Don't you understand? Tim, Gary, and Graham would never lie. They are good, honest men. #sarcasm
No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Don't you understand? Tim, Gary, and Graham would never lie. They are good, honest men. #sarcasm
I don't think they are bad or evil men. They were men that had a touchy situation, weren't sure, and simply made a wrong decision on a phone call. Indy speaking for them on this is once again not doing them any favors because he is now making up things like they would have testified for Jerry. We have no idea if they would have been called or not...if they would have tried to say it's us versus MM and the prosecution shows the DPW notes call...lights out..game over there. It would have been their own concerns and worries on paper for a jury to see. Again....not a good look. Again...it was a made up scenario that went wrong for the poster who didn't think it through to be honest.
All I know is they definitely lied either in 2001 or in 2017, take your pick. Good, bad, evil, nice, are all subjective terms. People will minimize all types of stuff when their own skeletons are knocking on the closet door.
Good people make mistakes. Anyone pretending otherwise has their own skeletons too.
Like I said, good and bad are subjective and will differ to every person asked. Do I consider them = to Jerry? No of course not, not even close. I guess at the very least in the end they did take some responsibility for screwing the pooch. That's something.
Here is another interesting article regarding Corrupt Corbutt and the "MontCo-to-Hershey GOP Junta Crime Syndicates" SWIGJ shenanigans - HIT THIS LINK. Interesting, yet another circumstance where the corrupt GOP Junta that created Corbutt (and who he owes fealty to) - the "MontCo-to-Hershey Candyman Crime Syndicate" - abused public powers to illegally ingratiate themselves and provide a shield from prosecution or even investigation! Shocking...........well, not really, more like "Standard Operating Procedure" for this ever-corrupt crew of slime.....
Your logic only works when you (1) ASSUME that MM's testimony was one which said he was "shaken" by what he saw.
It is just as reasonable to assume that he asked something like the following....."WHY have kids in the football locker room - its a bad practice because "what if he fell and got hurt??" Penn State could be liable. Joe, just wanted to report that TSM kids are in our facilities with Jerry - I talked it over with my Dad and he agrees - this is something we need to stop"
Point being - it does NOT have to be a CRIMINAL thing that could cause MM to speak to Paterno about the incident. Based on everyone who spoke to MM IN 2001 no criminality can be supported as being content in the message he delivered. No one's action supports what became MM's GJ testimony in 2011. Normally, that would be enough to warrent perjury charges against MM.
Which leads to #2.
(2) Legal requirements of any allegations. Allegations are just that - ONE SIDE OF A STORY. The person accused has a right to protections under the law. This means "Innocent until proven guilty". Show me anyone connected in this matter who was given this basic legal protection!!! EVERY ONE who argues for the "Story" which the OAG created and promoted REQUIRES the fact that ANY allegations are fact - that the person who is accused is "GUILTY until proven innocent". Without this fact of POSITIVE GUILT FIRST, the "Story" and actions taken to support the "Story" - the bickering over word, phrases and "assumptions" - does not make sense. So as long as you ignore protections under the law for those accused - and IGNORE the highly suspicious, illegal or potentially illegal actions of PA OAG...things are fine in you "Story" supporting efforts.
But of course......if you're willing to ignore the trampling of Citizens CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS against corrupt prosecution (under both the PA and US Constitutions - i.e., both PA and Federal Law!), the corrupt fraudulent charges and Malicious Prosecution of multiple individuals is hunky-dory, don't you know???
Cool story. BOLDING and underlining an opinion makes it an.......wait for it.... OPINION.
Last edited:
Why? C/S/S have remained consistent in that they were never told of CSA by MM.
Mike is the one who initially testified that he did not see penetration. He did not see arousal. He did not see fondling. He did not see Sandusky's hands. And he did not see distress or anguish on the face of the boy. When Linda Kelly extrapolated sodomy from that testimony, he wrote to the OAG to complain that his words were misrepresented. Today, with $ millions on the line for him, he's toeing the OAG's line.
Last edited:
Did you read that after you wrote it? Are you seriously contending that Mike's reason for consulting his father, Dranov, Joe, Tim, and Gary was to....make sure they had sticky bath mats so when Jerry played his hug and tickle slap games the kids didn't fall? Just delete your account.
good time to remind you:
when a former federal prosecutor with literally ZERO credible investigations is writing a report to provide cover for a board of trustees who hastily fired a beloved football coach, he is not doing it for money
when alleged victims change their testimony after talking to civil attorneys, and PSU announces a big cash giveaway for victims, they are not doing it for money
when Mike gets a multi million dollar payday for cooperating with the OAG's false narrative, he is not doing it for the money
but when the leading expert on child sex crimes gets paid to do a report that summarizes DECADES of his work, and exonerates the principal players in this legal drama . . . he's a sellout
when a former NCIS agent, with decades of credible service to his country, is tasked with determining whether or not Spanier is a national security risk, and finds nothing, it is because he is protecting the Penn State brand
Good time simons to remind you of a few things....
Those 3 and Joe knew about Jerry at the very least being investigated before. Nobody knows to what extent, but the prior knowledge was there. I believe it came out afterward about Joe saying they jacked this up....but we pick and choose when to believe Joe on this site.
They sought legal counsel and ignored advice to call it in.
They had emails and notes talking about calling DPW. Hell Schultz's notes said it best at it being wildly inappropriate the first time around...but he was a GD moron according to you guys and forgot about everything the second time around...even after he "reviewed" his own notes. Nothing in his notes even triggered the slightest bit of hesitation...yeah...ok.
Jerry was caught showering with kids before...told to stop...said he wanted to kill himself...kept doing it. No alarms going off there. Just Jerry being Jerry that silly goose.
Jerry admitted to blowing rasberries on kids stomachs...not babies or toddlers, but 10 year old boys who he just kept managing to get alone. What are the odds on that? Oh that's right, he was just a nice goofy guy.
8 then testified to more than that happening and more will if his hail Mary gets answered.
Most here see there is no cover up by CSS, but a few here can honestly say they screwed up too. While the state, TSM, and others may have done shady things...it's not going to walk back what Jerry did. Carry on though as saying the victims got money means Jerry wasn't a freak in your head.
Those 3 and Joe knew about Jerry at the very least being investigated before. Nobody knows to what extent, but the prior knowledge was there. I believe it came out afterward about Joe saying they jacked this up....but we pick and choose when to believe Joe on this site.
They sought legal counsel and ignored advice to call it in.
They had emails and notes talking about calling DPW. Hell Schultz's notes said it best at it being wildly inappropriate the first time around...but he was a GD moron according to you guys and forgot about everything the second time around...even after he "reviewed" his own notes. Nothing in his notes even triggered the slightest bit of hesitation...yeah...ok.
Jerry was caught showering with kids before...told to stop...said he wanted to kill himself...kept doing it. No alarms going off there. Just Jerry being Jerry that silly goose.
Jerry admitted to blowing rasberries on kids stomachs...not babies or toddlers, but 10 year old boys who he just kept managing to get alone. What are the odds on that? Oh that's right, he was just a nice goofy guy.
8 then testified to more than that happening and more will if his hail Mary gets answered.
Most here see there is no cover up by CSS, but a few here can honestly say they screwed up too. While the state, TSM, and others may have done shady things...it's not going to walk back what Jerry did. Carry on though as saying the victims got money means Jerry wasn't a freak in your head.
Last edited:
And when a so called victim voluntarily states in writing that he was not abused that night or ever, he is not to be believed, but give him $3 million and he's suddenly Honest Abe.
