The worst part of the C/S/S trials

[Bob78]

An employee of yours investigated for possible sexual abuse of a minor and you forget that one or toss it away as a CEO or President? LOL...you can only try and shovel that sh!t here with a straight face and expect people to buy it. Actually that is exactly the type of email that would stand out to ANYONE and rightfully so. Then that same employee gets called to the carpet 3 years later and you totally forgot. I don't think they should have been crucified the way they were, but anyone pretending that type of info is just deleted or erased from your brain is FOS. Congrats on that last post...you officially jumped the shark there...just yell Dr. Jack some more and it will fix everything.

Yelling 'Dr. Jack' won't help C/S/S at this point, or make up for whatever errors they made in 2001, I agree.
But, pointing out that Dr. Jack was contacted, and that he was/is a mandated reporter, and that POC abusers are often hiding in plain sight and not understood by even those who are trained and mandated to be alert and aware.... well, in that sense to me it is important to point out this instance as a teachable moment in the least.
So in a different context, perhaps, but imo still important to point out his failing after being told. Especially true as Jack testified that he was a proper person to whom to make such a report. It is part of the learning aspects that communities and individuals need in order to make changes around the whole CSA problem.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yelling 'Dr. Jack' won't help C/S/S at this point, or make up for whatever errors they made in 2001, I agree.
But, pointing out that Dr. Jack was contacted, and that he was/is a mandated reporter, and that POC abusers are often hiding in plain sight and not understood by even those who are trained and mandated to be alert and aware.... well, in that sense to me it is important to point out this instance as a teachable moment in the least.
So in a different context, perhaps, but imo still important to point out his failing after being told. Especially true as Jack testified that he was a proper person to whom to make such a report. It is part of the learning aspects that communities and individuals need in order to make changes around the whole CSA problem.

TSM/Jack should have been under the spotlight from the beginning as that was Jerry's talent pool. I get that and I'm not saying excuse him, but it comes off as just a deflection at this point in time. People are pissed at the media, state, TSM, and everyone but those 3 who did in fact make a bad decision. Telling Jack should have occurred regardless after the right phone call was made. Giving Jerry a chance explain it away a second time borders on idiotic IMO. They didn't say they told Jack thinking he was representing the state or law enforcement. It was more of a courtesy call than anything else from what I can tell. We don't know what anyone directly said to each other up and down the line, but the outrage can only be pointed outward? Plenty of people made mistakes all over, but PSU took the brunt of it.....but PSU's OG BoT also put a huge damn spotlight there for the world to see.

 

[WeR0206]

You can perform your analysis and try to exonerate them all you want, the key phrase in the email "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.".


Spanier’s own words acknowledge that they would be vulnerable for not having reported it. Spanier knew that the incident should have been reported to the authorities but for whatever reason it was not. Nobody has answered the question why wasn’t reported to the authorities. Spanier did not testified, Curley did and he came across as not credible. No matter how many words you type, it still does not change the fact that Spanier in his own words admitted they were vulnerable if the incident was not reported.

It wasn't reported to police b/c MM wasn't sure exactly what JS and the kid were doing since in his own testimony he said he couldn't see anyone's hands/privates and he pretty much based his assumption of CSA on the sounds he heard and the brief glimpses into a freaking mirror around a corner. His report wasn't definitive enough for either JM or Dr. D to tell him he needed to call LE ASAP. Just check out JM's testimony about the phone call he received from Mike while he was still in Lasch, he said he saw JS and a kid in the shower but couldn't verify that he saw any abuse.

You can't cherry pick one sentence out of a paragraph and evaluate it properly without reading the rest of the context. Your post would make Louie Freeh proud. It's obvious that NO ONE thought MM's report was involving CSA. If they did, as Indy has pointed out NUMEROUS times, Spanier wouldn't have said "the only downside" is triggered on a future event as opposed to the kid or his parents going to LE which would blow up their entire supposed cover up.

 

[AvgUser]

... those 3 who did in fact make a bad decision.

Probably. Criminal Decision. Hardly!

Furthermore, if Mr Shapiro is going to beat his chest and say that people are going to be held accountable, then where is he with his indictments of Raykovitz, MM, Dranov and Dad McQ?

Either toss CSS in with the other guys, or dismiss them all just like the other guys.

Selective and flawed prosecution such as this is why PA has a reputation as a corrupt state.

Edit: agree with you that PSU BOT was the worst enemy of all.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Probably. Criminal Decision. Hardly!

Furthermore, if Mr Shapiro is going to beat his chest and say that people are going to be held accountable, then where is he with his indictments of Raykovitz, MM, Dranov and Dad McQ?

Either toss CSS in with the other guys, or dismiss them all just like the other guys.

Selective and flawed prosecution such as this is why PA has a reputation as a corrupt state.

Edit: agree with you that PSU BOT was the worst enemy of all.

Fines at best...don't disagree with that.

 

[DandyDonII]

My take on the whole situation: MM saw something disturbing, and it was more then just Jerry and a kid in the shower together. There was some sort of physical contact that didn't sit well with MM. If it was just innocent showering with no horseplay/sexual contact, I don't think MM would have batted an eye due to JS' status in the community.

However, whatever he saw, caused him to call his dad, who ordered him home and then call a respected friend, Dranov, to bounce what MM saw off of him. Both of them didn't feel the need to call the police ( I hope that such pillars of the community would call the police if rape was described to them).
MM called Paterno, so he obviously thought something was wrong. Whatever he told Paterno, Paterno apologized to him for having to see that, and Paterno ran it up the chain. If MM had related he saw nothing, Paterno would have had no reason to apologize and no reason to run it up the chain. By the way, I think Paterno had the right to rely on people that he knew and trusted their judgment to do the right thing.
Curley and Schultz were obviously told that there was something fishy going on at a minimum. Otherwise, they would not have contacted the attorney, Harmon for the 98 report, or met with MM. Additionally, Spanier wouldn't have been in the loop and they would not have been talking about corrective measures for JS.
I don't believe MM ever told any of these people that he saw sex. CSS, Dranov and MMs dad state he never said sex...The only corroboration is by JVP, 12 years later, and the best he said was something of a sexual nature....Having seen Joe's communication skills deteroriate over the years, God only knows what he was told. I have a hard time believing that 5 basically good men would be ok with JS raping a boy...
Spanier never met with MM so it makes sense he was only told Horseplay. If Spanier was being prosecuted, Raykovitz should have definitely been prosecuted as well. Raykovitz actually had one of the biggest reasons to lie, the Second Mile paid him (I believe) and if this blew up, he could be out some money.
In the end, the jury said that based upon the information that Spanier received, he should have contacted the authorities. It's hard to argue against that. These reporting laws were put in place because catching this type of criminal is so difficult. If you are in the administration, just report it.

 

[bjf1991]

What you just wrote could have been written in January of 2012 (and it was - - - about 10,000,000 times. )


Here is what we know - and all we will ever know (Thanks CSS!!) - in its entirety:


The Circle-Jerk that began in 2011 will never be resolved - ever - and there will never (that's a capital NEVER) see any clear, or even murky, resolution

Ever.

It is almost beyond compression that after the incredible gesticulations covering 6 F-ing years........ there is NOTHING illuminated of any determinant value whatsoever.

 

[pandaczar12]

For the sake of argument - the only way that CEO would forget such an email is if they are a common occurrence - that employees are getting investigated for sex abuse with minors all the time.

I don't think that's so in this case (though our worst detractors alleged that at points)

But it is the only reason a President would forget such an email. And if pandczar wants to make that case, he's not arguing that Spanier is clear of anything!

Complete hindsight bias. You need to separate what you know today from what they knew back then. Let's assume he even read the email he was CCed on, which you failed to even address. If you got an email saying that someone was investigated and cleared (or possibly even less), it would be VERY easy to forget if you had to process hundreds of emails a day. If the guy was about to retire, which he was, it's even more likely that you put it out of your mind. It's just human nature. Do you remember every email you have ever been copied on or sent? Every time you try to make Spanier the bad guy instead of those that actually cleared JS in 1998, you enable future abuse.

The rest of your post is just more pointless distraction. Please try to make relevant, logical, on-topic arguments if you decide to post again. You can spend all the time you want off in la-la-jolla land, but the rest of us like it here in reality.

 

[humpydudas19]

Isn't it odd that not one coach or any of Paterno's players came forward and stated they knew Jer was some bazumba grabbing pervert? If the Joe "knew" bullshit held any water, certainly one disgruntled person would have spilled the beans. Not everyone liked Joe among his players. Yet not a single one has confirmed any bullshit that Joe "knew".

 

[getmyjive11]

I told you all a long time ago that you should accept the fact that we will never know 100% what happened. Could have saved you guys a lot of heartache. Is anyone still willing to bang their head against the wall in vain?

Move on and support the University if you care about Penn State. If not, just move on.

 

[coveydidnt]

Complete hindsight bias. You need to separate what you know today from what they knew back then. Let's assume he even read the email he was CCed on, which you failed to even address. If you got an email saying that someone was investigated and cleared (or possibly even less), it would be VERY easy to forget if you had to process hundreds of emails a day. If the guy was about to retire, which he was, it's even more likely that you put it out of your mind. It's just human nature. Do you remember every email you have ever been copied on or sent? Every time you try to make Spanier the bad guy instead of those that actually cleared JS in 1998, you enable future abuse.

The rest of your post is just more pointless distraction. Please try to make relevant, logical, on-topic arguments if you decide to post again. You can spend all the time you want off in la-la-jolla land, but the rest of us like it here in reality.

I do remember every email I've received (even when cc'd) where one of my employees was implicated in a crime or scandal or even a company policy violation.

Of course, it would be a fair point that I haven't been tested on this, and if there are some I've forgotten, then I'd still believe I remember them all.

But I do remember dozens of these ranging from some employee parking in the customer lot to someone that was arrested for DUI. Luckily no murders or sex crimes. But I really do think I would remember them.

And Spanier would too.

 

[pandaczar12]

I do remember every email I've received (even when cc'd) where one of my employees was implicated in a crime or scandal or even a company policy violation.

Of course, it would be a fair point that I haven't been tested on this, and if there are some I've forgotten, then I'd still believe I remember them all.

But I do remember dozens of these ranging from some employee parking in the customer lot to someone that was arrested for DUI. Luckily no murders or sex crimes. But I really do think I would remember them.

And Spanier would too.

But what about a more analogous case where an employee falsely accused of a crime and then cleared by professionals? Someone with one foot out the door towards retirement? For all we know Spanier had even less details than that. He's also fairly old, and memory doesn't age well. If you think that you could increase your workload to that of a university president and have that stick out years later when you are nearly 70, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course you THINK you would remember them, I'd expect no less of someone who constantly overestimates himself. No one believes that you've ever been in any sort of position that would give you the experience needed to comment on a job like GS held. I've held similar positions (with less responsibility) and know for a fact that the human memory has limitations. If you think you have the right people working under you, you let them handle issues, sometimes 100% and it's easy to forget about something you only heard in passing. Absolutes, such as "Spanier had to remember", are rarely correct... you'll learn that someday.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Old Main, Inc., where clueless millionaires come for the free buffet.

aka, Murder Incorporated.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Long, so feel free to skip over this....

I just cannot imagine that any of the guys I mentioned are ok with Tim facing prison time. Or really any such punishment. Unless they have evolved into true sociopaths over time.
- McQ knew Tim for at least his entire adult life if not longer. He stated that he thought Tim was a good guy and was concerned about him being named in the GJ indictment.
- Dandrea was a year behind Tim and a fraternity brother. They've known each other for over 40 years, and saw each other often at NLC and other PSU events.
- Paul Suhey was a local, and his family knew anyone connected with PSU athletics. Tim and Larry Suhey were within a year of each other in HS, played sports together, and I'm pretty certain the families knew each other very well for decades. Paul and Matt Suhey were in the same fraternity as Tim. Another 40+ year positive relationship.
- Joyner was another SC local and was a little ahead of Tim in HS and in the fraternity. But he was in close touch with the football and wrestling programs and knew Tim well for about 40 years.

I feel comfortable in saying that in each case, their relationship was positive, friendly, very social with spouses and families involved in many events. And the same is likely true with Schultz, except maybe for the college-and before years of knowing each other.

My point being - when they were so happily laying down or enabling the bs about the 2 PSU Admins who got thrown under the bus (we sort of know why some had it in for JVP, and Spanier was out of their control due to Corbett), did they actually foresee this result for this guy who they know to be an honest, straight-shooter who always strove to do things the right way? Did they think this crap could do in a good man to this extent? Did they care? And I'm not for one minute entertaining any bs about criminal charges changing the equation for them. They knew and know that Tim's actions, while not enough in hindsight, were prudent based on the information he had at the time.

Again, they've socialized with Tim and his wife quite often in the past, know Tim's kids, attended each others' family events, and certainly know they could have headed off this nightmare and redirected it back to Sandusky in the public's eye with more foresight and basic business PR prep.
(That redirection is important, imo, because the only reason the OAG hung on to the charges was for their own PR purposes.) I wonder just how morally-challenged these guys are, that if they really thought jail time - or even a conviction with probation - was a distinct possibility for their friend Tim, they would have allowed things to transpire as they did.

That's what I want some competent, fearless actual journalist(s) to ask of each of them. Not that I think any of them would have the guts to respond with 100% honesty. Do they have remorse for seeing how this played out? What would or could they have done differently? Why not have an aggressive PR play to direct the public to TSM?! (Again, the Pandora's box inference made by some on Twitter comes into play, we suspect).

Think about this in relation to your own life and your own long-time friends. We all know people who we consider friends who we believe to be of great character. We are happy and proud to call them friends. Would you throw them under a bus for the sake of convenience when trouble came down the street? Or would we ask some questions, slow things down, go to bat for these people? What if you were the one who could be easily tossed aside while friends who you've known for decades stood by and either did nothing, or threw wood on the fire at your feet... when you and they knew you had done nothing wrong based on what you knew at the time? And one of those watching you burn is the same person who gave you the info to work with, and didn't change that info for 10 years until the fire started?

Maybe I am clouded by the burden of empathy I have for Tim, a man I've known for over 40 years. I want to help somehow. (And yes, I've offered my help to him in whatever way he or his wife may need.) But how can any of these guys feel anything but a huge yoke of guilt themselves for allowing Tim to thrown into it this way, to this extent? Gotta be a sociopath to have known the man but to still feel ok after all this has gone down. And I have no doubt that each of them know, whether they would ever admit it or not, that what has fallen on Tim is completely unfair.

It's easy to dismiss all this as 'they deserved it' if you don't know the good people involved. If you know them, you cannot bring yourself to believe the jail time - or even probation - is warranted in any way. It hits close to home. It becomes personal.

Sorry for the outpouring of emotion. This is a good place to do some therapeutic writing, even if no one reads it! But right now I'm really struggling with this regarding Tim. I've been in touch with other friends of his, and that struggle is common to us all. I just hope the man survives prison intact and can get through the whole deal with good health until he can be free to re-establish his friendships. Thanks for indulging me if you have. And if you think I'm an idiot for having all these feels, I likely have you on ignore, so I won't get the pleasure of reading about my idiocy. (Except for you, bjf! Dis when ready!)

Well if it got that far, I imagine the reaction of Suhey, Dandrea, Joyner and all of the other scumbags would be to prop their hands up to their cheeks with their mouth fully gaping (think Mackaulay Culkin on those Home Alone photos) while proclaiming "we had no clue he was that type of person, who would engage in that type of behavior. You think you know a person after 40+ years."

And the irony of such statements would be lost on everyone.

 

[indynittany]

I do remember every email I've received (even when cc'd) where one of my employees was implicated in a crime or scandal or even a company policy violation.

Of course, it would be a fair point that I haven't been tested on this, and if there are some I've forgotten, then I'd still believe I remember them all.

But I do remember dozens of these ranging from some employee parking in the customer lot to someone that was arrested for DUI. Luckily no murders or sex crimes. But I really do think I would remember them.

And Spanier would too.

Sandusky hadn't been an employee since 1998 or 1999. No restrictions were placed on Jerry's access to children as a result of the incident. No charges were filed. There was no specific accusation of sexual assault. The boy, himself, claimed there was nothing sexual and he continued a relationship with Jerry that lasted until 2011. I don't believe Spanier even knew Sandusky then. Maybe more forgettable than you'd like to believe.

If you think even the cursory knowledge of that investigation and its results are enough to bury these guys, surely you must think the state's failure to indicate Jerry, at the very least, is a crime of even greater magnitude. Had the people who investigated JS in '98 done their jobs, the shower incident in 2001 would have never happened. PSU would have never signed on to the Friend's Fitness program. And since these guys are being held to blame for Jerry's subsequent crimes, how many children could have been spared if the people whose profession and purpose in society are to protect children from harm had performed their jobs?

And may I suggest you look into the job description of Jack Raykovitz and which government entity is supposed to watch over organizations like TSM?

