As this Board creeps towards the possibility of becoming as ......

[bjf1984]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.
2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.
3 - The ONLY thing - from the standpoint of MM's involvement - that is relevant to the C/S/S trials is what he said in his interactions with Curley and Schultz in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 incident. Period.

Once this case goes to trial - if this case goes to trial - all of the involved parties will have the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined on those issues. To date, that simply has not happened.

If and when a trial is convened, there very well may be a deluge of additional information discovered and presented with respect to the actions of C/S/S with regard to Sandusky.......regarding their knowledge regarding Sandusky's activities, and their responses to that knowledge (and Curley and Schultz's interactions with MM will be part of that).

We - if we want the truth - should be anxiously awaiting full disclosure of any and all information regarding those issues. The facts may show that there is nothing of substance.....or the facts may show that there is a mountain of damning evidence. NONE of us will know unless and until the trial is adjudicated.

Whipping up a frenzy over which word or phrase MM may have uttered in the Grand Jury room, or in any of the subsequent legal actions, is - until such time as a trial in convened - a huge waste of time and effort (one only has to visit the Fight On State board for proof of that).

Thus far, this board has not - IMHO - devolved to that point. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Just my $0.02......FWIW, probably, about 2 cents

 

[9fold]

The asininity of this forum is a result of the trolls, many of whom were granted amnesty in the software conversion. Use the Report Post feature to alert the moderators to the trolls' presence. Hopefully the moderators will ban or re-ban them.

 

[bdgan]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.
2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.
3 - The ONLY thing - from the standpoint of MM's involvement - that is relevant to the C/S/S trials is what he said in his interactions with Curley and Schultz in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 incident. Period.

Once this case goes to trial - if this case goes to trial - all of the involved parties will have the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined on those issues. To date, that simply has not happened.

If and when a trial is convened, there very well may be a deluge of additional information discovered and presented with respect to the actions of C/S/S with regard to Sandusky.......regarding their knowledge regarding Sandusky's activities, and their responses to that knowledge (and Curley and Schultz's interactions with MM will be part of that).

We - if we want the truth - should be anxiously awaiting full disclosure of any and all information regarding those issues. The facts may show that there is nothing of substance.....or the facts may show that there is a mountain of damning evidence. NONE of us will know unless and until the trial is adjudicated.

Whipping up a frenzy over which word or phrase MM may have uttered in the Grand Jury room, or in any of the subsequent legal actions, is - until such time as a trial in convened - a huge waste of time and effort (one only has to visit the Fight On State board for proof of that).

Thus far, this board has not - IMHO - devolved to that point. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Just my $0.02......FWIW, probably, about 2 cents

Agree that the issue is what MM told C&S. We know that C&S testified that MM never told them about anything sexual. I tend to believe them because John McQueary & Dranov said the same thing.

 

[lionlurker]

We desperately need C/S/S to go to trial. We need to have a lot of people on the stand, under oath, forced to tell the truth. I'm not worried a bit about C/S/S being found guilty, but we have to force those who know what happened to tell it, and let them face the cross-examination that they've had coming for over 3 years now.

 

[PSU-Knocker]

Agree that the issue is what MM told C&S. We know that C&S testified that MM never told them about anything sexual. I tend to believe them because John McQueary & Dranov said the same thing.

That's exactly correct. Dranov ask Mike three times "what did you see". Mike kept going back to sexual sounds. Mike saw nothing and that's what he told Curley and Schultz.

 

[psu00]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.
2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.
3 - The ONLY thing - from the standpoint of MM's involvement - that is relevant to the C/S/S trials is what he said in his interactions with Curley and Schultz in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 incident. Period.

Once this case goes to trial - if this case goes to trial - all of the involved parties will have the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined on those issues. To date, that simply has not happened.

If and when a trial is convened, there very well may be a deluge of additional information discovered and presented with respect to the actions of C/S/S with regard to Sandusky.......regarding their knowledge regarding Sandusky's activities, and their responses to that knowledge (and Curley and Schultz's interactions with MM will be part of that).

We - if we want the truth - should be anxiously awaiting full disclosure of any and all information regarding those issues. The facts may show that there is nothing of substance.....or the facts may show that there is a mountain of damning evidence. NONE of us will know unless and until the trial is adjudicated.

Whipping up a frenzy over which word or phrase MM may have uttered in the Grand Jury room, or in any of the subsequent legal actions, is - until such time as a trial in convened - a huge waste of time and effort (one only has to visit the Fight On State board for proof of that).

Thus far, this board has not - IMHO - devolved to that point. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Just my $0.02......FWIW, probably, about 2 cents

I agree they are just debating in circles now. I'm more frustrated that not 1 reporter from any PA media outlet (TV/ paper/ radio) has gotten someone on the record with what the CSS trial delay has been and when it will start.

 

[simons96]

That's exactly correct. Dranov ask Mike three times "what did you see". Mike kept going back to sexual sounds. Mike saw nothing and that's what he told Curley and Schultz.

well the dolts always forgot . . . Mike's testimony is his recollection of what he thinks he told someone he saw, 10 (or 11) years after he would have said or seen that

Sandusky was acquitted of 3 charges, one of which was the IDSI for victim 2. So . . . a hanging jury still didn't believe all of what Mike said he would have seen had he said he saw it.

 

[UncleLar]

Sandusky was acquitted of 3 charges, one of which was the IDSI for victim 2. So . . . a hanging jury still didn't believe all of what Mike said he would have seen had he said he saw it.

Actually, it shows the jury believed McQueary. They convicted Sandusky on most of the charges in the victim 2 incident. The one that they didn't convict him on was because McQueary testified that he didn't actually see penetration. The acquital was because they thought not actually seeing penetration was enough reasonable doubt to acquit. It certainly isn't evidence that they didn't believe McQueary. They believed him when he stated he saw Sandusky assaulting the child (thus convicting Sandusky on four charges) and they believed him when he said he didn't see penetration (thus acquiting Sandusky on the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge).

 

[LundyPSU]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.
2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.
3 - The ONLY thing - from the standpoint of MM's involvement - that is relevant to the C/S/S trials is what he said in his interactions with Curley and Schultz in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 incident. Period.

Once this case goes to trial - if this case goes to trial - all of the involved parties will have the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined on those issues. To date, that simply has not happened.

If and when a trial is convened, there very well may be a deluge of additional information discovered and presented with respect to the actions of C/S/S with regard to Sandusky.......regarding their knowledge regarding Sandusky's activities, and their responses to that knowledge (and Curley and Schultz's interactions with MM will be part of that).

We - if we want the truth - should be anxiously awaiting full disclosure of any and all information regarding those issues. The facts may show that there is nothing of substance.....or the facts may show that there is a mountain of damning evidence. NONE of us will know unless and until the trial is adjudicated.

Whipping up a frenzy over which word or phrase MM may have uttered in the Grand Jury room, or in any of the subsequent legal actions, is - until such time as a trial in convened - a huge waste of time and effort (one only has to visit the Fight On State board for proof of that).

Thus far, this board has not - IMHO - devolved to that point. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Just my $0.02......FWIW, probably, about 2 cents

What Mike communicated to others, not just C/S/S does have relevance. As does any changes in his story from 2009-2012 or any other time period.

 

[Obliviax]

Agree. We know he told several different stories. Moreover, if you've ever walked into the locker room, especially given where his locker was in proximity to the showers, you know that there is a lot of speculation.

The "sounds" between doors, while showers are running is very hard to believe. A good lawyer would have had visual representations of the area and made note that, per MM's testimony, the kid was not in distress so the noises would have had to have been very, very loud.

Secondly, MM testifies that the damning parts of what he sees he sees through a mirror. Mirror's distort depth, even the best of them. They may also have been steamed up. MM testifies that he slams his locker door and moves to look directly into the shower. By this point, JS and the kid were standing side by side (nothing illegal there). So its quite clear that MM saw something awfully weird and sick but it would seem that he imagined a lot to fill in the blanks of what he saw and what he thought he saw.

 

[Aoshiro]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.

If Mike testified that he told C&S that he saw a pink elephant in the locker room and there is proof that he told someone else there was a raccoon in the locker room it would obviously cast doubt on his testimony.

 

[dwiz]

Actually, it shows the jury believed McQueary. They convicted Sandusky on most of the charges in the victim 2 incident. The one that they didn't convict him on was because McQueary testified that he didn't actually see penetration. The acquital was because they thought not actually seeing penetration was enough reasonable doubt to acquit. It certainly isn't evidence that they didn't believe McQueary. They believed him when he stated he saw Sandusky assaulting the child (thus convicting Sandusky on four charges) and they believed him when he said he didn't see penetration (thus acquiting Sandusky on the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge).

Just kind of baffling that anyone can get convicted of ANYTHING when there is no victim, no evidence and someone "kinda" says you might have been doing something bad, but they're not really sure. Not only did McQuade pull that, but the janitor case was the same way. No victim, no evidence, no eyewitness testimony. Conviction on all counts based on what somebody told someone else. Geez, somebody told me 11 years ago that a BOT member and Jerry were assaulting a child together. Enough for a conviction? No victim, no evidence, no eyewitness. Seems like enough to convict.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

As this Board creeps towards the possibility of becoming as asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it

That's an absolutely idiotic claim to suggest or to make.

You make some decent points after that, but I am never impressed when someone goes over the top to attract attention.

 

[bjf1984]

That's an absolutely idiotic claim to suggest or to make.

You make some decent points after that, but I am never impressed when someone goes over the top to attract attention.

???????

 

[bjf1984]

???????

Have you been over to the SCOUT board??? To say it is asinine.....to say it is bizarre....would be an understatement. Its been a running circle-jerk for years...literally...on this stuff.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Can someone help me here...I swore that I read somewhere that this kid said he was sliding on soapy tile floors...that he was running and sliding into a wall after he soaped up the shower floor...that was creating the "sounds" that MM heard...I know I read it somewhere...maybe an interview with Amendola?

 

[dwiz]

Can someone help me here...I swore that I read somewhere that this kid said he was sliding on soapy tile floors...that he was running and sliding into a wall after he soaped up the shower floor...that was creating the "sounds" that MM heard...I know I read it somewhere...maybe an interview with Amendola?

Yes, that was said by "a" person, who may or may not have been that victim. Amendola didn't put him on the stand, both sides couldn't agree if it was actually v6. This person then got paid as if he was v6 later on, which of course gagged said individual from speaking about it.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

Being worse than FOS? At least they keep the scandal stuff in one thread. We get a bunch of the "FREE JERRY" crap in multiple threads over here. Way worse IMO.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

The asininity of this forum is a result of the trolls, many of whom were granted amnesty in the software conversion. Use the Report Post feature to alert the moderators to the trolls' presence. Hopefully the moderators will ban or re-ban them.

Your definition of "troll" is someone who thinks JS is guilty. So......

 

[psuphillyfan14]

Just kind of baffling that anyone can get convicted of ANYTHING when there is no victim, no evidence and someone "kinda" says you might have been doing something bad, but they're not really sure. Not only did McQuade pull that, but the janitor case was the same way. No victim, no evidence, no eyewitness testimony. Conviction on all counts based on what somebody told someone else. Geez, somebody told me 11 years ago that a BOT member and Jerry were assaulting a child together. Enough for a conviction? No victim, no evidence, no eyewitness. Seems like enough to convict.

There were plenty of victims. They testified at the trial.

The state also had about a dozen more to testify if JS was ruled not guilty.

 

[pnnylion]

Your definition of "troll" is someone who thinks JS is guilty. So......

Looks like Jonathud made up a new name.

 

[bdgan]

Actually, it shows the jury believed McQueary. They convicted Sandusky on most of the charges in the victim 2 incident. The one that they didn't convict him on was because McQueary testified that he didn't actually see penetration. The acquital was because they thought not actually seeing penetration was enough reasonable doubt to acquit. It certainly isn't evidence that they didn't believe McQueary. They believed him when he stated he saw Sandusky assaulting the child (thus convicting Sandusky on four charges) and they believed him when he said he didn't see penetration (thus acquiting Sandusky on the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse charge).

I think the jury believed MM's testimony in conjunction with all other testimony. I'm not sure that MM's testimony would have been sufficient on it's own.

Here's my question for you. Why would MM be so upset that he went to his father's house, but then didn't tell his father or Dranov what he saw? (rape, oral sex, etc)

 

[B_Levinson]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:


2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.

It's highly material because McQueary has already told at least two inconsistent stories (one at the Sandusky trial and one at the Curley/Schultz hearing) which discredits him as the prosecution's only witness against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

 

[sluggo72]

There were plenty of victims. They testified at the trial.

The state also had about a dozen more to testify if JS was ruled not guilty.

well then put them on the stand, the point is still although PSU paid somebody for being Vic #2, but the state never said he was vic #2, and they never identified the Vic #8, the janitor incident. So there's about 8 counts JS was convicted of,without any victim.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

well then put them on the stand, the point is still although PSU paid somebody for being Vic #2, but the state never said he was vic #2, and they never identified the Vic #8, the janitor incident. So there's about 8 counts JS was convicted of,without any victim.

There's like 40 other counts that he was convicted of that involved victims who testified. Just stop already.

 

[pnnylion]

There's like 40 other counts that he was convicted of that involved victims who testified. Just stop already.

Much of it made up.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

Much of it made up.

Yup. ALL the witnesses made it up. All of them. One huge conspiracy.

You embarrass our fan base. Have you guys planned a rally outside his prison with your "FREE JERRY" signs yet?

 

[pnnylion]

Yup. ALL the witnesses made it up. All of them. One huge conspiracy.

You embarrass our fan base. Have you guys planned a rally outside his prison with your "FREE JERRY" signs yet?

There's no "our" where you're concerned, Jonathud.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

There's no "our" where you're concerned, Jonathud.

Yes there is an "our". It's actually possible to be a PSU fan AND think that JS is guilty. It's also possible to be a fan who is outright EMBARRASSED and ASHAMED to be associated with the Free Jerry crowd.

 

[pnnylion]

Yes there is an "our". It's actually possible to be a PSU fan AND think that JS is guilty. It's also possible to be a fan who is outright EMBARRASSED and ASHAMED to be associated with the Free Jerry crowd.

You = known troll.

 

[sluggo72]

There's like 40 other counts that he was convicted of that involved victims who testified. Just stop already.

point still being, you think it's okay to be convicted of crimes you didn't commit??

He may have committed other crimes, but how does some one get convicted without a victim?
I am sure someone will tell me.

 

[TheWitchDoctor]

asinine as the Fight On State board wrt the C/S/S trial....and particularly wrt Mike M's involvement in it:

A couple of things that should be kept in mind:

1 - What MM saw, or thought he saw, in that locker room on the night in question is/was material to the Sandusky trial. It is completely and utterly MEANINGLESS wrt the C/S/S trials.
2 - MM's testimony at the Sandusky trial, or any of the other "court events" from 2009 to date is completely and utterly immaterial to the C/S/S trials.
3 - The ONLY thing - from the standpoint of MM's involvement - that is relevant to the C/S/S trials is what he said in his interactions with Curley and Schultz in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 incident. Period.

Once this case goes to trial - if this case goes to trial - all of the involved parties will have the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined on those issues. To date, that simply has not happened.

If and when a trial is convened, there very well may be a deluge of additional information discovered and presented with respect to the actions of C/S/S with regard to Sandusky.......regarding their knowledge regarding Sandusky's activities, and their responses to that knowledge (and Curley and Schultz's interactions with MM will be part of that).

We - if we want the truth - should be anxiously awaiting full disclosure of any and all information regarding those issues. The facts may show that there is nothing of substance.....or the facts may show that there is a mountain of damning evidence. NONE of us will know unless and until the trial is adjudicated.

Whipping up a frenzy over which word or phrase MM may have uttered in the Grand Jury room, or in any of the subsequent legal actions, is - until such time as a trial in convened - a huge waste of time and effort (one only has to visit the Fight On State board for proof of that).

Thus far, this board has not - IMHO - devolved to that point. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Just my $0.02......FWIW, probably, about 2 cents

Personally, I can't get enough of the Sandusky, BOT, Freeh talk. Always so fresh and new. I wish we never talked football and recruiting.

 

[psuphillyfan14]

You = known troll.

Since to you, troll=someone who thinks JS is guilty, then, yes, I'm known as someone who thinks JS is guilty.

 

[pnnylion]

Since to you, troll=someone who thinks JS is guilty, then, yes, I'm known as someone who thinks JS is guilty.

Pose as any women lately?

 

[Westcoast24]

Looks like Jonathud made up a new name.

So you didn't like the statement hey Ed. So because you don't agree it means that person is a troll?

 

[pnnylion]

So you didn't like the statement hey Ed. So because you don't agree it means that person is a troll?

He's a known troll.

 

[Westcoast24]

He's a known troll.

And your not? See how that works

 

[pnnylion]

And your not? See how that works

Never trolled a day in my life. Your pal DrunkBear does that.

 

[Westcoast24]

Never trolled a day in my life. Your pal DrunkBear does that.

Holy crap. Your straight delusional.

 

[pnnylion]

Holy crap. Your straight delusional.

Calling out trolls isn't trolling.