ADVERTISEMENT

Spanier loses appeal.....

No way. Anybody who had any connection to Sandusky regarding how to handle the incident was gone. No two ways about it. If he threw JoePa under the bus, would he have been prosecuted? Maybe not.
Why was Spanier fired? Because he wouldn't fire Joe.
 
So, when the Exec director becomes aware that the FOUNDER of the organization is flagrantly violating the rules regarding out of program contact After the FOUNDER has already been told "just wear swim trunks," when showering alone during naked out of program contact with the vulnerable troubled kids the org serves, the organization has successfully shielded itself from any civil liability for the FOUNDER's conduct, even if he does not wear swim trunks. Got it.

Yes Dr. Jack was and still is the most powerful man in PA.
 
All that matters is that he was the most powerful man at the second mile, the organization that had responsibility for Sandusky and the alleged victim.
All that matters is that he was the most powerful man at the second mile, the organization that had responsibility for Sandusky and the alleged victim.

Why would they have responsibility for a guy who was not acting as a TSM counselor at the time or a kid who wasn't enrolled in TSM at the time?

Two people acting outside of program. They had as much responsibility for that as you did.
 
This is such a dumb statement. At least you admitted & warned us you were trolling.

Organizations are NOT RESPONSIBLE for out-of-program acts, that is precisely why they are called out-of-program.

You always find a way to make just the exact argument which is the opposite of what's real. It's no wonder that like 5 of the last 6 PA AGs think you are a loon. Exceptibg of course the one that's in prison.

You're an idiot. Stick to subs.
 
Why was Spanier fired? Because he wouldn't fire Joe.
Anybody who could have done something different back in 2001 was radioactive and would have eventually been fired. Had Spanier not met with Curley in 2001 to discuss the incident, he still would have been fired because it happened on his watch.
 
He had not only the power but the CLEAR LEGAL DUTY to report CSA, which he suspected when he said "just wear swim trunks." He did not do it. Was not prosecuted while they vilified college admins and a FB coach.

raykovitz actually testified for the state against Spanier. Unreal.

Let that settle in a minute. raykovitz, the head of the second mile and a mandatory reporter, testified against Spanier, who wasn't a mandatory reporter, for Spanier's alleged neglect of a child, for whom he was not responsible, when there was no direct evidence that Spanier knew of the details of the shower incident.
 
Yes. I think he deserves jail. I don't think there's an applicable law to convict him of though so I would vote not guilty if I was on the jury. It's not that complicated.
Even a cursory attempt to find the kid would make me think they were acting in good faith. Unfortunately, this did not happen because they were not acting in good faith. Did they even bother to question Sandusky about it?

I see now. You're simply inventing fictitious crimes and saying people should do jail time for violating your fictitious laws. Sorry I wasted my time with you. You're just silly.
 
Why would they have responsibility for a guy who was not acting as a TSM counselor at the time or a kid who wasn't enrolled in TSM at the time?

Two people acting outside of program. They had as much responsibility for that as you did.

So you are saying that JS had no role (i.e. don't just focus on "counselor") at TSM, and that he had no contact with anyone (i.e. don't just focus on AM) currently enrolled?
 
This is such a dumb statement. At least you admitted & warned us you were trolling.

Organizations are NOT RESPONSIBLE for out-of-program acts, that is precisely why they are called out-of-program.

You always find a way to make just the exact argument which is the opposite of what's real. It's no wonder that like 5 of the last 6 PA AGs think you are a loon. Exceptibg of course the one that's in prison.


Hmmm, just jumped in here and me thinks we got someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about !

Programs are responsible for all acts THAT ARE REPORTED TO THEM, as this one was.
 
You don't have to help me think nor do you have to help me add one plus one. But, it is clear from your avoidance of answering the question I asked that you can neither think objectively nor defend you position, I will help you. Below are the conditions under which EWOC offenses may apply

Endangering welfare of children.

(a) Offense defined.--

(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.
==>> Spanier was not supervising the child nor did he employ Jerry Sandusky. Hence, does not apply

(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).
==>> Spanier did not prevent or interfere with any reporting. In fact, the situation was properly reported to TSM.

(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child
==>> Spanirr did not provide nor was he even responsible for the care, welfare, training or education of any TSM child.

Hence, if you're keeping score, that is 0 for 3. In baseball, that is well below the Mendoza line. Only in the PA [lack of] Justice system can this be equal to something greater than zero.
Subsection (a)(1) applies. Spanier absolutely “employed” or “supervised” individuals at Penn State who were persons supervising the welfare of children, either at the on-campus child care facility or otherwise - there’s nothing in the statute that specifies that the person being employed or supervised also must be the same person endangering a child. You could also make the argument that Spanier was a “supervisor” (but not the sole supervisor) of Sandusky by virtue of the permission given to Sandusky to use the facilities in 1999 with the knowledge that Sandusky was bringing children into the facilities - but that’s a weaker argument IMO for Spanier. It’s stronger for Curley and, to a lesser extent, Schultz.

The remainder of subsection (a)(1) regarding the violation of the duty of care, protection, or support was a jury determination, but it seems pretty black and white that at least subsection (a)(1) applied to Spanier. Note that it would also certainly apply to Raykovitz, too, but......
 
Back to Spanier not putting up a defense. It was a risky move. I am sure it was discussed at length by Spanier and his legal team. That risky move obviously didn't work. Now maybe Spanier was going to get convicted of something not matter what was done as was evidenced by the jury interviews after the fact. But it was a risky move to not bring up any type of defense at all.
 
Subsection (a)(1) applies. Spanier absolutely “employed” or “supervised” individuals at Penn State who were persons supervising the welfare of children, either at the on-campus child care facility or otherwise - there’s nothing in the statute that specifies that the person being employed or supervised also must be the same person endangering a child.
Thank you.

But, I disagree 100% with the assertion that (a)(1) applies. Spanier never even met the kid so he cannot possibly be the person supervising or caring for the welfare of the child. Nor did Spanier employ or 'supervise' Sandusky in the capacity of running a day care. child care center or similar. Furthermore, since Spanier never met the child, he could not have violated the duty of care either. End of story.

If Spanier falls under this law, then so does the entire BOT, the UP Police Department, and on and on up through the PA Governor and finally the POTUS. That is because there is a never-ending web of reporting and authority relationships in that entire lineage. Sure, I know that's a ridiculous statement. Sso, too, is the assertion that the EWOC applies to Spanier.
 
Subsection (a)(1) applies. Spanier absolutely “employed” or “supervised” individuals at Penn State who were persons supervising the welfare of children, either at the on-campus child care facility or otherwise - there’s nothing in the statute that specifies that the person being employed or supervised also must be the same person endangering a child. You could also make the argument that Spanier was a “supervisor” (but not the sole supervisor) of Sandusky by virtue of the permission given to Sandusky to use the facilities in 1999 with the knowledge that Sandusky was bringing children into the facilities - but that’s a weaker argument IMO for Spanier. It’s stronger for Curley and, to a lesser extent, Schultz.

The remainder of subsection (a)(1) regarding the violation of the duty of care, protection, or support was a jury determination, but it seems pretty black and white that at least subsection (a)(1) applied to Spanier. Note that it would also certainly apply to Raykovitz, too, but......

Spanier did not employ anyone, Penn state did.

Who specifically did Spanier directly supervise that directly supervised the welfare of children? Where these specific people appropriately trained, and what was required of them in 2001? How is "welfare of children" legally defined?

Did Penn State have an on campus child care facility? Was it run by PSU, or some separate company? (Generally those, 'on campus' child care facilities are run by completely separate companies.)
 
Why was Spanier fired? Because he wouldn't fire Joe.
No--he was fired because he got in Corbett's grill about funding and Corbett decided to "get" him.

Mind you, I would have asked Spanier for his resignation, at a minimum. Something bad did happen on Spanier's watch. Unlike the Commonwealth, I don't think it was criminal. But still, that's what they pay college presidents the big bucks for--not to get into that kind of situation in the first place.
 
Spanier did not employ anyone, Penn state did.

Who specifically did Spanier directly supervise that directly supervised the welfare of children? Where these specific people appropriately trained, and what was required of them in 2001? How is "welfare of children" legally defined?

Did Penn State have an on campus child care facility? Was it run by PSU, or some separate company? (Generally those, 'on campus' child care facilities are run by completely separate companies.)

PSU has students at main campus, living in dorms, as young as 14 years old. Not very many, but if there's even one, he is responsible.

Many Many freshman are 17 when they start out.
 
This is such a dumb statement. At least you admitted & warned us you were trolling.

Organizations are NOT RESPONSIBLE for out-of-program acts, that is precisely why they are called out-of-program.

You always find a way to make just the exact argument which is the opposite of what's real. It's no wonder that like 5 of the last 6 PA AGs think you are a loon. Exceptibg of course the one that's in prison.
COVEY, IS THAT YOU??
 
PSU has students at main campus, living in dorms, as young as 14 years old.

Many Many freshman are 17 when they start out.

No shit. That doesn’t mean he directly supervised them, or someone who did.

Now take a shot at the questions in my post (the post that you replied to, yet ignored all the tough questions.)
 
Last edited:
No--he was fired because he got in Corbett's grill about funding and Corbett decided to "get" him.

Mind you, I would have asked Spanier for his resignation, at a minimum. Something bad did happen on Spanier's watch. Unlike the Commonwealth, I don't think it was criminal. But still, that's what they pay college presidents the big bucks for--not to get into that kind of situation in the first place.

I respect Spanier for fighting and for making the statement he did in 2011, backing up his direct reports. It was probably a bit ill-timed & tone-deaf, but that's kind of what I would want my leader to do. But he could have been a bit less strong, so soon, and said that he backs them, pending a full investigation & learning all details. He could have said that, set it in motion, and offered his resignation, and if he had, Joe might have not been next in the crosshairs. Who knows. It all happened fast & the first two days were weekend days.

With respect to the above, the real problem was that between March & November 2011, no one did ANYTHING to prepare except wishing that this would all go away. And Spanier IS to largely to blame for that. They could have had a PR response planned & waiting in April, just in case. He's the main reason they didn't.
 
