I still recall Louis promising to come back and discuss his "opinion" in open forums. I guess I missed those forums...would have been fun.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
I still recall Louis promising to come back and discuss his "opinion" in open forums. I guess I missed those forums...would have been fun.
This site is different from the unwashed masses. Most people on this site actually know the facts that are evident. What percent of the public do you think believe that MM witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in 2001? My guess would be around 70%, similar to the number who feel Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are guilty (see exhibit H of the 2nd amended Sandusky PCRA). This is why I want to see Spanier, Curley, and Schultz exonerated and the Freeh Report farce debunked sooner rather than later and hopefully in 2016.
I can hardly wait to hear what the "dissidents" have to say after their review is complete. I don't believe they will agree with your assessment.
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz will eventually be exonerated and it won't be because of a technicality. The Freeh Report farce will be debunked. The day of reckoning will eventually happen.
Why haven't we seen any of it? When will we? The one email that Fraud purposely misinterpreted sure wasn't it. And that was all he offered.
I believe Joe et. al. did the best they could with the info they had. They reported it. No cover-up. Once they told TSM, it was good enough. The Sanduskys of the world are a complex puzzle that untrained people - this means you, too - cannot easily assess or fathom or grasp at first blush. It takes trained people to see into it - like Jack and Kitty, like Harmon, like CYS. Those people were (or likely were, based on testimony) informed.
There were people with more info regarding what Sandusky was truly up to who did nothing - they are the real culprits. People involved with TSM and state and local agencies and law enforcement. People like Heim, Jack R., Kitty, and others who were connected directly or indirectly to both the PSU BOT and TSM BOD (Suhey, e.g.) had more info and knowledge and did nothing. They are being protected by the misdirection and falsehoods that have spewed forth since early Nov. 2011. You're part of that problem. Whatever you're doing.... Not good enough. That shallow rhetoric does nothing to help the general public recognize and step up to the Sanduskys of the world, because we're told that that this stuff only happens when there is a football program to protect..... so nothing for Joe the Plumber to be aware of in his daily world.
As I've stated before, regardless of what you've done in your business world, you're just not a leader in any sense of the word. There is no reason for anyone here to believe your empty words, as you offer nothing other than the already stated and disproved shallow rhetoric. There are people here who are fighting the good fight - and that is to put aside the money implications that are paramount to you and yours - to find out why good people were kicked in the teeth for their honest attempts at resolving the confusing situation brought to their attention in 2001.
Luckily for all of us, the Paterno trial will provide ample opportunity for all of that "information" to be brought forward for the public to digest.
If that is the case why did the OGBOT fight to prevent the dissidents' access to the source materials?
300 interviews with whom?? They didn't interview anybody involved with the freaking case so interviewing 300 people outside the Mall doesn't do any good, does it?? What did these 3,000,000 documents say?? Only that you haven't been mistreated??
And why hasn't it been leaked out yet?
There's no more bad information about CSS or Paterno. The only bad information, if any, reflects on certain powerful BOT members and university counsel. Otherwise the Paterno stuff would have been in the report and CSS would have been tried by now.
CR is pathetic scum. Don't let him lure you in.
I sense bad news is imminent for the bot. I will also posit not a single bot member will state what you said under oath. Probably no one from the NCAA either.
Well when the OAG holds a Nationally Televised Press Conference announcing the Presentment and Indictments including a KNOWINGLY FALSE ACCOUNT of what Mike McQueary SAW and EYEWITNESSED as the support for their most serious allegations, well........it will tend to have that effect on public opinion. Who expects the Attorney General's Office - the highest ranking prosecutorial office in the Commonwealth to intentionally lie through their teeth and commit blatant TYRANNY and immoral terror???
Their self-proclaimed "eyewitness" to these events said himself, in a Pennsylvania Court of Law, during the trial in question, under oath that he had NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN OR EYEWITNESSED THE SEXUAL ACTS CLAIMED BY THE OAG and that he NEVER TOLD ANYBODY HE HAD. This testimony is CONSISTENT with what he told both the prosecution and the defense under questioning -- essentially, the prosecution asked him to relay events as they happened, what he heard, what he thought at that point, then what happened.....then I saw this brief reflection.....the prosecution again asked him to speculate as to what he thought was going on in there.....and MM again prefaced what he "THOUGHT" he was seeing was this.....because of what he had heard earlier and the body positioning in the shower DESPITE admitting that he could not actually see anything below the parties upper bodies as defined by above Sandusky's waist as he was the taller party.
The OAG knew damn well that MM's testimony as to ONLY what he could testify to seeing (the only admissible testimony) CONTRADICTED THEIR CLAIMS, it did not SUPPORT THEM and MM's additional "I NEVER TOLD ANYBODY I DID SEE THAT" is very strong evidence for "malicious prosecution" not only relative to this count, but also in their cases against TC and GS as MM's account supports their version of events (relative to relaying what he specifically saw, MM has consistently said that he only saw the parties in the shower above the waist and could not say for certain what they were doing because he could ONLY SEE THE UPPER BODIES of the parties as defined by above Sandusky's waist as the taller party. IOW, he SAW two people in the shower doing SOMETHING but he couldn't say for sure what that SOMETHING was - he could ONLY SPECULATE as to what he THOUGHT was going on especially based on what he had HEARD prior to getting the brief glimpse of the upper bodies in the mirror!). Speculating about what you CANNOT SEE is irrelevant other than to express why you were so concerned - everybody listening to MM would know this....IOW, "Mike, so you're saying you didn't actually definitively see a sex act, but you THINK that is what was taking place based on how they were standing and what you had HEARD since you walked into the facility?..... As soon as MM says, "Yes, I can't say that I actually saw my worst concerns, but I really do thing that may have been what was going on especially based on what I HEARD....". His EYEWITNESS testimony is exculpatory to Sandusky, not the opposite, and it is a very clear case of the OAG intentionally MISREPRESENTING what Mike McQueary told them he SAW and EYEWITNESSED just as Mike McQueary said in a memo to the OAG before the trial even began! (MM as told the press about this memo to the OAG prior to the trial - again, strong evidence of "malicious prosecution" on the part of the PA OAG).
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what juries do? Give their opinions on whether someone is guilty or innocent based on the evidence they have? What's the difference?
Last edited:
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Bahahaha. You mean the interviews that didn't even include Harmon, one of the most key people in understanding what happened?? Freeh also conveniently didn't show the body of the email Schultz sent to Harmon the morning of 2/12/01, gee I wonder if it was because he mentioned they have a repeat of 98 and asked if Harmon still had the 98 report on record? Harmon being told about 2001 doesn't support the current false narrative.
Freeh could interview a million people but since he didn't talk to any of the key players the opinions he formed are less than worthless. The only interviews he did use were folks with a axe to grind against Joe...what an unbiased and comprehensive way to do an investigation!!
PSU also refused to waive ACP so that freeh could include exactly what Schultz told Courtney and exactly what his advice was.
If any of the above supported the current narrative freeh would have included it in his $8.5 million piece of shit opinion piece. But I'm sure PSU OGBOT fought tooth and nail every time someone tried to get discovery of freeh source files out for no reason at all right? If those files supported his work product they should have been happy to provide them to their own damned trustees who agreed to confidentiality if they got unredacted access. But nope. Fought them every step of the way and needed to have a judge smack them down before they finally gave in.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
The only bad news will be for the disident BOT members when they review Freehs work product and see that he got it right.
Joe's written press release (no doubt drafted by a lawyer) acknowledges "clear...inappropriate" behavior. At NO time does he recant, retract, or deny that it was "sexual in nature" as he testified. He could easily have done so in that statement but chose not to.
Its clear his intent was to affirm his testimony, otherwise he would have been more emphatic in his statement and would have said he misspoke when he called it sexual. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes. He had an opportunity then, and afterwards, to retract or clarify his testimony if it was inaccurate, or wrong, and he chose not to do so.
Why do you think he chose to hide behind the words of a lawyer rather than speak directly to the media?
Its clear his intent was to affirm his testimony, otherwise he would have been more emphatic in his statement and would have said he misspoke when he called it sexual. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes. He had an opportunity then, and afterwards, to retract or clarify his testimony if it was inaccurate, or wrong, and he chose not to do so.
Why do you think he chose to hide behind the words of a lawyer rather than speak directly to the media?
Anyone who thinks that a football coach should involve himself in looking into something like that has a serious "football culture" problem.
Paterno's job was to coach the football team. Raykovitz's job was to run The Second Mile. You and your despicable pals pointed the finger at the wrong guy.
Excellent, cr has provided his mortal lock that the og bot are screwed.
it's such a shame that Paterno did exactly what law enforcement and current NCAA regulations recommend
Are you saying that Freeh omitted some relevant inculpatory evidence from his $8.5 million report?
Well that certainly depends on what ever existed and what part of that was retained.
clearly Freeh held back. there was so much damning evidence against Paterno, the football program, and C/S/S that Freeh decided the most prudent thing he could do was frame them based on conjecture and manipulated emails
Juries are supposed to find facts and draw only the conclusions that are supported by those facts. Freeh's "opinions" (formerly known as his "reasonable conclusions") are NOT supported by the scant facts found.
It's clear, since its stated in black and white, that the intent of his statement was to point out the OAG's bullshit fantasy GJP didn't match his testimony and what MM reported to him. At that point the media was already trying to crucify Joe due to the OAG's misrepresentation of Joe/MM's GJ testimony. Speaking through a lawyer was quite prudent if you ask me.
Also as I pointed out in my earlier post Joe's GJ testimony shows the only thing he knew for SURE was that the shower was inappropriate and it made MM upset (this lines up exactly with his written statement). That's it. The other part that you cling too was couched with I dont know what it was, aka speculation.
Any more brain busters Seth?
Also without subpoenae power or speaking to any of the key people freeh was somehow able to find evidence against Joe that fina/OAG wasn't able to, since they said they didn't find any evidence Joe was involved in a cover up...Yeah right.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
I don't believe Freeh or Karen Peetz ever used the word promise. In which case they had license to not come back and discuss the report and not break any promises.
Last edited:
uhm sir, may I point out that the Freeh team was openly sharing information with the OAG, so are you implying Freeh HELD BACK evidence from the law???
So it was 300 interviews with Ken Frazier and Vicki Tripponey?
Got it
I realize your sick agenda prevents you from being anything but the troll you are. However, I would ask you to produce one shred of evidence from 2001 that supports your argument?
"We will also make ourselves available to the students, faculty and staff of the University at the appropriate time at State College."
Just one of Louis' many, many lies.
Just because "all Dr. Jack Raykovitz was told about was horseplay" has been repeated ad nauseum and makes it so. The cumulative effect of Curley's, Schultz's, Spanier's, Courtney's AND TOM POOLE'S KNOWLEDGE put that assertion where it belongs. The "anal rape" exists only in an alternate universe of Frank Fina's disgusting mind.
The answer to your other questions are pretty straight forward. Dr. Jack Raykovitz and the Second Mile was a parasite on the football program and he knew it. Screaming from the rooftops may have effectively ended his stint with Penn State. There are any number of possible ($250,000 and Swinger's parties) reasons why he didn't intervene.
Exactly - by purposely NOT interviewing specific people, they had enough info needed to reach their conclusions.... therefore, the conclusions were based on incomplete and likely biased input, in some cases given under the threat of job loss, and were certainly anything but reasonable as a result. Job poorly done by a truly independent investigator, but 'good enough' to some to render an unsubstantiated and possibly pre-disposed opinion. Freeh and SITF: Not good enough. Hence, the outcry by the able-thinking among us. If there is actual evidence to support the conclusions/opinions, bring it out. If people like me need to re-assess our stance, give us an actual reason to do so. We've said all along we want the truth.... a truth that is supported by facts and testimony and found to be independent of the SITF's (pre-disposed?) conclusions to cover their asses.
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
-