Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
What was Joe's serious lapse of judgment? He followed procedures and reported it and got out of the way; those he reported it to took it to a mandated reporter at TSM. This seems to be very sound all the way, especially in light of the likely 'Oh Shit, WTF..... another baseless report' reaction by all at the Admin level. I sincerely doubt they knew what they were dealing with. But I bet TSM did.
Last edited:
For $8.5 million dollars Louis Freeh was not able to come up with shred of evidence to support your bogus theory.
If Mike really saw Sandusky molesting a kid (doubtful) and he kept his mouth shut of concern for his career he is a despicable human being.
And this when told by his children that the media was saying Joe knew exactly what Sandusky had done and what he was about, and that Joe had been willing to protect Sandusky and let children be harmed in unimaginable ways to protect his legacy........"How could they think that?". "They really think that if I knew someone was hurting kids, I wouldn't have stopped it?". "Don't they know me? Don't they know what my life has been a bout?".
You are correct, that fact that it is repeated doesn't make it true. The fact that it is true makes it true. Only in your alternate universe does anything more than horseplay exist. You've been told literally hundreds of times the multitude of reasons why Joe's testimony is unreliable. Your agenda simply stops you from listening to the facts. You are the one guy saying the world is flat in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary.
So you buy in to the ridiculous "bad publicity" narrative? JS was an ex-employee that the head coach didn't even like. There is no downside to MM reporting a crime, and to think otherwise is ludicrous. How about you answer the other questions too? So why would they contact TSM with a watered down version, why didn't MM intervene?
No one is saying that nice strawman though. The problem with you and the rest of your cohorts is you are giving more weight to the parts of Joe's testimony where he's speculating (sexual in nature, fondling--"I'm not sure exactly what it was"--"I don't know what you'd call it") than you are to the parts where he isn't speculating (inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable).
Only an imbecile/someone with an agenda would do so.
You and GTA are the one's who love Joe's own words so much (except of course when he says "I'm not sure exactly what it was" you want to discount that part), well, here they are one more time since you conveniently didn't reply the first time I linked them:
From Joe's written statement to the press:
"As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators."
Here's Joe's GJ testimony that essentially says the same thing (page 176 of 12/16/11 prelim it was read into the record by scumbag Corbett crony James Barker)
"I didn't go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster".
After reading the above you tell me...what did Joe KNOW versus what did he speculate on?
Last edited:
What the hell are you talking about? MM and Paterno's testimonies agreed with each other.
You and a band of about 10 idiots on this site are the only ones who believe it was nothing more than horseplay.
As for you last question, MM didn't intervene because he was told it was taken care of. That and he is a massive pussy. That has been established with his conduct during the event that he witnessed.
If that would be the case, Curley, Spanier and Schuktz would be screaming about it.
I am enjoying reading this thread, but let me interject here for a moment. As I tell kids that I work with, "The fact that you chose to respond says that are offended."
Carry on.
Schultz did speak to Harmon. Harmon's version was that GS asked if 98 was still on file nfqa. Seriously? A career cop wouldn't say why do you ask?Harmon is muted. GS is as well until it goes to court or is dropped. The latter is now a lead pipe cinch. No way on that campus that Harmon did not know there was another incident with JS.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I don't believe that CSS would have let it go this far without mentioning that they talked to Harmon about it. Not saying that Harmon didn't find out somehow, but if any of those guys spoke to him, that is the first thing they would have said.
In court you answer the questions you are asked. Who was Gary's attorney when he testified?
He stated he thought it was reported. Interesting that he wasn't asked who was purported to do it.
Harmon's story is unbelievable to me.
And...of course if its true there were "rumors" about Jerry in the past....even tongue in cheek stuff... but nothing ever substantiated...Mike could have heard noise and automatically jumped right to an immediate conclusion...clearly everything happened in a nano second...
Great; if you are correct the whole country now knows that the Chief of Police of the Pennsylvania State University was told of the incident and did nothing. Nice move Marshall.
Your mental defect - was it a genetic thing, or was there some traumatic accident involved?
Last edited:
If it is the truth, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may, but let what happens in the future be based on the truth, not the opinions of hired gun.
Oh, so now you're including Joe's questioning about what it was? Good talk, Russ.
As opposed to the false narrative that it was the university president, vice president and athletic director that conspired to protect JS? You really are an idiot.
Not only was Joe speculating - he was speculating on MM's speculation as most of what MM said he was upset about was relative to what he HEARD first and then what he saw (just as he confirmed in his testimony in a court of law under oath - when pressed to confine his testimony to ONLY what he ACTUALLY SAW and EYEWITNESSED, he stated that he DID NOT see and eyewitness any sexual act and never told ANYONE that he had. Even in his testimony in court, MM would always QUALIFY his statement that he THOUGHT this is what was going on based on what he previously HEARD despite not actually seeing it and what he did see being limited to the upper bodies of the parties above Sandusky's waist as the taller party.).
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Go easy on Seth he is a special kinda stupid...
Haah...he sure is...his arguments are so weak and devoid of logic..I shutter to think he ever represented people in a court of law
Seth can't seem to keep the tires inflated on his city issued vehicles. Is it any wonder why? He's a douche whose political career is on life support.
Well we know what you would have done and why. Now quit pretending you can speak for anybody else.
You would think that Spanier would have said that he or the other guys reported it back when his lawyers had that huge response to Freeh.
Just didn't question it, he said it. You want what he said to be a question, but that is not what happened.
getmyjive11 said:
Just because you believe something doesn't mean EVERYONE else does. Haven't you noticed the non-stop parade of people telling you that you are wrong? You say that only ~10 people on this site believe it was nothing more than horseplay. I say you would be hard pressed to find 10 people on this site that believe it was rape. I guess you are assuming that the jury, and victim #2 aren't on this site?
If it was rape as you believe, why didn't MM intervene (in the actual event genius)? Why would they contact TSM with a watered down version? There is no motivation for C/S/S to water down the story before telling TSM. They either pass it along as they heard it, or don't pass it along.
As if it didn't already look like you were the same person, with your ridiculous beliefs and ignorance of the facts, why did you reply for GTACSA?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Hey there is a our little fella cr666.... the groundhog stuck his head out of his hole to spew some OGBOT.....
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Information contained in three million documents and gleaned from over three hundred interviews say otherwise. Once the dissident trustees review the work product, ask them if they agree.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
And I know you want to be FAIR so you will agree that he very well could have been told that the young man in question was not in distress. I believe MM testified to that. Time to crawl back into the bunker and bite on that cyanide capsule.
So Paterno was supposed to go an investigate this on his own? That is counter to NCAA regulations, you know. JS didn't see anything and JS didn't work for Joe. No way Joe should have done anything different than what he did.
You know there is no such information. Which makes you a liar.
Just keeping with THE SCRIPT. Even Louis the Liar is reduced to calling his "independent investigation" nothing but an 8.5 million dollar opinion. You and your misanthrope comrades have been exposed. Perhaps there are more substitute teachings positions like the one One Term has for your buddies?
