The charge Spanier was convicted on has statute of limitations of 2 years

[Judge Smails]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

 

[sluggo72]

I think jimmy w pointed this out Used the states own argument

 

[Judge Smails]

More proof about how fixed this horseshit was.....





After the verdict was read, Judge John Boccabella complimented the jury.

"I never had a jury more intelligent," the judge said. He praised the questions the jury asked, which he said got to the heart of the case.

 

[BobPSU92]

Then why did Schultz and Curley take a plea?

 

[Lion8286]

Why wasn't the charge removed before the trial?

 

[LundyPSU]

Why wasn't the charge removed before the trial?

Good question. It was denied by the Judge. Haven't been able to find an explanation in a filing

 

[dwiz]

Good question. It was denied by the Judge. Haven't been able to find an explanation in a filing

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

 

[LundyPSU]

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

I thought that was the OAG's response to failure to report. I think the statute of limitations on EWOC would apply unless there is a course of conduct. Which he was not found guilty of.

 

[Nitwit]

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

This is the correct legal interpretation. I'm not an attorney but have seen this explained before.

 

[MtNittany]

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

It's a good thing they didn't solve the Stacks Murder while he was President. He'd be looking at life.

 

[capkrokus]

Then why did Schultz and Curley take a plea?

IMO it was probably a good move. The AOG had a terrible case against Spanier, and still got a door prize charge from the jury. TC & Schultz had direct contact with MM so they had a bigger hurdle than what Spanier had.

 

[L.T. Young]

Then why did Schultz and Curley take a plea?

Because they'd be in jail if they didn't.

Nobody connected Spanier to anything, except maybe knowing about 98, and he was found guilty of something.

Schultz and Curley undeniably knew about 98, talked to MM, and reported a watered down version to TSM. Too much of hurdle to risk prison.

 

[WeR0206]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

Bump, another you can't make this shit up moment...

 

[Judge Smails]

Bump, another you can't make this shit up moment...

And the judge allows the charges to be filed, allows the conviction, and praises the jury as the most intelligent he's ever had.

This is like one of those russian show trials. Now we have them here.

Also ignored is MM saying on the stand they told him when they were going to leak the GJ testimony. Exactly what they convicted Kane on.

It's a rigged justice system that is going after the patsies who had to take the fall to cover up for the real shit going down.

 

[rudedude]

And the judge allows the charges to be filed, allows the conviction, and praises the jury as the most intelligent he's ever had.

This is like one of those russian show trials. Now we have them here.

Also ignored is MM saying on the stand they told him when they were going to leak the GJ testimony. Exactly what they convicted Kane on.

It's a rigged justice system that is going after the patsies who had to take the fall to cover up for the real shit going down.

Yep a real cover up is in the OAG. Gee remember the Kids for Cash stuff a few years ago? Judges are always standup individuals. Just ask Louis Freeh!

 

[Judge Smails]

Yep a real cover up is in the OAG. Gee remember the Kids for Cash stuff a few years ago? Judges are always standup individuals. Just ask Louis Freeh!

There were judges on the PA porn email rings, along with prosecutors etc right? Trading racist, sexist, violent, pornographic images and text?

I keep forgetting who the bad guys are in this.

 

[NittPicker]

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

As a legal layman, to me that's a ridiculous argument which an intelligent judge shouldn't allow. In essence there is no statute of limitations for that offense at least according to the OAG. It's absurd but apparently alright in PA.

 

[MtNittany]

This is like one of those russian show trials. Now we have them here.

Reminds me more of Miami-Dade County. Congratulations PA. That's elite company...

 

[Legion of Lions]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

If you are right about a 2 year SOL on the convicted charge...explain to me WHY the Judge and the State of PA would allow that charge to even be brought into court??

I think I know the answer, but I want confirmation from the composite knowledge of this board in order to best understand this issue..

 

[maxxedout]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

 

[pandaczar12]

Schultz and Curley undeniably knew about 98, talked to MM, and reported a watered down version to TSM. Too much of hurdle to risk prison.

According to testimony of EVERYONE but MM, including his own father. A watered down version is all anyone heard.

So either a half dozen plus people with excellent reputations (before these ridiculous charges) lied for no logical reason and have never changed their story, or the one guy with skeletons (gambling, texts) in his closet, who has constantly changed his story, did. That choice is pretty easy.

 

[Zenophile]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

The law isn't a technicality.

 

[maxxedout]

Ah, but it is subject to interpretation and that is what this judge did...

 

[pandaczar12]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

Yeah, lets ignore the PSU witch hunt that allowed the real criminals to get off scot (sp?) free. Graham did no wrong, anyone in his position would have done the exact same thing. Children are no safer today, probably less so because the money wasted trying to get 3 misdemeanors could have been used to actually help.

I guess you think OJ is really innocent?

 

[maxxedout]

Yeah, lets ignore the PSU witch hunt that allowed the real criminals to get off scot (sp?) free. Graham did no wrong, anyone in his position would have done the exact same thing. Children are no safer today, probably less so because the money wasted trying to get 3 misdemeanors could have been used to actually help.

I guess you think OJ is really innocent?

Explain how you got to this conclusion?

Also, insulting my intelligence is a non-starter. Let's not go there.

 

[sluggo72]

Because they'd be in jail if they didn't.

Nobody connected Spanier to anything, except maybe knowing about 98, and he was found guilty of something.

