Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BWI / McAndrew Board' started by lionville, Jun 26, 2018.
According to an article on Philly.com. No surprise there.
In the majority opinion, they discussed the claim that the charges were past the statute of limitations. After some legaleze, they concluded that since the age of the boy in the shower was thought to be 10-12 years old (of course, the boy that has never been officially identified in order to know how old he was) that this meant he didn't turn 18 until X year, which meant the statute of limitations didn't expire.
I mean how can a superior court judge use the age of an unknown person who was seen for a few seconds by a shaky witness to make a decision?
He can either request to have the case re-decided by the full Superior Court (and, given that it was a 2-1 decision against him, he has a decent shot of having it go en banc) or he can appeal directly to the PA Supreme Court.
Given how the rest of Spanier’s legal defense has played out, we’re likely looking at a hearing before the full Superior Court.
The Neverending Appeal
Likely 'the little boy in the shower" was almost 14.
I think the only evidence/testimony presented at trial was the boy was 10-12.
Spanier could have presented a defense which could have (at the very least) offered something that could be used to dispute that ... But if I recall, his team rested.
There's a lot going on here & we probably don't know the important parts.
Appeal courts generally, as I understand it, consider only what was presented at trial.
Later, a PCRA can address new evidence & facts that weren't available at trial. As far I know, there are no new facts regarding V2 that wouldn't have been available & known to him at trial.
The one exception is if the incident date moves further into the past, as some have suggested. But that doesn't really help Spanier because it only makes the presumed V2 even younger & closer to the 10-12 range.
Spanier loses appeal? He never had much appeal in the first place.....!
OK, thanks Raffy.
How would Spanier present any evidence disputing the age of the kid when Spanier had no idea who it was? Actually no one did.
In 2001? Sure.
At Spanier's trial? There sure does seem to be some evidence as to who it was. But none put forward by Spaniers defense.
Jerry's PCRA team put forth some.
Most of this uncovered by Ray Blehar but widely spread by Zig.
I thought Ray didn't believe that was Victim 2.
If the court based their decision on the person unofficially identified as V2, then they would have used an exact age
Ray makes no sense. He acknowledges that McQueary did not get a good look at the incident. He admits that the incident may have occurred prior to Feb 9th and that McQueary waited much longer than just one day to tell Paterno. But then claims Jerry Sandusky is continually lying about the boy being Allan Myers even though Myers has turned on Sandusky, but the so-called “real victim 2”, if he exists, has apparently not turned on Sandusky. Myers has also never claimed that he was wrongly pressured into coming forward as the boy in the shower, and was the only claimant paid by PSU as “victim 2”
Spanier knows damn well the boy is Allan Myers. I don’t know why he is being such a pussy
Ray did until his falling out with Zig.
No one has been able to explain how AM knew about the slamming of the wooden locker door before that went public.
100% Ray didn't want to be seen as outing a victim. Though he did all the research that led Zig to AM.
So when Zig "accidentally" let AM's name slip out in a nationally promoted release on framingpaterno, Ray had to discalim that AM=V2.
Emails posted on Zig's site prove all of this.
I don't care for Zig, but he's at least honest when he states facts. (He doesn't about a lot of of things, he hedges, or says "I believe" - which is him stating an opinion, not stating a fact. When he states a FACT, it's always right. I give him that.
I don't think that's true. The GJP was out prior to AM talking to Jerry's investigator.
Fair point generally though. Only the ballsiest con man would be able to pull that story together so fast. And bring his mother along?
But ... that's why the ballsiest con men often make the big bucks too!
Except the obvious explanation that he was in the shower when he heard the door shut (though it likely did not slam)
Spanier does not have a chance of making any headway until proceedings are held out of this state. There all in bed together and corrupt to the fullest. It makes me sick.
There's no mention of any locker doors in the presentment.
I get that, but Amendola would have had access to everything at that point, wouldn't he? All testimony. And that's where the interview took place. Even if not, certainly Jerry knew about the Locker door & was in contact with AM prior to AM's interview with Amendola's investigator.
Amendola didn't have anything four days after the GJP was released. Jerry didn't expect to be charged for the V2 incident. Even if he and AM had a plan for AM to come forward, a wooden locker door slamming from ten years earlier was part of the plan? MM supposedly never mentioned that detail until Eschbach inadvertently outed him in the GJP.
Zig learned who “victim 2” was based on the description Sandusky provided during his prison interview.
The emails on framing paterno indicate otherwise.
Not to mention, Even after Myers turned on Sandusky, he still never claimed Sandusky forced him or pressured him into providing the statement to Amendola/Everhart exonerating Sandusky.
True. never had too. Never was asked.
Spanier could have asked, if he put on a defense at all.
Ziegler already knew Myers was “Victim 2”, Blehar had just found a picture/article of Myers showing how much he supported Sandusky a year after the “shower incident”
Then why in the emails does JZ say stuff like "Are you sure?"
Whatever. I don't care about their fight. And it has almost nothing to do with this Spanier topic. By his trial Spanier had tons of evidence tending towards V2=AM & didn't use any of it, and now, it bites him in the butt because he cannot establish that the statute of limitations ran out, at least he can't based on what was produced at trial. And even in a PCRA, this wouldn't be considered "new evidence" because it was well known by his trial.
At the best he can argue attorney incompetence, but I'm sure that his team talked through all this (they had years to do so, unlike Jerry) and that said decision is well documented.
I guess that Spanier/Silver Strategery is hitting on all cylinders.
Took the words right out of my mouth!
So it sounds like he didn't win his appeal based on the statute of limitations... but what about the fact that he didn't commit the crime? Did he not think to work that angle too?!?!?
Can anybody provide a reasonable explanation as to why his attorneys didn’t make a case for him in court?
A statute of limitations whose date was determined by the assumed age of an unknown victim.
I thought he was convicted of a crime he couldnt have committed. For example you are guilty of A if and only if B is true. Well it was proved B was untrue so he couldnt be convicted of A. or is B, the 'statue of limitations' thing in this case? tia
i do think spanier deserves to be in jail but these court cases seem completely unjust and ridiculous
im amazed that he hasnt been acquitted yet
Fixed it for you.
The PA OAG had 6 years and near unlimited resources to determine this boy's identity. Finding him and having him testify to abuse would have been the only way to have the felony charges stick against not only Spanier, but also Curley and Schultz. There were also only about 2 or 3 young men who had any one on one contact with Sandusky during that time period. I can't believe some people see the theory that there is still someone "unknown rape victim" out there as anything other than laughable.
The only theory that makes any sense whatsoever is that Spanier's attorney is afraid of being blackballed by the PA legal community (prosecutors, judges, etc.) if he gives any validity to John Ziegler's findings.