jmmyW Question.

[Stufftodo]

Yet McQueary testified he witnessed no crime. Just a situation in which he assumed a crime was being committed.

The act of being with a small boy in the shower was criminal and Sandusky was convicted of it; it is called Unlawful Contact. McQueary said he didn't see penetration; Sandusky was not convicted of IDSI.

Another of your,,,if you can't justify your assertions with fact...just make something up!!! CLASSIC STD. The Sandusky conviction has numerous "questionable" legal and procedural issues that in a "fair court of law" would most likely have created a different outcome. But it IS PA where Hershey Trust and Kids for Cash are proof of corrupted legal processing! MM won his case based upon the "less than stellar" prosecution by PSU - after all per the historical approach taken by the Executive BOT managing these legal processes ...its only money!

If, at this point, you do not believe that Sandusky was convicted in regard to Victim 2, and that McQueary won his civil suit, your are either delusional or deliberately lying. That is what happened.

 

[dshumbero]

The act of being with a small boy in the shower was criminal and Sandusky was convicted of it; it is called Unlawful Contact. McQueary said he didn't see penetration; Sandusky was not convicted of IDSI.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=full of shit

 

[Stufftodo]

.



It's also perfectly legal to not prosecute someone when he doesn't have evidence to do so, and knows even if he did, he wouldn't get a conviction.

However, you also have to look at the DA did do:

1. Remove their designated abuse prosecutor (Arnold) from the case. It dd happen in at least one other case, but it was very rare. The source is from Arnold herself and is supported by the redacted police report.

2. Not interview one the victims, Victim 6. No one from the DA's Office ever interviewed that person claiming the was a crime. (Since there was a second victim, B.K. we can't say that no victim was interviewed.) That is from the testimony of both Schreffler and I think Victim 6's as well.

3. Making the decision not to prosecute, prior to interviewing the suspect. (It was also prior to DPW making its decision.) That is from Lauro's statement and Harmon's June 1 1998 e-mail.

Those things are certainly unusual ways of handling this case. Even a DA that would be unsure of the strength of the case, would do things, like have their top person handle it, interview the possible victim, and interview the suspect, before reaching that conclusion.

Now, we have a situation where, in 1998, the DA had two witnesses, a recommendation from the police that there be a prosecuting to prosecute, and the suspect admitting to the act. We also have a situation where the incident was prosecuted, without the second victim, B. K., and Sandusky was convicted. That reflects on it the case was weak or not.

Now we have to wonder why the DA didn't take reasonable steps to determine if there was a strong case in 1998.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Here's an interesting profile I came across on Facebook. Check out the friends list.
https://www.facebook.com/judas.shuttlesworth.9?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab&pnref=friends.all

 

[dshumbero]

Here's an interesting profile I came across on Facebook. Check out the friends list.
https://www.facebook.com/judas.shuttlesworth.9?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab&pnref=friends.all

Most of them are made up by Shitforbrainsworthless. He deleted many others. Interesting is "Leona Oruzlan" or whatever. "Lioness Lioness", How clever. Not. He misspelled her name, she's there 2x.

He deleted "Andrea DiMorphio's" page, RiverPhlegathon, and Morai along with other cartoon related "friends".

 

[Legion of Lions]

Wendy seems to flip flop all over. Constant posts & LEOs bashing the team that investigated & convicted Jerry as well as the news reporter who revealed Jerry's crimes.

So lets see. She hates the prosecution that busted Jerry. She hates the reporter that outed Jerry. This is all very much just cover for supporting Jerry. It's disgusting and transparent.

It's disgusting and transparent.(a standard personally directed indictment normal to all Troll responses)

You questioned Wensilver for what you call her "Jerry Supporting" views - such as... the prosecution that busted (railroaded) Jerry. .... the reporter that outed Jerry (with the help of the OAG)... This is all very much just cover for supporting Jerry. It's disgusting and transparent

Maybe the simple fact is ...SHE'S RIGHT - there is very credible evidence that what has happened and reported to the public for the past 6 years has been "influenced" by some unseen entity - one with deep pockets and significant connections to PA Politics and courts. That is NOT a recipe for truth OR justice. But then again what Troll wants truth OR justice!

What you seem to want everyone to ignore is that Sandusky can be as guilty as hell - but his civil liberties, basic legal rights and legal processes can be abused worse that any reported for his "victims". Funny, but no one is saying "Free Jerry"....what is being said is THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THIS IS UNKNOWN (uncertain at the least) AT THIS TIME. As a public we have been fed a "Story", that on its own - is UNBELIEVABLE and unsupported by ANY known legal evidence. But we are supposed to believe it and just move on..... That's the American Way? you Trolls promote!

What we DO KNOW is ...someone wants Sandusky's PSU association to provide cover for "something else" What that "something else" is needs to be uncovered. Staying with a "Story" which requires the long-term "machining" of facts to get it to fit together is NOT protecting the public from crime - it is deceiving the public and therefore protecting additional unknown criminal acts (and do NOT try to take this statement into C/S/S - they pass the reasonable man test based on a 2001 timetable).

This is NOT a black and white, easy to understand situation. It is VERY complicated and covers much more ground than Penn State, Sandusky and "Criminal Football mentality". We argue over details and how these details support the "Story" of guilt and yet ---- we KNOW that ALL the public information is tainted! How can you rely on ANYTHING we know if there are as many "suspicious" features to the details those in the "Troll Patrol" continue to promote.

MANY THINGS BEYOND JERRY SANDUSKY are involved her all of this over many years - why else would someone "fight" to keep so many things hidden from view for so long. Why so much government cooperation with suspicious features of this case???

Face it.....there are multiple unknown crimes that need exposure and these crime START with an OAG staffed with collusive porn-dogs who obviously feel they are above the law!

So if you say anyone who won't buy the absurd "Story" constructed on bogus information fed to the public by a directed (and therefore complicit) mass media, is a "Free Jerry" person, I say you are only half right - I say what is being promoted by your negative termed grouping is rather we want to "Free America" from hidden criminals and legal corruption.

 

[Stufftodo]

Here's an interesting profile I came across on Facebook. Check out the friends list.
https://www.facebook.com/judas.shuttlesworth.9?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab&pnref=friends.all

Is this more of your "Relationships" that you are attempting show. I didn't know Shuttersworth was with the OAG or a member of the Board?

So far, you've shown that I might know people of Facebook that are anti Penn State.

I do know people that are anti-Penn State; I also know a number that are pro-Penn state, and I'm one of them. I also know people that supported Trump and opposed Trump. The same with both Clintons and even Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure what that is suppose to mean.

If you would check, I actually have a mutual acquaintance with one of the defendants in this.

And, if the truth be told I did have some past ties with the firm representing Spanier.

And, I did have some correspondence with Deborah Palfrey. You might want to Google her. Nice lady, I'm sorry she is gone.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Most of them are made up by Shitforbrainsworthless. He deleted many others. Interesting is "Leona Oruzlan" or whatever. "Lioness Lioness", How clever. Not. He misspelled her name, she's there 2x.

He deleted "Andrea DiMorphio's" page, RiverPhlegathon, and Morai along with other cartoon related "friends".

Leona got thrown off of FB once for being a loon, so she added an "s" and came back as a new profile. Isn't that right, JJ? Just one look at this collection of psychos Jacobs associates with, and what attorney is going to view him as a "star witness" or think any kind of "evidence" he provides is anything more than horseshit with a greater number of flies buzzing around it than the average clump?

 

[Stufftodo]

Leona got thrown off of FB once for being a loon, so she added an "s" and came back as a new profile. Isn't that right, JJ? Just one look at this collection of psychos Jacobs associates with, and what attorney is going to view him as a "star witness" or think any kind of "evidence" he provides is anything more than horseshit with a greater number of flies buzzing around it than the average clump?

Not that I know of. I have seen posts by Leona and she seems a lot saner than you.

Well, if I am JJ, you've established that I know Penn State alumni, and attorneys; wow,that will be stunning. Truth be told I do have at least one mutual friend with one of the defendants. I also have a connection to one of thedefense law firms involved. Perhaps that could come out in cross examination.

I did correspond with Deborah Palfrey. I will say that.

 

[didier]

However, you also have to look at the DA did do:

1. Remove their designated abuse prosecutor (Arnold) from the case. It dd happen in at least one other case, but it was very rare. The source is from Arnold herself and is supported by the redacted police report.

2. Not interview one the victims, Victim 6. No one from the DA's Office ever interviewed that person claiming the was a crime. (Since there was a second victim, B.K. we can't say that no victim was interviewed.) That is from the testimony of both Schreffler and I think Victim 6's as well.

3. Making the decision not to prosecute, prior to interviewing the suspect. (It was also prior to DPW making its decision.) That is from Lauro's statement and Harmon's June 1 1998 e-mail.

Those things are certainly unusual ways of handling this case. Even a DA that would be unsure of the strength of the case, would do things, like have their top person handle it, interview the possible victim, and interview the suspect, before reaching that conclusion.

Now, we have a situation where, in 1998, the DA had two witnesses, a recommendation from the police that there be a prosecuting to prosecute, and the suspect admitting to the act. We also have a situation where the incident was prosecuted, without the second victim, B. K., and Sandusky was convicted. That reflects on it the case was weak or not.

Now we have to wonder why the DA didn't take reasonable steps to determine if there was a strong case in 1998.

And no evidence of any attempt to interview other Second Mile children even though Sandusky admitted in the sting to showering with other boys.

And telling Schreffler the kid was skittish, when Schreffler says he wasn't. And telling Schreffler Sandusky admitting to possible genital contact actually made his defense more plausible?!?