Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
"It developed over the years as JS activities and proclivities became apparent. It developed."
????
What "activities and proclivities" became more apparent between 2001 and 2009?
How? When? To whom?
In what way(s) does that alter "what happened in 2001"?
Color me confused
????
What "activities and proclivities" became more apparent between 2001 and 2009?
How? When? To whom?
In what way(s) does that alter "what happened in 2001"?
Color me confused
yes. Barry Bozeman and I went over it in detail. Mike's testimony does not hold up to physical reality
IMO, this is the whole problem with the case against Sandusky. It didnt happen overnight. It happened over time as more accusations were made. The accusations mushroomed once it was known that others had made accusations and there was a deep pocket that was willing to pay settlements. The problem is that if AF's accusation is suspect then all of the other accusations that came later are suspect. It is very curious to me that none of the 8 victims in the Nov 2011 GJP including AF made accusations that Sandusky had sex with them when they were first interviewed by authorities. When you add that all of the accusers had a significant financial interest in the results of the trial, I don't think it is that much of a stretch to question whether or not Sandusky is really a pedophile given that his trial was patently unfair.
Last edited:
You carry that much further than I do, no, we don't agree. You believe he's innocent, I do not. There is much more to JS than McQearys story, but that story is what unfairly tied PSU football in this. Preach his innocence all you want but I will not be a party to that.
Not surprised at all. MM is a liar. He didn't see shat. As I previously stated, no adult human being would have turned their back...not possible.
I thought the questions were pretty clear...perhaps they were not
You say that ""It developed over the years as JS activities and proclivities became apparent. It developed."
What are you saying?
What "activities and proclivities" became more apparent between 2001 and 2009?
How? When? To whom?
In what way(s) does that alter "what happened in 2001"?
The only thing I can imagine you mean is that it may have altered folks perceptions as to the impact of the 2001 event.....but it certainly doesn't change "what happened"....right?
By 2009/2010 some people believed very very strongly that JS was an active pedophile.
That doesn't alter what happened in 2001 but it may have had an influence on the memory of 2001.
the most plausible explanation is definitely NOT the false narrative the OAG created. only one scenario fits all the known facts:
Mike sort of saw something he thought might be bad, certainly in no great detail.
many years later, the OAG helped him "remember" more details because they told him it would put away a pedophile
I don't think Mike knew he was being used by Fina/Corbett, and it certainly seems like they held something over his head to gain his compliance
You are so off point. What people thought ten years later is not worth a pile of crap vis-vis 2001. Just pluckin stop it.
Ok....that's what I supposed you may have been alluding to.
That's been discussed at length, and I think is a valid concern........in fact, IIRC, I even penned a manifesto and some citations to academic research (a year or two back) wrt "Memory Recollection Post-Traumatic Peripheral Events" - and all the things that come into play there
Actually, I think "You" and "He" probably agree......but I can't say for sure. Misder might clarify.
Perhaps if OAG had some dirt on MM that "helped" his recollection of the incident, he might be waiting until that statutes of limitation expire until he comes clean.[/QUOTE]
I feel pretty confident that you're barking up the wrong tree........but I'll leave it at that.
I think we do, he just doesn't realize it and I'm not feeling the need to explain it to him.
If you listen very carefully, I am not preaching he is innocent. I believe his trial was patently unfair and that he deserves a new trial. I believe that if he wins a trial and the trial is remotely fair, then there is a non-trivial chance that he will be found not guilty. I don't believe that the accusations against JS have ever been thoroughly vetted.
I feel pretty confident that you're barking up the wrong tree........but I'll leave it at that.[/QUOTE]
Barking up the wrong tree as far as OAG influencing MM's testimony, or MM telling the real story at some point?
I get it Steve, we've had this discussion many times. My mind won't be changed and you will never understand that
Here's where and why we differ. For you, this started in 2011. For me, it did not
Why does when I got interested in this story make any difference? I agree with a lot of what you have to say. My ultimate goal is to find out the truth in what happened in this entire fiasco. I believe you can agree that the truth isn't the false narratives that the OAG is selling. Can you at least admit that you don't know everything that happened? I certainly don't.
Why am I wrong? What happened or what dialogue, thoughts transpired over ten years changes what was reported by Mike in 2001? You went to the frame shop didn't you? Spoke to dukie. Cause you have really changed your tune.
Steve, I never said I know everything, no one does. Yes, the truth is not the narrative the OAG manufactured. As I told you before,my mind was made up a long time ago, that fact is not going to change.
I have my opinions. They may change if I learn new information. What I am hearing you say is that your mind is made up and it won't change even if you learn new information. Am I understanding you correctly?
I guess that makes him no different than a lot of the country, unfortunately.
Barking up the wrong tree as far as OAG influencing MM's testimony, or MM telling the real story at some point?[/QUOTE]
I don't think the idea of the OAG using "dirt leverage" (or whatever one might want to call it) really fits into this scenario
Just one mans opinion, but I don't think that really fits in here
I think we all need to deliberate, not argue and debate. Penn State has the Center for Democratic Deliberation and I think a few on here could stand for attending some of their seminars. http://cdd.la.psu.edu/
Full Definition of deliberate
de·lib·er·at·ed de·lib·er·at·ing
Full Definition of deliberate
de·lib·er·at·ed de·lib·er·at·ing
- intransitive verb
- : to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully
- transitive verb
- : to think about deliberately and often with formal discussion before reaching a decision
That's not anybody's business but my own. I gave up trying to convince you of anything
If you don't provide any facts and evidence to back up your arguments, you are going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of anything.
If my credibility is a question mark then you would be well advised to NOT listen to me. You do with your time what you wish, it matters not to me.
I am not questioning your credibility. My understanding is that you are from State College, have some connection to the case, and wish to remain anonymous. I will respect your wishes if you prefer not to explain the basis for your opinions, but I believe it would help everyone to be able to access your credibility if you did. If you don't care what anybody thinks, then why are you posting in the first place.
I believe there are some here that find what I have to say to be of interest to them. Some find me credible, others don't. i guess we could just call it "community service".
If you don't want to read what I post why don't you simply ignore me?
