No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"

[LaJolla Lion]

The fun thing about trolls is, they're too stupid to realize when they're on ignore.

What's even funnier is you pretending you don't read what people say only to use their words later on. The other funny thing is you using the world troll with your 50th new handle after being banned from pretty much every other site you posted at because you have zero self control. Oddly enough someone else in this same thread has those same control issues and has gone through handle after handle on this site. In fact 3-4 that like to use that term on this site are all on at least their second up to their 40th or so handle. Maybe you and a few others need to look up the term troll. I'll give you a hint...if someone disagrees with your opinion...they aren't a troll all of the time.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

What's even funnier is you pretending you don't read what people say only to use their words later on. The other funny thing is you using the world troll with your 50th new handle after being banned from pretty much every other site you posted at because you have zero self control. Oddly enough someone else in this same thread has those same control issues and has gone through handle after handle on this site. In fact 3-4 that like to use that term on this site are all on at least their second up to their 40th or so handle. Maybe you and a few others need to look up the term troll. I'll give you a hint...if someone disagrees with your opinion...they aren't a troll all of the time.

Hey moron, whether the corrupt PA OAG EVER had an "EYEWITNESS" to the anal-rape of the boy in the shower AND/OR whether anybody EVER testified to such a thing to any of the multiple SWIGJ's held on the matter (i.e., "EYEWITNESSING" the anal-rape of a 10 year old on the evening of 2/9/2001 as the corrupt PA OAG claims in their Indictments and Indictment Probable Cause GJP) is not a matter of "opinion"!!! The FACT OF THE MATTER (i.e., the 2001 Indictments) is:

• The corrupt PA OAG LIED when they said they had an "EYEWITNESS" they claimed in their Indictments.
• The corrupt PA OAG LIED when they said that ANYBODY testified to "EYEWITNESSING" The State's claims in their Indictments to any of the multiple SWIGJ's convened on the matter.
• The corrupt PA OAG NEVER PRODUCED the supposed "EYEWITNESS" and "eyewitness testimony" they said they would produce in their Indictments!
• It is IMPOSSIBLE and a violation of KNOWN PHYSICS for an "EYEWITNESS" that NEVER EXISTED to tell ANYONE his "eyewitness account" of "seeing" and "eyewitnessing" the anal-rape of a 10 year old, let alone 2 separate people (who say The State's claims are not true AT-TRIAL) the same night while the event was still IN-PROGRESS and 3 additional people WELL AFTER THE FACT (who say the State's Claims are not true AT-TRIAL). Again moron, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE under the current known laws of the universe for a person who NEVER EXISTED to give their "eyewitness account" of what they "saw" to ANYONE!
• Anyone with even fractional intelligence understands that the corrupt PA OAG State Prosecutors failing to PRODUCE the "EYEWITNESS" they promised in their Indictment's "Probable Cause" docs is a FATAL FLAW to the remainder of their Case and Indictment in regards to all of the 2001-related Indictments as the entire "House of Cards" is BUILT on this intentional FABRICATION otherwise known as a LIE & FALSE CHARGES and when it is unquestionably proven to be a lie by The State themselves and their utter FAILURE to produce said "EYEWITNESS", the entire structure evaporates and crumbles immediately!

Again, whether the corrupt PA OAG utterly FAILED to produce the "eyewitness" they claimed in their Indicting Documents is not a "matter of opinion", it is a "matter of FACT" and THE RECORD you fargging, ceasely whining troll, obfuscating, spinning, supporter of lying dirtbags, servile douche-drone!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

OAG owns you!!!!

 

[indynittany]

What's even funnier is you pretending you don't read what people say only to use their words later on. The other funny thing is you using the world troll with your 50th new handle after being banned from pretty much every other site you posted at because you have zero self control. Oddly enough someone else in this same thread has those same control issues and has gone through handle after handle on this site. In fact 3-4 that like to use that term on this site are all on at least their second up to their 40th or so handle. Maybe you and a few others need to look up the term troll. I'll give you a hint...if someone disagrees with your opinion...they aren't a troll all of the time.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your point has some validity, what's the proper term to describe someone who would go to the trouble to know that about other posters?

What interests me is why someone would vehemently argue to keep the narrative alive? If I thought in my heart that any of those men, including JVP, thought that the boy in the shower had been in any danger of abuse, I'd be long gone. Penn State would be dead to me.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is an important part of our legal system. There's enough reasonable doubt in this mess to fill Beaver Stadium! Unfortunately, none of those involved was ever afforded the presumption of innocence we all deserve. And that's largely because Penn State rolled over and plead guilty before the facts could be known.

I believe Penn State's students and alumni were unjustly robbed of our school's tradition by its own Board of Trustees. Success with Honor has no meaning outside of a portion of the Penn State community and that's a shame. I believe the memory of Joe Paterno was destroyed intentionally and unnecessarily. The world needs more men like Joe and more women like Sue. And I believe crony capitalism is at the heart of it all. I argue because I care and because I hope to see Penn State's reputation restored one day. I guess my question is, what motivates someone to defend the cronies behind all of this and argue against me?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Assuming for the sake of argument that your point has some validity, what's the proper term to describe someone who would go to the trouble to know that about other posters?

What interests me is why someone would vehemently argue to keep the narrative alive? If I thought in my heart that any of those men, including JVP, thought that the boy in the shower had been in any danger of abuse, I'd be long gone. Penn State would be dead to me.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is an important part of our legal system. There's enough reasonable doubt in this mess to fill Beaver Stadium! Unfortunately, none of those involved was ever afforded the presumption of innocence we all deserve. And that's largely because Penn State rolled over and plead guilty before the facts could be known.

I believe Penn State's students and alumni were unjustly robbed of our school's tradition by its own Board of Trustees. Success with Honor has no meaning outside of a portion of the Penn State community and that's a shame. I believe the memory of Joe Paterno was destroyed intentionally and unnecessarily. The world needs more men like Joe and more women like Sue. And I believe crony capitalism is at the heart of it all. I argue because I care and because I hope to see Penn State's reputation restored one day. I guess my question is, what motivates someone to defend the cronies behind all of this and argue against me?

So basically why don't they believe you and your buddy when the notes and emails say there could be more to it? Are you really any better? Honestly? It's ok for people to point out mistakes is it not? If anything Tim and Gary in particular really made the bad decision that left the school open to any of this. Not on purpose but they made a bad call in 2001. Now their were a ton of people who missed things and you have no problem being critical there, just don't dare say they messed up. It's a two way street no matter how badly you want it to be a one way.

 

[getmyjive11]

Assuming for the sake of argument that your point has some validity, what's the proper term to describe someone who would go to the trouble to know that about other posters?

What interests me is why someone would vehemently argue to keep the narrative alive? If I thought in my heart that any of those men, including JVP, thought that the boy in the shower had been in any danger of abuse, I'd be long gone. Penn State would be dead to me.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is an important part of our legal system. There's enough reasonable doubt in this mess to fill Beaver Stadium! Unfortunately, none of those involved was ever afforded the presumption of innocence we all deserve. And that's largely because Penn State rolled over and plead guilty before the facts could be known.

I believe Penn State's students and alumni were unjustly robbed of our school's tradition by its own Board of Trustees. Success with Honor has no meaning outside of a portion of the Penn State community and that's a shame. I believe the memory of Joe Paterno was destroyed intentionally and unnecessarily. The world needs more men like Joe and more women like Sue. And I believe crony capitalism is at the heart of it all. I argue because I care and because I hope to see Penn State's reputation restored one day. I guess my question is, what motivates someone to defend the cronies behind all of this and argue against me?

Well, most of us understand that the University is still a great place without the men involved in this scandal. Their mistakes (or worse) are their own so it's easy to separate them from the university. They failed us... time to move on.

 

[marshall23]

So basically why don't they believe you and your buddy when the notes and emails say there could be more to it? Are you really any better? Honestly? It's ok for people to point out mistakes is it not? If anything Tim and Gary in particular really made the bad decision that left the school open to any of this. Not on purpose but they made a bad call in 2001. Now their were a ton of people who missed things and you have no problem being critical there, just don't dare say they messed up. It's a two way street no matter how badly you want it to be a one way.

Mistakes, bad decisions, bad calls and messing up are things we all have done more times than we care to admit. What Corbett, Surma and his OGBOT did to PSU is a crime.

 

[Mixolydian]

So basically why don't they believe you and your buddy when the notes and emails say there could be more to it? Are you really any better? Honestly? It's ok for people to point out mistakes is it not? If anything Tim and Gary in particular really made the bad decision that left the school open to any of this. Not on purpose but they made a bad call in 2001. Now their were a ton of people who missed things and you have no problem being critical there, just don't dare say they messed up. It's a two way street no matter how badly you want it to be a one way.

Indy can speak for himself, but from my perspective he defends his alma mater and gives the benefit of the doubt to some very decent people who had earned that. And as shocking as it seems, he does so on a Penn State blog. So yeah, he's better, a lot better. Honest.

And who exactly are all these people who say CSS didn't make a mistake? A ton of people may have missed things, but only 4 had their lives/legacies ruined over it. Get off the fence LaJolla. Your ass will thank you for it.

 

[coveydidnt]

Indy can speak for himself, but from my perspective he defends his alma mater and gives the benefit of the doubt to some very decent people who had earned that. And as shocking as it seems, he does so on a Penn State blog. So yeah, he's better, a lot better. Honest.

And who exactly are all these people who say CSS didn't make a mistake? A ton of people may have missed things, but only 4 had their lives/legacies ruined over it. Get off the fence LaJolla. Your ass will thank you for it.

Only 4?

Only 4?

 

[Mixolydian]

Only 4?

Only 4?

Yes dummy. Only 4 of those who missed things or made mistakes.

 

[coveydidnt]

So basically why don't they believe you and your buddy when the notes and emails say there could be more to it? Are you really any better? Honestly? It's ok for people to point out mistakes is it not? If anything Tim and Gary in particular really made the bad decision that left the school open to any of this. Not on purpose but they made a bad call in 2001. Now their were a ton of people who missed things and you have no problem being critical there, just don't dare say they messed up. It's a two way street no matter how badly you want it to be a one way.

Well some of these people still hang their hats on:

- Snedden - who's report used info from 2012 & earlier & was not really about guilt/innocence
- Ziegler - who cherry picks items & distorts their meanings
- Ray - who's got redacted "notes" purportedly from Erickson, but can't prove provenance or why they are really important & not 4th hand hearsay. (also claims that the "Feds" are still on the case & will file charges against ?? "soon"
- The A9 who have been "reviewing" the raw Freeh files for at least 7 months now
- Jerry's PCRA
- Paterno vs. NCAA - which might actually be interesting, except that the "interesting" part and the focus of the trial is going to be on what the damages actually are, and, they are probably going to unfortunately be hard to prove that they are anything other than small.

A big thing they ignore:

- "Best Buddies" - a similar, currently active charity to TSM, nationwide, also attached to football, curently involved in a financial scandal with Tom Brady, with more than 10x the annual income TSM had in it's it's best years, and ALSO supports as a primary function 1-on-1 unsupervised interactions between adults, including famous atheletes, and (developmentally impaired) children. Now -- if all they care about are "the KIDS" -- why all the posts about TSM (defunct for 6 years & no longer a risk to kids) when this other org is promoting similar risky behavior?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/new...ld-anthony-shriver/1x3v5itio8xkm1mi18jw6whily

https://bestbuddies.org/what-we-do/friendship/

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Indy can speak for himself, but from my perspective he defends his alma mater and gives the benefit of the doubt to some very decent people who had earned that. And as shocking as it seems, he does so on a Penn State blog. So yeah, he's better, a lot better. Honest.

And who exactly are all these people who say CSS didn't make a mistake? A ton of people may have missed things, but only 4 had their lives/legacies ruined over it. Get off the fence LaJolla. Your ass will thank you for it.

Only 4 that you wish to count. Typical and when you pull your head out of your blue and white ass to form a real opinion, let me know. Only those 4 were hurt and you wonder why people shake their heads.

 

[Mixolydian]

Only 4 that you wish to count. Typical and when you pull your head out of your blue and white ass to form a real opinion, let me know. Only those 4 were hurt and you wonder why people shake their heads.

