Seven Years Ago Today

[francofan]

Wrong. Jerry's answer was no, he was not sexually attracted to young men.

Yes, he equivocated and it was not a forceful denial. At the time, I instinctively thought it was a sign of clear guilt. I immediately thought that Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola was trying a hail Mary pass because Jerry was desperate and probably guilty.

As I have learned more about the case, I realize my instincts were wrong. I now know that that is the way Jerry answers any question. He repeats the question and thinks about his answer. If Amendola had done any prep work, Jerry should have been able to give a forceful denial whether he was guilty or not. This demonstrates to me how ineffective Amendola was in his defense of Sandusky. Bob Costas now cautions people of reading too much into his interview with Sandusky. He wrote a favorable book review of Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" which shows me that Costas realizes that things just aren't as clear cut as the narratives that the OAG and the main stream media have sold.

John Ziegler interviewed Mark Pendergrast on his weekly podcast on Nov 11, 2017
(). In the podcast around the 32:20 mark, Ziegler read the following statement from Bob Costas that Costas made to help Pendergrast get the book published.

"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."

 

[marshall23]

The above response to Costas sealed Jerry's conviction. Has Snedden or anyone explained how the OAG coerced that answer out of him?

Jerry doesn't express himself well....you can relate.

 

[MJG-90]

Read it. I have always said I’d like to see another trial. Let it fly. I’ve also always said I’m open to changing my mind if somebody could start with legitimizing his showering activities. I always get, “Well, they were sweaty after working out.” That line always insinuates that one must then have physical contact with the underage boy while engaged in the post-workout shower. The other line is, “l’ll admit is was bad judgement.” At best, it is incomprehensibly bad judgement. More than once and it is a neon sign over your head saying, “Pedophile”.

I try to not take sides in this since I don’t know Jerry and have no clue what actually happened (and I assume nobody else in this thread does either). Two things are clear to me. 1. Showering with boys and hugging them while naked is totally creepy. And is a massive red flag. But it doesn’t prove anything else. (I’m aware of victim testimony, I talking about just the showering in a vacuum, with no other evidence). 2. Given the amount of known prosecutorial misconduct, jerry should get a new trial.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I'll put this out here. PA is well regarded, nationwide, amongst the legal community, for considering appeals fairly and even bending over backwards in favor of the convicted.

I would like the legal scholars like francofan to provide evidence that the PA courts tend to be biased against the convicted.

He throws that out as a fact, but the opposite is true.

Just another example where he and the rest of FreeJerryCrowd haven't done any honework.

 

[marshall23]

I'll put this out here. PA is well regarded, nationwide, amongst the legal community, for considering appeals fairly and even bending over backwards in favor of the convicted.

I would like the legal scholars like francofan to provide evidence that the PA courts tend to be biased against the convicted.

He throws that out as a fact, but the opposite is true.

Just another example where he and the rest of FreeJerryCrowd haven't done any honework.

Pa. Is "amongst" the most corrupt (under rated at #5) states in the US. LOL

 

[Connorpozlee]

I try to not take sides in this since I don’t know Jerry and have no clue what actually happened (and I assume nobody else in this thread does either). Two things are clear to me. 1. Showering with boys and hugging them while naked is totally creepy. And is a massive red flag. But it doesn’t prove anything else. (I’m aware of victim testimony, I talking about just the showering in a vacuum, with no other evidence). 2. Given the amount of known prosecutorial misconduct, jerry should get a new trial.

I’m all for a new trial. If it starts with Jerry’s showering activities and is followed up by victims testifying that he assaulted them, he will end up with much the same result.

 

[indynittany]

Joe said
“I don’t know what you’d call it”

"I'm not sure what it was."

 

[indynittany]

The above response to Costas sealed Jerry's conviction. Has Snedden or anyone explained how the OAG coerced that answer out of him?

You have to admit his answer puts a chink in Clemente's armor. If Jerry was the diabolical monster he was sold to us as, he would have had a well thought out answer to that question.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You have to admit his answer puts a chink in Clemente's armor. If Jerry was the diabolical monster he was sold to us as, he would have had a well thought out answer to that question.

Doesn’t matter which way it goes Indy, you find a way to make it a positive for Sandusky.

 

[Legion of Lions]

I'll put this out here. PA is well regarded, nationwide, amongst the legal community, for considering appeals fairly and even bending over backwards in favor of the convicted.

I would like the legal scholars like francofan to provide evidence that the PA courts tend to be biased against the convicted.

