FC: CSS Failure To Report charge thrown out by judge

[Stufftodo]

He's not yanking any chains. In a white collar case like this, not all evidence will be released prior to a trial. This is not a dead body and a murder suspect, or a stolen car. It's allegations that Penn State officials handled it improperly.

And to prove that it will take testimony and evidence of communications that are most likely not publicly available at this time.

Elvis, you are correct.

Several things known publicly about 1998/Victim 6.

1. There was a crime and Sandusky was convicted of it.

2. It was properly reported; there have been records and testimony of it.

3. CSS are not charged with any crime in 1998, though in the 11/1/12 presentment, the first five pages go into detail about what happened in 1998.

You did indicate that you have heard something. So have I, but I'd suspect from a different source.

The 1998 background is to help prove they covered up 2001. They all knew about JS behavior, so 2001 was not a complete surprise. They also knew it was reported and investigated by multiple parties. So the fact that 2001 was not reported must mean a cover up.

I think you have an understanding. The question is, what evidence is there of that? As indicated, many of the people involved in the 1998 investigation are still around.

 

[Zenophile]

Your last sentence, above, was the funniest of all. Should we now laud the porn dogs for helping publicize the plight of women with breast cancer?

That was my take-away.

 

[Stufftodo]

Some of that is just priceless. You note that Kane, as a supervisor, had the legal authority to restrict the uses of her employees' computers. First, I believe that many of those porn e-mails were sent before Kane became AG. Second, many of the people in that group of people exchanging porn e-mails were judges, or other people over whom Kane had zero authority. But it is no business of the AG at all? She should ignore a ring of prosecutors and judges exchanging porn e-mails, when those same prosecutors and judges are handling sexual assault, gender discrimination, and domestic abuse cases within the state of Pennsylvania? Ever heard of the term "appearance of impropriety?"

Your last sentence, above, was the funniest of all. Should we now laud the porn dogs for helping publicize the plight of women with breast cancer?

Well, they cited the breast cancer stuff as "porn."

It is no business of the OAG what legal activities people that were not employees of the office do on their computer.

As for any "appearance of impropriety," it is not up to the OAG to investigate or determine that. She does not discipline attorneys in this state.

 

[lionlurker]

I find it humorous that the insider BOT supporters are here having a conversation among themselves. I also find it funny that once a trial date gets set, they show up here again after a long absence.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Well, they cited the breast cancer stuff as "porn."

It is no business of the OAG what legal activities people that were not employees of the office do on their computer.

As for any "appearance of impropriety," it is not up to the OAG to investigate or determine that. She does not discipline attorneys in this state.

Look. As Pennsylvania Attorney General, Kane very clearly DID have an interest in the fair and impartial administration of justice in the Commonwealth. I have zero problem with her calling out the porn dogs.

 

[PSU Dave]

It may revolve around testimony, which hasn't been given yet. There may have been depositions, which both sides would be aware of, but no one knows what will actually come out at trial.

There may be witnesses or evidence which is not "admissible" in the case right now, that one side or the other thinks they may be able to bring in through testimony.

"It may revolve"
"There may be witnesses"
"They may be able"

Then again, they may not.

 

[elvis63]

Elvis, you are correct.

Several things known publicly about 1998/Victim 6.

1. There was a crime and Sandusky was convicted of it.

2. It was properly reported; there have been records and testimony of it.

3. CSS are not charged with any crime in 1998, though in the 11/1/12 presentment, the first five pages go into detail about what happened in 1998.

You did indicate that you have heard something. So have I, but I'd suspect from a different source.



I think you have an understanding. The question is, what evidence is there of that? As indicated, many of the people involved in the 1998 investigation are still around.

Maybe different , maybe not. Pm me if you can .

 

[elvis63]

I have nothing to do with the BOT and I've never voted in an election for the BOT.
A contrary opinion doesn't equate to some paid shill.

 

[Stufftodo]

Maybe different , maybe not. Pm me if you can .

Where do you PM on this site?

 

[elvis63]

Where do you PM on this site?

I'm not premium, if you are you can pm me. If not we can't do it.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Well, they cited the breast cancer stuff as "porn."

It is no business of the OAG what legal activities people that were not employees of the office do on their computer.

As for any "appearance of impropriety," it is not up to the OAG to investigate or determine that. She does not discipline attorneys in this state.

First of all, it wasn't their own computers that she was concerned about. It was commonwealth-owned computers being used to send the stuff to other state employees and judges on the taxpayers' dime.

Second, it wasn't just stuff about boobs. I recall one meme showing a group of black men chasing an old white guy who had snatched their bucket of fried chicken.

If you don't think there might be an issue with perception or impropriety, don't tell us, tell the women's, minority and LGBT advocate groups to calm down.

 

[lionlurker]

It's still amusing that once something happens, you paid or nonpaid shills all begin to congregate here. I guess we should feel honored that you find it necessary to come here.

 

[coveydidnt]

I'm not premium, if you are you can pm me. If not we can't do it.

You can always just use the private message board set up for this purpose by the BoT

http:// 2 5 0 19 21 18 5 0 20 15 0 4 18 9 14 11 0 25 15 21 18 0 15 22 1 12 20 9 14 5

Remember. Set B=2.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I have nothing to do with the BOT and I've never voted in an election for the BOT.
A contrary opinion doesn't equate to some paid shill.

Sure it does around here for a few. I'm on the payroll apparently...just not getting paid...bummer.

 

[elvis63]

Hahahaha!!!!!! Thanks , I forgot about it.

 

[elvis63]

Sure it does around here for a few. I'm on the payroll apparently...just not getting paid...bummer.

I was told there would be pie, I'm still waiting.

 

[Stufftodo]

I am non premium as well.

I'd be premium if the Board would ever send me a paycheck. LOL!

 

[psu00]

Both you and I need to give up on this. We've been beating that drum for a very long time to no avail.

I can be very stubborn.

 

[AvgUser]

Several things known publicly about 1998/Victim 6.

1. There was a crime and Sandusky was convicted of it.

2. It was properly reported; there have been records and testimony of it.

In 1998 there wasn't so much as an indictment let alone a crime.
In 2011 he was convicted.
How about we send it all back to the jury as best out of three since the score is now tied.

 

[lionville]

First of all, it wasn't their own computers that she was concerned about. It was commonwealth-owned computers being used to send the stuff to other state employees and judges on the taxpayers' dime.

Second, it wasn't just stuff about boobs. I recall one meme showing a group of black men chasing an old white guy who had snatched their bucket of fried chicken.

If you don't think there might be an issue with perception or impropriety, don't tell us, tell the women's, minority and LGBT advocate groups to calm down.

Don't confuse doodoo with facts. His little pea brain can't handle it.

 

[Bob78]

It's still amusing that once something happens, you paid or nonpaid shills all begin to congregate here. I guess we should feel honored that you find it necessary to come here.

I am just amazed that there are people who 'visit' here who seem to take absolute delight in the thought that CSSP could be guilty of anything nefarious at all in the JS case. All stemming from just a handful of OGBOT who had it in for JVP for their own personal, selfish reasons. (Ignoring the Gov. vs. PSU Pres. side of the deal). To me, it is so easy to see that if mistakes were made, they were completely unintentional, and we only recognize them as mistakes in hindsight.

It's one thing to objectively want the truth of their actions to come out and then be pissed off as appropriate.
Bizarro world to me and my PSU heart.

 

[Stufftodo]

In 1998 there wasn't so much as an indictment let alone a crime.
In 2011 he was convicted.
How about we send it all back to the jury as best out of three since the score is now tied.

In 2011, a jury determined that Sandusky did commit several crimes, one felony and two misdemeanors, in the 1998 incident. He was acquitted of one misdemeanor.

CSS are not now, nor have they been, charged with a crime dating from 1998. Yet, in the grand jury presentment in which they are indicted (after Sandusky's conviction), the first 5 pages deal with the 1998 incident.

 

[Zenophile]

In 2011, a jury determined that Sandusky did commit several crimes, one felony and two misdemeanors, in the 1998 incident. He was acquitted of one misdemeanor.

CSS are not now, nor have they been, charged with a crime dating from 1998. Yet, in the grand jury presentment in which they are indicted (after Sandusky's conviction), the first 5 pages deal with the 1998 incident.

Got anymore lists for us?

 

[didier]

In 2011, a jury determined that Sandusky did commit several crimes, one felony and two misdemeanors, in the 1998 incident. He was acquitted of one misdemeanor.

And that was with only one victims testimony, not the two that were initially involved.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Which shows you how sick and evil these people are. Just like the media they secretly love that kids were abused so they can have their perverted schadenfreude (sp?) regarding Paterno. Special place in hell for these sick bastards.

I am just amazed that there are people who 'visit' here who seem to take absolute delight in the thought that CSSP could be guilty of anything nefarious at all in the JS case. All stemming from just a handful of OGBOT who had it in for JVP for their own personal, selfish reasons. (Ignoring the Gov. vs. PSU Pres. side of the deal). To me, it is so easy to see that if mistakes were made, they were completely unintentional, and we only recognize them as mistakes in hindsight.

It's one thing to objectively want the truth of their actions to come out and then be pissed off as appropriate.
Bizarro world to me and my PSU heart.

 

[elvis63]

Which shows you how sick and evil these people are. Just like the media they secretly love that kids were abused so they can have their perverted schadenfreude (sp?) regarding Paterno. Special place in hell for these sick bastards.

Projection is your issue . Just a guess . Maybe people have a difference of opinion and think certain people did wrong? They don't agree with the common delusion that many here appear to hold onto .

 

[Hugh Manatee]

In 2011, a jury determined that Sandusky did commit several crimes, one felony and two misdemeanors, in the 1998 incident. He was acquitted of one misdemeanor.

CSS are not now, nor have they been, charged with a crime dating from 1998. Yet, in the grand jury presentment in which they are indicted (after Sandusky's conviction), the first 5 pages deal with the 1998 incident.

Let's say you knew about 1998. Considering the police involvement, does the outcome from that incident make you more or less suspicious of JS?

 

[JoeBatters1]

You prove my point. I've never seen you discuss football or psu sports or the university in general but you are in every Sandusky related thread. Spare me your prententious morality and fake outrage. By the way, do you swallow?

Projection is your issue . Just a guess . Maybe people have a difference of opinion and think certain people did wrong? They don't agree with the common delusion that many here appear to hold onto .

 

[Connorpozlee]

Honestly, I don't know how '98 is really relevant to '01 (or '02 as the memory may recall). If the latter incident was enough to report then it should have been reported, independent of the '98 incident. If it did not rise to the level of being worthy of being reported then it should not have been, regardless of knowledge of the '98 incident.
My rule of thumb is that if there is a question about whether or not to make an abuse referral, make the referral.

 

[Stufftodo]

Let's say you knew about 1998. Considering the police involvement, does the outcome from that incident make you more or less suspicious of JS?

Suppose you knew, in 1998, that Sandusky had a "problem." Suppose that also knew that Sandusky wouldn't face prosecution if he "received help with the problem." Suppose that Sandusky either didn't receive that "help" or that it was ineffective. Wouldn't that give you a motive not to inform the authorities?

 

[Stufftodo]

And that was with only one victims testimony, not the two that were initially involved.

Note that when Ganim published her first story, she listed only one victim from 1998, later known as Victim 6. She wrote that there was a witness. That individual, listed in the presentment as "B.K.," was not a witness. It was another victim. Ganim got that detail wrong.

This will be on the final.

Got anymore lists for us?

Yes, and it was posted on the other thread didier started. This will be on the final as well.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Suppose you knew, in 1998, that Sandusky had a "problem." Suppose that also knew that Sandusky wouldn't face prosecution if he "received help with the problem." Suppose that Sandusky either didn't receive that "help" or that it was ineffective. Wouldn't that give you a motive not to inform the authorities?

I don't get this point at all. Could you clarify?

 

[Stufftodo]

I don't get this point at all. Could you clarify?

If they knew in 1998 that there was a Sandusky "problem," then they knew that they were covering up for a pedophile in 2001.

 

[BobPSU92]

So stufftodo is cr666, aka john zipay?

 

[Stufftodo]

So stufftodo is cr666, aka john zipay?

Keep guessing.

 

[BobPSU92]

Like I'm asking the troll. He was put on the Ignore List as soon as I saw his first post.

 

[Zenophile]

Note that when Ganim published her first story, she listed only one victim from 1998, later known as Victim 6. She wrote that there was a witness. That individual, listed in the presentment as "B.K.," was not a witness. It was another victim. Ganim got that detail wrong.

This will be on the final.



Yes, and it was posted on the other thread didier started. This will be on the final as well.

I'm sure it will.

 

[LundyPSU]

If they knew in 1998 that there was a Sandusky "problem," then they knew that they were covering up for a pedophile in 2001.

And what "problem" is that?

 

[LundyPSU]

Note that when Ganim published her first story, she listed only one victim from 1998, later known as Victim 6. She wrote that there was a witness. That individual, listed in the presentment as "B.K.," was not a witness. It was another victim. Ganim got that detail wrong.

This will be on the final.



Yes, and it was posted on the other thread didier started. This will be on the final as well.

In the Seasock report, it was noted that another coach was present at some point during the'98 incident. But you are referring to another victim being present which was not noted in the police report, the Seasock report, nor mentioned by V6 at any point during testimony.

 

[Hugh Manatee]

Suppose you knew, in 1998, that Sandusky had a "problem." Suppose that also knew that Sandusky wouldn't face prosecution if he "received help with the problem." Suppose that Sandusky either didn't receive that "help" or that it was ineffective. Wouldn't that give you a motive not to inform the authorities?

How could anyone at PSU "know" if the police didn't?