Also interesting that no indication of Rudy in this police report....
OT: Blehar's latest - Ganim is Desperate to be Relevant
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
She shouldn't be the one making decisions on what gets published. She is not an editor. She is a content provider. The culprit here is the second string or third string editor the clicked the publish button on this content. I stand by my notion that she conned a n00b into clicking that button.
Oh, please. Can you at least try to be less transparent?
It seems to me that it is far more likely that YOU are the one consistently falling for fake news. You are such an easy mark.
You just said "ethically bound" in referring to Sara Ganim. You're such a buffoon.
I not only HAD to like your post, I was ethically bound to.
It doesn't pay to challenge the Pa. Crime Syndicate. Ask KK.
Even when caught red handed.....Hershey Trust....they got the draconian sentence....."please don't do this again."
That's what frustrates me about Ray. I feel that since 2014 he has cared more about virtue signaling and less about seeking the truth, probably in an effort to distance himself from John Ziegler.
In 2013 Ray believed that (1) Aaron Fishers testimony was weak. (2) Allan Myers was the boy in the shower and only turned on Sandusky because Andrew Shubin promised him money. (3) That victims 4, 5, 9, & 10 were lying their asses off. (4) That Matt Sandusky's story now claiming to be a victim was "pathetic". And (5) that he was 95% sure Sandusky did not commit sexual acts with any of the boys.
In the next four years, the evidence supporting those statements has only gotten stronger. Ziegler discovered many people very close to Fisher who are certain he is lying. The PA OAG could not produce "Victim 2" despite the fact they had 6 years to do so. Allan Myers testified to being the boy at Sanduskys PCRA, and has not admitted to any conspiracy with Jerry despite the fact that he has no reason anymore to protect him. In addition, Matt Sandusky's story has changed every time he's opened his mouth.
Nevertheless, Ray now believes Aaron Fisher is a legit victim, claiming Jessica Dersham's testimony proves it. Even though Dersham did not claim that Sandusky admitted sexual acts to him. In addition, Dersham can not be a considered an unbiased witness as she is Facebook friends with Dawn Fisher. Ray now believes Sandusky lied about who victim 2 was because Sandusky says he didn't know who the witness until after his arrest (It's more likely McQueary lied about Jerry and the boy both looking him in the eye). Ray also believes Matt Sandusky's nonsensical testimony. He blocked me in twitter when I called him out on these.
Last edited:
How about Stacy Parks Millers face?We asked 100 people in the studio audience the following question:
Name something that Sara Ganim has sat on.
Then you'd have to ask why the Democrats haven't exposed all of this since apparently it's bad, evil, maniacal Republicans vs. angelic, good, blameless Democrats.
Get over it. Both parties are in eye to their eyeballs here. Why? Because you couldn't have one without the other. They're less different and closer than they'd have you think.
Ray's follow up column poses some interesting questions:
Legal Issues with Ganim's 2011 Police Report
Legal Issues with Ganim's 2011 Police Report
If that police report does exist and was described accurately...and what Scott says is true, that doesn't make the AG look very good.
Would be interesting to see both reports first-hand to compare.
Not sure I'm familiar with this testimony. What did she say, and when?
From Blehar's blog:
There were some great points made by Tim Berton on Monday's blog post, in which he pointed out that a November 23, 2011 police interview could have been a rehearsal for Mike McQueary's December 2011 preliminary hearing testimony. He also pointed out the opening statement by McGettigan didn't make sense and concluded it was a transcription error.
As I wrote tonight's post, I found yet another transcription error.
This is important because many have contended Paterno didn't tell the grand jury "it was a sexual nature," but rather asked "was it a sexual nature?" The words were transposed. And a question made more sense based on the equivocating nature of Paterno's testimony.
That issue remains open for debate.
I've been wondering this for years about Joe's grand jury testimony. Where's the damned tape???