I respect Spanier for fighting and for making the statement he did in 2011, backing up his direct reports. It was probably a bit ill-timed & tone-deaf, but that's kind of what I would want my leader to do. But he could have been a bit less strong, so soon, and said that he backs them, pending a full investigation & learning all details. He could have said that, set it in motion, and offered his resignation, and if he had, Joe might have not been next in the crosshairs. Who knows. It all happened fast & the first two days were weekend days.

With respect to the above, the real problem was that between March & November 2011, no one did ANYTHING to prepare except wishing that this would all go away. And Spanier IS to largely to blame for that. They could have had a PR response planned & waiting in April, just in case. He's the main reason they didn't.
I blame Baldwin for that. She fouled up everything she touched in this case. A smart, ethical attorney would have provided the guidance Spanier needed to understand the precariousness of their situation. Instead, she advised them that it was all a “fishing expedition”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
Back to Spanier not putting up a defense. It was a risky move. I am sure it was discussed at length by Spanier and his legal team. That risky move obviously didn't work. Now maybe Spanier was going to get convicted of something not matter what was done as was evidenced by the jury interviews after the fact. But it was a risky move to not bring up any type of defense at all.
It was not only risky, it was stupid. What would have been the risk of putting up a defense?
 
I blame Baldwin for that. She fouled up everything she touched in this case. A smart, ethical attorney would have provided the guidance Spanier needed to understand the precariousness of their situation. Instead, she advised them that it was all a “fishing expedition”.
Right. I agree.
 
No--he was fired because he got in Corbett's grill about funding and Corbett decided to "get" him.

Mind you, I would have asked Spanier for his resignation, at a minimum. Something bad did happen on Spanier's watch. Unlike the Commonwealth, I don't think it was criminal. But still, that's what they pay college presidents the big bucks for--not to get into that kind of situation in the first place.

I disagree. I think they handled the matter appropriately. They saw Sandusky showering alone as a potential he said/he said scenario and took steps to prevent that from occurring in the future. As soon as Curley informed Jack Raykoitz, PSU should have been off the hook.
 
I disagree. I think they handled the matter appropriately. They saw Sandusky showering alone as a potential he said/he said scenario and took steps to prevent that from occurring in the future. As soon as Curley informed Jack Raykoitz, PSU should have been off the hook.


I assume you mean that "without the benefit of hindsight, I disagree"

Because what they actually did ended badly in real life.
 
Why would they have responsibility for a guy who was not acting as a TSM counselor at the time or a kid who wasn't enrolled in TSM at the time?

Two people acting outside of program. They had as much responsibility for that as you did.

So you are saying that JS had no role (i.e. don't just focus on "counselor") at TSM, and that he had no contact with anyone (i.e. don't just focus on AM) currently enrolled?

Subsection (a)(1) applies. Spanier absolutely “employed” or “supervised” individuals at Penn State who were persons supervising the welfare of children, either at the on-campus child care facility or otherwise - there’s nothing in the statute that specifies that the person being employed or supervised also must be the same person endangering a child. You could also make the argument that Spanier was a “supervisor” (but not the sole supervisor) of Sandusky by virtue of the permission given to Sandusky to use the facilities in 1999 with the knowledge that Sandusky was bringing children into the facilities - but that’s a weaker argument IMO for Spanier. It’s stronger for Curley and, to a lesser extent, Schultz.

The remainder of subsection (a)(1) regarding the violation of the duty of care, protection, or support was a jury determination, but it seems pretty black and white that at least subsection (a)(1) applied to Spanier. Note that it would also certainly apply to Raykovitz, too, but......

Spanier did not employ anyone, Penn state did.

Who specifically did Spanier directly supervise that directly supervised the welfare of children? Where these specific people appropriately trained, and what was required of them in 2001? How is "welfare of children" legally defined?

Did Penn State have an on campus child care facility? Was it run by PSU, or some separate company? (Generally those, 'on campus' child care facilities are run by completely separate companies.)

PSU has students at main campus, living in dorms, as young as 14 years old.

Many Many freshman are 17 when they start out.
No shit. That doesn’t mean he directly supervised them, or someone who did.

Now take a shot at the questions in my post (the post that you replied to, yet ignored all the tough questions.)

Patiently awaiting thoughtful, carefully constructed responses, that address each and every challenge in my post to the best of your ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris92
I think there's still issues there, because if the jury was not informed of that subtlety that you mention, then that's also grounds for a new trial.

The function of a jury is to determine what the facts are, they have no role in the application of the law.
Your statement is actually untrue.

When a jury is instructed, their instructions include how they apply the law (e.g. what criteria must be met for the law to have been broken), but then it ABSOLUTELY is up to them to decide whether the law was broken or not. So it is far more than just determining what the facts are.

Furthermore, that wasn't really my point. Improper jury instruction is groundsfor a new trial. If the judge did not adequately describe the subtlety in question (which is kind of sounds like nobody even knew about it until the state discovered it post hoc), then that's a procedural problem.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT