Spanier loses appeal.....

Discussion in 'BWI / McAndrew Board' started by lionville, Jun 26, 2018.

  1. indynittany

    indynittany Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    Why was Spanier fired? Because he wouldn't fire Joe.
     
  2. Bubbas Breakaway

    Bubbas Breakaway Active Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2018
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes Dr. Jack was and still is the most powerful man in PA.
     
  3. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    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.
     
  4. Bubbas Breakaway

    Bubbas Breakaway Active Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2018
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  5. BobPSU92

    BobPSU92 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Messages:
    24,072
    Likes Received:
    31,259
    You're an idiot. Stick to subs.
     
  6. demlion

    demlion Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    42,471
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    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.
     
    Bob78, chrisrn1965, bytir and 3 others like this.
  7. Lyons212

    Lyons212 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    1,032
    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.
     
  8. BobPSU92

    BobPSU92 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Messages:
    24,072
    Likes Received:
    31,259
    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.
     
  9. Madsol

    Madsol Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,704
    Likes Received:
    3,443
    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.
     
    nits74, RussianEagle and AvgUser like this.
  10. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    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?
     
  11. colt21

    colt21 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,750
    Likes Received:
    2,890

    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.
     
  12. colt21

    colt21 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    4,750
    Likes Received:
    2,890
    Sooo wrong
     
    pandaczar12 likes this.
  13. Raffycorn

    Raffycorn Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,967
    Likes Received:
    2,939
    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......
     
  14. Cletus11

    Cletus11 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    8,418
    Likes Received:
    1,651
    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.
     
  15. AvgUser

    AvgUser Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    995
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    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.
     
  16. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    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.)
     
  17. kgilbert78

    kgilbert78 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    7,161
    Likes Received:
    3,968
    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.
     
  18. Art

    Art Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    42,806
    Likes Received:
    9,937
    But did Tom Mix weep? Inquiring minds needs to know!
     
  19. Pinkhippo PeanutButter

    Pinkhippo PeanutButter Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    194
    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.
     
  20. The Song Remains the Same

    The Song Remains the Same Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2016
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    2,977
    COVEY, IS THAT YOU??
     
    wensilver, Mixolydian and psugisher like this.
  21. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    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.)
     
    141 pandaczar12, Jun 28, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  22. Pinkhippo PeanutButter

    Pinkhippo PeanutButter Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    194
    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.
     
  23. Madsol

    Madsol Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,704
    Likes Received:
    3,443
    Responsible how? Criminally? Not even close.
     
  24. delcoLion

    delcoLion Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    12,757
    Likes Received:
    866
    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”.
     
    Bob78 likes this.
  25. nits74

    nits74 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    4,144
    It was not only risky, it was stupid. What would have been the risk of putting up a defense?
     
  26. Pinkhippo PeanutButter

    Pinkhippo PeanutButter Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    194
    Right. I agree.
     
  27. indynittany

    indynittany Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    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.
     
    Bob78, chrisrn1965 and pandaczar12 like this.
  28. Pinkhippo PeanutButter

    Pinkhippo PeanutButter Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    194

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

    Because what they actually did ended badly in real life.
     
  29. indynittany

    indynittany Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    It ended badly because some powerful people did not want TSM to become the focus of the Sandusky "problem". People like Tom Corbett, for one.
     
    Bob78, Ski, chrisrn1965 and 1 other person like this.
  30. Art

    Art Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    42,806
    Likes Received:
    9,937
    Wyatt was dead. Mix never wept until Wyatt's funeral (and they've been trying to cover that up ever since).
     
  31. RussianEagle

    RussianEagle Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    979
    Mostly because the grand jury report stated the term “anal intercourse”, which in follow up emails both the witness (McQueary) and the reports author (Eshbach) acknowledge was not true.
     
    francofan likes this.
  32. indynittany

    indynittany Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    Nothing happened!
     
    RussianEagle and francofan like this.
  33. Osprey Lion

    Osprey Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,041
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Location:
    Osprey, Florida
    You were there? I know you weren't but you keep stating your idiotic opinions as if they are facts. Seek help.
     
  34. indynittany

    indynittany Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    3,321
    There were two people there. Jerry Sandusky and Allan Myers. Both said nothing happened. So call me any name you want, but you can't deny those facts.
     
    RussianEagle and francofan like this.
  35. BobPSU92

    BobPSU92 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 6, 2015
    Messages:
    24,072
    Likes Received:
    31,259
    Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.
     
  36. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    You can prove something happened? You were there? I know you weren't but you keep stating your idiotic opinions as if they are facts. Seek help.
     
  37. pandaczar12

    pandaczar12 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,253
    Likes Received:
    7,620
    Patiently awaiting thoughtful, carefully constructed responses, that address each and every challenge in my post to the best of your ability.
     
    Chris92 likes this.
  38. PSU2UNC

    PSU2UNC Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    2,255
    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.
     
  39. ChiTownLion

    ChiTownLion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    17,673
    Likes Received:
    13,491
    This jagoff.
     
  40. Chris92

    Chris92 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Messages:
    10,239
    Likes Received:
    2,913
    How's the hunt for V2 "known only to God" coming? Any updates from the OAG's office?
     
    RussianEagle likes this.

Share This Page