No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
I'm not the one fighting reality. But hey, keep writing novels about nothing.
Really? Could have fooled me - you keep stating that MM's actual testimony to the "30th SWIGJ" and AT-TRIAL "support" and "corroborate" the corrupt PA OAG's double-digit Indictments and listed Probable Cause as well as "particulars" (the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment" that produced the Indictments) relative to the double-digit 2001 charges, while the actual FACTUAL RECORD (i.e., "reality") proves you are utterly phucking wrong "in reality" and arguing with your own, made-up, bull$hit fantasy rather than the actual "reality" dumb@ss! LMFAO, only a complete moron troll such as yourself could make such an IRONIC post!
When looking at MM it's abundantly clear that there was quite a bit of grey area in what he reported in 2001. Look at the quote you posted "whatever it was", the testimony from MM himself at 12/16/11 prelim admitting he wasn't 100% sure, and the testimony from JM where he uses language like "at least a very inappropriate action" and it removes any doubt, there was grey area. MM did not report certain child abuse in 2001. He gave a vague report of an inappropriate shower that made him uncomfortable, which is what everyone (aside from MM) said the 2001 report was.
The current narrative suggests that there was no grey area at all in what MM reported in 2001 (definitive CSA), but we now know that to be bullshit.
FAKE LUBRANO account folks.... @Tom McAndrew can you look into this?
Actually, it was me much earlier in the "memory" thread, but ...teamwork is good!
The first thing the fake acct did was "like" a JY post, #RedFlag, LOL!April 12th: https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/memory-issues.171360/page-8#post-2746339
No, it was me, but you would never admit it. I figured anyone who had liked that post would have noticed it too. https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/memory-issues.171360/page-8#post-2746339
Here's a hint: It's a little trick that other troller that was following me all over the internet (including here) would do to slightly change its name and still try to make it appear to be me on Twitter. My guess is it's a friend of CR666...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.
Now you are using his own words against him. Not really fair.
Huh? The fact that Schultz testified that he got the impression that Mike thought it was "inappropriate" and potentially of a "sexual motivation" (i.e., conjecturing on Mike's conjecturing as to what might have been the motivation for the shower) is "proof" that Mike gave Schultz an eyewitness account of the anal-rape sexual assault of the child and told Schultz specifically that he "saw" this criminal sexual assault......and finally that Schultz is lying when he says that Mike never specifically described seeing any such thing or any specific description of a sexual act criminal assault??? Huh? WTF are you talking about that the statements referenced above even remotely constitute an admission of the specific Perjury Charges (i.e., "the particulars") that The State brought. Not even remotely true except in your Kangaroo Court justice system that ignores the actual standards of proof The State faces in Criminal Prosecutions and also ignores both the PA and US Constitutions in regards to citizens Constitutional Rights and Protections relative to "due process" and protection against corrupt prosecutors.
Last edited:
Yeah if you can't figure out that a naked old man touching a naked young boys genitalia late at night in a restricted access shower constitutes potential sexual activity should be reported then you probably aren't fit to be a SVP of a dishwashing department, let alone "head of police".
He says it right there, what mike told him made him think that Jerry was touching the genitals of the boy. I mean how many ways to Sunday does it have to be spelled out to you? It's not Gary's job to assess the validity of the allegation.
Yeah you really cracked the code. Nobody had ever seen Schultz's testimony before, nor beat it to death around here 5 years ago. And in your post they still haven't seen pages 223-226 of that transcript. I'm sure you just didn't want to take up too much board space.
Yeah...as you're looking pretty smart now...how's your version of the "truth" holding up.
P.S. you read all of the posts as you know exactly what is being said.
Well, too bad MM never reported that he saw JS touching anything let alone genitalia (since he couldn't see his hands). All MM actually reported seeing was JS in the shower with a boy hugging him from behind (an exact repeat of 98 mind you). Or if you go by Dr. D's version all MM saw was JS and a kid showering together (nothing about hugging from behind, skin on skin contact, etc...just a kid peeking around the shower, a hand pulling him back in, then JS and a kid leaving the shower area moments later).