Last edited:
No, clearly his reason for talking to his father and Dr. Dranov WHILE THE INCIDENT WAS STILL IN-PROGRESS and Police/911 could have been sent to the scene (his father twice - once on phone from Lasch and then at his house), was to report the "anal-rape Criminal Sexual Assault of a 10 year old", which of course explains why both JM and Dr. D said the entire meeting at the McQueary family-house was for the purpose of determing the proper handling of the matter and that Police/911 WERE NOT CALLED because nothing MM told them led them to believe a crime had been committed, let alone the anal-rape of the child and instead recommended that Mike make an AFTER THE FACT REPORT of the matter to his Employer via his Direct HR Supervisor?!?! LOL, you're inanity is right in-line with the bull$hit provably fraudulent claims of the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" that MM told JM and Dr. D "what he had seen" (i.e., the anal-rape of a 10 year old) while the incident was still "in-progress" and they recommended that he make an AFTER THE FACT "Crime Report" to JVP rather than actually call the Police/911 and send them to the scene while it was still IN-PROGRESS......DESPITE THE FACT THAT BOTH John McQueary and Dr. Dranov say this is utter bull$hit and a lie.....and Mike never told them anything that would make them suspect "Criminal Sexual Assault" whatsoever, let alone that the child was being anally-raped..... But don't let the FACTUAL RECORD get in the way of your bull$hit and attempts to put words into both JM and Dr. D's mouths that they have already stated AT-TRIAL are not consistent with their ACTUAL GJ TESTIMONY and are utterly FALSE and a COMPLETE MISREPRESENTATION of what Mike told them!!!
I'm pro Paterno on this whole case but...
when a former federal prosecutor with literally ZERO credible investigations is writing a report to provide cover for a board of trustees who hastily fired a beloved football coach, he is not doing it for money
I think Freeh's conclusions were based on his opinion, not hard evidence. Furthermore, his investigation was limited since he wasn't able to interview C/S/S/P. I also think that the BOT did one of the worst jobs imaginable dealing with this mess. That said, I don't think we have any evidence that Freeh was instructed to provide cover for the BOT.
when alleged victims change their testimony after talking to civil attorneys, and PSU announces a big cash giveaway for victims, they are not doing it for money
I agree it's likely that some of the "victims" embellished their stories in order to collect a big paycheck. The whole repressed memory therapy thing is very troublesome to me. But that doesn't mean there were no legitimate victims. It just means that we have a crappy legal system and that our BOT was more anxious to throw dollars at the problem than defend the university's money or honor.
when Mike gets a multi million dollar payday for cooperating with the OAG's false narrative, he is not doing it for the money
I am very disturbed by the AG's false claims in the presentment. It seems to me that should be grounds for disbarment. I also think it's absurd the money awarded to McQueary. Everybody interviewed (BOB, Ruhle) said that their decision not to hire McQueary had nothing to do with him being a whistleblower. But there is absolutely zero evidence that MM changed his story as a way of cashing in on a big payday. It's much more likely that he changed his story as a way of covering for his own limited response to the boy being abused and for being unclear about what he actually witnessed.
but when the leading expert on child sex crimes gets paid to do a report that summarizes DECADES of his work, and exonerates the principal players in this legal drama . . . he's a sellout
I assume you are talking about Clemente. I think his report deserves to be considered as objective as Freeh's report.
when a former NCIS agent, with decades of credible service to his country, is tasked with determining whether or not Spanier is a national security risk, and finds nothing, it is because he is protecting the Penn State brand
I agree the NCIS agent had no reason to cover for Spanier or PSU. In fairness, he wasn't tasked with digging into the JS case so his report should be taken at somewhat limited value.
While I agree with a good bit of your post, especially your takes on MM and the victims, a couple points of departure...
If "hard evidence" is the standard, I am not sure if anyone would have been found guilty of anything in this mess. While it is impossible to be 100% sure, I am convinced that a couple of very influential members of the BOT (at the time) influenced the conclusions and the timing of the Freeh Report and subsequent press conference. Because of the obvious limitations of his investigation which you rightfully point out, he should have either waited or stuck to the recommendations and avoided "opinions". Those unsubstantiated opinions (which changed everything for PSU vis a vis the NCAA) were not a surprise to some BOT members.
