Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, I had questioned Baldwin's ethics at one time also and was told right off that because of her esteemed background she was above reproach. Looks like the chickens are coming to roost all over..


Balwin was very high powered. She's a former State Supreme Court Justice (and a long term county judge in Allegheny County). She would probably be arguing a case before ex-colleagues.

She was also a former member of the BOT.

The thing is, if she is hiring an attorney, there must be at least a chance of some problem.
 
Yep, I had questioned Baldwin's ethics at one time also and was told right off that because of her esteemed background she was above reproach. Looks like the chickens are coming to roost all over..

As far as Curley and Schultz, education does not always mean smarts. They both were pretty dumb IMO to believe that a lawyer who they were not paying was working for them, and to go before a GJ and lie about something when they knew 2 other people at the time could expose them for it, and most of all to lie for whoever/whatever they were lying for, whether Spanier, the school or the BOT.

Honestly, my suspicion is that they thought they were part of the cover-up, and they assumed they would all stick together, to have the best chance of succeeding. They were definitely dumb in the sense of being naive - they didn't catch on that they were going to be the designated fall-guys.

Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

If they knew then what they know now, I am certain Curley and Schultz would have retained their own counsel, and looked to push the blame higher up the food chain. Whether or not that is more accurately what happened, I hope we find out.
 
"Recently, Spanier learned some emails from before 2004 were retrievable, the suit said, adding that Spanier has placed the condition on speaking with the Freeh investigators that the university first give him access to communications from 1998 to 2004.Spanier had been told that emails from that time period couldn’t be obtained “inasmuch as a new email system installed in 2004 at Penn State had eliminated email records prior to 2004,” the suit said.

The suit also said that when Spanier spoke to the grand jury, he was accompanied by an attorney he thought was representing his interests, an apparent reference to Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State’s outgoing attorney.
“However, that counsel later (in 2012) took the position that she, in fact, was representing only the interests of Penn State,” the suit said."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/...nt-graham.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

I had read before that Curley and Schultz thought Baldwin was representing them; this is the first time I've seen that Spanier had the same idea.

In the same link above is this:

"Penn State spokesman David La Torre issued a statement, saying the university “cannot comment on any specifics related to pending litigation. However, the university has cooperated fully with the Office of Attorney General and the Freeh Group and expects all of its faculty, staff and administrators, including Dr. Spanier, to cooperate to the fullest extent. The university believes it has done nothing that would prevent Dr. Spanier from meeting with the Freeh Group, which has already met with hundreds of university employees.”

Wonder if this will work for Spanier or if Freeh will subpeona him anyway, with or without his emails. This seems like a desperate measure to get out of having to testify before the Freeh Group. And the school is sure not helping him in this.

Balwin was very high powered. She's a former State Supreme Court Justice (and a long term county judge in Allegheny County). She would probably be arguing a case before ex-colleagues.

She was also a former member of the BOT.

The thing is, if she is hiring an attorney, there must be at least a chance of some problem.

Oh yes, I had read about her background way back when the GJ report came out and it's a shame that she has gotten herself involved so deep in this mess. Seems like she realizes she needs representation now since all the knifes are out in all directions. Freeh sure has opened up the can of worms, eh?

Houston, you got a problem, indeed....
 
Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

I don't think it was "seemingly." Spanier lost his job over the defense and the AG has not ruled out an indictment. They may have thought that Spanier would be in a position to support them, and he wasn't.

Schultz, in particular has a problem, because he knew about 1998 and because he claimed that 2001 was turned over to the same agency, yet he never called the University Police (which he ran), nor contacted another LE agency. Who did he think contacted them? Tiny elves?

Ironically, if Gricar had known about 2001, and didn't prosecute, I actually would have understood. 2001 is solely dependent on how credible McQueary was/is, and that would be a difficult situation to second guess.

McQueary, be he had much more to lose in 2010-11, became more credible. He had a lot less to lose in 2001.
 
McQueary, be he had much more to lose in 2010-11, became more credible. He had a lot less to lose in 2001.

Oh, my, that strikes me as so true but so cynical- not on JJ's part but on the legal system's part.

With Curley and Schultz, we've heard that Baldwin never discussed how they would testify, even driving with them to the GJ- so says Lanny (Davis?), also saying that she didn't hear either of them say she represented them.

But the fact it has taken until now to reveal that she also went into court with Spanier makes me question that the communication was all one way and he never told her his version of 2001. With him as her boss, she was in a worse conflict of interest than with the others, and it seems very likely that until he was fired he had told her that defending PS and defending its "innocent" executives were the same thing.

What order did Curley, Schultz and Spanier testify in? I'm wondering how Baldwin heard the stories unfold.
 
Honestly, my suspicion is that they thought they were part of the cover-up, and they assumed they would all stick together, to have the best chance of succeeding. They were definitely dumb in the sense of being naive - they didn't catch on that they were going to be the designated fall-guys.

