No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
No. They suspected CSA. There was clearly enough info to report the incident. They failed.
Yea, just like MM told his Dad over the phone from his Lasch Office phone that he'd just witnessed the anal-rape of a 10 year old and his Dad told him to leave the child with the rapist and come home??? And then once at the McQueary family-home, JM and Dr. D recommended that Police/911 not be called and not sent to the scene while the rape was still in-progress, but instead recommended that Mike report it AFTER THE FACT to his employer because Mike just told them (his Dad for a second time) he saw and eywitnessed the anal-rape of the cild which was still on-going as far as he new at Lasch.... Yea, that's it, that's the ticket........moron.
Then why did Gary call Wendell about "suspected child abuse"? Why doesn't it say "re possible safety/fall hazard in Lasch locker room showers?"
So they failed at responding to their duties to report a "suspected" CSA reported by a Grad assistant who did nothing but immediately call his dad and then the next day report what he saw to the Head Football Coach with no person's name who was a "victim" of his suspicions.
So based on your "divinely delivered" legal knowledge ----- PSU failed to protect this no-name TSM kid. This is your statement of truth??
I expect you want the public to believe that what can be called "innocent" here is how TSM handled all of this.
So.... TSM's had 0% responsibility for any children under their care custody and control and PSU had 100% responsibility for handling "suspected" CSA with "their" children.
Sounds like your approach on the child protection "failures" is based on the same standards as the State of PA's "honest and innocent" OAG!! RIGHT!!!
Simple....The key is "...legal Research..." in the billing.Then why did Gary call Wendell about "suspected child abuse"? Why doesn't it say "re possible safety/fall hazard in Lasch locker room showers?"
This just exposes a "worst case" approach to a vague report from MM.
Schultz wanted to make SURE that they reviewed all of the legal requirements necessary to formulate what appropriate action PSU should take - IF ANY. Based on what was known in 2001, ultimately I believe that Wendell stated that he did not feel any further action was necessary.
You don't "LEGALLY RESEARCH" an event if you know that CSA occured. And remember this fact...we don't even have a name here...right?? Without any real information (a name)....how can anything be corroborated.... so research on a worst case approach makes sense. It does NOT definitely prove that CSA was even suspected at the time (what you would like many to believe).
To me, that phrase actually PROVES that what was LEGALLY known to PSU was ....pure speculation/conjecture and potential mis-information..... LEGAL Standards for this kind of uncertainty would require research on this subject. PERIOD. AGAIN....You don't RESEARCH a topic because of certainty.
They can't defend that rationally. This whole discussion is laughable because it is as clear as day that these men suspected that CSA occurred. They made a mistake and chose not to report it and they ended up paying for it. All these ridiculous excuses by the deniers here are nothing but hot air. And sadly, despite everything smacking them right in the face, they will continue to make those excuses and point their finger at anyone else. Sad.Then why did Gary call Wendell about "suspected child abuse"? Why doesn't it say "re possible safety/fall hazard in Lasch locker room showers?"
quit confusing him with facts. it is not his fault he doesn't understand what the word "suspected" means
It's clear you have no desire to do anything but repeat a singular argument over and over.
I just gave you more than enough evidence that MM's statements supported the presentment when it was written.
Then why did Gary call Wendell about "suspected child abuse"? Why doesn't it say "re possible safety/fall hazard in Lasch locker room showers?"
Do you never tire of being the epitome of stupid?
Then why did Gary call Wendell about "suspected child abuse"? Why doesn't it say "re possible safety/fall hazard in Lasch locker room showers?"
Yeah, there really is no spin to that even though someone has already tried. The gray area is "suspected", but ...these men at the very least raised an eyebrow to what MM said. The blanket denials about what MM said are great, but the "no actions by anyone involved" is basically one big lie or crazy denial. Schultz had a meeting to discuss "suspected child abuse". Where did Schultz ever get that idea from?
Last edited:
He must have conjured it out of thin air since at no time did anyone ever convey anything like that to him.
There is a good reason why most experts advocate an MDIT be involved in investigating child abuse. There are usually many shades of gray involved and it often takes experts from several areas to determine what may have actually occurred. Instead a couple of hacks with huge conflicts of interest decided on their own, lacking the expertise and methods to make a real determination, and it left them "vulnerable" to where they sit today.
The NCAA backed off because it was losing in court. There was never a good argument that this was an NCAA matter. It was a criminal matter.
When did the OAG back off?
well pnny how did "suspected child abuse" make it on to that document on a line that is marked conference call with Schultz? Do you not understand now why Schultz and TC had to take the plea? The NCAA should have NEVER EVER once gotten involved. That was a power grab from a dying organization trying to look like they still had a bite, but it back fired on them. Now they can't say poop when schools do have LOIC when it comes to the law related issues. The OAG completely joined in on the witch hunt and some used this to try and move up the ladder or for political reasons. It was better to make an example of these guys and their bad decisions then actually use it to promote real awareness and how to handle such situations. That being said...these guys should have made the DPW call and none of these threads today would exist.
How long before you stop the act and start spouting PL and JJ again?
LMFAO! And I'm the one who keeps repeating myself? Yes, I keep repeating the FACTS and the FACTUAL RECORD that proves you are utterly full of $hit. You OTOH keep repeating the same PROVABLY FALSE bull$hit. McQueary testified to the "30th SWIGJ" before the "33rd SWIGJ" was even convened, let alone the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" being written clown-boy! And Mike McQueary without question said with his own mouth to the "30th SWIGJ" that he did not "see" or "eyewitness" the claims made in the SUBSEQUENT work of fiction by the corrupt PA OAG, the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" (i.e., he DID NOT see anal-rape sexual assault and never told anyone he had.....and only CONJECTURED about the possibility that this is what was going on!). Conjecture is NOT "eyewitness testimony" - eyewitness testimony is considered "Direct Evidence" AT-TRIAL, while a "conjecturing witness" is considered NOTHING and WORTHLESS.....inadmissible, especially when The State claims they are going to produce an "EYEWITNESS" to their claims as the ONLY PIECE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THEIR INDICTMENT and they fail to do it! (with their claimed "eyewitness" saying he never said he "saw" and "eyewitness" what The State is claiming to the "30th SWIGJ" he testified to AND THE FACTUAL RECORD proves him correct...and then only providing the same weak conjecture he provided to the SWIGJ AT-TRIAL! Being "relatively certain" about your SPECULATION and CONJECTURE isn't even "strong", beyond being COMPLETELY INADMISSIBLE LEGALLY, relative to the standard "beyond any reasonable doubt").
You're full of $hit that McQueary conjecturing regarding The State's claims and flat out stating that he WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS as The State claims AND he told the Grand Jury he testified to that he WAS NOT an "eyewitness" (which is proven by the FACTUAL RECORD including a statement of a Grand Juror on the "30th SWIGJ") AND it is beyond clear that the corrupt PA OAG intentionally MISREPRESENTED his "30th SWIGJ" testimony in their "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" (i.e., FALSE CHARGES and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION), etc., etc., etc...is in any way "supporting" the corrupt PA OAG's GJP & Indictment claims, quite to the contrary and DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE, it provides 100% exculpatory evidence that MM ever said he was an eyewitness UNDER OATH and in a PA COURT of LAW. Only a complete moron or obfuscating tool, hell-bent on an agenda (gee, I wonder which you are tool-boy?) would continue to make the absurd and provably FALSE CLAIM that MM's testimony to the "30th SWIGJ" and AT-TRIAL "supports" the corrupt PA OAG's Indictment and Indictment producing "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" (i.e., corroborating evidence of the Probable Cause cited in Indictment) RATHER THAN the "EXCULPATORY", bullet-proof, Indictment-zapping evidence it clearly provides for THE DEFENSE.