Schultz and Curley undeniably knew about 98, talked to MM, and reported a watered down version to TSM. Too much of hurdle to risk prison.

if 98 was so bad, with so many red flags, why didn't the state of PA arrest JS at that time?
Why didn't they restrict access to kids at TSM?
I don't understand when people say, 'well he knew about 98', therefore they are held responsible

 

[sluggo72]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

promise?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

Have you ever heard of the Innocence Project? It's not as though the PA, or the US, has a stellar record of never having charged and/or convicted an individual for a crime for which they are not guilty. As such, it's not unreasonable for people to disagree with a jury's decision, a judge's decision, or a court's ruling.

Many of those that were in the courthouse during the trial do not feel that the prosecution proved that Spanier was guilty of any of the charges. The jury found him not guilty on most of the charges. The jury did find him guilty of one charge.

The Judge has pointed out that there is a pretty slippery way in which the SOL for this charge was basically ruled to not have run out.

Nobody that I know of is happy with what JS did. Disagreeing with the OAG's decision to charge PSU administrators does not equate to endorsing what JS did.

I do hope that you continue to post on the board. I think this board is enhanced when a diversity of views on a subject are presented.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Explain how you got to this conclusion?

Also, insulting my intelligence is a non-starter. Let's not go there.

Four words. Swim Trunks Jack Raykovitz.

 

[maxxedout]

I don't see how you can disagree with attempting to hold all parties responsible... well, responsible.

I think there is a real question as to why these three administrators CHOSE to act minimally in this scenario. When you work in education, in particular, when you sit atop one of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, you should know to act. Is this their fault... did they physically abuse/rape/molest children? no. But they didn't do enough, possibly in a concerted way.

As a PSU alum, I still love my alma mater. But I won't support people who don't respect what it means to have serious responsibility. They failed to discharge their duties. They failed to proactively protect children. This does not make them rapist but it does make them criminally negligent.

 

[BobPSU92]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

 

[maxxedout]

But seriously, the narrative of this board blows. It is all defensiveness of these men that you've never met! Stop defending them, let them defend themselves. Clearly spanier's legal team did an inadequate job of that.

 

[BobPSU92]

But seriously, the narrative of this board blows. It is all defensiveness of these men that you've never met! Stop defending them, let them defend themselves. Clearly spanier's legal team did an inadequate job of that.

You're an idiot.

 

[BobPSU92]

Also, insulting my intelligence is a non-starter. Let's not go there.

Perhaps we shouldn't go there, but it has legs.

 

[Hotshoe]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

The real question may be, if they win on appeal, does the state keep trying? You know, spend another million to collect 10,000 dollars? SMDH

 

[maxxedout]

I'm not. Not even close.

Why is the assumption that this *must* be a witch hunt with a misappropriation of justice?

Perhaps these men are actually guilty of a (relative to Sandusky's, minor) crime. Is that possible?

 

[WeR0206]

I don't see how you can disagree with attempting to hold all parties responsible... well, responsible.

I think there is a real question as to why these three administrators CHOSE to act minimally in this scenario. When you work in education, in particular, when you sit atop one of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, you should know to act. Is this their fault... did they physically abuse/rape/molest children? no. But they didn't do enough, possibly in a concerted way.

As a PSU alum, I still love my alma mater. But I won't support people who don't respect what it means to have serious responsibility. They failed to discharge their duties. They failed to proactively protect children. This does not make them rapist but it does make them criminally negligent.

The people who failed to do their jobs were the OAG and TSM. It was TSM's job to keep tabs on JS and his access to kids. They were made aware of 2001 incident report.

Its absurd to fault the psu admins for not having the clairvoyance to see JR and TSM would completely shirk their LEGAL requirements.

 

[maxxedout]

And, by the way, there is significantly more evidence against them than there was against JoePa. There are clear emails that implicate Curley, Schultz and Spanier and only refer to JoePa tangentially.

 

[maxxedout]

The people who failed to do their jobs were the OAG and TSM. It was TSM's job to keep tabs on JS and his access to kids. They were made aware of 2001 incident report.

Its absurd to fault the psu admins for not having the clairvoyance to see JR and TSM would completely shirk their LEGAL requirements.

Perhaps the OAG and TSM were guilty as well, I agree on that point. It has been a great frustration of mine. However, their guilt does not make these three gentlemen innocent.

 

[fairgambit]

Explain to me why you guys are all defending this on a ****ing technicality...? I'm tempted to never post on this board again. You are such ****ing homers... he was convicted in a court of law. It's going to the court of appeals. Right now, he's guilty of child endangerment. Thats pretty lousy of a former PSU president and it casts a shadow... but more importantly than that, a man who allowed children to be molested through inaction is being found guilty of a crime. If it stands, we should all applaud justice being served rather than line up behind Penn state. I mean, for ****s sake guys.

I'm just curious as to how long you've been practicing law? I've been at it more than 40 years. Now, admittedly I was not in the courtroom, and I'd bet you were not either. That said, I did follow the trial as closely as I could, given my time constraints. Based upon what I've read and heard, the Commonwealth did not prove their case. I would say that regardless of who the defendant was. I think my reputation on this board is one of speaking honestly. If I thought Spanier was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I would say so. He was not. Hell, I don't even think he was proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence (the civil court standard). Now, if that makes me a "homer" in your eyes, I can live with that. In 40 years I have seen innocent men convicted and guilty men go free. Our system is not perfect, but it's still the best in the world. Still, I hope Spanier files, and wins, an appeal. Justice was not served here.