Posting Guidelines for BWI/McAndrew Board
- Thread starter SteveMasters
- Start date
Deleting the thread doesn't work, he just starts another one. Time to drop the hammer
What do you find so offensive? What are you afraid of? What is wrong with a honest difference of opinion? Why are you advocating censoring me? Are you capable of ignoring things?
I get it. Optics. Didn't know this site is supposed to be a PR firm.
Why are you advocating censoring me? If you don't like my opinion, please either refute it or ignore it.
What harm am I causing you?
The highlighted portion of your post is your belief and you try to state your belief as a fact. In truth, you have no idea what MM saw. We only have MM's testimony and what he believed he saw. MM has absolutely no reason to lie or make up what he saw or believes he saw.
Providing testimony of what a witness remembers seeing is not the same as having a video of what the witness saw, especially when the witness is testifying to what he or she saw over a decade ago. Witnesses remember the big picture of what they witnessed, but the details become very fuzzy, especially over time. Thus, it is not hard to press MM for details of what he saw over a decade ago, then place the details of his eye witness testimony under a microscope, and poke little holes in the details as though the testimony was a video. It is not surprising that people who want Sandusky to be innocent believe they have found inconsistencies in the details of MM's testimony which they want to blow up into totally discounting MM's testimony. However, when looked at objectively, the alleged inconsistencies are not enough to establish that MM's big picture memory is incorrect or to establish that MM is a liar.
Last edited:
Believe what you want to believe. My belief is based on what MM, Dr. Dranov, Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, AM, and JS all said and did in 2001.
It's because when you and your ilk post Free Jerry nonsense, there are only two options available to the rest of us:
1. Reply, to try to show the world that not all Penn Staters are insane, which makes the threads go on forever
or
2. Don't reply, in which case the world thinks all Penn Staters are insane.
Neither option is great.
OK - so this chick can be added to the "Exceptions" corollary of the #2 commandment of the BWI Board.
Why is it insane to think that Jerry Sandusky got an unfair trial and deserves a new one?
I think it is insane to think that the first trial was fair.
Why do you care what the rest of the world thinks of Penn State when they think the Freeh Report is factual and that Joe Paterno, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier knowingly enabled a pedophile?
Are you at all interested in what actually happened?
We get that you don't think he got a fair trail. Do you know why we get it? Because you have said it 23,698 times in 4,329 different threads. We friggin get it all ready.
Eight victims testified, one adult eyewitness testified, found credible (even on the counts found not guilty, consistent with jury believing his claims). Perpetrator appeared ridiculously guilty in interview set up for him in an attempt to exonerate, chose not to testify.
Good enough for me.
Why do you hate America?
As with most of those who participate in the Board's discussions, I have spent a huge amount of time reviewing the Sandusky Situation from as many angles as possible. I have worked to keep my understanding of the "facts" on all of this (Paterno, PSU Football Criminal Culture, The BOT's bizzarre conduct throughout, Freeh....) as unbiased as humanly possible.
After 4 years - here is what I know: (1) There are MULTITUDES of suspicious handling in all of this concerning the case against Sandusky by every state/legal agency involved. (2) Other than The Freeh Report, there is NOTHING LEGAL that links PSU with a "Coverup" (Per Freeh's report ..."a continuous effort to hide Sandusky's behavior"...). In fact Fina stated publicly no coverup by Paterno or PSU Football extisted. (3) I am uncertain of EVERYTHING that is part of the "Story" that convicted Sandusky and Penn State. I just do not know the truth - I only know that what is being used today to argue for & against all of this is SIGNIFICANTLY ILLUSIONARY.
At first, I thought that the Sandusky Crimes outlined in the GJP were true and it was the greedy media that created the Paterno/Penn State Crucifixion. After 4 years I now know that this entire matter has too many parts - it is TOO COMPLICATED - for it NOT TO BE ENGINEERED. More than media greed is involved here. We need to find out what it is so that IT CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
If someone or group has spent this much effort, time, money and resources to ENGINEER this "Story", why is it so hard to believe that Sandusky's trial was not also engineered to a quick "MONSTER" outcome?
What is being asked here by SteveMasters and myself is....THIS TIME, it is more likely that the trial will be on a level playing field. The "suspicious" elements of the processes used to assemble his first "trial" can be resolved and then REAL LEGAL and TESTED facts can be used to establish his guilt or innocence.... anything less is unAmerican. Even as a criminal he deserves justice. Most of us now know - in the first "trial", he did not receive it. Bottom line is, if he is REALLY GUILTY - he will be found guilty again.
I have given you my opinion 19,000 times. If you actually cared you would not just keep reasking.
Not good enough for me given that the trial was inherently unfair. Do you believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty? I don't believe that an unfair trial proves guilt.
Have you beaten your wife recently?
This paragraph clearly shows what most of the sane among us have been saying this whole time. You are using Free Jerry! as a cover because you think a do-over would somehow magically make Penn State (and Joe) look better. It's a load of delusional nonsense.
How often does the loser of a trial publically acknowledge their trial was fair? Or those like you who are likely just using it in a quixotic quest to exonerate somebody else in a related case?
It was a fair trial. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers, which is the standard we use here in the United States of America. Why do you hate America?
The issue for me is not about how good or bad Penn State looks. Penn State looks bad to the outside world right now and the way the Penn State BOT has handled this situation has made the situation exponentially worse. I want to know what actually happened, what mistakes were made, and who is responsible. I also want justice to be served and for the bad actors to have to account for their misdeeds.
Let's agree to disagree on whether the trial was fair. Let's also wait to see what the Commonwealth and Judge Cleland have to say about Sandusky's PCRA. We should find out soon.
SteveMasters said: ↑
Have you beaten your wife recently?
Have you beaten your wife recently?
Where does that fit into your guidelines? A beating? Did someone say a beating?
Last edited:
I don't recall your giving your opinion of whether you thought JS got a fair trial. I know you said "I am not familiar with the PCRA. If there was something wrong with the trial he will be granted a new one. There is nothing wrong with that. I am just of the opinion, that outside of a few people on the internet, people think he got a fair trail. And as such, he is going to die in jail, where i personally believe he belongs."
For the record, do you now given what you know about the trial think that Sandusky received a fair trial?
If you don't have an opinion, why are you commenting on this thread?
Steve's act reminds of the Chappelle Show skit about an R. Kelly trial:
Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?
Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.
The fair trial act is a smoke screen, and his excuses for why it was unfair are extremely transparent. The majority of his argument is that Sandusky's lawyers sucked. Now, mind you, Sandusky hired them. What Steve ignores is that perhaps it is really, really difficult to defend a person who you come to understand is truly a child molester and has so many witnesses against him.
Another argument is that the jury pool is tainted. I'm not sure how that notion would change. If a retrial happened, and Sandusky was found guilty again, he could use the same excuse. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of cases where a person was found guilty in the media and by the public at large only to be found not guilty at trial - ie, George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson.
If Steve spent this much time dissecting the minutiae of any trial, he would find reasons to claim unfair trial in each and every one of them.
Prosecutor: Mr. Chappelle, what would it take to convince you that R. Kelly is guilty?
Dave Chappelle: Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.
The fair trial act is a smoke screen, and his excuses for why it was unfair are extremely transparent. The majority of his argument is that Sandusky's lawyers sucked. Now, mind you, Sandusky hired them. What Steve ignores is that perhaps it is really, really difficult to defend a person who you come to understand is truly a child molester and has so many witnesses against him.
Another argument is that the jury pool is tainted. I'm not sure how that notion would change. If a retrial happened, and Sandusky was found guilty again, he could use the same excuse. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of cases where a person was found guilty in the media and by the public at large only to be found not guilty at trial - ie, George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson.
If Steve spent this much time dissecting the minutiae of any trial, he would find reasons to claim unfair trial in each and every one of them.
Number 2; He mentioned a female, that is not HIS relative and is not Bruce/Caitlin Jenner.SteveMasters said: ↑
Have you beaten your wife recently?
Where does that fit into your guidelines? A beating? Did someone say a beating?
I am commenting on the thread to tell you to give it a rest aleady. Ranting on a sports board is not going to get your rapist friend a new trial. If you really feel so strongly about it, go do something about it. Bringing it over and over and over again here is just annoying.
Wow someone needs to take Jerry's internet privileges off of him so we can stick to recruiting, football and also beating up on OSU and Pitt
I think the new board protocol is to have M. Felli and Bushwood debate the option. Kind of like that G. Gordon Liddy vs. Timothy Leary production that used to make the rounds on college campuses. Then we'll have a poll to decide who won and take it from there. Do you think that is more fair than the trial that Jerry received? Damn! I deserve to bite my tongue. Ouch!
If it is annoying to you, please don't read it. If you can figure it out, please block me and ignore anything I say. Lastly, please don't quote my post or otherwise engage me or you will be guilty of propagating the thread.
All of those men believed McQueary saw something that severely disturbed him. I suspect McQueary didn't want to believe that Sandusky was a child molester, but what he witnessed was strongly suggestive of that. That's why he reported in the way he did, by downplaying it to some degree, and being truthful that he didn't actually "see" molestation, but believing that's what was likely going on. And that's why all those men reacted the way they did.