You aren't smart enough to follow the conversation.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You aren't smart enough to follow the conversation.

Your old stand by deflection. Typical.

 

[L.T. Young]

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.

That has little to nothing to do with the discussion we were having.

He said "everything MM has said is the diametric opposite of the presentment".

I countered with clear examples that would suggest otherwise unless you're going to use the strictest definition possible.

Seeing as it's common practice to interpret things in unusual ways around here I think it's fair to say his statement was wrong.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Only 4 that you wish to count. Typical and when you pull your head out of your blue and white ass to form a real opinion, let me know. Only those 4 were hurt and you wonder why people shake their heads.

Interesting how the people and entities who broke the most Pennsylvania laws under the Child Protective Services Code, Failed the children and DID THE MOST ENABLING OF SANDUSKY didn't get investigated and weren't prosecuted.....but instead were shielded and protected via corruption and abuse of public powers.....but you have no problem with that - shocking! Well, not really..... You really are a self-righteous, hypocritical piece of $hit....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Mistakes, bad decisions, bad calls and messing up are things we all have done more times than we care to admit. What Corbett, Surma and his OGBOT did to PSU is a crime.

Of course that is the case. The sad truth is the higher up you are the more accountable you become. Navy navigator runs the ship aground while the CO is asleep, the CO gets removed from command.

If,,, big IF Tim simply called DPW and the report was made, do you think they get crapped on. I don't. Would the media still dumped on Joe, probably but if the school made the report, there is a lot less ammo. I think human nature and relationships came into play here, but these were human men. Jerry did play everyone like a fiddle.

I'm not angry at them like some are, but I also think they (Tim and George in particular) should have known even in 2001 to error on the side of caution. As administrators you need to play the CYA card more than you wish, but it is important to as you never know when it will bite you in the arse. They were advised to make a call and had the right idea, but simply backed out.

Your points on the OG BoT and others is dead on. CSS made have missed the right call, but the BOT really buried CSS and Joe before they could even say boo. Those people also cost the school a ton of money with their spineless leadership. Had they suspended all right from the start pending the judicial outcome, no "cover up" narrative is stamped out there. Horrible leadership, I concur.

 

[L.T. Young]

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.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sandusky got his day in court and wasn't convicted on the charge after all the evidence was presented to a jury.

You're just a bitter old fool that can't accept reality. If that part of presentment is the only reason he's in jail then why wasn't he convicted of the charge?

The truth is plenty of other evidence exists, like victim testimony, that put Sandusky away for life.

According to your logic nobody should believe anyone is a pedo unless there's video evidence of the crime, the victim has a perfect history, and a confession to remove all doubt.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

That has little to nothing to do with the discussion we were having.

He said "everything MM has said is the diametric opposite of the presentment".

I countered with clear examples that would suggest otherwise unless you're going to use the strictest definition possible.

Seeing as it's common practice to interpret things in unusual ways around here I think it's fair to say his statement was wrong.

Under the LAW and Constitution it was you jack@ss - the corrupt PA OAG claimed him as an EYEWITNESS, the only "direct evidence" cited in their FRAUDULENT GJP "Probable Cause" supporting their Indictments -- McQueary's "30th SWIGJ" testimony is quite clear in stating he is not an "EYEWITNESS" of any kind and that he only provided SPECULATIVE testimony which is called "circumstantial evidence" and NOT ADMISSABLE as "EYEWITNESS DIRECT EVIDENCE TESTIMONY" jack@ss. McQueary was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of an "EYEWITNESS" to The State's Indictment claims - he was NOT AN EYEWITNESS and TESTIFIED to both the "30th SWIGJ" and AT-TRIAL multiple times that he was NOT AN EYEWITNESS.....IOW, the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what The State claimed from a LEGAL STANDPOINT! He was a bulletproof witness for the DEFENSE in providing EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY disproving The State's claim that he was an EYEWITNESS moron.

 

[Legion of Lions]

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.

So...what's your point????

The 8 people who testified WERE NOT even remotely cross-examined. No effective defense for the ALLEGED crimes was made. So what you are saying is ...the court proceedings that convicted Sandusky are based on him molesting TSM kids "...in some sort of fashion..." WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?? Are you saying justice should be established on a standard of guilt built upon "...in some sort of fashion..". Show me in ANY form of law, legal brief or opinion where that is the standard needed to establish guilt.

Big problem for your arguments ----- Remember - two of these convictions (and numerous "counts") were either based on "janitor" testimony that EXCLUDED Sandusky by name and (with the PSU shower "victim") denied in court THAT NOTHING SEXUAL HAPPENED!!

Face it...YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC PSU GUILT CONNECTION....no matter what are the facts!! That works IF you - Just ignore the illegalities...just forget about the inconsistencies....just argue with the "details of wordings" that make up the "bright shiny objects of diversion" from the truth in this case!. It is a crime unto itself!

The "story" no longer makes any sense at all (if it ever did)... and.... the ILLEGAL manipulations of the PA courts system by the OAG are starting to be dramatically exposed.

The PSU Money you speak of is another matter - it is the "grease" that allowed these LEGAL ABUSES to slide through the corrupt PA court system and allowed this "absurdity" to occur!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So...what's your point????

The 8 people who testified WERE NOT even remotely cross-examined. No effective defense for the ALLEGED crimes was made. So what you are saying is ...the court proceedings that convicted Sandusky are based on him molesting TSM kids "...in some sort of fashion..." WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?? Are you saying justice should be established on a standard of guilt built upon "...in some sort of fashion..".

Big problem for your arguments ----- Remember - two of these convictions (and numerous "counts") were either based on "janitor" testimony that EXCLUDED Sandusky by name and (with the PSU shower "victim") denied in court THAT NOTHING SEXUAL HAPPENED!!

Face it...YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC PSU GUILT CONNECTION....no matter what are the facts!! That works IF you - Just ignore the illegalities...just forget about the inconsistencies....just argue with the "details of wordings" that make up the "bright shiny objects of diversion" from the truth in this case!.

The "story" no longer makes any sense at all (if it ever did)... and.... the ILLEGAL manipulations of the PA courts system by the OAG are starting to be dramatically exposed.

The PSU Money you speak of is another matter - it is the "grease" that allowed these LEGAL ABUSES to slide through the corrupt PA court system and allowed this "absurdity" to occur!!

You can bold and underline until you drop dead...won't change a thing. If you're still wondering about Jerry, talk to a stick or branch and they may believe you.

 

[Legion of Lions]

You can bold and underline until you drop dead...won't change a thing.

You are right....the past can not be changed....corruption and deceit are very difficult to erase! Corruption has existed in PA Courts LONG before The Penn State Illusion! But corruption relies on remaining unchallenged, and unexposed.

You basic premise of "The Courts have decided" is wrong ....in that it implies the court actions were "Fair & Just". THEY WERE NOT!

 

[L.T. Young]

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.

Great point and worthy of discussion no matter how you feel about the case.

I don't have answer. If MM was in fact sexually abused that might have something to do with it.

The "sex sounds" had to have figured in.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You are right....the past can not be changed....corruption and deceit are very difficult to erase! Corruption has existed in PA Courts LONG before The Penn State Illusion! But corruption relies on remaining unchallenged, and unexposed.

You basic premise of "The Courts have decided" is wrong ....in that it implies the court actions were "Fair & Just". THEY WERE NOT!

Pedophiles existed long before the PA courts.

 

[wensilver]

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Great point and worthy of discussion no matter how you feel about the case.

I don't have answer. If MM was in fact sexually abused that might have something to do with it.

The "sex sounds" had to have figured in.

More laughable bull$hit - hearing noises is completely inadmissible in terms of any "evidence" proving guilt of the corrupt PA OAG's Indictment claim of Anal-Rape Sexual Assault with a EYEWITNESS to the crime. The State first PROVABLY lied in claiming that McQueary ever told ANY SWIGJ that he EYEWITNESSED what they claimed in their GJP and it's direct Indictments (McQueary then confirmed this FRAUDULENT claim by the corrupt PA OAG in his subsequent multiple AT-TRIAL statements including not only confirming he testified in the opposite fashion than The State claimed in their GJP Indictments, but also added that he didn't eyewitness it AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD!). And then The State utterly failed to PRODUCE an EYEWITNESS and EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY despite stating in their GJP & Its Indictments that they would do so! Instead of producing an EYEWITNESS, The State instead proved with 100% certainty that the intentionally made FRAUDULENT claims for the purpose of Malicious Prosecution in their GJP (cited as Probable Cause) & accompanying Indictments. But now you want to claim UTTERLY IRRELEVANT "noises" that McQueary heard have some critical legal bearing on the case, which is complete and utter bull$hit as well as being COMPLETELY FACTUALLY WRONG under the law.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

View embedded media

Gee, why was the hypocrite saying the diametric opposite in regards to Sandusky then??? Amazing how "fluid" Lou Anna's beliefs are, especially when their self-serving in her favor....LMFAO, what an @sshole.

 

[indynittany]

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sandusky got his day in court and wasn't convicted on the charge after all the evidence was presented to a jury.

You're just a bitter old fool that can't accept reality. If that part of presentment is the only reason he's in jail then why wasn't he convicted of the charge?

The truth is plenty of other evidence exists, like victim testimony, that put Sandusky away for life.

According to your logic nobody should believe anyone is a pedo unless there's video evidence of the crime, the victim has a perfect history, and a confession to remove all doubt.

What burden of proof would you want if it was you who was accused?

 

[PSUPride1]

Gee, why was the hypocrite saying the diametric opposite in regards to Sandusky then??? Amazing how "fluid" Lou Anna's beliefs are, especially when their self-serving in her favor....LMFAO, what an @sshole.

I almost threw up in my mouth when I read her comments. What a complete hypocritical, pos.

 

[indynittany]

So basically why don't they believe you and your buddy when the notes and emails say there could be more to it? Are you really any better? Honestly? It's ok for people to point out mistakes is it not? If anything Tim and Gary in particular really made the bad decision that left the school open to any of this. Not on purpose but they made a bad call in 2001. Now their were a ton of people who missed things and you have no problem being critical there, just don't dare say they messed up. It's a two way street no matter how badly you want it to be a one way.

The notes and emails prove that their "only" concern was dependent upon a subsequent incident ("if our message is not heard and acted upon"). They weren't worried about what Sandusky had done, but what might happen in future he said/he said situations.

They never even mentioned the boy, let alone showed concern for his well being or that he might go to the authorities. Keep in mind, if he had been abused, not only would a former coach be involved as the abuser, but a current coach would have witnessed the abuse and abandoned the victim as the act was occurring. If they thought for an instant that boy had been in danger, they would have covered their asses. Plain and simple. Even Alan Myers said MM was a liar.

This incident was much ado about nothing. What needs to be explored is what motivated those who crafted and fueled the narrative?

 

[L.T. Young]

What burden of proof would you want if it was you who was accused?

Fair question to ask. Pretty much the same one Sandusky was given.

He wasn't convicted on the most publicized charge. That should tell you something about the idea the verdict was decided before the trial.

Was it a flawless trial? Of course not.

Did Sandusky have good representation? Not really.

Would Sandusky be a free man if those two things were changed? Not a chance.

JMO obviously.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

The notes and emails prove that their "only" concern was dependent upon a subsequent incident ("if our message is not heard and acted upon"). They weren't worried about what Sandusky had done, but what might happen in future he said/he said situations.

They never even mentioned the boy, let alone showed concern for his well being or that he might go to the authorities. Keep in mind, if he had been abused, not only would a former coach be involved as the abuser, but a current coach would have witnessed the abuse and abandoned the victim as the act was occurring. If they thought for an instant that boy had been in danger, they would have covered their asses. Plain and simple. Even Alan Myers said MM was a liar.

This incident was much ado about nothing. What needs to be explored is what motivated those who crafted and fueled the narrative?

Spanier's email, much like Joe's GJ testimony and Curley's "change of plan" email, only makes sense to people who understand how words work

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The notes and emails prove that their "only" concern was dependent upon a subsequent incident ("if our message is not heard and acted upon"). They weren't worried about what Sandusky had done, but what might happen in future he said/he said situations.

They never even mentioned the boy, let alone showed concern for his well being or that he might go to the authorities. Keep in mind, if he had been abused, not only would a former coach be involved as the abuser, but a current coach would have witnessed the abuse and abandoned the victim as the act was occurring. If they thought for an instant that boy had been in danger, they would have covered their asses. Plain and simple. Even Alan Myers said MM was a liar.

This incident was much ado about nothing. What needs to be explored is what motivated those who crafted and fueled the narrative?

You don't get where I'm coming from which is fine...I'm not tied to one of those guys like you are. Their concerns showed that they have a level of thought saying something may not be right. You not wanting to believe something doesn't make it any more a fact than my thinking they should have made the call and had enough information to place the call. Blaming everyone else hasn't worked yet, but you still can keep trying. It's worked out wonderfully so far.

 

[indynittany]

You don't get where I'm coming from which is fine...I'm not tied to one of those guys like you are. Their concerns showed that they have a level of thought saying something may not be right. You not wanting to believe something doesn't make it any more a fact than my thinking they should have made the call and had enough information to place the call. Blaming everyone else hasn't worked yet, but you still can keep trying. It's worked out wonderfully so far.

They were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced 5 years ago in the court of public opinion. Spanier's trial and the plea deals uncovered zero evidence that these guys broke the law or had any nefarious intent.

Someone wanted to make sure they couldn't testify on Sandusky's behalf. And they wanted to make sure the spotlight continued to be pointed at Penn State, rather than TSM. And at the center of it all is someone with the same initials as Tim Curley.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

They were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced 5 years ago in the court of public opinion. Spanier's trial and the plea deals uncovered zero evidence that these guys broke the law or had any nefarious intent.

Someone wanted to make sure they couldn't testify on Sandusky's behalf. And they wanted to make sure the spotlight continued to be pointed at Penn State, rather than TSM. And at the center of it all is someone with the same initials as Tim Curley.

So they were going to testify on Jerry's behalf now...but you said in the last few days they were fooled by Jerry. They would have done nothing for Jerry and would have been a huge risk to call up for any defense attorney.

 

[indynittany]

So they were going to testify on Jerry's behalf now...but you said in the last few days they were fooled by Jerry. They would have done nothing for Jerry and would have been a huge risk to call up for any defense attorney.

I said "at worst" they were fooled by Jerry. If they were never charged, their testimony would have negated MM's. Mike's the only one who actually endangered the welfare of a child.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

They were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced 5 years ago in the court of public opinion. Spanier's trial and the plea deals uncovered zero evidence that these guys broke the law or had any nefarious intent.

Someone wanted to make sure they couldn't testify on Sandusky's behalf. And they wanted to make sure the spotlight continued to be pointed at Penn State, rather than TSM. And at the center of it all is someone with the same initials as Tim Curley.

Yea, the guy who received Victim 1's DPW-Investigated and INDICATED "Child Sexual Abuse" Complaint for PROSECUTION on 3/3/2009 (and was AG at the time with State-Mandated Authority over all Charities and NPOs in Pennsylvania) and had full knowledge of the circumstances, including Sandusky's modus operandi of using TSM to access and abuse children, as evidenced by the 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application Corbutt himself wrote and signed:

The Pennsylvania State Police are pursuing an investigation based upon a founded Clinton County Children and Youth Services complaint alleging sexual assault by a Centre County adult male upon a juvenile male with whom he became acquainted through his sponsorship of a· charity for disadvantaged youth. It is believed that other minor males have been similarly assaulted through this connection. The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties.

Undeniable proof that Corbutt knew since the early Spring 2009 that Sandusky had founded TSM for CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT PURPOSES - the accessing of children for his own perverse pleasure and sexual abuse - but he claimed in 2011 after becoming Governor that he had no idea where to look for additional victims until the anonymous e-mail arrived in the last months of 2010 OR any reason whatsoever to INVESTIGATE TSM, which he could do anytime he liked without the need of SWIGJ Powers, subpoenas, etc.. given that he was AG and TSM as a charity was under his purview and authority! Go figure, Corbutt and his direct spokesperson, Kevin Harley, have been lying about this investigation for years-and-years about how it was handled from the day it was received by the OAG in the first days of March 2009.

Instead of INVESTIGATING and PROSECUTING Victim 1's legitimate DPW-Investigated and Indicated Complaint of CSA, AG Corbutt intentionally let it languish and did nothing except make absurd SWIGJ Applications for powers he ALREADY HAD. He literally did nothing for 19 MONTHS with a legitimate DPW-Confirmed Complaint of DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE by Sandusky while working as a TSM Employee under the auspice of Clinton County in a Clinton County Public School and then via a "bait & switch" bull$hit routine, AG Corbutt, soon to be Gov Corbutt in a couple months, turned the SWIGJ exclusively into an Investigation of PSU which had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Victim 1 investigation other than Sandusky was illegally using TSM and DPW/CYS to access children, but according to the "crack" ever corrupt Corbutt (and the corrupt GOP Political Junta "Crime Syndicate" that created him) this was clearly "PSU's fault"?????????? ....so corrupt Corbutt named his own puppet-AG to replace him, had them assign the case to yet another SWIGJ, the 33rd SWIGJ, and then had the new AG FRAUDULENTLY conjure FALSE CHARGES using the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment", which literally claimed testimony to the "30th SWIGJ" that ran DIAMETRICALLY CONTRARY to what was actually testified to and claimed an EYEWITNESS to crimes that NEVER EXISTED......and worse yet, the corrupt PA OAG NEVER PRODUCED at-trial this claimed "eyewitness" despite this claimed "eyewitness testimony", which turned out to be a proven FRAUD by the corrupt PA OAG, being the only piece of "Probable Cause Evidence" cited by the corrupt PA OAG in their Indictment documents!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I said "at worst" they were fooled by Jerry. If they were never charged, their testimony would have negated MM's. Mike's the only one who actually endangered the welfare of a child.

There we go...just blame MM as your friend couldn't be wrong at all. Guess what comes out when they take the stand...their notes and knowledge of 98 which would almost certainly confirm what MM said not to mention 8 victims saying yes he is a monster. That is what I meant by they couldn't testify as they would have been sitting ducks on the cross examination.

MM certainly reacted poorly, no way around that and nobody in this thread is saying he was the hero here. But once again it's MM, TSM, Corbett...everyone but TC who had the power to call DPW, was advised to call DPW, and chose not to. Who was holding that gun to his head again? All of those people in addition to TC screwed up, but denying one doesn't make it any better or least it hasn't been the golden egg yet.

 

[coveydidnt]

I said "at worst" they were fooled by Jerry. If they were never charged, their testimony would have negated MM's. Mike's the only one who actually endangered the welfare of a child.

Are you saying that they would have lied at JS's trial? Or are you saying that they lied in the recent Spanier trial? You have to pick one.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

There we go...just blame MM as your friend couldn't be wrong at all. Guess what comes out when they take the stand...their notes and knowledge of 98 which would almost certainly confirm what MM said not to mention 8 victims saying yes he is a monster. That is what I meant by they couldn't testify as they would have been sitting ducks on the cross examination.

MM certainly reacted poorly, no way around that and nobody in this thread is saying he was the hero here. But once again it's MM, TSM, Corbett...everyone but TC who had the power to call DPW, was advised to call DPW, and chose not to. Who was holding that gun to his head again?

Yea Schultz knowing that 1998 was investigated via TSM's State Licensor and Regulator including a published formal Investigation Report that closed the case which: i) literally DECLARED IN WRITING that Sandusky was "innocent of any wrongdoing", ii) declared the Child Hotline Report made by a Mandated Reporter (Alycia Chambers) to be "UNFOUNDED" [not "Indicated"], and iii) stated the cited conditions of Sandusky being in a communal shower with a TSM Participant "horsing around" was perfectly NORMAL BEHAVIOR under the circumstances - showering at a facility being used by TSM to host a TSM Registered Program which only had communal shower facilities.....is really damning information and knowledge for Schultz to have??? This information would act to make Schultz and Curley view 2001 as another 1998, not a criminal sexual assault, you fargging jack@ss and "spin doctor"!