Eshbach and Rossman told Mike Gillum (in June 2009) that they had evidence of an incident that occurred in 1998 (that they were not at liberty to share with him).
Ray Blehar....MM caught in lie?
- Thread starter marshall23
- Start date
Eshbach and Rossman told Mike Gillum (in June 2009) that they had evidence of an incident that occurred in 1998 (that they were not at liberty to share with him).
Yes. Plus I followed up with Gillum via email to confirm the accuracy of what he wrote.
The part where he says it was sexual in nature but qualified that statement by saying that he didn’t know what you would call the sexual act. Anyone without a joebot agenda understands what he meant.
You feel better? Apparently you selectively read what I post which is fine because things you stated in this very post contradict what I said. It shouldn't have been about PSU but poor leadership and the lack of one phone call sadly allowed it to be that way. Now you can kick, scream, pout, and call me names all you want to...as it's clearly misdirected.
the actual change in the law the OAG "stretched" to apply to C/S/S was made in 2007. and it still doesn't seem to apply to any of them.
Really?
KJ leaving was not a big secret. It was in the works for some time. I don't live in or anywhere near State College, and I heard rumors about it several weeks before it became official, and got confirmation that it was in the works a couple of weeks before it became official.
Mike lived in State College, and worked at Lasch. I can't think of any circumstance in which Mike was not aware that KJ was leaving before it became official.
As always, believe what you want.
Anyone who had heard Joe speak in the 20 years prior to his testimony understood what he meant, and it isn't your interpretation.
Victim 2 is known here and it is written in cement.
Be careful, the mob can turn pretty easily ray. 
And on top of that, the jurors might have actually listened to the testimony before putting the man in jail for crimes the OAG know damn well he didn't commit.
But how would he know that THAT particular night, Kenny would visit Joe at his home? That was my main point. The fact the Kenny apparently did visit does not change whether Mike knew that.
More importantly, when these emails were exchanged, the DATE was wrong. The DATE in question in 2011 had nothing to do with Kenny Jackson. So when someone uses the Kenny Jackson visit as proof that Mike knew Joe was not "out-of-town," that could, maybe, have been true at the time (2001), but NOT in 2011 when Mike wrote these emails - he was writing about what he thought was an incident in 2002! If the Kenny Jackson meeting was as well known as you seem to remember, Mike would have known it was 2001, not 2002.
well you need to include the GJ that actually heard JVP testimony, as they didnt indict JS after hearing that.
It’s like you’re Jimmy Snuka flying off the top rope with that one. Where did that come from?
Bob, as always, you have great insight. Very nice job of pointing out that inconsistency.
I was of the impression that even a murder conviction is a difficult task with no body.
How is it that 3 men were sentenced to jail (actually 4 if you include JS) and there is no victim?
Where is victim 2, known only to God? Someone got his three million.
Centre County was hemorrhaging victims once it started raining PSU millions...........surely JR and BH knew who it was/is.
How is it that 3 men were sentenced to jail (actually 4 if you include JS) and there is no victim?
Where is victim 2, known only to God? Someone got his three million.
Centre County was hemorrhaging victims once it started raining PSU millions...........surely JR and BH knew who it was/is.
Tom,
I agree and probably should have been more accurate in my post.
My sources told me that Joe helped Kenny get the Steeler job, so Kenny was not there to tell Joe he was leaving. Rather, it was more or less just a good bye visit from a player who was like a son to Joe (and a brother to Jay).
As for the rest, there are those who believe that Mike tried to use this incident as leverage to get Kenny's job. Maybe. Maybe not.
Plenty of cases are decided on circumstantial evidence, especially when the defendant cannot provide an alibi or contradictory evidence. There was plenty of testimony and physical evidence (lists, phone records, CYS reports, Sandusky's admissions, etc) that the jury considered in rendering guilty verdicts for the vast majority of charges.
There are plenty of victims and the endangerment case was made on 3 victims (V5, V1, and V9).
No one has come forward to verify Mike's account or give a description that puts them in the shower on February 9th. BTW, A.M. got $7 million, not $3 million -- because he claimed his abuse happened in March 2002, not February 2001.
As for the real Victim 2 not getting millions -- don't be so sure of that. Imagine what his silence was worth if he provided credible evidence that he was the kid in the shower on February 9, 2001 AND that insists he was never victimized.
Last edited:
No, we don't. Because this grand jury testimony actually was a transcript from a previous grand jury. The grand jury that issued the indictments did not actually hear Joe say it. What they heard was an interpretation by the court recorder. Now, I'd expect it to be accurate as regards wording. But not emphasis. Or hesitation. The classic example is the sentence
"Let's eat grandma"
How it is spoken carries a lot of meaning. Punctuation can only be inferred.
This entire thread is so asinine with so much misinformation and wild ass speculation.............. Let's ask Ruth Anne when Kenny knew about Jerry and specifically the '01 incident and even more importantly who called to tell him......
Others have come forward as well.... secretary from football office, MM's GF at the time and Ruth Anne....
Way too hilarious that Dranov has been a savior to the joe whackos because they think he somewhat contradicted MM's testimony and yet now you are saying that Dranov is lying about the friday night meeting even taking place. At least you know how to get the joe whackos foaming at the mouth but there is no bigger fool in all of this than you are Ray.
Stay tuned for the documentary.....................................................................
A.M. would have been about 15 in 2002....color me skeptical.
Why are the PSU 3 reponsible for V1?
Don't be so sure that call wasn't made. I'm relatively sure it was.
The AG knew that even if PSU made the call, DPW and CYS could NOT have acted on the report because that's the way the system works. They need the name of the victim before they can undertake an investigation.
I wrote about that here, excerpting from the Auditor General's report.
Well there it is! Right from the horses ass's mouth.
Well there has to be a reason Tom Harmon has enjoyed The Commonwealth's Guard All Shield.
Well, easy to understand. Especially if you believe that such a traumatic event in MM's life and he couldn't remember what year it was.
Schultz has said several times under oath that he thinks it was reported but does not remember details. This suggests to me that it was reported but no directly by Schultz.
It also indirectly supports the idea that no one thought this was a five alarm fire at the time it happened (i.e. if there had been reports of "anal rape" there would be lots of documentation of who called who when).
Yes, Ruth Anne. Had she been credible, she would have been a prosecution witness. But she wasn't, was she? Maybe because she got the year wrong too. Or maybe because of her bitter break up with Kenny. Or maybe both.
It is also a fact that the AG fudged the dates in this case quite frequently. So what is the harm in fudging that the meeting took place on Saturday morning instead of Friday night. I'm sure Dr. Dranov would rather have fudged the date than become a defendant. Same goes for John Sr.
It's not about me. It's about the truth.
And if you're siding with the AG, then you're on the wrong side of the truth.
It was such a big deal, that Mike never objected to the way his report was handled.
IIRC it was in GS hand written notes and there was a check by it. He has testified that he thought a report was made, but as you note, cant remember the details. Do I think he is making that up to CYA? no I think, he thinks a report was made.
Certainly does seem that MM lies and the rest swear to it?
I'm well aware that you said a few posts earlier than the one I commented to that you said it should never have been about PSU football and Paterno.
But, you "SSDD" it very often. Why?
You don't support/defend that false narrative that has been spewed. Hard evidence like V2 is on the table and you choose to go silent. Why?
Hard evidence like Esbach's comments are on the table and you call everyone a JoeBot. Why?
I can't say that I've ever seen you jump all over GMJ for his inane rants and selective memory. He wants to make it all about Paterno and Paterno only and you let him go. Why?
So you slipped in a truthful comment earlier. Good for you. Past performance is an indicator future p[erformance
For the most part, Tim, Gary, and Graham were relying on documents provided to them AFTER they testified to a grand jury to fill in the blanks of their memories. Graham has no recollection of seeing the 1998 emails.
The problem is what other evidence was out there that they didn't get to see or was withheld from discovery...such as the McQueary email that started this thread.
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
I'll say this --- if I was trying to prove a case of "As regards the Sandusky story, Penn State and PSU people got jobbed in 2011-2012 by the Pennsylvania DA and such, and the story as regards Penn State and these PSU people is not what it seems" --- I'd always be starting my narrative with Jonelle Eshbach and hammering the point home that she's a liar and leaker.
She's also a clear conduit to Corbett.
Getting Eshbach disbarred would also be something tangibly accomplished. I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this, but for all your investigating you are a bit short on tangible accomplishments over the last 5 years. Eshbach does definitely appear to deserve to be disbarred.
