In less than one paragraph, can you comment on the following: Dad, I saw JS in the shower with a young boy. JM: Did you see penetration? MM: No. Therefore, based on that exchange..........MM, JM, and DrD decide to tell Joe ..........tomorrow. Your mother was home that night........what was her advice to MM? If you were told what MM "would of said, would you have called the police? Thanks in advance for .........your thoughts.
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I am aware of how grand juries work, and no, this was not Fina. This was the grand jurors. Since the Moulton Report, we actually have some of the inner-workings of the investigations, including drafts of the presentment. The said it based of McQueary's testimony.
We also had a judge,that looked at the evidence during a trial, and said that it was strong enough to go to a jury. It just didn't go through a grand jury, but through Judge Cleland. Perhaps, you should try to understand the legal process.
We also, since it was mentioned, do have some corroboration of McQueary. That is from Paterno, under oath.
One more time: What's the difference between 2011 and 2001?
funny how he doesn't mention this same judge allowed continual delays in getting the prosecution to comply with discovery, allowed a massive file dump on the defense, then refused all applications by the defense for a continuance to examine this material.
learn how the legal process works, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I like the "rabbit punch" behind the head.And if our Hindsight Superhero Homey @getmyjive11 is able to 'mental gymnastics' his way around this question, then he's still got this little nugget to contend with:
Isn't tonight the night you put shoes into your locker?
No one had to, numbskull except for Mike, Raykovitz or Danov. Take your shit back to PL.
You wouldn't find a middle age man alone in a shower with a lone unrelated child something that shouldn't raise a lot of red flags? Especially after he said hew wouldn't do it anymore?
It takes minimal foresight to see that.
I think if the witness didn't call the cops himself and instead elected to make an administrative complaint. And was then dissatisfied with the administrative response to his complaint, that it would be incumbent upon the witness to escalate his report.
But what do I know?
Last edited:
Intercourse without seeing insertion or penetration. Fondling "without a doubt", yet without seeing hands, touching or describing anything that remotely sounds like fondling. What a colossal clown MM is.
The witness reported properly to his supervisor, who, in turn, properly reported it his supervisor. Either one of them could have also called the police or Childline.
The report was escalated, but within the PSU administration.
WRONG. What is: the 2001 CPSL, and who are: Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim? Neither are "within the PSU administration". smh
We don't have anything on Heim knowing. Raykovitz did not receive a report of any molestation. That is according to both Curley. in his testimony.
Are you now suggesting that Curley committed perjury to protect Raykovitz?
Who is this royal "we" that still doesn't know how to do research?
Are you now suggesting you STILL profess not to understand that the non-child pros had no inkling whether or not there was a molestation and reported it to those who are both trained and required by law to initiate safety plans and investigate such reports? Especially when it's likely it was one of their clients, but the non-pros were only able to assume that because the less than 1 minute eye-witness didn't have a description?
And that the one whose job it is not only laughed in Curley's face at the report and then allowed another non-pro to talk him out of performing his legal duty?
Last edited:
Stuff'tdoodoo...the name changes, but the odor of crap remains the same. He's stuff't alright, up to his eyeballs with bullshit.
What does any of this have to do with your claim of Heim or Raykovitz getting a report of molestation? We, the public, have nothing about Raykovitz, except Curley's testimony. Curley said he did not report any molestation. Curley never testified that he told Heim.
Further, if you a report of sexual activity be man in fifties and prepubescent boy, do you really need to be an expert in child molestation to say, "Gee, I really should contact some authority capable of investigating?"
You seem to be claiming, as some points, that Curley lied about not telling Raykovitz. Then you claim that Curley wouldn't know that a report of molestation should be forwarded to the authorities.
Raykovitz went as far to say he told Sandusky to wear swim trunks next time.
What's your end game here?
You show up all of a sudden on a PSU sports message board, target a specific thread that is not PSU sports related, you post at odd hours and are retreading the same tired shit we've gone over for years now.
It's curious that we had a new AG sworn in on Tuesday - and you feel compelled to come here and comment on tangential threads.
You show up all of a sudden on a PSU sports message board, target a specific thread that is not PSU sports related, you post at odd hours and are retreading the same tired shit we've gone over for years now.
It's curious that we had a new AG sworn in on Tuesday - and you feel compelled to come here and comment on tangential threads.
Stop it. NOW. You are now dreaming up "reports of sexual activity" that never existed.
If you care about fixing the broken child protection systems revealed by this and many other similar cases, you would learn the appropriate information so you can help these systems work better by being a responsible adult fully educated in this very specific type of child predation that is one of the MOST difficult to detect and root out.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as "odd hours". The entire world does not have the same work schedule, free time hours or timezone. It could just as easily have been someone in California, Hawaii, etc. Eastern Time 9-5 does not apply to the entire world. Just saying that's not really a relevant argument.
Well, as noted in my prior post, you seem to be part of "the same tired shit we've gone through over the years now."
Well, since these threads are permitted and some of the most active, why shouldn't I. Do you object to the truth.
Only one of them could have called the police while the "victim" was still in the custody of the adult who had allegedly just performed "some type of intercourse" on a 10 year old boy.
I'll give you a hint dumbphuck...not the administrators.
According to Curley, he did not report anything like sexual molestation to Raykovitz. That is where the whole theory a few folks spin here falls apart.
So we have one two possibilities. 1. Curley testified honestly when he said that he didn't report anything relating to molestation, only someone's discomfort, about Sandusky. 2. Curley lied under oath and really did tell Raykovitz that it was molestation.
I will concede #2 is possible, buy why would Curley lie to protect Raykovitz?
Did Curley witness molestation, turd? Who did turd? Who was supposed to call the police, turd?
Not that he would have stayed around and waited for McQueary to call.
McQueary could have called the police and Paterno could have called the police. They could, legally, report it to their respective supervisors, which is what they did. I don't fault either in that regard.
This case is way beyond your intellect and ability to think critically, as every single post you make clearly demonstrates. Why don't you and GMJ get together and begin an exhaustive investigation into who is buried in Grant's tomb? It will tax your capabilities and keep you both busy for a long while. We all have ceilings and yours is very low. Trust me on this.
But towny will tell you that mike is the victim here and that he (towny) knows something you don't know.
In other words, towny needs to STFU.
