I don't know about Sloane, but this pitbull sure would remember.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_65c0c4d0-c3cc-11e4-8bbc-c77098af8136.html
Sandusky/CSS/Penn State - unknown info
- Thread starter didier
- Start date
I don't know about Sloane, but this pitbull sure would remember.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_65c0c4d0-c3cc-11e4-8bbc-c77098af8136.html
You're right --- I'd bet he does remember as well.
I presume that the State College Police Department must have something on file as regards 1998: We've at least seen the Penn State reports (heavily redacted of course). Nothing from the town though.
Which is why you check all the previous posts before posting. I handed the link to you so you would be sure not to use a media article with cherry-picked stmts, because I figured by the previous content of your posts you didn't know where to look for primary sources.Well, because I didn't realize that the transcript was up.
If you read Courntey's testimony, he felt that it should be reported and that the decision would be up to DPW. In other words, he was not making the call.
As to "sex with a small boy" that is what McQueary reported. Even before this, (Schultz had not talked to McQueary at this point) Courtney advised Schultz to call DPW. It did not have anything to do with "grooming."
Earlier in the day on another thread you were speculating about another item and Zeno and I requested the primary source to respond, and they did. You again ignored everything they had to report and made your own speculative post 10 minutes later.
You did it yet again when Jmmy posted. With citations, links, everything you needed.
I'm just saying I wish you would read primary sources first wherever possible, think, then type. Thanks.
Last edited:
And someone else said: This is likely a different investigation entirely (not tied to the topic of this thread.)
Stufftodo is a dishonest poster. He also tried to claim that Schultz's testimony in the 12/16/11 prelim outlining what he had in his imagination as a possible explanation to MM's vague detail lacking report was somehow a smoking gun that abuse/molestation was reported to the admins.
He purposely truncated the testimony to leave out the beginning part where Schultz said "I had the impression it was inappropriate" and only included the second part of the impression he had in his imagination. Very very sneaky/dishonest.
Maybe you should go back and read the reply post? Post #24, FYI.
The reply where you brought up Sassano? I did read that one. Was it some other reply?
Anyway - Sassano. This Ganter/Schreffler/Gricar/et al meeting occurred in 1998. Sassano didn't get involved in the investigation until the late 2000s.
Am I missing something? How does anything as relates to Sassano prove that the 1998 meeting had nothing to do with Sandusky? Seriously, help me out here.
What kind of an agent is Sassano? What does he normally investigate? That was a hint as to what this other 1998 meeting was likely about. And oh, by the way, the same kind of case Gricar was working when he vanished.
Since you posted the link, which I did thank you for, I thought that I could just cite the page number, if it is the post I am thinking of. I did not realize that the transcript was posted.
Sassano did to some sexual abuse cases. http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20011110doctor1110p3.asp
What part of, "I didn't realize the transcripts were posted," don't you understand.
I'm very happy that did call it to my attention that was posted, and I thanked you.
Sassano normally investigated narcotics cases prior to getting involved w/ the Sandusky case in 2009. I know that. So what? What does that prove as relates to this October 1998 meeting?
Do you have any evidence that Sassano had anything to do with anything Penn State/State College-related in 1998? Sassano being involved in the Blair County Drug Task Force is not very good evidence. Blair County is not Centre County.
You're welcome, but that was not the topic of my reply. The topic was you failed to address the other two times you did the same thing.What part of, "I didn't realize the transcripts were posted," don't you understand.
I'm very happy that did call it to my attention that was posted, and I thanked you.
You had a link to the whole testimony and I invited you to read it. I accurately summarized the first part and posted Courtney's exact words. I did not change the meaning of it, unlike several posters have tried.
Nellie, I accurately summarized Courtney's answer, where he had not formed an opinion on if this was required to be reported; Courtney has said that specifically at several points in the transcript. That is very different from the claims that he did not think it had to be reported. Courtney then went on to explain the course of action he recommended, which I quoted. His recommendation had nothing to do if he thought PSU was required to report it.
Now, I realized his language is nuanced and that we should look at the transcript, which is why I suggested looking at it.
Last edited:
Some of the witnesses may not wish to talk until there in court. Others may not be talking publicly because they don't want to influence the case.
Was there a current or former QB betting on the outcome of games? Fran was the QB coach wasn't he?
A possible explanation - although if law enforcement became aware of sports gambling allegations, I'd think it's likely the FBI gets involved. Sports gambling is a federal thing. Right?
That scenario would theoretically get Louis Freeh involved even earlier than actually happened!
Yep. Jay's "reign of terror" as QB coach didn't begin until 1999.
Last edited:
Kevin Thompson? He was the starting quarterback in 1998, and I've heard of no problems with him.
It would not explain having both police departments and it not be likely for the DA to be involved; these things cross county (and possibly state) lines.
Good Grief
GMJ/Covey/Stuff:
You must have callouses like turtle shells built up on that thing
Well, in 1998, Thompson was the starting quarterback. Do you of any reason why Gricar, Sloane, Schreffler, and Ralston would have a sitdown with Ganter in Lasch regarding an "investigation?" A common element is Sandusky, but I'll be open to others.
Last edited:
What does ANY of this have to do with the topic of this thread? https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/sandusky-css-penn-state-unknown-info.164833/page-3
The title of this thread includes "unknown information."
It is "unknown information" as to why those 5 were meeting in October 1998.
The title of this thread also includes "Sandusky."
This meeting involved (a) Sandusky's co-worker, (b) a State College detective involved in investigating Sandusky, (c) a Penn State detective involved in investigating Sandusky, and (d/e), two Centre County investigators from Bellefonte involved in investigating Sandusky. In fact, this meeting included nobody who had nothing at all to do with Sandusky. So it is fair to speculate that this meeting may have had something to do with Sandusky.
These questions certainly seem fair to me, and fit the scope of this thread.
That's a lot of dot-connecting without having anything to verify the lines connected to the dots. Are you telling me there couldn't possibly be any other type of investigation going on concurrently?
Sure, I'm doing some dot-connecting as regards that 1998 meeting. But so were YOU earlier in this thread!
Do you care to answer the questions I asked you earlier? I'll repeat them here:
Do you have any evidence that Sassano had anything to do with anything Penn State/State College-related in 1998? Sassano being involved in the Blair County Drug Task Force is not very good evidence. Blair County is not Centre County.
Pretty sure I answered your question already in another post. #89 to be exact.
The Sassano reference was a HINT that this meeting could just as easily have been related to a similar narcotics investigation or some other kind of investigation. Could have been anything. A petty crime. Allegation of domestic violence, a DWI, myriad things.
I suppose you never read Yardbird's article on how Sassano came to be involved in the Sandusky probe and ended up breaking this entirely different (out of his normal beat) Sandusky case open that Corbett et al had laid dormant. He was tracking steroids and somehow got a toll hit with the name Sandusky in it.
Last edited:
Potentially, a lot. We have everyone that was involved in May investigation, and that was from Centre County with Sandusky's counterpart (and Paterno's friend) in Lasch discussing an "investigation." Was there something else after Lauro went back to Harrisburg? We also have some strangeness with that May investigation.
Of the five people at the meeting, one has disappeared (Gricar), one was charged with a crime, and then given a very generous plea bargain (Sloane), and one, who after 46 years of service, retires with 24 hours notice (Ganter).
And then we have that 11/01/12 presentment that spends the first five pages talking about 1998, which would not be interesting except CSS are not charged with any crime in 1998.
We might be connecting dots, but there are a whole bunch of them.
Sandusky's counterpart (and Paterno's friend) in Lasch discussing an "investigation." ???
It could have been ANYTHING. Do NO other crimes or allegations ever happen in State College?
Yes, I've read the Yardbird article.
You used the word "likely" in this thread. As in "it is likely that the October 1998 meeting had something to do with drugs."
Is there any evidence --- besides that one Yardbird article --- that Sassano was investigating a narcotics/drugs/steroids thing in Centre County in 2008/2009? Who is the mysterious source for that claim in the Yardbird article? Even if the 2008/2009 claim is true, does that mean the narcotics/drugs/steroids thing also went back to 1998?
I like to think I have an open mind. Answer those questions and I'll give your "likely" theory more credence.
And it could be SANDUSKY as well.
As for other crimes, none that I know of involving that group. Keep in mind that you are also talking about two separate police departments. I am not saying that this 10/13/98 meeting was about Sandusky, but it does seem like a likely possibility.
This Troll Patrol post is just another example of how...when you play the Beatles's Album BACKWARDS you can DEFINITELY hear..."Paul is dead...". Same type of connecting the "factual" dots.
My God, with facts coming out that expose the basic absurdity of this entire matter, manufacturing this kind of unknown criminal innuendo just shows how desperate some people are to maintain any kind of "Sandusky coverup" illusion.
REALITY CHECK....There are too many "suspicious" elements in the foundation of the public "story" on "Penn State Football Criminality" and too many "suspicious" processes that have been used to promote this "story". Face it - MM is the "Key" to the "Story" and based upon multiple sources he spoke to in 2001, HE LIED!!!!! (not the certifiable first one to lie under oath in this case).
5+ years and NO factual information which supports the OAG and the Freeh report assertion that there was a cover-up.
There is nothing but loose speculation to support the CRIMINAL CHARGES BY THE STATE concerning C/S/S. If you want to connect dots...try this - the State has known from day one that ALL charges leveled against C/S/S were LEGAL BS ---- these charges are only in place to silence any information that these people can provide to the public. The state knows that their entire "Sandusky Case" is built like a house of cards and having DIRECT evidence of the process that occurred in 2001 will DESTROY the "Story" THEY CREATED. This "most likely" will start to expose the real reason for this fiasco. That is...if they ever get to court!
What part of "a likely possibility," don't you understand? That does not mean it is definite, but it does mean it should be explored.
Of the people at this meeting four of the five are not members of the football program, so this isn't "Penn State Football Criminality."
Two juries have said that McQueary didn't lie and Paterno's testimony jibed with McQueary's. Your entire comment has no basis in fact.
You seem to think that if you believe something, it is true, simply because you believe it.
Of the people at this meeting four of the five are not members of the football program, so this isn't "Penn State Football Criminality."
Two juries have said that McQueary didn't lie and Paterno's testimony jibed with McQueary's. Your entire comment has no basis in fact.
You seem to think that if you believe something, it is true, simply because you believe it.
Come on ---"...two Juries have said..." --- they were Juries in the State of PA.. We haven't seen lynch mob jury verdicts like that since Mississippi 1926.
It is common knowledge that PA Courts are corrupt. Please...don't have me waste time with links to support for this - I respect those who read this time too much.
Fact is...the entire legal process here is SUSPICIOUS. The entire information chain on which you consistently promote is SUSPICIOUS. Who bases laws on "likely possibility" when the likely possibility is based on SUSPICIOUS and Tainted information or pure speculation.
Your mention of this meeting has some form of value, but to parse it as you do as "more Sandusky" exploration is warranted (or needed or whatever) is goofy unless you have some NEW & sound evidence on which to base all this.
This is the overall problem in a nutshell...."no facts - just likely possibilities...".
Sandusky got 30 years; McQueary got $12 million. Those were not lynch mobs. The McQueary civil was quite long and gave us all new information.
Oh, is it? And were these trials "corrupt," or do you define corrupt as being decisions you don't like.
No, I think it needs further investigation. As far as I can tell, Sandusky is the only common thread in that meeting. I will be open to other possibilities. Give a few.
No, again. Nobody is saying that this indicates anything; more than a few of, however, say it is suspicious. It becomes even more suspicious when looking at the emphasis put on 1998 in the presentment 11/01/12. You did read that presentment, right?
Last edited:
From the ongoing debate on both sides, one thing seems to be for certain.
There is considerable doubt - well beyond even reasonable doubt - as to what occurred in 2001 in the shower. So despite a jury finding Sandusky guilty of one of the charges in that incident, it reinforces the notion that juries are notoriously inept.
There is considerable doubt - well beyond even reasonable doubt - as to what occurred in 2001 in the shower. So despite a jury finding Sandusky guilty of one of the charges in that incident, it reinforces the notion that juries are notoriously inept.
(1) It becomes even more suspicious when looking at the emphasis put on 1998 in the presentment 11/01/12.
The presentment AND the Liar-for-Hire Freeh report are certifiable TRASH. So many issues with validity here I won't waste time discussing the dozens of known fabrications.
(2) "...Those were not lynch mobs..." So you think all of this makes perfect sense and is unbiased legal processes which have brought both justice and truth to the public about this entire matter??
Well ---- that means you feel it is judicially proper for the state to ignore perjury which was permitted and charges which should have been made against OAG investigators. You find no fault in releasing an OAG document that to this day is quoted as saying MM witnessed "anal rape" when by all accounts - including MM this was a fabrication. You see nothing unusual about the 5+ years for C/S/S trials? You see nothing wrong with improperly using the Grand Jury system to hide key information so that it takes YEARS to expose the known questionable issues with the OAG assertions ? This is the quality of information which creates the same "facts" you quote and on which the "honorable PA wheels of justice" have taken us. You see nothing wrong with this...RIGHT???
I am only going to say this about how you post....you consistently pick one frame out of this movie and debate something contained in that frame alone. Fine...you then give your opinion on that frame of the movie and denounce anything different than your one frame conclusion. If you get into a "discussion"...you flat out ignore anything.that exposes issues which do not fit your "story".
I have tried to get you to move beyond your one frame viewpoint and look at the whole movie.
Truth is, if you look at everything....SOMETHING IS UNDOUBTEDLY ROTTEN HERE - and I mean the "Public Story" which you so desperately try to promote.
Too many things have suspicious elements to them. Someone or some group is exerting control over the information and processes that have occurred for 5+years (Actually since 2010). THIS IS UNNATURAL and it is this fact that raises indisputable suspicions in the content validity of the "Public View" of everything concerning Penn State 2001.
You need to look at all of this as the complex movie that it is...not a frame-by-frame debate club event.
Answer this...WHO benefits from this unnatural story? Who has the capacity and the expertise to create the level of misinformation needed to support this story? Who has the influence on the PA legal processes to "bend the rules" so that an un-level playing field is assured for any media reporting?
If you have a real interest in exposing new information or discussing other posts here...GREAT. Problem is - I have yet to see anything but someone trolling to promote old illusions.
You have bought up a most interesting point... Folder was empty except invoice. Hmmmm
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-