Continuing to claim, and repeatedly claiming, that CONJECTURE and SPECULATION can ever be used as "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY" AT-TRIAL is false, wrong, bull$hit, not true, utterly incorrect, etc....
Last edited:
Is this an imposter account? The Lubrano that I am familiar with has made more than 3 posts and didn't just open his account on April 11, 2017
Yes, great catch, francofan. The IDs look the same, but the troll that signed up recently must have added a space or some other character that doesn't appear in the use ID. I'm sure the system doesn't allow two users with the same ID. In any case, we just have to look at the join date to determine the real one from the troll.
This reminds me of those House of Mirror scenes in Scooby Doo.
No, you actually did not. What you did show in one post was the range of equivocation in McQueary's testimony at different points in time. I am certain.... I'm pretty sure...I'm relatively sure....I think he was...
There was no equivocating in the GJP. It said McQueary saw a young boy being subjected to anal intercourse and told Joe Paterno what he saw. Not he thinks or he's pretty sure. No, again he saw anal intercourse and he told Joe Paterno what he saw.
MMs statements in no way supported the presentment as it was written. MM himself disputed it as well. Specifically, there is absolutely nothing that MM has said that indicates that V2 "...was being subjected to anal intercourse.." Zero.
What do you mean by your statement that there is evidence that this statement is supported?
Unfortunately, explaining LEGAL REALITIES based on the FACTUAL RECORD doesn't seem to prevent trolls from making the same FALSE, BASELESS, INCORRECT, COMPLETELY WRONG claims over and over and over and over and over again ad infinitum. Why the monitors permit this clear troll posting style is a bit of a mystery.
Yes. If you look carefully the spelling is I(EYE)-U-B-R-A-N-O not L-U-B-R-A-N-O.
So go ahead and ask Tom to take your wikilaw degree analysis and remove all these "baseless" posts....
And again, Sandusky was found not guilty of that charge, so what is the point of this argument? Do you think anything would be different for PSU or anyone else if the GJP simply said that Sandusky was merely found in skin to skin contact with the boy in the shower? Mike would have still testified, Paterno's "sexual nature" testimony would still have been on record and Sandusky would have still been found guilty of CSA for victim 2.
Banging your head off the wall over this is nonsensical.
MM wrote an e-mail to the OAG within days of the release of the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments stating that he took issue with the accuracy of the documents characterization of his "30th SWIGJ" testimony - specifically that he said he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" anal-rape sexual assault, rather than the opposite, which he cleary did say to the "30th SWIGJ", that he DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SEE OR WITNESS THAT! He also took issue with the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" claim that he told JVP that this is what he "saw"! There also was a Grand Juror on the "30th SWIGJ" that publicly stated that this is not what MM testified to confirming MM's e-mail. Here are the operative excerpts from THIS LINK:
However, none of these provable facts on the "factual record", which have been cited to troll-boy numerous times before, seem to dissuade him from continuing to make provably false statements regarding MM's sworn testimony both to the SWIGJ and AT-TRIAL (all of it consistent in one direction) being "corroborative" of the corrupt PA OAG's lone piece of Direct Evidence in 2001 case RATHER THAN the EXCULPATORY FACTUAL HARD EVIDENCE in the Defense's favor that utterly destroys the double-digit 2001 Indictments and their listed provably-false "Probable Cause" (i.e., intentional False Charging and Malicious Prosecution) -- go figure, but he's not a "troll" who keeps repeating his utterly false bull$hit, don't you know???
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...ley - 3614 CR 2013 - April 26, 2017 Order.pdf
Sentencing set for 6/2/2017
Sentencing set for 6/2/2017
What's the harm in the corrupt PA OAG publishing a completely FALSE NARRATIVE regarding what happened that night including FABRICATING the only piece of "Direct Evidence" they cited in their Probable Cause documents (and listed "particulars" on the Perjury/Conspiracy charges)......and polluting and biasing the general public, i.e., "the jury pool", beyond any ability to repair......and engaging in the clear PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT of intentionally bringing FALSE CHARGES for the purpose of MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (The State NEVER produced the SOLE PIECE of DIRECT EVIDENCE and ONLY listed "Probable Cause Evidence" of their 2001-related double-digit Indictments - an EYEWITNESS AT-TRIAL to their claimed crime despite telling the court they would do so in their Indictments! IOW, they flat out lied to the court and knew they were lying to the court at the time they wrote the Indictments as MM's e-mail sent to the corrupt PA OAG within days of the issuance of the GJP and its accompanying Indictments proves!).
And little troll-boy sits here and says -- so what's the big deal with a little Prosecutorial Misconduct that results in intentionally FALSE CHARGES and the biasing and corruption of the potential Jury Pool??? Un-phucking-real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Another McQueary gem...
"I did not see insertion. ... It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."
"and/or". Beautiful.
"I did not see insertion. ... It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."
"and/or". Beautiful.
I know it's hard when you see it in black and white pnny. My question since Rivals knows who you are, why haven't they put an end to your crap.
BTW @sshat, do tell how the Defense can address the listed "particulars" on the Perjury Indictments (i.e., MM "saw" and "eyewitnessed" the anal-rape of a child and specifically told the defendants that he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" this criminal sexual assault), when The State's claimed "EYEWITNESS" to the listed "particulars" states with his own mouth AT-TRIAL that he DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" such a thing; DID NOT tell the "30th SWIGJ" he testified to that he "saw" or "eyewitnessed" such a thing; AND FINALLY, that he not only NEVER witnessed such a thing, but NEVER told ANYONE he had!!!
The State gave the Defense the strongest EXCULPATORY testimony they could possibly have as it is impossible for the Defendants to "perjure" themselves regarding statements that an "EYEWITNESS" supposedly made to them, when The State never produces an EYEWITNESS AT-TRIAL and the witness they do produce who supposedly gave them the cited "EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY" states under oath that The State is MISREPRESENTING THE FACTUAL RECORD (i.e., LYING and bringing "False Charges") as they DID NOT in fact testify to the SWIGJ in the manner being claimed by The State and that they IN FACT told the "30th SWIGJ" they testified before that they DID NOT "see" or "eyewitness" The State's current claims in their Indictments, "particulars" and the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" that produced them! (and sent an E-MAIL to the corrupt PA OAG within days of the issuance of the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" and its accompanying Indictments stating this identical thing - i.e., that The State has DIAMETRICALLY MISREPRESENTED what he told the "30th SWIGJ" and others about the incident!).
Last edited:
Yea, this "30th SWIGJ" testimony clearly lines-up with stating that he was an "eyewitness" to the specific claim of "anal-rape sexual assault" (the way the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" summarized his testimony to the "30th SWIGJ"), LMFAO! Pathetic! How about his very next statement to the SWIGJ where he was asked to rate this already WEAK CONJECTURE? Here is what MM had to say to the "30th SWIGJ" regarding what is clearly WEAK CONJECTURE, not "eyewitness testimony" of any kind, that you listed above when the corrupt PA OAG asked him to rate his own conjecture!?!?: "I'm relatively certain" (as to his GUESS that the "whatever it was" in his "30th SWIGJ" testimony was "anal-rape sexual assault"!!!!).
And the corrupt LAWYER-writers of the OAG's "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" in "GOOD FAITH" really believed that this constitutes "Eyewitness Direct Evidence Testimony" under PA Law and within the PA Judicial System (let alone the Criminal Division of the Judicial System where the "Evidentiary Standards" are the highest)???? Yea, right, mmmmhhhhhhmmmm.......if you believe that bull$hit, I've got a nice brand spanking new, shinny bridge to sell you on the cheap that connects Brooklyn and Manhattan.....
