As usual your operative word being "if.
If birds had radios up their ass there would be music in the air.
Prosecutors Object to Ex-Penn State Administrators Request for Pre-Trial Appeal
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
If birds had radios up their ass there would be music in the air.
Well, I can easily change that to "when." Or, if at that point, somebody asks. I doubt if CSS lawyers would.
Here lies the proof of WHERE & HOW the Sandusky Illusion was created. The differences in the situation concerning MSU and PSU are overwhelming!!
MSU's leaders have taken a traditional approach to allegations (in spite of OVER YEARS of allegations). That traditional approach is to use the LEGAL "innocent until proven guilty" aspects of this matter to deny any form of abnormal behavior by an EMPLOYEE. This will continue until enough LEGALLY REASONABLE evidence is solidly obtained. I suspect that this approach (a true cover-up scenerio) has been made possible because there was PLAUSIBLE DENIAL in any LEGAL (repeat LEGAL) criminality by Nasser. So on an individual basis - the LEGAL case that could be made for criminal actions could be suspect. The problem for MSU is that there were DOZENS of reported "suspicious activities" by their own MSU employee and no red flags or legal investigation was instituted. A much stronger case for cover-up by MSU than for PSU's Sandusky situation.
Yet....with Penn State, a single 1998 incident where a full investigation was performed by the State and the matter closed with regards to Sandusky's behavior (forget the paydays alleged by pre-1998 Johnny-come-latelies) has been promoted as "proof positive" of criminal actions by a former employee- in spite of the fact that the 2001 incident was vague in LEGAL terms (if for no other reason than NO subject's NAME on which to validate what occurred in that shower in 2001),
What we observed was IN 2001 a PSU's reasonable response to this incident. The incident in 2001 exibited by PSU significant and reasonable efforts to validate the legal circumstances involved (which was indefinite and therefore un-actionable). As a matter of conservative response to this 2001 event, PSU advised Sandusky's then current employer of what was known about Sandusky IN 2001. PSU then let Sandusky's PRIMARY manager of his actions take whatever actions they PROFESSIONALLY (and Legally) saw as appropriate. If anything, the 1998's investigation would not serve as a reason for PSU suspicion of criminality - it would serve as an indication that Sandusky WAS NOT inappropriate with anyone in his charge.
The key to this "reasonable assumption" approach to action by PSU IN 2001 was this --- Sandusky worked in a "high risk" population where the persons who he was with could easily create suspicious situations. The only organization that had enough "data points" to raise a yellow/red flags was TSM. TSM had both the physical and legal responsibilities for these kids AND they also had the PROFESSIONAL duty to monitor ANY TSM person's activities with TSM children. TSM worked WITH THE STATE AGENCIES ON A REGULAR BASIS for such matters as child protection and employee behavior.
HERE's Where the Poof of The Sandusky Illusion is exposed when compared with MSU (and others) concerning potential impropriety. FOR THE SANDUSKY Illusion to be effectively promoted to the public the OAG HAD to get PSU's politically connected BOT to IMMEDIATE ADMIT GUILT as a result of an uncontrolled PSU's Football program led by a coach who, because of "years of friendship" with Sandusky would hide criminal actions to protect "his football program".
This absurd action of admitting guilt without one shred of legal evidence by the OGBOT was only possible because of key PSU connections within PA politics. Without this special relationship of coordination - and with only TWO reported incidents - the certainty of BOT publicized "Penn State Criminal Football Culture Guilt" could not be broadcast through the media. Without this OAG's absurd reaction to this matter, the entire Sandusky-connected-Penn State matter would have gone no where!!!
In the case of decades of reported abuse to MSU, the actions taken by the MSU administration was EXACTLY WHAT PSU's 2 ultra weak incidents were painted to be - a highly credible case for an institutional long-term cover-up of potential employee criminal activity.
The reason for MSU's limited (at this time) public execution is that MSU's administration is using the LEGAL SYSTEM to protect its image and actions. PSU's illusion HAD NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS - it was guily-until-proven innocent!!!! With PSU the coordinated political OAG - BOT - Freeh fictions were broadcast as facts when they (to this day) are no more than unsupported allegations.
REASON -----Follow the money!! $1/4 BILLION+ stolen from the Bank of PSU.
Last edited:
In essence, yes. If Jerry understood how his behavior could be misconstrued and might become problematic, especially in a he said/he said scenario, rescinding his guest privileges and informing TSM would be sufficient. If, OTOH, he didn't agree that his behavior was inappropriate and created the appearance of impropriety, they would have no choice but to involve DPW to protect Penn State. IOW, a repeat of '98 would look bad for everyone. They wanted to take the necessary steps to prevent that from happening, but they were not concerned that the '01 incident would trigger those events. So it is unreasonable to conclude, as Freeh did, that what was reported to them by MM was abuse.
Curley testified that he was concerned that Jerry would not accept their directive relative to his guest privileges. If he understood MM's report to have been actual CSA, he wouldn't have given two shits what Sandusky thought about their decision.
Again, if you carefully examine the notes and emails from 2001, every reference to involving DPW was dependent upon what Sandusky would do in the future, not what he had already done. Their intent was to prevent a problem, not conceal one.
And don't forget that PSU missed bowl games in 2012 and 2013. Also, silas redd transferred to usc. How did that not fix everything?
MSU though they will escape any real scrutiny by the press and cleary the NCAA will not go near this debacle...you can bet...like PSU...Someone will financially pay at MSU.
And I bet whomever is carrying their insurance...is looking VERY closely at what happened with us and how our insurance company was able to win their lawsuit and not money up the $$$.
We were hit over the heads...we were unprepared...we have too many assclowns within the BOT where no one seems to make any "smart" decisions...and have suffered enormously for it.
All other schools...organizations etc facing any kind of tragedy like what we went through...has actually had the benefit of learning...by our mistakes...which there have been many.
And I bet whomever is carrying their insurance...is looking VERY closely at what happened with us and how our insurance company was able to win their lawsuit and not money up the $$$.
We were hit over the heads...we were unprepared...we have too many assclowns within the BOT where no one seems to make any "smart" decisions...and have suffered enormously for it.
All other schools...organizations etc facing any kind of tragedy like what we went through...has actually had the benefit of learning...by our mistakes...which there have been many.
This is a great point -->
We all know the AG (cough, Corbett / Fina, cough) used Mike as a pawn. They can go on and rail about the 45 of 48 counts - they didn't need Mike and we all know it. It's painfully clear why they really needed Mike - they could've just as easily skipped down the reporting chain and nailed Dr. Raykovitz & Katherine Genovese.
But they didn't and those plans blew up into a half billion dollar debacle still smoking away today.
Wouldn't that be something if Mike shoved it right back at these Commonwealth prosecutors. I'd like to see that.
We all know the AG (cough, Corbett / Fina, cough) used Mike as a pawn. They can go on and rail about the 45 of 48 counts - they didn't need Mike and we all know it. It's painfully clear why they really needed Mike - they could've just as easily skipped down the reporting chain and nailed Dr. Raykovitz & Katherine Genovese.
But they didn't and those plans blew up into a half billion dollar debacle still smoking away today.
Wouldn't that be something if Mike shoved it right back at these Commonwealth prosecutors. I'd like to see that.
Has this fact hit home yet with everyone....based on EVERY PERSON IN 2001 who MM spoke to and described what he saw, NO ONE - not his father, Dranov, Paterno, C/S/S, Dr. Raykovitz and even MM's GIRL FRIEND acted like anything like a crime was described to them back in 2001. Add to this the fact that the "victim" who was paid by PSU as "the 2001 boy in the shower" testified under oath that "nothing happened".
Yet we have the public convinced that the Penn State was the ONLY entity RESPONSIBLE for any criminal activity by Sandusky. Not only are they they the only ones responsible for his activity ----- BUT THEY ALSO, per "the Honorable Judge" Freeh, ACTIVELY (repeat - Actively) PROTECTED HIM over his years of criminal child abuse while he was working for TSM. And yet TSM had no responsibility or involvement in any form of a "cover-up"!!! They - TSM - just immediately destroyed all their records.....nothing suspicious or wrong with that!!!
It is amazing......the entire "Story" that Penn State was "enabling a pedophile" by its "conspiracy of silence" (a construction based upon KNOWN and illegally flawed work by the OAG driven investigation and presentment) was based ENTIRELY upon MM's "description of rape of a young boy". This cornerstone of Penn State criminality ONLY existed in MM's 2010+ version of what he saw - a version which is in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH ALL 2001 activities by as reported to anyone at that time!!!!! In fact...it is so in conflict that if a fair standard of the law were to be applied - MM faces credible charges of PERJURY - WHY - NO ONE validates his OAG-promoted account of the 2001 "shower" event!!!!!
I can only make one statement about this entire matter with 100% certainty....what we know about this Sandusky matter is NOTHING!!! Too many suspicious issues in the "facts" that "convicted" Sandusky - too many questionable actions taken by the OAG, Corbett, Fina, Kelly, Noonan, the OGBOT - too much absurdity in the unsupported "reasonable assumptions made by Freeh!!!!
We only know one thing....without PSU's $250M bankroll, the public face of this story would be dramatically different. So different that it could quite possibly never have existed at all!
We do know one thing...that the narrative put forth to the public was crafted and paid for by the OGBOT.
@Ceasar - I'd like to revisit this again.
You are correct - it is a simple case, and folks are making this all so much more complicated than it really is and going down all these rabbit holes. Given the conduct of the Michigan state attorney general in handling Larry Nassar, the appallingly bad conduct of Tom Corbett/Frank Fina becomes more apparent.
Here's what we do know - the state destroyed Mike's life and career aspirations over a singular lie of "anal rape" in a Penn State shower. The radioactive fallout from that lie by public officials spread across the entire State College community and beyond - like a Chernobyl - where that poison still sits today. These were the same public officials that were sworn to uphold the consitutional rights of the very citizens whose constitutional rights they have trampled.
Someone has to give it right back to this office in no uncertain terms how Mike's testimony was manipulated NOT to properly bring Jerry to trial and to answer questions for the community - but purely to fuel the case against Tim Curley & Gary Schultz in order to assassinate Graham Spanier.
JMHO - but Mike could be that Superman and turn on the AG's office in this way and I'd see it as a Win-Win all around. The AG chokes, this farce of a case goes away, Mike rehabilitates his reputation, 3 men get their lives back, Joe's legacy is not that of "he harbored a kiddie rape racket for 30 years".
Now the alumni will still be angry over the conduct of the Board of Trustees and the PSAA alumni association not ever having our backs in this. But I would hazard that most everyone's decided that they are not "Penn State" anymore.
You are correct - it is a simple case, and folks are making this all so much more complicated than it really is and going down all these rabbit holes. Given the conduct of the Michigan state attorney general in handling Larry Nassar, the appallingly bad conduct of Tom Corbett/Frank Fina becomes more apparent.
Here's what we do know - the state destroyed Mike's life and career aspirations over a singular lie of "anal rape" in a Penn State shower. The radioactive fallout from that lie by public officials spread across the entire State College community and beyond - like a Chernobyl - where that poison still sits today. These were the same public officials that were sworn to uphold the consitutional rights of the very citizens whose constitutional rights they have trampled.
Someone has to give it right back to this office in no uncertain terms how Mike's testimony was manipulated NOT to properly bring Jerry to trial and to answer questions for the community - but purely to fuel the case against Tim Curley & Gary Schultz in order to assassinate Graham Spanier.
JMHO - but Mike could be that Superman and turn on the AG's office in this way and I'd see it as a Win-Win all around. The AG chokes, this farce of a case goes away, Mike rehabilitates his reputation, 3 men get their lives back, Joe's legacy is not that of "he harbored a kiddie rape racket for 30 years".
Now the alumni will still be angry over the conduct of the Board of Trustees and the PSAA alumni association not ever having our backs in this. But I would hazard that most everyone's decided that they are not "Penn State" anymore.
Honestly, I think this could be accomplished very easily by simply reading MM's sworn SWIGJ testimony (which was made to the 30th SWIGJ and not the 33rd SWIGJ) and asking him if he remembers giving it, because MM testified that he DID NOT see a sexual act of any kind, let alone "anal rape" (testified he never saw either parties' genitals period). They could also read back his sworn testimony in the Sandusky trial where he said nearly the same thing (i.e., that he did not see a sexual act of any kind and could only speculate that this is what was going on based on what he had HEARD prior, that he interpreted to be sexual sounds, and then briefly saw through a fogged mirror at a long distance for a couple seconds) - in addition to confirming his sworn SWIGJ testimony in the Sandusky trials, he further added that he had NEVER told ANYONE that he had seen or "eyewitnessed" a sexual act, let alone "anal rape" (and that he had only conjectured that he thought this may have been going on) and "anyone" would include his father, Dr. Dranov, JVP, C/S/S, the OAG prosecutors, OAG Investigators, etc....
The OAG cannot charge MM with perjury because he has consistently said the same think UNDER OATH and in a PA Court of Law multiple times at this point and what MM "testified to" multiple times is the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the corrupt OAG claimed he would testify to when they FABRICATED "direct evidence" in their "Presentment" and Indictments -- the OAG flat out LIED in claiming they had a star "EYEWITNESS" to their Presentment and Indictment claims relative to what MM actually told the SWIGJ!!! And the reason the OAG lied was to FABRICATE evidence as their claim that MM was an "eyewitness" to their alleged crime ("anal rape") was the only piece of non-circumstantial evidence (i.e., "direct evidence") they had in support of their primary, and most serious, indictment! IOW, their absolutely supposedly best and most unassailable piece of "evidence" (the only non-circumstantial piece of evidence that was worth anything) turned out to be a complete lie and KNOWN FRAUD perpetrated by the OAG to unjustly "frame" PSU, JVP, PSU Football Program, C/S/S, etc.....
Stewards of our great university.
Two juries, one with a number of Penn State alumni, disagree with you.
They did not need McQueary for Victim 6.
BTW: Use this photo of Donna Summer. She looks much hotter.
Last edited:
On the topic of Spanier, I came across this:
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Spanier_Analysis.pdf
States on the first page that the report was solicited by an investigator with the OAG? Has that been discussed before, that OAG was looking into Spaniers academic work?
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/Spanier_Analysis.pdf
States on the first page that the report was solicited by an investigator with the OAG? Has that been discussed before, that OAG was looking into Spaniers academic work?
Which brings us to the use of a grand jury by Frank Fina & Tom Corbett.
Which further illustrates that the OAG was using it not as a fact-finding body - but as a fault-finding one. They wanted to control the narrative.
Again - given the conduct of Michigan's state attorney general in discussing Nassar's crimes against women and girls - it's pretty clear our state attorney general in 2011 wasn't as professional or ethical.
Which further illustrates that the OAG was using it not as a fact-finding body - but as a fault-finding one. They wanted to control the narrative.
Again - given the conduct of Michigan's state attorney general in discussing Nassar's crimes against women and girls - it's pretty clear our state attorney general in 2011 wasn't as professional or ethical.
I stopped reading after Judith went on about "cover ups". And she has quite a few typos.
But yes, the OAG did send out investigators to dig up dirt on these guys. Since this is dated 2014 - I find it hilarious that the OAG is wasting taxpayer resources to go down these rabbit holes. We all did that for FREE back in 2011 & 2012.
What's next - Penn State PizzaGate?
It's too bad the OAG didn't spend these resources properly investigating the candy shop known as the Second Mile, as well as getting relevant questions answered from licensed child welfare professionals.
But yes, the OAG did send out investigators to dig up dirt on these guys. Since this is dated 2014 - I find it hilarious that the OAG is wasting taxpayer resources to go down these rabbit holes. We all did that for FREE back in 2011 & 2012.
What's next - Penn State PizzaGate?
It's too bad the OAG didn't spend these resources properly investigating the candy shop known as the Second Mile, as well as getting relevant questions answered from licensed child welfare professionals.
Last edited:
First, it usually is a good idea to look at what the defendant has published.
Second, they might be looking at references to child abuse, sexual abuse, and child sexual abuse. One thing would be to look to if Spanier was familiar, academically, with techniques of grooming by pedophiles. For example, if he described grooming and it matched things Sandusky did, that could help establish that he knew that Sandusky had a "problem."
Third, they could be looking for his attitudes for punishment of pedophiles. Does he feel that it is a mental health issue, as opposed to a criminal one? Does he feel that it is perfectly normal? That could provide a reason for not reporting.
I'm not suggesting that points 2 and 3 apply, but it is something to look at. It is good to check.
I should note that source of that article has a very strong political slant.
Last edited:
OMG
I had not seen that before...... This Judith Reisman makes STD look like a MENSA member.
For folks who don't want to read it:
According to Reisman - and this is truly what she wrote, I shit you not:
Spanier "covered up for the sexual abuses perpetrated by Alfred Kinsey"
----------------
For those who may not know - Kinsey was the noted "sexual behavior researcher" in the late 1940's early 1950's. (The "Kinsey Report", the "Kinsey Institute")
For quite some time - Kinsey's work was considered the apex of study of human sexuality
In recent years, some feminist groups have called his work "sexist", and have railed against it.
----------------
According to Judith Reisman, Spanier covered up for a "child sexual abuser" (Dr Kinsey), by........ Hold on to your hats ......
She claims Spanier "covered up for a child sexual abuser" when he cited Kinsey's research in his own academic work in the 1970's (Kinsey's work was likely cited - in one way or another - by EVERY academic work regarding human sexuality for the last 50 years)
I shit you not
This Gal is nuttier than squirrel shit....... And this will be an expert witness for the prosecution?
O.......M.......G
You wanna' know what is even more "OMG".... If she gets up on the stand - or if they read in crap form her "report", that:
Graham Spanier was protecting child sexual abusers since way back on the 1970's.....
The average juror (with the average juror IQ) will "interpret"
that to mean Spanier was covering up for Jerry Sandusky for 30 years.And - "I shit you not" on that count too
Last edited:
You're nuttier than squirrel shit...... And dumb as a bag of hair......
And, even at that, this Judith R that holds your interest
makes even you look rational by comparison
Well. I had the impression that it was inappropriate . Telling
you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that
there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and
maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals
or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had.
Sounds convincing to me Big Daddy.
you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that
there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and
maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals
or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had.
Sounds convincing to me Big Daddy.
You're nuttier than squirrel shit...... And dumb as a bag of hair......
And, even at that, this Judith R that holds your interest
Well, your hair smart enough to leave you.
I don't agree with her, but it is always a good idea to look at someone's publications, especially an academic. It tells you what they are thinking. It can establish mens rea. I doubt that it will, but it is something to check.
The list that I found had about 50 entries; none of the abstracts looked like it referred to anything on pedophilia. Spanier claimed he had over 100 publications, so I don't have a full list.
Well. I had the impression that it was inappropriate . Telling
you what kind of thing I had in my mind without being clear, without him telling me, but, you know, I had the feeling that
there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and
maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals
or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had.
Sounds convincing to me Big Daddy.
IOW, Schultz is trying to make it clear that MM felt it was "inappropriate" (same identical word used by Curley in discussion with TSM & JR; and also the identical word used by JVP in describing his conversation with MM - interesting...). Schultz is also quite clear that he thought it might have involved some type of inappropriate and inadvertent contact that occurred while Sandusky and the child were wrestling or horsing around, although he specifically says that MM did not specifically say this and that he was just conjecturing as to what it might have been....
Funny how Bozo-boy misses that JVP, Curley and Schultz all used the word "inappropriate" as the word that stands out in regards to their discussion with MM (and this specific word is confirmed contemporaneously with the 2001 event in regards to the wording Tim Curley used with JR at The Second Mile in describing what MM reported). But none of this registers with Bozo-brains....go figure.
"Grabbing" someone's genitals is not "inadvertent contact." I caught that. Schultz didn't use the terms "brushing against" or "bumping into."
Huh? First of all, he made it quite clear that the only thing MM shared was that he thought it was "inappropriate". Secondly dumb@ss, Schultz made it quite clear that the second part of his answer (i.e., everything after the "inappropriate" description) was complete CONJECTURE on his part and unequivocally NOT SOMETHING MM SAID, that he was only supplying the conjecture because the questioner asked him to AND FINALLY, that it might have been inappropriate contact that happened while wrestling or horsing around. You're completely full of $hit as per usual that Schultz was trying to say that MM described the "grabbing of genitals" - complete bull$hit translation of what Schultz said.
Schultz used the term "grabbing" and said it was his "impression." I wasn't the guy testifying.
Do you have any more on "Judaical Authority?" It does not appear to be be where you claimed it was.
No dumb@ss, Schultz clearly mentioned the wrestling around part in his CONJECTURE (which he clearly IDENTIFIED as conjecture) BEFORE he talks about the type of contact in his CONJECTURING....IOW, the horsing around or wrestling was the cause of the "inappropriate contact" that he conjectured about, which he clearly identified as conjecture and was only providing because he was asked to conjecture and give an example by the questioner!
When The Creator was giving out brains you thought he said cranes, and said, "no thank you, I have no use for one of those."...LMFAO!
In other words, your claims about DPW being a "Judicial Authority" are about as strong as Schultz's claim that DPW was called. Both total bull$hit, in you own terms. Thanks for clearing that up.
It was not "CONJECTURE" but his "impression," again his words. "Impression " is defined as "an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence." Notice the term evidence. Something McQueary said served as evidence (though perhaps not strong) to Schultz that Sandusky had "grabbed" a boys genitals.
Last edited:
Here's just the start of an article from the Lansing State Journal (by Beth LeBlanc 2/24/17) on the Michigan State- Nassar case. 5 Michigan St staffers discouraged athletes from 'acting on their concerns'. 5!!
(Paging Lou Anna Simon regarding the atmosphere she's apparently created at MSU).
Even with that, notice a difference in approach by the Michigan Attorney General as opposed to the Pennsylvania AG?
"LANSING -- While civil court filings allege that at least five MSU staffers discouraged athletes from acting on their concerns about Dr. Larry Nassar's medical treatments, so far none of those allegations have surfaced as criminal charges.
It’s unclear whether any charges might be brought or who would prosecute them.
In his news conference on Wednesday, Attorney General Bill Schuette ceded that issue to the university itself.
“Our job is reviewing the criminal actions of Larry Nassar, period,” Schuette said after announcing 22 additional sexual assault charges against the fired doctor who is at the center of a national controversy involving mistreatment of athletes from USA Gymnastics, MSU and a local gym.
At least twice during the news conference, Schuette referred questions regarding the conduct of other university employees to MSU’s internal investigation team and to Patrick Fitzgerald, a private practice attorney hired by MSU to assist the university during the investigations.........."
So, when asked about 5 Michigan State employees discouraging victims from "acting on their concerns" (i.e. going to the police), the Michigan AG says he's just concerned about "Larry Nassar, period" and he doesn't really want to hear questions on MSU staffers- take them to the MSU administration.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...u-staff-face-charges-related-nassar/98278732/
Last edited:
Completely expected
Mind-numbing differential vav the "Sandusky" situation
But, still, completely expected reaponse out in East Lansing
I could possibly see this situation placing a bit of scrutiny/heat in that bitch L A Simon's seat ...... And maybe not even that (I'd like to see her head on a pike)
But I'd be shocked if ANYTHING more than that goes down at MSU
SMH
All of which begs the question: In what universe would these guys have ignored the fact that a child had been abused if, in fact, that's what they were told? That would not have happened in a million years!
Bullshit! There's absolutely no motive. And if you believe they did it to protect the football program, then why didn't they find out who the kid was and secure his silence?
You are really some kind of stupid dumb@ss....Schultz is clearly "surmising" as he was requested to do by the questioner. Guess what dumb@ss, "surmising" would clearly be synonymous with what Schultz described he was doing....guess what else dumb@ss, it would also be synonymous with "conjecturing". Here's the definition of surmising you ignorant jack@ss, which is clearly what Schultz engaged in at the request of the questioner (and synonymous with conjecturing or rendering an impression....otherwise known as an educated guess):
sur·mise
(sər-mīz′)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
1. To make a judgment about (something) without sufficient evidence; guess: "In another pocket he came across what he surmised in the dark were pennies, erroneously, however, as it turned out" (James Joyce).
2. To say (something) as a guess or conjecture.
v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
(sər-mīz′)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
1. To make a judgment about (something) without sufficient evidence; guess: "In another pocket he came across what he surmised in the dark were pennies, erroneously, however, as it turned out" (James Joyce).
2. To say (something) as a guess or conjecture.
v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
Last edited:
Well, I see you still cannot cite you claims for the "Judicial Authority" of DPW.
Schultz used the word "impression," repeatedly. I'm going by what he said.
They did not need him for Victim 6. They did for Victim 2.
Schultz used the word "impression," repeatedly. I'm going by what he said.
They did not need him for Victim 6. They did for Victim 2.
They needed McQueary for the entire case. They needed a witness to something, anything. Then they took that story and turned it into the anal rape story that has become the narrative.
They had that from Victim 6. I suspect they will have that Curley, Schultz and/or Spanier, knew that Sandusky had a "problem," since 1998.
Similar threads