I understand they both were paid and that taints anything, but Clemente at least has elaborate experience in sex crimes. I really struggle with the notion of equating his credibility to Freeh in this matter. I also look at who was paying each of them in arriving at that statement.
What should have happened is that the incident should have been investigated and put to bed before Sandusky was ever indicted. Certainly before his trial. There's not one slice of evidence that C/S/S, and especially JVP, believed a boy might have been abused in the incident. Now if you want to charge JS on the grooming related offenses, fine. But to make this the flagship case against Sandusky in a blatant, media whore, politically opportunistic way was horribly wrong. What makes it even worse is that Penn State did everything it could to keep it that way.
It's time to find out what's in the Freeh source documents. It's time to find out what motivated the BOT and the OAG to inflict the damage it has to Penn State. What's TSM's role in this saga?
And who could forget these doozies and whoopers by Corbutt and his spokesperson, Kevin Harley, detailed in THIS ARTICLE as well as many others, directly following the public issuance of the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment and Indictments as well as the disclosure that Corbett authorized a $3 million grant to The Second Mile in July 2011!:
Seriously Mr. Harley? This is a reasonable answer as to why the State-Regulated and Licensed Care & Custody Entity (and the biggest Contractor to DPW/CYS in Centre County) and the Entity called out in both the DPW Indicated Report of CSA and Corbutt's 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application as being the "ways & means" modus operandi of Sandusky's access to these kids to sexually abuse them WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? Little hard to charge responsible parties, entities and agencies when you specifically "cover-up" for them and protect them by not investigating them in the first place when they are NAMED BY THEIR STATE REGULATOR AND LICENSOR as being founded for CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT PURPOSES by their FOUNDER (and still most powerful regulatory-listed "Control Person") AND the named perpetrator of DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE in both the DPW's Indicated Report of CSA and Corbutt's own SWIGJ Application submitted on 5/1/2009???? Huh??? WTF???
How about this inexplicable doozy from Corbutt in mid-November 2011 regarding TSM:
Again, huh??? WTF??? How does that line-up with what Corrupt Corbutt himself wrote on May 1, 2009 in the unnecessary SWIGJ Application (he already had these powers as AG) he wrote and signed:
Founding a charity to access children for the purpose of abusing them to the tune of "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors" at the end of March 2009 is suddenly equal to, ""The Second Mile had good purposes," Corbett said. "I'd like to see it go forward." in November 2011??? Huh??? WTF??? There's something seriously wrong and completely off the rails when the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the Commonwealth, the AG, is double-talking and lying through his teeth like this!!!
In...say...February 2001 maybe? By some official agency like....just spitballing here....DPW?
I'm pro Paterno on this whole case but...
when a former federal prosecutor with literally ZERO credible investigations is writing a report to provide cover for a board of trustees who hastily fired a beloved football coach, he is not doing it for money
I think Freeh's conclusions were based on his opinion, not hard evidence. Furthermore, his investigation was limited since he wasn't able to interview C/S/S/P. I also think that the BOT did one of the worst jobs imaginable dealing with this mess. That said, I don't think we have any evidence that Freeh was instructed to provide cover for the BOT.
au contraire mon frere. there is plenty of evidence in emails that Tomalis and Frazier, along with the NCAA, were "steering" Freeh to his conclusions. But check Freeh's history, and his history of lawsuits. He provides the answers his employers want.
when alleged victims change their testimony after talking to civil attorneys, and PSU announces a big cash giveaway for victims, they are not doing it for money
I agree it's likely that some of the "victims" embellished their stories in order to collect a big paycheck. The whole repressed memory therapy thing is very troublesome to me. But that doesn't mean there were no legitimate victims. It just means that we have a crappy legal system and that our BOT was more anxious to throw dollars at the problem than defend the university's money or honor.
but when the most critical victims that were used to smear Penn State are among the least credible . . . but I agree. the BoT was not interested in vetting victims, they spent our money to make it all go away, not caring who got smeared in the process.
when Mike gets a multi million dollar payday for cooperating with the OAG's false narrative, he is not doing it for the money
I am very disturbed by the AG's false claims in the presentment. It seems to me that should be grounds for disbarment. I also think it's absurd the money awarded to McQueary. Everybody interviewed (BOB, Ruhle) said that their decision not to hire McQueary had nothing to do with him being a whistleblower. But there is absolutely zero evidence that MM changed his story as a way of cashing in on a big payday. It's much more likely that he changed his story as a way of covering for his own limited response to the boy being abused and for being unclear about what he actually witnessed.
he changed his story. and stuck to it. but you're right, my comments were more an indictment on the corrupt PA legal system. the only person at Mike's trial who corroborated his version of events was Mike. and the jury still sided with him.
but when the leading expert on child sex crimes gets paid to do a report that summarizes DECADES of his work, and exonerates the principal players in this legal drama . . . he's a sellout
I assume you are talking about Clemente. I think his report deserves to be considered as objective as Freeh's report.
my point about Clemente is the core of his report is a summary of decades of his work in the field. Ask MSU about whether they should have validated it . . .
when a former NCIS agent, with decades of credible service to his country, is tasked with determining whether or not Spanier is a national security risk, and finds nothing, it is because he is protecting the Penn State brand
I agree the NCIS agent had no reason to cover for Spanier or PSU. In fairness, he wasn't tasked with digging into the JS case so his report should be taken at somewhat limited value.
yet he was given access to more people and more information than Freeh
when a former federal prosecutor with literally ZERO credible investigations is writing a report to provide cover for a board of trustees who hastily fired a beloved football coach, he is not doing it for money
I think Freeh's conclusions were based on his opinion, not hard evidence. Furthermore, his investigation was limited since he wasn't able to interview C/S/S/P. I also think that the BOT did one of the worst jobs imaginable dealing with this mess. That said, I don't think we have any evidence that Freeh was instructed to provide cover for the BOT.
au contraire mon frere. there is plenty of evidence in emails that Tomalis and Frazier, along with the NCAA, were "steering" Freeh to his conclusions. But check Freeh's history, and his history of lawsuits. He provides the answers his employers want.
when alleged victims change their testimony after talking to civil attorneys, and PSU announces a big cash giveaway for victims, they are not doing it for money
I agree it's likely that some of the "victims" embellished their stories in order to collect a big paycheck. The whole repressed memory therapy thing is very troublesome to me. But that doesn't mean there were no legitimate victims. It just means that we have a crappy legal system and that our BOT was more anxious to throw dollars at the problem than defend the university's money or honor.
but when the most critical victims that were used to smear Penn State are among the least credible . . . but I agree. the BoT was not interested in vetting victims, they spent our money to make it all go away, not caring who got smeared in the process.
when Mike gets a multi million dollar payday for cooperating with the OAG's false narrative, he is not doing it for the money
I am very disturbed by the AG's false claims in the presentment. It seems to me that should be grounds for disbarment. I also think it's absurd the money awarded to McQueary. Everybody interviewed (BOB, Ruhle) said that their decision not to hire McQueary had nothing to do with him being a whistleblower. But there is absolutely zero evidence that MM changed his story as a way of cashing in on a big payday. It's much more likely that he changed his story as a way of covering for his own limited response to the boy being abused and for being unclear about what he actually witnessed.
he changed his story. and stuck to it. but you're right, my comments were more an indictment on the corrupt PA legal system. the only person at Mike's trial who corroborated his version of events was Mike. and the jury still sided with him.
but when the leading expert on child sex crimes gets paid to do a report that summarizes DECADES of his work, and exonerates the principal players in this legal drama . . . he's a sellout
I assume you are talking about Clemente. I think his report deserves to be considered as objective as Freeh's report.
my point about Clemente is the core of his report is a summary of decades of his work in the field. Ask MSU about whether they should have validated it . . .
when a former NCIS agent, with decades of credible service to his country, is tasked with determining whether or not Spanier is a national security risk, and finds nothing, it is because he is protecting the Penn State brand
I agree the NCIS agent had no reason to cover for Spanier or PSU. In fairness, he wasn't tasked with digging into the JS case so his report should be taken at somewhat limited value.
yet he was given access to more people and more information than Freeh
The guilty pleas of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz do not provide evidence that they knowingly endangered the welfare of a child
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/04/puzzling-plea-deals.html
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/04/puzzling-plea-deals.html
lol
it was part of your employment to make a report of the suspected abuse
the defendant: YES
you prevented or interfered with the making of that suspected report
the defendant: YES
that you did so intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
the defendant: YES
Here's another article - HIT THE LINK - this one written by the trolls favorite cub-reporter, loaded with more provable public lies and misstatements regarding TSM, the GOP connection and why TSM was not investigated:
Kevin Harley, Corbutt's Official Spokesperson, says:
{Horn sounds} But that would be FACTUALLY INCORRECT Kev - not only did many more people know about the investigation, including Sandusky himself, but the party you are lamely attempting to claim didn't know in January 2010, Bob Poole, had this to say about when he knew:
Here is what boot-licking, prevaricating Kev had to say on behalf of his boss and his boss' AG Administration regarding why TSM wasn't investigated in the Spring 2009 when AG Corbutt received the DPW's "Indicated Report" of CSA on 3/3/2009.....and why AG Corbutt didn't return the money raised at the January 2010 fund-raiser:
Gee, that's odd, this directly conflicts with what Corbutt himself wrote in his SWIGJ Application for the V1 Investigation (which had ZERO to do with PSU or anybody at PSU) on 5/1/2009:
You can't make up stronger proof of what kind of lying, corrupt, scumbags these complicit belly-crawlers are......sadly, but hilariously, the old joke about, "How do you know when good 'ole boys Kev and Tom-boy are lying?....Answer: When their lips are moving!" clearly applies....
Last edited:
Unless you have a real strong stomach, I wouldn't read THIS ARTICLE - Gov. Corbett Starting To Take Heat Over PSU Investigation
Extremely humorous in regards to the extent of the prevarications Corbutt and his little sock-puppet Kevin Harley will go to......but I have to warn you, the last line in the article is almost certainly going to bring up whatever you had for lunch!
Here's another, make sure you have a strong constitution before reading (and that you aren't driving your car because you might put your fist through the windshield!):
Here's some select "Really? Seriously? Did he just say that."....to wit the response is, "Oh, yes he did" excerpts:
Seriously though, now this one is must reading for all you budding "Baghdad Bob" comedians out there:
"Corbett said the attorney general's office didn't have enough evidence to file charges any sooner than it did.". Holy $hit, LMFAO - an Indicated Report of CSA from TSM's State Regulator and Licensor alleging "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors" as detailed in his own completely unnecessary 5/1/2009 SWIGJ Application (he already has all these powers over charities as AG) directly subsequent to receiving the report from DPW with a request for Prosecution as detailed below:
A formal DPW "Indicated CSA Report" (i.e., confirmed) Complaint is insufficient evidence when the DPW's Indicated Findings include a statement that alledge the perpetrator's own personal charity was founded and being used for CRIMINAL FRAUDULENT PURPOSES??? And he didn't know where to go to look for more victims??? And he didn't know the AG didn't need to ask for authority to investigate a Children's Charity that was allegedly founded for the FRAUDULENT purpose of being "victim factory" for Sandusky's perversions including, but not limited to, "involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors"??? Huh? Seriously? How can he claim that he did more to protect Pennsylvania's children than any AG before him when he doesn't even investigate a case that the DPW investigated, "Indicated" and put big flashing arrows on that read, "look here, look here" pointing directly at TSM, its Fonder and most powerful listed "Control Person" on regulatory filings?!?!
