It's not worth translating. The poster has an agenda and won't let facts such as MM stating he did not witness a sexual assault and JVP equivocating get in the way.
John Doe took the Ira Lubert approved settlement but is "too fragile" to testify
- Thread starter eloracv
- Start date
It's not worth translating. The poster has an agenda and won't let facts such as MM stating he did not witness a sexual assault and JVP equivocating get in the way.
Sorry, you are right, that was really bad. I was typing quickly and didn't look it over.
What I meant to say was that it doesn't make sense for Paterno to bring up the "sexual nature" comment if he didn't remember what went on.
If you can get past the fact that the comment is worthless, being that the "sexual nature" comment was said by a man in his 80s, was qualified multiple times, has never been heard to verify it's accuracy, and it wasn't cross examined... Joe Paterno was a better human being than 99.999999999% of people on the planet. He could have been trying to help put a monster behind bars.
So are you saying that he lied under oath?
This is getting ridiculous. He said it because that is what he was told by MM in 2001.
This is getting ridiculous, you know I didn't say that. Yet you ignore all the reasons his testimony is unreliable. Do you ever get busy from all the spin?
If MM told Joe what you claim he did, he should have called the police, his dad and Dranov should have called the police. Anything that happened the next day is moot. Obviously their actions are not consistent with what you believe, and you know you are wrong. You simply put some petty agenda ahead of the welfare of children.
You said that he probably said that it was something of a sexual nature to help nail Sandusky. If that's the case then he lied under oath and screwed PSU and C/S/S.
Not what McQ told Joe and not what Joe told Curley in 2001, fool.
Really? How do you know? Because Curley said so?? HA-HA-HA!!! If that's the case, then Joe lied to the GJ. If its not the case, then Curley lied. So which is the perjurer?
Why do you and the other fool, GT, continue to use testimony ten years after the fact as your benchmark? You have been asked numerous times to consider the reactions of all the players in 2001, when it happened. That you and GT persist in referencing 2010 is why you both are referred to as fools and blockheads. Neither of you have the slightest information processing skills. GT should be disbarred for sheer stupidity. You must have some sort of motive otherwise how could you possibly bear to breathe.
Agree. I often use 9/11/01 as a reference point. I fractured a heel a few weeks before 9/11 and was in a cast then. So whenever I try to remember when I was in a cast, crutching around, my reference point is the day, month and year of the plane bombings. The shower incident was in 02/01. Seems to me that 9/11/01 would be a better reference point than the airing of the stupid ass Rudy movie.
"You do swear by Almighty God, the Searcher of all hearts, that the evidence you shall give this court [and Jury] in this issue now being tried [heard] shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and as you shall answer to God on the last great day."
I believe that JVP took those words to heart. That he honestly and truthfully testified. That he didn't embellish, manufacture, creatively "fill in the memory gaps", or falsely declare for any reason, much less in order to help the prosecution.
I believe that JVP took those words to heart. That he honestly and truthfully testified. That he didn't embellish, manufacture, creatively "fill in the memory gaps", or falsely declare for any reason, much less in order to help the prosecution.
This is one of those times I wish hell really existed.
Well, what it says - that the trolls won't admit - is that what MM saw wasn't that big of a deal to him at the time. If it was, he would have remembered it. If he told JVP some horrible rape tale, then JVP would have remembered it.
Simple. Neither one faces charges of perjury. I believe that to be convicted of perjury one must "willfully" tell an "untruth." A classic example of perjury would be the state troopers who lied in the Sandusky Trial.
It's worse than that. Artsandletters and MtNittany are saying that after taking that oath Joe just fabricated testimony that could lead to the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of a man Joe had known and worked with for years. Wow; I guess Joe really didn't like Sandusky.
Joe Paterno, the man I admire, would never have done that. He had too much integrity. It seems others don't share my high regard for Joe.
Exactly. What I didn't mention in my previous post was that I had fractured my heel surviving a fire, jumping out a window -- definitely a memorable experience.
smh is all I have left.
Your "regard" for Joe has been on display here for almost 5 years. No need to try to reinvent it or polish it in another failing attempt to make a point.
Except that you and elmo hated JoePa and are actually relishing the media narrative that he was some sort of pedo enabler and that C/S/S are bad men. Pitt trolls every one of you
It's a valid point though. Either Joe told the truth and MM told him that he witnessed something of a sexual nature or Joe lied under oath. Those are the only two possibilities. If Joe lied, then he committed a crime and screwed over many people. If he told the truth, then it should be accepted that MM reported something more than horseplay, at least to Joe.
