A jury found former Penn State University President Graham Spanier guilty of one count of child endangerment Friday, ending a case that dragged on for more than four years over whether Spanier and two other university executives covered up previous allegations made against former Penn State assistant football coach and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.......


"The case against Spanier focused on his role in two complaints that pre-dated Sandusky’s 2011 arrest: a 1998 report by a mother that Sandusky “bear-hugged” her son in the shower at Penn State, and a 2001 report by football graduate assistant Mike McQueary, who claims he witnessed Sandusky molesting a boy in the showers in the football facilities.

The 1998 report was investigated by law enforcement and child welfare authorities, who concluded Sandusky did not commit a crime. After the 2001 report from McQueary — the specifics of which are still disputed by McQueary, Schultz and Curley — Spanier and other Penn State leaders exchanged emails and agreed on a plan not to contact law enforcement or child welfare authorities, but rather to bar the then-retired coach from bringing children onto campus facilities, and to inform officials at Sandusky’s charity of the incident.

“The plan resulted in a sea of carnage,” said prosecutor Laura Ditka, whose witnesses included a 28-year-old Sandusky victim who testified he was assaulted in the same showers the year after McQueary’s report.

“Somebody should’ve thought about John Doe, whose life was changed because of what they didn’t do.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...db62ac3a0c

(03-24-2017 04:14 PM)TerryD Wrote:  A jury found former Penn State University President Graham Spanier guilty of one count of child endangerment Friday, ending a case that dragged on for more than four years over whether Spanier and two other university executives covered up previous allegations made against former Penn State assistant football coach and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.......


"The case against Spanier focused on his role in two complaints that pre-dated Sandusky’s 2011 arrest: a 1998 report by a mother that Sandusky “bear-hugged” her son in the shower at Penn State, and a 2001 report by football graduate assistant Mike McQueary, who claims he witnessed Sandusky molesting a boy in the showers in the football facilities.

The 1998 report was investigated by law enforcement and child welfare authorities, who concluded Sandusky did not commit a crime. After the 2001 report from McQueary — the specifics of which are still disputed by McQueary, Schultz and Curley — Spanier and other Penn State leaders exchanged emails and agreed on a plan not to contact law enforcement or child welfare authorities, but rather to bar the then-retired coach from bringing children onto campus facilities, and to inform officials at Sandusky’s charity of the incident.

“The plan resulted in a sea of carnage,” said prosecutor Laura Ditka, whose witnesses included a 28-year-old Sandusky victim who testified he was assaulted in the same showers the year after McQueary’s report.

“Somebody should’ve thought about John Doe, whose life was changed because of what they didn’t do.”




https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...db62ac3a0c

Penn State administration knew very well what was going on. They thought that by banning Sandusky from bringing kids onto the campus, and not going to the authorities, then that would end the nightmare and bring closure. Not only were they wrong in that gamble, but it was ethically, morally and, now, legally, wrong.

Hopefully, this brings a small ounce of relief to the victims that continue to live through this tragedy, and that this situation informs and educates many who may encounter a similar situation in the future.

Also found not guilty on 2 other charges, FWIW. Including the conspiracy charge, which was the most serious charge.

(03-24-2017 05:18 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  Also found not guilty on 2 other charges, FWIW. Including the conspiracy charge, which was the most serious charge.

It was mainly reckless neglect more than conspiracy. Good that he was finally convicted.

Louis Freeh released a 2-page statement today after the conviction with the following statements that he got EXACTLY right:


“Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Timothy Curley were the most powerful men who ran the Pennsylvania State University. Today, they are convicted criminals. And Joe Paterno’s once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had the chance to make a real difference.”

“[Current PSU President] Barron and a coterie of ‘Paterno denier’ board members, alumni, cult-like groups such as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a former professional football player, and certain elected state political hacks, have been nothing but apologists for Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, more concerned about bringing back a bronze statue than worrying about the multiple child victims who have forever been so grievously harmed on the PSU campus,” he wrote. “Barron can do one, last good act of service to PSU by resigning, and taking along with him board members like Anthony P. Lubrano and Albert L. Lord, who have no vision for PSU except a ‘rear-view’ one.”

Full statement: https://www.scribd.com/embeds/342967406/...tions=true

(03-24-2017 09:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Louis Freeh released a 2-page statement today after the conviction with the following statements that he got EXACTLY right:


“Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Timothy Curley were the most powerful men who ran the Pennsylvania State University. Today, they are convicted criminals. And Joe Paterno’s once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had the chance to make a real difference.”

“[Current PSU President] Barron and a coterie of ‘Paterno denier’ board members, alumni, cult-like groups such as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a former professional football player, and certain elected state political hacks, have been nothing but apologists for Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, more concerned about bringing back a bronze statue than worrying about the multiple child victims who have forever been so grievously harmed on the PSU campus,” he wrote. “Barron can do one, last good act of service to PSU by resigning, and taking along with him board members like Anthony P. Lubrano and Albert L. Lord, who have no vision for PSU except a ‘rear-view’ one.”

Some nice juicy red meat for certain folk, no doubt.

Freeh's being sued by Spanier for defamation, of course. We'll see how that one goes ...

(03-24-2017 09:47 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Louis Freeh released a 2-page statement today after the conviction with the following statements that he got EXACTLY right:


“Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Timothy Curley were the most powerful men who ran the Pennsylvania State University. Today, they are convicted criminals. And Joe Paterno’s once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had the chance to make a real difference.”

“[Current PSU President] Barron and a coterie of ‘Paterno denier’ board members, alumni, cult-like groups such as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a former professional football player, and certain elected state political hacks, have been nothing but apologists for Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, more concerned about bringing back a bronze statue than worrying about the multiple child victims who have forever been so grievously harmed on the PSU campus,” he wrote. “Barron can do one, last good act of service to PSU by resigning, and taking along with him board members like Anthony P. Lubrano and Albert L. Lord, who have no vision for PSU except a ‘rear-view’ one.”

Some nice juicy red meat for certain folk, no doubt.

Freeh's being sued by Spanier for defamation, of course. We'll see how that one goes ...

Really, just what any non-brainwashed human being with a soul and any idea about what happened, and is happening there, thinks about the situation.

(03-24-2017 09:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Really, just what any non-brainwashed human being with a soul and and any idea about what happened, and is happening there, thinks about the situation.

Well, I'm a believer in the afterlife. The guilty don't escape justice in that world. As such, I'm not worried about people escaping justice as regards this case.

As for this world, the verdict is what it is. The Commonwealth proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt as regards 1 count, but did not as regards the other 2 counts. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard. That may not be perfect, but it's worked here in America for 240+ years.

Freeh's statement indicates he doesn't understand basic American law. Surprising given his background.

(03-24-2017 08:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  It was mainly reckless neglect more than conspiracy. Good that he was finally convicted.

Yes, it was definitely reckless neglect. The convictions on the 1 charge were deserved, and all 3 men deserved to lose their jobs as well.

The conspiracy has always been a lot less obvious. The Commonwealth really had an odd case they presented here - they had their own witnesses contradicting each other! That's not a real solid case there.

(03-24-2017 09:57 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Really, just what any non-brainwashed human being with a soul and and any idea about what happened, and is happening there, thinks about the situation.

Well, I'm a believer in the afterlife. The guilty don't escape justice in that world. As such, I'm not worried about people escaping justice as regards this case.

As for this world, the verdict is what it is. The Commonwealth proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt as regards 1 count, but did not as regards the other 2 counts. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard. That may not be perfect, but it's worked here in America for 240+ years.

Freeh's statement indicates he doesn't understand basic American law. Surprising given his background.

Civil suits (i.e. defamation) don't have a "reasonable doubt" standard - and neither should society. Additionally, being found "not guilty" isn't the same as being found "innocent."

(03-24-2017 10:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Civil suits (i.e. defamation) don't have a "reasonable doubt" standard - and neither should society.

Fair enough --- but that's not been the American tradition for 240+ years.

The prosecution has a higher standard to meet if they want to take someone's liberty, versus if they want to take someone's $ (civil trial).

(03-24-2017 10:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Additionally, being found "not guilty" isn't the same as being found "innocent."

No kidding. I never said anyone associated with this Penn State thing WAS innocent.

But thank you for the civics lesson.

(03-24-2017 11:01 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 10:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Civil suits (i.e. defamation) don't have a "reasonable doubt" standard - and neither should society.

Fair enough --- but that's not been the American tradition for 240+ years.

The prosecution has a higher standard to meet if they want to take someone's liberty, versus if they want to take someone's $ (civil trial).

(03-24-2017 10:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Additionally, being found "not guilty" isn't the same as being found "innocent."

No kidding. I never said anyone associated with this Penn State thing WAS innocent.

But thank you for the civics lesson.

I'm not sure what you mean by "American tradition," but I disagree w/ most, if not all, reasonably interpretations of that phrase that I can think of - at least as it relates to public perception.

Would you let a guy babysit your kids who was just found "not guilty" in a child rape case? I wouldn't, especially if he was probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree w/ me that such a hypothetical person is not a suitable babysitter, and I think that virtually every American would at least understand my decision. That scenario is an extreme example, but I think that it clearly illustrates the idea that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is appropriately used in criminal trials, but it's commonly thought to not apply to other capacities.

(03-24-2017 11:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm not sure what you mean by "American tradition," but I disagree w/ most, if not all, reasonably interpretations of that phrase that I can think of - at least as it relates to public perception.

Would you let a guy babysit your kids who was just found "not guilty" in a child rape case? I wouldn't, especially if he was probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree w/ me that such a hypothetical person is not a suitable babysitter, and I think that virtually every American would at least understand my decision. That scenario is an extreme example, but I think that it clearly illustrates the idea that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is appropriately used in criminal trials, but it's commonly thought to not apply to other capacities.

You can hire or not hire whoever you want as your babysitter! Of course!

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your original post. I was responding to CrazyPaco --- I know that dude doesn't accept this verdict. Tough cookies for him. It's America, and a jury decides, not him.

While we should aim for justice in this world, I don't worry too much if we aren't perfect there. There's always the next life as regards full justice, IMO.

The likes of CrazyPaco, of course --- they want THEIR form of justice NOW. In his world, it's basically "to hell with anyone else's opinion."

(03-24-2017 09:57 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:51 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Really, just what any non-brainwashed human being with a soul and any idea about what happened, and is happening there, thinks about the situation.

Well, I'm a believer in the afterlife. The guilty don't escape justice in that world. As such, I'm not worried about people escaping justice as regards this case.

As for this world, the verdict is what it is. The Commonwealth proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt as regards 1 count, but did not as regards the other 2 counts. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard. That may not be perfect, but it's worked here in America for 240+ years.

Freeh's statement indicates he doesn't understand basic American law. Surprising given his background.

That's nice. I don't know what Freeh's quoted statements have to do with law or a critique of law, but ok, you want to deflect I guess. What his statements indicate is that he understands the culture and problems endemic to State College all too well.

(03-24-2017 11:24 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm not sure what you mean by "American tradition," but I disagree w/ most, if not all, reasonably interpretations of that phrase that I can think of - at least as it relates to public perception.

Would you let a guy babysit your kids who was just found "not guilty" in a child rape case? I wouldn't, especially if he was probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree w/ me that such a hypothetical person is not a suitable babysitter, and I think that virtually every American would at least understand my decision. That scenario is an extreme example, but I think that it clearly illustrates the idea that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is appropriately used in criminal trials, but it's commonly thought to not apply to other capacities.

You can hire or not hire whoever you want as your babysitter! Of course!

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your original post. I was responding to CrazyPaco --- I know that dude doesn't accept this verdict. Tough cookies for him. It's America, and a jury decides, not him.

While we should aim for justice in this world, I don't worry too much if we aren't perfect there. There's always the next life as regards full justice, IMO.

The likes of CrazyPaco, of course --- they want THEIR form of justice NOW. In his world, it's basically "to hell with anyone else's opinion."

You don't read very well. But when your focus is on defending the indefensible at the expense of the welfare of children, that is likely the least of your issues.

(03-24-2017 11:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That's nice. I don't know what Freeh's quoted statements have to do with law or a critique of law, but ok, you want to deflect I guess. What his statements indicate is that he understands the culture and problems endemic to State College all too well.

I know your talking points ---- "cult", "Joe-Bots", "problems endemic to State College", "care about nothing at all except football", et cetera ....

Carry on.

(03-24-2017 11:38 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  That's nice. I don't know what Freeh's quoted statements have to do with law or a critique of law, but ok, you want to deflect I guess. What his statements indicate is that he understands the culture and problems endemic to State College all too well.

I know your talking points ---- "cult", "Joe-Bots", "problems endemic to State College", "care about nothing at all except football", et cetera ....

Carry on.

And Freeh, and I, and many others know YOU and your ilk.

(03-24-2017 11:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  And Freeh, and I, and many others know YOU and your ilk.

Cool. But don't worry! If there is an afterlife (as I do believe), justice shall be done! Maybe you'll even be on the committee that decides my fate!

(03-24-2017 11:24 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm not sure what you mean by "American tradition," but I disagree w/ most, if not all, reasonably interpretations of that phrase that I can think of - at least as it relates to public perception.

Would you let a guy babysit your kids who was just found "not guilty" in a child rape case? I wouldn't, especially if he was probably guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree w/ me that such a hypothetical person is not a suitable babysitter, and I think that virtually every American would at least understand my decision. That scenario is an extreme example, but I think that it clearly illustrates the idea that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is appropriately used in criminal trials, but it's commonly thought to not apply to other capacities.

You can hire or not hire whoever you want as your babysitter! Of course!

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your original post. I was responding to CrazyPaco --- I know that dude doesn't accept this verdict. Tough cookies for him. It's America, and a jury decides, not him.

While we should aim for justice in this world, I don't worry too much if we aren't perfect there. There's always the next life as regards full justice, IMO.

The likes of CrazyPaco, of course --- they want THEIR form of justice NOW. In his world, it's basically "to hell with anyone else's opinion."

I replied to this quote:

"'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard. That may not be perfect, but it's worked here in America for 240+ years.

Freeh's statement indicates he doesn't understand basic American law. Surprising given his background."

Freeh didn't say that they would be found guilty. He said:

“Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Timothy Curley were the most powerful men who ran the Pennsylvania State University. Today, they are convicted criminals. And Joe Paterno’s once iconic legacy is forever marred by his own decision to do nothing when he had the chance to make a real difference.”

“[Current PSU President] Barron and a coterie of ‘Paterno denier’ board members, alumni, cult-like groups such as Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship, a former professional football player, and certain elected state political hacks, have been nothing but apologists for Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, more concerned about bringing back a bronze statue than worrying about the multiple child victims who have forever been so grievously harmed on the PSU campus,” he wrote. “Barron can do one, last good act of service to PSU by resigning, and taking along with him board members like Anthony P. Lubrano and Albert L. Lord, who have no vision for PSU except a ‘rear-view’ one.”

To which you replied that a "reasonable doubt" standard has been the American tradition for +240 years, and you suggested that Freeh didn't know the law. I didn't know if you were reading his statements in light of the defamation suit, in which case a "preponderance of doubt" is the standard, or otherwise as his general opinion, in which case I believe anything ranging from "substantially likely" to "probably guilty" is appropriate. Either way, I don't think that beyond a reasonable doubt is the appropriate standard, and I don't think it has ever been the American tradition outside of criminal trial courtrooms (but I admittedly don't know exactly what you meant by "American tradition").

afterlife, so they get 72 virgins for sacarifing for the penn st cult