AOL Sports: Boy in Shower at Penn State Says Nothing Happened
- Thread starter FourDGlory
- Start date
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
EXACTLY. That is why I started on my post with saying that it was all prefaced with "IF" ... I agree 100%. Too much of this board is based on wishful thinking. I think that's why the last 5 years have been the never-ending cycle of getting punched in the gut. One reads this board, which is slanted so strongly by wishful myopics. When the wishful thinking does not happen, it tends to hurt even worse.
I will believe the stories of this guys testimony when it is actually released in black & white and we can actually read his testimony.
From all I have read victim 2 has always maintained this.....
Yet, he is questioned while MM and AM tell 800 different stories and they are credible. Seems to me that absurdity is at the core and periphery and everywhere in between in the case.
Yet, he is questioned while MM and AM tell 800 different stories and they are credible. Seems to me that absurdity is at the core and periphery and everywhere in between in the case.
Where are the posters who've insisted over & over & basically put all their credibility on the line that AM was not V2?
It's quiet from the tinfoil hat gang.
It's quiet from the tinfoil hat gang.
AOL still exists? and they have a sports department? craziest thing i've heard all day.
Says the free Jerry captain who hides behind due process. How was your timeout? LOL. You are so wrapped up in this crap you cannot even control yourself.
well, the Cleary report again states that MM saw things through a mirror. And while Cleary seems to feel that is acceptable, I feel it is not. Through a mirror has many distortions from a depth perception, to distance, and if the mirror is large and not 100% perfect, other distortions. I'm telling you, if I was Sandusky, I'd be fighting MM's testimony tooth and nail.
I'm NOT saying that is is innocent either, but he certainly was NOT "fairly tried by a jury of his peers".
Here's the Centre Daily times report. After reading it, I still don't know if V2 was assaulted or not. Help me out.
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/crime/article112581688.html
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/crime/article112581688.html
No big deal, but I think it is "Clery", not "Cleary" -- named after a woman involved in a violent incident I believe that the initial Legislation was founded based upon. Pretty sure the women's last name was "Clery" though with no "a".
As I understand it, Allan Myers AFFIRMED in testimony that he WAS "Victim 2" listed in the SWIGJ Presentment and Indictments AND that he WAS NOT sexually assaulted in any way that evening - i.e., Friday, February 9, 2001, a date which "The State" did not even get correct until Mid-2012 well after the SWIGJ Presentment and Initial Indictment (some 6 months after these items) DESPITE Sandusky and the Defense telling them that this was the date of the incident they were asking them about from the get go!!!! (Sandusky also apparently has never waivered that Allan Myers was the party with him that night that the INDICTMENT and Subpeona they served upon him was accusing him about!!! Additionally, Allan Myers apparently TOLD AUTHORITIES he is the party being referred to in regards to Friday, February 9, 2001 that the SWIGJ INDICTMENTS were issued upon!!!!).
Allan Myers apparently also affirmed that he was sexually abused on OTHER occassions, but NOT the night in question by THE STATE and OAG in regards to their SWIGJ issued INDICTMENT that Sandusky responded to which was PERFECTLY consistent with what Allan Myers just testifed to under oath in a court of law and PERFECTLY INCONSISTENT with what Mike McQueary claimed in 2010, 2011 and 2012, but perfectly CONSISTENT with what everybody who Mike McQueary spoke with in 2001 directly after the incident on Friday, February 9, 2001 says Mike McQueary told them (i.e., that he wasn't sure if anything was actually going on but he was suspicious of Sandusky's intentions given that the parties were alone in the facility at night in the shower room and given the "noises" he initially heard when walking into the facility)!!!
BTW, given the way this has gone down, AND THE FACT that Sandusky had the date correct from the get go - and provided this information to OAG Prosecutors and State Investigators from the get go (i.e., THE STATE and their "Star" supposed "Eyewitness", who then diametrically contradicted this claim by THE STATE in under oath testimony in a PA Court of Law stating he was nothing of the kind and never told anybody he was - i.e., he was NOT AN EYEWITNESS, let alone a "Star Highly-Credible Eyewitness" - INSISTED UPON CLAIMING THE WRONG DATE despite being told the CORRECT DATE of the incident by THE ACCUSED from the get go! Not only that, but the ACCUSED told them FROM THE GET GO precisely who the party was that was with him that night, a night THE STATE INCORRECTLY INSISTED UPON CLAIMING WAS THE WRONG NIGHT, one Allan Myers who today testified under oath in a PA Court of Law that he was that party! Not only that, but THE STATE back in 2010/2011 questioned Allan Myers and insisted he was not the party with Sandusky in 2002???? IOW, not only did they have their date incorrect despite being given the CORRECT DATE by THE ACCUSED from the get go, but they also insisted upon saying the party who they were TOLD FROM THE GET GO who was with the ACCUSED on the REAL DATE of the incident, Allan Myers, was the "incorrect party" and they were not with Sandusky on March 3, 2002????? Talk about Keystone Cops - it is impossible that Sandusky doesn't get a new trial given that Sandusky and Myers story has been CONSISTENT and FACTUALLY CORRECT from the time of the INITIAL INDICTMENTS and it is THE STATE whose story has been all over the place COUNTER-FACTUAL and clearly a rigged tyrannous investigation in regards to Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and Spanier in regards to the charges relating to the incident THE STATE chose to ERRONEOUSLY label "Friday, March 3, 2002", but then changed to what the DEFENSE consistently claimed, AND WAS CORRECT ABOUT, was "Friday, February 9, 2001"??? Impossible that Sandusky is not granted a "Retrial" (given that THE STATE chose to try everything together) and all charges dropped against Curley, Schultz and Spanier given the information that has been revealed in this PCRA Hearing - if he is not granted a new trial, they may as well through out the PCRA Codes because Sandusky has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not get a "fair" vetting of the FACTS from the State of Pennsylvania Judicial System due to the ILLEGAL and DUBIOUS actions of the OAG, State Prosecutors and OAG-Directed State Investigators which clearly amount to "Malicious Prosecution" and TYRANNY in regards to how the MULTIPLE TRIALS relating to the Friday, February 9, 2001 Incident were handled by the OAG, State Prosecutors and OAG-Directed State Investigators!!!
I'm pretty certain he is guilty. He was convicted in a court of law of 48 charges of child molestation.
It's pathetic that people are trying to defend him.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-