ADVERTISEMENT

Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

I am not interested in posting in this thread because it is clearly infested by a collection of personality defective individuals. The conspiracy theorist, the paranoid geriatrics, the low I.Q. name callers and the sexually depraved, you are the same types that drag down our society on a regular basis. A collection of losers to the highest degree, you think you know everything while in fact know nothing and I'm simply not willing to waste my time.

Hmmmmm. You still haven't answered the question. Starting to look like your "outrage" is more in line with protecting your "assets".

The only question I have is ....... where in the heck did you hide Allan Myers all those weeks leading up to the trial???? The prosecution seemed to just accept the fact he dropped off the face of the Planet.
 
With benefit of hindsight, I wish I had picked 14 27 29 59 65 12 in Powerball Saturday. With what I knew at the time, I have no regret that I let the machine pick for me.

Do you understand the difference?

I wish I had picked 14 27 29 59 65 12 in Powerball Saturday. With what I knew at the time, I have no regret that I let the machine pick for me.

Explain the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
giphy.gif
 
I am not interested in posting in this thread because it is clearly infested by a collection of personality defective individuals. The conspiracy theorist, the paranoid geriatrics, the low I.Q. name callers and the sexually depraved, you are the same types that drag down our society on a regular basis. A collection of losers to the highest degree, you think you know everything while in fact know nothing and I'm simply not willing to waste my time.

You are a very self-important person. It's weird that people don't show you more respect.
 
I am not interested in posting in this thread because it is clearly infested by a collection of personality defective individuals. The conspiracy theorist, the paranoid geriatrics, the low I.Q. name callers and the sexually depraved, you are the same types that drag down our society on a regular basis. A collection of losers to the highest degree, you think you know everything while in fact know nothing and I'm simply not willing to waste my time.
By your post, it's clear you fall into the "low IQ name callers" camp. "A collection of losers", of which you most assuredly identify. Stop wasting my time!
 
I know you can't understand it for me. You can't understand anything for yourself.
And none of the other members of your cult are capable of using common sense.
OK what the hell. You wouldn’t have known those were the powerball numbers to play at the time without the benefit of knowing what the winning numbers were. Hindsight. Very simple concept, but you will struggle mightily with it because you are a dolt with an agenda. Read Posnaski’s book. He was writing it and was on the scene when that quote was being considered. Or better yet have someone read it to you.

Now carry on with making an ass of yourself. Although I will tell you that you have accomplished that mission in spades many years ago. If you don’t believe me take a poll.
 
OK what the hell. You wouldn’t have known those were the powerball numbers to play at the time without the benefit of knowing what the winning numbers were. Hindsight. Very simple concept, but you will struggle mightily with it because you are a dolt with an agenda. Read Posnaski’s book. He was writing it and was on the scene when that quote was being considered. Or better yet have someone read it to you.

Now carry on with making an ass of yourself. Although I will tell you that you have accomplished that mission in spades many years ago. If you don’t believe me take a poll.

Paterno wouldn't have known Sandusky was molesting young boys in 2011 unless someone told him. Wait, someone did. Nice try though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Why would he not tell his dad and dranov, then tell Joe, then not tell Curley and Schultz.... about an incident he heard but didn’t see, where the kid is on the record saying nothing happened?
That’s common sense so he won’t understand. He’s really dumb and easily confused. He thinks it’s a trick question. You stumped him.
 
Paterno wouldn't have known Sandusky was molesting young boys in 2011 unless someone told him. Wait, someone did. Nice try though.
So... you say Paterno was told in 2001(200-2002, pick a year) that MM said he observed a young boy(s - multiple boys no less....where did THAT come from!) being molested.

Where is your proof that what was told at this time was molestation??? REMEMBER - 5 OTHER people who were told by MM what he observed testified UNDER OATH that this "molestation" WAS NOT WHAT they were told. In fact, MM himself said what the OAG reported regarding "the shower incident" was NOT what he told the OAG. ("Just shut up - or you will ruin our case"!

Knowing this - How do you validate that MM's testimony to Paterno (or anyone else for that matter) involved ANY FORM of criminal behavior??? Let's see... 5 people in at the time frame of the "incident" saying "NO MOLESTATION" (wait that's 6 including MM himself) and you then state Paterno "was told" of molestation. How does that work????

Now that's what I call a nice try. You continue to promote the Story" concocted by the OAG based completely on conjecture and manipulated 10 years later into convenient "interpretations" assembled in 2011. The OAG "Story" which is the core on which all legal issues have been based relies completely on testimony that is LEGALLY (and logically by facts) unsupported. Face it....the "Story" account of molestation is a factually proven fiction (LIE).

The numbers of testimonies that refute MM's molestation message and the ENTIRE OAG case of what was told to anyone at the time at PSU don't lie here. The only lies here are by the OAG "Story" and corrupt legal processes!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Why would he not tell his dad and dranov, then tell Joe, then not tell Curley and Schultz.... about an incident he heard but didn’t see, where the kid is on the record saying nothing happened?

You are talking to someone with zero comprehension skills. He made up his mind years ago and nothing said now will ever change it.
 
So... you say Paterno was told in 2001(200-2002, pick a year) that MM said he observed a young boy(s - multiple boys no less....where did THAT come from!) being molested.

Where is your proof that what was told at this time was molestation??? REMEMBER - 5 OTHER people who were told by MM what he observed testified UNDER OATH that this "molestation" WAS NOT WHAT they were told. In fact, MM himself said what the OAG reported regarding "the shower incident" was NOT what he told the OAG. ("Just shut up - or you will ruin our case"!

Knowing this - How do you validate that MM's testimony to Paterno (or anyone else for that matter) involved ANY FORM of criminal behavior??? Let's see... 5 people in at the time frame of the "incident" saying "NO MOLESTATION" (wait that's 6 including MM himself) and you then state Paterno "was told" of molestation. How does that work????

Now that's what I call a nice try. You continue to promote the Story" concocted by the OAG based completely on conjecture and manipulated 10 years later into convenient "interpretations" assembled in 2011. The OAG "Story" which is the core on which all legal issues have been based relies completely on testimony that is LEGALLY (and logically by facts) unsupported. Face it....the "Story" account of molestation is a factually proven fiction (LIE).

The numbers of testimonies that refute MM's molestation message and the ENTIRE OAG case of what was told to anyone at the time at PSU don't lie here. The only lies here are by the OAG "Story" and corrupt legal processes!

So you and your cohorts are calling Paterno a liar again. Is there nothing you will say to try to change what happened? Bolding and underlining your fantasies don't make them any less ridiculous. Every time I think this thread has died, someone revives it.
Let it and Joe rest in peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
So you and your cohorts are calling Paterno a liar again. Is there nothing you will say to try to change what happened? Bolding and underlining your fantasies don't make them any less ridiculous. Every time I think this thread has died, someone revives it.
Let it and Joe Rest In Peace.
Nobody is calling Paterno a liar except you. “They really think that if I knew someone was hurting kids, I wouldn’t stop it?”

What we are doing is calling you an idiot. Hi idiot!
 
Last edited:
Nobody is calling Paterno a liar except you. “They really think that if I knew someone was hurting kids, I wouldn’t stop it?”

What we are doing is calling you an idiot. Hi idiot!

Nothing is more disgusting than people who make the claim that Joe Paterno either was told about a sexual assault or that Joe Paterno perjured himself.

The human memory is definitely not infallible, we misremember events all the time. What often enables us to remember events accurately is the people around us reminding us what happened. Joe had the OAG (whom he trusted and respected the authority of) trying to get Joe to remember McQueary telling him about abuse. Plus the fact that it was thought to be 2002 and Joe couldn’t remember that Kenny Jackson had just left at the time. Then it’s easy to consider that the 83 year old Joe’s memory could have been manipulated into believing Mike told him about assault. Besides, Joe’s response of “it was a sexual nature. I’m not sure what you’d call it” was not exactly clear!
 
Nothing is more disgusting than people who make the claim that Joe Paterno either was told about a sexual assault or that Joe Paterno perjured himself.

The human memory is definitely not infallible, we misremember events all the time. What often enables us to remember events accurately is the people around us reminding us what happened. Joe had the OAG (whom he trusted and respected the authority of) trying to get Joe to remember McQueary telling him about abuse. Plus the fact that it was thought to be 2002 and Joe couldn’t remember that Kenny Jackson had just left at the time. Then it’s easy to consider that the 83 year old Joe’s memory could have been manipulated into believing Mike told him about assault. Besides, Joe’s response of “it was a sexual nature. I’m not sure what you’d call it” was not exactly clear!

Joe and I say he was told. You and your buddies are saying he lied. Is getting Jerry out of jail that important to you sicko's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Joe and I say he was told. You and your buddies are saying he lied. Is getting Jerry out of jail that important to you sicko's?

Dude, I don't give two piles of dung about Jerry. Your narrative about Joe is way out of whack though. You are by far the single most binary personality I've seen in any discussion anywhere on this topic.
 
Joe and I say he was told. You and your buddies are saying he lied. Is getting Jerry out of jail that important to you sicko's?
Are you proud of the fact that after 8 years you continue to support a media Story which has be totally exposed as a Vendetta construction. Anything like a Penn State coverup has been debunked - Argue over Sandusky if you like but the MM testimony which is the only linkage to a $250M criminal THEFT has been proven to be a pure engineered lie. The real criminals are still out there scott free....WHY, because people like you keep pushing this dead cow of an OAG story down the road hoping the public will not notice its dead.

QUESTION - Honestly, Do you like supporting this story based on lies and criminal legal processes when it now only exists as a way to hide PA Political misdeeds and extend cover for those who assisted with all of this (BOT/NCAA/B1G)?
 
Are you proud of the fact that after 8 years you continue to support a media Story which has be totally exposed as a Vendetta construction. Anything like a Penn State coverup has been debunked - Argue over Sandusky if you like but the MM testimony which is the only linkage to a $250M criminal THEFT has been proven to be a pure engineered lie. The real criminals are still out there scott free....WHY, because people like you keep pushing this dead cow of an OAG story down the road hoping the public will not notice its dead.

QUESTION - Honestly, Do you like supporting this story based on lies and criminal legal processes when it now only exists as a way to hide PA Political misdeeds and extend cover for those who assisted with all of this (BOT/NCAA/B1G)?

Exposed and debunked? The only thing that has been exposed is that you and your ilk can't handle reality. If the story was debunked, where is Joe's statue, why is he a pariah and why is Jerry going to die in jail?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Joe and I say he was told. You and your buddies are saying he lied. Is getting Jerry out of jail that important to you sicko's?
This has nothing to do with JS. The OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" accusation and then told the whole world that MM witnessed it and reported it to Joe. That was untrue.

At the press conference for Sandusky's indictment, the OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, put up poster sized photos of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, on easels, right next to one of Jerry Sandusky. Those guys were accused of doing horrible things for horrible reasons. And because the public believed the anal rape of a young boy was the issue, it never gave their side of the story the time of day.

At that same press conference, someone inexplicably handed a microphone to Frank Noonan, head of the PA state police (serving at the pleasure of Tom Corbett), who proceeded to strongly suggest that Joe Paterno had not met his moral obligation. Why did anyone take this seriously? Why was he not immediately relieved of his duties? Because the OAG,under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" allegation and used Noonan to convince the world that the rape of a young boy was reported to Joe and all he did was pass it along to the administrators. Paterno was not a target of the grand jury investigation. He was not charged with any crime. He was deemed a cooperative and credible witness. And he was scheduled to be a witness for the prosecution.

Ever since that day, the PSU BOT, under the thumb of Tom Corbett, has done whatever has been necessary to preserve that narrative, even though their actions have caused irreparable damage to the university. I still want to know why!

Without the fake "anal intercourse" allegation, this never becomes a PSU scandal. It never touches Joe. None of it happens. Jerry could be guilty as hell, it wouldn't matter. Joe and the others would have been seen only to have been fooled by a serial pedophile, just like everybody else.

The bad guys in this saga are Tom Corbett and any number of the OGBOT. Holding them accountable is completely unrelated to Sandusky.
 
Last edited:
Except for francofan and indynittany who have fallen under Jerry's spell like the children he abused. They visit him in prison for Gods sake, hold his hand and prey for his release. Their time would be better spent visiting a shrink.
If you have the ability , message me.
 
Dude, I don't give two piles of dung about Jerry. Your narrative about Joe is way out of whack though. You are by far the single most binary personality I've seen in any discussion anywhere on this topic.
Well, WHCANole is right behind. Of course, it seems likely that he is the alter ego of another binary individual on this topic who frequents this board.
 
This has nothing to do with JS. The OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" accusation and then told the whole world that MM witnessed it and reported it to Joe. That was untrue.

At the press conference for Sandusky's indictment, the OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, put up poster sized photos of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, on easels, right next to one of Jerry Sandusky. Those guys were accused of doing horrible things for horrible reasons. And because the public believed the anal rape of a young boy was the issue, it never gave their side of the story the time of day.

At that same press conference, someone inexplicably handed a microphone to Frank Noonan, head of the PA state police (serving at the pleasure of Tom Corbett), who proceeded to strongly suggest that Joe Paterno had not met his moral obligation. Why did anyone take this seriously? Why was he not immediately relieved of his duties? Because the OAG,under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" allegation and used Noonan to convince the world that the rape of a young boy was reported to Joe and all he did was pass it along to the administrators. Paterno was not a target of the grand jury investigation. He was not charged with any crime. He was deemed a cooperative and credible witness. And he was scheduled to be a witness for the prosecution.

Ever since that day, the PSU BOT, under the thumb of Tom Corbett, has done whatever has been necessary to preserve that narrative, even though their actions have caused irreparable damage to the university. I still want to know why!

Without the fake "anal intercourse" allegation, this never becomes a PSU scandal. It never touches Joe. None of it happens. Jerry could be guilty as hell, it wouldn't matter. Joe and the others would have been seen only to have been fooled by a serial pedophile, just like everybody else.

The bad guys in this saga are Tom Corbett and any number of the OGBOT. Holding them accountable is completely unrelated to Sandusky.

You claim it wasn't anal intercourse. So if Jerry was only fondling the boys genitals or rubbing his penis on the boys butt there was no crime? Get a grip you weirdo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
You claim it wasn't anal intercourse. So if Jerry was only fondling the boys genitals or rubbing his penis on the boys butt there was no crime? Get a grip you weirdo.
And yet you don't know if Jerry actually engaged in fondling or rubbing, do you? Neither do I, yet you find it necessary to label people as "weirdo" for tanking a contrarian stance.

You're intolerantly judgmental, but you and I both know why so.

Give it up Walter. You're nearing death.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with JS. The OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" accusation and then told the whole world that MM witnessed it and reported it to Joe. That was untrue.

At the press conference for Sandusky's indictment, the OAG, under the leadership of Tom Corbett, put up poster sized photos of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, on easels, right next to one of Jerry Sandusky. Those guys were accused of doing horrible things for horrible reasons. And because the public believed the anal rape of a young boy was the issue, it never gave their side of the story the time of day.

At that same press conference, someone inexplicably handed a microphone to Frank Noonan, head of the PA state police (serving at the pleasure of Tom Corbett), who proceeded to strongly suggest that Joe Paterno had not met his moral obligation. Why did anyone take this seriously? Why was he not immediately relieved of his duties? Because the OAG,under the leadership of Tom Corbett, fabricated an "anal intercourse" allegation and used Noonan to convince the world that the rape of a young boy was reported to Joe and all he did was pass it along to the administrators. Paterno was not a target of the grand jury investigation. He was not charged with any crime. He was deemed a cooperative and credible witness. And he was scheduled to be a witness for the prosecution.

Ever since that day, the PSU BOT, under the thumb of Tom Corbett, has done whatever has been necessary to preserve that narrative, even though their actions have caused irreparable damage to the university. I still want to know why!

Without the fake "anal intercourse" allegation, this never becomes a PSU scandal. It never touches Joe. None of it happens. Jerry could be guilty as hell, it wouldn't matter. Joe and the others would have been seen only to have been fooled by a serial pedophile, just like everybody else.

The bad guys in this saga are Tom Corbett and any number of the OGBOT. Holding them accountable is completely unrelated to Sandusky.
Remember a few items.
The governor was angry at Spanier for vocally opposing Corbett's plan to cut Penn State's budget by 52 percent, Snedden wrote. In his report, Spanier, who was put under oath by Snedden and questioned for eight hours, stated that he had been the victim of "vindictiveness from the governor."

In Snedden's report, Spanier "explained that Gov. Corbett is an alumni of Lebanon Valley College [a private college], that Gov. Corbett is a strong supporter of the voucher system, wherein individuals can choose to utilize funding toward private eduction, as opposed to public education."
Corbett, Spanier told Snedden, "is not fond of Penn State, and is not fond of public higher education."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, "is now hearing that when the Penn State Board of Trustees was telling [Spanier] not to take action and that they [the Penn State Board of Trustees] were going to handle the situation, that the governor was actually exercising pressure on the [The Penn State Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave."
The governor, Snedden said, "wants to be the most popular guy in Pennsylvania." But Spanier was fighting him politically, and Joe Paterno was a football legend.

Suddenly, the Penn State scandal came along, and Corbett could lobby the Penn State Board of Trustees to get rid of both Spanier and Paterno.

And suddenly Corbett starts showing up at Penn State Board of Trustees meetings, where the governor was a board member, but didn't usually bother to go. Only now Corbett "is the knight in shining armor," Snedden said. Because he's the guy cleaning up that horrible sex abuse scandal at Penn State.

"The wrong people are being looked at here," Snedden said about the scandal at Penn State. As far as Snedden was concerned, the board of trustees at Penn State had no reason to fire Spanier or Paterno.

""It's a political vendetta by somebody that has an epic degree of vindictiveness and will stop at nothing apparently," Snedden said about Corbett.

The whole thing is appalling," Snedden said. "It's absurd that somebody didn't professionally investigate this thing from the get-go."

As far as Snedden is concerned, the proof that the investigation was tampered with was shown in the flip-flop done by Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former counsel.

"You've got a clear indication that Cynthia Baldwin was doing whatever they wanted her to do," Snedden said about Baldwin's cooperation with the AG's office.

In her interview with Snedden, Baldwin called Spanier "a very smart man, a man of integrity." She told Snedden that she trusted Spanier, and trusted his judgment. This was true even during "the protected privileged period" from 2010 on, Baldwin told Snedden. While Baldwin was acting as Spanier's counsel, and, on the advice of her lawyer, wasn't supposed to discuss that so-called privileged period with Snedden.

Baldwn subsequently became a cooperating witness who testified against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

Another aspect of the hysterical rush to judgment by Penn State: the university paid out $93 million to the alleged victims of Sandusky, without vetting anybody. None of the alleged victims were deposed by lawyers; none were examined by forensic psychiatrists.

Instead, Penn State just wrote the checks, no questions asked. The university's free-spending prompted a lawsuit from Penn State's insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company.


So Snedden wrote a report that called for renewing Spanier's high-level security clearance. Because Snedden didn't find any evidence of a coverup at Penn State. Because there was nothing to cover up.


"The circumstances surrounding [Spanier's] departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on [Spanier's] current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote.

Meanwhile, the university paid $8.3 million for a report from former FBI Director Louie Freeh, who reached the opposite conclusion that Snedden did. Freeh found that there had been a top-down coverup of a sex crime at Penn State that was allegedly orchestrated by Spanier.

