You have a boy and a man showering together (in a building that was empty) and a witness visibly distraught and claiming that he heard sexual noises. I'm sorry, but that's plenty of information to contact police. That's not working back from what we know now.
Spanier targeting Lubert
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I stop by the BWI comedy club once in awhile. you never disappoint ............. you keep forgetting that if CSS told the truth to the GJ and investigators JVP wouldn't need vindication......
Does anyone know if spanier has changed civil lawyers recently. He seems to lose a lot. Maybe naming Lubert in the new lawsuit it will turn things around.
I'm guessing you meant to say "thought." Yes, thought. He doesn't have to be certain to report "suspected child abuse." You are instructed to report the abuse if you reasonably conceive that it may have occurred.
Then why didn't Dranov do it, you PL idiot? He was cleared because it was found there was no sex act to report. Your last troll efforts there got all of 79 responses before it was axed. Did it ever occur to your GD, conniving, fed up brain that Mike was lying? How did he hear sounds through closed doors and running water?
No, he hasn't changed lawyers. No, he's not "losing a lot". No, it's not a "new lawsuit".
If anybody shouldn't be accusing people of lying, it might be someone from your family, of all people. How's the glass house doing?
Dr. D. said himself that MM referred to sexual noises. Maybe Dr. D was making that up to screw himself over?
So this whole shitstorm is based on what somebody thought was happening.
The notes and emails from 2001 PROVE that they did tell the truth to the grand jury!
Was that before or after his testimony about his recommendation to report the incident not to the police but to Paterno still being the correct assessment?Dr. D. said himself that MM referred to sexual noises. Maybe Dr. D was making that up to screw himself over?
Dr. D. said himself that MM referred to sexual noises. Maybe Dr. D was making that up to screw himself over?
No, Mike made that up. It's as relevant as your missing police report.
Pure bullshit.
Yeah, so what's your point? Sandusky is serial pedophile... are you saying that it's not probable that he molested that boy?
Regarding CSS... specifically, what were their lies (using their words from testimony)? What was the truth? (I think I know what your answers are, but I don't want to assume anything here.) Thanks.
How is it hindsight if I am simply posting what Dr. D knew at the time? I'm not pulling in any other facts from the past or the present. Only:No need to be sorry, my hindsight superhero homey. Just keep posting.
1) A man and a boy showering together in a building with no one else around
2) A visibly distraught witness
3) Sexual sounds
That's it. Call the cops.
Hi. I think we all appreciate your passion. I don't know you and I will not judge you. However, unless you are in someone else's shoes, or going through the same life situations, it probably is inappropriate for you to refer to people as "pussies" for not coming forward, or being as outspoken as you are. WE ALL would like more "results" and information, however, I am willing to let the ENTIRE process play out before "casting stones", making judgments and launching personal attacks. I attended a meeting at the Valley Forge Casino a year or two ago hosted by Franco Harris (yes, the same casino owned by Ira Lubert). Anthony was there and our Tom McAndrew among many, many others. I distinctly remember a gentleman and his wife speaking at one point about how what they were asked by Freeh's people was totally "slanted" and "leading". They did not come out and say outright that his conclusions were not what I told them in the interview, but it was as close to that statement as you can get without actually saying those words. In fact, I think if they were pressed on the subject, they probably would have said those words. Unfortunately, I can' t remember their names, but maybe Mr. McAndrew can provide some assistance. Thanks.Established by who?
Aside from JVP Jr ...... I am not aware of a single soul
I'm not saying that it is not true that "Freeh's Notes" are not congruent with what people actually said - - - in fact, I would be SHOCKED if that was not the case
But - to date - unless I missed it (and I doubt I could have missed it)......... I am completely unaware of even one person coming forward and saying:
"Freehs "conclusions" are NOT congruent with what I told them in my interview"
Have you? Has anyone?
We all HOPE someone will finally step forward and make a statement like that
We all THINK that there are folks out there who could come forward
But - again, unless I missed it
Ya' think it's time? Maybe?
Bunch of Penn State pussies - - - at least that's what I think of most of them
I know most will say - "but they fear for their jobs", or what not
F that - IMO (but that's just the way I am
But, even from the most practical standpoint, PSU sure can't go around firing everyone who stands up for honesty and integrity wrt the way they were "interviewed"
If they did - those folks could make the Mike McQueary settlement judgements look like pocket change $$$$$$$$
So - IMO - the folks out there, assuming there are some (which seems like a safe assumption) who were:
- Denied the right to presence of Counsel
- Denied the right to document their conversations
- Denied the right to review their "notes"
- Who's statements were contrary to the "conclusions" reached by Freeh
STEP THE F UP!!!!!!
Or, live your life knowing your a damn, weak, morally-vacuous bitch
How was that?
Did it come through, that I don't have a whole lot of time for folks like that?
Yes, I did there. But see my prior post where I am only using the info from 2001 in a vacuum.
Unfortunately the mandated reporter-trained Dr. Jonathan Dranov was the guy who had to make that call. He disagreed with you in 2001, and he disagrees with you in 2017.
And, we have memorialized testimony in Mike's civil suit. Everyone--and I mean everyone--who spoke with Mike after the "incident" felt there was no crime and did not need to be reported.
To assume a "screw up" you have to make the assertion that all of these folks--under oath--were lying or did not understand. Is anyone going to tell me that Dranov didn't understand?
Because he doesn't want to go to jail. Congrats to him on worming his way out of it.
The facts to what MM conveyed to Dr. D. were exactly as I presented them in that post you replied to. If you don't agree that the authorities should have been contacted based on those three points, then we just aren't going to agree. Just know that because they weren't reported, Penn State got screwed and so did the victims. So you can continue to fight it until the cows go home and get pissed that no one outside of this message board agrees with you, but just know that it's not going to change anything. Dr. D is part of the group that ultimately screwed Penn State... glad you have his back.
Nellie, perhaps you (or others who are reading this) can jog my memory here....
wasn't there an early report that stated that the GJ who indicted C&S for perjury was NOT the GJ who heard them testify? Rather, the GJ who heard them found them credible, while the GJ who heard McQ was the one who indicted C&S? Meaning, they found McQ credible, which contradicted the C&S testimony as to what McQ told C&S? Yet, all the non-McQ testimony has been consistent with what was relayed to them by McQ, if I understand.
I'm open to me 'misremembering' here. To me, I always thought this was an important aspect of their indictment that seems to get lost in the wash. But I'm not well-versed in how the GJ system usually works in such instances.
No idea at this point why Dukie/Towny think C/S/S are their "enemy". The OAG was MMQ's enemy for trying to fashion a case around him as a "star witness" instead of a timeline progression.
No, the assumption is that the first few people MM spoke to did not want to deal with the situation, so they kicked it up the chain of command. When it got up the chain, C&S convinced Spanier that it was something other than what Paterno and MM told them it was. And here we are...
The boy said it never happened!
That's correct. OTOH and Ray and others have this, but I think it was the 33rd, convened when the previous one's time was up, and they indicted only based on what the DA's notes said. They did not hear any witnesses.
Not at all. I'm just appalled at the willingness to staunchly defend actions that ended up damaging Penn State. And for what? To try and prove that "nothing happened?" You are never going to prove that because Jerry committed illegal acts that night. He's was tried and convicted. Time to accept reality and move on.
So humor me. Why do you choose to post here?
And, how do you know this? If we are going to make that assumption, then maybe we can allow for the possibility that the folks who Mike reported to AFTER Dranov thought that if Dranov didn't think it worth reporting, then why should they?
What you are doing, is bringing your circular argument distraction routine to a thread that is about another topic entirely. And you and the others of the same ilk do it on every single thread.
This is why some people are convinced and/or suspect you 3-4-5 people of being assigned to distract from factual topics under discussion because they are getting too close to the truth about the original topic.
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:
