Good Lord, just because you want for the transcripts to be altered does not mean that they were. People come on here and see this drivel and then call us a cult. Don't get pissed because others refuse to live in your fantasy world.
Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
You can assume whatever you like. It appears that assuming is your favorite thing. It is
a trait that most conspiracy nuts share.
Now it was a "non-event". Sandusky had so many non events that he was sentenced to what amounts
to life in prison. There is something wrong with people like you. Seek help.
Content....When you have nothing REAL to say...you leave out content. Pathetic would be an improvement in your case. Change your medication!!
Dude. Conspiracy nut?
You really need to step up your game. Take a few cues from CR66 - at least TRY to possess a more credible on-line persona.
At the very least - have an avatar. Show some interest. Have some pride in your trolling. Give us something to work with.
You really need to step up your game. Take a few cues from CR66 - at least TRY to possess a more credible on-line persona.
At the very least - have an avatar. Show some interest. Have some pride in your trolling. Give us something to work with.
There is nothing to say when someone makes up their own version of a story with zero backing it other than their own emotions.
Sandusky may be WORSE than charged, but it does not change the fact that his trial and all the misinformation that was generated by the State of PA and the media made justice in a fair courtroom impossible.
The "Non-event" mentioned is based upon the sworn testimony of the "victim". Too many people who talked directly to MM acted like it (MM event) was a "non(legal) event". Keep wishing...facts are eroding the basic premise NOT ABOUT SANDUSKY'S GUILT...but about the legal issues around Sandusky's trial and conviction.
Of course, Justice is unimportant when ESPN is your source for "facts". I don't know why you hold onto a "Story" that has as many "suspicious elements" used in its construction, but if it makes you feel better that Justice means nothing.....I guess that's good enough for you.
PA Courts??? Oh, you mean the "Kids-for-Cash" courts. Really credible State track record for justice. Its all about the money....$625,000 for election funds ---- who knows how much of the PSU $250M for criminal hush money!
Yes, the PA courts and the jury of our peers. I trust them way more than your demented mind.
So "Kids-for-Cash" is PA Justice!!! And you say ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF IS DEMENTED?????
You have nothing other than your own conspiracies and you act like the vast majority of the world is wrong on this issue. Yes, that is the work of a demented mind.
I believe actions speak louder than words. MM, Dr. D, Dad, Curley and Schultz had a duty if they thought that a law was broken. Dr. D, specifically, was trained in such matters. To believe there was a conspiracy, would have to believe that MM, Dr. D, Dad were part of a conspiracy that included Curley and Schultz. That simply makes no sense. of course, in 2011, after the world blew up, they "said words" in order to cover their butts. But their actions, or inactions, in 2001 belie those 2010/11 words.
Did not know this. Just another typically incredible coincidence, I guess. Uh huh.
OK. But that would be to say that Dr. Dranov (for one) broke the law. Yet, for some reason, has never been cited or arrested. You have to ask yourself why that is. And, on top of that, there has been no investigation of the Second Mile. Why is that? Why the disparate treatment of Dr. Dranov as compared to Paterno, Curley and Schultz?
So, since the actions of MM, Dranov, Dad are consistent with Curley an Schultz, yet they haven't been harassed by law enforcement, reported as conspiracists or reported as miscreants, do you understand why there is so little belief in the PSU narrative we are expected to accept?
I'm sorry, but you just can't ignore their sworn testimony. As I said, their actions were those of people who didn't want to deal with the problem.
yes...you can ignore their sworn testimony....because their actions in 2001 show that their sworn testimony IS NOT consistent with their actions/lack of actions. Personally, I don't care much for words. I love the line "I am sorry, I can't hear your words because your actions are speaking too loudly".
I am noting your resistance in answering my simple question. So, I'll ask it again:
OK. But that would be to say that Dr. Dranov (for one) broke the law. Yet, for some reason, has never been cited or arrested. You have to ask yourself why that is. And, on top of that, there has been no investigation of the Second Mile. Why is that? Why the disparate treatment of Dr. Dranov as compared to Paterno, Curley and Schultz?
In addition, Dr. Dranov (if not more) were just as guilty as Curley and Schultz....so why the disparate treatment?
How could Mike tell C & S or Paterno or anyone for that matter that he saw something sexual when moments after he saw Jerry in the shower with the boy he told his dad he saw nothing more than that?
Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.
John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.
Also if Joe was so clear in his testimony that it was a sexual nature, why was the follow up question this and not referencing sexual?
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Last edited:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/transcript-joe-paternos-grand-jury-testimony/
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Q: To whom or with whom did you share the information that McQueary had given you?
Paterno: I talked to my immediate boss, our athletic director.
Q: What is that person’s name?
Mr. Paterno: Tim Curley.
Q: How did you contact Mr. Curley?
Mr. Paterno: I believe I did it by phone. As I recall, I called him and I said, hey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him.
Q: Was the information that you passed along substantially the same information that Mr. McQueary had given you?
Mr. Paterno: Yes.
Paterno DID NOT testify that he used the term "sexual nature" with Curley. He doesn't say anything about what he told Curley, other than agreeing that it was "substantially the same information" that McQ had given him.
Just another one of your no content - no answer.
Your posts like this are tired and valueless.
But for those who read these posts in order to better understand the topic....I am NOT putting forth my own anything.
I am pointing out that in 2011-12 there was a story that was sold to the public - that story came directly from PA OAG sources and it was flawed - so flawed that it was fictitious - even the YEARS were wrong. Since the "evidence" on which this document was based was a Grand Jury Investigation - a process which effectively excludes validation of legal content - it is ripe for creating injustice for reasons that benefit a small number of government "insiders".
What a convenient way to create misinformation (at least) or hide any outright lies. It is something that only the STATE OF PA could do and if those inside the state wanted to hide/create their own criminal activities...this is the perfect tool to do it!
It also should be mentioned that is this is an illegal use of the Grand Jury Process based upon the kind of crime which was investigated.
Fundamentally, the "story" that has provided the public (and the getmyjive11 uberkind) with the information that created the court's "guilty verdict" for Sandusky IN ALL OF THE 40+ ALLEGATIONS came from testimonies assembled in this process. Now, 5 years later, we know (lots of new things, but especially) that 2 of the individuals (nearly a dozen of the counts) are reasonably "HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS".
Why, because in the case of MM's "Shower incident" (reported by the OAG as a RAPE - something manufactured as MM's own testimony NEVER said that) we have been advised by SWORN TESTIMONY that nothing happened in that shower. This fact's impact..... this effectively confirms that MM's "sexual" story is WRONG!!!. By the "victim's" sworn statement, the multiple witnesses to direct MM testimony in 2001 stating that MM did not report criminal activity happened are essentially fully validated as true. This eliminates the core criminal premise that ANYONE form Penn State tried to coverup anything!!! No Crime (or suspected crime) - no "reporting to police was needed". Game-Set-Match!
This fundamental issue is what you need to deal with if you believe the "Story" as presented by the OAG (who promoted conviction and the Criminal PSU Culture) and the media who retold the misinformation for weeks/years.
As far as conspiracies go, I do not make up events and suspicious issues of action that point back to a KNOWN government corruption. I did not make up the destruction of all TSM records with the full knowledge of State OAG/PSP authorities. I did not take $650M+ in campaign funds from TSM even while it was KNOWN-TO-ME as AG that a criminal investigation was being conducted against Sandusky. I did not hire my recommended personal friend "Louie-the-Liar Freeh" to parrot the findings of the flawed OAG "Story" without one shred of evidence to support its "Summary".
Look no matter how little you answer the real questions here...no matter how many restatements of "victims" and "guilty by a court of peers" you state as reasons for your posting - it does not negate the MOUNTAINS OF SUSPICIOUS ISSUES surrounding Sandusky's TRIAL/CONVICTION. It does not eliminate the linkage to PA government doing "the wrong things" ON A CONSISTENT BASIS (small example....rights to a speedy trial for C/S/S) . Painfully, it also does not eliminate the fact that PSU's executive BOT is closely connected to PA politics/politicians.
If "...the work of a demented mind... is working to insure the suspicions surrounding this $250M theft are properly, fairly and legally exercised, then we just need to adopt your definition of demented. Under your definition....Demented must mean dedicated to the truth - dedicated to obtaining justice and making sure the real criminals pay for their crimes!
Maintaining your "Story" when it inherently contains so many suspicious issues does nothing to insure that critical problems are exposed. Just "move on'...nothing to see here.
There is credible evidence to support there are currently unprosecuted crimes resulting from state corruption - courts, government and politicians. These issues need to be addressed and corrected.
Last edited:
This why I rarely answer gmj and the other padorkies because it has been the same meaningless, repetitious drivel for 5 years on every site that will have them. They had 50 page threads that got filled, then they would start the same crap over and over. The drivel is now buried, and Mark got wise to them. They must have had 20 50 page long threads on the same valueless nonsense, then run over to the Patriot and post the same junk. ESPN shut its boards down after banning them numerous times.
Doll, if you have so much information about this grand conspiracy, why don't you take it to the Washington Post or NY Times instead of indulging the rubes on this board.
Last edited:
^^^^. Someone is barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest. ^^^^^
Just because you increase the volume of BS you spew doesn't make it more valid.
"Doll?" Now you've become sexist?
If I'm a "dude" she can be a doll.
I guess I'm going to open up Pandora's box here, but the one thing that has always bothered me about this from Penn State's end (besides the actual crimes and possible, though not proven coverup) is how similar the 1998 and 2001 incidents were. They spoke to Jerry about the 98 incident regarding showering with boys, he said he'd stop doing it and admitted he was wrong. Three years later, he's caught showering with boys on their campus, and what was their response? This didn't raise a single red flag to any of the parties involved? We haven't seen any evidence that anything of significance happened to Jerry. It should be noted that if there was an investigation, the DPW would've deleted those records by now.
That, to me, is the biggest issue I have with the whole case from PSU's end. I just don't get why their suspicions may not have been raised at that time.
That, to me, is the biggest issue I have with the whole case from PSU's end. I just don't get why their suspicions may not have been raised at that time.
Who is They? MSU's gymnastic's coach? Joe? Lavar Arrington? Bozo the clown? SuePa? Curley? Spanier? Not for anything, but I'm not sure you really know what occurred to be honest.
The problem with the 98 reference is you need to know who THEY are and what did THEY know. Then when you reference any coverup, where is that smoking gun...the 11-13 people told about it? Not really a good coverup when you tell your superiors.
They is obviously PSU in this context.
But if you can find anything that says PSU didn't know about 1998, I'd love to see it.