What does Snedden think of the Louie Freeh report?

"It's an embarrassment to law enforcement," Snedden said.

Louie Freeh, Snedden said, is a political appointee.

"Maybe he did an investigation at one point in his life, but not on this one," Snedden said about the report Freeh wrote on Penn State.

What about the role the media played in creating an atmosphere of hysteria?

"Sadly, I think they've demonstrated that investigative journalism is dead," Snedden said.
If Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile, Snedden said, how did he survive a month-long investigation back in 1998 by the Penn State police, the State College police, the Centre County District Attorney's office, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare?

All of those agencies investigated Sandusky, after a mother complained about Jerry taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Were all those agencies bamboozled? None of them could catch a pedophile in action?

Another problem for people who believe that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile: When the cops came to Sandusky's house armed with search warrants, they didn't find any porn.

Have you ever heard of a pedophilia case where large caches of pornography weren't found, I asked Snedden.
 
You claim it wasn't anal intercourse. So if Jerry was only fondling the boys genitals or rubbing his penis on the boys butt there was no crime? Get a grip you weirdo.
The jury claimed it wasn't anal intercourse.

I didn't say there was no crime. But it's obvious all those told by MM acted as though there was none. If they were fooled, that's understandable. They certainly weren't alone.

What isn't understandable is why Jack Raykovitz, who was told something happened that was serious enough for Jerry's guest privileges to be suspended, failed in his responsibility to the boy and in his legal obligation to report.

For perspective, when told that JS had showered alone with a boy, Graham Spanier took steps to prevent that from happening in the future. Conversely, when told that JS had showered alone with a boy, Jack Raykovitz took steps so that Jerry could continue showering alone with boys. Which of these two men endangered the welfare of children? Why is Graham Spanier still fighting for his freedom and good name, while Jack Raykovitz has never even been charged of a crime?
 
Because he is the legendary Spanier.
On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, an assistant football coach at Penn State University [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly reportwhat he had seento Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

But the alleged victim never came forward, and, according to the prosecutors, was known "only to God." McQueary wrote that he never saw any such anal rape. And all the people that the grand jury presentment claimed McQueary had told his story to, about the anal rape, subsequently came forward to deny that in court.

Even McQueary disagreed with the grand jury report, writing in an email to the lead prosecutor and investigator that they had "slightly twisted" his words. "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."
But in Pennsylvania, a phantom victim of sex abuse and a phony claim of anal rape is all an unscrupulous prosecutor needs to grab headlines and win convictions.
We're talking about Frank Fina, the former lead prosecutor on the Sandusky case, who has been brought up on misconduct charges before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court. Fina's case continues next month.
In the case of unscrupulous prosecutors such as Fina, Rufus Seth Williams and Mariana Sorensen, it also helps if the media plays along, and never looks below the surface.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Ransom writes that the Commonwealth "employs a rather tortured argument" to suggest that Spanier's failure to report Sandusky was a "continuing course of conduct," and that his failure to act "created an ongoing danger to any child brought on the campus or encountered by Sandusky."

"The Commonwealth has introduced no additional evidence to show that [Spanier] was aware of any incidents involving Sandusky after 2001, nor his active involvement in any further actions involving Sandusky," Judge Ransom wrote. "Accordingly, the course of conduct exception is incapable as a mater of law, where [Spanier] endangered the welfare of a child by failing to report suspected child abuse, and where the charges are not brought within the statue of limitations."

"The Commonwealth supplies no additional authority to support the contention that we should expand the [endangering the welfare of a child] statute of limitations in such a manner, and I can find none," Judge Ransom wrote. "Accordingly, based on the above, I cannot agree" that the statue of limitations should have extended in Spanier's case, and "I would reverse [Spanier's] conviction and vacate his judgment of sentence."

Spanier was given a sentence of 4 to 12 months, with at least two months to be served in jail. His sentence has been suspended pending his appeal. Spanier's lawyers are expected to appeal the state Superior Court's decision to the state Supreme court.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT