FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,142
392
1
Quite the intelligent, mature response.

It's unfortunate that so many people like you become the face of Penn State fans. In complete denial that this program had indicators for years that Sandusky was a potential issue -- but did nothing. In complete denial. And why? Because you value the reputation of your football coach more than the urgency of protecting potential victims of a man who was clearly troubled.

And thank you. I had a great night!

Read Snedden antics and relax.


On the Penn State campus in 2012, with national security at stake, that's just what Special Agent Snedden did on behalf of the U.S. government. And instead of finding a sex scandal or a cover-up in the cold case he was investigating in Happy Valley, Snedden said he discovered ample evidence of a "political hit job."

Back in 2012, Snedden was working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services. His assignment against the backdrop of the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal was to determine whether former Penn State President Graham Spanier deserved to have his high-level national security clearance renewed.

The focus was on Spanier, but to do that investigation properly, Snedden, a PSU alum himself, had to unravel a big mess at his old alma mater. To figure out whether Spanier could be trusted with access to the most sensitive national secrets.

So Snedden began his job by starting at the beginning. By going back eleven years, to 2001, when Mike McQueary made his famous trip to the Penn State locker room. Where McQueary supposedly heard and saw a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with a young boy.

But there was a problem. In the beginning, Snedden said, McQueary "told people he doesn't know what he saw exactly." McQueary said he heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" in the shower, Snedden said.

"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden said.

"I don't think you can say he's credible," Snedden said about McQueary. Why? Because he told "so many different stories," Snedden said. McQueary's stories about what he thought he saw or heard in the shower ranged from rough horseplay and/or wrestling all the way up to sex.

Which story, Snedden asked, do you want to believe?

"None of it makes any sense," Snedden said about McQueary's tale. "It's not a credible story."

Back in 2001, Snedden said, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen.

If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something to stop it.

"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.

If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"

Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, then why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building? The locker room where McQueary supposedly saw Sandusky with the boy in the showers.

When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.

"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"

At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.

Working on behalf of FIS, Snedden wrote a 110-page report, all in capital letters, where he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.

In his report, Snedden interviewed Thomas G. Poole, Penn State's vice president for administration. Poole told Snedden he was in Graham Spanier's office when news of the Penn State scandal broke, and Penn State's then-senior Vice President Gary Schultz came rushing in.

Schultz blurted out that "McQueary never told him this was sexual," Snedden wrote. Schultz was shocked by what McQueary told the grand jury, Snedden wrote.

"He [McQueary] told the grand jury that he reported to [Schultz] that this was sexual," Schultz told Poole and Spanier.

"While speaking, Schultz shook his head back and forth as in disbelief," Snedden wrote about Poole's observations. Poole "believes it appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this information."
"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said. "If it's real it's always been the same thing."

But that's not what happened with McQueary. And Snedden thinks he knows why.
"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.
"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.

"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.
[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."

There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.

There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.

Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."

Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.

Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.

Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."

Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.
Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.

Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.
"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."
Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?

"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."

How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?

"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."

"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."

"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.

It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.

Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."
Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.

Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.

There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.

At an executive session, the vice chairman of the PSU board, John Surma, the CEO of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh, told his fellow PSU board members, "We need to get rid of Paterno and Spanier," Snedden said. And then Surma asked, "Does anybody disagree with that?"

"There wasn't even a vote," Snedden said. In Snedden's report, Dr. Rodney Erickson, the former PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier "is collateral damage in all of this."

Erickson didn't believe there was a coverup at Penn State, because of what Spanier had told him.

"I was told it was just horsing around in the shower," Spanier told Erickson, as recounted in Snedden's report. "How do you call the police on that?"

On the night the board of trustees fired Paterno, they kept calling Paterno's house, but there was no answer. Finally, the board sent a courier over to Paterno's house, and asked him to call Surma's cell phone.


When Paterno called, Surma was ready to tell the coach three things. But he only got to his first item.

"Surma was only able to tell Paterno that he was no longer football coach before Paterno hung up," Snedden wrote.

In Snedden's report, Spanier is quoted as telling Frances Anne Riley, a member of the board of trustees, "I was so naive."

"He means that politically," Snedden said about Spanier. "He was so naive to understand that a governor would go to that level to jam him. How a guy could be so vindictive," Snedden said, referring to the former governor, who could not be reached for comment.

When the Penn State scandal hit, "It was a convenient disaster," Snedden said. Because it gave the governor a chance "to fulfill vendettas."

The governor was angry at Spanier for vocally opposing Corbett's plan to cut Penn State's budget by 52 percent, Snedden wrote. In his report, Spanier, who was put under oath by Snedden and questioned for eight hours, stated that he had been the victim of "vindictiveness from the governor."

In Snedden's report, Spanier "explained that Gov. Corbett is an alumni of Lebanon Valley College [a private college], that Gov. Corbett is a strong supporter of the voucher system, wherein individuals can choose to utilize funding toward private eduction, as opposed to public education."
Corbett, Spanier told Snedden, "is not fond of Penn State, and is not fond of public higher education."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, "is now hearing that when the Penn State Board of Trustees was telling [Spanier] not to take action and that they [the Penn State Board of Trustees] were going to handle the situation, that the governor was actually exercising pressure on the [The Penn State Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave."
The governor, Snedden said, "wants to be the most popular guy in Pennsylvania." But Spanier was fighting him politically, and Joe Paterno was a football legend.

Suddenly, the Penn State scandal came along, and Corbett could lobby the Penn State Board of Trustees to get rid of both Spanier and Paterno.

And suddenly Corbett starts showing up at Penn State Board of Trustees meetings, where the governor was a board member, but didn't usually bother to go. Only now Corbett "is the knight in shining armor," Snedden said. Because he's the guy cleaning up that horrible sex abuse scandal at Penn State.

"The wrong people are being looked at here," Snedden said about the scandal at Penn State. As far as Snedden was concerned, the board of trustees at Penn State had no reason to fire Spanier or Paterno.

""It's a political vendetta by somebody that has an epic degree of vindictiveness and will stop at nothing apparently," Snedden said about Corbett.

The whole thing is appalling," Snedden said. "It's absurd that somebody didn't professionally investigate this thing from the get-go."

As far as Snedden is concerned, the proof that the investigation was tampered with was shown in the flip-flop done by Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former counsel.

"You've got a clear indication that Cynthia Baldwin was doing whatever they wanted her to do," Snedden said about Baldwin's cooperation with the AG's office.

In her interview with Snedden, Baldwin called Spanier "a very smart man, a man of integrity." She told Snedden that she trusted Spanier, and trusted his judgment. This was true even during "the protected privileged period" from 2010 on, Baldwin told Snedden. While Baldwin was acting as Spanier's counsel, and, on the advice of her lawyer, wasn't supposed to discuss that so-called privileged period with Snedden.

Baldwn subsequently became a cooperating witness who testified against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

Another aspect of the hysterical rush to judgment by Penn State: the university paid out $93 million to the alleged victims of Sandusky, without vetting anybody. None of the alleged victims were deposed by lawyers; none were examined by forensic psychiatrists.

Instead, Penn State just wrote the checks, no questions asked. The university's free-spending prompted a lawsuit from Penn State's insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company.

So Snedden wrote a report that called for renewing Spanier's high-level security clearance. Because Snedden didn't find any evidence of a coverup at Penn State. Because there was nothing to cover up.

"The circumstances surrounding [Spanier's] departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on [Spanier's] current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote.
Meanwhile, the university paid $8.3 million for a report from former FBI Director Louie Freeh, who reached the opposite conclusion that Snedden did. Freeh found that there had been a top-down coverup of a sex crime at Penn State that was allegedly orchestrated by Spanier.

What does Snedden think of the Louie Freeh report?

"It's an embarrassment to law enforcement," Snedden said.

Louie Freeh, Snedden said, is a political appointee.

"Maybe he did an investigation at one point in his life, but not on this one," Snedden said about the report Freeh wrote on Penn State.

What about the role the media played in creating an atmosphere of hysteria?

"Sadly, I think they've demonstrated that investigative journalism is dead," Snedden said.
If Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile, Snedden said, how did he survive a month-long investigation back in 1998 by the Penn State police, the State College police, the Centre County District Attorney's office, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare?

All of those agencies investigated Sandusky, after a mother complained about Jerry taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Were all those agencies bamboozled? None of them could catch a pedophile in action?

Another problem for people who believe that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile: When the cops came to Sandusky's house armed with search warrants, they didn't find any porn.

Have you ever heard of a pedophilia case where large caches of pornography weren't found, I asked Snedden.

"No," he said. "Having worked child sex abuse cases before, they [pedophiles] go from the porn to actually acting it out. It's a crescendo."

"I'm more inclined" to believe the results of the 1998 investigation, Snedden said. "Because they're not politically motivated."

Snedden said he's had "minimalistic contact" with Sandusky that basically involved watching him behave at a high school football game.

"I really do think he's a big kid," Snedden said of Sandusky.

Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?

"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.

Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?

"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.

"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."

It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.

While he was investigating Spanier, Snedden said, he had his own dust-up with the state Attorney General's office. It came in the form of an unwanted phone call from Anthony Sassano, the lead investigator in the AG's office on the Sandusky case.

Sassano didn't go through the appropriate channels when he called, Snedden said. But Sassano demanded to see Snedden's report.

Snedden said he told Sassano, sorry, but that's the property of the federal government. Sassano, Snedden said, responded by "spewing obscenities."

"It was something to the effect of I will ****ing see your ass and your ****ing report at the grand jury," Snedden recalled Sassano telling him.

Sure enough, Snedden was served with a subpoena from the state AG's office on October 22, 2012. But the feds sent the subpoena back saying they didn't have to honor it.

"The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a state court from compelling a federal employee, pursuant to its subpoena and contempt powers, from offering testimony contrary to his agency's instructions," the feds wrote back to the state Attorney General's office.

So what would it take to straighten out the mess at Penn State?

"The degree of political involvement in this case is so high," Snedden said.

"You need to take an assistant U.S. Attorney from Arizona or somewhere who doesn't know anything about Penn State," Snedden said. Surround him with a competent staff of investigators, and turn them loose for 30 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
Read Snedden antics and relax.


On the Penn State campus in 2012, with national security at stake, that's just what Special Agent Snedden did on behalf of the U.S. government. And instead of finding a sex scandal or a cover-up in the cold case he was investigating in Happy Valley, Snedden said he discovered ample evidence of a "political hit job."

Back in 2012, Snedden was working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services. His assignment against the backdrop of the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal was to determine whether former Penn State President Graham Spanier deserved to have his high-level national security clearance renewed.

The focus was on Spanier, but to do that investigation properly, Snedden, a PSU alum himself, had to unravel a big mess at his old alma mater. To figure out whether Spanier could be trusted with access to the most sensitive national secrets.

So Snedden began his job by starting at the beginning. By going back eleven years, to 2001, when Mike McQueary made his famous trip to the Penn State locker room. Where McQueary supposedly heard and saw a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with a young boy.
But there was a problem. In the beginning, Snedden said, McQueary "told people he doesn't know what he saw exactly." McQueary said he heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" in the shower, Snedden said.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden said.
"I don't think you can say he's credible," Snedden said about McQueary. Why? Because he told "so many different stories," Snedden said. McQueary's stories about what he thought he saw or heard in the shower ranged from rough horseplay and/or wrestling all the way up to sex.
Which story, Snedden asked, do you want to believe?
"None of it makes any sense," Snedden said about McQueary's tale. "It's not a credible story."
Back in 2001, Snedden said, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen.
If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something to stop it.
"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.
If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"
Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, then why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building? The locker room where McQueary supposedly saw Sandusky with the boy in the showers.
When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.
"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"
At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.
Working on behalf of FIS, Snedden wrote a 110-page report, all in capital letters, where he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.
In his report, Snedden interviewed Thomas G. Poole, Penn State's vice president for administration. Poole told Snedden he was in Graham Spanier's office when news of the Penn State scandal broke, and Penn State's then-senior Vice President Gary Schultz came rushing in.
Schultz blurted out that "McQueary never told him this was sexual," Snedden wrote. Schultz was shocked by what McQueary told the grand jury, Snedden wrote.
"He [McQueary] told the grand jury that he reported to [Schultz] that this was sexual," Schultz told Poole and Spanier.
"While speaking, Schultz shook his head back and forth as in disbelief," Snedden wrote about Poole's observations. Poole "believes it appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this information."
"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said. "If it's real it's always been the same thing."
But that's not what happened with McQueary. And Snedden thinks he knows why.
"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.
"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has not responded to multiple requests for comment.
In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.
"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.
[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."
There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.
There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.
Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."
Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.
Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.
Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."
Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.
Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.
Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.
"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."
Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?
"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."
How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?
"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."
"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."
"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.
It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.
Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."
Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.
Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.
There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.
At an executive session, the vice chairman of the PSU board, John Surma, the CEO of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh, told his fellow PSU board members, "We need to get rid of Paterno and Spanier," Snedden said. And then Surma asked, "Does anybody disagree with that?"
"There wasn't even a vote," Snedden said. In Snedden's report, Dr. Rodney Erickson, the former PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier "is collateral damage in all of this."
Erickson didn't believe there was a coverup at Penn State, because of what Spanier had told him.
"I was told it was just horsing around in the shower," Spanier told Erickson, as recounted in Snedden's report. "How do you call the police on that?"
On the night the board of trustees fired Paterno, they kept calling Paterno's house, but there was no answer. Finally, the board sent a courier over to Paterno's house, and asked him to call Surma's cell phone.
When Paterno called, Surma was ready to tell the coach three things. But he only got to his first item.
"Surma was only able to tell Paterno that he was no longer football coach before Paterno hung up," Snedden wrote.
In Snedden's report, Spanier is quoted as telling Frances Anne Riley, a member of the board of trustees, "I was so naive."
"He means that politically," Snedden said about Spanier. "He was so naive to understand that a governor would go to that level to jam him. How a guy could be so vindictive," Snedden said, referring to the former governor, who could not be reached for comment.
When the Penn State scandal hit, "It was a convenient disaster," Snedden said. Because it gave the governor a chance "to fulfill vendettas."
The governor was angry at Spanier for vocally opposing Corbett's plan to cut Penn State's budget by 52 percent, Snedden wrote. In his report, Spanier, who was put under oath by Snedden and questioned for eight hours, stated that he had been the victim of "vindictiveness from the governor."
In Snedden's report, Spanier "explained that Gov. Corbett is an alumni of Lebanon Valley College [a private college], that Gov. Corbett is a strong supporter of the voucher system, wherein individuals can choose to utilize funding toward private eduction, as opposed to public education."
Corbett, Spanier told Snedden, "is not fond of Penn State, and is not fond of public higher education."
Spanier, Snedden wrote, "is now hearing that when the Penn State Board of Trustees was telling [Spanier] not to take action and that they [the Penn State Board of Trustees] were going to handle the situation, that the governor was actually exercising pressure on the [The Penn State Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave."
The governor, Snedden said, "wants to be the most popular guy in Pennsylvania." But Spanier was fighting him politically, and Joe Paterno was a football legend.
Suddenly, the Penn State scandal came along, and Corbett could lobby the Penn State Board of Trustees to get rid of both Spanier and Paterno.
And suddenly Corbett starts showing up at Penn State Board of Trustees meetings, where the governor was a board member, but didn't usually bother to go. Only now Corbett "is the knight in shining armor," Snedden said. Because he's the guy cleaning up that horrible sex abuse scandal at Penn State.
"The wrong people are being looked at here," Snedden said about the scandal at Penn State. As far as Snedden was concerned, the board of trustees at Penn State had no reason to fire Spanier or Paterno.
""It's a political vendetta by somebody that has an epic degree of vindictiveness and will stop at nothing apparently," Snedden said about Corbett.
The whole thing is appalling," Snedden said. "It's absurd that somebody didn't professionally investigate this thing from the get-go."
As far as Snedden is concerned, the proof that the investigation was tampered with was shown in the flip-flop done by Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former counsel.
"You've got a clear indication that Cynthia Baldwin was doing whatever they wanted her to do," Snedden said about Baldwin's cooperation with the AG's office.
In her interview with Snedden, Baldwin called Spanier "a very smart man, a man of integrity." She told Snedden that she trusted Spanier, and trusted his judgment. This was true even during "the protected privileged period" from 2010 on, Baldwin told Snedden. While Baldwin was acting as Spanier's counsel, and, on the advice of her lawyer, wasn't supposed to discuss that so-called privileged period with Snedden.
Baldwn subsequently became a cooperating witness who testified against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.
Another aspect of the hysterical rush to judgment by Penn State: the university paid out $93 million to the alleged victims of Sandusky, without vetting anybody. None of the alleged victims were deposed by lawyers; none were examined by forensic psychiatrists.
Instead, Penn State just wrote the checks, no questions asked. The university's free-spending prompted a lawsuit from Penn State's insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company.
So Snedden wrote a report that called for renewing Spanier's high-level security clearance. Because Snedden didn't find any evidence of a coverup at Penn State. Because there was nothing to cover up.
"The circumstances surrounding [Spanier's] departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on [Spanier's] current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote.
Meanwhile, the university paid $8.3 million for a report from former FBI Director Louie Freeh, who reached the opposite conclusion that Snedden did. Freeh found that there had been a top-down coverup of a sex crime at Penn State that was allegedly orchestrated by Spanier.
What does Snedden think of the Louie Freeh report?
"It's an embarrassment to law enforcement," Snedden said.
Louie Freeh, Snedden said, is a political appointee.
"Maybe he did an investigation at one point in his life, but not on this one," Snedden said about the report Freeh wrote on Penn State.
What about the role the media played in creating an atmosphere of hysteria?
"Sadly, I think they've demonstrated that investigative journalism is dead," Snedden said.
If Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile, Snedden said, how did he survive a month-long investigation back in 1998 by the Penn State police, the State College police, the Centre County District Attorney's office, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare?
All of those agencies investigated Sandusky, after a mother complained about Jerry taking a shower with her 11-year-old son. Were all those agencies bamboozled? None of them could catch a pedophile in action?
Another problem for people who believe that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile: When the cops came to Sandusky's house armed with search warrants, they didn't find any porn.
Have you ever heard of a pedophilia case where large caches of pornography weren't found, I asked Snedden.
"No," he said. "Having worked child sex abuse cases before, they [pedophiles] go from the porn to actually acting it out. It's a crescendo."
"I'm more inclined" to believe the results of the 1998 investigation, Snedden said. "Because they're not politically motivated."
Snedden said he's had "minimalistic contact" with Sandusky that basically involved watching him behave at a high school football game.
"I really do think he's a big kid," Snedden said of Sandusky.
Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?
"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.
Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?
"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.
"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."
It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.
While he was investigating Spanier, Snedden said, he had his own dust-up with the state Attorney General's office. It came in the form of an unwanted phone call from Anthony Sassano, the lead investigator in the AG's office on the Sandusky case.
Sassano didn't go through the appropriate channels when he called, Snedden said. But Sassano demanded to see Snedden's report.
Snedden said he told Sassano, sorry, but that's the property of the federal government. Sassano, Snedden said, responded by "spewing obscenities."
"It was something to the effect of I will ****ing see your ass and your ****ing report at the grand jury," Snedden recalled Sassano telling him.
Sure enough, Snedden was served with a subpoena from the state AG's office on October 22, 2012. But the feds sent the subpoena back saying they didn't have to honor it.
"The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes a state court from compelling a federal employee, pursuant to its subpoena and contempt powers, from offering testimony contrary to his agency's instructions," the feds wrote back to the state Attorney General's office.
So what would it take to straighten out the mess at Penn State?
"The degree of political involvement in this case is so high," Snedden said.
"You need to take an assistant U.S. Attorney from Arizona or somewhere who doesn't know anything about Penn State," Snedden said. Surround him with a competent staff of investigators, and turn them loose for 30 days.
I agree with Snedden. A couple of things about PSU:

  • PSU had an unprecedented record of advocating for kids. The rule book is full of rules that were brought about by PSU to protect the student part of student-athlete. A cover-up flies in the face of these lifelong values. Was PSU perfect? Hell no, but they were a lot better than tOSU, Michigan and the football factories of the SEC. You can't just throw that track record out.
  • the attitudes about abuse were far different in 1998 and 2001 before the groundbreaking series of articles on child abuse by priests was brought to light by the Boston Globe. Measuring what was done prior to 2002 and in today's standards/values is unproductive. As a kid, my friends used to brag about slapping girls on the ass and getting drunk and work and driving home. Were they bad people? Not really. It was accepted in those times.
  • I think PSU was guilty of gross and horrible naivete, especially when it came to JS. Especially those who weren't privy to police actions. Jerry used his creepy touchy feely methods as a way to break through to male teens. This was also done by priests, school teachers, and police officers as a way to use their trusted advisor rule to molest and traffic kids. I think PSU gave JS the benefit of the doubt. i also say that if you work with young kids and are a man, you WILL be accused of something at some point. hell, I just learned it is illegal to lick a kid up. Good luck with soccer practice when a kid scores his/her first goal!
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
Give me some information that I can look up independently and verify. You keep talking about how ****ing smart you are so figure it out. LOL
I can think of lots of things, but I'm sure you will just say "no, that's not good enough" because you will never admit you are wrong. So I want YOU to tell me EXACTLY what you want so I can provide it to you to shut you up once and for all.
You do not. Like Stalin, most people would reject your morals as hateful and evil. You hate children, wish the human race to become extinct and are basically a nihilist. Since you can change your "morals" at your own will then you have none. You just do whatever you please.
"Most people" is the key there. That doesn't make my morals invalid. And your assessment of my morals is way off.
They must be objective
Mine are.
Is the source of your morals is just what you think then you have none. You are immoral.
Where do you get your morals? Who told you what your morals are? Did you blindly accept them? If not, you've done the same thing I have (use your brain to evaluate a moral construct). If you DID blindly accept them, then you are a sheep.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
No they would not
No one on this board doubts me except for you. As they shouldn't, as everything I have said is true. And I have backed it up with documents (do you really think a "janitor living in his mom's basement" knows about SF50 forms? Are you high?
You made the claim. The burden is on you.
Wrong. You made the accusation. Burden is on you.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
It shows coverup only if you're looking for a coverup. It's a possibility that it was a coverup.
Because this is pretty common with powerful institutional scandals. They seek to protect their image. The actions the admins took point that way. Boy Scouts, Roman Catholic Church, other colleges now etc.
But I think it's equally or more likely that either the right people didn't see her report, or they saw that the other report fit more with their understanding of who Sandusky was and decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The PSU police had it. Are you saying the PSU police covered that up? Wouldn't they make sure the "Head of Police" Schultz saw it? Spanier, being the micromanager that most who worked with him said he was would know nothing of a report that said a high profile member of HIS university was a likely pedophile? Unlikely. Plus the giving Sandusky the benefit of a doubt doesn't wash. Anyone who would get that report and just disregard it would be criminally negligent. Again, coverup seems to be more likely.
Yet another non-criminal explanation would be garden variety incompetence. While I think everyone in a decision-making capacity was reasonably intelligent, I don't think any of them had experience dealing with pedophiles, especially one as masterful as Sandusky is alleged to be.
Yeah, that is a red herring. If you get a report from an ultra competent source that someone is a pedo then you minimize risk, which CSS DID know how to do. You set policy to preclude him from showering with children alone and then tell the university to report any sightings of adults showering alone with a child not their parent.
Let's be real. The so-called coverup, after dragging on for years and probably many millions of dollars in costs, resulted in single misdemeanor convictions for child endangerment based on a very tortured reading of the statute that was more likely meant for high school and elementary teachers and not college administrators who are unlikely to come across young kids in their day-to-day work. In a well-orchestrated coverup one would normally expect some felony convictions for conspiracy and obstruction of justice even if the underlying crime was a misdemeanor.
Not necessarily. Depends on how the laws are written. Plus fat cats like CSS had good attorneys to fight this and drag it out. People harping on this "only" being a misdemeanor neglect to mention that all three of these guys did JAIL time. That is serious. Not as serious as a felony but downplaying it is just a bias towards excusing their negligent behavior. Everyone makes mistakes but when children are savaged like this those who enabled it have to pay and be accountable. It is disgusting to compare what CSS did to a "traffic ticket". Disgusting
The fact that Shapiro's running for governor should tell you all you need to know about how politically-motivated those cases were.
DA's are political? Say it ain't so! Maybe explains why Gricar didn't charge Sandusky in 1998.
Frank Fina lost his law license for his conduct along the way,
But he didn't prosecute CSS.
but while he may have been singled out I think his poisonous attitude toward justice pervaded the AG's office. They were about winning, not justice.
Do you have any proof of this or is it speculation?
Why is a Nole so fascinated with Penn State? What's the connection?
Why does that matter?
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I can think of lots of things, but I'm sure you will just say "no, that's not good enough" because you will never admit you are wrong. So I want YOU to tell me EXACTLY what you want so I can provide it to you to shut you up once and for all.
So, this is the last time I will explain this to your dim self. On the internet you can claim to be absolutely anything if you are anonymous. Then just dare people to disprove it. I don't believe you are who you claim to be as no respectable "scientist" would waste his or her time on an obscure board defending a pedophile and his enables. If *I* were in your position and it mattered that much to me that you accept who I claim to be as you appear to then I would post information that you could look up and verify and if necessary contact me to prove it. If however, I was lying then I would post fake photo shopped crap that *I* could manipulate. I'm not answering this again. Stop playing dumb. Liar
"Most people" is the key there. That doesn't make my morals invalid. And your assessment of my morals is way off.
Yes it does make them as invalid as Stalin's
Mine are.
They are not. They are only what you want.
Where do you get your morals? Who told you what your morals are? Did you blindly accept them? If not, you've done the same thing I have (use your brain to evaluate a moral construct). If you DID blindly accept them, then you are a sheep.
I don't make them up as I go. That would make me immoral and mentally ill.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
No one on this board doubts me except for you.
Not true
As they shouldn't, as everything I have said is true.
Says you liar
And I have backed it up with documents (do you really think a "janitor living in his mom's basement" knows about SF50 forms?
Google is pretty instructive. The documents are fakes.
Are you high?
I think you are sometimes
Wrong. You made the accusation. Burden is on you.
Nope. You made the claim. Prove it.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
Similarly, DAs are elected therefore if they have gone after someone and don't think they can get a conviction they will break the law to get their conviction.

E.g.
Those are stupid DA's and from all accounts Ray Gricar was not stupid. Who broke the law to "get" Sandusky and CSS? @bourbon n blues explains well why Gricar did not charge Sandusky in 1998. It was not because there was nothing there as you falsely allege.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
Not true

Says you liar
I've lied about nothing. Prove it or STFU.
Google is pretty instructive. The documents are fakes.
Nothing is a fake. It is hysterical to me that you think I have time to learn how to photoshop things, then do a deep dive into government personnel documents in order to find one that I can alter to support my assertion that I am who I say I am. Occam's Razor certainly suggests that it is far more likely that I am who I say I am.
Nope. You made the claim. Prove it.
I already have. Prove I'm wrong. Not "you could have faked that"; prove that I fake anything or lied about anything.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I agree with Snedden. A couple of things about PSU:

  • PSU had an unprecedented record of advocating for kids. The rule book is full of rules that were brought about by PSU to protect the student part of student-athlete. A cover-up flies in the face of these lifelong values. Was PSU perfect? Hell no, but they were a lot better than tOSU, Michigan and the football factories of the SEC. You can't just throw that track record out.
A lot of that was image propagated by PSU. As we saw, their admins were not one bit more moral than any other universities. Remember the recent Sherriff's Deputy who ran off with her prisoner boyfriend and then killed herself when they were about to be caught? she was a model employee before that time. Perfect her bosses said. You see, past performance is no guarantee of future behavior.
  • the attitudes about abuse were far different in 1998 and 2001 before the groundbreaking series of articles on child abuse by priests was brought to light by the Boston Globe. Measuring what was done prior to 2002 and in today's standards/values is unproductive. As a kid, my friends used to brag about slapping girls on the ass and getting drunk and work and driving home. Were they bad people? Not really. It was accepted in those times.
Getting a report from a licensed PhD that one of your staff is a likely pedophile and then three years later getting a report of CSA from an eye witness blows that theory out the door.
  • I think PSU was guilty of gross and horrible naivete, especially when it came to JS.
The admins criminally so.
  • Especially those who weren't privy to police actions.
CSS and Joe were. TSM was not.
  • Jerry used his creepy touchy feely methods as a way to break through to male teens. This was also done by priests, school teachers, and police officers as a way to use their trusted advisor rule to molest and traffic kids.
Yeah, that was his method but he was caught....twice and PSU did nothing.
  • I think PSU gave JS the benefit of the doubt.
I think they covered it up after they sided with Jerry. Kids paid for that. They rightfully went to jail.
  • i also say that if you work with young kids and are a man, you WILL be accused of something at some point.
Not true.
  • hell, I just learned it is illegal to lick a kid up. Good luck with soccer practice when a kid scores his/her first goal!
You shouldn't lick kids up. 😂
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
So, this is the last time I will explain this to your dim self. On the internet you can claim to be absolutely anything if you are anonymous. Then just dare people to disprove it. I don't believe you are who you claim to be as no respectable "scientist" would waste his or her time on an obscure board defending a pedophile and his enables. If *I* were in your position and it mattered that much to me that you accept who I claim to be as you appear to then I would post information that you could look up and verify and if necessary contact me to prove it. If however, I was lying then I would post fake photo shopped crap that *I* could manipulate. I'm not answering this again. Stop playing dumb. Liar
I'm not playing dumb. You appear to be asking for PII which I have repeated told you I am not giving to an insane person like yourself. I'm sure you'd spread lots of lies about me, since you are already doing that on this board WITHOUT knowing my identity.

If there is non-PII that will satisfy your insanity, please let me know what it is. If not, STFU about it.
Yes it does make them as invalid as Stalin's
Not at all. You are just intolerant of others' belief systems.
They are not. They are only what you want.
Not at all.
I don't make them up as I go. That would make me immoral and mentally ill.
So where do you get your morality from? Who tells you what your morals should be? Do you accept this blindly or do you use critical thought?
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I've lied about nothing. Prove it or STFU.
Burden is on you. I will not shut up!😂
Nothing is a fake. It is hysterical to me that you think I have time to learn how to photoshop things, then do a deep dive into government personnel documents in order to find one that I can alter to support my assertion that I am who I say I am.
When you have the time you have after your cleaning shift in mommies basement. As I said Google has helped you fake your persona and Amazon.
Occam's Razor certainly suggests that it is far more likely that I am who I say I am.
I'm not asking Occam to prove anything. The simplest answer is you are faking it to make your insane conspiracy theories more palatable.
I already have. Prove I'm wrong. Not "you could have faked that"; prove that I fake anything or lied about anything.
You have not proven anything Liar.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I'm not playing dumb.
You are
You appear to be asking for PII which I have repeated told you I am not giving to an insane person like yourself. I'm sure you'd spread lots of lies about me, since you are already doing that on this board WITHOUT knowing my identity.
Not true. You are paranoid. And if you are who you say why would you care? Because you are a liar
If there is non-PII that will satisfy your insanity, please let me know what it is. If not, STFU about it.
You don't make the rules on this. I will not shut up until MY conditions are met.
Not at all. You are just intolerant of others' belief systems.
You have no "belief system". You just do what you please without regard for others.
Not at all.
Yes they are
So where do you get your morality from? Who tells you what your morals should be? Do you accept this blindly or do you use critical thought?
Making them up as you go is NOT critical thought.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
Burden is on you. I will not shut up!😂
Then keep getting the beat down from me. IDRGAF. You are just making yourself look stupid at this point. I'm only arguing with you because it amuses me (and I'd love it if you'd get backed into a corner where you'd have to admit you are wrong...we are almost there!!!)
When you have the time you have after your cleaning shift in mommies basement. As I said Google has helped you fake your persona and Amazon.
Wrong on all counts. Nothing is faked. I sent you a transcript with a watermark on it. I sent you government personnel files. I sent you profile information that can only be accessed via login. I sent you a hand written personalized note to you next to my medal. Only an insane person like yourself would not see this as confirmation that I am who I say I am.
I'm not asking Occam to prove anything. The simplest answer is you are faking it to make your insane conspiracy theories more palatable.
Wrong again. Much simpler that I am who I say I am than that I am someone going through an elaborate hoax for no apparently good reason. You are just being ridiculous at this point.
You have not proven anything Liar.
I have to everyone except for you. I think you should seek mental help -- you cannot admit that you are wrong -- you won't get far in life with that attitude.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
Not true. You are paranoid. And if you are who you say why would you care? Because you are a liar
I would care because you will spread horrible lies about me. You have already accused me of wearing blackface (categorically untrue), of stealing valor (also not true) and of being a pedophile enabler (certainly not true). You are clearly an unbalanced individually who is unhealthily obsessed with this case and there is zero chance I am giving you my real name.
You don't make the rules on this. I will not shut up until MY conditions are met.
Then spell out for me what your conditions are. Give me ONE concrete example of what would make you STFU. This isn't hard.
You have no "belief system". You just do what you please without regard for others.
Wrong, you just can't accept that someone had a different belief system than you. You probably also hate other religions, other cultures and people of other sexual orientations.
Yes they are

Making them up as you go is NOT critical thought.
You are avoiding the question. Who told you who what your morals should be? Did you accept that blindly or did you use critical though to evaluate them?
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
Then keep getting the beat down from me. IDRGAF. You are just making yourself look stupid at this point. I'm only arguing with you because it amuses me (and I'd love it if you'd get backed into a corner where you'd have to admit you are wrong...we are almost there!!!)
You do GAF and it is evident by your anger in your posts. I like making you dance and will continue to do so. Liar
Wrong on all counts. Nothing is faked. I sent you a transcript with a watermark on it.
Copy of it faked
I sent you government personnel files.
Generated by software and fake
I sent you profile information that can only be accessed via login.
Blacked out screenshots. Fake
I sent you a hand written personalized note to you next to my medal.
Which you bought on Amazon
Only an insane person like yourself would not see this as confirmation that I am who I say I am.
Only an insane person would not give verifiable info if he cared as much about this as you. Or a liar.
Wrong again. Much simpler that I am who I say I am than that I am someone going through an elaborate hoax for no apparently good reason. You are just being ridiculous at this point.
As I said. Just making up an anonymous persona to help your crazy arguments.
I have to everyone except for you. I think you should seek mental help -- you cannot admit that you are wrong -- you won't get far in life with that attitude.
LOL. Just admit you are a liar. But that would probably make you off yourself as you really have nothing else.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I would care because you will spread horrible lies about me. You have already accused me of wearing blackface (categorically untrue), of stealing valor (also not true) and of being a pedophile enabler (certainly not true). You are clearly an unbalanced individually who is unhealthily obsessed with this case and there is zero chance I am giving you my real name.
No, you would be exposed as the fraud you are. *I* am unhealthily obessesed with this case? You devote thousands of hours of YOUR time to this but *I* am obsessed? 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Then spell out for me what your conditions are. Give me ONE concrete example of what would make you STFU. This isn't hard.
Already did
Wrong, you just can't accept that someone had a different belief system than you. You probably also hate other religions, other cultures and people of other sexual orientations.
You don't have a belief system.
You are avoiding the question. Who told you who what your morals should be? Did you accept that blindly or did you use critical though to evaluate them?
It wasn't made up by me.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
You do GAF and it is evident by your anger in your posts. I like making you dance and will continue to do so. Liar
I only GAF because I object to the horrible things you have accused me of (liar, pedophile enabler, valor stealer, racist). You make these accusations with ZERO evidence (which I guess makes sense based on your feelings about convictions in the Sandusky case with ZERO evidence).
Copy of it faked
Where did I get copies of both PSU and UNC transcripts that happen to be in the field that I claim to be in? Those are not things you can find on google.
Generated by software and fake
I have no idea how to do that, nor would I care to learn.
Blacked out screenshots. Fake
I've already explained to you why this cannot be a faked screenshot. It has profile information on it that you cannot see unless you are logged in to that person's account. And there is no way to fake a google scholar account because the publications get automatically pulled from the www by google.
Which you bought on Amazon
Wrong. Awarded to me by NSF in the 1990s.
Only an insane person would not give verifiable info if he cared as much about this as you. Or a liar.
I'm not giving you PII for reasons previously stated. If you can suggest another type of verifiable information, I'd be happy to share it. But you have yet to do that (because you do not want to admit that you are wrong).
As I said. Just making up an anonymous persona to help your crazy arguments.
As I've said before, if someone were to decide to make up a persona to give them more credibility on this topic, it certainly wouldn't be "research scientist in the natural sciences". They'd pretend to be a cop or a psychologist or a lawyer or a social worker or someone who served on one of the juries, etc, etc. Only a crazy person would doubt the (extremely benign and believable) statements I've made about myself ESPECIALLY after I've shown you proof.
LOL. Just admit you are a liar. But that would probably make you off yourself as you really have nothing else.
Right back at you slick. Admit you are wrong. About me, about C/S/S, about Sandusky. You are wrong about everything.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
In a shower when it's not your own kid? And when you've done it before? Yes that *can* be a chargeable offense.
I agree it "can" be and that is why there was an investigation.

I live in a small community that has a community pool. There is a changing area and a shower. There are signs everywhere asking you to shower before entering the pool and after leaving the pool. If you go there and hang out for a half hour, you'll see young teens showing there with grown men. Some where their swim shorts, some don't. Nobody has been arrested that I am aware of.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
In a shower when it's not your own kid? And when you've done it before? Yes that *can* be a chargeable offense.
As I said, go to any public pool. Back in those days, coaches used to shower with kids all the time after practices. It is certainly a red flag. One that would suggest that the police do an investigation, hire a couple of psychologists and have a couple of under-cover sting operations. All of those were done.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
6,459
6,836
1
No, you would be exposed as the fraud you are. *I* am unhealthily obessesed with this case? You devote thousands of hours of YOUR time to this but *I* am obsessed? 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
You post to this thread more than I do. You have ZERO connection to PSU or this case, which makes your obsession with it bizarre and unhealthy. I'm a PSU alumnus so my interest in this case makes sense.
Already did
Please re-state as I do not remember what you asked for. So long as it doesn't involve PII, I promise I will get it to you by COB today.
You don't have a belief system.
I do, you are just too closed minded to realize that not everyone has to think like you.
It wasn't made up by me.
You dodge the question again. Who made it up then? What makes their made up morality/belief system more valid than mine? When whoever it was that told you what your morality should be told you what to think, did you question it, or did you blindly accept it like a moron?

I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to these questions, but I want to hear you say it.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,681
30,418
1
Right...it was a semi public shower...hence the reason why people could walk in like MM did in 2001.
Not close to the same thing again. Not in in the same universe. Night , alone and it darn well wasn’t some thing open to the public with some kind of membership such as a gym or country club.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
I only GAF because I object to the horrible things you have accused me of (liar, pedophile enabler, valor stealer, racist). You make these accusations with ZERO evidence (which I guess makes sense based on your feelings about convictions in the Sandusky case with ZERO evidence).
A sane secure person would not care what an anonymous stranger said about him on the internet. That you do gives evidence you are a liar.
Where did I get copies of both PSU and UNC transcripts that happen to be in the field that I claim to be in? Those are not things you can find on google.
Sure you can
I have no idea how to do that, nor would I care to learn.
Liar
I've already explained to you why this cannot be a faked screenshot. It has profile information on it that you cannot see unless you are logged in to that person's account. And there is no way to fake a google scholar account because the publications get automatically pulled from the www by google.
Liar
Wrong. Awarded to me by NSF in the 1990s.
Bought with two clicks
I'm not giving you PII for reasons previously stated. If you can suggest another type of verifiable information, I'd be happy to share it. But you have yet to do that (because you do not want to admit that you are wrong).
Guess you'll have to decide how much you want me to believe you then. Not my problem. I haven't asked for PII.
As I've said before, if someone were to decide to make up a persona to give them more credibility on this topic, it certainly wouldn't be "research scientist in the natural sciences". They'd pretend to be a cop or a psychologist or a lawyer or a social worker or someone who served on one of the juries, etc, etc. Only a crazy person would doubt the (extremely benign and believable) statements I've made about myself ESPECIALLY after I've shown you proof.
As I've said before and you agreed. Crazy people do crazy things.
Right back at you slick. Admit you are wrong. About me, about C/S/S, about Sandusky. You are wrong about everything.
Only in your mind 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
YMCA pool then (not public only open to YMCA members).

Lots of people had access to Lasch. This is hardly a "private" environment.
...and there was an extensive investigation...one that was far more extensive than most crimes get.

To think there was a conspiracy you have to. believe that Gricar brought in a dozen other people while trying to hatch a conspiracy. That makes zero sense. What happened is that there was odd behavior that prompted an investigation. The DA used considerable resources to investigate it. He determined it wasn't actionable. And the case was closed.

Its that simple
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
You post to this thread more than I do.
Not true
You have ZERO connection to PSU or this case, which makes your obsession with it bizarre and unhealthy.
You don't know that.
I'm a PSU alumnus so my interest in this case makes sense.
Liar
Please re-state as I do not remember what you asked for. So long as it doesn't involve PII, I promise I will get it to you by COB today.
Stand and deliver
I do, you are just too closed minded to realize that not everyone has to think like you.
You do not and have no morals. I think they would call that a personality disorder.
You dodge the question again. Who made it up then? What makes their made up morality/belief system more valid than mine? When whoever it was that told you what your morality should be told you what to think, did you question it, or did you blindly accept it like a moron?

I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to these questions, but I want to hear you say it.
I didn't make them up myself.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
Including child molesters.
obviously. but that doesn't mean anyone is saying JS was innocent. And that doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. It means the DA funded a considerable investigation and the DA felt the evidence did not warrant a charge.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
Not close to the same thing again. Not in in the same universe. Night , alone and it darn well wasn’t some thing open to the public with some kind of membership such as a gym or country club.
OK...I don't disagree. They should have had an investigation. Oops, they DID! It was determined that they could not get a conviction so didn't charge anyone.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,681
30,418
1
...and there was an extensive investigation...one that was far more extensive than most crimes get.

To think there was a conspiracy you have to. believe that Gricar brought in a dozen other people while trying to hatch a conspiracy. That makes zero sense. What happened is that there was odd behavior that prompted an investigation. The DA used considerable resources to investigate it. He determined it wasn't actionable. And the case was closed.

Its that simple
Bot that, Gricar had doubt in his mind after Seasock’s opinion . It’s that simple. The conspiracy was Penn State not Gricar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,681
30,418
1
obviously. but that doesn't mean anyone is saying JS was innocent. And that doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to cover it up. It means the DA funded a considerable investigation and the DA felt the evidence did not warrant a charge.
People here have opined that he is innocent.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,638
330
1
...and there was an extensive investigation...one that was far more extensive than most crimes get.

To think there was a conspiracy you have to. believe that Gricar brought in a dozen other people while trying to hatch a conspiracy. That makes zero sense. What happened is that there was odd behavior that prompted an investigation. The DA used considerable resources to investigate it. He determined it wasn't actionable. And the case was closed.

Its that simple
No, what @bourbon n blues and @didier is saying is that an elected DA is not going after a local legend without having an ironclad case. You would not get a conviction and would be voted out of office at the next election.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
110,524
62,433
1
Bot that, Gricar had doubt in his mind after Seasock’s opinion . It’s that simple. The conspiracy was Penn State not Gricar.
So you are suggesting that there was a conspiracy to cover up a complaint by a woman whose son wouldn't corroborate the story so they brought in 12 additional people? That makes no sense at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

Latest posts