Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
That is all an idiot with preconceived notions needs to know, perhaps. The rest of us would like to see the original transcript in its entirety.
I think Joe's GJ testimony was read into the record at Sandusky's trial. We have never seen the actual transcript of his GJ testimony.
He doesn't know what you would call it, but he know it was a sexual nature. That right there should have been a trigger for the administration to contact the authorities and let them figure things out. And no, I'm not saying that Paterno should have been that person to make the call.
WRONG.
He said it right before AND right after.
getmyjive11 just said:
We have seen the part of the transcript where Paterno said that it was a sexual nature.
Why? He said it was a sexual nature. Anything even hinting of a sexual nature between a man and a boy should be investigated.
Paterno did contact "the authorities" as Schultz was considered the manager of the police department, per his office's description at the time. And that is, after years of study, the NCAA's guidelines for someone in Joe's position.
Good lord, I specifically said the part about Paterno not being responsible for making the call so I didn't have to have one of you bafoons go into defense mode for him, I don't have a problem with how Paterno handled the situation. I have a problem with how CSS handled it.
well, we don't know how they handled it do we? They've been under indictment and haven't spoken on the subject.
You're another one - - - when someone says "How stupid can you be?", it is NOT meant to be a challenge
1- WTF is a "sexual nature"?
2 - How the f$ck is the "administration" going to be "triggered" into action in 2001 by a statement JVP may have made in 2011????
Good God man ........ If there was a Stupid Olympics you are a shoe-in
"Why?" he said. It was a sexual nature? Anything? Even HINTING of a sexual nature between a man and a boy should be investigated?
See what I did there?
One of these statements can not be true. I asked for his actual testimony. Here I thought you were smart enough to understand what that meant. I didn't think you, who has been so fair to all involved, would make something up and then immediately contradict it. Why didn't you just answer the question honestly right off the bat? I mean, you know Paterno's testimony hasn't been released. Everyone here knows it hasn't been released. Who did you honestly think you would fool?
What a douche, yea we should just ignore JVP's repeated statements of "I don't know what you would call it".....and the fact that JVP never qualified whether he was talking about MM's speculation (which was the majority of what he said to everyone he spoke with) or whether he was talking only about what MM said he eyewitnessed....or talking about both and the entirety of what MM had to say (again, the vast majority of which was speculation based on what he heard with everybody he spoke with).
Yep. You showed that you don't care too much about claims of sex between men & boys. Like it is a joke to you.
If you're going to flame, you might as well give us your version of exactly what happened.
The portion that referenced "a sexual nature" has been revealed. That's all that matters. Deal with it, Paterno was told that something of "a sexual nature" occurred.
We know how they DIDN'T handle it... i.e., by going to authorities. That's the point.
A "sexual nature" is just what it says... do you know how embarrassing that question is?
Because if they did, they would have stated such already. Do you really think they are just holding that piece of information in until the trial starts? They lost their job, and have become villains... something that could have easily been avoided by telling the GJ that they took the information to the authorities. Come on now....
Really, why is it that when Mike McQueary reported the exact same story to the 30th SWIGJ, they didn't produce an indictment? And Mike McQueary told the 30th SWIGJ, the actual SWIGJ he testified to, that he DID NOT EYEWITNESS a sexual act and was only speculating that it was sexual in nature based on what he heard before what he saw.....and again, what he saw and eyewitnessed was limited to the parties' upper bodies....: This is quite dramatically proven by the fact the 30th SWIGJ did not forward a recommendation for an Indictment!
You are not only a complete douche and @sshole, but a complete moron as well - IOW, you're the full-metal-jacket tool package. Aren't you special.....you're parents must be so proud.
Last edited:
No. Its the transcript of Beemer reading a transcript. Was Beemer even there for the original testimony to make sure he got it right?
Expound on this and tell us how it went down. Was it a giant conspiracy to protect the football program? Who did what? And what is appropriate at this point?
I'm just amused that he and his ilk think every relevant question was asked. Must suck having such a small mind.
Again, all one has to do is look at the actions of the Grand Jury that Mike McQueary testified to - that Grand Jury DID NOT forward a recommendation for an INDICTMENT of Sandusky, or anyone else for that matter? Grand Juries vote on whether they should recommend indictments (e.g., create a Presentment) before they disband - the 30th Grand Jury that Mike McQueary actually testified to produced NOTHING in the form of INDICTMENTS which indicates they did not hear sufficient evidence to do so! But according to Douche-Nozzle, what MM told everyone was "cut & dry"...:
Last edited:
You could also just look at the testimony of Joe and MM and realize one of them cannot be accurate. Somehow its the telephone game of Joe's testimony, with all its equivocation and subsequent statements that is somehow more accurately portrayed.
You beat me to that one! That guy is the Michael Phelps of the Stupid Olympics.
How are the Phd's in psychiatry, mandatory reporters, and child care experts legally responsible for JS and the kids he was hanging out with not "the authorities"??
These idiot trolls keep asking why the admins didn't say to the GJ that they took the info to authorities....they did. In addition to telling TSM Schultz and Courtney both testifed they thought the same agency as 1998 was contacted but they didn't remember the details though bc, you know, it was 10 freaking years in the past!! That's why there are SOL on things but the oag got around that by pretending they thought the year was 02 instead of 01.
These idiot trolls keep asking why the admins didn't say to the GJ that they took the info to authorities....they did. In addition to telling TSM Schultz and Courtney both testifed they thought the same agency as 1998 was contacted but they didn't remember the details though bc, you know, it was 10 freaking years in the past!! That's why there are SOL on things but the oag got around that by pretending they thought the year was 02 instead of 01.
MM didn't see a damn thing with the exception of seeing Sandusky leave the locker room with a boy late at night. He didn't think this was good and complained to others (his Dad, Dr Dranov, Joe) that he saw them leave and felt very uncomfortable. Over the 9+ years this festered into the "sexual nature". Absolutely NO WAY he saw anything inappropriate in a shower between Sandusky and a boy and left them alone. This DID NOT HAPPEN. NO WAY! If he had seen something inappropriate he would have stopped it right then and there and taken the boy with him. Human nature would have prevailed.
Only real question is why MM hasn't stood up like a man and explained what really happened. This part is still puzzling. His life sucks...he has nothing more to loose...yet he hasn't stood up. This is very curious.
The truth, and we will get the truth, will be so cleansing! I literally can't wait, but I will wait and in the end it will have been worthwhile...regardless of the outcome the truth will always prevail.
Only real question is why MM hasn't stood up like a man and explained what really happened. This part is still puzzling. His life sucks...he has nothing more to loose...yet he hasn't stood up. This is very curious.
The truth, and we will get the truth, will be so cleansing!
I literally can't wait, but I will wait and in the end it will have been worthwhile...regardless of the outcome the truth will always prevail.
Paterno's testimony was read into the transcript by a prosecutor.........that is all we need to know.
Joe gave an account to Baldwin 9 days before he testified saying Mike told him he saw horsing around & there was no mention of "sexual nature" then when interviewed by Posnanski for his biography he repeated the same "horsing around" account. Joe is quoted in Jay's book saying he didn't know if it was true that Jerry was a pedophile & said basically the same thing in the Jenkins interview. It is only after having a pre-testimony meeting with Fina & Eshbach that Joe uses a term that by all accounts from those around him he had never used before. In Joe's testimony he is being asked to surmise what Mike was trying to convey to him & Joe only then uses a term that his lawyers have given statements saying was fed to him by the DAs minutes before he testified. Maybe in 2011 Joe didn't assume that idiots would equate him saying "sexual nature" as being a quote from Mike or that it meant he believed a child got sodomized by Jerry back in 2001 when he 1st talked to Mike. Maybe Joe thought people weren't as simple minded as that. Obviously he was wrong about that part.
Also in that 2/12/01 note is the plan for Curley to inform Joe of what they were going to do. I've learned that Spanier had a calendar from that time noting that after their 2/25/01 meeting Curley was uncomfortable with parts of the revised plan. This was before he talked to Joe. It all points to Curley already being in the mindset he was in when he sent the infamous "after talking it over with Joe" email. Considering the 2/12/01 plan included talking to Joe it seems natural that Curley followed through as if he'd already settled on the old 2/12 plan. This strongly suggests Joe played absolutely no part in changing Curley's mind.
I spoke with someone connected to Bolton who shared with me the email Bolton sent telling the whole story. I've promised not to share the actual email. When I started digging into the 2009 leak to Ganim & discovered it most likely came from Centre County's DA office I remembered this email & to be honest was nervous about sharing the Ganim info because of this possibility of retaliation.
He's been truncating quotes, and ignoring facts about the testimony for months. That alone should be enough to convince anyone he is dead wrong. Now he has lowered himself to calling us "Sandusky truthers". The ultimate sign he is completely in over his head.
Sexual - "Of or relating to the two sexes or to gender"
Nature - "The basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
