Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
MM is suing for $4 mil. He'd settle for half that. However, if he decided to come clean, name names, and bust this mess wide open, he'd make far more money on a book/movie deal. Yeah I'm dreaming but this is what it will take to break the media template.Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
MM is suing for $4 mil. He'd settle for half that. However, if he decided to come clean, name names, and bust this mess wide open, he'd make far more money on a book/movie deal. Yeah I'm dreaming but this is what it will take to break the media template.
Good answer!!! Depot Karen see what kind of check you can get!!!!If he hasn't figured it out by now, he's an idiot. All he needs to do is up his demands and then schedule some depositions of the bot members.
If it were just a scheduling conflict, illness or something of that nature maybe dukie could fill us in. I'm guessing it's no big deal, but we can always hope it's more.Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
If he hasn't figured it out by now, he's an idiot. All he needs to do is up his demands and then schedule some depositions of the bot members.
So what exactly where his different stories? I always see it referenced that he has changed his story but I think this is a common myth. I can't think of one single thing that he has actually changed. I'm not defending his actions because frankly there are plenty of things about his actions don't make any sense or are indefensible but I don't think he was waivered on anything he ever said. Closest thing that might come close is when this all went down there were rumors he told his players or a letter to them that he "stopped it" that night but later on he claimed under oath about slamming a locker
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
well, I agree some are loose on the facts. but you have to admit there has been some inconsistencies between GJ testimony, police statements, and trial testimony. That said people should not be referencing the GJP in terms of the Mike's inconsistencies. The GJP was written by the OAG. How they represented testimony was not necessarily consistent with testimony.None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...
Don't know for certain, but one would think so.Aren't BOT depositions expected anyway?
None of above are true, I suggest you look up slander/libel...defamation...moderators and Tom let this non factual information here far too much...
Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.No, what the moderators and I do is allow folks to discuss subjects from a number of angles, perspectives, etc. If what someone states is obviously inaccurate, no shortage of folks will correct it. If it's unclear to many what are the facts, then those that have knowledge, or have good memories of what actually is in transcripts, will generally educate the board. In situations where nobody knows what is or is not the facts, then folks speculate, and if they go too far they either get pulled back to a reasonable speculation, or nobody responds to their post.
There are folks that no matter what is presented as facts will not accept it. That's a fact of life.
Collectively, we all learn things here. That doesn't mean that we all learn the same things, or reach the same conclusions, especially when we are presented with conflicting info, or lots of partial information.
You, like anyone else on the board, are always welcome to try to educate folks about whatever you have knowledge of.
Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.
Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.
Not sure McQuade could depose anyone on the BoT, or that it would do him any good if he could. They'd simply say that the decision to terminate his employment was not made at the Board level and they had nothing to do with it.
If he hasn't figured it out by now, he's an idiot. All he needs to do is up his demands and then schedule some depositions of the bot members.
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.
Ok Troll. You're a troll...you and I know you're a troll. My first guess is that you're that sicko parlementarian living in your mother's basement who has nothing better to do than make up names using proxy servers and post messages on Penn Live, and apparently on this board without proper recourse.
You're obviously not okay, but I hope , for her sake, that your mother is.
And yet pnnylion still gets to post. Yumbo plop.
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.
Yeah, you're trolling. Everyone knows it.
Dude, go ahead. We're listening.Someday I will Tom, be ready. You know damn well dwiz blatantly said non factual info...it is noted, also that the operators of the board have let it continuously go on, and at times have encouraged it.
Mike had a hearing scheduled for this morning that was cancelled. Is he looking to cut a deal? Roll over on some people?
The best result - for anyone who truly wants to illuminate the truth - is for this case to proceed to open court. I don't know what the chances are that we ever see that. Hopefully this recent delay is a very temporary and reasonable one.....we shall see.
We saw the Corman/McCord suit terminated on the brink of some significant disclosures.
We have seen the "Sandusky Victim" cases shuffled off into a deep dark abyss - rather then adjudicated and illuminated (I know, that sounds a little "Jackie Childs", but you get the point).
C/S/S....please...3 1/2 years??
Will the Paterno et al suit be adjudicated in our lifetimes?
Three years....and still the requests of the elected Trustees to review the Freeh file remain thwarted (though the recent actions by the elected Trustees provide some reason for optimism).
One by one, every opportunity to expose the truth gets throttled.
EVERYONE who claims to want "the truth" should be supportive of actions designed to expose the truth........including actions in the "McQueary Case". Our chances for illumination are best served by the process moving forward through discovery and then to sworn testimony in an open courtroom.....testimony and cross examination. As best I can tell, the plaintiffs in this case are making the efforts to move forward. Let's hope those efforts prevail, and this case begins to move forward with reasonable pace.
.
I would love to see portions of McQueary's testimony or portions of McQueary's written account to police that reference that he was "sure of it" that the incident occurred in 2002 or anything in contrary to the account that McQueary slammed his locker door and looked at Sandusky and the boy through the mirror. Additionally, I'd love to see any kind of evidence that McQueary ever golfed with Jerry - much less "numerous times" - after the incident. I'd be thrilled to see you continue with your examples, though - I assure you I'm not trolling.
Reflection on mirror, slammed locker, "anal rape!" in grand jury presentment, testified he never said "anal, nor rape", said the year was 2002 and he was sure of it (was a year off), said he never golfed with Jerry after the incident (he golfed with jerry numerous times after the incident. I'm stopping now because I'm kinda sure you're trolling.
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?
Not trolling at all!!! And you didn't tell me one single thing that "HE" changed. He always stated he saw it first in the mirror and then looked around the corner. Always said he slammed the locker door. He didn't write the GJ presentment and when he got on the stand he made it clear he never said any of those words ever. He also stated 02. I don't think he ever changed on that. It was JS lawyer that said wait a second it was 01 and Im pretty sure Mike continued to say he swore it was 02. As for the golfing, I also thought he golfed in the second mile tourn after this but only thing anybody ever came up with was the basketball golf tournament. I have NEVER seen anyone prove or come forward and said for a fact he golfed in one of the second mile tourns. Youd think there would at least be one picture or heck somebody in his 4some that say he was there. Like I said Im not trolling but nobody has offered any form of proof or evidence on anything of him changing any part of his story. If there was it would be all over the internet yet nobody could come up with anything other than random posts claiming things. This theory of him changing his story is an urban legend
Edit: I see by the post above that he actually did claim 01 too. Saying he swore it was 02 but could be 01. Still doesn't "change" his story. There is a TON of stuff to pin on MM but the changing of the story isn't one of them at this point in time because nobody have proved otherwise
No, what the moderators and I do is allow folks to discuss subjects from a number of angles, perspectives, etc. If what someone states is obviously inaccurate, no shortage of folks will correct it. If it's unclear to many what are the facts, then those that have knowledge, or have good memories of what actually is in transcripts, will generally educate the board. In situations where nobody knows what is or is not the facts, then folks speculate, and if they go too far they either get pulled back to a reasonable speculation, or nobody responds to their post.
There are folks that no matter what is presented as facts will not accept it. That's a fact of life.
Collectively, we all learn things here. That doesn't mean that we all learn the same things, or reach the same conclusions, especially when we are presented with conflicting info, or lots of partial information.
You, like anyone else on the board, are always welcome to try to educate folks about whatever you have knowledge of.
To be more accurate, we have not seen Dranov's GJ testimony and Dranov was not asked that in the JS trial. What you are describing is what Ganim reported not the actual testimony.Well, he sure changed his story from what he told Dranov the night it happened. Maybe if he would have told Dranov the same thing he testified to in court, we wouldn't be here today.
According to Dranov's testimony, McQueary told Dranov about the slapping sounds in the hallway between the two locker rooms, and only saw a boy peek around the corner of the shower. An arm reached around and pulled the boy back back, and then Sandusky walked out of the shower. The boy didn't seem upset or frightened. McQueary never told Dranov anything about seeing the boy up against the wall with Sandusky behind him through a mirror (according to Dranov's testimony).
There are numerous other instances if you want to do your homework.
But Barry, I'm not sure where this goes as far as illuminating the truth. Working backward, admittedly, if I'm the defense I put Bill O'Brien on the stand and expect him to say something to the effect that the decision to not retain McQuade was entirely his and he made it to hire a better coach. Unless the plaintiff offers evidence that O'Brien was instructed by higher ups to do it, how is there a connection between what the higher ups may have discussed, assuming that they had any discussions about McQuade, and the action to terminate?