ok more specifically, when was CDW correct about something that wasn't blatantly obvious
NCAA to subpoena Clemente, Berlin, and Thornburgh's firm
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
I gotta say, if he ISN'T getting paid for his misinformation, and this is all his personal ideology . . . that's pretty pathetic . . .
What's also pathetic is that he hasn't been banned from this board. He cares nothing about PSU and trolls constantly in the same threads about the same crap. I am really disappointed in the moderators for letting this arsehole contaminate the board. And people wonder why some posters decide to leave.
Last edited:
I don't know...THAT'S his motivation? Most of us defending the real Penn State do so out of our love/pride for our alma mater. Those bashing it? Do they hate Penn State that much? No - they're either in on the cover-up, or they're getting paid.
Frankly, if CDW (and ilk trolls) isn't related to or a member of the PSU BoT, or related to or was someone with ties to TSM, or isn't a former staffer of Corbett or Fina, then perhaps they're part of that little ring that is desperately trying to keep the focus on Penn State and away from looking in other areas.
I don't think he should be banned. He CAN be safely ignored. I don't think rank stupidity or the fact that you have no credibility except among your fellow Trolls-for-Hire on the La Torre payroll is a reason for banning them.
Even if you don't bother placing him on ignore, you can just ignore him. Haven't heard a single legitimately logical argument out of him or Johhnie Jacobs or any of these paid shills for years. Why do they bother keeping at it? Either money or fear of getting exposes is their motive.
Why hide otherwise? Most of the posters here aren't anonymous - in that most of us will readily admit who were are, or can be discovered with a bit of digging. Only the anonymous troll has a motive that is sinister.
What do you think of the chances of CSS to be convicted of any charges? Also, where do you see the Paterno civil suit ending up?
Finally, what end game do you see after all the dust clears.
1. Schultz and Curley, in excess of 80% on at least one charge (most likely perjury). Spanier 50% on at least one count (most likely perjury). Spanier's probablity goes up if Schultz makes a deal.
2. Some sort of nominal settlement by the NCAA. A $100,000 contribution to the Paterno fund for abused kids. Something like that.
CDW....you seem chatty today, but I haven't seen a response to this?
You had said "The only psychiatrist they could get to defend Paterno's actions regarding a pedophile is a guy who thinks pedophilia isn't necessarily wrong (Hey, Sandusky wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place!)."
it is kind of hilarious that the superior all knowing CDW is mocking the credentials of Dr Fred Berlin, the DIRECTOR of the Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins . . . you know, only one of the most respected professionals in his field. but then again, so is CDW. who is routinely hired for his expert legal opinions. GUFFAW!
btw, here is a more comprehensive interview with Dr Berlin about pedophilia from 1997 (HINT: it does not contain cherry picked quotes taken out of context from the brilliant legal mind of CDW):
LINK
btw, here is a more comprehensive interview with Dr Berlin about pedophilia from 1997 (HINT: it does not contain cherry picked quotes taken out of context from the brilliant legal mind of CDW):
LINK
Yes. McQueary sworn testimony. Paterno sworn testimony. '98 emails. '01 emails. Paterno's statements to the cops.
None of that is hindsight. It's what he knew at the time.
Why do you think the NCAA will settle with Paternos? What merit does their case have?
How do you think history (objective)will regard Paterno after the trials?
What does that have to do with the NCAA and Penn State damaging the value of the Paterno estate before Berlin even wrote his report?
Ha Ha Ha this is great. You cite to an almost twenty-year-old interview of Berlin regarding pedophilia by, wait for it, the Catholic Church. You do know that Berlin has been a paid mouth piece for the Catholic Chuch in pedophilia cases since the early 1990s, right?
And I like this quote, "Forgiveness and atonement -- those shouldn't just be words. Though these concerns must never interfere with safeguarding parishioners, at the same time, the Church cannot be true to itself, if it treats the pedophile priest as though he is less than human. The Church cannot give up its very essence in dealing with this difficult problem. In the understandable anger and outrage that people feel, the reaction can be to treat these people like disposable items. But that's not the way the Church can function and still be Church."
Sounds like the "humane" approach to me--the approach that got pedophile priests re-assigned from one parish to another.
I don't know why the Paterno Family would want to associate with a guy who is best known for testifying on behalf of pedophiles and pedophile enablers. It's not what I would recommend.
And since you're such a wiz with Google, maybe you'll want to look up Berlin's partner and co-founder John Money and see what he said about pedophiles.
That sentence makes no sense.
But I got a question for you. How is the Paterno Family going to be able to separate out the damage done to the trademark by all the other magazine and newspaper articles, TV shows, Sandusky going on TV, the presentment, Sandusky's convictions, whatever happens to Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, the Clery Act report whenever it comes out, the emails, etc. and any damage done by the Freeh Report?
so your response to my accusation that you unfairly discredit Berlin's credentials and quote him out of context is to . . .
unfairly discredit Berlin by quoting him out of context.
frikkin genius
With your intellectual handicap, every day must be a struggle.
Let's be clear...
Joe Paterno knew Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile at the time he heard the report from Mike McQueary?
As I said the other day wrt CR66: CR and CDW jumped the shark a while back - from inspiring outrage, to evoking pity.
This is the best they've got left? It's like the Nazi's trying to defend Berlin with 14 year old boys and 60 year old men.....each with one bullet in their gun.
(someone please link in to one of those recent "Hitler's Bunker" videos for me, please)
So what if it is? A psychopath is suffering from a mental illness, too. That's not an excuse.
Is this going to be the final defense for the Joebots? Poor Jerry was suffering from a mental illness?
It's not my fault that you can't write a coherent sentence.
And you didn't answer my question. Maybe you should consult with Simons. He fancies himself quite the legal expert.
I put it to you simply. Let's say the Paterno's call an expert who opines that before the Sandusky Scandal, the Joe Paterno Trademark had a present discounted value of $40 million. And let's say that he opines that the trademark has a current present discounted value of $10 million, so there's a loss of $30 million. How do you separate out the damage done by the NCAA's adoption of the Freeh Report from all the damage done by all the other negative publicity?
I realize that this could be a radical concept for you, but it seems to me that if someone has an illness, it would be a good idea to get that person the medical/psychiatric treatment needed to treat that illness.
For anyone who wants to read the full interview that CDW has so despicably attempted to mischaracterize, here it is: https://www.diocesetucson.org/restore5.html
What does any of that have to do with Dr Berlin?
Why is anything that Berlin says relevant to the Paternos' suit for commercial disparagement?
Oh really, perhaps you forgot what the OAG/Fina had to say regarding Joe's supposed knowledge of JS's proclivities/involvement in cover up?
Also, if you read MM's 12/16/11 testimony it states that although he NEVER saw insertion OR JS's hands, he still somehow thought that JS was sodomizing the kid and fondling him and reported it as such.....mmmhhmmm....sure.....all he actually saw was JS in a shower with his arms around the kid (aka EXACT repeat of 1998). He couldn't see anyone's privates or JS's hands....Roberto even gets MM to finally admit that he wasn't 100% sure what JS and the kid were doing. So, when reporting the incident to PSU admins/Joe they would have asked MM what he actually saw, not what he THOUGHT was happening. And he NEVER actually saw any sex acts or fondling.
If MM thought sex acts/fondling occurred JM/Dr. D would have told him to call the police ASAP, NOT the freaking football coach the next morning.
Here's the 12/16/11 testimony I'm referring to:
Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important.Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
Pg. 74: Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**[in JM's 12/16/11 prelim he said the following which contradicts this:
Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?
A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.
Q: You never used the phase anal sex with Mr. Schultz?
A: Absolutely not
Q: Or the word rape?
A: Not at all
Q: Or the word sodomy?
A: No, not at all
Q: Or the phrase sexual assault?
A: No, not at all
Q: How about the word fondling?
A: I don’t think I would have used it because I didn’t see it. I would be saying what I was told, but I don’t think I would have used fondling.]**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
**again, another WTF piece of MM’s testimony that doesn’t give with him being certain a sex act occurred that night**
Well let's find out in court under oath. I sure hope the NCAA and freeh don't have self incriminating emails or other stuff.
If the best you can do to support your witness is cite to a publication by an institution that has paid over $3 billion in child abuse settlements and had by its own admission over 700 abusive priests, you've got a problem.
Hmm, let's see, who is more trustworthy, Simons or cdw? I gotta say, I'm torn.
You are the one that insisted that NOBODY gets paid for writing on free message boards. When the evidence is quite clear (and available) that they do.
Spam, of course, is one example.
But, I was thinking of those that post misinform, misdirect, alter the narrative, etc. If you think nobody gets paid to do that, you are simply thinking wrong, and you should not be making fun of the thinking done by others.
What witness? You seem to be confused about the cause of action and who will be calling what witnesses.
Berlin. The Paternoes have already paid him a ton of money. If the Paterno Family doesn't call him, the Defendants should call him by video deposition if necessary and point out that the Paterno Family chose to hire a notorious pedophile apologist to make its case.
Are you referring to the Dr. Berlin named in this article :
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
If so he's not going to be very helpful and can easily be countered .
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
If so he's not going to be very helpful and can easily be countered .
Hate to even ask, but was MM testifying that he believed JS was sodomizing and fondling the victim at the same time?
Turn your stupid switch off for a minute (if you can find it and it isn't permanently frozen in the 'on' position) and go re-read McQueary's various and inconsistent testimonies posted above by WeR. If that is how he babbled incoherently under oath after 10 years to get his story together, I can only imagine how wishy washy and confusing his discussions with JVP and the PSU administrators must have been. The clown had no idea what he saw. It's crystal clear somebody got to him and swayed him to embellish his story.
I think that is a very important question. The NCAA actions were the last in a long line of ones that basically put Paterno's reputation in the crapper. By that time there was not a lot room left for further damage. What percentage will be attributed to each of the various actors mentioned above?
And the sad part about it is that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits, his reputation will remain where it is now, which is not very flattering. It will not be big news either way.
Similar threads