 

[coveydidnt]

But what about a more analogous case where an employee falsely accused of a crime and then cleared by professionals? Someone with one foot out the door towards retirement? For all we know Spanier had even less details than that. He's also fairly old, and memory doesn't age well. If you think that you could increase your workload to that of a university president and have that stick out years later when you are nearly 70, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course you THINK you would remember them, I'd expect no less of someone who constantly overestimates himself. No one believes that you've ever been in any sort of position that would give you the experience needed to comment on a job like GS held. I've held similar positions (with less responsibility) and know for a fact that the human memory has limitations. If you think you have the right people working under you, you let them handle issues, sometimes 100% and it's easy to forget about something you only heard in passing. Absolutes, such as "Spanier had to remember", are rarely correct... you'll learn that someday.

I have seen a lot of people get into jams when a single phone call at the start would have covered them. This is one such case.

BTW, when I hear someone who says they have a rule to delete anything where they are in the CC & not in the TO: field -- I know they are frauds. It is super easy to maneuver a situation that leads them to embarrassment, failure, and resignation/firing.

 

[pandaczar12]

I have seen a lot of people get into jams when a single phone call at the start would have covered them. This is one such case.

BTW, when I hear someone who says they have a rule to delete anything where they are in the CC & not in the TO: field -- I know they are frauds. It is super easy to maneuver a situation that leads them to embarrassment, failure, and resignation/firing.

Your entire post is an effort to change the subject, the first paragraph is a tangent about MM, the second is a tangent about your misunderstanding of email etiquette. You'll do anything to change the topic and avoid formulating an on-topic response. Why have an opinion and post if if you refuse to back it up? Regardless, I can still have some fun with you, I'll help educate you a bit:

The Cc (or carbon copy) field is for people you want to know about the message, but are not directly involved. It's mainly for people that do not need to act or reply to the message, but to keep them informed.

Again, you KNOW I'm a fraud, another absolute from you. If you are so sure about this weak point, why did it take you so long to bring it up? What evidence do you have to back up this ridiculous statement? Maybe I should go get my bosses opinion on the practice? I doubt he would mind since he is the one that suggested I do it. I'll ask him if he is a fraud too, since he's been doing it for the better part of his 35 year career.

Since the obvious seems to constantly escape you, rules do allow exceptions, for example, if I'm CCed on an email from someone I deem important (like my boss or his boss), it magically doesn't get deleted. While the people under me me constantly want to send me an FYI about every little thing that is going on, if I didn't think they could handle their job I wouldn't have hired them. It's called trust. I suggest that maybe you read a book called "the speed of trust". I trust them to do their job and to properly use "TO" vs "CC" or I will hold them accountable. Although that's never happened.

 

[PSU Mike]

I'm going to take the risk of becoming the most hated by some, and seen as the dumbest by some, but having emotionally detached myself from this 5 years ago here goes, in its very short form ...

My senses tell me the combination of the BOT's willingness to pay victims and C/S/S' defense strategy is more consistent with there being suppressed evidence of guilt, or at least liability, than trumped up non-evidence. At worst it's not less consistent.

For those practicing criminal law, which happens more often, a powerful defendant pleading down. or powerful prosecution getting fake charges to stick?

 

[getmyjive11]

I'm going to take the risk of becoming the most hated by some, and seen as the dumbest by some, but having emotionally detached myself from this 5 years ago here goes, in its very short form ...

My senses tell me the combination of the BOT's willingness to pay victims and C/S/S' defense strategy is more consistent with there being suppressed evidence of guilt, or at least liability, than trumped up non-evidence. At worst it's not less consistent.

For those practicing criminal law, which happens more often, a powerful defendant pleading down. or powerful prosecution getting fake charges to stick?

You are not dumb and you shouldn't be hated on here for that. The defense's strategy for CSS is only crazy if you believe they are innocent. If you are will to say that they may be guilty, it makes perfect sense. Just like how Jerry decided to not take the stand in the face of 8 victims testifying against him... when you are guilty, there is no good defense.

 

[bjf1991]

I'm going to take the risk of becoming the most hated by some, and seen as the dumbest by some, but having emotionally detached myself from this 5 years ago here goes, in its very short form ...

My senses tell me the combination of the BOT's willingness to pay victims and C/S/S' defense strategy is more consistent with there being suppressed evidence of guilt, or at least liability, than trumped up non-evidence. At worst it's not less consistent.

For those practicing criminal law, which happens more often, a powerful defendant pleading down. or powerful prosecution getting fake charges to stick?