He throws that out as a fact, but the opposite is true.

Just another example where he and the rest of FreeJerryCrowd haven't done any homework.

PLEASE....change your medication!!!!!! "..... PA (court) is well regarded, nationwide...."

Name ONE other case anywhere where the investigation into the charges PERMITTED (encouraged is a better term) the use of coercing MULTIPLE witnesses to obtain the desired "testimony" to support prosecution. And this is all recorded on tape thereby factually supporting that the PA investigators involved PERJURED themselves on how they conducted their "inquiries". These absolute and certified (by the State's own recordings) illegalities were NOT advised within the trial - PLUS (get this) - the PA courts pressed NO PERJURY CHARGES. ???????

Add to that that the date/time of the PSU shower "crimes" in early 2000's (pick a year!!) was wrong - and - the "Victim" on which PSU was brought into this mess was reported at the trial to be "...Known but to God...".

How do you have ANY crime where the YEAR of the crime is "what ever we say it is" and the key witness - MM - has stated in writing to Joan Eisenbach that the testimony used in the GJP was not what he said happened. How is Eisenbach's response to MM of "shut up MM...you'll ruin our case.." a just and legal action by the State of PA in how the case against Sandusky was "crafted".

So - YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK - just give me JUST ONE legal case in any other state were Perjury in support essential prosecution accusations goes unpunished - the YEAR of the crime is wrong and there is no "victim" because that victim is known but to God".

There is Sooooo much more, but we can start with this. I can't WAIT to see your NON-RESPONSE!!!

Facts just don't support your assertion that justice lives in PA - it only supports the obvious - only legal corruption ruled the outcomes of the Sandusky and C/S/S trials!

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

PLEASE....change your medication!!!!!! "..... PA (court) is well regarded, nationwide...."

Name ONE other case anywhere where the investigation into the charges PERMITTED (encouraged is a better term) the use of coercing MULTIPLE witnesses to obtain the desired "testimony" to support prosecution. And this is all recorded on tape thereby factually supporting that the PA investigators involved PERJURED themselves on how they conducted their "inquiries". These absolute and certified (by the State's own recordings) illegalities were NOT advised within the trial - PLUS (get this) - the PA courts pressed NO PERJURY CHARGES. ???????

Add to that that the date/time of the PSU shower "crimes" in early 2000's (pick a year!!) was wrong - and - the "Victim" on which PSU was brought into this mess was reported at the trial to be "...Known but to God...".

How do you have ANY crime where the YEAR of the crime is "what ever we say it is" and the key witness - MM - has stated in writing to Joan Eisenbach that the testimony used in the GJP was not what he said happened. How is Eisenbach's response to MM of "shut up MM...you'll ruin our case.." a just and legal action by the State of PA in how the case against Sandusky was "crafted".

So - YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK - just give me JUST ONE legal case in any other state were Perjury in support essential prosecution accusations goes unpunished - the YEAR of the crime is wrong and there is no "victim" because that victim is known but to God".

There is Sooooo much more, but we can start with this. I can't WAIT to see your NON-RESPONSE!!!

Facts just don't support your assertion that justice lives in PA - it only supports the obvious - only legal corruption ruled the outcomes of the Sandusky and C/S/S trials!

My comment was on PA appeals courts. Next?

 

[Legion of Lions]

My comment was on PA appeals courts. Next?

If the courts are controlled by crooked politicians who need a Sandusky-PSU Scandal to cover a host of illegal activities concerning the OAG "Mafia", then why would you even consider the State of PA HAS an appeals process???

Illegality IS the law in PA - Appeals courts included.
And appeal to what.....appeal to the same Harrisburg crooks who planned and benefited from all of this?

Want a REAL motive why the appeal process as long as it stays in PA Courts, has been so one sided and will never happen - beyond the obvious and "stupid" Corbett led OAG "Vendetta"....why not look at the "fines" collected that still sit buried in the PA books. This is AT LEAST $60M reasons to deny appeals!! You expect PA to risk exposing collusive crimes from the past 7 years AND a $60M slush fund by granting an appeal??????

Again....Change your medication!

 

[okinburg1]

Good sports talk.

Good sports talk.

 

[okinburg1]

Had to be done

 

[RussianEagle]

You have to admit his answer puts a chink in Clemente's armor. If Jerry was the diabolical monster he was sold to us as, he would have had a well thought out answer to that question.

True. I also find it very ironic that people will claim absolutely nothing of value could be gleaned from Ziegler’s prison interviews because Sandusky is a liar, but will claim Sandusky hesitated in the Costas interview because of some innate unwillingness to lie.

 

[francofan]

I'll put this out here. PA is well regarded, nationwide, amongst the legal community, for considering appeals fairly and even bending over backwards in favor of the convicted.

I would like the legal scholars like francofan to provide evidence that the PA courts tend to be biased against the convicted.

He throws that out as a fact, but the opposite is true.

Just another example where he and the rest of FreeJerryCrowd haven't done any honework.

I am by no means a legal expert. I am not a lawyer. However in the case associated with the Penn State/Sandusky scandal, I can cite a couple of questionable judicial decisions by the Pennsylvania appellete courts.

The Spanier case is a good example. Superior Court denied and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided not to even consider the appeal of Spanier's conviction against the ex post facto and due process clauses of the constitution. It is a basic right to be tried against the laws in place at the time of the alleged crime rather than laws put in place after the alleged crime took place. Spanier allegedly committed the crime in 2001, but was prosecuted using a law written in 2007. The Pa. Supreme Court didn't think it was worth their time to even consider the case! In the end the Supreme Court was rebuked by the federal court and left with egg on their faces.

I believe that Shapiro has until the end of July to decide if he wants to retry the case against the 1995 version of the children protection laws. I would love to see a retrial, but my guess is that Shapiro won't want to risk losing since he doesn't have a very strong case. I hope that Spanier's legal jeopardy ends with the federal court's denial of Shapiro's appeal.

I also believe that the Pennsylvania Superior Court blew it with their denial of Sandusky's appeal of Judge Foradora's PCRA ruling. It seems that Superior Court knew something was amiss ordering a new sentencing, but their denial to overrule Foradora's decision will be shown to be wrong eventually by higher courts in the future imho. I think the decision is wrong based on the facts that have been put in the record. I think it is wrong concerning Brady violations as well as by grand jury violations. Foradora citing Fina's sham sting operation as evidence that the OAG was not responsible is laughable. Have you ever heard of the fox guarding the hen house? I believe the decision is fundamentally flawed because his trial was patently unfair replete with totally ineffective defense counsel and serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the consideration at the Pa. Supreme Court of Sandusky's PCRA appeal given that they were just embarrassed by federal court in the Spanier case. My guess is that they will lack the courage to do the right thing and deny Sandusky's appeal. I hope that the decision happens sooner rather than later and we can get the case in the federal courts via habeus corpus. It seems like Sandusky may be able to have better luck in federal courts where decisions are based on the law rather than in the court of popular opinion.

 

[francofan]

I’m all for a new trial. If it starts with Jerry’s showering activities and is followed up by victims testifying that he assaulted them, he will end up with much the same result.

I think you are dead wrong. I would love to see a new trial with all relevant information that the prosecution and the defense want to bring in, but it will never happen. If Jerry is fortunate to win a new trial, it is likely the OAG will fold as they will not be able to find willing and credible claimants that would be able to survive a rigorous cross-examination. The evidence is in the public record and there is compelling evidence to exonerate Jerry and a dearth of evidence that Jerry committed CSA. If there is a retrial, I believe the prosecution would be embarrassed.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I think you are dead wrong. I would love to see a new trial with all relevant information that the prosecution and the defense want to bring in, but it will never happen. If Jerry is fortunate to win a new trial, it is likely the OAG will fold as they will not be able to find willing and credible claimants that would be able to survive a rigorous cross-examination. The evidence is in the public record and there is compelling evidence to exonerate Jerry and a dearth of evidence that Jerry committed CSA. If there is a retrial, I believe the prosecution would be embarrassed.

There is evidence that Jerry didn’t assault underage boys?

 

[francofan]

There is evidence that Jerry didn’t assault underage boys?

The body of record in this case includes a trove of information. When you try a case of assault against underage boys, it is nice to have credible, convincing evidence of those assaults. The facts are that none of the 36 individual claimants can provide credible, convincing evidence that Jerry assaulted them. I can't imagine any of the 36 claimants would want to test their story against a rigorous examination by defense counsel.

 

[Connorpozlee]

The body of record in this case includes a trove of information. When you try a case of assault against underage boys, it is nice to have credible, convincing evidence of those assaults. The facts are that none of the 36 individual claimants can provide credible, convincing evidence that Jerry assaulted them. I can't imagine any of the 36 claimants would want to test their story against a rigorous examination by defense counsel.

You said a dearth of evidence.

 

[francofan]

You said a dearth of evidence.

The evidence is in the public record and there is compelling evidence to exonerate Jerry and a dearth of evidence that Jerry committed CSA.

Yes, a dearth/lack of credible, convincing evidence that Jerry committed CSA. I am not talking about circumstancial evidence, I am talking about hard evidence that comes from specific individuals that comes with physical evidence and/or contemporaneous reports that have not changed over time and that may be corroborated by other means. I don't believe we have this type of hard evidence in this case.

 

[indynittany]

There is evidence that Jerry didn’t assault underage boys?

You can't prove a negative. I would look at it this way. I think there's evidence that the commonwealth did not satisfy its burden of proof that Jerry did assault underage boys.

And I think it's apparent that the legal system in PA crossed the line on several levels, not only to put Jerry away for life, but to pin this whole thing on PSU football. I would love to see Jerry get a new trial because I believe he deserves one.

However, I'm absolutely convinced there's much more to the story as it pertains to the PSU OGBOT and TSM. I'd expect a new trial for Sandusky to shed enough light on that to finally get some answers.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

TSM was at it's peak value ~ a $5M operation.

People on the OG BoT personally and through corporations controlled billions.

PSU controls billions.

Are you trying to make the case that the BoT and PSU were protecting TSM?

That's absolutely insane and there's no evidence whatsoever and also no motive.

I get it was a crappy thing, you want someone to blame. The Paterno family hired a team, and Clemente said it was reasonable that Joe and all the rest where fooled by Jerry.

If Ziegler wasn't in it to get attention for himself, that answer would have satisfied everyone.

Take the time to read Clemente report.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Yes, a dearth/lack of credible, convincing evidence that Jerry committed CSA. I am not talking about circumstancial evidence, I am talking about hard evidence that comes from specific individuals that comes with physical evidence and/or contemporaneous reports that have not changed over time and that may be corroborated by other means. I don't believe we have this type of hard evidence in this case.

What evidence are you looking for?

 

[Connorpozlee]

You can't prove a negative. I would look at it this way. I think there's evidence that the commonwealth did not satisfy its burden of proof that Jerry did assault underage boys.

And I think it's apparent that the legal system in PA crossed the line on several levels, not only to put Jerry away for life, but to pin this whole thing on PSU football. I would love to see Jerry get a new trial because I believe he deserves one.

However, I'm absolutely convinced there's much more to the story as it pertains to the PSU OGBOT and TSM. I'd expect a new trial for Sandusky to shed enough light on that to finally get some answers.

The commonwealth proved their case against Jerry. Victims stood up and testified to their abuse. He provided little defense.
Now, if you want to say the victims made up their abuse so be it. But the case was proven.

 

[francofan]

What evidence are you looking for?

Sigh

I am so much done discussing this topic with you Connor. You know what I am looking for. I have been asking continually for credible individual evidence of CSA that demonstrates Sandusky abused a specific boy. You haven’t provided any because there isn’t any. Please do not continue to engage me unless you want to discuss individual CSA allegations against Sandusky that you find credible. Please take no offense if I don’t reply to a post that I find non-responsive to my request.

 

[Chris92]

You said a dearth of evidence.

If the case is retried, the prosecution is going to have some real issues. The defense would have some solid rebuttals against the Vs with a specific date with what's known now.

• V5 testified about his one time event happening in 2002 at Spanier's trial. At JS' trial it was 2001 and he initially told the police '96-'98.
• The date of the janitor incident provided by prosecution differed from their witness' testimony. The season was over but Petrosky testified the team was at OSU. His GJ testimony to trial testimony also moved the incident from the coaches' locker room to that of the support staff.
• The actual date of the V2 event is now largely in doubt.

Amendola gets rightfully killed by everyone for his trial blunders. However, he and Rominger did question many of the Vs changing their testimony from GJ to trial. He would ask each who they told about their change(s)and each would say McGettigan. Their changes weren't included in discovery and is now the crux of the defense's Brady violations appeal.

Fina on the witness stand explaining why he lost his law license isn't going to be doing the prosecution any favors.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Sigh

I am so much done discussing this topic with you Connor. You know what I am looking for. I have been asking continually for credible individual evidence of CSA that demonstrates Sandusky abused a specific boy. You haven’t provided any because there isn’t any. Please do not continue to engage me unless you want to discuss individual CSA allegations against Sandusky that you find credible. Please take no offense if I don’t reply to a post that I find non-responsive to my request.

You never say what evidence you are looking for. You go on and on about this report or that report, some book that Bob Costas endorses, how some of the victims maintained relationships with him, that he wasn’t found to have pornography, etc..... You disingenuously say that his inexplicable showering activities with underage boys were a bad choice when you know damn well that no grown man would ever be in that situation unless they were getting off on it. You know better than that. You ask any grown man that you know if they would have ever put themselves in that situation after being investigated by police for it previously and not one of them would say yes. People like you are the reason people don’t come out when they have been sexually abused. It’s not worth it for them to deal with deniers like you. It’s easier for them to just bury the pain then doubling up on the pain by having people like you deny them.

 

[francofan]

If the case is retried, the prosecution is going to have some real issues. The defense would have some solid rebuttals against the Vs with a specific date with what's known now.

• V5 testified about his one time event happening in 2002 at Spanier's trial. At JS' trial it was 2001 and he initially told the police '96-'98.
• The date of the janitor incident provided by prosecution differed from their witness' testimony. The season was over but Petrosky testified the team was at OSU. His GJ testimony to trial testimony also moved the incident from the coaches' locker room to that of the support staff.
• The actual date of the V2 event is now largely in doubt.

Amendola gets rightfully killed by everyone for his trial blunders. However, he and Rominger did question many of the Vs changing their testimony from GJ to trial. He would ask each who they told about their change(s)and each would say McGettigan. Their changes weren't included in discovery and is now the crux of the defense's Brady violations appeal.

Fina on the witness stand explaining why he lost his law license isn't going to be doing the prosecution any favors.

It would like to see Baldwin grilled on her ethics problem and what the OAG held over her head.

It would also be nice to have Gary Schultz and/or Graham Spanier testifying for the defense on McQueary's credibility and what McQueary told Schultz in 2001 and have the OAG explain away their malicious prosecution of the Penn State adminstrators.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

It would like to see Baldwin grilled on her ethics problem and what the OAG held over her head.

It would also be nice to have Gary Schultz and/or Graham Spanier testifying for the defense on McQueary's credibility and what McQueary told Schultz in 2001 and have the OAG explain away their malicious prosecution of the Penn State adminstrators.

I don't think you have actually read the Clemente portion of the Paterno report on this topic.

 

[MJG-90]

People like you are the reason people don’t come out when they have been sexually abused. It’s not worth it for them to deal with deniers like you. It’s easier for them to just bury the pain then doubling up on the pain by having people like you deny them.

I don’t think this is entirely fair. I don’t know Francofan but I’m pretty sure he’s just calling out things a good defense attorney should call out in a trial. If you are a victim, know your story before accusing the perp. Then stick to the story. Or at least have a credible reason for changing your story.

That said, I get why the story changes from I wasn’t abused to yes I was. And it’s not always about money. But rather finding out you aren’t alone. Or just deciding you can’t just stay silent. Unfortunately circumstances in this case make it easy to assume some of these stories changed because of the amount of money being thrown around.

 

[marshall23]

TSM was at it's peak value ~ a $5M operation.

People on the OG BoT personally and through corporations controlled billions.

PSU controls billions.

Are you trying to make the case that the BoT and PSU were protecting TSM?

That's absolutely insane and there's no evidence whatsoever and also no motive.

I get it was a crappy thing, you want someone to blame. The Paterno family hired a team, and Clemente said it was reasonable that Joe and all the rest where fooled by Jerry.

If Ziegler wasn't in it to get attention for himself, that answer would have satisfied everyone.

Take the time to read Clemente report.

You say there is no evidence that the Old Guard BOT is protecting former employees and officers of TSM.....insane to think, you say? Did you read the settlements paid for by PSU to the claimants. Every one protected The Second Mile from further civil litigation. Seriously, you keep bringing your limp dick to a gun fight.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I don’t think this is entirely fair. I don’t know Francofan but I’m pretty sure he’s just calling out things a good defense attorney should call out in a trial. If you are a victim, know your story before accusing the perp. Then stick to the story. Or at least have a credible reason for changing your story.

That said, I get why the story changes from I wasn’t abused to yes I was. And it’s not always about money. But rather finding out you aren’t alone. Or just deciding you can’t just stay silent. Unfortunately circumstances in this case make it easy to assume some of these stories changed because of the amount of money being thrown around.

Franco is not a defense attorney that I am aware of. He generally interacts in a respectful way. But he is denying their abuse because....... I am really not sure why. I’m not sure if he is a Sandusky relative or whatnot, but he denies their abuse, often pointing to a profile that lists possession of pornography as a tip-off to pedophilia. You know what is not listed in that profile? Getting underage boys alone in a shower and having physical contact with them. You know why? Because that doesn’t have to be listed because it is just common sense and trumps everything else.
I will gladly admit I am wrong when it is proven that all of these victims were not abused. I will lean in the direction of saying I am wrong when somebody can come up with a legitimate reason for his showering activities.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Good Lord


Didn’t you say you were “done”? About 3 or 4 times? In this thread?


You shoulda’ listened to your advice...... perhaps.

Or, just enjoy the company of Hippo.
Your choice, of course.

I was done, then Franco carried on with his nonsense so I figured I would carry on with mine.

And I’ll tip my hat to you storming. That was a generally respectful post.

 

[RussianEagle]

I’m all for a new trial. If it starts with Jerry’s showering activities and is followed up by victims testifying that he assaulted them, he will end up with much the same result.

If Sandusky gets a retrial, do you think he is found guilty of abusing Victims 8, 9, and 10?

 

[Connorpozlee]

If Sandusky gets a retrial, do you think he is found guilty of abusing Victims 8, 9, and 10?

I don’t know.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

If Sandusky gets a retrial, do you think he is found guilty of abusing Victims 8, 9, and 10?

I think the testimony of V13-16, V20-24, and V27-31 would corroborate the allegations. It wasn't necessary at the first trial.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I think the testimony of V13-16, V20-24, and V27-31 would corroborate the allegations. It wasn't necessary at the first trial.

What are you basing this on?

If their cases were so strong, they would have been part of the original trial, because as has been demonstrated at great length, the 8 individuals they brought to court were such weak cases, the OAG had to result to a variety of questionable (and in some cases illegal) tactics to get a conviction.

 

[psugisher]

What are you basing this on?

If their cases were so strong, they would have been part of the original trial, because as has been demonstrated at great length, the 8 individuals they brought to court were such weak cases, the OAG had to result to a variety of questionable (and in some cases illegal) tactics to get a conviction.

Right, if each case was looked at individually, there's not enough evidence to convict. They needed multiple victims to have any prayer. I do think several of the convictions would get tossed with a new trial. And if just one of the repressed memory cases is fraudulent, then it would open it up for a full acquittal.

 

[Legion of Lions]

You never say what evidence you are looking for. You go on and on about this report or that report, some book that Bob Costas endorses, how some of the victims maintained relationships with him, that he wasn’t found to have pornography, etc..... You disingenuously say that his inexplicable showering activities with underage boys were a bad choice when you know damn well that no grown man would ever be in that situation unless they were getting off on it. You know better than that. You ask any grown man that you know if they would have ever put themselves in that situation after being investigated by police for it previously and not one of them would say yes. People like you are the reason people don’t come out when they have been sexually abused. It’s not worth it for them to deal with deniers like you. It’s easier for them to just bury the pain then doubling up on the pain by having people like you deny them.

When you have no case to support your "guilty" statements, you always seem to go back to generalities which can not be verified.

First...get a grip on the "..showering activities with underage boys...". We have ONE 1997 incident which was investigated and found legally, morally and socially FINE. In 2001 (most likely Dec 29, 2000) we have a "boy in the shower" who is a fiction of MM. Why would MM create a "sexual" incident when in 2001 (his meeting with Paterno/ C/S/S) no one who MM spoke to - that is AT LEAST 5 people: including friends and family - told him that a crime was was NOT committed - In fact CSA only appeared as a component of MM's "Story" after 2011 when he was "interviewed" by PA investigators. So why did MM have multiple versions of what he saw? You only need to look at the KNOWN AND CERTIFIED manner that this entire case was conducted. MM was coerced into providing what the State needed to support its fictitious account of criminality in PSU's football program. This is validated of illegal tampering with the facts of the case is 100% supported by the tapes and perjury charges that the State of PA "conveniently" ignored.

This was and is a "Hit Job" and a criminal conspiracy that involves multiple PA officials. Its motives are much more compelling that what the Public believes is PSU's motives. The state's motives include Personal abuse of power by a Governor/OAG (a personal vendetta) AND $60M + in slush funds available to the criminal politicians.

Get over it - all the generalizations you state can't cover up the REAL facts of this case.