Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
I understand questioning testimony that runs contrary to a position and if I were arguing your position that is what I would do. If I were taking your position I would also appreciate that arguing that what my "client" said on the record was not properly transcribed/or was inaccurately read into the record, yada yada yada is weaker than the contrary position that the record as developed is accurate. I might ask why accepting that statement is so difficult or you to understand?
In the end I think the preponderance of the evidence as it exists supports my position. You have come to a different conclusion which I respect but do not agree with. The fact that certain posters (not you) feel compelled to personally attack those with whom they disagree is less about the facts than their personality/psychological considerations.
Actually, I doubt if even you think that
Far easier to believe that you are the Circle-Jerk Gold Medalist - - - than to think anyone that GD stupid manages to type out a sentence at a keyboard.
Not to mention the right to legal representation. CR sees that one as a mere technicality that allows targets of that OAG to get off and should be eliminated entirely.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a cross examining attorney that was able to ask... So Mr. Paterno, you used that phrase "sexual nature", and you also double qualified it by saying "you wouldn't know what you would call it". Please describe exactly what you meant by the phrase "sexual nature".
That legal technicality is "innocence". Man he is really grasping at straws now. His arguments are getting further and further separated from reality, which isn't a good sign for him and his false narrative.
I think you're confusing me with someone else in regards to the argument about whether the testimony was transcribed correctly (I believe it probably was). You have to address the fact that in 9 days Joe's account went from "horsing around" to "sexual nature" & then later went back to "horsing around". Now there are few scenarios that explain how this happened. Either Joe at some point is knowingly lying about 2001 which would technically suggest a conspiracy against Sandusky or Joe was simply an old man whose deteriorating memory made him more susceptible to suggestion & simply misremembered a 10yr old conversation. I'm open to listening to other explanations.
I understand clinging on to vague, non-cross examined testimony that hasn't been verified because of your agenda. If I were arguing your position that is what I would do. If I were taking your position I would just stick my fingers in my ears and go LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA when people bring up the many, many, many holes in the position. I might ask why accepting that his statement is completely worthless is so difficult 'or' you to understand? I would also poorly punctuate my post, and throw in a few spelling errors to further decrease my already low credibility.
It's a technical fact of significance that CR is bonafide close minded fool and coward. The only question left unanswered is why? Unfortunately, no one cares. So, we will never know.
What the client said WAS properly transcribed. Joe said "I don't know..." Twice for chrissakes within a matter of seconds. When someone equivocates that much they are either a liar or they actually don't know. If they are willing to lie, they don't add in "it was a sexual nature". That is just ridiculous.
"I don't know" even once would trump everything else in a cross in front of an actual jury which this obviously was not. Joe was not the eyewitness genius. He was trying to recall an admittidetly vague story (admitted to be vague by the actual eyewitness) from a decade earlier and clearly he was struggling. The only people who can't see that are those who have an agenda or those who are just plain dumb. Or both. So all of the above in your case?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Hey there is our little fella. Everyone give him a pat on the head. He is such a little cute boy. Now go on and play outside. Become a better troll if you are going to try and flame.... This thing will easily hit 50 pages now...
LOL.....true that.
But there can only be one of these:
And GTASCA should just have the damn competition named in his honor!
GTASCA is to the Circle-Jerk Olympics what the East German Women Swimmers were to the 1976 Olympics........it just ain't even a competition!
Last edited:
I've seen a number of good replies to GTASCA's incessant posting of Joe's "sexual nature" comment. This is the best summary.
Legal technicalities. Hmmm.
So, let's say you're a corrupt politician who wants to smear his opponents or people that cross him. What do you do??
1) Make up some bogus charges against your opponent. Manipulate the system to charge them in the most terrible, egregious manner that you can. Make the charges as wild and as outrageous as you can. It doesn't matter if the charges are bogus and will never stick - that's not your purpose here.
2) Crank up the massive state-run PR machine to make sure that people are no longer innocent until proven guilty - because the only thing that matters are the charges themselves - not the fact that they are legitimate. Don't worry - your corrupt friends in the press will play along.
3) Drag the trials out for as long as possible. So what sticks in people's minds is: charges are pending, not charges have been dismissed.
4) When the original bogus charges are eventually dismissed - and they will, but thankfully a corrupt judicial system will make sure it takes a while, then you can just claim that the charges were dismissed on "legal technicalities" and had nothing to do with the fact that the charges were bogus in the first place!
Wha-la! So ingenious only a corrupt politician could love it!
You think you're being attacked personally? I see people making reasonable conclusions about your motives and talent level based on your myriad of posts. For that you should be grateful that people notice your hard work.
Your problem is that he wasn't cross examined. Joe stated, repeatedly, that MMQ gave him ambiguous information (MMQ stated this too). So Joe says something like "of a sexual nature...I am not sure what you'd call it" which is exactly how you'd describe ambiguity. Regardless, Joe reported it to his boss and the guy in charge of campus police...who both reported to the president. Finally, he asked MMQ if he was OK with things, on several occasions. Unless you expected Paterno to go all Clouseau, which would have been against the law, he did what he could do.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
You just can't help yourself can you? Wasn't it you who encouraged everyone here to put me on ignore some time ago? Yet here you are further commenting about me and what i had to say. Admit it, you and others care very much about what I have to say because of my pedigree, LOL!
"wahhhhh, I keep making stupid comments based on deliberately false information and people keep calling me stuuuupid!"
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Clearly you care enough about me to ask the question. No? I'm not the one hiding behind a key board calling other people names who disagree with me. Those are the cowards.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
LOL! Really? There is so much wrong with your post I wouldn't even know where to start.
Cruising, I have been reading this board for a while and have you say things and respond to things and have seen people bash you and seen you respond to that. But I am not sure that I have ever seen exactly what you believe happened. Could you share that with me?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Your question is much to broad but from a global perspective I believe that with the benefit of millions of documents and 300+ interviews Freeh got it essentially right. Because my adversaries didn't get the outcome they were expecting, they have produced over the last 3 years an array of theories, speculations, character assassinations and just outright lies to make themselves feel better and to validate their preconceived notions, as wrong as they turned out to be.
Last edited:
YOU do realize that it has been researched and determined that freeh couldn't have gone through millions of documents. YOU also do realize that it has been determined that a large number of the 300+ interviews were "agenda" driven. YOU do realize that NONE of the key parties involved were interviewed. YOU do realize that freeh himself has now declared his work more of "opinion" than fact. With all these revelations, YOU still are basing your "belief" on this information?????? Why would a reasonable, intelligent, NON-agenda driven person believe this???? That is the question people/adversaries are now asking you to answer. It's humorous that you are saying all their "preconceived notions are wrong", yet all the information that continues to come out is that freehs "preconceived notions" have been wrong.
It's a challenge to find the best way to characterize such blather.
Should we go for trite, vapid, platitudinous? Or more along the lines of disingenuous, delusional, hypocritical, or mendacious?
Morally-debased and ethically-bankrupt politicos perfected this type of corruption and tyranny thousands of years ago in a "republic system" -- this is nothing new. This is merely modern-day scumbags reenactment of scumbags from Ancient Rome (ditto many of the abuses that were occurring in Europe's corrupt feudal system during the middle-ages that led to the reformations and "revolutions" over the next several hundred years). As The Who's classic and incredible song "Won't Get Fooled Again" states:
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Last edited:
I agree with everything with the exception of the first sentence. With the benefit of a good search engine and a well thought out set of keywords and sub-keywords they could have easily "reviewed" millions of documents. Did you ever use X1-Professional? This software will index virtually every type of document and retrieve all with with a set of keywords as fast as you type them into the search bar. Starting X1 up and having the software index the documents would have taken longer than the time to "review" ie: sort them into meaningful buckets. The buckets would then have to be reviewed but that task would be manageable...I assume.
I sound like an advertisement but I have found that with X1 I don't need to organize my data into folders. I can retrieve it at any time, instantaneously, from any document on my computer. It's quite amazing.
Here are 2 Youtube videos
http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/me...-the-present-can-be-spliced-into-the-past.php
Your problem is that he wasn't cross examined. Joe stated, repeatedly, that MMQ gave him ambiguous information (MMQ stated this too). So Joe says something like "of a sexual nature...I am not sure what you'd call it" which is exactly how you'd describe ambiguity. Regardless, Joe reported it to his boss and the guy in charge of campus police...who both reported to the president. Finally, he asked MMQ if he was OK with things, on several occasions. Unless you expected Paterno to go all Clouseau, which would have been against the law, he did what he could do.
First of all, let's assume Mike McQueary's statements to JVP were consistent with what he said to Dr. Dranov and his father directly after the incident and to a PA Court of Law under oath......No, I absolutely did not see or eyewitness a direct sexual act, let alone sodomy or anal intercourse, - actually I saw nothing below the parties' upper bodies in the shower - but I believe sex was going on because before I saw the extremely brief couple second glimpse via the mirror, I heard noises that were definitely consistent with sex and then when I saw the brief reflection in the mirror their proximity and body juxtapositioning was also consistent with that despite the fact I saw nothing below their upper bodies and did not actually see or eyewitness a sex act of any kind AND I NEVER TOLD ANYONE I DID SEE SUCH A THING.
IOW, Mike McQueary's testimony in a Court of Law under oath DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the OAG's claims in several important ways - first, it obliterates their claim that MM eyewitnessed a sex act of any kind, let alone "anal rape", "sodomy", "anal intercourse", and all the other words they choose to use; second, it renders all of Mike McQueary's statements about what was going on in the shower as CLEAR CONJECTURE and INADMISSIBLE...not "eyewitness testimony"; third, it directly CONTRADICTS the OAG's claim that Mike McQueary said he did eyewitness such a thing; and finally, it confirms the story's of Dr. D, JM, JVP, TC and GS that while MM provided lots of wild speculation as to what might have been going on based on what he heard, but did not see, MM CONSISTENTLY told everyone the SAME THING as to what he actually very briefly saw - two people in the shower in close proximity of one another, using the same shower-head, doing something, but he couldn't say what for sure because he could not see anything below their upper-bodies.....but he thought it might have been sexual in nature due to what he had heard since he walked in, but this element was ALWAYS qualified as speculation on MM's part to EVERYBODY he spoke with and when pressed as to ONLY what he saw and did he see and eyewitness a sex act MM ALWAYS reversed course and said something like - no, I can't say that I saw that but I do think that may have been going on.... When pressed to place a description on what he saw and only what he saw, MM would say two people sharing the same shower-head - I don't know what you would call it, but at best it was highly inappropriate....
Without the OAG clarifying for JVP that all of MM's conjecturing was irrelevant, of course MM implied that his "concerns", and the reason he was so upset, was because he THOUGHT what MIGHT have been going on in the shower was of a sexual nature BUT he did not actually eyewitness a sex act, nor did he know for sure what was going on in the shower based only on what he ACTUALLY SAW AND EYEWITNESSED. Of course both Dr. D and JVP realized that MM's hysterical CONJECTURING meant nothing as he would repeatedly contradict himself when pressed as to what he actually saw (IOW Dr. D and JVP realized MM did not actually KNOW what was going on in the shower, but never said he saw a sex act and in fact said the diametric opposite when pressed to describe what he ACTUALLY saw and eyewitnessed).
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
You being a prominent one with your constant circle-jerking over claiming you know important things and then not revealing them.
I did not know that lapdog was a pedigree. Please notify the AKC.
There is another way to look at Joe's testimony. He was recalling a conversation from 10 years ago. His impression remaining in 2011 was that the actions observed by MM were inappropriate and sexual. He just didn't know the specific actions observed. That is consistent with MM's testimony as to what he told Joe.
Now you may choose not to accept that view which is fine with me; but it remains a reasonable conclusion based on what the record has established to date.
Freeh didn't have subpoena power and didn't interview any of the key witnesses. But he got it right? So then Frank Fina got it wrong when he said he found no evidence of a cover up by JVP? Because you didn't get the outcome you were expecting, you have produced over the last 3 years an array of theories, speculations, character assassinations and just outright lies to make yourself feel better and to validate your preconceived notions, as wrong as they turned out to be.
