I don't think you are an objective observer so it's not a valid question in this case.
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
At this point, I don't think even you know what you are talking about.....
Trust me on this....You are just flat stupid, as your incessant drivel on this board has cofirmed for a long while. That should disturb you much more.
You're welcome for the assessment.
Why the "free pass" in your dozens of previous posts?
Here, why don't you clear your head and try this website for a little while...
KeepKidsSafe.PA.gov
Maybe you'll have more luck there.....but somehow I doubt it.......
Have you ever considered that every time you dodge a question it casts further doubt about your motives here?
I think you are waaaayyy over reacting. First off IDK of any that outright support Sandusky. Second I don't think there are many of us that even question his guilt, I think some of us are a little "unsure" of how that all went down and especially some of the court stuff. Third yes there are some here that are victim blaming but there are some "victims" that are flat out lying. If that makes me look like a loon Oh well.
Now if you want to accuse me of thinking there is more to the story in regards to the major players and how it all went down and what
"perks" they got i.e. Corbutt, Fina, the Old Guard Bots.. then again Oh well. Get used to it cause I'm not going anywhere.
So Due Process is less important than what a visitor to this forum thinks. Gotcha. I would rather defend Due Process than give a crap what some uninformed visitor thinks.
Every time you blame anyone other than MM for not calling the cops, you give MM a free pass. There are literally dozens in this thread alone. A POX on you!
For anyone who may care: I am ALL FOR the inclusion of different points of view -- both on and off this board. It's been my experience that consideration of differing viewpoints can often be a catalyst for growth and an expansion of one's worldview.
However the people who possess perfect certainty about objectively uncertain things will please note: you are certainly welcome to your opinions and speculations. But ad nauseam repition of these views doesn't magically transform them into fact.
However the people who possess perfect certainty about objectively uncertain things will please note: you are certainly welcome to your opinions and speculations. But ad nauseam repition of these views doesn't magically transform them into fact.
How can someone pointing to sworn testimony be taken seriously over people who have conspiracy theories based an little to nothing? Is this real life???
Not at all. MM is to blame but once he handed off the information, those people were responsible as well. No one is saying that MM shouldn't get blamed in this. He ultimately failed as well.
Are they fact if they were testified to by multiple people? When exactly do they become accepted as "fact?"
MM failed first and foremost ... and has been handsomely rewarded.
Or,
He did the right thing at the time (as did others), given what he actually saw/heard/thought, but has since then revised 2001 ... and has been handsomely rewarded.
Either way, he's a stinking rich man, while others were destroyed
Or,
He did the right thing at the time (as did others), given what he actually saw/heard/thought, but has since then revised 2001 ... and has been handsomely rewarded.
Either way, he's a stinking rich man, while others were destroyed
Since you seem to be hung up on the whole "due process being related to criminal charges" mantra(which coincidentally is what three of those men are facing, so it is relevant), how about the idea of innocent until proven guilty? You have stated that JVP/C/S/S should not get a "huge pass". At this point, more than five years later, what have those men been found guilty of? What label would you give when individuals, and by association, millions of alumni, have had their reputations ruined, or at least been ridiculed, mocked and derided for the "perception" or "accusation" of wrong doing without being found guilty???
Yes I understand that, but you know what the connection is.....so continue your awkward dance.
I don't see any winners in this whole deal.......
Unless the "winners" be the folks who can go on with their self-serving profiteering activities (to use the softest possible descriptions).......unabated - - thanks to the smoke screens set up to protect their activities from exposure
Other than that?
FWIW - PSU was tripping over their own dicks to pay off Sanduaky Claimants - those payouts served their purposes
OTOH - PSU has been holding off on paying Spanier's legal bills for what? 2 years now?
And that is relative peanuts.....chump change
How long do you you think it will be until they ever settle up with McQ?
The only two people from Penn State who ever said anything "sexual" happened were Mike McQueary, and apparently Paterno "It was a sexual nature" quoted in his testimony (which even then would be hearsay he got from McQueary's account.) Given the odd syntax of that sentence and the fact that we already know the OAG doctored the presentment and presented facts not in evidence to suit its own purposes, I question whether McQueary ever told anyone about a sexual connotation because no one acted as though that's what it was, including Mike. If you take Paterno's statement out of the equation you have McQueary standing alone. "Sworn testimony" doesn't make it factual or even truthful. Did Paterno lie on the stand? I have no idea. Maybe, if he thought it was going to help the case or was convinced to by the prosecution. The state put words in McQueary's mouth, why wouldn't they do that to Paterno. How do you trust Fina? Really? I put little stock in Fina's transcripts. I'd love to hear the unedited audio.
The sum of it is I don't trust the process here. Sworn testimony doesn't connote fact. McQueary's father's sworn testimony was that he didn't recall giving prior testimony. Is that factual? Is it even plausible? Are there not transcriptions which easily refute this? Things need to be viewed in context. There is more to this than someone's sworn testimony, and again, no I don't trust the prosecution here. The people conducting the prosecution have by their actions eroded their own credibility and continue to do so.
The sum of it is I don't trust the process here. Sworn testimony doesn't connote fact. McQueary's father's sworn testimony was that he didn't recall giving prior testimony. Is that factual? Is it even plausible? Are there not transcriptions which easily refute this? Things need to be viewed in context. There is more to this than someone's sworn testimony, and again, no I don't trust the prosecution here. The people conducting the prosecution have by their actions eroded their own credibility and continue to do so.
Poker tip of the day: That you need to defend your position against my general statement is your tell here.
Well, well, well, hasn't Towny developed some "bravado" since MM got that nice settlement? Or, is it beer muscles? His grammar starts to resemble MM's in some of the trial exhibits as his posts increase. Perhaps it is a little bit of both; he may be drinking better brew these days (while posting). Drinking and posting should be left to the professionals! BWAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAA!
Innocent until proven guilty is still for criminal charges.
Your general statement (question) is flawed. Why should I produce an answer for that?
That's fine for you to not believe in the process, but then you can't act like those who do believe in it are wrong.
This explains the problem that those somehow arguing that this a mass conspiracy of some sort against Joe Paterno. It only works if Paterno actually did commit perjury and committed to make himself look bad. Paterno was certainly not stupid, nor will I believe he perjured himself to look bad.
Further, when it comes to transcripts, what "words" did "the state" put in McQueary's mouth? Why do you think it is "Fina's transcript?" They have professional court reporters do that. The reporter is not attached to either side. Fina doesn't get to alter them.
I suggest reporting gmj and use the following explanation (like I did). "This punk hijacks threads but limits her profile access so you cannot effectively debate with her by using her own positions against his "fluid" arguments. "
What a sad sack punk ass!
Edit: You can't see her posts in a chronological order when her profile is hidden. Given that this is her profession, it makes it hard to rationally debate. Report her!
What a sad sack punk ass!
Edit: You can't see her posts in a chronological order when her profile is hidden. Given that this is her profession, it makes it hard to rationally debate. Report her!
Last edited:
Where do you believe my arguments have changed? I can run down how I believe everything went down if you wish. It would be one hell of a long post, but then you can save it for yourself to compare to what I say.
I'm not acting like anything. I don't trust Fina and I gave my reasons. You trust him, go ahead.
These people believe that the state took their words and added/edited things to fit a narrative. Because, you know... these people care so much about slamming Paterno and PSU that they would put their own futures at risk.
Joe wasn't stupid, but he was old, sick, and not nearly as sharp as he was at one time. He was very obviously in decline.
And insofar as the state putting words into MM's mouth, we all have heard the speculation of how they may well have had incriminating evidence against him due to his personal life. We all can see how his story changed over the years. We have all seen how crooked the whole system is. It is very easy to connect the dots and surmise that when MM's story changed, it wasn't him alone who changed it.
But of course, you will refute that.
All I know is the grand jury presentment indicated that McQueary saw a boy being "subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky" and that McQueary has said more than once that that's not what he saw and it's not what he told the grand jury. When he went to the AG to complain about it he was slapped down. Yes or no?
