No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
The irony of CSS now doing "risk analysis" is clearly lost on some.
On the contrary. C&S performed a risk analysis given the information provided to them in 2001. What you seem to overlook is the fact that the actual information for that risk analysis is far different than what is known today.
Yes Graham was pretty clairvoyant there actually. They did leave themselves pretty "vulnerable".
Yes, and we have previously pointed out how irrelevant and stupid this point is... which you not surprisingly avoided responding to like the plague.
Last edited:
Yes it's a stupid irrelevant point, one that Joe made.
"He was very upset and I said why, and he was very reluctant to get into it. He told me what he saw, and I said, what? He said it, well, looked like inappropriate, or fondling, I’m not quite sure exactly how he put it. I said you did what you had to do. It’s my job now to figure out what we want to do." - Joe Paterno
"You know, he didn’t want to get specific, and to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man." - Joe Paterno
Gee, do tell what any of what you posted has to do with admissible evidence in proving what The State claimed in their Indictments as to what MM "saw" and "eyewitnessed" and told others he had seen when MM, JM and Dr. D all testified AT-TRIAL that they never testified to the Grand Jury as the corrupt PA OAG claimed in their fraudulent SWIGJ Presentment and accompanying Indictments and:
- MM testified AT-TRIAL that he told the Grand Jury he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" what The State claimed in their Indictments via citation to the OAG's GJP as the "Probable Cause".
- JM and Dr. D testified that the Indictments/GJP claims as to what MM told them he had seen is utterly incorrect and FALSE...and that MM never remotely told them of seeing a Criminal Sexual Assault, let alone anal-rape.
Joe's generation was not familiar with man rape or anal sodomy. It's not something they even knew existed
Yes. You are right! Despite being a well educated man, Joe would have never eard of these things. Even though he was well educated and apparently religious and such things are well covered in the Bible and classical literature.
Can you guess how many items in the Paterno Library mention those topics? Thousands? Tens of thousands of pages?
Please take this opportunity to ignore the please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature posts.
Just because he didn't see insertion it doesn't make the charge malicious prosecution.
Sorry I didn't read much beyond your first paragraph. The overwhelming redundancy of capitalized buzz words and phrases is tiresome.
That was a pretty crappy "risk analysis" then.
"Let's see ..... we know that one of our former employees was investigated for sexual assault of a minor 3 years ago, in 1998. We now have received a report of this dude doing "something" naked with a young boy inside a shower on University property at a very odd hour, 9 PM on a Friday."
Nope --- nothing of concern here! Full speed ahead with other stuff, let's ignore this one! No need to let the police know of this one!
Hey jack@ss, The State claimed he was an "eyewitness" to anal-rape and testified to being an eyewitness anal-rape in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and Indictments when McQueary ACTUALLY testified to the diametric opposite, NOT BEING AN EYEWITNESS to what The State claimed in their GJP/Indictments! McQueary also testified AT-TRIAL multiple times that the State's GJP/Indictments were FALSE as it applied to him ever saying or eyewitnessing what they claimed in their GJP and related Indictments (his father and Dr. D testified in the same way - i.e., what The State claimed relative to what MM told them he saw is utterly FALSE!). You're quite full of $hit that bring Indictments with utterly fraudulent and provably fraudulent "Probable Cause" is not the DEFACTO definition of "Malicious Prosecution".
Presentment:
“He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky”.
MM written statement to police:
"I did not see insertion. I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occurring."
His GJ testimony:
"I’m pretty sure he was sodomizing him, relatively sure.
Sandusky trial testimony:
Q: Now, in your written statement, November 23, 2010, you said: I did not see actual insertion. I am certain that sex acts — the young boy was being sodomized — was occurring.
A: Yes, I —
Q: Sound like what you wrote?
A: — I left that room knowing that and I believe that as I sit here today.
Q: Okay. Now, you told the grand jury, and that’s on page 9: I’m pretty sure he was sodomizing him, relatively sure.
A: Yeah. And let me make sure I’m clear, because I think what you’re getting at is I can’t tell you 1,000 percent, because I did not see a penis entering a rectum, but I do know [page 280] that it was severely sexual, and I thought, and I — let me compare it to something and give you a parallel, and since you asked the question I just want to make sure I’m clear. If I’m a college student and I’m at a frat house, there is a big party going on and I walk into a room thinking it’s a bathroom, but it’s one of the frat brother’s rooms, and he’s in there and the lights are dimly lit and he’s on top of a girl and they’re making some sounds, but I can’t see his penis in there, but they’re making sounds and it looks like they’re having sex, I walk out of the room saying, “God, I just walked in on these people having sex and things.” Now, the lights were fully on. I saw them three separate times. They were naked. They were in a severe position with his front against that boy’s back. Absent of seeing a penis in a rectum, I think he was having sex with him, yes."
