Press Release from PS4RS on ruling in C/S/S case
- Thread starter Tom McAndrew
- Start date
Shut up. You run the risk of sounding like a bigger dolt than the dolt called getmyjive.
Desires that any of us have for revelations of truth end at the tip of our noses. Anyone facing criminal charges is taking a dismissal and going home soon after. Those facing criminal charges must first do right by the themselves and don't owe us anything.
Those in charge of pursuing the guilty and prosecuting crimes owe us a lot.
Those in charge of pursuing the guilty and prosecuting crimes owe us a lot.
I would prefer these charges dropped and let the truth come out in the Paterno suit.
again you are talking about a court system
. awarded MM 9 million bucks for wrongful termination. - award should have been a couple hundred thousand
. supported Cynthia Baldwin all the the way to Superior court
. has upheld endangering charge for 3 guys that had absolutely no supervisory roll over these kids
. has ignored Dranov Mr M and Raykovitz from any charges
. allowed Mr M to "forget" he had testified just 6 months before
.
I'm not sure sure about that, since I believe they endorsed all of the incumbents up for reelection, and thus would be doing a complete 180, which doesn't do much for their credibility.
Apparently he trusted some men to take care of something and that never happened.
For those of you who want C/S/S to face trial, are you willing to pay their attorney bills? In fact, who is going to reimburse their legal fees for charges that have been dropped by the state? The state has ruined the reputation of these men and then simply drop the charges and walk away. I only hope they have a means to sue the state to collect their legal fees and damages.
Actually he pointed his (indirect) subordinate in the direction of potentially relevant parties for the reporting of such a concern. You don't know what Joe Paterno was told. You don't know what he understood from that conversation. You don't know of his knowledge of how to be involved in the handling such a report. You don't know whether he wanted to be involved (based on the level, or lack thereof, detail to the story). He had NO obligation to ANY party, and you, and people like you, don't seem to grasp that.
I think Joe Paterno did just fine, and apparently the state of Pennsylvania did as well. Why did Lil Mikey need an adult(s) to hold his hand through every step of the process if the incident was "so terrible" and "clear cut"? Point your judgement at him and his family first and foremost, but I bet that doesn't fit your agenda.
We actually do know the essence of what he was told, but many of you don't want to believe it.
Tell me what my agenda is.
Your obvious agenda is to take advantage of this situation to justify your preexisting hatred for Joe Paterno (I remember your shtick from years ago), and to vilify a dead man just because you are upset that some people hold him in reverence. You're a wretched human being, and you think that everyone should be as miserable as you.
Your stance is that Mike McQueary is completely honest and blameless, or you're at least willing to pretend as much (see: agenda), and that Joe Paterno bore any responsibility whatsoever for the dispositioning of this matter. We can agree to disagree regarding both, because I really have no interest in anything you have to say on any matter, much like 99%+ of the people on this site. Take your pontificating to some other forum, where they can lap up your nonsense, and you can feel adored and accepted.
Penn State has been paying their attorney's fees.
Al Lord may have also paid some of Spanier's.
No we actually don't know what Paterno was told. He himself said under oath he didn't know what the ear witness McQueary was trying to convey. McQueary was all over the map under oath in trying to recall what he "would have" said. My favorite was when he agreed with "fondling" even though he never saw hands.
I don't know what your agenda is, I just know that you aren't very bright.
Inteeestingly enough, I'm one of the few here that is not calling Paterno a liar. I'm taking his testimony as the truth. I have also said that his actions should have resulted in Sandusky being arrested.
But whatever you think.
Yeah that was a good one...Roberto called him out on that (how could you see fondling if you couldn't see any hands/privates??) then he tried to cover for that by saying his definition of fondling was touching in a sexual way. This testimony was in 12/16/11 prelim.
More importantly, welcome back gambit...you've been missed.
Only a dolt, like yourself for example, would try to convey that you "know" something but precede it and follow it with "I don't know".
I know that you are not very bright.
This case will end up going to trial, and I believe that they will all be acquitted. The Commonwealth is going to trump up this "protect football" motive, despite there being no evidence to support it. 3 million emails, not one mention of football or the reputation of PSU in said emails. The focus is no longer on what he saw, and what PSU did to him, but on what he told to whom, and in what detail. Freeh's theory will have to be corroborated with actual evidence.
