Literally:
1) You have me on "ignore"
2) You didn't try the test
3) You are therefore both "intellectually dishonest" and "literally" dishonest
4) I suggest you call your sponsor right away and start the steps over again.
Sandusky going with the big guns to debunk repressed memory
- Thread starter interrobang
- Start date
Literally:
1) You have me on "ignore"
2) You didn't try the test
3) You are therefore both "intellectually dishonest" and "literally" dishonest
4) I suggest you call your sponsor right away and start the steps over again.
Must be "jive"
I should have expected a racial slur from you, Barry, if that's where you're goin'
Must be "jive"
It was covey. If they aren't the same goof that is.
Because it's plain as day he believes Sandusky is innocent and he still insists on pretending he's merely an advocate for fair trials. He does it for a reason.
It's not that I care what he thinks, I was just being honest.
It's impossible to take someone seriously when they're so intellectually dishonest about their motives. He didn't visit a convicted pedo (he'd never met before) in prison on a whim.
Yes, I believe that Sandusky is likely innocent. I can't be 100% certain because I was not directly involved. Based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, I believe that his trial was inherently unfair. In order to establish his guilt or innoccence, I believe it must first be established that his trial was unfair and that is my focus at this time.
Are you willing to acknowledge that his trial was unfair? Are you 100% certain that he is guilty?
I have a different take. I went to a memorial service for the father in law of a close PSU friend yesterday. My buddy's brother in law was there, who I've met once or twice before and who happens to live in Columbus. I remember my friend and I going to a PSU @ OSU game many years ago. I also remember planning to stay with his brother in law, but have no clear recollection that we actually did. However, I could have easily been convinced that we had. I even have "memories" of his house. From pictures? Must be!
My point is that real events become cloudy with the passage of time. The mind plays tricks on us. I don't deny that people sometimes suppress memories of traumatic events. But without corroborating evidence, these "memories" shouldn't be enough to put someone in prison for the rest of his life.
You believe the Tickle Monster is innocent. Why? Because he says so.
EVERYBODY ELSE - the witnesses, the prosecution, the police departments - without exception are all liars. The jury was rigged and incompetent. STANDING ALONE as the paragon of truth is Soapy - the guy who never missed a chance to shower with adolescents.
I hate to break it to you, but 'ol Swim Trunks is down for the count. He ain't getting out. Not now, not never.
Innocence has nothing do with those not exactly bringing honor to this case:
- Grandy jury judge relieved of his duties
- Disgraced Prosecutor caught up in another scandal
- A grandy jury leak
- Charges leaked early to the tipped off media
- A presentment with a big lie
- PSP Trooper #1 lied on the stand
- PSP Trooper #2 lied on the stand
- A juror dismissed for texting, not once but twice
- Another prosecutor claiming a victim was known only to God
- PCRA judge forced to recuse himself after potentially becoming a fact witness
What kind of imbeciles run investigations in Pa.? They allow records of a charity to be shredded, they don't question principals of a charity to see what they knew/did with regard to shredding. They allow a charity to be closed in record time, tighter than a bull's ass. They don't review financial and check registers of a charity to see where money was going. This reeks of political interference/end running to avoid responsibility. Finally, they don't question morons on the BoT why they authorized payments with no establishment of credibility, and insisted that claimants sign a document that they won't sue TSM.
Lots of red flags and motives that went under the rug with the cat and dog shit.
Lots of red flags and motives that went under the rug with the cat and dog shit.
Believe what you what to believe.
The facts are:
1. Mike McQueary did not witness a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower in Feb. 2001.
2. Tim Curley and Gary Schultz did not take part in a conspiracy or a cover-up and would have impeached Mike McQueary's testimony at trial if they had not been charged and thus been able to testify.
3. Janitor James Calhoon stated to investigators that the man he witnessed in a shower abusing alleged victim 8 was not Sandusky
4. All of the 8 accusers at trial provided testimony at trial that was far worse than what they originally reported. (I believe this was due to a number of reasons including suggestive questioning by investigators, repressed memory therapy techniques by psychologists, and financial incentives)
5. Sandusky has never wavered in professing his innocence since day 1. Before 2011, he had never been charged with a crime and had a clean record. There has been zero pornography found in Sandusky's possession.
6. Sandusky's trial lawyers were totally ineffective as demonstrated by:
a. waiving his preliminary hearing and giving up his right to put the alleged victims on record for possible impeaching at trial
b. allowing Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas unprepared
c. not withdrawing from the case when it became apparent that they would not be able to provide the effective defense that their client deserved
d. erroneously stating that there was overwhelming evidence against Sandusky
e. being totally unprepared to cross examine the accusers
f. promising the jury that Sandusky would testify and then walking it back
g. mismanaging the v2 and v8 counts by not introducing exculpatory statements
h. failing to challenge the use of repressed memory techniques and bringing in an expert to testify on how associated testimony would be totally unreliable
i. not objecting to the trial court's erroneous character witness jury instruction that the jury could not find reasonable doubt based on character evidence alone
j. ineffectively challenging the behavior of the OAG in possible prosecutorial misconduct including:
-The false Grand Jury Presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed a sex act in the shower
-The illegal OAG grand jury leak in March 2011 to Sara Ganim in their quest to identify more accusers
-The OAG investigators suggesting testimony to v4 after he already made a statement and before he went before the grand jury (this was taped unbeknownst to investigators)
-The OAG making a knowingly false statement when they said v2 was "unknown to us...known to God but not to us."
-Using Sandusky's constitutional right to remain silent against him in closing arguments
-Charging Curley and Schultz with felonies when the evidence didn't warrant it so they wouldn't be defense witnesses
How can you be 100% certain that Sandusky is guilty?
Did you actually witness Sandusky sexually assaulting a minor?
Well.......
It sure helps when 99% of folks are more than happy to accept the massive piles of idiotic bullshit, because.........CSA (and Football)
A society of MENSA members? We are not.
Critical Thinking has proven to be incongruent with the Twitter Age.
More so than at any other time in human history - - - - despite the fact that access to information is greater than it ever was.
Hugs and kisses. You just keep walking that fence Mix. You are confused and yet so transparent. It's cute.
It sucks Joe took a beating in all of this, but life isn't always fair. You just keep yelling idiot and walking that fence. Toodles.
From the material (testimony) just released it seems Amendola and the current Sandusky Team are in agreement with how unusual it was for the courts to deny any and all requests for a continuance. Many questionable things occurred and now I wonder what was the rush?
The now retired state troopers who perjured themselves are an arrogant duo IMO.
The now retired state troopers who perjured themselves are an arrogant duo IMO.
Because I am extremely intelligent and have an extraordinary amount of common sense.
You posted the "fact" that " Mike McQueary did not witness a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower in Feb. 2001.". Were you there?
Your assertion that you are intelligent and have common sense is debatable. In fact, using it as proof that you 100% sure is evidence that you aren't.
I base my assertion that MM did not witness a sexual assault is a fact based on MM's email to Eshbach that she twisted his words in the GJP and testimony particularly by Dr. Dranov and others that MM told them he only heard noises and didn't witness anything.
So you don't have to be a witness to state a fact. Therefore I repeat, I am 100%
sure of the fact that Sandusky is a pedophile and belongs in prison.
You are wlecome to your own opinions but not your own facts. IMO, the basis for your statement that you are 100% sure of the fact that Sandusky is a pedophile is very weak.
No sane person would visit a pedophile in prison to ask him if he is innocent or for
any other reason. If you had an ounce of common sense, you could have asked me
or a myriad of others who would have told you what he was going to say. So if we are
going to compare opinions, mine carries much more weight than yours since I am sane,
very intelligent and have an enormous amount of common sense. We are polar opposites.
Dude is living in fantasy land and people cheer him on.
You can spend your time waiting for Saint Soapsuds to be canonized. Meanwhile, I'm spending my time waiting for the old chomo to croak.
Everything you say here is 100% correct. Everybody knows that this state is crookeder than a dog's hind leg. It's effed - no question.
But none of it means Sandusky ain't guiltier than a plate full of mortal sins.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Your comment shows your ignorance. Sandusky will never be exonerated
nor see the light of day. Get a clue.
You are welcome to your own opinions. Please don't take offense if my opinions are different than yours.
Then......... why do you feel the need to incessantly pontificate about his guilt?
Not something a MENSA member, like yourself, would be expected to do.