Just one "teensy little" problem there Chief:

After a decade, with an entire team - a team that had the authority to search through everyone's underwear drawer, to knock down any wall, to open any door, to compel everyone's testimony - and, after a DECADE:

Of the 8(?) criminal cases brought, of the 30-something claimants paid, the "strongest" evidence they could produce was for ONE claimant ...... and the "strongest" evidence EVER presented in Court vav that claimant was a couple of nebulous e-mails discussing "what to do", between folks who DID forward a report to the subject's employer and the custodian for the claimants of abuse.

That should be disconcerting (to say the least) to anyone.

Is something(s) being hidden? Smart money, I think, says yes.

But all the evidence ever publically proffered, after a decade of unbridled access, says it ain't what you're claiming it is.

 

[Legion of Lions]

You are not dumb and you shouldn't be hated on here for that. The defense's strategy for CSS is only crazy if you believe they are innocent. If you are will to say that they may be guilty, it makes perfect sense. Just like how Jerry decided to not take the stand in the face of 8 victims testifying against him... when you are guilty, there is no good defense.

I think you are on to something GMJ....You see.....the ENTIRE case against Penn State is based on just what you stated - BUT stated in a different way.

The... "Penn State Conspiracy of Silence" - the "Joe Paterno MUST HAVE KNOWN" guilt - every one of the charges in the C/S/S cases - ALL require that you IGNORE the basic principal of American law ..."Innocent until proven Guilty". This is TOTALLY illegal and exposes the real purpose of the "Story" engineered to support PSU Criminality - smokescreen for State corruption.

From day ONE the OAG has relied on and worked consistently to create misinformation, speculation, suppositions and out right LIES that reinforce a public deception of "Guilty until proven innocent".

Additionally, the laws - Constitutional, Federal and State of PA - have been applied throughout the past 6+ years based on the WHIM OF THE OAG with the help of those within the PA courts that conclusively conspire to protect all of the needed "Story" ILLUSIONS.

This is pure and certifiable FACT - the number of "suspicious", unusual and just plain WRONG legal actions/interpretations is overwhelming. All you need to prove this is a level playing field - that is a court which is not controlled by the very criminals that benefit from maintaining illegal State OAG actions. This is why you fight to continue this injustice in all your post - deep down you KNOW that the past 6+ years have been BOGUS LEGALITY!!!

Without this basic premise of Guilt, the entire "Story" the public has bought into is exposed for what it is - the Greatest Abuse of Justice in US history.

I expect you to reply (if you do reply) to the above key issue with your standard set of:

• OAG court based fantasies
• proven Lies by MM concerning "what he saw"
• Grand Jury manufactured statements of criminality
  
• Speculative reasons of why C/S/S were found to be criminals in the "honest" PA courts

All of the above as the cornerstone of your confirmations of "Guilt". But again, I understand your position....truth is NOT what you seek to promote!

 

[NewEra 2014]

My senses tell me the combination of the BOT's willingness to pay victims and C/S/S' defense strategy is more consistent with there being suppressed evidence of guilt, or at least liability, than trumped up non-evidence. At worst it's not less consistent.

PSU Mike, you make an interesting point. In the abstract, I always felt that none of C/S/S did anything materially criminal. Over the past few years, I looked at their strategy and behavior to see if my sense of the matter was consistent with their actions.

Keeping in mind that I am well aware that I could be wrong about all of this, Curley and Schultz's approach struck me as being more consistent with someone who feels like they have culpability. They appeared to feel guilt and remorse, and they wanted to cooperate, plead out, and end this saga once it was clear that charges were not going to be dropped.

Spanier's approach prior to the trial itself was more consistent with someone who believes they were entirely innocent. He was indignant about the charges and vowed to fight them from the beginning. Yet his defense at trial was inconsistent with his pre-trial behavior. Whether he will pursue a vigorous defense at an appeal remains to be seen.

 

[bjf1991]

They appeared to feel guilt and remorse, and they wanted to cooperate, plead out, and end this saga.

.

Lots of interesting points......

But as to your point highlighted above:


"It took them six years - until just days before their trial was to begin - to figure out how to do that?"


I don't know all the answers....but I know that one don't fit.

 

[didier]

Lots of interesting points......

But as to your point highlighted above:


"It took them six years - until just days before their trial was to begin - to figure out how to do that?"


I don't know all the answers....but I know that one don't fit.

The statements they gave March 8 likely hold a clue.