That is only the diametric opposite if it's taken in the strictest terms.
All the above were in 2011.
IN 2001, when words and actions mattered, MM failed to communicate to anyone anything like what you've cited. Actions matter and speak louder than 10 year old words.
You're way off with that statement Michy and you know it - "we know a former employer was investigated for sexual assault" - Cmon man - don't let your uneducated hindsight bias shape your opinion toooooo much there bud
Fixed it for you:
"Let's see....we know that our founder, chairman and fundraiser was investigated for OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT sexual assault of a Second Mile minor 3 years ago, in 1998. We have now received a report of our chairman doing "something" naked with a Second Mile client inside a shower on University property at a very odd hour, 9 pm on a Friday, in OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with this Second Mile client.
Nope --- nothing of concern here! Full speed ahead with swim trunks, more OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with Second Mile clients and other stuff, let's ignore this one! No need to let the police know of this one!
"Let's see....we know that our founder, chairman and fundraiser was investigated for OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT sexual assault of a Second Mile minor 3 years ago, in 1998. We have now received a report of our chairman doing "something" naked with a Second Mile client inside a shower on University property at a very odd hour, 9 pm on a Friday, in OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with this Second Mile client.
Nope --- nothing of concern here! Full speed ahead with swim trunks, more OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with Second Mile clients and other stuff, let's ignore this one! No need to let the police know of this one!
Thanks @colt21. I wish to hell folks here would demand answers from our PA Attorney General on this instead of retreading old ground with Mike and the Admins.
Dr. Jack Raykovitz sat on that witness stand back in March and CLEARLY told the Jury, he and Second Mile leadership had FULL KNOWLEDGE of Jerry's out of program contact with Second Mile youth. JEEZUS people - how much more negligence do you need?
Continuing to rehash what Mike said, did, didn't say or didn't do DOESN'T MATTER ---> Dr. Dranov testified immediately after Mike - clearly stating in that same courtroom - Mike didn't SEE anything. I don't know what else to say.
Mike could have reported Jerry wearing swim trunks in the Lasch shower while he and a youth were playing with a box of kittens.
It doesn't matter. It was OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT with a Second Mile youth.
ALL of Jerry's contact with the Second Mile youth that has testified has been OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT.
Our AG destroyed Mike when they didn't ever need him IF THEY WERE GOING TO PROPERLY, ETHICALLY & PROFESSIONALLY prosecute this case. All along the AG could have simply indicted Second Mile leadership and we would have gotten relevant answers, and not the epic shitstorm that has destroyed so many.
Sorry to rant - but my God, it's painfully clear to anyone who has been paying attention, Tom Corbett's OAG never intended to properly prosecute this case, least of all for "the children".
Last edited:
2001:
Lawyer WC: Report the OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT!!!! To DPW to be safe.
Non-lawyers GCS/TMC/GBS: pshawwwww whatevs what does he know.
2011:
GCS/TMC/GBS: We thought we did what's best by reporting the OUT OF PROGRAM CONTACT!!!!! To the PROGRAM!!!
WC: *facepalm*
So based on your logic.....just because "rape" did not happen (or any reasonably CONFIRMED statement of facts about 2001) doesn't mean you can't put "the monster away for life" and charge PSU $500M for the total fabrication of lies contained in the Fact FREEH report.
Hell...we are living in a world where "..if you suspect something...we don't need the courts --- LEGAL RIGHTS (what are they) --- just kill the Bastard!!!"
Face it....America is now Politically correct first - It is just like we are all poor black Americans and in Mississippi in 1925 - or - if you find that too outlandish a comparison ......We, as American citizens, have guaranteed to us under the constitution all the rights granted to Jews in Germany 1938.
The problem with your post is Jerry did actually have a trial. 8 people testified as adults to JS molesting them in some sort of fashion. Now the money PSU paid was a bad decision based on bad leadership at the school. You're historical comparisons are not sound in any way and only further my though a few here have absolutely lost their mind.
No he was not "investigated for sexual assault". Why do you bother to continue using non-factual information? It makes people not want to read any further, so any valid points you make make will be summarily dismissed.
Actually the money paid was because Second Mile had tried to skip town and their assets were frozen in the Orphans court and disappearing fairly rapidly. PSU actually did it as a benevolent gesture only. Thus the clause in the settlement agreements not to double-sue. Now, when PSU plans to get off its haunches and sue TSM's insurers to be reimbursed? IDK.
No they are tired of the fact that you still can't grasp it's completely IRRELEVANT to the totality of the case.
And further to the point CSS had millions of dollars in free legal service from high priced lawyers paid for by PSU in order to fight the charges and lost.
No, you made the stupid point I referred to. Please work on your reading comprehension.
It's very relevant. It shows that what Mike is saying is the truth and that both Paterno and Mike told CS about suspected CSA.
Mike's statement to police and GJ testimony is exactly why the presentment stated what it did. If Mike tried to walk that back later after taking some heat, well that is a different story. Why Mike believed at the time that sodomy was occurring still makes no sense based on his other testimony.
"I don't know what you'd call it."
Stop trying to mischaracterize Paterno's statements. Even if we ever hear it to verify it's accuracy, it's still non-cross examined testimony that he qualified multiple times. It's pathetic that you cling to it.
Why is it people like you are so willing to hang Joe on an OAG lie?
They were charged with upwards of 10 felonies. They plead guilty to two misdemeanors. In any reality that matters, that's a huge victory!
Drawing any conclusions from JVP's testimony, interviews, etc is flawed. His testimony, interviews, etc are not reliable.
Refusing to acknowledge the limitations of that argument doesn't make them go away.
Yes it is champ, because his comparison is not even analogous to his his ever changing story that created like double digit VERSIONS of what he saw! He says in his analog that the parties are undercovers AND MAKING NOISES CONTEMPORANEOUSLY when he walks into room! In every one of his multiple versions as to what happened and what he ACTUALLY SAW (and there are multiple versions), he says he only heard the noises when he walked into the building and was walking down the hall to the locker-room, but the noises had STOPPED by the time he got to the locker-room AND the parties WERE NOT making noises when he briefly saw via "couple second" glances the body positioning of the parties AND in every single one of his multiple versions, the parties WERE NOT making any rhythmic motions!
Beyond that, in his original version he only saw them twice via a mirror reflection from a distance and both times it was for only a brief 1 or 2 seconds time. Then it was changed to 3 times with the third time he supposedly went to the entrance of the showers and in one of these versions, he supposedly saw them drying off and getting ready to leave the shower area.....in another of the "I saw them 3 times" alterations to his story, they were still in the shower in the same position and he ran away.....and finally in his e-mail to his friends versions, on the 3rd visit he went into the shower to rescue the child, but they were supposedly were not in the same position by the time he got to the shower (which is only a couple seconds from where he was standing in locker-room.
Beyond that, in 1998 the parties would have been in the exact same body positioning in the shower and every single party that investigated the incident, including the DPW, determined it was not a sexual assault in any form, let alone anal-rape -- so much for your claim that testifying the "body positioning" of Sandusky behind the boy with his arms/hands extended and touching the boy in some manner is equivalent to testifying that "saw" or "eyewitnessed" anal-sex!
Beyond that, MM made it clear that he DID NOT see anal-sex - what he saw was "body positioning" and he THOUGHT that this is what was going on based on sounds that he had heard earlier, BUT WASN'T EVEN HEARING at the time of his momentary glances (and has also testified that neither party was moving in a RHYTHMIC FASHION either!). Speculating as to what they were doing, when you've made it clear that you didn't actually see what you are SPECULATING about, is DEFACTO not SEEING or EYEWITNESSING something you fargging phucking jack@ss, so please stop claiming it is! BTW, labeling your conjecture as "reasonably certain" that is what they were doing ONLY MAKES IT CLEARER that it is CONJECTURE and SPECULATION on the witnesses part and that what he "saw" was simply body positioning (and again, testified that he WASN'T, not that he was, hearing noises or rhythmic sexual motions used in his ANALOG!) and didn't "see" OR KNOW what the parties were doing, but provided conjecture as to what they were doing WITHOUT SEEING IT! Also BTW, a "reasonably certain" CONJECTURE works as 100% EXCULPATORY testimony AT-TRIAL for the DEFENSE you dumb@ss as it absolutely incontrovertibly acts to PROVE The State's claim is FRAUDULENT both relative to their Indictment claim AND what The State claimed MM testified to the "30th SWIGJ", because MM told the "30th SWIGJ" UNQUESTIONABLY that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" anal-rape, NOT that he did "see" and "eyewitness" such a thing, you fargging moron! This is confirmed by a Grand Juror on the "33rd SWIGJ" who has stated publicly that MM testified to the "30th SWIGJ", just as even MM himself has testified to AT-TRIAL and in his e-mail to the OAG after the issue of the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment, DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" what The State CLAIMS in their INDICTMENTS which list the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" as their "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in the case of the Perjury counts)!
So stop saying that MM's testimony to the "30th SWIGJ" or AT-TRIAL "corroborate", agree with, etc...,The State's claims in their INDICTMENTS or the INDICTMENTS LISTED PROBABLE CAUSE (i.e., "33rd SWIGJ Presentment") because you are absolutely and DIAMETRICALLY full of $hit - MM's statements to the "30th SWIGJ" and AT-TRIAL act 100% as EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE relative to The State's CLAIMS as to having an EYEWITNESS or that MM ever TESTIFIED UNDER OATH (which he did 3 separate times) that he was an EYEWITNESS to The State's claim of EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY they would PRODUCE! On each of the 3 occasions MM testified under oath and in a PA Court of Law, MM testified WITHOUT QUESTION that he DID NOT see or eyewitness what The State claimed their EYEWITNESS saw....and not only stated that he was not The State's claimed eyewitness, but that he had NEVER told ANYONE he had seen or eyewitnessed such things (IOW, completely blowing-up The State's claim that MM had told JM and Dr. D while the incident was still IN-PROGRESS that he has "seen" and eyewitnessed the anal-rape of a child! JM and Dr. D then CORROBORATED MM's testimony and said that MM's version of events to THEM while the incident was still IN-PROGRESS was nothing like The State's claims of what Mike had told them and The State's claims were UTTERLY FALSE as to what Mike told them!).
So in summary, 100% of MM's, JM's and Dr. D's testimony to the Grand Jury and AT-TRIAL prove WITHOUT QUESTION that:
- The State LIED when they said they would produce an EYEWITNESS to the anal-rape of a 10 year old child as they claimed in their Indictments.
- The State NEVER had any such "eyewitness"
- MM NEVER testified that he was an "eyewitness" to such a thing to the "30th SWIGJ"
- The State LIED when they said they would produce evidence that the eyewitness (that they never had) told JM and Dr. D (or anyone for that matter) that MM told them he had "seen" anal-rape sexual assault.
- 100% of The State's Indictments related to 2001, including 100% of the double-digit Indictments brought against C/S/S, are clear "Malicious Prosecution" as 100% of the listed "Probable Cause" (and "particulars" in the case of Perjury counts) "Direct Evidence" is FRAUDULENT and DIAMETRICALLY conflicts with what MM, JM and Dr. D have testified to as to the EVENTS of that evening, WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS. MM has ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that he DID NOT eyewitness what The State claims NOR did he EVER tell ANYONE he had......and JM and Dr. D's statements UNEQUIVOCALLY and ABSOLUTELY back this statement up that MM DID NOT eyewitness what The State claims he did NOR did he ever tell them he eyewitnessed such a thing and certainly didn't tell them the evening of 2/9/2001 that he witnessed, or even saw anything remotely similar, to The State's claims and the incident was still IN-PROGRESS when they spoke with Mike and had he told them such a thing, they would have sent Police/911 to the scene!
Last edited:
You're are absolutely full of $hit that three Misdemeanor convictions on altered charges (i.e. WATERED DOWN CHARGES) equates to CSS "losing" when they IN-FACT WON, and the corrupt OAG LOST on 100% of the ORIGINAL CHARGES and 100% of the Felony PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and CONSPIRACY counts, such that the OAG went 3-for-27 against C/S/S and only won on three Misdemeanor counts which were the MOST minor counts brought and they were only brought at the very end of the corrupt OAG's 5-year case via watering down the charges to salvage some type of conviction, when 100% of their original INDICTMENTS are PROVABLE "Malicious Prosecution" (i.e., ZERO non-fraudulent "Probable Cause") born of "Prosecutorial Misconduct" which is PRECISELY why 100% of the most serious FELONY charges were THROWN OUT by the court!
But don't let little things like FACTS get in the way of your corrupt OAG fairy-tales!!
Coming in 2018, the Schultz/Curley prison memoir: All The Winning, it hurts.
Tim and Gary put any goodwill they earned by pleading in jeopardy with their performance at trial.
Again...first time offenses...misdemeanors...not sure they will see prison time.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
FB Recruiting December 2 NitBits - Early Signing Period is here- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
