CR, every post you make proves that you truly are a member.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Check out these excerpts directly from THIS ARTICLE:
That is a lot of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and intentional misrepresentation of facts as even one of the member's of the Initial Grand Jury, the 30th PA SWIGJ, points out
Sooooooo, since we know you can't give any details of the Freeh review, maybe we should come up with a special BWI scale-
to to to .
Last edited:
CR-why do you do that?
We already have evidence that they got it wrong in Joe. It's already a known fact
Wth man
Good lord CR you really are a complete idiot. Seriously I cannot believe you actually built and sold a business. Take a look at who the lawyers were on the Freeh team. Almost none were qualified.
If only a lawyer who spent years and years and years doing this kind of work could get his hands on those files .... Hmmm.
If we are so small and insignificant, then how come you bother to come here and lecture us? Please don't tell us it's because you are doing us a favor. You've never done a favor for a single person in your entire life other than yourself.
Your parents gave birth to a cancer. I imagine they were no better than pond scum, and the apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Ms. Triponhertongue had a great deal to say until she was subpoenaed. Then she hid behind her husband, who had to write a note to the teacher for her. She would be a natural sorority sister for Putz Peetz.
And then you have all these facts and extreme inconsistencies that Freeh didn't even consider:
That is a lot of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and intentional misrepresentation of facts as even one of the member's of the Initial Grand Jury, the 30th PA SWIGJ, points out!
Anthony, be careful! CR666 warns you not to disclose anything....
I corrected your typo and sincere thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll stay at Troon North in Scottsdale, where I live on the Pinnacle Course. The daily commute for your Swingers parties would be rough. Plus I'd rather deal with our venomous snakes in the grass than having to deal with your version known as Kenny Frazier. Snakes are outliers at our club, obviously not so at yours.Thanks anyways!
Last edited:
You might be dismayed to know that soon after Van Natta outed Grand Juror Bolton that the OAG went after the man's disabled son, attempting to pin child porn charges on him. Apparently a torrent exchange website was being investigated & Bolton's son's IP address was traced but experts would later submit that his computer was likely hacked & upon meeting the young man it became clear it was highly unlikely he was mentally capable of using the torrent site. Charges were eventually dropped. Bolton is convinced the OAG targeted his son because of the ESPN story.
Eileen Morgan already debunked the claim that they reviewed 3.5 million documents pointing out that they'd have to review 2000 documents an hour 7 days a week in over the entire investigation time window. So you're already FOS. Freeh quotes almost none of those interviews & doesn't include any interviews from key persons involved with the case. Meanwhile several people have come forward saying Freeh's team tried to talk them into saying bad things about PSU & the administrators. That is anything but an unbiased & independent investigation. So you're FOS there too. Have a nice day ✌☺
No it isn't. A jury is a group brought into court to decide MATTERS OF FACT based on sufficient evidence. Read the legal definition of the term before you type such utter BS.
Sooooooo, since we know you can't give any details of the Freeh review, maybe we should come up with a special BWI scale-
One and only:
He also didn't interview these people:
- Karen Arnold
- Steve Sloane (Ray Gricar's best friend, almost certainly involved in the '98 investigation)
- Fran Ganter (mentioned in the mysterious Oct. '98 tape recording).
- Emma Gricar (to whom Ray disclosed information about the '98 incident in enough detail and/or with enough emphasis that she distinctly remembered it 14 years later... interviewing her may have served as proof that Ray Gricar never really "dropped" the matter, and also talked openly with LE and his family about Sandusky. There's also an unconfirmed rumor that Gricar told his nephew Chris about it, and his nephew told friends at PSU. It almost sounds like Gricar knew he didn't have enough to charge him, but he felt he needed to "spread the word" and tell the community to keep an eye on Sandusky).
But again, none of these people were interviewed by Freeh. I feel like with '98 being so important - arguably the real key to the whole "coverup" narrative - you'd want to interview EVERYONE with any knowledge of the incident. But nope, it's almost as if he intentionally avoided certain people whose information might not fit a certain narrative.
6r
That was his intent according to you. However, he stopped short of denying it was sexual in nature. Ask yourself why.
That was his intent according to you. However, he stopped short of denying it was sexual in nature. Ask yourself why.
Wait, what??? Are you freakin' serious? Is there a link to an article about this anywhere? These shitholes need to be exposed for this stuff.
Given that Freeh's commission was for PSU's issues, there is at least a fair reason why he would not have interviewed some of those folks. They were outside the scope. Now Fran Ganter is another story as he obviously does have a connection to PSU. He should have been interviewed. Mind you, I think Freeh's work was a bungled joke--at best--and likely directed toward a predetermined conclusion--at worst.
However, Freeh's commission was to find out what went wrong at PSU and give suggestions for fixing it. It was never intended to be a comprehensive investigation of the entire situation.
Now, I'd really like to see the entire thing properly investigated--and by someone with subpoena powers (which Freeh did not have). I hope that happens. We keep hearing about the Feds, for example. I'd love to see some of the stuff mentioned here followed up on. We really might learn something about how to prevent this situation from happening again (though I'm not sure how you spot a person like Sandusky in advance). The Paterno Report was a good step in that direction--but even there, their scope was limited. I don't think they looked at Second Mile much, and of course they did not have subpoena powers either.
Agree, for the most part, but this part I have to disagree with:
However, Freeh's commission was to find out what went wrong at PSU and give suggestions for fixing it. It was never intended to be a comprehensive investigation of the entire situation.
Dementia is one possibility; there are others.
1. How in the world does Joe KNOW if it was sexual in nature? He didn't see it; he got an account from McQueary. How could he possibly DENY or AFFIRM exactly what the activity was, even if McQueary was very precise and consistent in his account.
2. What are the chances that McQueary was precise and consistent in what he told Joe and others at the time?
3. Even without dementia, what degree of recall is someone EXPECTED to have about a conversation 10 years prior?
Exactly, Roy. It wasn't his to say if it was of a sexual nature or not. What he did say was that MM was distraught (to a point of hysteria) and unclear. One of the things never discussed, was the MM saw what he saw in a mirror. By the time he slammed his locker and turned around, JS and the boy were standing next to each other.
I still say that MM was ambiguous and unclear in discussing things with the half dozen people he talked to in the months following the event. Then, with some encouragement, emboldened his statement with the support of, and to support, all of the other witnesses that later came forward.
Hey meathead, MM told everyone he spoke with that he thought it was inappropriate, and POSSIBLY of a sexual nature, based on what he had first HEARD and then seen, while also ADMITTING that he did not SEE or EYEWITNESS those concerns or a specific sex act of any kind....but he was very concerned and upset because he THOUGHT that might have been going on. IOW, upon being asked if he actually EYEWITNESSED his concerns about sex, MM would immediately DISQUALIFY all his earlier statements and UNEQUIVOCALLY state that he DID NOT EYEWITNESS a sex act of any kind AND that he was conjecturing regarding sex occurring AND he could not say precisely what was going on, but whatever it was he felt strongly it was "inappropriate"!
MM told everyone he spoke with Dr. Dranov, JM, JVP, TC, GS...UP-TO-&-INCLUDING THE OAG this jumbled morass of speculation as to his "concerns", but also told all of them that he could NOT say he EYEWITNESSED those concerns and in fact COULD NOT say with veracity what was going on in the shower based ONLY on what he SAW and EYEWITNESSED! So how do you know what portion of MM's ramblings JVP was addressing in regards to his SWIGJ statement and subsequent Press Released Statement - JVP was describing MM's expessed concerns which were CONJECTURE as MM himself admitted to everyone he spoke with and told everyone he spoke with, including the OAG, that he DID NOT ACTUALLY EYEWITNESS those stated concerns regarding Sandusky's behavior! Don't believe me, try reading these FACTS of the case:
That is a lot of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and intentional misrepresentation of facts as even one of the member's of the Initial Grand Jury, the 30th PA SWIGJ, points out!
Last edited:
It is true that that is how they used it. But it wasn't his commission. But Louie couldn't resist grandstanding.
Good list but don't forget to add Harmon. He was the chief of UPPD during both 98 and 01, making him a KEY player, and yet freeh had no desire to speak with him. Hmmm that seems a bit odd...
Shouldn't the point be that Freeh should have withheld drawing any definitive conclusions until he could have interviewed the principal parties involved?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
We also don't know what Joe's definition of sexual in nature is. Does he view two people standing next to each other/hugging/horsing around naked in the shower as sexual in nature? We have no idea since he wasn't cross examined. This is why it's idiotic to put so much weight on non cross examined GJ testimony where people are answering leading questions from scumbag prosecutors.
Its a good point. And that is why a cross examination is needed. Allowing people to ramble on, without clarification or challenge, isn't a good way to determine facts.
CR...you're a real piece of work...Legal technicality...or having Constitutional rights flagrantly violated by Baldwin, feudale, and fina. What baldwin eventually said in her testimony wasn't all that damning anyway. If anyone should have been charged with obstruction, etc. it should have been balwin but the oag couldn't have that bc it wouldn't fit their carefully crafted false narrative of a broken athletics culture that enabled JS instead of TSM and state agencies failing miserably at their damned jobs.
Why on earth would the oag have to resort to such methods if they had such a slam dunk case? It was clear from day one to anyone with a brain that the state was going to use baldwin as an easy out to drop their bullshit charges. Lo and behold that's exactly what ended up happening.
