Skip to main content

View Diary: Spanier breaks silence on Sandusky child abuse scandal (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Personally, I do not think they will indict (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Spanier, until the perjury cased against Curley and Shultz are completed.  If the state loses those, they will drop everything else dealing with Spainer.

    To indict for perjury they will have to prove that Curley and Shultz and Paterno TOLD him there was sexual abuse taking place as per McQueary. Since Paterno is dead and Curley and Shultz are saying that McQueary didn't tell them that, it will be difficult to prove Curley or Shultz did tell him what they say they didn't tell him.  And McQueary's changing statements over time will hurt the states case.

    A Failure to report indictment will again come down to what Spainer states he was told (or evidence that confirms what he was told).  Again, he will state Curley and Shultz were vague, and this will be exactly what Curley and Shultz say.  They will claim McQueary was vague, thus they were vague with Spainer.  

    Both of these charges will be very difficult for the state to prove.  Hell, if I'm Spainer (or Curley or Shultz), I'd point out the DA had McQueary's statements for over a year (closer to 2) and didn't report Sandusky for another year.

    Possibly they could charge him with child endangement, but again, the state is going to have to prove that even though Curley and Shultz state otherwise, Spainer was told Sandusky was sexually molesting the child in the shower in 2001.

    If these guys continue to hold true to their stories, it is going to be extremely difficult to charge Spainer, and i think it is going to be very tough to convict Curley or Shultz without more evidence than I've seen that they perjuried themselves.  The state was hurt by Paterno's death, prior to them allowing him to be diposed with lawyers for Curley/Shultz present.

    •  You forget - there was evidence found by Freeh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that was turned over to the DA's office.  

      Freeh said from the beginning that they were working with the DA's office.  And it makes sense - why else would Judge Freeh state with such conviction that they covered it up, concealed, whatever terms he used - with the apparent holes in his report?  

      My guess is that there are other emails that had to be turned over for the CRIMINAL trials against Schultz, Curley and, again just a feeling I get - in the pending indictment of Spanier.

      We shall see - I anticipate either today or tomorrow Spanier being arrested.

      You don't need Curley and Schultz's testimony if you have hard evidence vis-a-vis emails...

      Remember, Spanier just "hopes" those emails from 1998 were destroyed - he's already plotting his defense, said in his interview that emails were "always getting lost" or deleted back then - it was an IT issue.

      Here's the thing though...when you send an email OUTSIDE your organization?  Regardless of what you hope may have happened on your side?  It's still retained on the OTHER server (I'm thinking Courtney in this scenario)

      "...I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul" Invictus - William Ernest Henley Please donate to TREE Climbers, our 501(c)(3).

      by Roxine on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 03:55:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site