Corbutt claiming he did not have enough "Probable Cause" to go after TSM/Sandusky in the Spring 2009 with the DPW's Verified Report of CSA is absurdly laughable, especially when you consider all these machinations to submit double-digit Indictments regarding 2001 (and dedicating 80% of the FRAUDULENT "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" to it) with absolutely ZERO PROBABLE CAUSE other then the made-up FRAUDULENT False-Charges Indictments filed?!?!
Last edited:
If they're guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, what does Mike have to be to have lived with what he saw?
You'll stick to that regardless. It's funny now. Just keep blaming everyone else.
Can you READ ENGLISH? Based upon this post---you can't! Let me simplify it. No one knows what was said in 2001. We can only validate what ACTIONS MULTIPLE PEOPLE took when they were told in 2001 about what MM "saw". NOT ONE PERSON reacted like what in 2011 the OAG reported as MM's testimony.
Since no one knows about MM's 2001 ACTUAL recount of the shower incident with Sandusky - multiple "reasonable" alternatives as to his message content exist. I said NOTHING about WHY he consulted with anyone!....I just stated nothing more than an example of a reasonable alternative to MM's message content delivered right after the shower event - in 2001.
Actions by those who spoke to MM about this incident in 2001 are much more credible than the multiple versions of "testimony" created for public consumption AFTER 2011 (very likely re-worded with the help of the corrupt OAG). The basic premise of the Penn State involvement in Sandusky is totally refuted by actions taken by everyone in 2001. The real question is for this 2011+ testimony change is ...WHY???
I then stated that to support the OAG-influenced (my terms) MM testimonies of 2011+ you need to forget about any basic legal protections normally afforded ANY US citizen and then ignore the suspicious and illegal abuses of the entire 6 year OAG activities. Only then is the OAG "Story" of PSU shower CSA remotely believable.
I realize these are tough concepts for you and the rest of the TROLL PATROL....maybe I need to include some cute teddy bear pictures along with Mr Rogers feel-good songs to help you understand the complexities of written English! You certainly can't read a post for content without some form of low mental age appropriate accomodations!
Last edited:
The totality of his words - taken in context of all of his statements - contradict your "proof" of Paterno involvement in a cover-up. You and everyone else can't keep straight the time periods involved - EVENT Time 2001 ( no actions which support criminal activity in PSU showers). OAG evidence time 2011!!
Any "evidence" from the OAG timeframe is much less reliable (resulting from 9+ years past the event). Additionally its is even more unreliability as credible evidence because of the heavily motive-driven influences in any OAG 2011+ "testimonies" These two methods of distortion to reality are what you continue to use to support an "illusion of guilt" in any of your postings.
Time periods matter!!! The motives for testimony and the opportunity for testimony to be changed to support are what you continue to quote.
2001 Actions speak louder than 2011+ managed words!
Last edited:
Wrong. If you take the totality of his testimony, it is clear that MM conveyed suspected CSA to him and that he passed this on to C/S.
He also didn't notice the color of the boy's hair. There seems to be a pattern here.
So what you're saying is the "Friday night witnesses" suspected CSA and chose not to report it?
What we know is only that MM talked to Paterno and Paterno followed PSU protocol in taking a concern expressed by MM through channels for proper resolution.
Based on actions alone - MM was not stating CSA in 2001- he was stating that he observed a situation which made him uncomfortable. Lots of room for speculation here. Today - in the present (2011+) we gravitate to this being a possible CSA situation because of the information about Sandusky exposed AFTER 2009 - not Sandusky as he existed in 2001.
Simple as that - your DEFINITIVE CSA statement is an information backfill speculated on 2009+ information.
