatred for a man has blinded you to the principles involved.

While I think we would all agree that a defense lawyer's job is to do everything possible to acquit his client, the prosecutor's job is to seek justice.

In this case, those involved in the judicial system did not seek justice, they sought to grandstand.
I've said any number times that I don't believe Spanier should go to jail for his mistake, but just to piss you off even more, I'm going to stand up and applaud when he does. Happy now, shithead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

OhHello

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2021
217
440
1
I've said any number times that I don't believe Spanier should go to jail for his mistake, but just to piss you off even more, I'm going to stand up and applaud when he does. Happy now, shithead?
That makes no sense. You will stand and applaud that which you don't believe is right? For spite? For some other reason? Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

Where have those gone that stand for that which they believe is right?
 

Latest posts