Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Wow. Did you figure that out all by yourself?
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
+1, except I have a follow-up question:
Did that really happen? I'd love to hear it did.
This is one of the great uncertainties of the '01 case. Shultz makes the claim in his 2011 GJ testimony that he thinks they were contacted, but isn't positive.
Well look who's decided to go straight up troll. And that took, what? A week?
Well done, you.
The problem is that there is no evidence, other than Louis Freeh's "reasonable conclusions". Reasonable conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence at hand.
Ah, I'm not citing Freeh. I'm citing Framing Paterno and Ryan Bagwell. I don't look at Freeh's conclusion. I look at at the evidence at the end of the report.
I do not, however, have any respect for people who insist something is true simply because they believe it or false simply because they don't want to believe it. They are the true trolls.
Redefining the term 'troll' FTW!
You are a barrel of awesome. I'm glad we're friends.
The thing that you and many who have a similar argument to you are missing is that Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz all had impeccable reputations before this "scandal". And they had them for good reason. Because of that, I think there should be some real evidence that shows that these guys knew they had a serial pedophile on their hands, but chose to cover it up to protect PSU's reputation before their reputations can be ripped to shreds.
So if you are so confident of your position, show me. Show me that evidence.
you would suspect an email exists where Curley says:
"holy crap fellas, this is horrible. Sandusky raped a little boy and we need to BURY this to protect the football program! Help!"
if the bullsh*t narrative were true
Or at least a series of meetings, phone calls, some kind of damage control actions. yet they did just the opposite - go outside PSU to try and address. And even when going to the Grand Jury... if these guys knew they had been covering this deep dark secret for 10 years don't you think they would have tried to get their story straight? What possible reason would evil JVP have for saying "sexual in nature" in 2011 if he knew that it was going to light the fuse on a bomb that they had been hiding for 10 years? Why wouldn't have have said "horseplay" like everyone else? It makes no sense... unless... wait for it... they had no idea what they were dealing with.
as the Talking Heads said . . . stop making sense . . .
The evidence says no such thing. Evidence shows they acted like they thought Sandusky was inappropriate not evil... the evidence shows they did the opposite of covering it up... the evidence shows they didn't even bother to get their story straight before the garnd jury... the evidence shows that MM was fine with how they handled it and had no issue with JS continuing to be a pillar of the community... the evidence says Mr McQ and Dr. D felt the same... the evidence shows that MM told his Dad and Dr. D nothing that indicated evil and those mandatory reporters didn't hear anything that indicated evil... the evidence shows that they thought the path forward was the "humane" path - why would Spanier use that word in the context of a coverup? I could go on and on and on... what evidence do you have? No opinions, not fake news, what evidence?
Stuff, I firmly believe the people 'running' PSU didn't do those things. There is no evidence to say they have. Therefore, I have nothing to deal with in that regard, other than to occasionally respond in defense of good men who I believe deserve to be defended when wrongly called out.
Deal with it.
It's their new distraction to cling to. I explained to him in a post on Thursday why it made no sense. He pretended not to see it. I showed him where that post was today... crickets from him.
The major problem with the coverup thing is that a coverup requires the people doing the covering up to have complete control of the situation being covered up. The 4 people at PSU being accused/blamed for this alleged coverup didn't not have that control, despite the beliefs of Freeh, Triponey, ESPN and other moronic sports journalists.
Point is, there are simply too many wild cards involved whose behaviors can't be controlled or predicted. These are people who were told about what happened.
1. John McQueary
2. Dr. Dranov
3. Anyone else Mike McQueary may have told. Has anyone provided evidence the CSSP asked McQueary for the names of anyone else he told? Has anyone that Mike knows testified that they were contacted by anyone connected to PSU and told to keep quiet? This is vital behavior if a coverup is to exist.
4. And most importantly, the alleged victim. They had no idea who the kid was, which means they also had no idea who he'd tell what. Kind of self-defeating if you're trying to cover up something and someone who's involved that you don't know is involved is blabbing all over creation about it.
Joe's detractors claim that he didn't make any effort to contact the kid- as though that proves there was a coverup. No, trying to contact the kid is what you do when there is a coverup. Because you want to find out what he told to whom, and you want to guarantee he won't say anything else. Whether that's done through threats, bribery, or actual violence, you want to make sure he's silent. We know that wasn't done, and the coverup "experts" are the first to tell us it wasn't.
Point is, there are simply too many wild cards involved whose behaviors can't be controlled or predicted. These are people who were told about what happened.
1. John McQueary
2. Dr. Dranov
3. Anyone else Mike McQueary may have told. Has anyone provided evidence the CSSP asked McQueary for the names of anyone else he told? Has anyone that Mike knows testified that they were contacted by anyone connected to PSU and told to keep quiet? This is vital behavior if a coverup is to exist.
4. And most importantly, the alleged victim. They had no idea who the kid was, which means they also had no idea who he'd tell what. Kind of self-defeating if you're trying to cover up something and someone who's involved that you don't know is involved is blabbing all over creation about it.
Joe's detractors claim that he didn't make any effort to contact the kid- as though that proves there was a coverup. No, trying to contact the kid is what you do when there is a coverup. Because you want to find out what he told to whom, and you want to guarantee he won't say anything else. Whether that's done through threats, bribery, or actual violence, you want to make sure he's silent. We know that wasn't done, and the coverup "experts" are the first to tell us it wasn't.
Better re-read my posts... I listed JVP along with about 10 other people in the first post... referred to actions of 4 in my second post. So, no, I am not as bad as the media. Noone inside or outside the University knew what they were dealing with. The evidence is clear. The logic is clear. No other logic fits the facts.
BINGO.....he's connected to one of the players involved somehow. Why...Watch his focus. Consistency is there for a reason!
Well, first, I would remove Paterno from the list, as I am not referring to him.
May I remind you that Jerry Sandusky had a stellar reputation and was cited by the 1000 Points of Light foundation. I can remember the comments of many who were outraged that Ganim's story was published. Now, she looks like a genius and the people complaining look like morons.
The evidence that they thought something was wrong was the plan to call DPW. They had advice to call in DPW, and ignored it. That is sufficient, for now. I think we will find out much more after the trials.
More irony from you! You are obsessed with blaming things on Paterno, we try to point you to those who truly failed the victims, but you don't care.
You are a simple-minded, shallow thinking buffoon. You are just as bad as the media in that regard.
You're a PL imbecile who has been touting the same crap for 5 years. If there was anything on Paterno, the stellar cast of PL Pull-it zer winners would have uncovered it by now and used it. You puds are so full of shit.
Look at Ganim's first story and then what Sandusky was actually accused of doing. Her first story was mild compared the presentment. New stuff keeps on surfacing.
I know that Paterno was listed one of the "primary targets" of a federal investigation, but I'm at a loss to figure out why that is. I got that from Bagwell. I got the Meyers statements from Ziggy. I'm not reading these things in PL.
Last edited:
You remind me of that song from Hee Haw.
Gloom, dispair, agony on me
Deep dark depression excessive misery on me .
First if "new stuff " surfaces we will deal with it like we have from the beginning of this miscarriage of justice. Continue the search for the truth which seems to pain you greatly. Freeh found "new stuff" Shultz's secret file, how does that look now? Looks like a lie, he didn't find it which makes everything he says look like a lie.
Second, Sara Ganim a genius? That's the best ya got? Up your doo doo.
And don't you also think that while going to the Grand jury that they'd bring along a competent attorney, not the sack of rocks aka Baldwin. if you covered something up you're sure as h^ll not going to rely on Miss Daisy for advice. Be f^cking reasonable!
But that was part of the cover up strategy, to appear like complete idiots!
The trolls haven't gone there yet, but I'm sure they will.
Now if I reported that I'd be slammed for saying "Compliant" instead of "Complaint".
First, where, in that entire post, did I call Ganim a "genius." I mentioned how her first story was off (the real story was worse).
Second, unlike you, apparently, I am not going to accept what is out there at face value, because we keep finding out stuff.
Here are a few examples:
1. Ganim's first story (3/31/11) was about a victim in 2008, a boy hugged in a shower room in 1998. In the latter case, it could have meant that Sandusky, while others were in the shower with, put his arm around the shoulder of the boy, or that boy hugged Sandusky to thank him for the treat of being in shower room with the team. I assumd that it was something innocent being misconstrued and the witness mentioning it to his parent. On 11/5/11, we all found out that the witness was another victim (B.K.) and that it was reported to the police at the time. We also discovered 6 victims that were not mentioned in Ganim's article.
2. About a month after the first presentment, we had a second presentment with two more victims.
3. In July, we got to see all that documentation at end of the Freeh Report. What Freeh's conclusions, opinions, and speculation were of small importance. The documentation at the back of the report is what is important.
4. We get things like like the letter to Bagwell from the DOJ listing that Paterno was "one of the primary targets of an investigation," federal investigation, at the time of his death. You might wish to google "target of an investigation."
5. We have then those insurance suit claims about Paterno knowing about Sandusky in the 1980's. We don't have the details so there is the possibility that they are not corroborated. In some of them might have a third person corroboration. We don't know.
6. Finally, Courtney speaks and says that he advised Shultz to report it and let DPW do what it considered appropriate. Of course we have no evidence that it was reported, even though there is evidence of one that was reported 2 1/2 years before the 2001 incident.
All those things consider, do you really have any reason why I should be optimistic?
Either you believe McQueary lied or you believe the Comm. Of PA lied.
The State said there was anal intercourse with a boy and a naked Sandusky in the shower in Lasch.. McQueary said he never saw such activity, nor said those words before the grand jury. Sworn testimony. When he complained about it he was told by the Asst AG to sit down. That's all I need to know.
The State said there was anal intercourse with a boy and a naked Sandusky in the shower in Lasch.. McQueary said he never saw such activity, nor said those words before the grand jury. Sworn testimony. When he complained about it he was told by the Asst AG to sit down. That's all I need to know.
