I don't deny the possibility that Jerry could be where he belongs, I'm merely stating that I'm unconvinced of it. To me, this entire saga has loose ends everywhere. One of the reasons Amendola was in over his head is that the OAG went out of its way to turn Sandusky into a media circus. Sandusky was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before the trial. As were P/C/S/S.
The circumstances around which Penn State was, IMO, chosen to take the fall are baffling! There was no reason to destroy Joe Paterno. There was no reason to package the Sandusky case with PSU as it's epicenter. That was done brazenly and with a purpose. PSU's response was equally baffling. The OGBOT didn't fight back. But inexplicably, they reinforced that narrative via Louis Freeh. Given the events we've witnessed, it's not hard for me to conclude that PSU has been taking the fall for TSM and I would like to know why.
The bottom line is that I have long believed the PSU Football part of this narrative to be falsely contrived in an effort by a few to avoid an even more costly outcome. Follow the money! I think it is easily arguable that the cases involving PSU did not meet the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict. As far as I'm concerned, the janitor case, along with the V2 and V6 cases should have never seen the light of day. And if they are bogus, how about the others? All you have to believe is that Jerry is a pedophile and guilty of sexually abusing even one boy, and most of the other charges fall right into place. But what if that one boy's story is BS? Which of the others, on its own merit, convinces you of Jerry's guilt?
To your point, if you stray from this forum, you get called horrible names for even suggesting such things. It happens even here when the trolls come around. I know you think you're adding a measure of objectivity, and I appreciate the civility. However, all you do is repeat the same circumstantial evidence over and over. Evidence upon which we all agree. It stalls the discussion. I would like to see people address the unanswered questions unearthed in the past 7 years, without their integrity or morality impugned.
For example, why was V6 golfing at Toftrees with Jerry, Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim a month prior to Jerry's indictments? Why would PSU pay him $6 million? Why would PSU pay Matt Sandusky anything at all? There are just so many questions left to be answered!
Just a few pertinent facts.
In a criminal manner, such as the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia investigation, the NCAA lacked legal standing. But the NCAA justified its intervention in the case by finding that a lack of institutional control on the part of Penn State enabled the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.
In their synopsis of evidence, the trustees relied on internal Freeh Group emails that showed that while Freeh was finishing up his investigation of Penn State, he was angling for his group to become the "go to investigators" for the NCAA.
On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and a partner of Freeh's. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."
In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y3uBMIEVq...600/Screen+Shot+2018-06-30+at+11.52.52+AM.png
A spokesman for Freeh did not respond to a request for comment.
At yesterday's board meeting, Pope said the "NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them from punishing Penn State," but that the "NCAA decided to punish Penn State anyway in order to enhance its own reputation." She added that documents made public to date show that the "NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh investigation."
"We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the NCAA."
At yesterday's press conference, Pope also raised the issue of a separate but concurrent federal investigation conducted on the Penn State campus in 2012 by Special Agent John Snedden. The federal investigation, made public last year, but completely ignored by the mainstream media, reached the opposite conclusion that Freeh and the attorney general did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.
Pope stated she wanted to know more about the discrepancies between the parallel investigations that led to polar opposite conclusions.
Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."
About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.
Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.
After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.
That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.
In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.
That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.
On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”
"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him
what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report
what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported
what he had seen."
But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and,"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."
On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them
"what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."