Snedden wasn’t called at Spanier’s trial because his work was exposed as unreliable by Schultz’ testimony.
The fact those two still trumpet Snedden is a joke.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
The fact those two still trumpet Snedden is a joke.
Funny how some rush to lash out at the planted fake accuser, but shrug their shoulders when confronted with the likelihood that millions went to fake accusers.
Bottom line: when you are playing with the houses' money rather than your own. If Merck was paying, Frazier would have taken a different path, as would have Lubert.
Maybe they did. Prove it and prosecute. Funny how some believe the pedo over everyone else.
This poster is a bot. It copied the text from this article:
http://www.deadspin.com/5856777/a-g...-and-to-penn-states-alleged-willful-ignorance
My apology if this has already been discussed but I hadn't seen any mention of this excerpt from Ziegler's article:
"This was just one of several leaks from the Attorney General's office to the Freeh Group. In another email sent on October 31, 2012, Paw wrote Omar McNeill, another senior investigator at the Freeh Group, spilling the details of how Fina was pressuring former Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin into becoming a cooperating witness, even though she was the lawyer who had represented Spanier, Schultz, and Curley when they appeared before the grand jury probing Sandusky.
"The ever-colorful Fina said yesterday that he has told Baldwin's counsel that he was comfortable putting '12 people in a box' and being able to convict her," Paw wrote. "[Fina] also said [Baldwin] was 'looking at a bullet.'”
Emails showed that Fina had long targeted Baldwin, as well as Spanier. In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group that Fina had told him he “still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”"
What would Fina be trying to charge Baldwin with? Has it ever been suggested she engaged in criminal conduct as opposed to simple negligence/ignorance? I recall some discussion that she might be obstructing by not complying with the subpoenas but that would tough to prove in court wouldn't it?
"This was just one of several leaks from the Attorney General's office to the Freeh Group. In another email sent on October 31, 2012, Paw wrote Omar McNeill, another senior investigator at the Freeh Group, spilling the details of how Fina was pressuring former Penn State general counsel Cynthia Baldwin into becoming a cooperating witness, even though she was the lawyer who had represented Spanier, Schultz, and Curley when they appeared before the grand jury probing Sandusky.
"The ever-colorful Fina said yesterday that he has told Baldwin's counsel that he was comfortable putting '12 people in a box' and being able to convict her," Paw wrote. "[Fina] also said [Baldwin] was 'looking at a bullet.'”
Emails showed that Fina had long targeted Baldwin, as well as Spanier. In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group that Fina had told him he “still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”"
What would Fina be trying to charge Baldwin with? Has it ever been suggested she engaged in criminal conduct as opposed to simple negligence/ignorance? I recall some discussion that she might be obstructing by not complying with the subpoenas but that would tough to prove in court wouldn't it?
That's what it sounds like, but has that ever been made clear before? I wasn't aware that Baldwin was that close to being charged with C/S/S. Again I know they were pressuring her about the subpoenas and such but this seems like stronger language.
Ray has a bunch of earlier stuff on his blog around this topic:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/search?q=+baldwin+subpoena
It does if you saw the post of someone driving by a victims house since JZ published it. Thankfully for once the mods knew that was batsh!t crazy and deleted it.
Absolutely. Which is why they never went after his Dad or Dranov (or Towny) either. A few dopes on here are too dense to grasp that.
Payouts are mindboggling
Feinberg controlled the $. Incredible.
Feinberg said more than the merits of an allegation was considered in determining a case's settlement value.
One factor was: "Will Penn State be able to defend the case in court?" Another was the quality of the accuser's lawyer and the court where the case was to be heard, he said.
Rozen, Feinberg's law partner, has previously cited the severity of the abuse, location, time, and the accuser's credibility also as factors. He described three areas of claims: those from before 1998, when the first report of abuse by Sandusky was investigated and dismissed; those between 1998 and the 2001 incident in which former graduate assistant Michael McQueary said he reported seeing Sandusky assault a boy in the shower; and those after McQueary said he alerted Penn State administrators.
Assaults before 1998 were assigned the lowest value because of little if any evidence that Penn State should have known at that time, Rozen said.
The mediators hardly ever met with the actual victims, Feinberg said. He and Rozen met with their lawyers, then met with Penn State lawyers to update them on progress.
"This mediation process was done almost entirely between lawyers," Feinberg said.
Penn State's board of trustees gave members on its legal subcommittee authority to oversee the process and apprise the rest of the board.
Feinberg said he met with the subcommittee in Philadelphia and gave them details on individual cases. He said settlement values of individual cases were discussed, as well as demands.
It took months to resolve some cases. The point of contention, he said, typically was the amount - not whether abuse had occurred.
About a half-dozen cases were not settled either because the claims appeared to be "fraudulent" or an amount could not be agreed upon, Feinberg said. One case is still pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
The first multimillion-dollar settlement was announced in August 2013, that of a 25-year-old man who said that he was a child when Sandusky abused him in a campus shower. Two months later, Penn State said it would pay nearly $60 million to resolve claims with him and 25 other Sandusky accusers. In April 2015, the university approved more settlements, with one trustee calling the payout "an extraordinary" sum.
Mike lawyered up before speaking to investigators. It was a smart move.