What you are referencing was a possible scenario that Schultz was speculating about what MAY have been going on in the shower (since MM's report didn't state anything one way or the other, it was a vague report according to Schultz and he was asked by the prosecutor to fill in the blanks from MM's vague ass report).
Schultz also flat out said "I had the impression that it was inappropriate".....then he added on the wrestling part to speculate on what MAY have been going on based on MM's detail lacking report.
Last edited:
What does the following mean to you?
"Well I don't know the definition of sexual, but that's certainly inappropriate for somebody to do."
Because it sounds consistent to me with what he and Tim have been saying all along.
dude you're being obtuse
clearly "known sexual abuse of a child" is the same exact thing as "suspected sexual abuse of a child"
sort of like . . . I suspect Moron John is a complete moron is the same things as I KNOW FOR A FACT Moron John is a complete Moron.
What Shultz initially "thought" versus what actually happened are two completely separate issues.
When the GJ presentment was released, I think almost all of us thought, Holy Crap, Sandusky was having anal sex with a boy. As we have learned, after an investigation and scrutiny, that statement was positively false.
Have you never been in a position where your initial thought and gut reaction to something was one thing, yet the actual truth and reality of it were another thing? One thing is certain. Every single person who heard the story directly from MikeMcQ reacted the exact same way.
I think it is an acceptable and reasonable action for the Admins to first conduct a fact-finding and due-diligence review of the allegation to determine if the right course of action was further escalation or not. That happens every single day in the real world.
With the benefit of 10 years of hindsight and ten years worth of data, maybe folks would do things differently.
So to review:
What Mike THINKS he conveyed was "sexual"
What Gary THINKS he heard was Jerry was touching young boys genitals
What Wendell LOGGED the conversation as stated "suspected child abuse"
But....what really happened was no one really had any reason to think of anything "sexual".
It's amazing how many people came up with the idea to imagine sex in such a non-sexual situation.
What Mike THINKS he conveyed was "sexual"
What Gary THINKS he heard was Jerry was touching young boys genitals
What Wendell LOGGED the conversation as stated "suspected child abuse"
But....what really happened was no one really had any reason to think of anything "sexual".
It's amazing how many people came up with the idea to imagine sex in such a non-sexual situation.
And ignorant folks like you are why CSA is STILL a giant problem. No single expert on this earth would or should recommend an untrained AD and Finance VP be the sole discretionary authority to determine the validity of a sexual abuse allegation. The longer you keep making excuses like this, the longer children are at harm.
dude you're being obtuse
clearly "known sexual abuse of a child" is the same exact thing as "suspected sexual abuse of a child"
sort of like . . . I suspect Moron John is a complete moron is the same things as I KNOW FOR A FACT Moron John is a complete Moron.
It really hurts my feelings when the anonymously named dorm building alien head calls me a moron.
And what new "fact" changed their minds? They are both on record as saying the only thing they did was talk to Jerry and Jack. Oh, well Jerry said all cool beans so case closed!
I'm mystified by the fact that these dolts really believe that Schultz mentioning these things after being asked specifically to speculate on the range of possibilities that he thought Mike's "inappropriate behavior" description could have fallen under AFTER SPECIFICALLY QUALIFYING IT WITH, "...without him [MM] telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe....", even remotely qualifies as the state proving Schultz committed Perjury relative to their claimed "particulars" on the charge (i.e., that MM specifically told Schultz and Curley the specific details of an anal-rape sexual assault upon the child that he unquestionablly "saw" and "eyewitnessed"??? For Pete's sake, the only thing Schultz definitively says in what MM said in regards to describing what he "saw" is that MM described what he "saw" as "inappropriate" and that it "offended him". Actually, these twits blithely ignore the fact that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Schultz, Curley or "ANYONE" else to describe the "EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT" The State claims in their Indictment for Perjury, because MM himself testified AT-TRIAL that he did not "see" or "eyewitness" any such thing and NEVER told "ANYONE" he had!!!
I have a feeling the troll twits are just playing stupid in repeating their complete irrelevant supposed-proof of The State's Perjury Indictment "particulars" as a way to continue posting them in typical troll fashion despite the fact that their argumentation is completely irrelevant, off-topic and nonsensical to the topic at hand.
If no one had "any reason to think anything sexual" may have happened, they wouldn't have needed a plan of any sort. No need to talk to McQueary, no need to have the email dialogue, no need to talk to Sandusky, no need to talk to Raykovitz, etc.
In hindsight just about everyone, if not everyone, wishes they would have also taken the step of reporting to some state agency. They made the mistake of assuming Raykovitz would handle it from there. A big mistake in hindsight.
It wasn't "cool beans" and "case closed" after speaking with Jerry you obtuse LIAR!!! The incident was reported by PSU to the "Care and Custody Entity" responsible for the child at the time of the incident along with the message that TSM's free access and use of PSU facilities for their programs with Jerry was terminated. TSM and its CEO were both Mandatory Reporters under PA Child Protective Services Law due to their daily work with children, but also via their AGENCY RELATIONSHIP with DPW/CYS, such that a qualifying Child Hotline Report under CPSL was IN FACT made on the matter despite the fact that PSU was not a Mandatory Reporter or legally required to have created the DPW Child Hotline Report that they did IN FACT create!!! Some conspiracy - they didn't tell the witness to remain silent and a qualifying DPW Child Hotline Report was made outside PSU! LMFAO at what a lying troll you are.
Yep. AvgUser along with CSS are the problem. With CSS off the street, all you have to do is go get Avg. Problem solved. Jack Raykovitz will raise a glass in your honor somewhere in State College tonight.
Correction:
The problem is much bigger than me. I'm sure you will agree that everyone, including the so-called professionals, completely f***ed this up starting in 1998.
Further, as long as Jack Raykovitz is left to walk without being charged and tried for his crime, children are left at risk.
By the way, you never did answer the question. Have you every had an initial impression of some event and later learned that what you initially thought was, in fact, not the truth?
I'm surprised no one here said "Hey... Jerry may have just been showing the boy how to wash properly!!!" Because that is totally the kind of excuse I would expect from here.
I agree! Jack Raykovitz was the one with the professional expertise and the responsibility to check into the matter further. But he was so on the ball, he thought telling Jerry to wear swim trunks in the shower was the way to go.
Complete bullshit. As to his statement relative to what Mike conveyed as to what he was "thinking" or anything else was: "that it was inappropriate".
As to his range of thoughts as to what Mike might have meant by "inappropriate" behavior (which is nothing even remotely like, "What Gary thinks he heard..."), Scultz said:
I've bolded all the qualifiers in Schultz's answer to the request for speculation on the range of possibilities that he thought MM's "inappropriate behavior" might have run - they make up like half the statement! Beyond that, he's expressing that the "inappropriate behavior" he thought most likely was "wrestling-around" (i.e., "horse-play") in the shower where Sandusky may have inadvertently touched the boys genitals or "something of that sort"....
This ^^^^^. What Mike actually reported to Schultz was vague and lacking details, it boiled down to an inappropriate shower that made MM uncomfortable, according to Schultz.
Schultz was then asked by the prosecutor that even though MM didn't provide any details, "did he form an impression about what type of conduct this MIGHT HAVE BEEN that occurred in the locker room". IOW the state asked Schultz to speculate/try and fill in the blanks from Mike's vague report as to what they MAY have been doing. Any good lawyer would have told Schultz not to answer the question since it called on him to speculate on something outside of what MM actually told him (thanks Baldwin!!) and the state could try and use that answer against him (lo and behold they did).