All except for Sandusky.
Among all those men, he's the only one who knew about the police warning him not to shower with any more boys back in 1998. And he certainly didn't offer that up to Curley when Curley confronted him. In fact, he even denied being with a boy in a shower at that first meeting. The fact is, you can't trust Sandusky to be honest in anything about this. Did you know he claimed that he gave Curley the boy's name when he talked to Curley a second time? Did you know he later claimed that he did not give the boy's name to Curley? He can't have been telling the truth both times.
I saw that you professed a 100% belief that Sandusky is innocent back in November. I also saw you profess a belief that an exoneration of Sandusky would exonerate Joe Paterno. I can understand how you came to believe this, but my opinion is that you are mistaken and that your efforts are misguided.
If you want to argue he didn't get a fair trial, I suggest you brush up on your facts. This should include re-reading all the trial testimony, in particular Cleland's jury instructions before closing arguments, Sandusky's post conviction motions, the denial of those motions, and the denial of his appeals. You should also understand that a perfect trial is not guaranteed. Here's some reading material on that:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4944&context=mulr
As for Sandusky's PCRA, my opinion is that Lindsay was very sloppy. The PCRA was filled with numerous internal contradictions. I suggest you re-read it with a critical eye after reading what I've previously recommended. And if you haven't done so already, you should get access to the PCRA appendix and read that as well. There are things in it which are incredibly damaging to his appeal. Again, Lindsay was very sloppy.
You might also consider brushing up on PCRA law. Everything ultimately boils down to whether the "truth determining process" was affected. In other words, were things so distorted at trial that no one could have discovered the truth. I won't deny that police lied at the trial, but I will say that this was on full display to the jury and Cleland pointed it all. I won't deny that some victims had lawyers before the trial started, but that was on full display to the jury - it was one of Amendola's primary defense points. Was Amendola ineffective? Perhaps, but I suspect he knew he had an uphill battle back in January 2009 when Sandusky refused to take his advice about not talking to Jessica Dershem, the result of which was a finding of child abuse. Amendola attended that meeting. And not once did he object to Dershem's testimony about that meeting at trial.
The truth is Sandusky is a child molester. Amendola knew this in 2009.
Did you know Amendola has a history of declaring himself ineffective for former clients accused of rape?
The criminal justice system will decide whether he got a fair trial. In my opinion, they will determine he got a fair trial, and his PCRA appeal will be denied. And I will be perfectly fine with it. I doubt I can change your mind, but please consider reading everything I've recommended in this post. Here's some more reading material on PCRA's:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...M&ttl=42&div=0&chpt=95&mobile_choice=suppress
http://www.mcdonalddefense.com/2011/12/16/pennsylvanias-post-conviction-relief-act-pcra/
Lastly, your perceptions about how victims of child sexual abuse react and behave are so far off the mark, I don't know where to start. I will say this. It is incredibly common for victims to be inaccurate in certain details of their abuse, especially when it was years ago, and in particular when they were compliant in their victimization. This does not mean they were inaccurate in the fact of their victimization. I suggest you read all of this: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
The last and most important quote listed at the end of this guide on investigating child molesters is appropriate in many situations, but especially here:
Regardless of intelligence and education and often despite common sense and evidence to the contrary, adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe. The greater the need, the greater the tendency.
If I believed it would pacify the Sandusky adherents on this Board, and that they would cease the seemingly endless posts agitating for it, I'd be fully in favor of Sandusky getting a new trial., But I don't believe it.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimmy,
Thank you for engaging me. You have done some good research in this case and I respect your opinions; but as you might suspect, I don't agree with everything you write.
I do not know 100% as I was not present when any of the alleged indiscretions took place. I do however have some serious concerns about whether some of the victims/accusers were entirely truthful in what they have reported. IMO, it would be very interesting to see what an unbiased jury would decide in a new fairer trial with Sandusky having effective counsel.
What makes you so sure that Sandusky is a child molester?
I still believe that if Sandusky is exonerated that it exonerates Joe Paterno as Joe could no longer be accused of enabling a pedophile. That being said, I believe that Joe has already been exonerated irregardless of whether or not Sandusky is or is not a pedophile.
If you are willing, please provide me with examples of where in the PCRA that Lindsay contradicts himself and damages his appeal chances. Do you have any thoughts or insights as to what the Commonwealth will say in their response to the PCRA? Do you think that the OAG knew that MM did not witness a sexual assault when they wrote the Grand Jury Presentment? Do you think that AM is v2? What is your opinion of the Freeh Report and the guilt or innocence of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier?
Similar threads
