Have you visited your buddy Jerry to discuss this with him? It appears to be
very important to members of his fan club.
The Commonwealth's dubious claims in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Have you visited your buddy Jerry to discuss this with him? It appears to be
very important to members of his fan club.
It may not be important to you and I am fine with that, but it is important to me. I believe in the American system of justice and I believe that Sandusky's constitutional right to a fair trial has been violated. If he is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe the results will be entirely different the second time around.
Did you read Allan Myers' testimony from the PCRA hearling that was just posted online? If so, do you really believe that Allan Myers was abused by Jerry? Honest question.
There are probably quite a few people who have not received fair trials and some may even
be innocent. Your crusade for justice might garner some support if you hadn't chosen an
obviously guilty child molester as your poster boy.
I must have missed the bit in the Constitution where if someone is deemed "obviously guilty" by Osprey Lion then due process doesn't matter anymore. Eh, I never really care for civics class.
I didn't choose this story, it chose me on account my being from a Penn State family. When the story broke in November 2011, I bought into the story the OAG was selling in the form of the Grand Jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, and that Sandusky's behavior was corroborated by janitor James Calhoon and multiple accusers. As I have learned more about the case, I now believe NCIS Special Agent John Snedden as articulated in the bigtrial.net blog that there was no sex scandal at Penn State just a political hit job where there is no credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that Sandusky engaged in sexual relations with any of the accusers.
IMO, it is far from obvious that Sandusky is a guilty child molester. I believe that it is far more obvious that Sandusky's trial was a sham from the start and obviously unfair. His counsel were totally ineffective, the prosecution committed serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct, and Judge Cleland clearly had a prosecutorial bias. If is so obvious that Sandusky is a child molester, please provide me the single best piece of evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that proves Sandusky engaged in sexual relations with any of the accusers.
I think my big issue has always been the way this was rushed to trial. This thing went to trial in 7 months. In cases like this, that is unheard of. And, it takes 5 years to get the C/S/S charges adjudicated.
I'm not a fan of Zeigler's delivery and his confrontational or defensive approach, but, I think "it is reasonable to conclude" that as an entire community was painted as pedophile enablers, that the jury could not have been objective. I really felt that, like Zeigler says, the jury felt an obligation to convict.
I'm not saying Jerry is innocent, but too much of this stuff doesn't pass the smell test.
I want a clear airing of the facts as well. I want a lawyer to not be afraid to get his hands dirty and ask the tough questions. And by tough, questions that will get them criticized by the Media. These guys owe it to their clients. Spanier's lawyer was afraid to do so, and we know how that worked out.
I don't understand how ANYONE can look at Sandusky's trial objectively, and be OK with the fact he was convicted on charges where there was no victim, no witness, no date of incident, and no physical evidence. and the only actual "witness" was recorded saying the person he saw was not Sandusky
or that state troopers were caught on tape with a victim's civil attorney conspiring to manufacture charges.
or that the most critical victim in regards to Penn State WAS KNOWN, never called to the stand, and made several statements prior to trial that he was never abused by Sandusky
or that 4 or 5 victims actually knew each other
or that victim 1 was not considered credible by his high school, the state investigators, his neighbors, and 2 grand juries.
He's obviously guilty because he was convicted at trial, he was convicted at trial because he's obviously guilty.
You nailed it in the first sentence. Many don't look at it objectively. They look at it through the lens of their bias.
here's the really sad part, 6 years later.
these relentless jackanapes added their noisy voices over the cries of alumni to fix the broken child welfare system.
the media could have run with this issue, but chose not to do so
the OAG could have run with this issue, but chose not to do so
the Paterno hating trolls could have run with this issue, but chose not to do so
the alleged "victim advocates" could have run with this issue, but chose not to do so
and children continue to be at risk and die from this broken system.
I know which jerks I blame . . .
I said this at the time of the trial, there was no way that the jury wasn't going to convict. The way the media narrative was and the climate of the community, there was no way that the members of the jury were going to find him innocent and then go home to their friends, family, and co-workers and have to explain how they let a "monster" go free.
I have been wondering about why that Judge Cleland would try to insert him into the PCRA now when Judge Foradora is getting ready to make his ruling. I am sure that Judge Foradora had previously read Cleland's November 18, 2016 opinion and order where he recused himself and then went on to show his clear prosecution bias by saying that he would have denied the PCRA. I think this letter was a nudge-nudge wink-wink move by Cleland asking Foradora to protect the judicial order. I don't think Cleland expected the letter to be made part of the record. I think that perhaps Foradora was not happy to receive the letter and in the interest of transparency decided to make it part of the record. I think that Judge Foradora may be thinking independently and objectively on the PCRA. If he is, I believe that bodes well for Sandusky because the law is on his side as it seems from the record that the trial was inherently unfair as demonstrated by the defense counsel's ineffectiveness, the serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth, and a clear prosecution bias on the part of the judiciary.
I am anxiously awaiting Judge Foradora's ruling which should happen this month, perhaps within the next 2 weeks.
That testimony was rather shocking to read. To me that testimony screamed "I'm lying for the money". Allen Myers testimony, combined with the actions of Sr McQ, Dranov, CSS (and even P) in 2001 at the time of the event, and further combined with MikeMcQ being content with everything in 2001 and for the next 10 years is enough to conclude, without a doubt, that absolutely nothing sexual or criminal did occur in the shower in 2001. Nothing. At. All.
If only the public at large could be made aware of Myers testimony to truly understand the lack of evidence and ilies that have been told to damage Penn State...
here's another way to look at how peculiar AM's testimony was (and I am paraphrasing because I don't have it in front of me)
the state prosecutor asks, "did you tell so and so you were sexually abused by Mr Sandusky?"
AM hems and haws, pulls the Mike Mcqueary "if that's what I said then maybe I said it" nonsense
the logical follow up question is:
"WERE you sexually abused by Mr Sandusky?"
and AM's reply would be "yes"
in fact, Reuters reported it as such.
except he was ONLY asked "were you sexually abused?"
and he was reply was "yes"
as Zig would say, BOMBSHELL
this isn't just lazy lines of inquiry, this seems DELIBERATELY misleading.
The transcript establishes that AM said that Sandusky sexually abused him.
The first question was "..you told him that you were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky; correct?"
The question was not answered and so the very next followup question was "Were you sexually abused?" to which the answer was "yes."
I've seen hundreds of the same type of followup questions that everyone knew referred to the first question. Was it a perfectly phrased question; no. Does it mean the question and answer do not establish that Sandusky abused AM; I don't think so.
In the end what you and I think doesn't matter.
Agree with you regarding AM. Now, does that mean nothing happened with others? Can't extrapolate, so we don't know.
I'm not sure i follow what you are saying.
I'll paraphrase what i recall from the testimony
AM say initially that nothing happened in the shower.
AM says that McQ didn't see diddly-poop.
AM calls McQ a liar (meaning that McQ's 2011 GJ story is simply not true)
AM was interviewed a couple times pre-trial and his story was consistent.
<time passes and it becomes known that $$$ are on the table for the taking>
Post-trail, AM now conveniently remembers that he was abused [by Sandusky], but cannot explain or give a statement why he said several times pre-trial that nothing happened without his nose growing longer than Pinocchio's ($$$$)
His testimony is that explicit and clear. I still think it is stunning that Amendola failed to call him to the stand.
Last edited:
I don't know either. What I do know is that the powder-keg that caused Penn State to be sullied is a lie.
We can extrapolate that if the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentment statement of facts that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape is false, then Sandusky did not receive a fair hearing. Regarding whether anything happened to others, that should be determined in a new trial IMO.
To me the Allan Myers transcript, coupled with other things that were known, COMPLETELY exonerates Joe, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. It blows the conspiracy nonsense out of the water. It means everyone was wrongly terminated. It means NCAA sanctions were wrongly levied.
Myers transcripts spells out that his story from the beginning was that no abuse occurred during the McQueary incident (or ever). Couple that with Mike's email to the OAG that his grand jury testimony was misrepresented and that he DID NOT see rape. Couple that with the actions of John McQueary and Dr. Dranov, and their testimony that what Mike reported to them that night did not warrant a call to the police. Couple that with the testimony of Curley and Schultz, that what was reported to them was horseplay. IT ALL ADDS UP. Mike did not witness a crime. He did not report a crime to his dad, to Dr. Dranov, to Joe, to Curley, or to Schultz. Penn State was thrown under the bus for nothing. THIS IS WHAT THE MEDIA NEEDS TO BE REPORTING.
Myers transcripts spells out that his story from the beginning was that no abuse occurred during the McQueary incident (or ever). Couple that with Mike's email to the OAG that his grand jury testimony was misrepresented and that he DID NOT see rape. Couple that with the actions of John McQueary and Dr. Dranov, and their testimony that what Mike reported to them that night did not warrant a call to the police. Couple that with the testimony of Curley and Schultz, that what was reported to them was horseplay. IT ALL ADDS UP. Mike did not witness a crime. He did not report a crime to his dad, to Dr. Dranov, to Joe, to Curley, or to Schultz. Penn State was thrown under the bus for nothing. THIS IS WHAT THE MEDIA NEEDS TO BE REPORTING.
So what about Mike's police statement and GJ testimony that he was certain the JS was sodomizing the boy.
when did he make that police statement? Just like AM says one thing until money was on the table, so it was with MM. He was clear he didnt see any thing, so he couldnt perjure himself, he just offered up what he thought, 10 years too late.
The boy who was there said that what Mike said he witnessed was a complete falsehood. He called Mike a liar.
Remember, Mike said he had two, maybe three, quick glances. Mike wasn't sure what he saw until the OAG told him what he saw in the GJP. By that time, Mike was so beyond knowing the truth that he went along for the ride.
I don't believe it is credible. I believe it was subject to manipulation by the OAG. I believe that actions speak louder than words and Mike's actions in 2001 scream that he was not at all certain JS was sodomizing AM at the time. I agree with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there is no credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that JS engaged in any sex acts with any of the accusers.
