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

[no1lion99]

"I don't know what you would call it"

Think of it this way, there are plenty of slang terms for freaky shit some people do in the bedroom. I don't know what you call all of them, but I know for sure they are sexual as f&*k. Got it? This isn't hard. He used the word sexual. Just because he didn't know Jerry called it polish soccer slap and tickle doesn't mean it wasn't sexual.

 

[royboy]

Think of it this way, there are plenty of slang terms for freaky shit some people do in the bedroom. I don't know what you call all of them, but I know for sure they are sexual as f&*k. Got it? This isn't hard. He used the word sexual. Just because he didn't know Jerry called it polish soccer slap and tickle doesn't mean it wasn't sexual.

You're obsessed with this, but you ignore the context -- this statement was not from a witness; it was an attempt of an 80-year old man to recollect a conversation he had 10 years earlier. If you have something more than this, let's hear it. Otherwise, give it a rest; it doesn't prove anything.

 

[dshumbero]

You're obsessed with this, but you ignore the context -- this statement was not from a witness; it was an attempt of an 80-year old man to recollect a conversation he had 10 years earlier. If you have something more than this, let's hear it. Otherwise, give it a rest; it doesn't prove anything.

Just more JockstrapJonnie Penn Live bullshit.

 

[Mixolydian]

I don't know doesn't trump everything. If he truely didn't know, he would have just stated as such without the other details. No one outside of the few in this board take what he said as that he didn't have a clue as to what happened.

This post demonstrates once again how dumb you are. You equate not "knowing" with "didn't have a clue". I don't know trumps everything else. If he knew it was a sexual nature he would have said "I knew it was a sexual nature". See how simple that is? Instead he repeatedly said I don't know and acted accordingly. In a non-crossed interview by the way.

Joe didn't know what happened in that shower that night, just as McQueary didn't know what happened in that shower that night and he was the ear witness. Joe was concerned enough about the report that he did exactly what he was supposed to do and reported it up to the people who's job it was to investigate it.

But keep desperately clinging to that vague line, your interpretation of which isn't substantiated by Joe's or anybody's actions after McQueary talked to them in 2001. It suits your agenda and of course you know the unknowable, even though your a demonstrable buffoon.

 

[pandaczar12]

Think of it this way, there are plenty of slang terms for freaky shit some people do in the bedroom. I don't know what you call all of them, but I know for sure they are sexual as ****. Got it? This isn't hard. He used the word sexual. Just because he didn't know Jerry called it polish soccer slap and tickle doesn't mean it wasn't sexual.

You are desperately grasping at straws now with this poor attempt at an analogy. So in your analogy, who was outside the bedroom (which is not a shower, BTW) hearing what they thought might have been freaky sh!t and telling you about it in a watered down fashion? Also, if you don't know the definition of a slang term, how would you know it's sexual? That's a rhetorical question to help illustrate how terrible your analogy is.

BTW, I had a New York Steamer last night, it was fantastic!

This is isn't hard. He used the words "I don't know" multiple times. Just because JVP was led towards using a meaningless phrase such as "a sexual nature" and wasn't cross examined for clarity, doesn't erase his or anyone else's actions that contradict it. Got it?

 

[Mixolydian]

Wrong. You still don't get why people were/are mad. Not surprising, but sad.

I get why you and a couple other dopes were/are mad. You aren't "people".

 

[pandaczar12]

I get why you and a couple other dopes were/are mad. You aren't "people".

"People" care about past and future victims of CSA, and want TSM/DPW/CYS to be held accountable for their failures and want improvements to be made so more abuse doesn't happen. They don't care about the media witch hunt for ratings. It's all about morality really.

 

[getmyjive11]

This post demonstrates once again how dumb you are. You equate not "knowing" with "didn't have a clue". I don't know trumps everything else. If he knew it was a sexual nature he would have said "I knew it was a sexual nature". See how simple that is? Instead he repeatedly said I don't know and acted accordingly. In a non-crossed interview by the way.

Joe didn't know what happened in that shower that night, just as McQueary didn't know what happened in that shower that night and he was the ear witness. Joe was concerned enough about the report that he did exactly what he was supposed to do and reported it up to the people who's job it was to investigate it.

But keep desperately clinging to that vague line, your interpretation of which isn't substantiated by Joe's or anybody's actions after McQueary talked to them in 2001. It suits your agenda and of course you know the unknowable, even though your a demonstrable buffoon.

Again, you are in the VAST minority with your opinion of Paterno's testimony. Understand that before throwing out names. The majority of the world sees it my way.

 

[getmyjive11]

I get why you and a couple other dopes were/are mad. You aren't "people".

Keeping your head in the sand is only going to frustrate you when no one outside this board agrees with your opinion.

 

[step.eng69]

I get why you and a couple other dopes were/are mad. You aren't "people".

1. mentally disturbed; deranged.
2. greatly provoked or irritated; enraged.
3. affected with rabies; rabid: a mad dog.
4. extremely foolish or illogical

 

[Mixolydian]

Again, you are in the VAST minority with your opinion of Paterno's testimony. Understand that before throwing out names. The majority of the world sees it my way.

I'm in the VAST majority of the "people" who have taken the time to have even a modicum of understanding of this case. The "majority of the world" would have no clue whatsoever about what Joe said in his GJP interview. None. Those who are aware at all got their take from the media where the words were frequently distorted and clipped to serve the narrative that sold...Joe Paterno is a pedophile enabler.

Most of the "majority of the world" you cite wouldn't even remember Jerry Sandusky's name right now. Some would even say it was Joe Paterno who was raping young boys. Go read some more Dan Bernstein articles (or those of that other clown from Chicago who's name escapes me), it will make you feel smarter.

 

[Mixolydian]

Keeping your head in the sand is only going to frustrate you when no one outside this board agrees with your opinion.

No one outside of you and a couple other dopes ever brings up Joe's GJP interview. Keep desperately clinging though. And God forbid...let's not be "combative to the existing narrative"! LMFAO.

 

[MtNittany]

I'm in the VAST majority of the "people" who have taken the time to have even a modicum of understanding of this case. The "majority of the world" would have no clue whatsoever about what Joe said in his GJP interview. None. Those who are aware at all got their take from the media where the words were frequently distorted and clipped to serve the narrative that sold...Joe Paterno is a pedophile enabler.

Most of the "majority of the world" you cite wouldn't even remember Jerry Sandusky's name right now. Some would even say it was Joe Paterno who was raping young boys. Go read some more Dan Bernstein articles (or those of that other clown from Chicago who's name escapes me), it will make you feel smarter.

28% of those surveyed thought JVP was accused of molesting children.

Link

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Wrong. You still don't get why people were/are mad. Not surprising, but sad.

The public was outraged by sensationalized claim made in the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Fact", which none other than Mike McQueary himself, the supposed "eyewitness" according to the OAG, says is a lie and untrue! According to you, individuals basic "constitutionally protected" rights should be allowed to be trampled and any potential Jury Pool should be permitted to be irrepairably tainted by scumbag, unethical, narcissistic, zero-integrity, zero-principles prosecutors??? Go figure!?!?

Your notion of the injustices and unrighteous tyranny that the populace should be subjected to as these corrupt, scumbag lawyers-turned-politicians attempt to "climb the ladder" by whatever means necessary (i.e., "the ends justifies the means") are diametrically opposite the principles this Republic was founded upon!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

No one outside of you and a couple other dopes ever brings up Joe's GJP interview. Keep desperately clinging though. And God forbid...let's not be "combative to the existing narrative"! LMFAO.

Yes, God forbid anyone be combative to injustice and unrighteous tyranny.... Everyone knows how wrong Edmund Burke was when he said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.".

 

[royboy]

No one outside of you and a couple other dopes ever brings up Joe's GJP interview. Keep desperately clinging though. And God forbid...let's not be "combative to the existing narrative"! LMFAO.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that "combative to the existing narrative" phrase and looking for an opportunity to use it, maybe in a business setting, or a political discussion, or in family conversation. Naaah....I'm afraid I'd get one of two reactions:

1. Huh?
2. WTF are you talking about -- what a stupid concept

It is a classic, but classically inane. It's a signature phrase for the jive talker himself.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Again, you are in the VAST minority with your opinion of Paterno's testimony. Understand that before throwing out names. The majority of the world sees it my way.

The majority of the world are idiots (not just about this, but in general), so I wouldn't be so quick to use the opinion of the masses to validate your misguided opinion.

 

[pandaczar12]

Again, you are in the VAST minority with your opinion of Paterno's testimony. Understand that before throwing out names. The majority of the world sees it my way.

The VAST majority of people are complete idiots, congrats on being a proud member of that group. The VAST majority of the world once thought the earth was flat, that Duke Lacrosse was guilty, etc. It's not really an argument you want to hang your hat on.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The VAST majority of people are complete idiots, congrats on being a proud member of that group. The VAST majority of the world once thought the earth was flat, that Duke Lacrosse was guilty, etc. It's not really an argument you want to hang your hat on.

"Ignorance is bliss" according to this servile flunky, especially when it comes to the corruption, immoral, unrighteous, unethical, zero-integrity behavior of his scumbag masters and their "ends justifies the means" False Narrative tyrannies....go figure!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I'm in the VAST majority of the "people" who have taken the time to have even a modicum of understanding of this case. The "majority of the world" would have no clue whatsoever about what Joe said in his GJP interview. None. Those who are aware at all got their take from the media where the words were frequently distorted and clipped to serve the narrative that sold...Joe Paterno is a pedophile enabler.

Most of the "majority of the world" you cite wouldn't even remember Jerry Sandusky's name right now. Some would even say it was Joe Paterno who was raping young boys. Go read some more Dan Bernstein articles (or those of that other clown from Chicago who's name escapes me), it will make you feel smarter.

Keep in mind, that lame-brains thinks that Mike McQueary sending e-mails to the prosecutors on 11/11/2011 immediately after the Presentment and its accompanying Indictments were issued is confirmation that he "eyewitnessed" what the OAG claimed in their Presentment???:

A previously undisclosed email sent by McQueary to authorities demonstrates he had thought the prosecutors' description in the presentment of what he had seen -- and what he reported to Paterno -- was not accurate.

"I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy," McQueary wrote in the email sent to a prosecutor and investigator on Nov. 10, 2011. "I did not see insertion. ... It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."

McQueary confirms right there in this WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO THE OAG that he was, and always has been, SPECULATING and CONJECTURING as to what was going on in the shower - it is unequivocal, there is no need to interpret a weak phrase that is then even further qualified with "IN MY OPINION"!

If somebody really saw sodomy would they describe it as follows to the highest-ranking Prosecutor in the land: "It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."????? LMFAO, that lame-brains has gone on-and-on and polluted this board with endless claims that McQueary was the DIRECT EVIDENCE "eyewitness" that the OAG claimed he was in their Presentment and accompanying Indictments, which is clearly A FALSE CLAIM by Mike McQueary's own lips and pen, but this guy still has not been banned despite his proven TROLL DISREGARD FOR FACTS or THE TRUTH!?!?!?

 

[Zenophile]

Again, you are in the VAST minority with your opinion of Paterno's testimony. Understand that before throwing out names. The majority of the world sees it my way.

The majority of the world still thinks Paterno either molested a child or witnessed the molestation of a child firsthand. There's no critical mass of misinformed opinions that magically turns falsehoods into facts

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

The majority of the world still thinks Paterno either molested a child or witnessed the molestation of a child firsthand. There's no critical mass of misinformed opinions that magically turns falsehoods into facts

This is especially so when "the masses", the future jury pool at trial, was INTENTIONALLY CORRUPTED, POLLUTED and TAINTED to believe this FALSE NARRATIVE by a corrupt OAG. None other than Mike McQueary himself unequivocally stated this immediately following the issuance of the INTENTIONALLY FALSE Presentment and accompanying Indictments!:

A previously undisclosed email sent by McQueary to authorities demonstrates he had thought the prosecutors' description in the presentment of what he had seen -- and what he reported to Paterno -- was not accurate.

"I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy," McQueary wrote in the email sent to a prosecutor and investigator on Nov. 10, 2011. "I did not see insertion. ... It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You are desperately grasping at straws now with this poor attempt at an analogy. So in your analogy, who was outside the bedroom (which is not a shower, BTW) hearing what they thought might have been freaky sh!t and telling you about it in a watered down fashion? Also, if you don't know the definition of a slang term, how would you know it's sexual? That's a rhetorical question to help illustrate how terrible your analogy is.

BTW, I had a New York Steamer last night, it was fantastic!

This is isn't hard. He used the words "I don't know" multiple times. Just because JVP was led towards using a meaningless phrase such as "a sexual nature" and wasn't cross examined for clarity, doesn't erase his or anyone else's actions that contradict it. Got it?

Well here is how none other than Mike McQueary himself described it to the OAG in a WRITTEN e-mail immediately following the issuance of the Presentment and accompanying Indictments:

A previously undisclosed email sent by McQueary to authorities demonstrates he had thought the prosecutors' description in the presentment of what he had seen -- and what he reported to Paterno -- was not accurate.

"I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy," McQueary wrote in the email sent to a prosecutor and investigator on Nov. 10, 2011. "I did not see insertion. ... It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."

IOW, McQueary makes it beyond crystal clear in this written statement that he was, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, speculating and conjecturing as to what was going on in the shower with EVERYONE he spoke with regarding the incident whether it was the OAG or anyone else!!! Conjecturing and speculating as to what MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOING ON in his "opinion" is NOT the same as telling someone you "saw a criminal sex act"!!! Especially when you qualify your already obtuse statement with, "....in my opinion, whatever it was." - this should leave any party listening to you to believe that you don't know exactly what was going on in the shower, you aren't real certain what was going on based on the little you saw...., but what you did see was CONCERNING to you nonetheless because of what you HEARD when you first walked in the building.

For moron trolls on this board to keep claiming that Mike McQueary told JVP that he saw and eyewitnessed JS engaged in a specific criminal sexual assault is beyond bizarre when Mike McQueary himself says this is not so and has told the corrupt OAG in writing it is not so IMMEDIATELY following the release of the Presentment and accompanying Indictment in Nov. 2011 making these FALSE CLAIMS!!!!!

 

[WeR0206]

Keep in mind, that lame-brains thinks that Mike McQueary sending e-mails to the prosecutors on 11/11/2011 immediately after the Presentment and its accompanying Indictments were issued is confirmation that he "eyewitnessed" what the OAG claimed in their Presentment???:

​

McQueary confirms right there in this WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO THE OAG that he was, and always has been, SPECULATING and CONJECTURING as to what was going on in the shower - it is unequivocal, there is no need to interpret a weak phrase that is then even further qualified with "IN MY OPINION"!

If somebody really saw sodomy would they describe it as follows to the highest-ranking Prosecutor in the land: "It was sexual and/or way over the line in my opinion, whatever it was."????? LMFAO, that lame-brains has gone on-and-on and polluted this board with endless claims that McQueary was the DIRECT EVIDENCE "eyewitness" that the OAG claimed he was in their Presentment and accompanying Indictments, which is clearly A FALSE CLAIM by Mike McQueary's own lips and pen, but this guy still has not been banned despite his proven TROLL DISREGARD FOR FACTS or THE TRUTH!?!?!?

Didn't you know? People use the phrase "whatever it was" all the time to describe things where they know exactly what happened.

When you combine the above language MM used in his email complaining to Eschbach with the reactions of everyone he told in 2001, the testimony of Dr. D saying there was no need to call police/CYS, and Mike's testimony to Roberto in the 12/16/11 prelim that he wasn't 100% sure what was happening, it's pretty clear that everything beyond MM seeing JS and a kid in the shower was speculation on Mike's part. The OAG did their best to try and obfuscate that FACT but if you look close enough it becomes clear.

 

[Mixolydian]

Didn't you know? People use the phrase "whatever it was" all the time to describe things where they know exactly what happened.

When you combine the above language MM used in his email complaining to Eschbach with the reactions of everyone he told in 2001, the testimony of Dr. D saying there was no need to call police/CYS, and Mike's testimony to Roberto in the 12/16/11 prelim that he wasn't 100% sure what was happening, it's pretty clear that everything beyond MM seeing JS and a kid in the shower was speculation on Mike's part. The OAG did their best to try and obfuscate that FACT but if you look close enough it becomes clear.

That is obvious to anyone beyond a complete idiot on a mission. Unfortunately we have a few of those around here. Thankfully very few.

 

[getmyjive11]

I'm in the VAST majority of the "people" who have taken the time to have even a modicum of understanding of this case. The "majority of the world" would have no clue whatsoever about what Joe said in his GJP interview. None. Those who are aware at all got their take from the media where the words were frequently distorted and clipped to serve the narrative that sold...Joe Paterno is a pedophile enabler.

Most of the "majority of the world" you cite wouldn't even remember Jerry Sandusky's name right now. Some would even say it was Joe Paterno who was raping young boys. Go read some more Dan Bernstein articles (or those of that other clown from Chicago who's name escapes me), it will make you feel smarter.

Sorry but you are delusional.

 

[getmyjive11]

The public was outraged by sensationalized claim made in the "33rd SWIGJ Presentment - Statement of Fact", which none other than Mike McQueary himself, the supposed "eyewitness" according to the OAG, says is a lie and untrue! According to you, individuals basic "constitutionally protected" rights should be allowed to be trampled and any potential Jury Pool should be permitted to be irrepairably tainted by scumbag, unethical, narcissistic, zero-integrity, zero-principles prosecutors??? Go figure!?!?

Your notion of the injustices and unrighteous tyranny that the populace should be subjected to as these corrupt, scumbag lawyers-turned-politicians attempt to "climb the ladder" by whatever means necessary (i.e., "the ends justifies the means") are diametrically opposite the principles this Republic was founded upon!

No, the public is outraged because MM let a number of people know that he witnessed suspected CSA and nothing happened to the pedo.

 

[getmyjive11]

OMG. You're back to ten years after, aren't you? I can't continue with you. Busy day for my ignore list.

You just don't want to accept reality.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Didn't you know? People use the phrase "whatever it was" all the time to describe things where they know exactly what happened.

When you combine the above language MM used in his email complaining to Eschbach with the reactions of everyone he told in 2001, the testimony of Dr. D saying there was no need to call police/CYS, and Mike's testimony to Roberto in the 12/16/11 prelim that he wasn't 100% sure what was happening, it's pretty clear that everything beyond MM seeing JS and a kid in the shower was speculation on Mike's part. The OAG did their best to try and obfuscate that FACT but if you look close enough it becomes clear.

Well Mike McQueary absolutely and unequivocally identifies it as speculation and conjecture, when he qualifies the already obtuse statement with "in my opinion". If someone asks you, "What did you see?" and you respond "in my opinion", the questioner is likely to say - Mike, I don't want your opinions and conjectures as to what might have been going on in the shower, I simply want you to tell me what you actually saw and while I appreciate your concerns on the matter, at the moment I only want to hear what you factually saw....not what you think might have been going on.

Keep in mind, what is relevant here in regards to the Indictments and criminal trials is what Mike McQueary told people he saw and eyewitnessed. Not what he endlessly conjectured about due to what he heard.....blah, blah, blah. When you don't answer very clear, simple and specific questions presented to you about the subject-matter, people are going to tune you out and assume you don't know exactly what happened when all you do is go "off the reservation", don't answer the question asked and blather on about endless speculation as to what you think might have been going on based on sounds you heard before entering the locker room and getting two quick couple second glimpses in a foggy mirror of something that concerned you "whatever it was" that was "over the line in your opinion".....blah, blah, blah. Any serious party comes away from this conversation thinking, he has no idea what he saw, but was alarmed at the circumstances (i.e., Sandusky being alone in Lasch in the shower with a TSM Kid on a Friday evening).....this is what Dr. Dranov came away with.....this is what JVP came away with......this is what Curley and Schultz came away with......this is what Mike McQueary wrote to the OAG on the late date of 11/11/2011 for Pete's sake!!!!

Speculating as to what might have possibly been going on as to "whatever it was", does not answer the question, nor is it a legitimate investigative response to, the simple question, "Mike, what did you actually see?".

 

[getmyjive11]

The majority of the world are idiots (not just about this, but in general), so I wouldn't be so quick to use the opinion of the masses to validate your misguided opinion.

You sound like an average conspiracy theorist.

 

[Mixolydian]

Sorry but you are delusional.

There isn't a single point in my post that is wrong.

The only people who agree with you are people unfamiliar with any level of detail of this case and/or people who hated Paterno. You can find a lot of them on a Pitt or Rutgers board. Please go there. You will feel welcome and will immediately feel smarter. Thanks in advance for not coming back.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You just don't want to accept reality.

Honest question:

Why do you care? Why do you spend so much time on here? Of your 11,000 posts, I'm guessing half are scandal related. I spend way too much time here, and I don't even have 500 total posts. What are you hoping to gain? Why do you seem to gain pleasure in the idea that PSU employees may have been in the wrong?

 

[royboy]

Sorry but you are delusional.

Ipse dixit.

Ipse dixit is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion. The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" ...

Apparently, you've given up to responding in any substantive way and just repeat your same talking points.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You sound like an average conspiracy theorist.

You've seen all the data that I have seen. There is data that ABSOLUTELY contradicts your narrative. But you cling to it like that girl at the end of Titanic clung to that piece of wood.

 

[getmyjive11]

There isn't a single point in my post that is wrong.

The only people who agree with you are people unfamiliar with any level of detail of this case and/or people who hated Paterno. You can find a lot of them on a Pitt or Rutgers board. Please go there. You will feel welcome and will immediately feel smarter. Thanks in advance for not coming back.

No, lots of people are familiar with the details. They are satisfied with the results of the trials. The only people you talk to are the crazy people who cannot accept the truth.

 

[getmyjive11]

You've seen all the data that I have seen. There is data that ABSOLUTELY contradicts your narrative. But you cling to it like that girl at the end of Titanic clung to that piece of wood.

I'm not clinging to anything. Jerry was found guilty and CSS were found/pled guilty. Im not fighting reality, you are.

 

[getmyjive11]

Honest question:

Why do you care? Why do you spend so much time on here? Of your 11,000 posts, I'm guessing half are scandal related. I spend way too much time here, and I don't even have 500 total posts. What are you hoping to gain? Why do you seem to gain pleasure in the idea that PSU employees may have been in the wrong?

Because you loons make the PSU community look bad. You all have infiltrated the BOT and produce embarrassing sound clip that attack victims and make us look like idiots. Whether you believe it or not, you are hurting Penn State.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not clinging to anything. Jerry was found guilty and CSS were found/pled guilty. Im not fighting reality, you are.

CSS were charged with multiple very serious felonies and were found/plead guilty to 1 misdemeanor each. A misdemeanor. Like vandalism or pot possession or a DUI. And even those are BS charges.

 

[Mixolydian]

No, lots of people are familiar with the details. They are satisfied with the results of the trials. The only people you talk to are the crazy people who cannot accept the truth.

Who are these people who are familiar with the details that see it the way you do? John Zippay? Marsh Creek Eagle? Stufftodo? Black Elmo? Covey? Chris Wilsher? LOL. A real who's who list of idiots and Paterno haters.

You could take a poll and ask who agrees with your take on the scandal and who doesn't. Go ahead, do it!!!