There were some great points made by Tim Berton on Monday's blog post, in which he pointed out that a November 23, 2011 police interview could have been a rehearsal for Mike McQueary's December 2011 preliminary hearing testimony. He also pointed out the opening statement by McGettigan didn't make sense and concluded it was a transcription error.
As I wrote tonight's post, I found yet another transcription error.
This is important because many have contended Paterno didn't tell the grand jury "it was a sexual nature," but rather asked "was it a sexual nature?" The words were transposed. And a question made more sense based on the equivocating nature of Paterno's testimony.
That issue remains open for debate.
I've been wondering this for years about Joe's grand jury testimony. Where's the damned tape???
there may be a transcription error, but even in its existing context, Joe's testimony is shrouded in uncertainty
only dimwitted sea urchins quote "sexual nature" absent the THREE qualifiers Joe put in his testimony that he wasn't sure exactly what it was
No argument here. But if it can be shown that he actually was asking if it was of a sexual nature, that kills the argument I've heard a million times saying, "Joe said it was sexual!"
do you really believe that? LOL. if there was an audio tape of Joe posing it as a question, the Joe hating ass hats here like gmj would still argue that he stated it as a fact.
Actually, its just a matter of punctuation. "It was a sexual nature" is much different than "It was a sexual nature?" One statement acts like a fact, the other is questioning whether it was or not. Wasn't Joe's testimony read to the GJ?
This happened to a friend of mine. He was questioned by police when he figured out he was being fingered as a suspect. He said to the police "I'm guilty?" The police put in their report that he admitted to being guilty. The question mark was omitted.
Per Pa statute:
Each statement, question, comment or response of the supervising judge, the attorney for the Commonwealth, any witness, any grand juror or any other person which is made in the presence of the investigating grand jury, except its deliberations and the vote of any juror, shall be stenographically recorded or transcribed or both.
I thought I read somewhere that Joe's testimony was recorded. If that's the case:
A juror, attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or any typist who transcribes recorded testimony may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court.
We have the transcripts. But I guess one would need the court to grant access to attempt to get a recording.
Each statement, question, comment or response of the supervising judge, the attorney for the Commonwealth, any witness, any grand juror or any other person which is made in the presence of the investigating grand jury, except its deliberations and the vote of any juror, shall be stenographically recorded or transcribed or both.
I thought I read somewhere that Joe's testimony was recorded. If that's the case:
A juror, attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or any typist who transcribes recorded testimony may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury only when so directed by the court.
We have the transcripts. But I guess one would need the court to grant access to attempt to get a recording.
I'll say it again, if that recording said what they claim it says, we would have heard Joe's parsed quote a hundred times. We will never hear that tape, it will be lost or destroyed.
I was in on the trial as a character witness. I got the scoop on how corrupt the system actually is, partially through participation, partially through observation.
The reality is that JZ was 100% correct when he insisted that the only way JVP and PSU would get some measure of justice would be to prove JS did not commit the crimes he was convicted of. No one on the board of trustees or in the administration stood up and asked for patience while the legal system took its course. They fired their president and coach and went into a fetal position protecting THEIR assets and personal interests. Scum!
Those of us who put our faith in the justice system (an oxymoron in Pa.) have watched the Pa. crime syndicate give a big middle finger to truth and justice.
I certainly can understand why Ray distanced himself from JZ, but I would love to know what AF's credibility rating is at CMHS. Jerry may be a pedophile but I've always doubted the claims of overt sex acts. Sorry.
Dersham testified to something along the lines of she knew Sandusky was a child molester when he admitted he gave Aaron Fisher back rubs and blew on his stomach. FrancoFan visited Sandusky in prison and specifically asked him to explain said behaviors so he may be able to provide more information.
Don't forget Joe's testimony was read into the record by a prosecutor. Now we know that they would never play fast and loose with facts!LOL
Francofan clearly believes that blowing strawberries on a kid's tummy-tum is perfectly innocent.
LOL - I think you mean something other than this:I think she's turned more than one trick on the pony.
