The heck with JVP getting the year wrong...the prosecution had it wrong.
Latest in Paterno v NCAA
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
And again, it does not make it clear why MM thought what was going on was inappropriate - was it due to something he heard? Or was it due to something he saw? We know that MM attributed his concerns, as to what was going on being "inappropriate", to what he heard to the first parties he spoke to after the event - not what he saw. We know this from Dr. Dranov's testimony. The reality is that Paterno made it quite clear that MM never told him that he witnessed criminal sexual assault and never intimated anything remotely close to such a thing. If anything, MM suggested that he thought Sandusky's motivations for being in the shower with the youth were "inappropriate", but Paterno's testimony is pretty clear that MM never described to him witnessing any kind of sexual assault.
Also conveniently left out the statement from Allan Myers (teen who was in shower with JS) who said nothing sexual happened that evening as well.
But Freeh and CR666 would say that was only the kid's OPINION...
Well, the kid was obviously wrong since the bot gave him a boatload of the university's money, and we know they don't make mistakes.
That's another very interesting point I'd never thought of, maybe Joe was saying that what Mike said he heard sounds that were of a sexual nature? Granted, we will never know because his testimony wasn't cross examined, we've never heard it to verify it's accuracy, and he qualified it multiple times.
I say this all the time. In addition to what you say, it wasn't cross examined, so we don't bet a balanced picture, we haven't heard it to verify it's accuracy, and he qualified it multiple times. It's completely worthless. But what we do know is that his actions (and everyone else's) are consistent with not being told of abuse. But people see what they want to see, and will bend the facts to vilify Joe.
You are welcome to review all of my posts on this subject and I never posted Joe was getting indicted nor did I say he should be prosecuted for perjury or that other "bad stuff" was soon to be revealed. But, based upon the way this board operates, now that 2 people have fabricated that statement it will, as if by magic, be transformed into a fact. Unfortunately for you a review of my posts will prove you wrong.
Well - hopefully that all happens
And you will be so damn offended that you will collect your Kleenex and hand lotion and move your Circle-Jerk Lolapalooza back to TOS
I thought MM chose not to call the police because he was afraid he might get in trouble for slamming the locker door.
"I'm not wrong on that account. All of the above happened. You have a proven history of being incapable of keeping secrets. In all fairness to Anthony, I know of at least one secret he was able to keep until it was discovered during his campaign for the Board.But your right and PSU was prepared to make known other circumstances to the judge in a court filing when access to the Freeh work product was being litigated. "
I am sure the irony of your post escapes you. Douche bag.
Cruisin's not a very ironical person.
Penn State did in fact attempt to discredit me and five of the six other co-plaintiffs in our litigation to access the Freeh Source Material. They filed some 13 documents under seal. We asked the court to unseal our sealed response to that filing because we have nothing to hide. The Court chose to keep that filing sealed.
Refresh my memory Cruising. How did the judge rule in that matter. Oh wait. If memory serves me, he ruled in our favor. Go figure.
I must be omnipotent. Or maybe Freeh gave me an advance copy of the report. Oh wait. No one received an advance copy, right?
I will review all of your posts after Barron reviews the Freeh Report. Fair enough?
How convenient that you would leave out that this JVP statement: "It was of (a) sexual nature" we've not been privy to the actual audio and this was read into the record, and not by JVP. Also how convenient that you leave out all the qualifiers surrounding that statement as well.
It was read into the record?
It was read into the record.
Was it read into the record?
Was it read, into the record?
It was? Read into the record?
Anthony, have you learned anything more about Freeh having an alternate report planned exonerating Joe? I would think he would in case Sandusky was found Not guilty on Victims 2, 6 & 8.
9 days before testifying Joe told PSU counsel Mike told him he saw Jerry " horsing around " with a boy. PSU counsel sent info to the OAG that same day. Unlike with Curley & Spanier, DAs Fina & Eshbach uncommonly attended Joe's pre-testimony interview with investors. According to Joe's attys that is the 1st time "sexual nature" was used in Joe's presence pertaining to the case & the term wasn't used by Joe but by the DAs minutes before Joe testified. After that Joe continued to describe his meeting with McQueary as Mike saying he saw Jerry horsing around with a boy as cited in Posnanski's Paterno book & by PSU professor Gary Grey. It is highly likely Joe simply used the term sexual nature because he thought he was being helpful to the DA by doing so.
BINGO! Adler
There are several VERY curious, VERY coincidental, VERY unusual terminologies used in the testimonies/statements in this fiasco
That whole "sexual nature", "of a sexual nature", "sexual in nature" bullshit is one of the most obvious tell-tale signs of "something smelling fishy" in the entire saga. That piece of work should have (and probably did) set off giant flashing red lights and alarms - for folks who have any experience with such stuff
Folks who have even a basic background or understanding of psychology and sociology can draw some reasonable inferences from a lot of those "curious" incidents - particularly in the context of all the "decade after the fact" recall of conversations that was at the heart of so much of the testimony.
Some of those incidents indicate one thing, some indicate another, but this affair was chock full of "curious" statements and phrases from many different folks - not just JVP
It's one thing to say they could've made better decisions. That's Monday morning quarterbacking. It's something else to attach nefarious intent to those decisions.
First time I've heard this. If true, even more shenanigans.
Read Sandusky's PCRA exhibit of McQueary's Grand Jury testimony. "I don't know what you'd call it" & "it was sexual" was said. When Baldwin sent the summary of her interviews the OAG knew they didn't have corroboration for Mike's testimony. The senile old man was an easy mark.
Scott Paterno confirmed it. Also said he & Joe's lawyer Josh Locke sent statements about this to PSU3 attys.
Interesting info Adlee.....
At different times, it has been inferred/claimed by folks on various boards that MM coordinated with/coerced/influenced JVP's testimony.
I have no inside knowledge, but my hunch was always that is was not MM, but rather the OAG folks, who "massaged" JVP's testimony. What you have relayed - which, as best I recall, I had not heard before - would seem to support that notion.
The fact that they fairly raced him from the witness box once they got what they wanted would also be congruent. That was a bizarre sequence during the GJ.
After all this time, this whole debacle keeps getting stranger and stranger. I used to think some of the stuff Ray writes is a little too conspiracy driven, but the more info. that comes out, the more it looks like he is on the right track. There is definitely some shady stuff that will likely be exposed.. Hats off to Ryan, Ray, the Paternos, and Lubrano and alumni trustees along with everyone else who is shedding light on this.
Last edited:
I'm not a layer so I'll leave it to the lawyers here to discuss common/ not common and fair or not fair practice. That said, I find it odd that Fina and Eshbach show up for Paterno's interview. I find it more odd that state prosecutors are 'interviewing' people like 30- 40 minutes prior to them giving grand jury testimony.
Is this common? I would assume witnesses would have been interviewed long before they were ever called to testify and so why would prosecutors be interviewing them again right as they go into the grand jury? My suspicion is to lead witnesses and make sure certain points are stressed and emphasized right before the witness steps into the grand jury room. Seems close to witness tampering but I'm not a lawyer to know how common or appropriate the practice is.
As a side note, I also get very suspicious now when I see an AG (or DA) call a press conference where they have big poster boards of the accused with inflammatory phrases in bold letter above a mugshot. If someone has done something wrong then charge them and take them to court. Do the talking and convicting in the court room. The PR nonsense of trying to convict that person in public opinion in a press conference (or prejudice a pending jury) before they've ever had their day in court just seems unethical to me.
Well I disagree that 4 PSU admin should have notified police BUT if you do aren't MM, JM, DR D. and Raykovitz ahead of them in the "shoulda contacted police" list?
Wen, Please don't confuse CR666. He's not a multiple choice kinda guy.
Oh no, he's very ironic. Like how thinks he is better than all of us, yet can't quote correctly or seem to grasp the difference between "your" and "you're".
So you have now libeled Joe Paterno in your defense of him.
How many people would testify under oath against a man they had known for over 30 years that they had heard "sexual nature" used to describe contact between a young and that man when in fact he never remembered hearing that reference and only repeated what he was coached to say?
That pretty much illustrates how zealots operate.
GTACSA said:
I fixed if for you. If you have truncate quotes to make a point, you've already lost. That pretty much illustrates how zealots operate.
It's clear he was equivocating, you imbecile. Do you even know what the verb equivocating means? Oh, just look it up.
psudukie said:
Better than crazy people with different arguments.
That added quote of yours has already been discussed and can not possibly modify the description of the activity described by Joe before your language.
More importantly your post is unresponsive to the point I made about defamation, but I don't expect you to understand. Go back to whatever you do for a living but stay out of the deep end of the pool.
Misder you know how to find me etc, you are welcome to stop and talk face to face anytime.
I have yrued hard over the past four years to make comment about the individuals involved good bad or indifferent. Having said that reading this board my family must be one lousy group of people. I would ask any of you to try to put yourself in my shoes and listen to the jusgemental know it al comments made on Mike and my father.
I don't think you have made such comments Misder but it is truly amazing to see all sides of this try to isolate Mike and my father as the problem liars etc.
Hell Barry knows my family well. I doubt he would make a negative comment about the family outside myself of course. We are just everyday people.
Anyway it is what it is. I for one am extremely proud of how Mike and dad have handled the last five plus years.
I have yrued hard over the past four years to make comment about the individuals involved good bad or indifferent. Having said that reading this board my family must be one lousy group of people. I would ask any of you to try to put yourself in my shoes and listen to the jusgemental know it al comments made on Mike and my father.
I don't think you have made such comments Misder but it is truly amazing to see all sides of this try to isolate Mike and my father as the problem liars etc.
Hell Barry knows my family well. I doubt he would make a negative comment about the family outside myself of course. We are just everyday people.
Anyway it is what it is. I for one am extremely proud of how Mike and dad have handled the last five plus years.
You are insinuating that you know more "facts," but for some reason you will not share those "facts." I doubt you are under some court mandated agreement, so why not enlighten us?
