FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

[bourbon n blues]

Not at all. A much higher authority. You may be able to figure it out. OJ was cleared of murder charges but was convicted for a much less punitive civil lawsuit. Spanier was cleared from from everything but a misdemeanor slap on the wrist that amounted to next to nothing. Absent politics, it would have been nothing. I made no comments on emails.

He was not cleared , the verdict was not guilty . They are not the same thing.

 

[bourbon n blues]

As it should.

What if that infamous locker room incident that Mike McQueary supposedly witnessed 16 years ago -- featuring a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with an underage boy -- had nothing to do with sex? And what if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?

And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?

There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, lazy and gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.


Yesterday, on veteran TV reporter John Ziegler's podcast, John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.

Curley and Schultz told Spanier that the person who had given the report "was not sure what he saw because it was around the corner and that what he has reported was described as "horse play" or "horsing around." In his report, Snedden said that Spanier "assumed the terminology of horse play or horsing around came from Joe Paterno."

"They all agreed that Curley would talk to Jerry Sandusky, tell him not to bring kids into the locker room facilities," Snedden wrote. "And Curley was to tell the Second Mile management that it was not good for any of the Second Mile kids to come to the athletic locker room facilities, and that they should suspend that practice."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, never was told "who the person was who made the report. But "nothing was described as a sexual or criminal in any way," Snedden wrote.

The initial conversation between Spanier, Curley and Schultz about the Sandusky shower incident lasted 10 minutes, Snedden wrote. A few days later, Curley told Spanier "in person that the discussion had taken place and that everything went well."

"The issue never came up again with Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky, or anyone," Snedden wrote. "It did not appear very significant to anyone at the time."


Gary Schultz corroborated Spanier's account. Schultz told Snedden that back in February 2001, Tim Curley told him "something to the effect that Jerry Sandusky had been in the shower with a kid horsing around and wrestling. And Mike McQueary or a graduate assistant walked in and observed it. And McQueary or the graduate assistant was concerned."

Schultz believed the source of Curley's information was Joe Paterno, and that the conduct involved was horseplay.

"McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place," Snedden wrote after interviewing Schultz. "McQueary did not say anything indicative of an incident of a serious sexual nature."

While Snedden was investigating Spanier, Louie Freeh was writing his overpriced $8.3 million report where he came to the opposite conclusion that Snedden did, that there was a coverup at Penn State. Only Louie Freeh didn't talk to Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier relatively briefly, at the end of his investigation, when he had presumably already come to his conclusions.

Ironically, one of the things Spanier told Freeh was that Snedden was also investigating what happened at Penn State. But that didn't seem to effect the conclusions of the Louie Freeh report, Snedden said. He wondered why.

He also wondered why his report had no effect on the attorney general's office, which had already indicted Curley and Schultz, and was planning to indict Spanier.

"I certainly think that if the powers that be . . . knew what was in his report, Snedden said, "They would certainly have to take a hard look at what they were doing."

Freeh and the AG, Snedden said, should have wanted to know "who was interviewed [by Sneddedn] and what did they say. I mean this is kind of pertinent to what we're doing," Snedden said of the investigations conducted by Freeh and the AG.

"If your goal in any investigation is to determine the facts of the case period, the circumstance should have been hey, we'll be happy to obtain any and all facts," Snedden said.

Snedden said he understood, however, why Freeh was uninterested in his report.

"It doesn't fit the narrative that he's [Louie Freeh] going for," Snedden said.

Freeh was on a tight deadline, Ziegler reminded Snedden. Freeh had to get his report out at a highly-anticipated press conference. And the Freeh report had to come out before the start of the football season. So the NCAA could drop the hammer on Penn State.

"He [Freeh] doesn't have time to read a hundred page report," Snedden said. He agreed with Ziegler that the whole disclosure of the Freeh report was "orchestrated" to come out right before the football season started.

It may have been good timing for the news media and the NCAA, Snedden said about the release of the Louie Freeh report. But it didn't make much sense from an investigator's point of view.


"I just don't understand why," Snedden told Ziegler, "why would you ignore more evidence. Either side that it lands on, why would you ignore it?"

Good question.

Snedden was aghast about the cost of the Louie Freeh report. His six-month federal investigation, Snedden said, "probably cost the federal government and the taxpayers $50,000 at the most. And he [Freeh] spent $8.3 million," Snedden said. "Unbelievable."

In a statement released March 24th, Freeh hailed the conviction of Spanier as having confirmed and verified "all the findings and facts" of the Freeh report. On Ziegler's podcast, however, Snedden was dismissive of Freeh's statement.

"It's like a preemptive strike to divert people's attention from the actual conviction for a misdemeanor," Snedden said about Freeh. Along with the fact that he jury found "no cover up no conspiracy," Snedden said.

"In a rational world Louie Freeh is completely discredited," Ziegler said. "The Freeh report is a joke." On the podcast, Ziegler ripped the "mainstream media morons" who said that the jury verdict vindicated Freeh.

"Which is horrendous," Snedden added.

Ziegler asked Snedden if he had any doubt that an innocent man was convicted last week.

"That's what I believe, one hundred percent," Snedden said about the "insane jury verdict."

About the Penn State scandal, Snedden said, "I've got to say it needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be examined by a competent law enforcement authority." And that's a law enforcement authority that "doesn't have any political connections with anybody on the boards of trustees when this thing hit the fan."

As for Snedden, he left the Penn State campus thinking, "Where is the crime?"

"This case has been all about emotion," Ziegler said. "It was never about facts."

"Exactly," Snedden said.

As someone who has spent the past five years investigating the "Billy Doe" case, I can testify that when the subject is sex abuse, and the media is involved, the next stop is the Twilight Zone. Where hysteria reigns, and logic and common sense go out the window.

Earlier in the podcast, Ziegler talked about the "dog and pony show" put on by the prosecution at the Spanier trial. It's a good example of what happens once you've entered the Twilight Zone.


At the Spanier trial, the 28-year-old known as Victim No. 5 was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. When the jury came out, they were surprised to see Victim No. 5 already seated on the witness stand.

As extra sheriff's deputies patrolled the courtroom, the judge announced to the jury that the next witness would be referred to as "John Doe."

I was in the courtroom that day, and I thought the hoopla over Victim No. 5's appearance was bizarre and prejudicial to the case. In several sex abuse trials that I have covered in Philadelphia, the victim's real name was always used in court, starting from the moment when he or she was sworn in in the courtroom as a witness.

The judges and the prosecutors could always count on the media to censor itself, by not printing the real names of alleged victims out of some misguided social justice policy that borders on lunacy. At the exact same time they're hanging the defendants out to dry.

Talk about rigging a contest by what's supposed to be an impartial media.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecutor proceeded to place a box of Kleenex next to the witness stand. John Doe seemed composed until the prosecutor asked if he had ever been sexually abused. Right on cue, the witness started whimpering.

"Yes," he said.

By whom, the prosecutor asked.

By Jerry Sandusky, John Doe said, continuing to whimper.

The actual details of the alleged sex abuse were never explained. The jury could have left the courtroom believing that Victim No. 5 had been sexually assaulted or raped.

But the sexual abuse Victim No. 5 was allegedly subjected to was that Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

For that alleged abuse, Victim No. 5 collected $8 million.


I kid you not.

There was also much confusion over the date of the abuse.

First, John Doe said that the abuse took place when he was 10 years old, back in 1998. Then, the victim changed his story to say he was abused the first time he met Sandusky, back when he was 12 or 13 years old, in 2000 or 2001, but definitely before 9/11, because he could never forget 9/11. Next, the victim said that he was abused after 9/11, when he would have been 14.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution used "John Doe" or Victim No. 5 for one main purpose: to prove to the jury that he had been abused after the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident of February, 2001. To show the jury that more victims were abused after Spanier, Curley and Schultz had decided to initiate their alleged coverup following the February 2001 shower incident.

But there was only one problem. To prove John Doe had a relationship with Sandusky, the prosecution introduced as an exhibit a photo taken of the victim with Sandusky.

Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.

You know I don't read all this drivel, right? I know a fellow who was in the investigation and saw everything . Ziegler and Snedden don't know squat , they never had access to all the case material .
They're just con men taking advantage of weak minded people like yourself.
So next time you copy and paste, just save the effort . I have a better source for information than those two.

 

[PSU2UNC]

All you're writing is fan fiction. Sad, pathetic fan fiction. They knew in 98 and they covered 02 up. And the entire world has moved on except some pathetic fan boys here.
Let's revisit this post in a year, then give, the ten. And let's see if you're anywhere closer to your "truth" .

It's cute that you think this experimental bot (that just adds some text to existing news articles) is writing fan fiction. But then again, to you, anything that doesn't fit your narrative is "fiction" regardless of how many facts support it.

Happy to revisit this post in any number of years that you like. There is no expiration date on the truth.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I know a fellow who was in the investigation and saw everything .

LOL. Sure you do. Provide a name or share the "secret info" that he has or let it go.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Read what I provided you. It was WORSE than a major infraction and so was handled differently. It IS an infraction and whether it is in the database is not relevant. Reading is fundamental. And you are wrong.

It's your opinion that it is worse that a major infraction.

That doesn't change the veracity of my statement. PSU HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF A MAJOR NCAA INFRACTION. This is reflected in the database.

Saying it doesn't matter if it isn't in the database is ridiculous -- that's the official record of infractions.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Really, so why then did a jury convict Spanky on the basis largely of that email and his statement for which he went to jail? I guess it wasn't exculpatory was it? I guess you have a different definition of "exculpatory" than most of the rest of the world who are not JoeBots.

The jury made a mistake. Happens all the time.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Got any names for the gossip?

Not gossip. Google it for yourself. Here, I'll get you started.

Breaking news from city police: LH man charged after writing bad check for $47,006

LOCK HAVEN — City police have charged Glenn Michael Neff II, 30, of 22 Mohawk Drive, Lock Haven, with writing a bad check for $47,006 to Bill MacIntyre Chevrolet, 10 E. Walnut St., Lock Haven, for the purchase a 2018 Chevrolet Camaro SS. Police said the check was written on July 16, and was...

www.lockhaven.com

Police news – July 8

Drug possession LAMAR — State police at Lamar made a drug arrest on June 30. According to police, Glenn Neff, 31, of Lock Haven, was arrested for drug possession at 1858 East Valley Road in Greene Township. No other details were released. The incident took place at 8:14 a.m., police said. Golf...

www.lockhaven.com

Aaron Fisher arrested for violating PFA against estranged wife

John Ziegler has reported the arrest of Aaron Fisher, aka victim 1, for violating a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order placed on him at the request of his estranged wife. Just because he may have abused his wife does not prove that he was not abused himself, but it would speak to his character...

bwi.forums.rivals.com

Anderson is a JoeBot

This is a made up term by you. He knows Sandusky better than almost everyone and would be in a far better position than you or I to know about his guilty or innocence.

and Spanier a convicted liar.

He was not convicted of lying (perjury). Again, if in your (warped view) a misdemeanor conviction prevents anyone from ever being believable again, then that discredits almost all (if not all) of the accusers.

So, as I said, no proof. BTW did Anderson talk to anyone at ESPN. If so, who?

I'm sure he would have been happy to talk to ESPN, but I do not think they asked for an interview. Why is that relevant?

The A9 are JoeBots who ran on a platform of denying Joe's moral failure.

Wrong. The A9 did an excellent analytical report after fighting hard to get the Freeh source material.

they were a classic case of confirmation bias and religious fervor.

It's almost as if you didn't read the A9 report.

Barron never reviewed the document as he promised and made those remarks to keep the donations rolling in.

He did not release an official review (for the reasons I documented above) but he's obviously reviewed (read) it as per his statement that I linked above. Again, the UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT said he "wasn't a fan" of the report. Certainly not a glowing endorsement.

It is correct nonetheless. The juror, not a JoeBot read the email the same way the rest of us Joe atheists do.T

We've discussed before how the jury was biased before the trial even started. You just refuse to admit this point, even when shown actual data that backs it up.

He is a JoeBot

This is your nonsensical answer for anyone who doesn't agree with you. Try arguing actual facts and logic over name calling.

Not of what others may have said which you brought up. That is hearsay

He (Anderson) was absolutely interviewed by Freeh. He can make statements about his interview process. He can also say he observed people crying after their interviews. Neither of those things is hearsay.

Because his protestation of his innocence is for the crime for which he was convicted.

A misdemeanor. Practically a traffic ticket that was massively overprosecuted and hugely oversentenced.

If you are talking about the crimes they committed unrelated to the Sandusky scandal then I would not trust them on their maintaining their innocence of THOSE crimes.

They have proven to be untrustworthy people. Lying liars lie.

However, that does not mean that they lied about being molested.

It certainly calls into question their believability. And because there is ZERO other evidence other than their testimonies, their believability is pretty important to the case.

 

[WHCANole]

It's cute that you think this experimental bot (that just adds some text to existing news articles) is right fan fiction. But then again, to you, anything that doesn't fit your narrative is "fiction" regardless of how many facts support it.

Happy to revisit this post in any number of years that you like. There is no expiration date on the truth.

The truth is already out. However, conspiracy theories never die.

 

[WHCANole]

It's your opinion that it is worse that a major infraction.

No it's the NCAA's opinion. As usual you refer to them when you THINK it helps your conspiracy theory but ignore them when it doesn't.

That doesn't change the veracity of my statement.

Yes it does. PSU committed NCAA infractions and were a=sanctioned for it.

PSU HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF A MAJOR NCAA INFRACTION. This is reflected in the database.

This says otherwise: You are not telling the truth

Saying it doesn't matter if it isn't in the database is ridiculous -- that's the official record of infractions.

No it is not 🤣

 

[WHCANole]

The jury made a mistake. Happens all the time.

No they didn't. And apparently the emails were NOT exculpatory at all. 🤣 Exculpatory evidence does not send one to jail.

 

[jerot]

Ah yes, that must be it.

All those emails in which seniors write openly about their concern about not going to the authorities......their concern about Jerry's behavior.......about keeping Paterno updated on the latest......about dealing with Sandusky the "humane" way rather than going to the cops.......about Curley's talk with Joe and subsequent decision NOT to go to child welfare services and instead deal with Jerry directly.......about their admission that Jerry needs help.......about their clear-as-day knowledge of Jerry's 1998 incident.......

All just a misunderstanding and a misreading I guess. Got it.

Mostly debunked.

When he was investigating cold cases for NCIS, Special Agent John Snedden knew you always have to start from the beginning.

"Let's take a deep breath," he said. "And let's go back to square one, to the source of the original allegation, to determine whether it's credible."

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.

 

[WHCANole]

Not gossip. Google it for yourself. Here, I'll get you started.

Breaking news from city police: LH man charged after writing bad check for $47,006

LOCK HAVEN — City police have charged Glenn Michael Neff II, 30, of 22 Mohawk Drive, Lock Haven, with writing a bad check for $47,006 to Bill MacIntyre Chevrolet, 10 E. Walnut St., Lock Haven, for the purchase a 2018 Chevrolet Camaro SS. Police said the check was written on July 16, and was...

www.lockhaven.com

Police news – July 8

Drug possession LAMAR — State police at Lamar made a drug arrest on June 30. According to police, Glenn Neff, 31, of Lock Haven, was arrested for drug possession at 1858 East Valley Road in Greene Township. No other details were released. The incident took place at 8:14 a.m., police said. Golf...

www.lockhaven.com

Aaron Fisher arrested for violating PFA against estranged wife

John Ziegler has reported the arrest of Aaron Fisher, aka victim 1, for violating a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order placed on him at the request of his estranged wife. Just because he may have abused his wife does not prove that he was not abused himself, but it would speak to his character...

bwi.forums.rivals.com

I've already answered that so try to keep up. Who at ESPN said that they lied to Spanier to get the interview?

This is a made up term by you. He knows Sandusky better than almost everyone and would be in a far better position than you or I to know about his guilty or innocence.

He is a friend of Jerry's since college days and is blinded by friendship and religious adherence to PSU. He is a biased and thoroughly unreliable source.

He was not convicted of lying (perjury). Again, if in your (warped view) a misdemeanor conviction prevents anyone from ever being believable again, then that discredits almost all (if not all) of the accusers.

The jury did not believe his (or his attorney's since he was too afraid to take the stand) narrative that he was only told about "horseplay" Lol. He is a liar. You are still stupid about the accuser's past. The fact they had troubled lives in the past does not make their testimony about Sandusky a lie today. Troubled kids are who Sandusky preyed upon. Spanier cannot be believed about his claim of innocence in the PSU scandal because there is a direct connection. You lie on this board a good bit but that doesn't mean you lie about everything.

I'm sure he would have been happy to talk to ESPN, but I do not think they asked for an interview. Why is that relevant?

He says ESPN (according to you) ambushed Spanier

Wrong. The A9 did an excellent analytical report after fighting hard to get the Freeh source material.

No, the A9 simply repackaged conspiracy theories about the scandal and put their (discredited) names to it. They analyzed nothing but rather repeated crazy crap from Ziegler, Blehar and other conspiracy loons.

It's almost as if you didn't read the A9 report.

I did. It was crap I've read before on looney blogs.

He did not release an official review (for the reasons I documented above) but he's obviously reviewed (read) it as per his statement that I linked above. Again, the UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT said he "wasn't a fan" of the report. Certainly not a glowing endorsement.

Not an official repudiation either. You're still wrong.

We've discussed before how the jury was biased before the trial even started. You just refuse to admit this point, even when shown actual data that backs it up.

And the proof does not show THESE jurors were biased. Read up some on Voir Dire and educate yourself. You are clueless about our legal system.

This is your nonsensical answer for anyone who doesn't agree with you. Try arguing actual facts and logic over name calling.

It's an instructive term

He (Anderson) was absolutely interviewed by Freeh. He can make statements about his interview process.

Biased against Freeh as he is a JoeBot

He can also say he observed people crying after their interviews. Neither of those things is hearsay.

Observing people crying is hearsay.

A misdemeanor. Practically a traffic ticket that was massively overprosecuted and hugely oversentenced.

Sent them to jail. Just like a DUI which is serious.

They have proven to be untrustworthy people. Lying liars lie.

Like CSS

It certainly calls into question their believability. And because there is ZERO other evidence other than their testimonies, their believability is pretty important to the case.

Not really. Only because you don't like it that it embarrasses your church. And we had a third party witness as well.

 

[PSU2UNC]

No it is not 🤣

Just to be clear, you are saying that the NCAA database of infractions, which is on the NCAA website is NOT the definitive repository for all sanctions?

This website:

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

If that is what you are really trying to say, you are a troll. Full stop.

 

[PSU2UNC]

And apparently the emails were NOT exculpatory at all. 🤣 Exculpatory evidence does not send one to jail.

It does when the jury makes a mistake.

 

[jerot]

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!

Don't leave the trial out of this.

"They made judgment calls," Silver repeated about Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They did not engage in crimes; they did not engage in a conspiracy."

"They took the matter seriously," Silver said about the now familiar plot line of the Jerry Sandusky
sex scandal. "They did not stand by and do nothing."

Silver's announcement to the judge came as somewhat of a surprise. The day before, when the government rested its case, there was talk among Penn State loyalists that the defense was planning to call up to four witnesses. The defense case was supposedly built around expected testimony from John Snedden, a Federal Investigative Services special agent who had done a background check of Spanier for a top-security government clearance in 2012, and had found no evidence of wrongdoing by Spanier at Penn State.

But Silver made his own judgment call that the prosecution didn't prove its case. So he went right to his closing argument.

The defense lawyer began by going through the law regarding the crimes that Spanier is charged with: two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and one count of conspiring to endanger the welfare of a child.

To find Spanier guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, Silver said, the jury would have to find that Spanier interfered with or prevented someone from making a report of suspected child sex abuse.

The problem with that, Silver said, was that the government did not present any evidence that Spanier was ever told that Jerry Sandusky "was engaging in sexual crimes with minors."


"Nobody told Graham Spanier," Silver said. The defense lawyer went through every one of the fifteen witnesses called by the government, who turned out to be the only witnesses in the case.

"Her witnesses," Silver said, referring to his courtroom rival, Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka. "Her witnesses made the defense case."

Silver returned to the language of the child endangerment statute. To find Spanier guilty, Silver said, the jury would have to conclude that the government had presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Spanier had "knowingly violated" his alleged duty of care to protect the welfare of children that he was supposedly supervising.

"Graham Spanier was not aware that children's welfare would be endangered," Silver said. To find Spanier guilty, the jury would also have to conclude that Spanier was supervising the welfare of Second Mile child victims abused by Sandusky, many of whom were visitors to the Penn State campus.

The jury would also have to find that Spanier had acted "knowingly, intentionally and recklessly" when he allegedly interfered with or prevented anyone from reporting a suspected crime of child sex abuse.

Another element to the crime of child endangerment, Silver said, was the jury would have to find that in the course of performing his official duties Spanier "came into contact" with the child that he had allegedly endangered, the boy in the showers. Because the child endangerment statute required that Spanier would have had to knowingly endangered the welfare of the child he was supervising.

But the government presented no evidence of that.

To find Spanier guilty of conspiracy, Silver said, the jury would have to believe that Spanier "agreed to enter into a conspiracy to commit endangering the welfare of a child." And that Spanier and his co-conspirators had "agreed to put children in danger," and took actions toward that goal.

To anybody who sat through the two days of fact-free testimony that constituted the government's case, any of those findings would be a stretch. But this is sex abuse we're talking about, Penn State style, starring naked good old boy Jerry Sandusky bumping and grinding in the shower with little boys. It's like dousing a house made of straw with a couple cans of gasoline and waiting for a spark to fly.

Silver talked about the government's cooperating witnesses, former Penn State Athletic Director Curley, and former Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz.

"These were the stars of their show," Silver said about the government's cae. But going by their testimony, Silver said, neither Curley nor Schultz ever told Spanier that what Mike McQueary witnessed in the showers was sex abuse.

Silver repeated what Schultz told the jury: "Jerry was always horsing around," Silver quoted Schultz as saying. "Schultz told Spanier it was horseplay."

Of all the government's fifteen witnesses, Silver said, only two, Curley and Schultz, testified that they spoke directly to Spanier about what McQueary told them.

McQueary, Silver reminded the jury, never spoke directly to Spanier about what he witnessed in the showers.

There was no conspiracy at Penn State, Silver said, summing up. Nobody told McQueary, or anybody else, to "keep things quiet, to keep their mouths shut." On the witness stand, both of the government's star witnesses, Curley and Schultz, testified that took the matter seriously. They were trying to do the right thing, Silver said. And they also testified that they did not participate in any conspiracy to cover up, and not report the infamous shower incident.

"There is no evidence that Graham Spanier knowingly endangered the welfare of children," Silver said. He concluded by asking the jury to find his client not guilty.

When Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka stood up to give her closing, she wanted to clear up one thing right away.

"Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," she said, "They're criminals." And you can't count on criminals to tell you that they knowingly committed crimes.

With a paucity of facts to draw on, Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, turned to fireworks. Spanier, Curley and Schultz, she said, were all guilty of turning their backs on the welfare of children, in favor of protecting themselves and Penn State from scandal.

"Jerry Sandusky was left to run wild," she said.


She talked about the plan that Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on. To confront Jerry Sandusky with the shower incident. And to inform Sandusky that he was no longer allowed to bring children onto Penn State property.

The PSU officials were hoping that Sandusky would admit to a problem and agree to seek help. If not, the PSU officials planned to report the shower incident to the child psychiatrist who led the Second Mile charity that employed Sandusky as a counselor. And also report the shower incident to the Department of Public Welfare, so they could investigate whether Sandusky's conduct amounted to sex abuse.

But there was a "downside" to that approach, as Ditka reminded the jury while she quoted from an email sent by Spanier. The downside was "if the message wasn't heard" by Sandusky, Spanier wrote to Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, Curley and Schultz "become vulnerable for not having reported it."

When you're conspiring to cover up sex abuse, it's not too smart to lay out the plot in an email chain that subsequently become a government exhibit. That's not usually how coverups work. But Ditka skipped over all that to blast the usual villains in the Penn State sex scandal narrative, starring that naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with little boys.


"All they cared about was their own self interest," Ditka told the jury about Penn State's top officials. "Instead of putting him [Sandusky] on a leash," she said, "they let him run wild."

Ditka recounted to the jury the first incident Sandusky was ever accused of. Back in 1998, a mother went to the cops because Sandusky had allegedly given her 11-year-old son a naked bear hug in the shower. And he allegedly picked the boy up and stuck him under a shower head to allegedly wash the soap out of his ears.

The boy, a member of the Second Mile charity, had been lured into the showers by the promise of a pair of "Joe Paterno sox," Ditka reminded the jury. "The lure of Penn State football is strong."

Ditka spoke about what she described as the cover-up mode employed by those at the "top of the totem pole" at Penn State, namely Spanier, Curley and Schultz. And then she vividly contrasted it with the whistle blowing of Mike McQueary, whom she described as "the low man on the totem pole."

Ditka dove once more into all the salacious details of the McQueary shower story -- Sandusky's naked "body moving slowly," "slapping sounds," and "skin against skin."

"What do you think?" she asked the jury. "That's horseplay?"

If it's horseplay, she said, why was the Penn State president and two of his top officials meeting about it on the weekend? Why are Schultz and Curley sitting around Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning if it's just horseplay they're talking about, Ditka argued.

"Skin to skin, hips moving against a boy is not horsing around," she repeated. This is Penn State, she said, where they have ten thousand kids.

"Every time a towel is snapped," Ditka asked, do university officials gather at Graham Spanier's house?


They knew what they were doing, Ditka said about Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They come up with
a plan," she said. "You have to keep it a secret."

That's why they waited ten days to interview whistle-blowing eyewitness McQueary, Ditka said. Because they didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted to keep the truth under wraps.

"They had a problem and they didn't want to deal with it," Ditka said. The result was, "They own it."

"They prevented a report of sex abuse," Ditka said. "They knew what they were dealing with."

Instead of tackling the problem head on, Ditka said, by hauling McQueary in and finding out exactly what had happened in the shower, PSU's top officials tried "to soft-shoe it."

And when time dragged by, Ditka said, Spanier assured a worried Gary Schultz that "It's taken care of."

Here, Ditka was taking some liberties with trial testimony. When asked on the witness stand who had told him that the shower incident had been investigated and "taken care of," Schultz couldn't remember.

"I can't say for sure that it was Graham Spanier," Schultz told the jury.

It was a quote that Silver had read to the jury. Then he warned that if Ditka tried to use that quote to prove Spanier was guilty, it fell far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that wasn't going to stop Ditka.

It was like the scene in Animal House when Bluto gave the speech to his frat brothers about the Germans bombing Pearl Habor. Otter wondered whether he should correct Bluto, but Boon told him, "Forget it, he's rolling."

Like Bluto, Ditka was rolling.

"Graham Spanier told him [Schultz] 'Its taken care of," Ditka yelled. Before she was done, Ditka would not only declare that it was Spanier who had told Schultz "It was taken care of." She would also ccuse Spanier of deliberately "lying to Schultz."

Next, Ditka reminded the jury that when the Penn State sex abuse scandal exploded, Spanier insisted on running on the university's website two letters of support for Curley and Schultz.

"I support Gary and Tim," Ditka recounted the statements as basically saying. "Not a thought about the kids," she lamented. "They didn't care about kids."

The most entertaining part of Ditka's closing argument was when she trashed both of her star witnesses.

"Tim Curley," she declared, was "untruthful 90 percent of the time."

"Gary Schultz, I would suggest to you was more truthful," Ditka told the jury. That's because he cried on the witness stand.

You can't stage a courtroom tragedy without tears.

"He was crying for a whole lot of reasons," Ditka told the jury. Such as having to appear in court to testify against his old friend, Graham Spanier. But to counter those tears in her courtroom soap opera, Ditka brought up the tears of Victim No. 5.

Victim No. 5 was another government witness brought into the courtroom with much fanfare and extra security. Victim No. 5 had testified about being abused by Jerry Sandusky in the same showers where McQueary had previously seen Sandusky frolicking with another naked boy.

Victim No. 5, Ditka told the jury, wakes up crying on "a lot of mornings."

Ditka's weakest moment came when she left her emotional appeals behind to delve briefly into the law in the case, which for her sake, was probably best left undisturbed.

"There's more than enough proof," she concluded. "They knew the animal they were letting loose on the world," she said. Then she asked the jury to "find him [Spanier] guilty."

By the time she sat down, it was quite a performance. If the jury goes strictly by the law, Spanier walks. But if the jury is swayed by emotion, Spanier is toast.

It's as simple as that.

And God help the defendant if the jury ignores the judge's instructions and tunes in to the media coverage of the case, where they're playing all the old familiar tunes in the Penn State scandal, as sung by the attorney general's office, Sara Ganim and Louie Freeh.

There's a reason why Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty. It's an uphill battle when you're fighting a story line that everyone thinks they know.

There are problems with defending Graham Spanier. The former PSU president comes off as an intellectual who's aloof. He also didn't take the stand in his own defense. Even though the judge told the jury that they should consider Spanier "an innocent man," some jurors may believe he's hiding something.

Spanier is also on trial before a Dauphin County represented by a button-down Philadelphia lawyer. That might be another problem.

Meanwhile, the prosecution has Iron Mike Ditka's folksy niece tossing red meat at the jury. And the problem of his two former co-defendants having already pleaded guilty.

Incited by Iron Mike's niece, a Dauphin County jury might just decide to teach Graham Spanier a lesson with some frontier justice.

Or they could see through all the hype and emotion, glimpse the law, and send Spanier on his merry way, so he can proceed with lawsuits against Penn State and Louie Freeh.

Today, after Judge John Boccabella went over the legalities of the charges in the case, the jury began deliberating. Within 15 minutes, they had a question for the judge. They subsequently had two more questions.

The jury asked the judge to give them the definition of a conspiracy. They wanted to know the definition of acting recklessly. They also asked in order to have a conspiracy, does a crime necessarily have to have been committed?

Absolutely, the judge said.

Ditka had to be seething over this. If only she could have gotten in front of the jury one more time for a rebuttal. She could have talked about the tears of Victim No. 5. And that animal named Sandusky that the guys at the top of the totem pole at Penn State had knowingly turned loose on helpless children that they didn't care about.

By 7 p.m., after dinner was brought in, the jury was still deliberating. One of the jurors asked the judge if they could take a vote on whether to retire for the night.

No, the judge said. He alone would decide when they were going home.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I've already answered that so try to keep up.

You already answered the rap sheets of the accusers? Where did you do that???

Who at ESPN said that they lied to Spanier to get the interview?

No one at ESPN said that. ESPN either lied to Spanier to get the interview or the editors killed the story again like they did with Van Natta.

He is a friend of Jerry's since college days and is blinded by friendship and religious adherence to PSU. He is a biased and thoroughly unreliable source.

You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is biased and an unreliable source. If he knew Jerry since his college days, he would certainly know if he was a sexual deviant.

The jury did not believe his (or his attorney's since he was too afraid to take the stand) narrative that he was only told about "horseplay" Lol. He is a liar.

The jury was made up of idiots.

You are still stupid about the accuser's past. The fact they had troubled lives in the past does not make their testimony about Sandusky a lie today. Troubled kids are who Sandusky preyed upon. Spanier cannot be believed about his claim of innocence in the PSU scandal because there is a direct connection.

Your logic is tortured and wrong. A "liar" can tell the truth. But your logic is that once someone has lied (according to you, Spanier) or been convicted of a crime (Spanier) nothing they say can be trusted. Except when you apply that same logic to the accusers you trip over yourself trying to make exceptions. That's ridiculous, even for you, Ginger.

You lie on this board a good bit but that doesn't mean you lie about everything.

I've never told a lie on this board, Boots. Where is the nearest ostrich farm?

He says ESPN (according to you) ambushed Spanier

No, Spanier said ESPN ambushed Spanier.

No, the A9 simply repackaged conspiracy theories about the scandal and put their (discredited) names to it. They analyzed nothing but rather repeated crazy crap from Ziegler, Blehar and other conspiracy loons.

So you didn't read the report. Super.

Starting on page 13, the describe their methodology:

https://tomshakely.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-06-29-Report-to-the-Board-of-Trustees-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-on-the-Freeh-Reports-Flawed-Methodology-and-Conclusions.pdf

The reviewed close to 5 million documents and have well articulated critiques of the Freeh reports techniques and conclusions. That is hardly repackaging conspiracy theories.

I did. It was crap I've read before on looney blogs.

You've demonstrated you didn't. Please do:

https://tomshakely.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-06-29-Report-to-the-Board-of-Trustees-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-on-the-Freeh-Reports-Flawed-Methodology-and-Conclusions.pdf

Not an official repudiation either. You're still wrong.

Doesn't matter if it is official or not. You claim only the A9 objected to the report and that just isn't true (PSU President did as well, and said so publicly)

Observing people crying is hearsay.

LOL. You don't know anything about the legal system.
Q: What did you observe?
A: I observed women crying.

That IS NOT hearsay. Troll.

Sent them to jail. Just like a DUI which is serious.

A DUI is far more serious than anything C/S/S were charged with.

Not really. Only because you don't like it that it embarrasses your church. And we had a third party witness as well.

Your third party witness changed his story AND accused the OAG of embellishing what he told them to sensationalize the case.

Penn State Confidential: Prosecutor Told McQueary To Clam Up

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net On Nov. 10, 2011, six days after the state Attorney General's office released its official grand jury ...

www.bigtrial.net

 

[PSUSignore]

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's not actually. There has been a lot of new information to come to light recently.

Certain people just don't want to discuss it because it destroys their narrative.

 

[WHCANole]

Just to be clear, you are saying that the NCAA database of infractions, which is on the NCAA website is NOT the definitive repository for all sanctions?

This website:

Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

If that is what you are really trying to say, you are a troll. Full stop.

I am saying that PSU committed NCAA infractions for which they were punished and it is part of the NCAA record. The database IS NOT the only record of NCAA infractions as the NCAA explained in a cite you refuse to read. I am a truth teller. Full Stop.

 

[WHCANole]

It does when the jury makes a mistake.

But they didn't make one in this case.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I am saying that PSU committed NCAA infractions for which they were punished and it is part of the NCAA record. The database IS NOT the only record of NCAA infractions as the NCAA explained in a cite you refuse to read. I am a truth teller. Full Stop.

PSU has obviously committed infractions: minor infractions. All schools have. I don't even believe there is a publicly searchable database for minor infractions because they are common (and minor).

PSU has never committed a major infraction. It's right there in the database. You doubting the NCAA's own database is patently absurd.

I have read the citation you provided multiple times (at least twice because you posted it twice). It does not refer to major infractions. Nothing related to the allegations against Sandusky (even if true) violated any NCAA rules. It was completely outside of NCAA scope. Those sanctions occurred without an NCAA investigation (which is unheard of and frankly probably against NCAA bylaws) and were obviously unwarranted.

It is a credit to PSU that they won the Big Ten 5 years later.

 

[PSU2UNC]

But they didn't make one in this case.

Your opinion. I disagree.

 

[WHCANole]

You already answered the rap sheets of the accusers? Where did you do that???

I already answered that those raps were irrelevant to their being abused by Jerry.

No one at ESPN said that. ESPN either lied to Spanier to get the interview or the editors killed the story again like they did with Van Natta.

Proof?

You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is biased and an unreliable source. If he knew Jerry since his college days, he would certainly know if he was a sexual deviant.

Not really. Often friends don't know those things.

The jury was made up of idiots.

They are smarter than you.

Your logic is tortured and wrong. A "liar" can tell the truth. But your logic is that once someone has lied (according to you, Spanier) or been convicted of a crime (Spanier) nothing they say can be trusted. Except when you apply that same logic to the accusers you trip over yourself trying to make exceptions. That's ridiculous, even for you, Ginger.

Rooster, that is not what I am saying. For instance, you lie a lot about your background and awards in an effort to make up cred for your arguments which is why you lie. However, if you told me you were gay then I would not necessarily disbelieve that. Nothing Spanier says REGARDING HIS ROLE IN THE SCANDAL can be trusted just as I would not trust any of Sandusky's victims if they said they didn't commit their OTHER delinquencies.
You are rather dull about this.

I've never told a lie on this board, Boots. Where is the nearest ostrich farm?

You've told some whoppers Blinky. I think you live on that farm

No, Spanier said ESPN ambushed Spanier.

So, did your buddy Anderson.

So you didn't read the report. Super.

Sure did but it was 💩

Starting on page 13, the describe their methodology:

https://tomshakely.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-06-29-Report-to-the-Board-of-Trustees-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-on-the-Freeh-Reports-Flawed-Methodology-and-Conclusions.pdf

The reviewed close to 5 million documents and have well articulated critiques of the Freeh reports techniques and conclusions. That is hardly repackaging conspiracy theories.

Yeah it is. I don't believe they reviewed shyte.

You've demonstrated you didn't. Please do:

https://tomshakely.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-06-29-Report-to-the-Board-of-Trustees-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-on-the-Freeh-Reports-Flawed-Methodology-and-Conclusions.pdf

I did

Doesn't matter if it is official or not.

Yes it does

You claim only the A9 objected to the report and that just isn't true (PSU President did as well, and said so publicly)

Already explained why.

LOL. You don't know anything about the legal system.
Q: What did you observe?
A: I observed women crying.

Hearsay

That IS NOT hearsay. Troll.

It is JoeBot

A DUI is far more serious than anything C/S/S were charged with.

Endangering the welfare of a child is VERY serious but you have mentioned your hatred of children and those who bear them before so I get your psychopathy.

Your third party witness changed his story AND accused the OAG of embellishing what he told them to sensationalize the case.

Penn State Confidential: Prosecutor Told McQueary To Clam Up

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net On Nov. 10, 2011, six days after the state Attorney General's office released its official grand jury ...

www.bigtrial.net

He did not. Every jury believed him and his email to Eschbach was not very srtong.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I already answered that those raps were irrelevant to their being abused by Jerry.

They are relevant in terms of the honesty and a tendency to lie by the criminals who were accusers. So not irrelevant at all. Despite your wishes, you can't just dismiss this.

Proof?

Proof that Spanier said this? Do you need me to re-send the recording?

Not really. Often friends don't know those things.

But most often they do. If you had any non-ostrich friends, you'd know that, Ginger

They are smarter than you.

Very unlikely. And certainly not demonstrated during the trial.

Rooster, that is not what I am saying. For instance, you lie a lot about your background and awards in an effort to make up cred for your arguments which is why you lie.

I have not lied about my background or my awards. Not once. You are either a troll or just can't admit that you are wrong.

However, if you told me you were gay then I would not necessarily disbelieve that.

WTF does that have to do with anything? Sounds homophobic to me.

Nothing Spanier says REGARDING HIS ROLE IN THE SCANDAL can be trusted just as I would not trust any of Sandusky's victims if they said they didn't commit their OTHER delinquencies.
You are rather dull about this.

This is extremely tortured logic. Liars lie. While they don't lie about everything, they don't only lie about topics about which they've been convicted of crimes. Spanier is honest (to a fault, perhaps). The Lock Haven Five are not.

You've told some whoppers Blinky. I think you live on that farm

Nah, Boots. Sick ostriches aren't my thing.

So, did your buddy Anderson.

Right, because Spanier said it in an interview. Jesus, you are dim.

Sure did but it was 💩

LOL. You didn't like it so it was poop. Please give me five examples of things you (methodologically) think they did wrong.

Yeah it is. I don't believe they reviewed shyte.

Whether you believe it or not is immaterial. They did. Or all you calling all nine trustees liars???

Hearsay

Back up. Are you saying it is hearsay because the statement wasn't made under oath? If so, that's a BS argument because this isn't a court of law and 99% of what we are talking about here could be calling hearsay using that definition. However, if Anderson was in court testifying and was asking "What did you observe about the secretaries after their Freeh interviews?" saying "They were crying" is NOT hearsay, it is a first hand observation, just like "What color was his jacket?" or "Approximately how tall was the ostrich?"

Endangering the welfare of a child is VERY serious but you have mentioned your hatred of children and those who bear them before so I get your psychopathy.

Spanier didn't commit any crimes so what he did wasn't serious. But failure to report isn't nearly as serious as a DUI.

He did not. Every jury believed him and his email to Eschbach was not very srtong.

You are a troll. The email exchange with Jonelle is damning for the OAG and destroys MM's credibility.

 

[WHCANole]

Your opinion. I disagree.

Your opinion. My opinion is backed up by the legal system and the US Supreme Court in the case of Spanier.

 

[WHCANole]

PSU has obviously committed infractions: minor infractions. All schools have. I don't even believe there is a publicly searchable database for minor infractions because they are common (and minor).

PSU has never committed a major infraction. It's right there in the database. You doubting the NCAA's own database is patently absurd.

I have read the citation you provided multiple times (at least twice because you posted it twice). It does not refer to major infractions. Nothing related to the allegations against Sandusky (even if true) violated any NCAA rules. It was completely outside of NCAA scope. Those sanctions occurred without an NCAA investigation (which is unheard of and frankly probably against NCAA bylaws) and were obviously unwarranted.

It is a credit to PSU that they won the Big Ten 5 years later.

This was worse than a major infraction and the NCAA said so and therefore since you are so wedded to their database you must accept this verdict as well. Can't have it both ways blinky!

 

[kgilbert78]

Agree and disagree. At the time, the NCAA powers were Oklahoma and a few SEC teams that were clearly cheating and not acting in the interest of the student athletes. the NFL was replete with kids that couldn't read or write but graduated from their university. Joe was the only major coach I know that really hammered the NCAA on doing it the right way. That wasn't done by Schembechler or Woody or Switzer.

There are tons of NCAA rules that were ushered in by Paterno. I can name several. You should go back and listen to Joe's presentation to the BOT after winning a national championship.

While all programs weren't dirty, most were. But I feel like your post is from someone that didn't follow college football in the 70's and 80's. Paterno was the standard-bearer for better governance and got a lot of arrows pointed at him as a result.

Not true about Woody--he was very concerned with education. He was no saint, to be sure--far from it--but he was big on his guys going back and getting the degree. After his firing, he was often seen on campus by the Education Building as he would talk to students studying to be teachers and encouraging them. I know this personally, because I was one of them.

 

[PSU2UNC]

This was worse than a major infraction and the NCAA said so and therefore since you are so wedded to their database you must accept this verdict as well. Can't have it both ways blinky!

It's not in the database, Boots and nothing in the press release says that it's "worse than a major infraction".

Try again, Ginger. Wait for a sick ostrich next time. Even two guys can't handle a healthy ostrich.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Your opinion. My opinion is backed up by the legal system and the US Supreme Court in the case of Spanier.

As I've said before, I don't care about the legal system. Only the truth.

 

[WHCANole]

They are relevant in terms of the honesty and a tendency to lie by the criminals who were accusers. So not irrelevant at all. Despite your wishes, you can't just dismiss this.

Sure I can. They were troubled boys and that's why Sandusky chose them. Past performance is no indication of future behavior.

Proof that Spanier said this? Do you need me to re-send the recording?

Proof that ESPN lied to him.

But most often they do. If you had any non-ostrich friends, you'd know that, Ginger

Read some about Ted Bundy. He fooled a few.

Very unlikely. And certainly not demonstrated during the trial.

Most likely and affirmed by the courts.

I have not lied about my background or my awards. Not once. You are either a troll or just can't admit that you are wrong.

You have lied much

WTF does that have to do with anything? Sounds homophobic to me.

Why is your telling me you are gay homphobic?

This is extremely tortured logic. Liars lie. While they don't lie about everything, they don't only lie about topics about which they've been convicted of crimes. Spanier is honest (to a fault, perhaps). The Lock Haven Five are not.

No, everybody tells lies one time of another. Liars do tend to lie when they've been convicted of crimes like Spanky.

Nah, Boots. Sick ostriches aren't my thing.

It's lame blinky Try harder 🤣

Right, because Spanier said it in an interview. Jesus, you are dim.

Hearsay

LOL. You didn't like it so it was poop. Please give me five examples of things you (methodologically) think they did wrong.

I'll give you one because it is too nauseating to read that crap. They mention Seasock "clearing Sandusky" and fail to mention Chambers saying he was a pedo. That's called cherry-picking. Read Freeh's response to it.

Whether you believe it or not is immaterial. They did. Or all you calling all nine trustees liars???

JoeBots are liars. Yes.

Back up. Are you saying it is hearsay because the statement wasn't made under oath? If so, that's a BS argument because this isn't a court of law and 99% of what we are talking about here could be calling hearsay using that definition.

I thought you knew about the legal system?

However, if Anderson was in court testifying and was asking "What did you observe about the secretaries after their Freeh interviews?" saying "They were crying" is NOT hearsay, it is a first hand observation, just like "What color was his jacket?" or "Approximately how tall was the ostrich?"

Without context it is.

Spanier didn't commit any crimes so what he did wasn't serious. But failure to report isn't nearly as serious as a DUI.

Yes he did Endanger the Welfare of Children. That is very serious.

You are a troll.

You are a JoeBot

The email exchange with Jonelle is damning for the OAG and destroys MM's credibility.

No it doesn't.

 

[WHCANole]

It's not in the database, Boots and nothing in the press release says that it's "worse than a major infraction".

Try again, Ginger. Wait for a sick ostrich next time. Even two guys can't handle a healthy ostrich.

Read what the NCCA said in their response to the media. I posted it rooster.

 

[WHCANole]

As I've said before, I don't care about the legal system. Only the truth.

But you'll refer to it when it suits you. Hypocrite.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Sure I can. They were troubled boys and that's why Sandusky chose them.

They were troubled boys and that's why they lied for money. There is zero evidence that they were abused other their words. Their words are crap.

Past performance is no indication of future behavior.

Partially true, but when someone is known to be a liar and a felon that make it more plausible that they will lie again in the future. Compare that with someone like Spanier who who a well respected professional with a high level of security clearance who had never committed a crime of any kind.

Proof that ESPN lied to him.

It hysterical that you ask for proof of things for which there almost certainly cannot be proof (other than Spanier saying so), but readily accept the trial results which had no proof (other than the accusers saying so).

Most likely and affirmed by the courts.

I don't care about the courts. They are wrong.

You have lied much

Not once. Prove it or STFU.

Why is your telling me you are gay homphobic?

You bringing up being gay is homophobic on your part. It is completely unrelated to the conversation and you somehow view it as a character flaw. For the record (and not that it matters at all), but I am a hetero cis male with a longer term partner who is hetero cis female. You, on the other hand, like to **** ostriches. Good luck with that, Ginger.

Hearsay

This isn't a court of law and even if it was that isn't hearsay you ignorant twit.

I'll give you one because it is too nauseating to read that crap.

So you admit you haven't read it. Hypocrite.

They mention Seasock "clearing Sandusky" and fail to mention Chambers saying he was a pedo. That's called cherry-picking.

That's all you've got???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Read Freeh's response to it.

He is obviously defensive because he stole money from PSU. He is a lying liar.

I thought you knew about the legal system?

More than you apparently since you just scream "hearsay" at anything you don't like.

Without context it is.

Wrong.

Yes he did Endanger the Welfare of Children. That is very serious.

No it isn't. Not compared to DUI.

You are a JoeBot

Nonsensical term.

No it doesn't.

If you can't see that the MM email creates huge problems for your narrative, you are bigger troll than I thought.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Read what the NCCA said in their response to the media. I posted it rooster.

Not in the database of major infractions. Not the result of an NCAA investigation. Not under NCAA rules or scope.

 

[PSU2UNC]

But you'll refer to it when it suits you. Hypocrite.

I only refer to it as a source of data. I do not care about the jury or judges' opinions.

 

[WHCANole]

They were troubled boys and that's why they lied for money. There is zero evidence that they were abused other their words. Their words are crap.

Courts disagreed.

Partially true, but when someone is known to be a liar and a felon that make it more plausible that they will lie again in the future. Compare that with someone like Spanier who who a well respected professional with a high level of security clearance who had never committed a crime of any kind.

Others formerly well thought of do the same. Bill Cosby for instance

It hysterical that you ask for proof of things for which there almost certainly cannot be proof (other than Spanier saying so), but readily accept the trial results which had no proof (other than the accusers saying so).

A trial is quite different than a disgraced former University President trying to clear his tainted name. That is not hysterical but sad.

I don't care about the courts. They are wrong.

You are wrong

Not once. Prove it or STFU.

Liar

You bringing up being gay is homophobic on your part. It is completely unrelated to the conversation and you somehow view it as a character flaw. For the record (and not that it matters at all), but I am a hetero cis male with a longer term partner who is hetero cis female. You, on the other hand, like to **** ostriches. Good luck with that, Ginger.

Is being gay insulting? Not sure I understand why you think that.

This isn't a court of law and even if it was that isn't hearsay you ignorant twit.

Silly boy

So you admit you haven't read it. Hypocrite.

I've read it as I said

That's all you've got???? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Answer it then

He is obviously defensive because he stole money from PSU. He is a lying liar.

Like Spanier

More than you apparently since you just scream "hearsay" at anything you don't like.

No, just when I see it.

Wrong.

Yep, you are wrong.

No it isn't. Not compared to DUI.

Yes it is

Nonsensical term.

Perfectly descriptive

If you can't see that the MM email creates huge problems for your narrative, you are bigger troll than I thought.

I'm reading it objectively not as a JoeBot

 

[WHCANole]

Not in the database of major infractions. Not the result of an NCAA investigation. Not under NCAA rules or scope.

Yet here it is!

 

[WHCANole]

I only refer to it as a source of data. I do not care about the jury or judges' opinions.

Hypocrite

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yet here it is!

You keep citing that same page. Search it: it literally doesn't have the word "major" in it, let alone "major sanctions." And PSU is not listed in the major sanctions database.

You cannot be more wrong about this.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Hypocrite

Ostrich molester.