There are many posts where I have stated my admiration for Joe and all of his great accomplishments. I still feel that way and the fact that I feel he dropped the ball in this case in no way diminishes my admiration. You seem to have difficulty in understanding that people don't have to be perfect; that we all are human and prone to mistakes.
Now the fact that you disagree with my position does not mean that it follows that I have no regard for Joe. You are mistaken.
Fixated on one word an 80 year old man said when he was just there trying to help, while ignoring the blatant perjury by cops and investigators conducted right in the court room, w/ full knowledge of the judge.
I may be a newbie, but even I know it's possible to view a member's posts on here. I saw nothing on the first 4 pages that indicated any admiration for JVP. So either you bunched it all up at the beginning of your career here, or you're just a lying liar who lies. I'll go with Option B.
They were two really important words. Being over 80 isn't an excuse and really it is quite humorous to hear when you would also want him to have remained to be the head football coach at Penn State. You are saying that a man who you feel is competent enough to lead the face of PSU athletics shouldn't be expected to adequately give testimony about an event from the past. Unbelievable.
Here is a link to Paterno's testimony - HIT THE LINK. It clearly demonstrates that your statement is a complete fabrication and Paterno never alleged "inappropriate sexual activity". JVP is clearly stating that MM alleged contact and touching in the shower similar to the 1998 Report. JVP also indicates that MM was suspicious of Sandusky's motivations for being in the shower and felt they were sexual and inappropriate in nature, but ABSOLUTELY does not in any way say that MM reported seeing "Sexual Activity" or a "Sexual Act" of any kind. JVP's testimony is 100% consistent with MM's testimony multiple times UNDER OATH in which he UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that he DID NOT SEE a sexual act of any kind and NEVER told anyone he did. What MM did say he saw was CONTACT between the parties who were standing in close proximity. Furthermore, MM testified that the contact he saw of Sandusky's hands (e.g., "fondling") was to the child's upper-back and shoulder area and that he COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING below either parties' upper bodies above the waist.
IOW, JVP testified that MM reported seeing Sandusky touching the child in the shower with his hands (the definition of "fondling") - the EXACT SAME REPORT that was received in 1998 (Sandusky bear-hugged the child from behind and then lifted him up to shower head) - and this is precisely what MM testified to as well (e.g., seeing what he believed to be inappropriate contact in the shower but did not see an actual sex act of any kind). It is not testifying that MM told him he witnessed "inappropriate sexual activity" (e.g., a SEX ACT) and MM has IN FACT testified to the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE (e.g., did not see a sex act of any kind and NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had - "anyone" would include JVP you lying, obfuscating douche-bag!).
And don't start with your bull$hit that MM seeing Sandusky make contact with the boy with his hands (fondling) is a sex act as the law is quite clear, and this was a factor in the 1998 incident as well, that only the victim can define non-genital contact as sexual assault and that a witness saying he saw non-genital contact is not in-and-of-itself a "sex act" or "sexual activity" you lying sack of $hit.
JVP clearly indicated "inappropriate sexual activity" several times in his testimony. He was very clear, and restated that several times, that it was sexual and inappropriate. The message he conveyed as a witness was very clear. It was inappropriate and it was sexual. You are grasping at straws trying to concoct some convoluted explanation as to why he was being deceptive or untruthful in what testified to "as he shall answer to God on the last great day."
What he did NOT ever say was "horseplay."
What he did NOT ever say was "horseplay."
MM telling JVP that he saw non-genital contact by Sandusky with his hands (e.g., "fondling") and thought the motivation for Sandusky being in the shower was "sexual in nature" and therefore highly inappropriate IS NOT anywhere remotely close to MM telling JVP that he witnessed "inappropriate sexual activity" you fargging @ssclown.
Last edited:
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Joe wasn't a witness - Mike was, and he didn't do enough. Joe did at least as much, and almost certainly more than Mike (reported it to someone at the university whose job it is to handle such things - it is not and has never been Joe's job to police Sandusky or any other former employee of the university). Mike failed everyone by not going to the police immediately. What is your opinion of Mike's failings? How could someone see what Mike supposedly saw and tell everyone but the cops? Why did Mike's father and Dr. Dranov give such poor advice? Talk about punting.
What laughable bull$hit is that why JVP said, "Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.". Only in your world does "whatever you might call it.....I'm not sure what the term would be" translates as JVP testified to MM telling him of seeing "inappropriate sexual activity", LMFAO
Later in the testimony when asked to describe what MM told him regarding the contact Sandusky made in the shower with his hands (the definition of "fondling"), JVP says, "I don't know what you would call it" and "I don't know exactly what it was.", but according to you that is JVP explicitly describing "inappropriate sexual activity" - again LMFAO....at you, not with you, you lying douche-bag.
I do not agree with your interpretation of the phrase at all and neither do most people. You are bastardizing it to fit narrative in your head. At face value, it is damning enough to warrant involvement from police.
Most people would say that fondling or a similar act by a man to a boy in a shower is "inappropriate sexual activity".
No they wouldn't idiot given that the definition of "fondling" is touching with the hands and that MM testified under oath that the "touching by Sandusky's hands" that he witnessed in the shower (and told JVP about) was to the child's upper back and shoulder area AND that he did not actually witness sexual contact and NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD! ("anyone" would include JVP you f'ing obfuscating douche-bag and moron!). Foundling a child's shoulder area is not considered by anyone, let alone "most people", to be "inappropriate sexual activity" you obfuscating lying, worthless, piece of $hit.
Who the hell uses the word fondling for describing the touching of someone's shoulders or for holding hands??
What the hell are you talking about, it is a common usage of fondling - as in "she was fondling the child's hair"......"he was fondling the dog's head and shoulders".....etc.... Fondling means to touch specifically with your hands moron. If somebody said, "they were fondling their pet" or "they were sitting there fondling the child", it in no way implies the party was having sex with or performing some type of sex act on the pet or child nimrod! What it does suggest is that they were touching or caressing the pet or child in some manner you freaking dolt.
BTW jackwagon, JVP even stated that he was struggling with how to describe the contact in the shower MM described to him saying, "I don't know how to describe it" and "I don't know what you would call it" when explaining why he used the term "fondling" (he was asked to describe what he meant by the term by Eshbach) to describe the contact that MM described (which MM later testified under oath in a PA court of law was hand touching to the upper-back and shoulder area of the child). Essentially, "fondling" implies that the touching was initiated to be affectionate which is why JVP likely used that specific term.
He was interviewed by detectives right before he testified. Could the phrase "sexual nature" have been said by one of the detectives, and it stuck in Joe's mind? I'm not saying it was anything sinister done by the detectives.
My father in law was in his mid-80s, had surgeries during that time, as did Joe, and was not the same guy, mentally, afterward. He would be told something, then repeat it a few times, after that.
JVP testified under oath. The Court takes his testimony at face value. So should we. If it was in error he had plenty of time to correct it before he passed away. He didn't. He continually maintained he was told by MM of inappropriate SEXUAL activity. Joe fathered several children. He coached college boys for dozens of years. I think he heard about sex before, and knew what the word sexual meant. So please quit trying to explain it away.
I'm experienced with people Joe's age. My father is 86. He does the same thing. How much experience with that age group do you have?
As far as "under oath" goes, Two PSP perjured themselves during Soapy's trial. Why has neither of them been prosecuted? Oh yeah, lying FOR the prosecution is perfectly acceptable.
Now, I too would like to HEAR a tape of Joe answering that question. Joe had a way of answering a question with a question. My bet is there is a tape out there. I'd love to hear it.
Is your father Head Coach of a major football program? Does he face media questioning every week? Has he had experience in public speaking for 60 years? You shouldn't sterotype the elderly. Every person is different.
Joe seemed quite capable of running the PSU program. I suspect he could answer a few Grand Jury questions honestly. So far his family hasn't produced any medical or psychological reports that suggested he had lost his memory, suffered from dementia, or was otherwise confused when he testified. You can fantasize about it all you want, but his sworn testimony is on record and there is no medical proof to suggest it should not be considered credible.
Joe seemed quite capable of running the PSU program. I suspect he could answer a few Grand Jury questions honestly. So far his family hasn't produced any medical or psychological reports that suggested he had lost his memory, suffered from dementia, or was otherwise confused when he testified. You can fantasize about it all you want, but his sworn testimony is on record and there is no medical proof to suggest it should not be considered credible.
Evidently you can't read very well, I never said that. I first and foremost said his testimony is completely unreliable. I then said that if you ignore all that, which you shouldn't, he could have been trying to help put a monster behind bars.... In no way is adding some adjectives, qualified multiple times, lying under oath. The first part is important, so you'll continue to focus on the second part.
When did you realize Sandusky was a monster? Was when the jury read the verdict, or did you come to the realization sometime earlier?
