Press Release from PS4RS on ruling in C/S/S case

[Marylovesthelions]

I've cut down sumacs with hedge trimmers. It can be done.

That said, PS4RS' claim that a trial isn't needed is, quite frankly, very appalling to me.

Ever get sumac poisoning? It is miserable.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Still trying to cut down the tree w/ hedge clippers when there's a chainsaw named aaron fisher laying at their feet.

T H I S !

 

[bjf1991]

T H I S !

You're talking about the "third rail"......... No one is gonna' want to touch that one

 

[UncleLar]

WTF are you even talking about?

The fact is there's evidence that C/S/S made a conscious decision to change course from notifying DFW directly.

That "evidence" could just as easily and, some might say, more reasonably, be interpreted to mean that they were going to talk to Sandusky IN ADDITION TO going to the DFW, not that they weren't going to go to the DFW. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt as to its meaning.

 

[jim cummings]

Ever get sumac poisoning? It is miserable.

No. from what I've learned is that the ones growing near swampy saturated areas are the ones most likely to be poisonous. I avoid those.

I get poison ivy just by looking at it (TIC). That's miserable.

 

[Ski]

especially when you are a square peg trying to ease into a round hole.

I have a hunch he is more of a round hole trying ease in a square peg.

 

[indynittany]

WTF are you even talking about?

You sit in this echo chamber repeating the same "settled" talking points you've all agreed upon. It doesn't make them true.

The fact is there's evidence that C/S/S made a conscious decision to change course from notifying DFW directly. There's evidence that one them mentioned a concern about liability for not reporting it.

It doesn't matter what arguments you make, there's evidence to support the charge. The arguments should be made to a jury.

This is demonstrably false. The only change proposed by Curley was to include Sandusky among those to be iunformed. "I am uncomfortable going to EVERYONE, but the person involved." In Spanier's reply, he acknowledges what Curley proposed would require an additional step and that it would be a difficult conversation.

And each reference to informing DPW was contingent upon what Sandusky would do in the future, not what he had already done.

This was an attempt to prevent a subsequent he said/he said situation. Period.

 

[L.T. Young]

So you're saying that the entire proof in this case rests in the 17 e-mails Freeh chose to include in his report. 17 e-mails to construct and maintain a "conspiracy" that lasted for 10 years? Are you telling us that in the other 3,499,983 e-mails personally reviewed by Freeh, there's nothing else that could be related to the case? Nothing that might be exculpatory or show that Freeh's agenda is bullshit?

I guess all those other e-mails are about Cindy Baldwin's yoga pants.

I'm saying that the emails are evidence of EWOC.

There's simply no way a prosecutor showing them to a jury doesn't sink C/S/S.

If they take the stand to try and explain them I guarantee a conviction.

You guys have spent years convincing one another of your own reality. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs, down to the letter, is a paid troll and/or a host of other insults.

Outside of this little bubble those emails are damming for C/S/S.

 

[Zenophile]

I'm saying that the emails are evidence of EWOC.

There's simply no way a prosecutor showing them to a jury doesn't sink C/S/S.

If they take the stand to try and explain them I guarantee a conviction.

You guys have spent years convincing one another of your own reality. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs, down to the letter, is a paid troll and/or a host of other insults.

Outside of this little bubble those emails are damming for C/S/S.

Love the ridiculous certainty act, LT. LOVE it.

 

[L.T. Young]

Love the ridiculous certainty act, LT. LOVE it.

If you think C/S/S don't get absolutely shredded on the stand, which they're not required to take, you're more delusional than I thought.

There's a reason Ray said they should challenge the authenticity of an email Spanier has already admitted he wrote.

I'll never understand why so many here are carrying water for the 3 people who let Joe down the most.

 

[Zenophile]

If you think C/S/S don't get absolutely shredded on the stand, which they're not required to take, you're more delusional than I thought.

There's a reason Ray said they should challenge the authenticity of an email Spanier has already admitted he wrote.

I'll never understand why so many here are carrying water for the 3 people who let Joe down the most.

Seems like you're taking this awfully personally LT.

 

[Mixolydian]

I'm saying that the emails are evidence of EWOC.

There's simply no way a prosecutor showing them to a jury doesn't sink C/S/S.

If they take the stand to try and explain them I guarantee a conviction.

You guys have spent years convincing one another of your own reality. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs, down to the letter, is a paid troll and/or a host of other insults.

Outside of this little bubble those emails are damming for C/S/S.

Oh lookie here....a buffoon makes a "guarantee". Perfect.

 

[indynittany]

I'm saying that the emails are evidence of EWOC.

There's simply no way a prosecutor showing them to a jury doesn't sink C/S/S.

If they take the stand to try and explain them I guarantee a conviction.

You guys have spent years convincing one another of your own reality. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs, down to the letter, is a paid troll and/or a host of other insults.

Outside of this little bubble those emails are damming for C/S/S.

You need to learn how to read .

 

[Royal_Coaster]

I'm saying that the emails are evidence of EWOC.

There's simply no way a prosecutor showing them to a jury doesn't sink C/S/S.

If they take the stand to try and explain them I guarantee a conviction.

You guys have spent years convincing one another of your own reality. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to your beliefs, down to the letter, is a paid troll and/or a host of other insults.

Outside of this little bubble those emails are damming for C/S/S.

And I'm saying that you believe the concept of cherry picking has never, does not now, nor never will exist.

Louie Freeh has told you to focus on this little box that contains 17 e-mails and only on that little tiny box. Do not, DO NOT look away, and especially not at anything outside that box. Because there couldn't be anything beyond those 17 e-mails. There is no possible way the e-mail chains about this case could have contained 18, or 20, or 30, or 275 e-mails. No, just the 17 Louis has decided you get to see. And what could possibly be in 1 or 3 or 50 or 17000 e-mails Louie has decided there is no need for you to see?

Why are there exhibits mentioned in footnotes that don't appear in the report? Just being sloppy? Tell me, does someone getting paid 8.5 million dollars get to be that sloppy? Or should the same perfection be demanded from him and his staff as is demanded of others?

If there are no other e-mails, why has the BOT made it so difficult for the alumni trustees to view and research the source materials that went into Freeh's report? Are we simply to take Louie's word not to pay any attention to that man behind the curtain? In a university setting, we're being told not to question, not to be skeptical, but to accept willingly and blindly what our self-appointed betters tell us we must?

What do you think the Board wants hidden so deeply? The 400 university employees who stated that they never saw Tim Curley speak to Jack Raykovitz, therefore it could never have happened?

You may believe there's nothing else to be found that shows a position contrary to yours out there. But $250 million dollars says there is.