The thing I like best about you jerot is that I can call you a douche and you won’t get angry with me or report me. You’ll probably just respond with an article about female hygiene
Dukie, If you are saying that Mike did not have a lawyer when he made his written statement, Nov.23,2010....then I am wrong and I apologize.
When he made written statement yes but that’s not the first time he talked to investigators.
I believe at least a couple folks on record about mikes first meeting with investigators ... including guido who mike alerted before first meeting that the Sandusky mess was coming down.
I believe at least a couple folks on record about mikes first meeting with investigators ... including guido who mike alerted before first meeting that the Sandusky mess was coming down.
Last edited:
Whether Jerry’s junk worked or not is irrelevant to whether or not he sexually assaulted any boys. I assume his hands and mouth still worked. He admitted to hugging a boy in the shower. I’m not sure how far you need to stretch your mind to think he didn’t do anything to any of these boys, but I can’t do it.
ok, my understanding was he indicated he didn't want to speak with Rossman and Sassano (about the incident)until he spoke to counsel.
Dukie,
Here's what Moulton said in his report in the timeline section. Is this accurate?
- November 10, 2010. Tpr. Rossman and Agent Sassano meet with McQueary, who states that he is willing to cooperate but wants to schedule the interview after he has a chance to speak with counsel.
- November 22, 2010. Tpr. Rossman and Agent Sassano interview McQueary at the office of his attorney.
Did you watch the movie last night? Must be nice for some of the folks who were directly involved in this disgusting saga to see Joe take all the shots for you.
I guess another lesson in this story is if you want to make out like you saw a crime - report it to the F-ing police - not a football coach.
I also read a book called Paterno, and on page 276 good old Dr. Dranov is quoted as saying Mike said he didn't see anything. He said he didn't see anything three times and all three agreed there wasn't enough to go to the police with. Hmmm. Oh well, as long as the old ball coach is the one being destroyed all is well.
One was about to gain access to the Freeh files and one wasn't. That is all you have to know.
That looks accurate. First meeting was before Mike had counsel, as I stated. I don’t believe mike ever had atty attend any of the grand jury proceeding or during js trial testimony or Spanier trial...
One of the biggest wrong theories out there is that mike was squeezed, manipulated etc... 100% did not happen...
One of the biggest wrong theories out there is that mike was squeezed, manipulated etc... 100% did not happen...
How come Mike told your dad and the doc he didn't see anything that night? Was repressed memory therapy used to get to get to what he really saw. Thanks.
Your own thread. Glad BWI archives these threads now.
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/compelling-dr-dranov-excerpt-from-paterno-book.170753/
Yep. Notice I didn't get an answer from the bro in this thread. Not surprised. It's all Joe's fault. Another misunderstanding relative to Mike and what he said he saw. After all, he slammed the locker hard. What else does one expect.
I saw on Twitter that Towny (Joe) is taking great glee in LJ Jr.'s assertion that everyone knew about McQ getting the Asst. Coach job as a direct result of a deal he struck with someone - presumably JVP - to not go to police with what he witnessed. LJ is getting hot over any challenge to that assertion, including from Scott Paterno, no matter how illogical his assertion comes across. And LJ Jr. is pissed that someone asked about LJ Sr. being included in that backwash. Yeesh.
So Towny picked up on it and happily implicated that Joe was unethical and covered up something as a result. He ignores that McQ said no one ever told him to be quiet, and more importantly, that the entire McQ family therefore had to sit on that information for the entire time! So, by rushing in to drive another nail into JVP, he buries his entire family by his statements that no one who had at least as much if not more info than Joe went forward, either.
Again, laws must have been re-written that say that serious crimes need to be reported to the local football coach and not to LE. And if LE is involved, it is still up to the local football coach to swoop in and oversee all aspects of the investigation and charges to be filed.
So Towny picked up on it and happily implicated that Joe was unethical and covered up something as a result. He ignores that McQ said no one ever told him to be quiet, and more importantly, that the entire McQ family therefore had to sit on that information for the entire time! So, by rushing in to drive another nail into JVP, he buries his entire family by his statements that no one who had at least as much if not more info than Joe went forward, either.
Again, laws must have been re-written that say that serious crimes need to be reported to the local football coach and not to LE. And if LE is involved, it is still up to the local football coach to swoop in and oversee all aspects of the investigation and charges to be filed.
Just my opinion, but MM either got no advice or very poor advice about what allowing the OAG (as illustrated by his email to Eshbach) to embellish his testimony would do to Joe, Tim, Gary and ultimately Spanier. Again using his own words.....Tim Curley is a good man..... Dukie insists Mike wasn't squeezed....I'd feel better about him if he were.
I hope Towny doesn't in any way represent the McQ family. Dukie is a gentleman....Towny is a joke.
I think he is related in some way, or at least a close family friend, based on past posts.
One thing that is unambiguous, whenever Mike told Dr. Dranov what he encountered......no one called police or CYS. Why?
There is no way- I mean absolutely none- for Mike McQueary not to look horrible in this no matter which way anybody wants to spin it. Honestly. I mean, the family’s defense is that he saw a child being molested but stopped it? Then never approached law enforcement about it but had to wait 10 (9?, 11?) years for them to come to him? And that’s the best he could possibly look. It’s disgraceful, really.
Similar threads