Don't know. What I do know is that police statement is completely contradicted by his email to the OAG where he states that his grand jury testimony was misrepresented in the presentment.
Mike also progressively walks back his certainty each time he was on the record re: 2001.
In his 2010 statement to OAG he was certain sodomy was occurring. Then in his 12/16/11 prelim and subsequent testimony he says that it "looked like" some sort of sex was happening or he "thought" sex going on due to the sounds/positioning he observed. In 12/16/11 prelim he admints that he wasn't 100% sure what they were doing since he couldn't see anyone's hands or privates. Let that sink in a minute while considering how much damage has been done to PSU over the 2001 incident.
It's the same maneuvering M.O. that AM tried to do during his recent testimony as someone else pointed out. It reeks of OAG manipulation.
When you compare MM's 2010 OAG statement (9 YEARS after the incident) that he was certain a kid was getting raped with JM/Dr. D's testimony that what MM said that night wasn't bad enough to call police/CYS, it's clear what the truth is.
#1 - clearly it doesn't. I don't believe you read the transcript.
#2 - you're half right. what you think is wrong, therefore irrelevant
Yes, after he was getting hammered for walking out and doing nothing
Or did he go back on his comments once he saw how much shit those comments were going to get Joe, Curley, and Schultz in? That could go both ways...
Here is what is credible. When the GJP was published and indicated MM witnessed anal rape....he immediately tried to clarify and was told to shut up by Jonelle Eshbach.
PS was there really a stool in the shower room LOL....
PS was there really a stool in the shower room LOL....
What the transcripts establish is that like every accuser, AM is a liar. What we are left to decide is did they lie the first time they were questioned or did they lie with 3 million dollars on the line?
There was "stool" Mike's made up shit about sounds, mirrors and the rest of his idiotic crap.
The truth will never be revealed in this case. All we know is that hundreds of millions have been spent to assure it doesn't bubble to the surface. There must be serious questions about the credibility of AF, all one must do is ask any one of his former teachers. The Commonwealth Agencies that were deeply embedded with JS and TSM as well as many powerful individuals needed to be shielded from scrutiny in this mess. Nothing was spared financially or otherwise to guarantee that the facts would remain buried. There will be no new trial. Any judge who grants it would share a cell with Spanier and co.
Yet Dr. Dranov, a respected physician, heard nothing in Mike's story which he felt required contacting the authorities. The little boy in the shower(being sexually abused) is plain and simple a hoax.
Mike had every right to be concerned about JS being in the shower with a youngster in the evening alone. Reporting that made sense. As for what he actually "saw?" One only needs to be familiar with the layout of the locker room. His testimony doesn't match the site lines.
Mike "testified" only what he was told to testify. How any MOUNTAINS of evidence are needed to confirm this. In 2001 NO ONE....including MM ....testified as to an illegal (sexual) act being observed. The meeting with Paterno was for some other purpose - who knows what that was?? Yes, it involved Sandusky in the shower, but what MM told Paterno IN 2001, was DEFINITELY NOT any form of "report-able event" (even for a 2001 event under 2007 legal standards!!!!).
Actions speak loader than word!!! NO ONE by their actions in 2001 who heard what MM saw in "the shower" felt that any form of criminal act occurred! Remember there are at LEAST 5 independent people (inside and outside of PSU) that acted EXACTLY in this manner. That the State of PA put a "RAPE OF A SMALL CHILD" into the reported MM "testimony" BY ITSELF is an unsupportable statement and a CRIME based on the Oath of office for EACH of the OAG persons involved here.
FACT....based on 2001 testimony concerning MM's report of Sandusky in PSU showers - the only CRIME here is the crimes committed by the OAG!! The laws broken in this case are all by the State of PA's OAG and Governor - perjury, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering- just to name a few of the "smaller crimes".
Face it....This is truth and those who have tried to promote a 2001 crime (like those who post here under various "Troll Patrol" names) can't handle the truth!
We need to get the fact that the entire Penn State-Paterno "Criminal Culture" story is a HOAX - a pure fiction the media distributed KNOWINGLY to misguide the general public. And when the REAL FACTS of the mountains of State of PA criminality become generally known...then real justice can begin. We need to expose to the public the REAL CRIMES this hoax was designed to shield.
HINT......Follow the (Penn State) money and who REALLY got it (forget the "victims" that remain mostly nameless - instead - look at who received "fees and services monies" supporting the "legal processes" of this case and then ....look at who personally issued these PSU checks. The real CRIMINALS will then be exposed!!
I agree with most of your post, but I am not sure that the truth will never be revealed and that there will be no new trial. I think there is a reasonable chance that either Judge Foradora will grant Sandusky a new trial or that Sandusky will win a new trial on appeal. The law is on Sandusky's side in his PCRA petition. This case is a textbook example of an unfair trial and the reason that PCRA laws were written. It is replete with totally ineffective defense counsel, serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct, and judges with an extreme prosecution bias. If Sandusky wins a new trial, I think there would be a very good chance that the truth would become evident. Too many people know what actually happened for the truth to be burried forever.