On the other hand, despite having no legal counsel to coach them up prior to the GJ, and when recalling events that happened 10 years ago, C/S/S have had a consistent version of events: inappropriate horseplay and no sexual abuse reported by McQueary, ultimate decision made to report to 2nd Mile, decision based upon not ruining Sandusky's reputation when more conclusive information was not forthcoming (i.e. humane thing to do), and McQueary never discouraged or prevented from contacting police or CYS.
I'm curious to see if the defense presents expert testimony from a child abuse expert like Clemente, who can explain to a layperson why a person with good intentions (including John McQueary and Dr. Dranov) would not be inclined to make a report against a "nice guy" predator, especially with inconclusive information.
On the other hand, despite having no legal counsel to coach them up prior to the GJ, and when recalling events that happened 10 years ago, C/S/S have had a consistent version of events: inappropriate horseplay and no sexual abuse reported by McQueary, ultimate decision made to report to 2nd Mile, decision based upon not ruining Sandusky's reputation when more conclusive information was not forthcoming (i.e. humane thing to do), and McQueary never discouraged or prevented from contacting police or CYS.
I'm curious to see if the defense presents expert testimony from a child abuse expert like Clemente, who can explain to a layperson why a person with good intentions (including John McQueary and Dr. Dranov) would not be inclined to make a report against a "nice guy" predator, especially with inconclusive information.
Clearly Paterno meant that he didn't know exactly what you would call what MM witnessed but that it was sexual in nature. And that is how the courts and the public took the statement as well so maybe you should re-evaluate your own understanding.
Did he know that [sexual nature] in 2001? Doubtful, to positively not.
Or...
Did Paterno suggest that possibility in 2011 after MMcQ refreshed his mind on WTH happened in 2001 after McQ testified before the Grand Jury?
You also fail to include what Paterno first stated: "I don't know what you'd call it"
As with the hindsight quote, Joe is misquoted all to often. You continually do it.
"Clearly"? This is not about Paterno naming what McQueary witnessed. Paterno wasn't there, dolt. It is about him trying to recall what McQueary told him. Both McQueary and Paterno struggled mightily to recall that conversation. This is way past your ability to process.
By the way, please link where "the courts" expressed how "the courts" took that statement.
His testimony shows that he knew what MM witnessed was sexual in nature but that he wasn't sure what to call it. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
It's very clear that you are an idiot. If you don't agree, ask for a second opinion.
I get it, sometimes the courts are infallible and we shouldn't question their decision... and sometimes they get it wrong and it's OK for people to question the outcome of the process. As long as it fits your agenda.
You can't have it both ways.
Again, your interpretation of Paterno's testimony is not the popular one. Maybe you should ask why?
The Paterno Suit does NOTHING wrt these issues
N....O....T.....H....I....N....G
That isn't a criticism
It's just what it is - and this stuff is simply not anything that suit is even remotely capable of getting into......not even close
That is saying nothing about the merits, the righteousness, or the odds for success from that suit
The idea that the "Paterno Suit" would move the ball into the end zone .......... After the "Corman Suit" placed the ball on the one yard line....... Is some of the tripe-iest nonsense in the history of nonsense
If anything - the Corman Suit did nothing but take a door to that dark basement where there may be some things that need to be aired out - that was starting to be pried open - and nailed it shut
5 years later, we are at square one (maybe square "-1", to be more accurate) and ain't nothing in the Paterno suit that can move that stuff forward even one inch
A trial for CSS could - maybe - move things forward........ But that's an entirely different animal
And - thus far - every time any chance emerges that MIGHT move things along, someone comes along and turns out the lights
I wonder why?
If someone REALLY cares about PSU, their priority is getting rid of the rats that wronged Paterno. How can someone who loves the university want such awful (or inept) people in charge?
"I don't know what you would call it" is that he said in his non-cross examined testimony that we've never heard to verify it's accuracy. It's pathetic that you still cling to this after all these years.
Based on the number of "you don't know"s....... You had to be responding to GMJ or Stuff.
Followed by "I don't know what it was". And thanks for pointing out that Paterno was never crossed. Very important. Idiots like GMJ don't even comprehend what a GJ interview is.
You may be correct as I haven't studied these actual cases. Even if true what would expect to find out in the C/S/S trial? It just seems like we would hear what we have heard in every other hearing or depositions except maybe this time a jury sides with C/S/S.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-
