It is currently Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:03 pm Advanced search

Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Discuss everything about Penn State and college football here.

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby LioninVa » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:30 am

I agree. I remember before JS went on trial thinking that there was no way he would be acquitted. I'm not suggesting this is all a misunderstanding and he didn't do those things, of course, but the population was so angry at him for the hit PSU's reputation took that it wouldn't even matter. So, if that is reasonable, it is possible that the same is true for these three. I would have to be really sure that the jury pool was tainted totally against me to agree the those charges, even at the misdemeanor level. Or be offered an Emmert-ton of money...
LioninVa
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 am

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Shore Lion » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:33 am

And as I've said before, I can't believe that JS was indicted, tried and convicted in like 7 months and these three guys have still never been to trial. JS was on trial on charges that would keep him in prison the rest of his natural life and his lawyers couldn't get a single continuance or extension. You can get a continuance for a parking ticket! I am NOT defending him at all but I've found that strange from the beginning. But as llama said, we'll never know what really went down. The only good is that hopefully people everywhere will be more willing to get involved when they see or are told something of this nature instead of just assuming someone else will take care of it.
Shore Lion
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:28 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:24 am

LioninVA - Schultz and Curley didn't plead to perjury or obstruction - those charges were dropped some time ago - they pleaded to misdemeanor child endangerment / failure to report.

And B&W - how can Spanier be more culpable? If two guys get up on the stand and say - "we recommended going to police and Graham said handle it in house."
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby LioninVa » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:27 am

I felt that was wrong when I typed it. What I meant was, if they cop a plea on the child endangerment and failure to report, that means that the statements they gave the grand jury could be consider perjury. But, I am sure that is all accounted for in the deal.

Sorry I misrepresented my thoughts; I can assure you it will happen again!
LioninVa
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:12 am

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:28 am

I suppose so, but how likely is that? Two guys come and tell you that there is a predator in your mists, we need to call the police and he says "nahhhh". It's possible, I guess, but, seems unlikely. I'd have a hard time believing that, especially from two guys who heard the story direct from McQueary and then cut a deal that got them knocked down to a misdemeanor.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8212
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:42 pm

Lion - the way I see the child endangerment vs perjury is failure to act / poor judgment vs intentional misrepresentation.

An analogy might be if you fill out your taxes and take an improper deduction because you misinterpreted the law (you actually incurred expense) vs willful fraud where you list a deduction for a fictional expense or you fail to report off the books income.

And B&W - hard time believing is the norm in this story from top to bottom. I wouldn't be shocked if Spanier finds himself backed up against a jail cell that he throws a dead man under the bus.
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:15 am

Spanier's trial started yesterday.

DA in opening statements offered Schultz will testify "he regrets not being more insistent about going to child welfare authorities". Wendall Courtney advised going to authorities.
McQ testified he informed Curley, Schultz, Spanier he witnessed Sandusky molesting child.

So the deals to Curley / Schultz were pretty much to get them to flip on Spanier.
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Shore Lion » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:27 am

I didn't read the reports that way. My understanding is that MM never talked to Spanier about it, only Curley and Shultz.
Shore Lion
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:28 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby Blue&White » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:46 am

Shore Lion wrote:I didn't read the reports that way. My understanding is that MM never talked to Spanier about it, only Curley and Shultz.


That was my impression, too. I thought MM spoke to Curley and Schultz, and C&S spoke to Spanier. I guess we will find out soon enough. I also think it's highly likely Spanier beats this. Based only on media reports, it sounds like the case against him is based on the testimony of 2 people who cut a deal to avoid going to prison. Those are probably not the most credible witnesses and a any competent defense attorney should be able to cast serious doubt. Maybe they have more evidence beyond the testimony of Curley or Schultz but, if not, I think Spanier walks away from this. And, I also suspect that Curley and Schultz are less than enthusiastic witnesses here.
#Cespedespaid!
User avatar
Blue&White
 
Posts: 8212
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: Sandusky and the aftermath thread

Postby reincarnatedlama » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:26 am

The aspect I am not understanding is how they got a statement from Courtney as I would assume any advice he gave would fall under attorney / client privilege.

Without making a deal with Schultz / Curley I would say there is no case on Spanier because they would not testify and the DA must feel that pleading them down was worth what he would getting (i.e. Spanier). If the DA doesn't make a deal he ran the risk of getting shutout (0 for 3 on convictions) - which I am sure would be a potential career killer (like losing OJ case). So he pleads down two guys (who can still end up doing time) and greatly enhances his case against Spanier and a chance at going 3 for 3.

If it comes to light Spanier knew what legal advised (report to authorities) and Curley / Schultz testify they wanted to go that route and Spanier overrode them he will drop.
And again don't be shocked if Spanier claims a dead guy pressured him to handle it internally.

Credit Schultz's and Curley's lawyers - they got most charges dropped before they went to trial and pled remaining one down to a misdemeanor - for guys who could have doing some real time they came out of this as best as they could have realistically hoped for.

But the writing is on the wall now - legal told them to report and they didn't - pretty clear to me they covered this to avoid the public fallout.
reincarnatedlama
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Locker Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests