FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

[WHCANole]

So I think you somehow think that scientists aren't people. I have famous colleagues who are elite athletes, some who are great musicians, some who act in their spare time. We all watch Netflix. We are people with interests outside of work. Science is my job -- it isn't my life.

A made up one. God the delusion here is fantastic.

So I guarantee that "Making a Murderer" is just as popular with PhDs as it is with the general population.

🤣

Nope.

Yep

Prove it.

Have you ever used the handle drbigbeef? I'll wait for this one 🤣

Tell me how and I will. I've made multiple offers and you've said no. Tell me what you would accept.

I have. When this fracas first started I told you what I wanted and you refused saying you wouldn't "doxx" yourself. Then you reported me to the mods so I will not ask again. You are a coward trying to get me banned since that is the only way you can go back to your silo. I won't let you "win" that cheaply.

You are the insult slinger, dickhead. I'll respond in kind.

Right back at you Super Chief

I understand it better than you, Allie McBeal.

No you don't Miranda Hobbes

So you aren't a PSU guy.

Didn't say that. I just don't go to the games.

Cool...we are making progress. Tell me where you'll be and my offer stands.

When?

See above. I'm trying, but the thing is you don't actually want me to prove it, because you KNOW you are wrong. You have been wrongly calling me a liar (and a valor stealer) for months. You are a lying piece of shit.

I have told you before what to do and you are trying to trick me into getting banned. Won't fall for it. Give me what I originally asked.

You haven't told me what you want. If I give you a name, I guarantee you will say I made it up.

Your hiding behind it.

Because that's how you operate. You will never admit you are wrong.

Right Back at You Barney

Because I'm very stubborn and the 2 seconds of my day it takes to give you a beat down are worth it to me to make sure you never ever ever "win".

It's taking waaay more than two seconds and I'm beating you like a rented mule. I've already won. CSS and Sandusky all went to jail and that ain't ever gonna change. Also, no one in any numbers will ever believe your BS narrative. well, no more than believe in Area 51 or JFK/CIA conspiracy theories.

You clearly were not a philosophy major.

Well you sure as hell weren't either! We would call you a sh*t house philosopher.

You cannot accept that anymore might have different morals than you.

Sure I do. Putin certainly does.

What's sad is that you didn't even arrive at your morals with your own brain -- someone else TOLD you what to think. How sad.

You can justify any behavior you wish because you have no standard from which to follow. How sad. Imagine if real scientists, not fake ones like you, did that with their experiments.

Hypotheses backed up by facts are different than opinions. You'd know that if you didn't sleep through all your STEM classes.

Your "hypotheses" are not such but mere opinions derived from your religious love for an institution and its icon. You'd know that if you had ever taken any STEM classes but that GED got you a janitors job after all.

I already have.

You have not

 

[WHCANole]

Nope. Ducked and dodged.

Nope. Cited and proven

 

[WHCANole]

Well, it is stupid that the NCAA circumvented their own bylaws to punish PSU for something that had nothing to do with student athletes. But there are clearly no infractions; if there were they would be in the database.

That is not what happened. I posted what did.

Are you f'ing kidding me? The reason the bylaws and process exist is so the organization ISN'T making things up as it goes along. All organizations have these processes and they are followed because otherwise there would be chaos. The NCAA disregarded their own processes, which is a farce.

You didn't read Emmert's letter.

Nothing in the letter says what you say it does.

Because you didn't read it.

Please show me where those bylaws are written and where in the NCAA constitution is mentions pedophiles (hint: it doesn't).

Read Emmert's letter. Covering up for Pedophiles (or any such criminals) is unethical behavior. READ THE LETTER.

 

[WHCANole]

Why haven't any of the other massive injustices in this case been corrected?

Because there are no massive injustices in this case. Except in the fertile imaginations of JoeBot conspiracy theorists.

 

[WHCANole]

The jury made a mistake. It happens.

They did not. It didn't happen.

 

[jerot]

Thanks. Think about it...during Sandusky, people were upset he didn't follow up. In this article, it states he called the victim and asked if she was OK but she got the "feeling" he wanted the situation to go away.

You can't win.

Shot memory, happens frequently.

Read some samples -


He came to realize that memory malleability and suggestibility were central to how the allegations against Jerry Sandusky arose, and after in-depth research, I concluded that Sandusky is probably innocent.

What really alerted me initially was reading the trial transcript for June 13, 2012, where I found Dustin Stuble (“Victim 7”) explaining why his testimony had changed from what he said under oath at the grand jury the previous year. “Through counseling and through talking about different events, through talking about things in my past, different things triggered different memories and have had more things come back, and it’s changed a lot about what I can remember today and what I could remember before, because I had everything negative blocked out.”
Aha! I thought. It is obvious that he was in repressed memory therapy. I was right, as Struble himself told me later, and it turned out that repressed memories lay at the core of the case against Sandusky, while other memory issues lay at the heart of the infamous shower scene that got Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier fired.
I write about how human memory works in comprehensive fashion in my new 444-page publication, Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die., as well as in the 399-page book, The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment. They are “sister” publications that help to inform one another, so I urge people to read both of these books. But I realize that a summary would be helpful before readers delve into the books.
Memory is reconstructive. Our brains do not keep individual memories in one place, ready to be called forth by pulling out the proper mental file or hitting the right mental computer key. Instead, our memories are stored all over our brains, and they must be reconstructed. They are subject to contamination, confusion, change, and outright fabrication. With the proper influence, people can come to envision and believe in emotionally stressful events that never occurred.
Usually, our memories serve us relatively well, however. We tend to remember most clearly the best and worst events. We recall the nice things so that we can seek them out again, and we remember the upsetting events so that we can avoid them in the future. Some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which involves being unable to forget severe trauma, but continuing to recall it all too well. So it is not a matter of “repressing” or “dissociating.”
The most dramatic illustration of how destructive false memories can be created occurred during the heyday of the repressed memory epidemic of the late 1980s and 1990s, when many psychotherapists blatantly led their clients to believe that they had suffered years of childhood sexual abuse but had repressed the memories. In many cases, people came to envision being in mythical satanic ritual abuse cults, where they killed and consumed babies and other grotesque fantasies.
Most people think that the repressed memory epidemic is over, but it is not. A majority of Americans and psychotherapists still believe in the myth of repressed memories (or dissociated memories, as they are often called), and, according to a recent survey of a large cross-section of Americans, about 8 percent of those going to therapy in this decade came to believe that they had suffered child abuse that they had completely forgotten, then recalled in the course of therapy.
Thus, it is not surprising that the theory of repressed memory – the idea that people often totally forget abuse though some mental defense mechanism and then remember it later – lies behind some of the Sandusky accusations. I was able to directly interview only one such alleged victim, Dustin Struble, who acknowledged his repressed memories, but there is evidence for memory distortion and/or repressed memories in many others as well. I will go through them here relatively briefly.
Let me emphasize, however, that there were other factors contributing to one of the most amazing and disturbing miscarriages of justice of the 21st century. These factors include a media blitz (and blackout of any dissent or inconvenient facts), police trawling and bias, prosecutorial misconduct, a flawed judicial process, illegal leaks, and greed.
I will summarize each of the ten alleged trial victims, some of whom clearly had recovered “repressed memories” of abuse. I’ll take them in the order in which they were numbered, plus Matt Sandusky, who did not testify, but whose story is central to the case.
Aaron Fisher, Victim 1: As a 15-year-old, Aaron Fisher initially said that Jerry Sandusky had hugged him to crack his back, with their clothes on. Over the next three years, with the urging of psychotherapist Mike Gillum, Fisher eventually came to “remember” multiple instances of oral sex. Gillum apparently believed that memories too painful to recall lie buried in the unconscious, causing mental illness of all kinds—among them, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism. “They (abuse victims) just want to numb themselves and push away the unpleasant memories,” Gillum wrote in the book, Silent No More. He sought to “peel back the layers of the onion” of the brain to get to abuse memories. Nor did Aaron Fisher have to tell him anything. Gillum would guess what happened and Fisher only had to nod his head or say Yes. “I was very blunt with him when I asked questions but gave him the ability to answer with a yes or a no, that relieved him of a lot of burden,” Gillum wrote. In the same book, Aaron Fisher recalled: “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”
Fisher explained that “I was good at pushing it (memories of abuse) all away . . . Once the weekends [with Jerry] were over, I managed to lock it all deep inside my mind somehow. That was how I dealt with it until next time. Mike has explained a lot to me since this all happened. He said that what I was doing is called compartmentalizing. . . . I was in such denial about everything.” Without the three years of therapy with Mike Gillum, it is unlikely that Aaron Fisher would ever have accused Jerry Sandusky of sexual abuse, and the case would never have gone forward.
Allan Myers (“Victim 2”) was the teenager in the shower in February 2001, when Mike McQueary heard slapping sounds that he interpreted as sexual. In fact, they were the sounds of Myers and Sandusky slap boxing or snapping towels at one another. McQueary did not see Sandusky and the boy together in the shower – he only caught a glimpse of the boy in a mirror. He changed his memory nearly ten years later when the police told him that Sandusky was a serial molester. McQueary, like many people, did not require therapy to distort his memory. Influenced by current attitudes, he came to envision that he had witnessed something he had not actually seen. This is one of the well-known hazards of eyewitness testimony, as experimental psychologist Elizabeth Loftus and others have demonstrated.
We do not know whether Allan Myers was ever in therapy to help retrieve abuse memories. He received several million dollars as one of the alleged Sandusky victims, but he did not testify at the trial, and he has never actually accused Sandusky of molesting him in any kind of detail. Initially, he provided a very strong defense of Sandusky, saying that he had never abused him, before becoming a client of civil attorney Andrew Shubin, who sent most of his Sandusky clients to therapy, quite likely to help retrieve repressed abuse memories. As reporter Sara Ganim wrote in November 2011, Shubin “teamed up with psychologists, social workers and a national child sex abuse organization so that these people [alleged victims] can seek mental help along with possible legal recourse.”



Jason Simcisko (“Victim 3”) told the police that nothing inappropriate had happened with Jerry Sandusky, when he was first interviewed. When the policemen asked if Sandusky had helped him rinse off in the shower, perhaps lifting him up to the showerhead, Simcisko replied, according to the police report: “There might have been something like that. I don’t exactly remember, but it sounds familiar.” This was the beginning of the process of manipulating his memory. At the end of the interview, the police report noted that Simcisko “agreed to call if he recalled anything further.”
By the time of the trial. Simcisko had remembered Sandusky touching his penis numerous times. He explained why he hadn’t revealed this earlier: “Everything that’s coming out now is because I thought about it more. I tried to block this out of my brain for years.” We don’t know for sure whether Simcisko was in psychotherapy or not, but Andrew Shubin was his lawyer.
Brett Houtz (“Victim 4”) did not make any abuse allegations to either his lawyer or the police during initial contact, but he did make allegations during a long subsequent interview with police, during which his lawyer was present. The police inadvertently left the tape recorder on, revealing their grossly leading interview methods, which can sway memory as effectively as psychotherapy. Police investigator Joseph Leiter said, “I know there’s been a rape committed somewhere along the line,” and noted that “it just took repetition and repetition” to get Aaron Fisher to say anything. He said that the police would routinely tell prospective victims: “Listen, this is what we found so far. You fit the pattern of all the other ones. This is the way he operates and the other kids we dealt with have told us that this has happened after this happened. Did that happen to you?” This is a classic illustration of “confirmation bias,” in which the police had already predetermined in their own minds what that truth was. And in this case, Leiter was intent on getting Houtz to say that Sandusky had forced him into oral sex. Eventually, Houtz did just that.
At the end of the interview, the police asked Houtz to try to remember more. “What usually happens is when you start to think about things…it may be 3 o’clock in the morning, tonight, and you go, Oh, my gosh, I remember this or I remember that or whatever.” In that case, Houtz should call them. “Sometimes things come up and you remember more things in detail.”
By the time Houtz testified in devastating fashion at the trial, he was in therapy with Mike Gillum. During the trial, Houtz said, “I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my mind forever.” It is not clear if he was talking about repressed memories, but it certainly sounds like it. On the other hand, Houtz had a long-standing reputation as a manipulative liar, and his father had initially contacted his lawyer with an obvious eye on money.
Michal Kajak (“Victim 5”) made allegations during his first contact with the police. We have no way of knowing whether Michal Kajak was in repressed memory therapy. By the time he spoke to the police on June 7, 2011, however, the abuse allegations against Sandusky had been publicized by reporter Sara Ganim, who had also contacted Zachary Konstas’s mother, who had, in turn, suggested that the police interview Kajak as a potential victim. We also know that Zach Konstas’s sister had already talked to Kajak about the allegations.
At any rate, Kajak said, according to a police report, that “he did not want to remember this stuff.” Kajak finally said that Sandusky had taken his hand and placed it on Sandusky’s erection for a few seconds during this single shower they took together. His story then was amplified somewhat over time, including a three-year shift in when the abuse allegedly occurred.
It is possible that Kajak, in envisioning the single time he had showered with Sandusky, convinced himself that this had happened. It is also possible that he spoke with his friend Dustin Struble, who was “remembering” his own abuse and might have helped him with his own shower story. Kajak’s allegations do not fit the modus operandi that the police otherwise thought Sandusky used. He was supposed to have “groomed” boys carefully before attempting more overt sexual abuse. The idea that Sandusky would have acted this way during the very first shower must have seemed odd, even to the police.
Zachary Konstas (“Victim 6”) never actually claimed that Sandusky abused him, although under the influence of the investigation and trial, he came to believe that Sandusky had “groomed” him for abuse in a 1998 shower. The day after the shower, Konstas emphatically denied that any abuse had taken place. Over the subsequent years, Konstas expressed his admiration and gratitude to Jerry Sandusky for his role in his life through notes and greeting cards. In 2009, as a twenty-three-year-old, Konstas wrote: “Hey Jerry just want 2 wish u a Happy Fathers Day! Greater things are yet 2 come!” Later that year he wrote: “Happy Thanksgiving bro! I’m glad God has placed U in my life. Ur an awesome friend! Love ya!”
But Zachary Konstas’s perceptions were altered drastically between the fall of 2010 and June 2012. As Allan Myers did, Konstas got a lawyer. Although he never accused Sandusky of sexually abusing him, but he made it sound as though the coach had wanted to, that Sandusky had been “grooming” him for abuse. He also implied that perhaps Sandusky had abused him, but that he, Konstas, had forgotten it. Konstas may have come to believe that he had “repressed” the memories. He had asked his friend, Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) “if [he] remembered anything more, if counseling was helping,” and Konstas himself was clearly undergoing psychotherapy. At Sandusky’s sentencing hearing, he said, “I have been left with deep, painful wounds that you caused and had been buried in the garden of my heart for many years.”
Konstas’s attorney, Howard Janet, explained in an interview how Konstas and the other alleged victims could “create a bit of a Chinese wall in their minds. They bury these events that were so painful to them deep in their subconscious.”
Zachary Konstas may not have recovered specific memories of abuse, but his reinterpretation of his past, along with implications that he may have repressed the memories, were enough for the jury to find Sandusky guilty of planning to abuse him.
Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) admitted to me that he was in repressed memory, and his trial testimony makes that obvious as well. He had no abuse memories until the police contacted him, and he considered Sandusky a friend and mentor until then. State Trooper Joseph Leiter interviewed Struble for the first time on February 3, 2011. By that time Struble had been thinking about the way Sandusky used to put his hand on his knee while driving, and now he thought he remembered Sandusky moving his hand slowly up towards his crotch sometimes. And other times, he thought Sandusky may have been trying to slide his hand down his back under his underwear waistband. Yes, he had taken showers with Sandusky, but nothing sexual had taken place there. He’d given him bear hugs at times, but not in the shower. They had wrestled around, but Sandusky had never touched him inappropriately.
At the end of the interview, Leiter was excited that Struble was open to the idea that Sandusky might have abused him, but that wasn’t enough. In ending the interview he “advised Struble that as he recalls events to please contact me and we can set up another interview. Also, if he begins having difficulties with his memories to contact me so that assistance can be found.” Struble entered psychotherapy less than three weeks later.
By the time of the trial, Struble had changed his story, asserting that Sandusky gave him bear hugs, washed his hair in the shower, and then dried him off. He said that Sandusky had put his hand down his pants and touched his penis in the car, that Sandusky had grabbed him in the shower and pushed the front of his body up against the back of Dustin’s body. On the stand, he explained: “That doorway that I had closed has since been re-opening more. More things have been coming back…. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point.” Struble went on to explain more about how his repressed memories had returned in therapy. He further explained: “The more negative things, I had sort of pushed into the back of my mind, sort of like closing a door, closing—putting stuff in the attic and closing the door to it. That’s what I feel like I did.”
In 2014, I interviewed Struble in his home in State College, PA. In a follow-up email, he wrote: “Actually both of my therapists have suggested that I have repressed memories, and that’s why we have been working on looking back on my life for triggers. My therapist has suggested that I may still have more repressed memories that have yet to be revealed, and this could be a big cause of the depression that I still carry today. We are still currently working on that.”
Phantom Victim (“Victim 8”) is the product of double hearsay testimony that should never have been allowed at the trial. A janitor named Ron Petrosky said that another janitor, Jim Calhoun, had told him in the fall of 2000 that he saw Sandusky giving oral sex to a young boy in a Penn State locker room shower. By the time of the June 2012 trial, Calhoun had Alzheimer’s and could not testify, but the judge allowed Petrosky to do so. Sandusky was found guilty of molesting this unidentified boy.
But in a taped interview on May 15, 2011, Jim Calhoun had told the police that Sandusky was not the man he saw giving oral sex to a young man in the shower. The defense apparently had not listened to the tape and never entered it into evidence in the trial.
Sabastian Paden (“Victim 9”) came forward after the explosive Grand Jury Presentment became public on November 4, 2011, and the Office of the Attorney General publicized a hotline for prospective Sandusky victims. At that point, it was clear to civil lawyers and alleged victims that there was a possible financial windfall to be had.
Paden’s changed attitude towards Sandusky occurred incredibly quickly, after his mother called his school to ask them to contact the police. When the police appeared at his door, Paden denied having been abused. Sometime in October 2011, the high school senior was seated in Beaver Stadium beside Sandusky, enjoying a Penn State football game with a friend. Less than a month later, however, Paden rocked the grand jury with accounts of his former life as a virtual captive in the Sandusky basement, where he claimed to have screamed for help, to no avail, even though the basement was not soundproofed and there was no way to lock him down there. Paden said that he was forced to perform oral sex on numerous occasions, and that Sandusky attempted anal intercourse over sixteen times, with actual penetration at times.
It is unlikely that repressed memory therapy was involved in encouraging Sabastian Paden’s memories, at least at the outset, since his grotesque allegations arose within just a few days of his mother’s initial phone call. It is instead likely that he was either telling the truth or that he was consciously lying, at the urging of his mother and in search of remuneration and sympathetic attention.
Ryan Rittmeyer (“Victim 10”) also responded to the Sandusky hotline after the case exploded in the media. He had been incarcerated twice—for burglary in 2004, at age seventeen, and in September 2007, when he was twenty, for burglary and assault. He and a teenager assaulted an elderly man on the street, punching him in the face and leaving him with permanent injuries. Rittmeyer was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and was released in 2009. At the time of the trial, he was married, with a pregnant wife. After he called the hotline, Rittmeyer was represented by lawyer Andrew Shubin.
At his first police interview with officer Michael Cranga on November 29, 2011, Rittmeyer said that Jerry Sandusky had groped him in a swimming pool. Then, while driving a silver convertible, Sandusky had allegedly opened his pants to expose his penis and told Rittmeyer to put it in his mouth. When he refused, Sandusky became angry and told him that if didn’t do it, Rittmeyer would never see his family again. “His life went downhill” subsequently, Cranga wrote in his report, which Rittmeyer apparently blamed on this traumatic event.
During his grand jury testimony on December 5, 2011, Rittmeyer changed and amplified his story. Now he said that something sexual occurred almost every time he saw Sandusky throughout 1997, 1998, and part of 1999, once or twice a month. Finally, Rittmeyer said that he eventually complied and gave Sandusky oral sex, and vice versa.



Jerry Sandusky never owned any kind of convertible, nor was it likely that he borrowed or rented one, which would have been quite out of character for him. The Ryan Rittmeyer testimony, filled with inconsistencies as well as a mythical silver convertible, appears even more questionable because the Sanduskys said that they couldn’t even remember him, whereas they readily admitted knowing the other Second Mile accusers. He may have been one of the Second Mile kids who came to their home, but Dottie Sandusky didn’t know his name, and Jerry Sandusky said that if he met him on the street, he would not recognize him.
There was apparently no repressed memory therapy necessary in Rittmeyer’s case, though it is likely that Shubin sent him for subsequent counseling.
Matt Sandusky didn’t testify at trial, so he never received a victim number. The last of the six children to be adopted by Dottie and Jerry Sandusky, at the age of 18, Matt had supported his accused parent during the investigation. In 2011 he had testified in front of the grand jury that his adoptive father had never abused him. But in the middle of the June 2012 trial, apparently after entering psychotherapy, he “flipped,” going to the police to say that Jerry Sandusky had abused him.
Matt told the police that he was working with a therapist and that “memories of his abuse are just now coming back,” according to the NBC announcer who played portions of the leaked interview tape. When the police asked whether Sandusky had sodomized him or forced him into oral sex, Matt answered: “As of this time, I don’t recall that.”


But by the time Matt appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s television show in 2014, he had remembered oral sex. He made it clear to Winfrey that he had not recalled sexual abuse until he was in repressed memory therapy, but this apparently did not make her skeptical in the least. “So based upon what you’re telling me,” Winfrey said to him, “you actually repressed a lot of it.” And Matt replied, “Uh-huh, absolutely. The physical part is the part that, you know, you can erase.”
When she asked him about first coming forward to talk to the police during the trial, he said, “It was a confusing time.” It wasn’t as if he heard Brett Houtz and all his own abuse memories came rushing back. “My child self had protected my adult self,” he explained. “My child self was holding onto what had happened to me—and taken that from me—so I, I didn’t have the memory of—I didn’t have these memories of the sexual abuse—or with him doing all of the things that he did.”
As he listened to the testimony of Brett Houtz and other alleged victims, he felt somehow that “they were telling my story,” but he apparently didn’t remember abuse right away. “They were telling—you know, all of these things start coming back to you, yes, [and] it starts to become very confusing for me and you try and figure out what is real and what you’re making up.”

 

[AvgUser]

Emmert mentioned the infractions. Freeh proved them, PSU accepted that and the NCAA sanctioned PSU. This as even you would say is fact. That you don't like it is opinion.

Another swing and a miss. Nothing in Emmert’s letter cites any infraction committed by PSU

 

[PinchotPenthouse]

They show nothing plus the guy Ziegler interviewed is a nut.

You make Ziegler look completely sane.

 

[bourbon n blues]

You make Ziegler look completely sane.

The only thing strange is him continually arguing with a bunch of cultists , but he might be retired and have the time?🤷‍♂️

 

[WHCANole]

Another swing and a miss. Nothing in Emmert’s letter cites any infraction committed by PSU

No I hit it out of the park, Emmert's letter cites the appropriate Bylaws and Constitutional rules that PSU might have violated when the scandal first started.

Freeh then showed that PSU leadership violated those rules and the NCAA sanctioned PSU with PSU's consent. You guys are picking at words when the NCAA site has a special page devoted to PSU's sanctions. You, therefore are lying when you say PSU did not violated any NCAA rules. But I understand cultic faith. Finally, you can't have sanctions without infractions.

 

[WHCANole]

The only thing strange is him continually arguing with a bunch of cultists , but he might be retired and have the time?🤷‍♂️

It's on my terms and they need to hear the truth. I also post because others might read this crap they peddle and without pushback believe it might have merit. It has no merit and I just point that out. Their flaming protests are funny though.

 

[PSU2UNC]

They did not. It didn't happen.

Your opinion.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Because there are no massive injustices in this case. Except in the fertile imaginations of JoeBot conspiracy theorists.

Your opinion. The facts disagree.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Nope. Cited and proven

LOL. Show. Me. The. Database.

All major infractions are in the database. Full stop.

 

[PSU2UNC]

That is not what happened. I posted what did.

You didn't read Emmert's letter.

Because you didn't read it.

Read Emmert's letter. Covering up for Pedophiles (or any such criminals) is unethical behavior. READ THE LETTER.

Emmert was just making shite up. There is no major infraction for "unethical behavior". The NCAA completely botched this and walked it back. There is no record in the database of PSU committing a major infraction. That's the undeniable truth, which I know you hate.

 

[jerot]

It's not. In order for your "conspiracy" to be true I would have to have randomly, at some point, obtained this medal (why????), including the certificate, pin and box everything came in, remembered that I had it and then somehow decide it was worth lying about. Then I would also have had to find a google scholar profile that matches what I claim to do that also had the same length name and same first and last letters of the name on the certificate. That's lunacy.

More realistically I served our country in Antarctica (for 2 months, in the Antarctic "spring" during the mid 1990s doing scientific research relevant to NASA and SETI), was awarded the medal and have it displayed in my man cave. So when you took the silly stance that I didn't have a medal, it was super easy for me to take a photo with it (and your personal greeting).

God, you are dim. ALL morals are whatever a person wants them to be. No morals are absolute. My morals are consistent within my moral framework (which is apparently (thankfully) different from yours).

Statements like this make me think you are some wacky Jesus person which I guess might explain some of your inability to understand science and logic.

Nah. Memory is of course.

Like Myers.

Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry Sandusky, sure has a lousy memory.

Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, that Mike McQueary was a liar, and that nothing sexual ever happened in the shower. And finally, Myers couldn't remember what he told the state attorney general's office after he flipped, and was claiming that Jerry had abused him.

Myers made all these fuzzy statements during a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where he was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial. A 48-page transcript of that hearing was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a curious reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. Myers' pathetic performance on the witness stand proves what a screwed-up case this is, featuring overreaching prosecutors and a hysterical news media.

The media blew it in part because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Myers, who, going by the transcript, clearly wasn't credible.

Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either he was dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's, or else he was lying about everything.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

So is this a chance you're willing to take, the judge asked. Sandusky told the judge his mind was made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he originally got to know the former Penn State assistant football coach through his Second Mile charity.

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.

"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.

On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."

As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.

On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.

Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.

"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."

"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.

"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."

"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.

"Yes," Myers said.

She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.

John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally been released.

"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about Myers' central role in the Penn State scandal.

"And it's obvious to anyone who understands the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. Myers' testimony was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had flipped for [millions] and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore," Ziegler said.

In contrast, when Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler said, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."

John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.

"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."

"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"

"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" at the Sandusky trial, Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."

 

[AvgUser]

No I hit it out of the park, Emmert's letter cites the appropriate Bylaws and Constitutional rules that PSU might have violated when the scandal first started.

Freeh then showed that PSU leadership violated those rules and the NCAA sanctioned PSU with PSU's consent. You guys are picking at words when the NCAA site has a special page devoted to PSU's sanctions. You, therefore are lying when you say PSU did not violated any NCAA rules. But I understand cultic faith. Finally, you can't have sanctions without infractions.

Nothing in Emmett’s letter cites any infraction committed by PSU.
strike three. You’re out. Take a seat on your.l bench

 

[WHCANole]

Your opinion.

Just like yours

 

[WHCANole]

Your opinion. The facts disagree.

Your opinion. The facts disagree.

 

[WHCANole]

LOL. Show. Me. The. Database.

🤣 Read. The. Website.

All major infractions are in the database. Full stop.

False. PSU has it's own special sanctions page.

 

[PSU2UNC]

A made up one. God the delusion here is fantastic.

Nothing made up about how I have described myself. Why do you even care? How does it affect anything?

🤣

It's flattering (I guess) that you think scientists are some super form of human that only engage in highly intellectual pursuits. Most scientists are just regular people. They like fart jokes and getting drunk and laughing and watching sports. I kind of feel like you've never actually known a scientist.

Yep

Have you ever used the handle drbigbeef? I'll wait for this one 🤣

Yes, but not for gaming. It's clearly not a unique username. Why does that matter? Do you hate taco bell like you hate PSU?

I have. When this fracas first started I told you what I wanted and you refused saying you wouldn't "doxx" yourself. Then you reported me to the mods so I will not ask again. You are a coward trying to get me banned since that is the only way you can go back to your silo. I won't let you "win" that cheaply.

I have no recollection of what you asked for. All I recall is that you wanted something "independently verifiable". I have no idea what that vague request means. I think that even if I were to give you my name (which I'm sure you would spread lies about me if you had it) you would just say "Oh, that's not really you; You just looked that guy up on the internet". I don't think anything I can show you will convince you -- I could show up with my CAC card, my medal and reams of my publications and you will still not admit you are wrong.

Is there anyone else on this thread that actually thinks I am lying about who I am????

Didn't say that. I just don't go to the games.

Uh-huh. So you are a PSU person but you never go back to State College?

When?

You tell me. If you claim to be a PSU person, let's meet in State College. I'm sure another local board member would join us as a neutral third party.

I have told you before what to do and you are trying to trick me into getting banned. Won't fall for it. Give me what I originally asked.

See above. You'll have to reiterate it. Use code if you need to.

It's taking waaay more than two seconds and I'm beating you like a rented mule.

You are just an annoying gnat that I occasionally have to squish. Nothing more.

I've already won. CSS and Sandusky all went to jail and that ain't ever gonna change.

How is that a personal victory for you? Even if those weren't four cases of injustice, they have nothing to do with you. Troll.

Also, no one in any numbers will ever believe your BS narrative.

Speculation. It is impossible for you to know the future.

Sure I do. Putin certainly does.

Do you respect his right to have those different morals? I do, even though I think he is a horrible human being. I'd think you'd be a big Putin fan -- he's very into Jesus and disinformation too, just like you.

You can justify any behavior you wish because you have no standard from which to follow. How sad.

This is nonsensical. I do have a standard that I have come up with. That's far more intellectually honest than deriving your morals from some book or from some guy in white robes.

Imagine if real scientists, not fake ones like you, did that with their experiments.

Actually, that's exactly what scientists do. We challenge dogma all the time. New data leads to the rejection of old hypotheses and the formation of new ones. Your moral structure (supposedly) never changes. Science changes all the time, which is what makes is great.

Your "hypotheses" are not such but mere opinions derived from your religious love for an institution and its icon. You'd know that if you had ever taken any STEM classes but that GED got you a janitors job after all.

LOL. OK, Ginger. Shall we compare CVs when we meet to see who has more STEM credits? Want to bring W2's as well to see which of us works as a janitor and which of us is a successful scientist?

My hypotheses are all data driven. See the latest bot post above which has a great summary debunking every single accuser's testimony. Without that testimony there is nothing to this case.

🤣 Read. The. Website.

False. PSU has it's own special sanctions page.

Read the database. The fact that you claim "PSU has its own special page" backs up my assertion that the NCAA circumvented their own rules (i.e. made up shite as they went along) and no infractions took place.

 

[WHCANole]

Emmert was just making shite up.

Your opinion

There is no major infraction for "unethical behavior".

Read the letter again

The NCAA completely botched this and walked it back.

Your opinion and they did not walk back all the sanctions. Some they eased after PSU got rid of the bad apples and cooperated.

There is no record in the database of PSU committing a major infraction. That's the undeniable truth, which I know you hate.

And yet here it STILL is

 

[PSU2UNC]

Your opinion

Based in facts.

Read the letter again

ZERO MENTION OF INFRACTIONS.

Your opinion and they did not walk back all the sanctions. Some they eased after PSU got rid of the bad apples and cooperated.

That's your interpretation but not what actually happened.

And yet here it STILL is

Show me on that page that you keep linking where it mentions the word infractions. It does not. No major infractions happened. PSU was sanctioned without infractions. It shouldn't happen that way, but it did because the NCAA overstepped their own authority. Take your L, Boots.

 

[WHCANole]

Nothing made up about how I have described myself. Why do you even care? How does it affect anything?

You've made up all of it but then I ask why? It doesn't make your flawed logic any better and no one believes you either.

It's flattering (I guess) that you think scientists are some super form of human that only engage in highly intellectual pursuits.

No flattery just having know a few they wouldn't waste time on a thread like this. You immature and crazy behavior leads me to believe you are a liar.

Most scientists are just regular people.

But you are not "regular" other than being a regular mentally ill person.

They like fart jokes and getting drunk and laughing and watching sports. I kind of feel like you've never actually known a scientist.

I have known several and none of them are as immature as you or would waste their time on a thread like this. I have known of some basement living losers who would however.

Yes, but not for gaming. It's clearly not a unique username. Why does that matter?

I find it nowhere else. It's your twitter handle too so that makes it pretty firm that is your gamer handle.🤣

Do you hate taco bell like you hate PSU?

Smoking dope again?

I have no recollection of what you asked for. All I recall is that you wanted something "independently verifiable". I have no idea what that vague request means. I think that even if I were to give you my name (which I'm sure you would spread lies about me if you had it) you would just say "Oh, that's not really you; You just looked that guy up on the internet". I don't think anything I can show you will convince you -- I could show up with my CAC card, my medal and reams of my publications and you will still not admit you are wrong.

You do remember what I asked for and are just trying to get me banned as that is the only way you can "win" in your nutty mind. I'm laughing at your made up resume.

Is there anyone else on this thread that actually thinks I am lying about who I am????

Uh-huh. So you are a PSU person but you never go back to State College?

Didn't say that either. Not every PSU grad goes back to State College. That's false

You tell me. If you claim to be a PSU person, let's meet in State College. I'm sure another local board member would join us as a neutral third party.

Right LOL I'll make a special trip to PSU to "meet" with a known liar! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Man, you ARE silly!

See above. You'll have to reiterate it. Use code if you need to.

Stand and Deliver

You are just an annoying gnat that I occasionally have to squish. Nothing more.

I live in your head rent free. I am the flame to your moth.

How is that a personal victory for you?

It's a victory for those victims. I rejoice for them.

Even if those weren't four cases of injustice, they have nothing to do with you.

Or you

Troll.

JoeBot

Speculation. It is impossible for you to know the future.

Just like Area 51 and the JFK conspiracies. LOL

Do you respect his right to have those different morals?

No

I do, even though I think he is a horrible human being.

Nonsense

I'd think you'd be a big Putin fan -- he's very into Jesus and disinformation too, just like you.

You have no idea what I believe and Putin is surely lying if he calls himself a Christian.

This is nonsensical. I do have a standard that I have come up with. That's far more intellectually honest than deriving your morals from some book or from some guy in white robes.

No it is sad and immoral. You really have no standard other than what you want or feel.

Actually, that's exactly what scientists do. We challenge dogma all the time. New data leads to the rejection of old hypotheses and the formation of new ones. Your moral structure (supposedly) never changes. Science changes all the time, which is what makes is great.

No you don't do science based on cultic dogma. You use a method and in the case of CSS and Sandusky the method was the legal system. It played out and found them all guilty. Your speculation which you call a "hypothesis" is just that. Speculation with no support other than cultic love.

LOL. OK, Ginger. Shall we compare CVs when we meet to see who has more STEM credits?

Sure Rooster. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

Want to bring W2's as well to see which of us works as a janitor and which of us is a successful scientist?

Let's do net worth I don't get W-2s anymore.

My hypotheses are all religious driven.

Fixed it

See the latest bot post above which has a great summary debunking every single accuser's testimony.

I don't read bots

Without that testimony there is nothing to this case.

The bot is BS

Read the database. The fact that you claim "PSU has its own special page" backs up my assertion that the NCAA circumvented their own rules (i.e. made up shite as they went along) and no infractions took place.

No they followed another one of their many rules which allows the Executive Committee to do what they did. They didn't need another investigation as Freeh provided that commissioned and accepted by PSU. Can't have sanctions without infractions!

 

[WHCANole]

Based in facts.

Based in religion

ZERO MENTION OF INFRACTIONS.

CAN'T HAVE SANCTIONS WITHOUT INFRACTIONS

That's your interpretation but not what actually happened.

It is what happened as they said so. It's fact

Show me on that page that you keep linking where it mentions the word infractions. It does not. No major infractions happened.

Read it again

PSU was sanctioned without infractions.

Not possible.

Why not the death penalty?​

Imposing the death penalty does not address the cultural, systemic and leadership failures at Penn State. Instead, our approach demands that they become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.

It shouldn't happen that way, but it did because the NCAA overstepped their own authority.

Apparently not as they are still there.

 

[WHCANole]

Nothing in Emmett’s letter cites any infraction committed by PSU.
strike three. You’re out. Take a seat on your.l bench

Why not the death penalty?​

Imposing the death penalty does not address the cultural, systemic and leadership failures at Penn State. Instead, our approach demands that they become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.

Looks pretty clear to me. You've been ejected from the game.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Based in religion

Wrong. I am anti-religion. I deal only in facts.

CAN'T HAVE SANCTIONS WITHOUT INFRACTIONS

In theory yes. Which is again why the NCAA was in the wrong for punishing PSU. There were not major infractions (see database); see also, the lack of mention of infractions in anything you keep posting.

It is what happened as they said so. It's fact

Sanctions happened. Infractions did not.

Read it again

I've read it multiple times AND I've done a "find" search on it. The word "infractions" DOES NOT EXIST on that page.

Not possible

Apparently not as they are still there.

No infractions listed in the database = no infractions. Unless you think there is an error in the database. However, I can't imagine for such a high profile case they would make such a simple error.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Why not the death penalty?​

Imposing the death penalty does not address the cultural, systemic and leadership failures at Penn State. Instead, our approach demands that they become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.

Looks pretty clear to me. You've been ejected from the game.

Still no mention of infractions in that text. Try again, Ginger.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You've made up all of it but then I ask why?

I haven't made up any of up but you raise a good point. Why would I make that up? As you say it doesn't add anything to my (very sound, well thought out, fact based) arguments. Why would I lie about that? Simplest answer (which also happens to be correct): I wouldn't. It's all true.

and no one believes you either.

Please find me one other person who shares your belief that I am lying about being a scientist and thinks that I bought my medal on ebay. I'll wait.

No flattery just having know a few they wouldn't waste time on a thread like this. You immature and crazy behavior leads me to believe you are a liar.

You should meet some more scientists. They waste their time on all sorts of activities.

But you are not "regular" other than being a regular mentally ill person.

LOL, you are mentally ill one who camps out on a board that you have no affiliation with.

I have known several and none of them are as immature as you or would waste their time on a thread like this. I have known of some basement living losers who would however.

You should meet some more scientists. We are pretty normal folks.

I find it nowhere else. It's your twitter handle too so that makes it pretty firm that is your gamer handle.🤣

I'm not a gamer, so there is clearly someone else who thought it was a funny handle.

Smoking dope again?

No, it's a taco bell reference. I'm not sure why you care about that username. It doesn't prove anything (except that I don't use this username except on sports message boards).

You do remember what I asked for and are just trying to get me banned as that is the only way you can "win" in your nutty mind.

If you want to tell me again, that's fine.

If you don't, STFU up about my identity.

I honestly don't remember. I know you want to think I hang on your every word, but I really don't give a crap about what you say. I just like irritating you and consider every instance in which you waste your time replying to me a giant win.

I'm laughing at your made up resume.

It's a CV not a resume, your ignoramus.

Didn't say that either. Not every PSU grad goes back to State College. That's false

Then you aren't a true PSU person (which I already knew).

Right LOL I'll make a special trip to PSU to "meet" with a known liar! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Man, you ARE silly!

Tell me where then. I travel quite a bit for my job. We can work something out. And the point of the meeting would be to prove to you that I am not a liar (obviously I'm not a "known liar").

Stand and Deliver

Is this supposed to be code? I have no idea what it means. I think it was a movie about a teacher? But I don't see its relevance here.

I live in your head rent free. I am the flame to your moth.

Your moth gets eaten by my harvestmen spider.

It's a victory for those victims. I rejoice for them.

You would happy to learn that kids WEREN'T abused. Wouldn't that be a better story? That they weren't actually molested? You cheer for them TO have been abused? That's messed up.

Just like Area 51 and the JFK conspiracies. LOL

I don't know why you keep those up. I think you are obsessed with conspiracy theories. Not relevant here.

You have no idea what I believe and Putin is surely lying if he calls himself a Christian.

Then tell us. I can read between the lines and see that you are a Jesus person. That explains your lack of logic and inability to interpret facts that go against your world view.

No it is sad and immoral. You really have no standard other than what you want or feel.

Incorrect. I have morals that are different from yours. And that's perfectly fine. And I'd argue my morals are better in that I wasn't told by someone else what my morals should be.

No you don't do science based on cultic dogma. You use a method and in the case of CSS and Sandusky the method was the legal system. It played out and found them all guilty. Your speculation which you call a "hypothesis" is just that. Speculation with no support other than cultic love.

Wow you really don't understand science. Or you are really bad at analogies. Or maybe both.

The only method in science that is absolute is the scientific method which is the overarching framework under which science is conducted.

In your analogy, the legal system is a technical methodology (e.g. determining pesticide concentrations via GC/MS). That doesn't mean that methodology is absolute. In fact, you might get different answers if you use a different methodology (e.g. toxicity testing of environmental samples that contain pesticides, rather than trying to measure individual pesticides in the environment). So in my example, you might test for individual pesticides and find that none exceeds any regulatory standard, but then I might do toxicity testing on the same samples and find that because of additive/combinatory effects, those same environmental samples do cause adverse harm to organisms. Considering all available data (and not just the first thing that is done) is a hallmark of the scientific method.

That's what I'm applying here. You think the legal system is absolute and correct. It is not and does not exist in a vaccum

Let's do net worth I don't get W-2s anymore.

I'd bet I win that bet too. But good to know you are old and no longer working, you lazy leach on society.

 

[jerot]

Nah. Memory is of course.

Like Myers.

Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry Sandusky, sure has a lousy memory.

Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, that Mike McQueary was a liar, and that nothing sexual ever happened in the shower. And finally, Myers couldn't remember what he told the state attorney general's office after he flipped, and was claiming that Jerry had abused him.

Myers made all these fuzzy statements during a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where he was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial. A 48-page transcript of that hearing was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a curious reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. Myers' pathetic performance on the witness stand proves what a screwed-up case this is, featuring overreaching prosecutors and a hysterical news media.

The media blew it in part because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Myers, who, going by the transcript, clearly wasn't credible.

Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either he was dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's, or else he was lying about everything.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

So is this a chance you're willing to take, the judge asked. Sandusky told the judge his mind was made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he originally got to know the former Penn State assistant football coach through his Second Mile charity.

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.

"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.

On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."

As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.

On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.

Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.

"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."

"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.

"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."

"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.

"Yes," Myers said.

She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.

John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally been released.

"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about Myers' central role in the Penn State scandal.

"And it's obvious to anyone who understands the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. Myers' testimony was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had flipped for [millions] and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore," Ziegler said.

In contrast, when Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler said, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."

John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.

"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."

"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"

"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" at the Sandusky trial, Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."

Just the start.

Gets better -


In "Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes," former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney revealed on camera how the federal investigation of the serial killer got started. A woman called and said, "I'm concerned about my boyfriend -- his name is Ted Bundy."
The girlfriend proceeded to detail Bundy's suspicious behavior that included following women around at night, hiding a knife in his car and keeping a bag of women's underwear in his apartment.


McChesney, who was on the task force that arrested Bundy, rose to become the only female FBI agent appointed to be the bureau's executive assistant director. Her credibility was such that in 2002, in the wake of the widespread sex abuse scandal involving the Catholic clergy, the U.S. Conference of Bishops hired McChesney to establish and lead its Office of Child and Youth Protection. She's also the author of a 2011 book, "Pick Up Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way."
But now the decorated former FBI special agent is drawing unwanted attention for another book she wrote -- an unpublished, confidential 79-page diary written in 2011 and 2012, back when McChesney was a private investigator working for her old boss, former FBI Director Louis Freeh. At the time, Freeh was getting paid $8 million by Penn State to probe another notorious sex scandal involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

According to Sandusky's lawyer, McChesney's diary may constitute newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, because it documents how the Pennsylvania state Attorney General's Office was repeatedly violating state law by leaking grand jury secrets to Freeh's investigators.
Al Lindsay, the defense lawyer for Jerry Sandusky, was an avid reader of McChesney's diary.

"I have found the matter very interesting and it's worthy of further investigation," he said. "From what I understand, the diary details disclosure of information by the [Pennsylvania state] attorney general's office to the Freeh investigation, which would appear to be in violation of law."

Former NCIS special agent John Snedden, who investigated the Penn State sex abuse case on behalf of the federal government, had a more damning critique of McChesney's work.

"It's a diary detailing blatant collusion, corruption and major violations of grand jury secrecy, with an outline of personal gain, authored by a person operating under self-imagined impunity," Snedden wrote in an email. As far as Snedden is concerned, the diary shows that the Freeh Group's intent during the Penn State investigation "was to ingratiate themselves with the NCAA," to gain a lucrative client.

Under Pennsylvania state law, grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept secret. At the time of the Penn State investigation, McChesney and her boss, former FBI Director Freeh, were functioning as private investigators, and as such, did not have authorization to access grand jury information.
McChesney did not respond to written requests for comment. In 2018, when I questioned Freeh about whether he had authorization to access grand jury secrets, the former FBI director, through a spokesperson, declined comment.
The diary begins on Nov. 27, 2011, when McChesney was on the phone with Freeh. McChesney wrote that she learned she was to "take leadership role and focus on monitoring" in the Penn State investigation conducted by Freeh. That involved coordinating with a team of Freeh's investigators that included Tim Flynn, Omar McNeill, and Patti Bescript, and Gregory Paw.

The Freeh team started by gathering files on Sandusky, the retired former Penn State assistant football coach. Among the first documents to be perused: a "1998 investigation report has been provided," McChesney wrote, about the first alleged shower incident involving Sandusky and 11 year-old Zachary Konstas.

But according to state law, the police report that McChesney referred to should not have existed.

The report was prompted by a complaint from the boy's mother, about the 1998 incident where Sandusky washed Konstas's hair in the shower. The incident wound up being investigated by authorities that included an official from the Centre County Children and Youth Services, a detective from the Penn State police, an investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, the boy's therapist, as well as a psychologist hired by the county. The authorities concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or of any sexual conduct whatsoever, so the mother's alleged claim was officially deemed unfounded.

As recounted in The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, by author Mark Pendergrast, the psychiatrist who questioned Konstas five days after the shower incident concluded:

"The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not unusual for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread, acceptable situation and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years."

The psychologist also concluded that since no one else had previously accused Sandusky of abuse, and that the psychologist knew of no case where a then 52-year-old man had suddenly become a pedophile.

As reported by Pendergrast, according to state law, the unfounded report of abuse should have been expunged by the state Department of Welfare, which it was. But the Penn State Police failed to expunge the report. And 13 years later, the report was suddenly relevant after the state attorney general issued a grand jury presentment about a second alleged shower incident where Sandusky allegedly raped a 10-year-old boy, as supposedly witnessed by former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.

The second shower incident, however, was investigated for the federal government by Snedden, who determined that the alleged facts made no sense, and that McQueary was not a credible witness.

McChesney's diary doesn't state how the Freeh team came up with the 1998 police report, but three lines later, McChesney writes: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

Besides working closely with the Attorney General's office, Freeh's investigators were also staying in constant contact with the NCAA.

McChesney wrote that during the investigation, fellow investigator McNeill "has standing telcall on Fridays with NCAA & Big 10." During those phone calls, the NCAA "will provide questions for" the Freeh Group," McChesney wrote, and that "NCAA high level execs will decide on enforcement actions."

The FBI was also involved in the Penn State probe, McChesney wrote. She speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" for the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

On Jan. 4, 2012, McChesney wrote that during a meeting with investigator Anthony Sassano and another official from the state attorney general's office, she learned that the "1998 police report" was "out of sequence and filed in administrative rather than criminal." And that the Penn State police chief and the original investigator from the 1998 incident were the "only ones who knew."

McChesney also listed in her diary the initials of numerous Penn State officials who got subpoenaed for the 2011 grand jury investigation. She also records that "AG got 2nd mile records from subpoena," referring to The Second Mile, the charity for at risk youth started by Sandusky.

She also noted that the AG interviewed Ruth Jackson, the wife of Kenny Jackson, a former Penn State assistant football coach, as well as another man who had "been to the grand jury - and possibly friends with JS," as in Jerry Sandusky.

McChesney described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."

On March 7, 2012, she wrote "No smoking gun to indicate coverup." She also wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.

According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them." McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile.

On March 30, 2012, McChesney noted that Sandusky's trial was rescheduled to June 5th of that year. Meanwhile, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina, that Fina was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."

McChesney was referring to an email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, where President Spanier and two other top administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities. The officials discussed simply telling Sandusky to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for at-risk youth, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

In the email chain, Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”
In her diary, McChesney seemed to know what's going on with the supposedly secret grand jury proceedings being conducted by the state attorney general's office. She wrote that "40+ more people before grand jury." She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."

In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Spanier, Athletic Director Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.

Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts." On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."

McChesney's diary also portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses. McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.

On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain."

She wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."

McChesney also wrote that Paw was scheduling meetings with lawyers for Schultz and Curley. "Have not seen emails," she wrote, without saying whom she was referring to.

As part of their investigation, the Freeh Group was also looking at former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. The Freeh Group contacted the state attorney general's office for help but the AG's office advised them that they had "nothing further on Paterno [other] than what" the Freeh Group already had.

On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."

McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.

The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."

The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest. The email was contained in other confidential records connected to the Freeh investigation, records that the Penn State board of trustees has repeatedly refused to release.

The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno and the 1998 shower incident.

"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."

On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."

McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."

Both Coyle and Belcher got immunity to testify against Schultz. Meanwhile, there were several leakers on Schultz's supposedly secret file that he was keeping on Sandusky. As McChesney recorded in her diary, "Fina got papers from two different sources."

In her diary, McChesney kept compiling more secrets. On May 22, 2012, McChesney wrote that the "FBI took DNA & handwriting samples" from Sandusky. Meanwhile, the cooperation between the attorney general's office and Freeh's investigators went both ways.

When Freeh's investigators, one of whom was McChesney, interviewed Penn State counsel Baldwin and learned somebody else in the attorney general's office was leaking her information, they knew they had to tell Fina.

"Paw: didn't tell Final that Baldwin heard @ the charges before they happened, but will tell him that," McChesney wrote. Baldwin, McChesney added, told Freeh's investigators " a colleague in the AG's office leaked that Curly, Schultz and Sandusky would be charged," and that Spanier "was stunned."

The Freeh Report concluded that Penn State officials had conspired to cover up Sandusky's sex crimes. The NCAA used the Freeh Report to justify draconian sanctions against Penn State that included a $60 million fine, a four-year bowl game ban, and the loss of 40 athletic scholarships.

In other confidential emails included in the source materials for the Freeh Report, McChesney used her experience with the Catholic bishops as a selling point to be hired by Freeh for the Penn State investigation.

"Louie: Just wanted to reach out to you in the event that any of my experiences with the Catholic Bishops Conference would be of use to your team," McChesney wrote. "Too many sad parallels between this case and the Church."

Freeh responded by telling his staff in an email that McChesney's experience in investigating the church would come in handy at Penn State because "the church has an insularity similar to what we are seeing" at Penn State.
Other emails contained in the source materials show Freeh was indeed angling to land the NCAA as a client.

On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA. It appears we have Emmert's attention now."

In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."
It took seven years but Freeh's efforts finally paid off. This past August, the NCAA hired five employees of the Freeh Group to staff its new Complex Case Unit.
According to the NCAA, the new unit will be paid to investigate allegations of infractions of "core NCAA values, such as alleged failures to prioritize academics and the well-being of student athletes; the possibility of major penalties; or conduct contrary to the cooperative principles of the existing infractions process."

 

[AvgUser]

Why not the death penalty?​

Imposing the death penalty does not address the cultural, systemic and leadership failures at Penn State. Instead, our approach demands that they become an exemplary NCAA member by eradicating the mindset that led to this tragedy.

Looks pretty clear to me. You've been ejected from the game.

Nothing in Emmert's letter cites any infractions. You have the reading comprehension of a third-grader in this case. You're just too obstinate to recognize your own shortcoming, blindness and bias.

 

[AvgUser]

CAN'T HAVE SANCTIONS WITHOUT INFRACTIONS

Where exactly and specifically is this written? You're making it up.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Where exactly and specifically is this written? You're making it up.

I actually agree that the way the process isn't written you SHOULDN'T be able to have sanctions without infractions. But it is clear the NCAA didn't follow its own procedures when it overstepped its authority and punished PSU. This is clear from two things:
1) PSU having "its own special sanction page" to try to explain how in the world the NCAA justifies such ridiculous sanctions.

2) That PSU is NOT in the major infractions database.

 

[AvgUser]

I actually agree that the way the process isn't written you SHOULDN'T be able to have sanctions without infractions. But it is clear the NCAA didn't follow its own procedures when it overstepped its authority and punished PSU. This is clear from two things:
1) PSU having "its own special sanction page" to try to explain how in the world the NCAA justifies such ridiculous sanctions.

2) That PSU is NOT in the major infractions database.

I probably agree that one should not be able to sanction without infractions. But Wackhole dismisses any data/information that isn't written down and codified as law. He states the assertion as fact. It's his opinion so far as I can tell.

 

[WHCANole]

Wrong. I am anti-religion. I deal only in facts.

You deal in speculation and call it a hypothesis which is incorrect.

In theory yes.

In fact yes

Which is again why the NCAA was in the wrong for punishing PSU.

Opinion

There were not major infractions (see database); see also, the lack of mention of infractions in anything you keep posting.

False

Sanctions happened. Infractions did not.

Impossible

I've read it multiple times AND I've done a "find" search on it. The word "infractions" DOES NOT EXIST on that page.

You can't have sanctions without infractions.

No infractions listed in the database = no infractions. Unless you think there is an error in the database. However, I can't imagine for such a high profile case they would make such a simple error.

No they didn't and PSU has it's own special page for its misdeeds.

 

[WHCANole]

Still no mention of infractions in that text. Try again, Ginger.

Can't have sanctions without infractions.

 

[AvgUser]

Can't have sanctions without infractions.

Yes you can because it occurred

 

[WHCANole]

I haven't made up any of up but you raise a good point. Why would I make that up? As you say it doesn't add anything to my (very sound, well thought out, fact based) arguments. Why would I lie about that? Simplest answer (which also happens to be correct): I wouldn't. It's all true.

Please find me one other person who shares your belief that I am lying about being a scientist and thinks that I bought my medal on ebay. I'll wait.

You should meet some more scientists. They waste their time on all sorts of activities.

LOL, you are mentally ill one who camps out on a board that you have no affiliation with.

LOL Look in the mirror. Plus you don't know my affiliation with anything.

You should meet some more scientists. We are pretty normal folks.

Met several and they ain't you but we know that part is made up.

I'm not a gamer, so there is clearly someone else who thought it was a funny handle.

Liar

No, it's a taco bell reference. I'm not sure why you care about that username. It doesn't prove anything (except that I don't use this username except on sports message boards).

Proves you're a gamer (in blackface no less) 🤣

If you want to tell me again, that's fine.

Already did.

If you don't, STFU up about my identity.

Nope not till you stand and deliver.

I honestly don't remember. I know you want to think I hang on your every word, but I really don't give a crap about what you say. I just like irritating you and consider every instance in which you waste your time replying to me a giant win.

LOL You remember and I make you so mad you can't see straight and HAVE to reply. I'm having fun, you're wasting time but then as a janitor you have a lot of that in mommies basement.

It's a CV not a resume, your ignoramus.

You don't have a CV.

Then you aren't a true PSU person (which I already knew).

LOL You have no idea.

Tell me where then. I travel quite a bit for my job. We can work something out. And the point of the meeting would be to prove to you that I am not a liar (obviously I'm not a "known liar").

Yeah, I think waiting for you anywhere but your mommies basement would be a waste of time. Liars don't keep their word you know.

Is this supposed to be code? I have no idea what it means. I think it was a movie about a teacher? But I don't see its relevance here.

Ponder it more it will come to you.

Your moth gets eaten by my harvestmen spider.

Got it wrong booby. I am the flame to your moth. That leaves you in ashes. LOL

You would happy to learn that kids WEREN'T abused.

They were

Wouldn't that be a better story?

No, because your falsely calling them liars makes it difficult for future victims of big shots to be believed. Same like you not reporting your molestation.

That they weren't actually molested?

They were

You cheer for them TO have been abused?

I cheer for Sandusky and CSS to go to jail

That's messed up.

We know you are messed up.

I don't know why you keep those up. I think you are obsessed with conspiracy theories. Not relevant here.

Because that is what you narrative is. A conspiracy theory.

Then tell us. I can read between the lines and see that you are a Jesus person.

Not relevant. You have no idea. "Jesus people" are not the only ones who believe in objective morality.

That explains your lack of logic

LOL coming from you illogical larry that is rich LOLOLOL

and inability to interpret facts that go against your world view.

My "world view" is based on fact and not worship of an institution or it's icon.

Incorrect. I have morals that are different from yours.

You don't have any morals

And that's perfectly fine.

It's troubling and evil

And I'd argue my morals are better in that I wasn't told by someone else what my morals should be.

You decide your "morals" by what you want period. That is not better.

Wow you really don't understand science. Or you are really bad at analogies. Or maybe both.

This is why I know you are no scientist

The only method in science that is absolute is the scientific method which is the overarching framework under which science is conducted.

Right it is objective not what you decide it is. Ponder that some more.

In your analogy, the legal system is a technical methodology (e.g. determining pesticide concentrations via GC/MS). That doesn't mean that methodology is absolute. In fact, you might get different answers if you use a different methodology (e.g. toxicity testing of environmental samples that contain pesticides, rather than trying to measure individual pesticides in the environment). So in my example, you might test for individual pesticides and find that none exceeds any regulatory standard, but then I might do toxicity testing on the same samples and find that because of additive/combinatory effects, those same environmental samples do cause adverse harm to organisms. Considering all available data (and not just the first thing that is done) is a hallmark of the scientific method.

Poor analogy. The legal system considers available evidence and renders a verdict. If newer CONVINCING evidence comes along later then thru appeals that is corrected. So far, no joy for your pedo friend.

That's what I'm applying here. You think the legal system is absolute and correct. It is not and does not exist in a vaccum

Neither does the scientific method

I'd bet I win that bet too.

You'd lose but you'd lie about it.

But good to know you are old and no longer working,

You also know very little about money too you idiot. That fact that I don't have to go in and sweep floor everyday like you means I knew how to make money and did. You're a sap who works for others doing menial labor.

you lazy leach on society.

Speak for yourself you mommies basement bottom feeder.

 

[WHCANole]

Yes you can because it occurred

Impossible

 

[WHCANole]

Where exactly and specifically is this written? You're making it up.

It's written in the book of common sense and logic. You might want to read that.