Having Spanier "seemingly" on their side probably gave them lots of confidence that they were going to be supported. I wonder if they don't wish now that they could re-do their entire GJ testimony, changing their story from "I don't recall" and "I didn't think it was serious/sexual" (i.e. the party line), to "I told Graham, and he instructed me ..." (i.e. watching their own backsides).

If they knew then what they know now, I am certain Curley and Schultz would have retained their own counsel, and looked to push the blame higher up the food chain. Whether or not that is more accurately what happened, I hope we find out.

BINGO - in their circle they believed they were connected and had the power to cover up the Sandusky problem just like they did in 1998 and so on - then came Ms. Ganim and her prize winning journalism expose that went global.
 
Sandusky team meets with prosecutors, judge in Bellefonte

Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehann...14281018/-/s5v16yz/-/index.html#ixzz1wJLArxCm

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -
Media outlets in State College are reporting an unscheduled meeting has been taking place between prosecutors and the Jerry Sandusky defense team members this afternoon.

According to the reports, Jerry Sandusky and his attorneys Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger, are meeting with prosecutors and Judge Cleland.

The meeting started about 3 p.m. in the courthouse annex in Bellefonte.

Emails and phone calls to the lawyers have gone unanswered.........

Representatives of the accusers filed a number of motions Tuesday requesting their identities not be revealed at trial.

Wonder what this is all about?
 
Also in the article:

Lawyers for so-called victims 3, 5 and 7 filed motions Tuesday asking Cleland to prevent identities of alleged victims from being disclosed publicly.

Lawyers for Victim 4 are asking for a pseudonym to be used for him during the upcoming trial.

The lawyers for Victims 3 and 7 said Sandusky's lawyer isn't opposed, but they haven't heard back from state prosecutors.

Victim 4's lawyers said his psychologist is worried about what effect disclosure of his name will have on his well-being.


Maybe they are discussing this issue? but for the victims' sake I'm still hoping for a plea deal....
 
http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-29/news/31888600_1_accusers-pretrial-hearing-court-filings

Pretrial meeting sets off speculation about Sandusky

Jerry Sandusky met with his attorney, state prosecutors, and the judge handling his case Tuesday in a private, three-hour session, a day before the last scheduled pretrial hearing in his child sex-abuse case.

The previously unannounced session fueled talk of potential eleventh-hour developments in the widely watched case against the former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach, which is set to begin jury selection next week.

"There’s a lot of speculation that a plea [deal] is going on," James Koval, a spokesman for the state Supreme Court, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "I have no indication of that at this point."
-------

And up until this week, state prosecutors were preparing the young men in the Sandusky case to testify publicly using their given names, lawyers for one said this week.

Most news organizations, including The Inquirer, have policies against identifying purported victims of sexual abuse in published accounts.

But Tuesday’s motions suggest a growing concern over the worldwide interest in the case and the effect overwhelming publicity could have on the accusers.
 
Just heard report that Jury selection will begin June 5th.heard it on insessions
 
Sandusky judge denies legal team's attempt to delay case

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...denies-legal-teams-attempt-to-delay-case?lite

The trial of Jerry Sandusky will begin next week in Pennsylvania as scheduled, the presiding judge ruled Wednesday, denying a request for a delay by lawyers for the former Penn State assistant football coach.
--------

Still unresolved are a defense effort to have the charges dismissed and motions by four alleged victims to have their identities protected by court order.
 
Sandusky judge denies legal team's attempt to delay case

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...denies-legal-teams-attempt-to-delay-case?lite

The trial of Jerry Sandusky will begin next week in Pennsylvania as scheduled, the presiding judge ruled Wednesday, denying a request for a delay by lawyers for the former Penn State assistant football coach.
--------

Still unresolved are a defense effort to have the charges dismissed and motions by four alleged victims to have their identities protected by court order.

Good for the judge, I say. Victims have waited enough.
 
UPDATE: Jerry Sandusky hearing focuses on alleged November 2000 incident

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/...y-case-denies.html#wgt=rcntnews#storylink=cpy

BELLEFONTE — Attorneys in the Jerry Sandusky case argued today over the sufficiency regarding the charges related to an incident in November 2000 in which a janitor allegedly saw Sandusky abusing a boy........

Prosecutor Frank Fina argued the commonwealth can present circumstantial evidence from before and after the incident.
--------

Cleland's ruling addresses the reasons the defense asked for a delay in the trial and why he is ruling against the request. For example, the ruling says that the defense wants to use a jury consultant, who is currently unavailable. The ruling says that "defense counsel has spent many years selecting juries in Centre County and I have not been presented with any evidence that his expertise will be meaningfully" helped by an expert.
 
I'm sure there's a great deal of pressure for this trial to commence on schedule so it can get over with as quickly as possible. Penn State is still wishing the public's amnesia will be in place by the start of the fall semester. Fat chance, imo.

Unless, there's a plea, of course. We are in the twilight of the eleventh hour-- the next few days will bring about any jockeying for position there's to be.

Wonder how Dottie's holding up-- and does she have her own legal counsel yet?
 
Victim 8. I'm really surprised that yesterday's meeting was about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
2,247
Total visitors
2,418

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,016
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top