make sure you wave hi to Roxine in court today.
it is very important to her for JZ to get put in prison for attending an event for which he had a ticket
John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
make sure you wave hi to Roxine in court today.
it is very important to her for JZ to get put in prison for attending an event for which he had a ticket
Both motions were filed on the same day in the same court house.
Are you presuming that in the hours between both filings that there were 79 "other" John Does?
In each court, I agree - they may have a different numbering system (John Doe A, B, 43, etc) But these are motions filed in the same court - are you assuming they incorporate a separate court's numbering system if they were called JD 150 in civil suit - then it translates?
I'm trying to understand.
And respectfully, I have been nothing but "kind" in any correspondence. I have never name called or used attack language, so not quite sure why you even say such a thing...
I will not be in court today, but I will be following it closely. If Matt didn't want JZ to attend the event, then he shouldn't have been given an invitation and they shouldn't have allowed him in the door.
I would like to know when Matt Sandusky will be charged with insurance fraud as well as for his theft of Jerry's 2 National Championship rings.
I think it is more about screaming lambs then anything. I hope that, for her, the lambs will stop screaming some day. I don't think that making this issue personal is going to do that for her, though.
I'm going to have to stop responding, because I see a serious disconnect in the way you interpret things and go off on tangents such as in the last sentence . I'm thinking at this point you often operate on System 1 rather than System 2: http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/kahnemans-mind-clarifying-biases
The court found the 8 young men who testified credible. Sandusky was convicted on 45 out of 48 counts.
I just did a search of the trial transcript for "repressed" "Memory" "therapy" and came up with nothing.
If you wish to do the same, the entire trial transcript is located here. Perhaps I missed it? http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY, GERALD 062112 JT.pdf
Unfortunately there is no audio recording of Joe's testimony. There is belief by some close observers that the court recorder did not capture many of the question marks or other punctuation while listening to the testimonies. Apparently that's not uncommon due to the nature of court recording.
There were two sentences specifically in Joe's testimony back to back.
"It was sexual in nature." "I don't know what you would call it."
As two declarative sentences, the second doesn't logically follow. On the other hand, if the first is stated as a question, with the emphasis on "nature", then the second follows the first logically.
Joe understood what the line of questioning was all about. Stating a question rhetorically, "It was sexual in nature?", would be a reasonable prelude to a following declarative sentence: "I don't know what you would call it."
I think the poster is referring to the civil proceedings, you the criminal.
you ever notice how Roxine carefully splits hairs to justify her world view?
Sandusky was convicted of 45 of 48 counts, therefore the court found the victims credible.
C/S/S have only been charged, no trial, therefore the allegations are credible in her mind
JoePa was like 150 years old when he gave that statement and you want to hold him to it??? Any reasonable person could see that he was being led by the interviewer so that he would seem to be supporting MM's testimony.
The most? I am not sure about that. Certainly questionable. I do believe there is too much reliance on JVP's testimony and statements
When are you going to harp on the massive failures of TSM, DPW/CYS, pa judges, etc to do their JOBS and monitor JS and his access to kids??
she won't. her agenda is clear, and it is not to help victims
You are correct that Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts, but sometimes the jury gets it wrong especially when the trial is patently unfair. Do you believe the Grand Jury Presentment was factual when it stated that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy in the shower? I don't.
If you are interested in how repressed memory therapy helped to convict Sandusky, I would suggest that you read Sandusky's latest PCRA filing. I believe they make a very strong argument to Judge Cleland that there are exceptional circumstances in this case.
Sandusky's lawyers have requested an in camera review of psychologist - patient records where the alleged accusers claimed to have repressed memories of the abuse.
Testimony at trial by D.S., J.S., B.S.H, and Z.K. as well as after-discovered evidence from D.S. and Matt Sandusky demonstrate that the accusers in this matter were able to recall allegations of sexual abuse based on therapy and they have stated that they blocked out or repressed their memory of abuse.
Sandusky is his most recent petition made a request that the PCRA Court conduct an in camera review with Dr. Simpson of Mr. Gillum's therapy notes with Aaron Fisher as well as with any other relevant notes of other therapists engaged by the accusers to assist in recovering memories of abuse.
The accusers in this matter delayed reporting allegations of sexual abuse, underwent therapy, changed their allegations based on therapy, and stated that therapy enabled them to remember sexual abuse.
Pursuant to Commonwealth v. T.J.W. (114 A 38 1098 PA Super 2015), at the very least an in camera review by the PCRA Court of certain therapy records of DS's therapist and Michael Gillum is appropriate to determine if there is material that further supports the evidence already provided to Mr. Sandusky to contest the reliability (not credibility) of the memories of the accusers. Since the psychologist - patient privilege does not preclude such review, and Mr. Sandusky cannot otherwise discover this evidence, he has shown exceptional circumstances warranting the PCRA Court review requested.
Allegations based on discredited repressed memory therapy made up a significant part of the case against Sandusky. IMO, Judge Cleland should absolutely take the steps requested to determine if these allegation based on repressed memory are even remotely reliable. If he denies the requested review, I would expect a prompt appeal to Superior Court.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY BRIEF IN CAMERA REVIEW OF THERAPY NOTES.pdf
She is obviously an intelligent person and a strong advocate for an important cause. Nevertheless, her form of argumentation is a bit slippery sometimes. Willfully so? You make the call.
Interesting comment following an article of the john doe 150 (1976 victim):
Tim Berton
Dan Mealing - Thanks. Don't know why CDT left out that critical fact.
“State College News is also reporting that the 1971 accuser who told his story to CNN is petitioning the court that he not be forced to testify. I don't see how he should be allowed to avoid testimony after he gave his story to CNN. CNN made it easy to ID him so he threw away his anonymity as well.
Too bad local newspapers don't seem to be investigating his story and background.”
Listening to the carnival-barker, the voice of WILK radio-steve corbett several weeks ago, corbett was bragging on the show that he contacted Sara Ganum of CNN for the contact of the 1971 accuser, conformed on the radio that corbett spoke with the accuser, and believed the accuser that Joe Paterno was protecting Sandusky. The accuser also told corbett that he had more information to provide; corbett said he will share the added information to his audience.
Of course corbett is so intellectually ignorant of the facts of entire 4 ½ years of the Sandusky case, but still spills to his audience the poison and malice toward Paterno and Penn State.
Shouldn’t Corbett be subpoenaed for testimony concerning the accuser?
Tim Berton
Dan Mealing - Thanks. Don't know why CDT left out that critical fact.
“State College News is also reporting that the 1971 accuser who told his story to CNN is petitioning the court that he not be forced to testify. I don't see how he should be allowed to avoid testimony after he gave his story to CNN. CNN made it easy to ID him so he threw away his anonymity as well.
Too bad local newspapers don't seem to be investigating his story and background.”
Listening to the carnival-barker, the voice of WILK radio-steve corbett several weeks ago, corbett was bragging on the show that he contacted Sara Ganum of CNN for the contact of the 1971 accuser, conformed on the radio that corbett spoke with the accuser, and believed the accuser that Joe Paterno was protecting Sandusky. The accuser also told corbett that he had more information to provide; corbett said he will share the added information to his audience.
Of course corbett is so intellectually ignorant of the facts of entire 4 ½ years of the Sandusky case, but still spills to his audience the poison and malice toward Paterno and Penn State.
Shouldn’t Corbett be subpoenaed for testimony concerning the accuser?
She is obviously an intelligent person and a strong advocate for an important cause. Nevertheless, her form of argumentation is a bit slippery sometimes. Willfully so? You make the call.
you ever notice she ONLY engages on this board, on this specific issue, when the good guys start making headway on dispelling the false narrative??
She definitely has the tactical thing down.
If you've "doxed" me - why don't you put it out here for all to see? Show what a "fraud" I am.
1. How do you know I'm not pursuing other avenues? I'm here maybe an hour - there are 24 in a day.
2. I post here because there are many who continue to name, harass, post pictures of, and attack victims of childhood sexual abuse. They do it openly on this board - and many here allow/encourage/even applaud it.
1. I have never ONCE seen you mention here or on twitter the MASSIVE failures of CYS/DPW/TSM/OAG to protect PA's kids re: JS, you know, the entities whose job it is to make sure kids aren't being abused.
Keeping the focus on a false narrative of PSU football coverup only puts more kids at risk.
2. You posting on this site will NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING. You are preaching to the wrong choir. Just because someone alleges abuse doesn't automatically mean they should be taken at their word no questions asked. If you have a problem with PSU folks actually asking questions about these claims and wanting to vet them then you may as well go lurk on some other site because that's never going to stop and we have every right to call out outrageous and impossible to prove bullshit claims ('72, '76, 80's, V8, etc.).
oh stop, Roxine is doing great work.
Here's the proof: PA's children worse off than last year
amazing how even from the grave, Paterno continues to harm children. **rolls eyes**
I've been labeled a Paterno apologist since long before the scandal broke and I have no problem saying that I find very little of his grand jury testimony to be credible. No one can recall details from a 10 year old 15 minute conversation. Heck, the government didn't even have the month and year right originally for the 2001 charge yet we're supposed to believe Joe had any independent recollection of his conversation with McQueary and hang on his every word? Totally incredible.
I just don't get how people can act like he said "sexual nature" with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, and use those words against him, when he couched that term in between 2 qualifiers of uncertainty
transcription errors aside, all you need to do is understand how the English language works to understand Joe was qualifying what he said as a "best guess" 10 years after the fact AND after being told Sandusky had molested other kids.
but definitely NOT what McQueary actually told him in 2001
people who selectively isolate those 2 words are being knowingly dishonest
You're right about nobody remembering word for word what was said a decade later. I'm not sure anyone could or would even debate that point. Joe did however feel the need to tell TC something for some reason. Let's not forget MM said he watered it down for Joe IIRC and Joe still took it up his chain. Something was said that raised an eyebrow as he felt the need to pass it on, but you are right about us never knowing exactly what was said. Joe was pretty much always a straight shooter and him telling TC something wasn't right kind of leads you to believe something wasn't right.
No, not really, but anyone can invent their own version I guess.
Black Elmo is very good at creating his own, personal alternate reality. Most simply call him delusional.
That was probably the first time JVP ever uttered the word "sexual" in his life. Naah...he wasn't coached....not at all.
and that term is not in his interview with police a few hours before the GJ hearing
but don't let that stop Roxine from her campaign to smear Joe under the guise of "its for the kids"
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Memory is an interesting thing. I'm listening to the Serial Season 1 podcast right now, which is about the murder of a high school girl in 1999. The prime suspect (who was eventually found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in jail), a fellow high school senior (and the deceased's former boyfriend), is unable to recall a small period of time (21 minutes to be exact) to provide an alibi when the murder happened despite being adamant that he is innocent. The murder happened on January 13, 1999. He was arrested about two months later. When questioned, he could not provide any solid evidence or alibi to account for his whereabouts, despite at least one other eyewitness saying she saw him at the library that day at the time of the murder. Pretty amazing folks hold an 80+ year old with near certain memory issues to an unrealistic recollection standard some 10+ years earlier when even young, vibrant, healthy teens can't recall where they were two months ago to save their lives (literally).
experts say eye witness accounts are the most unreliable evidence to present in court. our brains are funny.
people can vividly remember things that either never happened or could never have happened.
people forget significant details during stressful and dangerous events
and an 80 yr old man can try to recall his impression of a conversation that happened 10 years prior, and wasn't considered a significant event at the time . . . and all kinds of dimwits hang on 2 words like they were absolute proof of what he HAD TO KNOW
While other dimwits try to make excuses or explain away his sworn testimony which he later never denied, changed, altered, corrected, or contradicted. Keep on living your fantasy.
Fa
Great podcast. I've told people on here numerous times to listen. You'll be through it by Monday.
Did you forget about Joe's press release shortly after the GJP came out where he explicitly DENIED the b.s. that was in the GJP and that the only thing he knew FOR SURE was that MM was upset about an inappropriate shower?
It sure would be nice if we could get the audio of Joe's actual testimony now wouldn't it?