 

[humpydudas19]

16 years of bullshit, no closer to the truth now than then, and there are imbeciles here too dumb to see it.

 

[bjf1991]

The statements they gave March 8 likely hold a clue.

Oh...... you "Mistery Man", you.

 

[getmyjive11]

I think you are on to something GMJ....You see.....the ENTIRE case against Penn State is based on just what you stated - BUT stated in a different way.

The... "Penn State Conspiracy of Silence" - the "Joe Paterno MUST HAVE KNOWN" guilt - every one of the charges in the C/S/S cases - ALL require that you IGNORE the basic principal of American law ..."Innocent until proven Guilty". This is TOTALLY illegal and exposes the real purpose of the "Story" engineered to support PSU Criminality - smokescreen for State corruption.

From day ONE the OAG has relied on and worked consistently to create misinformation, speculation, suppositions and out right LIES that reinforce a public deception of "Guilty until proven innocent".

Additionally, the laws - Constitutional, Federal and State of PA - have been applied throughout the past 6+ years based on the WHIM OF THE OAG with the help of those within the PA courts that conclusively conspire to protect all of the needed "Story" ILLUSIONS.

This is pure and certifiable FACT - the number of "suspicious", unusual and just plain WRONG legal actions/interpretations is overwhelming. All you need to prove this is a level playing field - that is a court which is not controlled by the very criminals that benefit from maintaining illegal State OAG actions. This is why you fight to continue this injustice in all your post - deep down you KNOW that the past 6+ years have been BOGUS LEGALITY!!!

Without this basic premise of Guilt, the entire "Story" the public has bought into is exposed for what it is - the Greatest Abuse of Justice in US history.

I expect you to reply (if you do reply) to the above key issue with your standard set of:

• OAG court based fantasies
• proven Lies by MM concerning "what he saw"
• Grand Jury manufactured statements of criminality
  
• Speculative reasons of why C/S/S were found to be criminals in the "honest" PA courts

All of the above as the cornerstone of your confirmations of "Guilt". But again, I understand your position....truth is NOT what you seek to promote!

The biggest confirmation of their guilt is that they are guilty.

 

[jabba2]

Curley is the only one who can answer what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant, and he said he didnt remember. How convenient of him.

 

[getmyjive11]

Curley is the only one who can answer what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant, and he said he didnt remember. How convenient of him.

Lots of things he conviently forgot. Yet people here think he has nothing to hide. Laughable.

 

[humpydudas19]

Lots of things he conviently forgot. Yet people here think he has nothing to hide. Laughable.

Why don't you go hide on PL?

 

[jabba2]

Lots of things he conviently forgot. Yet people here think he has nothing to hide. Laughable.

This is why finding the truth will never happen. Even with the threat of jail time, Curley shared nothing.

 

[kgilbert78]

PSU Mike, you make an interesting point. In the abstract, I always felt that none of C/S/S did anything materially criminal. Over the past few years, I looked at their strategy and behavior to see if my sense of the matter was consistent with their actions.

Keeping in mind that I am well aware that I could be wrong about all of this, Curley and Schultz's approach struck me as being more consistent with someone who feels like they have culpability. They appeared to feel guilt and remorse, and they wanted to cooperate, plead out, and end this saga once it was clear that charges were not going to be dropped.

Spanier's approach prior to the trial itself was more consistent with someone who believes they were entirely innocent. He was indignant about the charges and vowed to fight them from the beginning. Yet his defense at trial was inconsistent with his pre-trial behavior. Whether he will pursue a vigorous defense at an appeal remains to be seen.

I think we have to take into account the following, however. Both Curley and Spanier appear to be quite ill (most of us knew about the former but not the latter). Schultz is taking care of a very ill wife. That makes it that much tougher to put up a fight and may have made C&S willing to deal, especially if they'd been promised no jail time. I'll not be shocked if Spanier gives up either.

Second, there are a lot of cases where a person might feel bad about their actions where there was no criminal culpability--for example if you get in an accident that's not your fault and someone dies. I think most PSU fans, no matter what side of the fence you are on, feel bad about what happened in the Sandusky case. I feel that way, for example, about having donated to TSM.

 

[NewEra 2014]

I think we have to take into account the following, however. Both Curley and Spanier appear to be quite ill (most of us knew about the former but not the latter). Schultz is taking care of a very ill wife. That makes it that much tougher to put up a fight and may have made C&S willing to deal, especially if they'd been promised no jail time. I'll not be shocked if Spanier gives up either.

Second, there are a lot of cases where a person might feel bad about their actions where there was no criminal culpability--for example if you get in an accident that's not your fault and someone dies. I think most PSU fans, no matter what side of the fence you are on, feel bad about what happened in the Sandusky case. I feel that way, for example, about having donated to TSM.

Interesting perspective, kgilbert. Thanks for your thoughts--good post.

 

[WeR0206]

Curley is the only one who can answer what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant, and he said he didnt remember. How convenient of him.

lol...good ol' jabba stopping by. Curley said the OPTIONAL decision to loop in/not loop in DPW was his (they were not looped in b/c JS agreed his behavior was wrong & needed to stop). So at worst, what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant was that instead of going to everyone behind JS' back, after talking to Joe and thinking it over TC decided to tell everyone and also confront JS directly about his inappropriate showering....heaven forbid!!

 

[jabba2]

I think we have to take into account the following, however. Both Curley and Spanier appear to be quite ill (most of us knew about the former but not the latter). Schultz is taking care of a very ill wife. That makes it that much tougher to put up a fight and may have made C&S willing to deal, especially if they'd been promised no jail time. I'll not be shocked if Spanier gives up either.

Second, there are a lot of cases where a person might feel bad about their actions where there was no criminal culpability--for example if you get in an accident that's not your fault and someone dies. I think most PSU fans, no matter what side of the fence you are on, feel bad about what happened in the Sandusky case. I feel that way, for example, about having donated to TSM.

Other than Curley bragging in his testimony he wasnt going to jail, im not sure how anyone could think he or anyone else was promised..

 

[bjf1991]

I think we have to take into account the following, however. Both Curley and Spanier appear to be quite ill (most of us knew about the former but not the latter). Schultz is taking care of a very ill wife. That makes it that much tougher to put up a fight and may have made C&S willing to deal, especially if they'd been promised no jail time. I'll not be shocked if Spanier gives up either.

Second, there are a lot of cases where a person might feel bad about their actions where there was no criminal culpability--for example if you get in an accident that's not your fault and someone dies. I think most PSU fans, no matter what side of the fence you are on, feel bad about what happened in the Sandusky case. I feel that way, for example, about having donated to TSM.

After six years..... some magical game-changing pixie dust rained down from the Heavens - landing on all three - in the first week of March 2017?


I guess that could happen

 

[indynittany]

Curley is the only one who can answer what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant, and he said he didnt remember. How convenient of him.

– I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received.

His email is self explanatory. He thinks the right thing to do is add Sandusky to those who should be informed. He doesn't like the idea of going behind Sandusky's back, which wouldn't have been a concern if he thought Jerry had abused a child.

Had Tim written "I am having trouble going to anyone, but the person involved", it would mean that he thought it best to tell Sandusky, exclusively. Then the narrative would fit. But he said, "I am having trouble going to everyone, but the person involved." That means the exact opposite. It means he's uncomfortable telling everyone except Jerry. He's okay with telling everyone, but he wants Jerry to be told also. He simply proposed that Jerry be included among those to be informed of what was going on.

For proof that Spanier understood it the same way I do, just look at his email reply:
This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive.

The step further referred to is Curley meeting with Sandusky. I'm sure it was a difficult conversation. If Curley had proposed to exclude DPW, wouldn't that have entailed one less step?

Schultz then echoed Spanier's "humane" comment and added that it was "upfront". Who else could it be upfront for, if not Jerry? If Tim was proposing to exclude DPW, that would hardly be "upfront".

 

[indynittany]

This is why finding the truth will never happen. Even with the threat of jail time, Curley shared nothing.

They're scapegoats!

 

[getmyjive11]

Why don't you go hide on PL?

Because I think you hang out there even more than here. Please put me on ignore again. I know it is hard to keep doing with all the new names you are forced to create.

 

[getmyjive11]

lol...good ol' jabba stopping by. Curley said the OPTIONAL decision to loop in/not loop in DPW was his (they were not looped in b/c JS agreed his behavior was wrong & needed to stop). So at worst, what "thinking it over and talking to Joe" meant was that instead of going to everyone behind JS' back, after talking to Joe and thinking it over TC decided to tell everyone and also confront JS directly about his inappropriate showering....heaven forbid!!

"Optional"... lol.