ADVERTISEMENT

CNN Headline on Paterno

You think it's strange to be pissed off that some knew of a pedophile doing sexual things to boys and didn't report it? You think it's weird to be pissed because that inaction also led to massive hits to the University's reputation and bank account?
There's no proof of your assertion. If anything, the Ganim article refutes your entire premise. If Jerry was cleared of any wrong doing in the "earlier" incident, and in fact he was never accused of sexual abuse to begin with, then the fact that Joe considered the two incidents to be similar supports the contention that McQueary did not report a sexual encounter to anybody.

We now have official documentation that Joe considered what happened in '01 to be similar to what occurred in '98. How do you spin that as a negative?

Sarah Ganim sold her soul a long time ago. What's your excuse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.

Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.

I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.

If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.

I stopped reading after "almost incontrovertible". That's kinda like being almost pregnant. You are just another poster who thinks he sees the vague from some higher, clearer vantage point. Things are true because you think they are true.

You use a lot of words to say very little, and certainly nothing new.
 
I never said there was anal sex. You understand that anal sex is not the only way a boy could have been sexually abused, right?

You understand that the grand jury presentment which was the basis for the moral outrage in this case clearly stated that MM "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky", right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster
There's no proof of your assertion. If anything, the Ganim article refutes your entire premise. If Jerry was cleared of any wrong doing in the "earlier" incident, and in fact he was never accused of sexual abuse to begin with, then the fact that Joe considered the two incidents to be similar supports the contention that McQueary did not report a sexual encounter to anybody.

We now have official documentation that Joe considered what happened in '01 to be similar to what occurred in '98. How do you spin that as a negative?

Sarah Ganim sold her soul a long time ago. What's your excuse?
You think Jerry is innocent, right?
 
You understand that the grand jury presentment which was the basis for the moral outrage in this case clearly stated that MM "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky", right?
And you understand that Sandusky was found not guilty of the anal sex charge with that victim but was found guilty of the other charges of sex crimes, right?
 
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.

Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.

I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.

If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.

Cover-up? How is a there a "cover-up" when there is one very large cannon on the loose, namely the witness, Mike McQueary? Is there any evidence that anyone talked to him and told him to keep his mouth shut? Or maybe that has to wait for Ganim's next installment.
 
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.

Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.

I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.

If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.


The incontrovertible documented evidence is that NONE of the people MM spoke with say that he described anything resembling what appeared in the grand jury presentment.

You say that it was incumbent on Joe to take MM to the police and have him tell them exactly what he was told. Huh?
  • Why wasn't it incumbent on MM to do that on his own?
  • Why wasn't it incumbent on JM to have his son do that?
  • Why wasn't it incumbent on Dranov to have MM do that?
  • Why wouldn't it have made more sense to do this immediately when the alleged victim could be identified?
  • Why do you discount the fact that NONE of the people MM spoke with said that they were told about something severe enough that warranted reporting to police?
  • Why do you discount the possibility that Joe knew that somebody complained about JS showering with a boy but that there was no crime (98), and now Joe was hearing another similar story (01)?
 
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.

Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.

I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.

If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.

1) there is no evidence of exactly what Joe knew from 1998
2) if he did know specifics of 1998, all he knew was that it was a false alarm, which logically would influence him to think the vague report of horseplay in 2001 was more of the same.
3) a cover up not only never made sense, it's been disproven In a court of law.

To believe otherwise is deluding yourself.
 
And you understand that Sandusky was found not guilty of the anal sex charge with that victim but was found guilty of the other charges of sex crimes, right?

Sandusky was acquitted of the charge because McQueary testified that he never actually saw insertion. However, he did testify during the Sandusky trial that he saw Jerry behind the boy, grabbing him around the waste, heard "skin-on-skin slapping," and Jerry's midsection moving back and forth. At the preliminary hearing for Curley and Schultz he testified "that some kind of intercourse was going on." So what other than sodomy was he alluding to?
 
Cover-up? How is a there a "cover-up" when there is one very large cannon on the loose, namely the witness, Mike McQueary? Is there any evidence that anyone talked to him and told him to keep his mouth shut? Or maybe that has to wait for Ganim's next installment.
The even bigger cannon on the loose we now know to be Allan Meyers. How could anyone hope to conceal a crime such as this without first securing the silence of the victim? And yet Curley declined the opportunity to learn his identity? In what world does that make sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
And you understand that Sandusky was found not guilty of the anal sex charge with that victim but was found guilty of the other charges of sex crimes, right?

Yes, so what? MM didn't report "other" charges to dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, or Shultz.

MM reported an incident to 5 people and each one of then testified that his report was nothing that warranted calling police. MM himself testified that he used soft language with Joe.
 
The even bigger cannon on the loose we now know to be Allan Meyers. How could anyone hope to conceal a crime such as this without first securing the silence of the victim? And yet Curley declined the opportunity to learn his identity? In what world does that make sense?

And you're talking to outside parties (Raykovitz, Courtney) about it! Helluva way to conduct a cover-up.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps the policy fell into a black hole of such density that it ripped the very questions about it right out of existence.

Or perhaps Penn State reported the alleged incident to the PSP, FBI, CIA, NSA and Interpol and was told there was nothing that could be done due to Sandusky's connections with the Kremlin and Bejing, not to mention Pyongyang, which could threaten a world wide nuclear holocaust if action were to be taken against Jerry.

Now I understand.
 
Or perhaps Penn State reported the alleged incident to the PSP, FBI, CIA, NSA and Interpol and was told there was nothing that could be done due to Sandusky's connections with the Kremlin and Bejing, not to mention Pyongyang, which could threaten a world wide nuclear holocaust if action were to be taken against Jerry.

Now I understand.
Nice work. Now explain why all those questions have disappeared.
 
1) there is no evidence of exactly what Joe knew from 1998
To add to this, there is no evidence of what Paterno knew of 2001.

GMJ wants to hang his hat on the fact that Paterno said "it was of a sexual nature" all the while ignoring the other half of that comment "I don't know what you'd call it".

MMcQ himself stated under oath that he told Paterno a watered down version of events. So, there is no certainty at all to what Paterno was told because the only person who spoke to Paterno about what he saw/didn't see, hear/didn't hear admitted he was vague and did not disclose details. Paterno also stated that he didn't press Mike for details

Add to this that McQ spoke to Paterno in 2011 before Paterno went to his very brief, very limited, very casual GJ appearance.

GMJ - Answer this, please?

At what year in time did Paterno come to the conclusion that it was of a sexual nature? Was it 2001 when EVERYBODY else on the face of the planet that knew about the situation unanimously agreed that it was not CSA in action? Or was it 2011 when McQ was backpedaling and trying to keep his stories straight?

Facts and corollary evidence refute every thing you say.
 
And you understand that Sandusky was found not guilty of the anal sex charge with that victim but was found guilty of the other charges of sex crimes, right?

Again, The State only claimed one piece of Court Admissible EVIDENCE in 100% of their Indictments related to the 2001 Incident that they would absolutely prove At-Trial beyond any reasonable doubt that Sandusky Sexually Assaulted via "anal-rape intercourse" the child....and that piece of EVIDENCE was that they had an EYEWITNESS to their account of events that would TESTIFY AT-TRIAL that they "SAW" and eyewitnessed Sandusky "subjecting a 10 year old boy to anal-rape intercourse" in the shower. Mike McQueary TESTIFIED in the diametric opposite fashion AT-TRIAL despite being called as a "State's Witness". McQueary unequivocally stated that he DID NOT see what the State claimed AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD! Beyond that, McQueary testified that the State's claims in the their Presentment were a complete misrepresentation of his GJ Testimony and that he told the GJ the exact same thing he was telling the Trial Jury - that he DID NOT see ANY SEX ACT, let alone anal intercourse and NEVER told anyone he had.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Nice work. Now explain why all those questions have disappeared.

I assume you are referencing the questions contained in Jimmy's post and the fact they have not been answered.

The simplest answer is that there was no formalized policy in existence in 2001 which could have been reported. Beyond that anyone can speculate and we both have; neither, I might add, very convincingly.
 
I assume you are referencing the questions contained in Jimmy's post and the fact they have not been answered.

The simplest answer is that there was no formalized policy in existence in 2001 which could have been reported. Beyond that anyone can speculate and we both have; neither, I might add, very convincingly.
Makes perfect sense. So where is "There was no formal policy," noted in Freeh's objective and comprehensive review?
 
You understand that the grand jury presentment which was the basis for the moral outrage in this case clearly stated that MM "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky", right?
Do you really think that there would be less outrage if it "only" said the boy was sexually assaulted? Wow.
 
To add to this, there is no evidence of what Paterno knew of 2001.

GMJ wants to hang his hat on the fact that Paterno said "it was of a sexual nature" all the while ignoring the other half of that comment "I don't know what you'd call it".

MMcQ himself stated under oath that he told Paterno a watered down version of events. So, there is no certainty at all to what Paterno was told because the only person who spoke to Paterno about what he saw/didn't see, hear/didn't hear admitted he was vague and did not disclose details. Paterno also stated that he didn't press Mike for details

Add to this that McQ spoke to Paterno in 2011 before Paterno went to his very brief, very limited, very casual GJ appearance.

GMJ - Answer this, please?

At what year in time did Paterno come to the conclusion that it was of a sexual nature? Was it 2001 when EVERYBODY else on the face of the planet that knew about the situation unanimously agreed that it was not CSA in action? Or was it 2011 when McQ was backpedaling and trying to keep his stories straight?

Facts and corollary evidence refute every thing you say.
It was 2001.
 
Do you really think that there would be less outrage if it "only" said the boy was sexually assaulted? Wow.

Some. I think there would be a lot less outrage if the media reported that NONE of the people MM told said that they heard anything serious enough to call the police.
 
There is nothing to settle because it would have zero effect on any of the PSU people involved. Additionally, how is a minor supposed to give consent for anything?

This whole line of thinking is a joke. A desperate joke.

The only desperate joke is the one supported by you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12
Go this route and watch people laugh at you.

No one laughs at me when I tell them how I feel about it.

Are you sure you are in the majority? Not the majority of individuals in the media trying to make a wave to make a name for themselves, but the majority of individuals objectively watching the event unfold?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12
I'm still struggling to understand where individuals who hold his view come from. Have to be related to BOT members.

Or related to corrupt polticians such as Corbutt or perhaps Government Employees who are clearly guilty in regards to the Sandusky incident where the State of Pennsylvania enabled Sandusky and provided victims to him for almost 5 Decades via State Adoption, State Foster-Parenting Programs including dedicated permanent partial-custody, State-Contracted Group Homes run by Sandusky/TSM, etc.... Central Mountain High School and tons of individuals at DPW/CYS that broke reporting and custody policies, etc....
 
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years.

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence, Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower.

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. They were tragically wrong, it turns out. But Joe knew about it, and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional.

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station, and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me.

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up. On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. More pain. More horror. More victims.

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals. Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe. I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is.

Well down the list after that: to the Penn State football program.

I have no hostility or animosity to anyone here, but some of you are deluding yourselves.

If you need a God to worship (and all of us do), then choose the real one -- not a flawed human being, as all of us are.
Oh, for the love of God and all that's holy - even a jury who WANTED TO CONVICT didn't believe the bs cover up nonsense and acquitted Graham on that charge. The state dismissed conspiracy charges against Schultz and Curley and settled for a measly misdemeanor. Do you get that?? There was NO COVER UP of anything. The state had almost 6 ****ing years to prosecute this case and in a matter of a few days was unable to convince a jury of 12 people that such a thing ever happened......because it didn't!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206
Guys, let me lay it on the line for you about Joe and the scandal.

I say this as a person who cheered hard for Joe and the team since I was a kid in the mid-60's -- every game, either on television (limited in those days) or radio (fortunately available in the Scranton area where I grew up).

Years before the scandal broke, I had come to the conclusion that Joe had gotten too old but would not let go. (Agree - score 1 point) The program desperately needed a fresh start, in my view. I felt this way for, like, ten solid years. (felt this way since 2001???)

Then came 2011 and the unthinkable. As I saw it and still see it, based on almost incontrovertible documented evidence (What solid evidence - the GJP Document, Sarah Ganum's Prize coverage, The "Fact Freeh" Opinion Report, MM's 5 times refuted testimony of "criminality"), Joe was made aware of the 1998 investigation of an encounter between Sandusky and a minor in a shower. (a full investigation by the Police and State of PA where Jerry was LEGALLY deemed innocent)

Yes, the authorities decided not to pursue it. (not pursue it – the full investigation said there was no basis for the concern and the Police closed their files- WHY…nothing wrong was uncovered after this full legal and police investigation) They were tragically wrong (by who’s standards 2011 Frank “PornDog” Noonan's???), it turns out. But Joe knew about it (define IT…see above on CLOSED INVESTIGATION...what would it change in his method of handling MM's report - HINT: SEE recent NCAA publication on how to handle Sexual Abuse reporting), and anyone who says he did not is willfully delusional. (??????)

Then came 2001, and an agitated MM came to Joe one day with a story of an incident he personally witnessed -- Sandusky and a boy in a shower.(and 5 other people who MM spoke to in 2001 UNIVERSALLY saw no reason to call the police...MM stated at the time that he saw nothing and beyond that was sheer conjecture ...it was only after PA "Investigators" in 2011 legally tied him to a chair and extorted "further details" about what he saw that there was any potentially active sex or rape components added to this testimony - this was a DECADE AFTER THE FACT!!!)

I'm sorry, right then and there it was incumbent on Joe, in light of his knowledge of 1998, to take MM by the hand and say, Mike, we're going to take a drive to the police station (wouldn't this look to anyone like a nut-case reaction considering they had NO VICTIM and therefore could not confirm anything MM said) , and you're going to tell them exactly what you just told me. (Here is where you have a point - THIS IS WHERE Penn State - Not Paterno - made a MAJOR error. Curley/Shultz in their review process should have had MM sign a statement of what he saw - then Penn State and Paterno would not be open to the constructions made by the corrupt OAG presentment document in 2011- A DECADE LATER!....You score 1 point on stating here is where PSU Screwed up)

But that didn't happen. Instead what happened was bullshit and rationalizations -- and, yes, a cover-up (I’ll buy that a cover-up was done…problem is it has been done by the State of PA & the OAG). On the part of Joe and a few key figures in the university's administration.

And after that, ten freakin' years of Sandusky roaming free. (More than 3 years of which was “inflicted” by AG Tom Corbett and a state investigation of Sandusky wher all the information necessary to try him were HANDED to them. THEY chose to “back pocket” this until 3 years later – a time where more political “hay” could be made and where TSM could “contribute $650K to Corbett’s re-election campaign) More pain. More horror. More victims. (Your right – MORE….not because of Paterno or Penn State in 2001, but because of a corrupted Governor, OAG an court system) SEE KIDS-FOR-CASH if you want victims resulting from the cover-up of the PACORN government overthrow of Justice in PA!!)

Yes, as I commented earlier, this is the exact pattern of the Catholic Church scandals.(This is the lie that forms the foundation of the Penn State Scandal….it is one of the cornerstones of the public deception that dumb-ass America has bought into. If you want MY take on this – this has always been Goebel’s “Big Lie” at work in PA. – The entire Scandal is nothing but a collusive construction which targets “others” so the REAL CRIMINAL….TSM & Harrisburg can get away with more criminal acts – most likely including your child victims!!!) Everyone did the minimum that they were legally required to do. (Thank you again great deceiver –Frank Noonan!) And the damned-to-hell predators remained at large. While the list of victims grew.

I'm sorry, guys. Many of you have a huge emotional and psychological stake in the myth of Joe (What the hell is that????). I get that. He was a good man. But in the end: a man.

Regardless, as I said in my first post, this saga is the stuff of tragedy. Joe was a great coach. But things, nevertheless, went off the rails.

Whatever, my first loyalty is to the truth -- as my conscience says it is. (If the prior statement is true….you have a LOT of work to do to get to the truth – what you have stated here just exposes your real intent -----MAINTAIN THE LIE….SUPPORT CRIMINAL PA COURTS & GOVERNMENT. Quit trying to promote a story that only can exist if you cherry pick what you want to consider and ignore everything else. Based upon what is known now, this Public illusion is CLEARLY a manufactured "Hit Job" accomplished illegally using the powers of the State of PA.

Believe it or not...you are eroding your own personal legal protections by supporting an absurd case. No amount of restatement of OAG/Freeh "Facts" can remove the proof of deception involved here unless you IGNORE THE MOUNTAINS OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR by the OAG, OGBOT and the Media).

Quit trying to promote this "Story" as true.....too many CREDIBLE, FACTUAL and suspicious elements here.... The public's "Story" - the one you promote in this post - IT SIMPLY CAN’T BE TRUE!!!

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT