Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It is truly amazing how gullible the majority of the American people are.
The majority of Americans believed the Duke Lax team raped a stripper (FALSE), that the Phi Psi Fraternity gang raped a coed (FALSE) -- as part of the crime wave of sexual assaults on college campuses (FALSE) , that Jewell was the Olympic Park bomber (FALSE), the Captain of the Exxon Valdez was drunk (FALSE) and ran the ship aground, and the Liverpool soccer fans cause the Hillsborough disaster (FALSE).
In the PSU case, most Americans believe evil was caused at PSU because there were two crimes that occurred on campus -- neither of which has a known victim nor a reliable eye witness. Oh, and in both cases, the eye witnesses were "visibly shaken" by the horrifying crime they observed but neither to the point that they would report it to police with the hope that no other child would suffer such horrifying victimization.
Instead, only 3 people of the many people who were told about these TWO incidents faced criminal charges for not reporting it -- and of course, there was no legitimate explanation for not charging the eye-witnesses for failing to report. Nor were they castigated for not fulfilling their MORAL obligations.
Yeah, this story is right up there with the rest of the other stories in terms of fooling the gullible.
IMO -
There never was, never would be, any reason whatsoever for any Prosecutor to approach MM and tell him:
"Say this Mike"
No reason whatsoever for anyone to ever say:
"Hey, Mike....we've got some crap on you....so you need to play ball with us"
The odds that anything like that happened?
I place the odds at.....approximately.....give or take.......zero.
There would never have been any reason to do that......and it wouldn't have worked anyway (IMO)
And that's not the way these insidious bastards work anyway.
But that is the type of false premise BS argument douchebag C-Jers like you use to turn around your own circular (circle-jerk?) "create your own ridiculous premise and then argue against it" arguments......and then you masturbate yourselves over your success in reducing every discussion into another chapter in the 5 year long jerk-off saga that you relish so.
You can go "suck on a tailpipe" (an oldie, but a goodie) for all I care.
Let's try again (this is not a hard question)....IMO -
There never was, never would be, any reason whatsoever for any Prosecutor to approach MM and tell him:
"Say this Mike"
No reason whatsoever for anyone to ever say:
"Hey, Mike....we've got some crap on you....so you need to play ball with us"
The odds that anything like that happened?
I place the odds at.....approximately.....give or take.......zero.
There would never have been any reason to do that......and it wouldn't have worked anyway (IMO)
And that's not the way these insidious bastards work anyway.
But that is the type of false premise BS argument douchebag C-Jers like you use to turn around your own circular (circle-jerk?) "create your own ridiculous premise and then argue against it" arguments......and then you masturbate yourselves over your success in reducing every discussion into another chapter in the 5 year long jerk-off saga that you relish so.
You can go "suck on a tailpipe" (an oldie, but a goodie) for all I care.
If CSS took the information to the authorities, would any of those bad things have happened to Penn State?
Sorry to inform you, but your post doesn't reflect the reality of the PA Criminal Justice System.
The charge was not based on any evidence EXCEPT for McQueary's account. There was no victim to confirm it, nor was there anyone who corroborated Mike's account, nor is there any physical evidence to confirm there was a boy in the shower with Sandusky. For all anyone knows, it could have been another man or a girl.
One would think that in such a high profile case, the actual victim would come forward. But the only person to claim to be the victim was deemed unreliable by the prosecution and the defense because he told so many different versions of events.
Next, the grand jury DIDN'T hear Mike's testimony, so they don't know if Mike was credible or not.
The grand jury presentment is written by the prosecution and approved by the grand jurors. Those who approved it did not hear the testimony of Mike, Joe, Tim,and Gary.
One juror who heard their testimony broke secrecy rules and stated he found Tim and Gary to be more credible than Mike.
The Judge reviews the presentment after the grand jury approves it and signs off on it. In this case, the Supervisory Grand Jury Judge, Barry Feudale, was later disgracefully removed from his judge position to acting erratically and for sending disrespectful emails. Later, he leaked a secret writ to the press.
The prosecutor who oversaw the case was disgracefully demoted from this job in the Philly DA's office for his role in #porngate. He was trading porn with judges and other prosecutors.
In summary, the people behind this prosecution are corrupt and they scapegoated PSU officials to deflect attention away from the failures of the PA State Police (in 2008) and the Department of Human Services failures to stop Sandusky when they had the opportunity to in 1998.
Still doing that" Arkward Dance"around any evidence that doesn't fit your agenda I see.
Create a couple more false premises
Create enough.........then shove them down your throat
You Circle-Jerking moron
Adios
The fact of the matter is, everyone here knows the answer to my question.
Hasta luego.
Then why don't you, or someone else, actually answer the question.
Somebody made claims that the OAG somehow changed his testimony. Where is the evidence of that?
Thought you said you've been reading this board for a while? Look around for it yourself, I'm sure you can find links to the various evidence-backed theories.
The grand jury presentment changed his original statement from "not seeing insertion" to "he saw a naked boy...being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
McQueary later testified in December 2011 that he never used the term anal, anal rape, or sodomy to describe what he saw.
At his recent trial, an email sent by McQueary to the OAG in which McQ complained about them twisting his words was admitted as evidence.
No, everyone knows your question is irrelevant and that you continually ignore the reasons why it is irrelevant.
Funny, the majority of the country would say that you are ignoring why it is relevant.
I have yet to see any evidence of Paterno being too sick to know what he was doing. We know, thanks to Ziggy, that Paterno gave the same story in October 2011 that he did in January 2011.
We do not know of any change in McQueary's testimony. The fact that Amendola cited none in Sandusky's trial certainly point away from any change,
Funny, the "majority of the country" argument is a straw-man. I could care less what people who get their information from the broken media conclude. They don't know the level of detail because they haven't taken the time to learn it.
Then you, aka "we" have not done the work to find it. You also don't seem to be able to apply common sense and logic to the information you are being given because you don't want to do your own homework.
That is not McQueary's testimony nor a transcript. It is a characterization of what he witnessed. The grand jury felt that from the description, there was sufficient evidence to prove that claim.
Nellie, you are making the claim so you have present evidence. You indicated that there was evidence and it was cited. Okay, where?
Thought you said you've been reading this board for a while? Look around for it yourself, I'm sure you can find links to the various evidence-backed theories.
No, the Grand Jury does not "feel" there is sufficient proof. That's not their job. Their job is to decide whether a minimal amount presented warrants an indictment that will result in being bound over for a trial where that claim will be proven or disproven.
And, in the trial, the jury decided: the OAG's anal intercourse claim was NOT PROVEN. In the deliberation phase, they asked for MMQ and Dranov's testimonies to be re-read. Why have you not read the Sandusky case? Verdict: NG on that charge.
Last edited:
Eschbach herself, in the PCRA hearing, stated under oath that she wrote the 'anal rape' wording and that that phrase was not used by McQ. Lubrano later opined on these boards that Fina had a hand in that wording although Eschbach authored it officially.
That is evidence enough for me that McQ's testimony was changed to fit the needs of the OAG.
Of course Towny would point out that it was the Suheys that were "warning" certain people at PSU early in the investigation.Really glad Jim Martin's name came up. I was reading an e-book titled, "To Believe a Kid: Understanding the Jerry Sandusky Case and Child Sexual Abuse." The book chronicles parts of the trial and offers some interesting background info.
Came across a few paragraphs about Jim Martin's time on the stand. I didn't know who he was at the time, but I knew he was a witness for the defense (for Jerry). And as I was reading, my immediate thought was that this guy was planted as a defense witness, but was really playing for the prosecution.
After doing some digging I found out how closely connected he was to Paul Suhey (they own a business together). That cemented in my mind the possibility that Jim Martin was yet another example of our broken justice system and the OAG's "winning at all costs" mentality to secure a conviction. book link embedded in tweet:
Look at how EASILY Jerry's so-called character witness rolls over for the prosecution. Can't help but think Paul Suhey and the bad guys behind the scenes got to Dr. James S. Martin (click on images to enlarge).
If you want anyone to place any value in your "takes" on the legal proceedings, maybe you ought to first educate yourself on how Grand Juries operate in Pennsylvania
The majority of the country is wrong about pretty much everything (kind of like you)
The whole PL peckerhead argument is based upon "no police report" and the "police weren't called", neither of which were a requirement in 2001 for Joe or C/S/&S which the peckerheads are fully aware of. This is just blowing more of JoJ's bullshit out of their asses.
Please, you have to be kidding that they could talk in this corrupt state? They will talk eventually but not until the charges are dropped. They are being muzzled by a corrupt judiciary placed their by a series of corrupt politicians. They need help from the feds to take this over which is difficult at best to imagine because some of them are tied to the ruling elite in PA who don't want any part of this to surface.
I believe others have compared this to the Duke lacrosse case? Is that correct?
That case blew up because the defendants and there attys did talk publically and presented the evidence and case in press co defenses and statements made by defendants way before a court room.
I am not saying those accused should do the same...so far their strategy has worked. How ever if they have elected to sit on clear exculpatory evidence for five years they certainly are then part of the problem to move this forward.
We all want this thing to be over. We all believe we know the truth. The truth I know had not changed a bit in 15 years and so far in courts the truth has been just that.
Hope everyone's takes a minute to enjoy our great democracy in action today with Inaugeration Day.
That case blew up because the defendants and there attys did talk publically and presented the evidence and case in press co defenses and statements made by defendants way before a court room.
I am not saying those accused should do the same...so far their strategy has worked. How ever if they have elected to sit on clear exculpatory evidence for five years they certainly are then part of the problem to move this forward.
We all want this thing to be over. We all believe we know the truth. The truth I know had not changed a bit in 15 years and so far in courts the truth has been just that.
Hope everyone's takes a minute to enjoy our great democracy in action today with Inaugeration Day.
Last edited:
Dukie, let me first say again that I respect and admire your candor, grace and sense of fair play. However, there is just one issue that I can't understand. If the story as you know it has not changed in 15 years.............then how do you reconcile Mike walking out on a child who was being sexually abused (way over the line) and your Dad and Dr. D not contacting LE or CYS/ DPW? At some point if the PSU Administration did not take Mike's report and act in good faith, does that absolve Mike, Dad, The Doctor and all of you who had contemporaneous knowledge of the incident?I have a hard time seeing it that way. On the other hand the reactions of everyone including Mike at and around the time of the incident reflect no certainty of a criminal act. I don't expect an answer, I'm sure this has been posed before.
Last edited:
I think the sum of all the circumstances answer that question. MM's entire assumption that abuse was going on was based on a man and a child in the shower (ok, fair to question that) and slapping noises. Of course, slapping noises in that context are virtually impossible for MM to then see the two and see no signs of distress on the kid's face.
Marshall, I can't answer all that in a message board as it would take pages of typing and I am a lousy writer and typer. Also, I can not speak for Mike, my dad, and Dr D.
I would like to make one point. I have see hundred of times on the boards what fine people those accused are. Outstanding reputations outstanding work in their fields, etc. If one is told sonething has been looked into investigated by not one but two of those accused, were Mike dad dr d suppose to say hey you guys are full of shit... Highly doubtful in my opinion and from where I sit.
As for exploring and talking and debating your questions.. I think it would take a several hour imperson conversation to talk that out and even then I am not sure opinions change etc.
I would like to make one point. I have see hundred of times on the boards what fine people those accused are. Outstanding reputations outstanding work in their fields, etc. If one is told sonething has been looked into investigated by not one but two of those accused, were Mike dad dr d suppose to say hey you guys are full of shit... Highly doubtful in my opinion and from where I sit.
As for exploring and talking and debating your questions.. I think it would take a several hour imperson conversation to talk that out and even then I am not sure opinions change etc.
I think you are missing the point a little and that does not absolve Mike of anything
He was the WITNESS for God's sake
I think that is what is being asked to be reconciled
Why did it get past Mike and his dad and the good doctor in the first place
A sincere thank you for your response Dukie. Respect aside, if Mike was certain what he saw was a boy being sodomized, I can't rationalize away his 10 year silence. If he was NOT sure what he saw, then it makes some sense.
This ^^^^.
Having an informal off the record meeting with admins 10 days later is not going to do much. The admins were not child abuse experts or investigators. They weren't official investigators of anything. If MM wanted JS criminally investigated he would have to file an official written statement to LE or at least make anonymous call to CYS. Which he never did for 9 years.
During follow up conversations He and his dad never expressed any dissatisfaction to the admins and they never asked why no one from UPPD ever came to get Mikes statement (if mike really did want JS to get arrested). Apparently Curley's informal confrontation with JS about his behavior, revoking his guest privileges, and forwarding the report to TSM was good enough for MM/JM at the time.
According to MM's testimony to Roberto in the 12/16/11 prelim, he wasn't 100% sure what they were doing (which contradicts what he said in his OAG statement that he was certain). He could only say what he thought they were doing. There's a big difference. That is my guess as to why Dr. D didnt feel what MM said that night was solid enough to involve police or CYS.
Heres a breakdown of the testimony. After reading this does it sound like MM was trying to urgently get police involved?? I don't think so...
Pg. 72: MM never used the words anal intercourse or anal sodomy when explaining what he saw to Joe. Here's the actual Q & A b/c I think it's important. Also note how MM keeps saying "I would have told..." instead of "I told him....."
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?
A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.
Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?
A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.
Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?
A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on
Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure
A: Okay, 100 percent sure
Q: Okay, you can’t say that?
A: No
Pg. 74:
Q: And you went to Coach Paterno in lieu of, not in addition to, going to police that night?
A: I went to coach Paterno first
Q: Okay, did you go to police that day of – the day you spoke to Mr. Paterno?
A: No
Q: Did you go the next day?
A: No I did not
Q: Did you make any conclusion to Coach Paterno about what was happening
A: Yes, it was extremely sexual, yes
Q: Did you say extremely sexual in nature?
A: In nature?
Q: Yes
A: I can’t remember if I said the word in nature or not ma’am. I don’t know that
Q: Did you ever use the word fondling?
A: I’m sure I did to help describe what I was seeing. I’m sure I did use the word fondling, yes ma’am
Q: Okay, did you see any type of fondling with Mr. Sandusky’s hands on the boy?
A: No, I’ve already stated that when I saw his arms wrapped around the boy, that I could not see his hands. The bodies were blocking --
Q: Okay
A: -- his hands so I cannot say that I saw Mr. Sandusky’s hands on a boy’s genitals, no ma’am.
Q: So you can’t – how would you describe fondling, I’m sort of confused here
A: Fondling is touching someone in a sexual way. I don’t know if that’s the exact definition, but that’s what my definition is.
Q: Okay, so that’s what you thought you saw
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Okay
A: without a doubt
Q: Okay, now when you talked with Mr. Paterno and he told you what he was going to do, he was going to – did he tell you what he was going to do?
A: Yes ma’am. As I already stated, he said that he needed to think and contact some other people and that he would get back to me.
Q: Okay, and did you ask Coach Paterno if those other people meant the police?
A: No ma’am. I did not ask him that.
Q: And did you say to Coach Paterno, coach, I really appreciate it and I also think we should call the police
A: No, I did not
**again, another WTF piece of MM’s testimony that doesn’t jive with him being certain a sex act occurred that night**
Last edited:
