The New C/S/S "Smoking Gun"?
- Thread starter dshumbero
- Start date
Hmm but we already know based on the evidence that they didn't participate in a coverup
It's technically IMPOSSIBLE to cover something up when you reported it to people outside of your circle and you didn't tell anyone not to tell anyone else
So who else do you think ?
what evidence of a coverup do you have that noone has seen?
Wasn't it said that JS held a kid up under a shower head to rinse his hair? Only in your bubble would that be the same thing as anal rape.
I have ZERO desire to defend JS. He's a sick person who has some boundary issues and probably worse. But you go off the deep end when you think he couldn't do something like hug a kid without penetration.
Are you absolutely certain you didn't suffer permanent brain damage as a child?
Of maybe an uncontrolled bought with syphyllis?
Not all evidence is available to the public at this time . I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this .
But there is actual evidence out there that proves there was no coverup by CSS
I'd really like to understand exactly how a coverup could exist when people were told and no one involved was asked to keep their mouths shut ?
A bunch of documents got unsealed Friday, though I'm not sure any have any value
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/3-10-17 - Order - Curley, Schultz, Spanier.pdf
http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/Curley-Schultz-Spanier/Documents/3-10-17 - Order - Curley, Schultz, Spanier.pdf
Last edited:
not hard to grasp at all.. are you saying that it is available to others on this board but not "the public"? If that is true it is interesting... please clarify.
WTF does that mean? Colt is right.....If you are trying to cover something up, you would normally tell the ONLY witness to the crime to STFU. Didn't happen. You lose.
You really don't get it, do you? A number of people can be involved in a cover up. When you tell someone outside your organization a cover story, it is still a cover up.
It becomes criminal when you do don't report it either through Childline, CYS, or the police. It does not make a difference if 100 people were involved, if the authorities were not contacted; then it becomes a conspiracy. The more people that know, the more likely it that will talk, eventually.
You see that this happened in 1998, except that authorities were contacted.
It's not a cover up when the ONLY witness to the crime, Mike McQueary, was NOT told to keep his mouth shut. It's not a difficult concept. You lose too.
1-what "cover story" was told?
2-i agree with you - those responsible for not taking the proper action should be punished - we may disagree on who that is though. My beliefs are based on my knowledge of the CPSL - yours seem to be based on personal emotions
3-I'm really interested to know how CSS were the masterminds of the 98 "coverup" - really interested in that. Mind you I'm coming at this with an open mind but that is very interesting to me.
Really - what do you call reporting it to outsiders and not telling the witness to clam up ?
Please help me understand that
ANd as it turned out, he didn't even witness the crime that basically set the tone for the last 5 years.
Ive asked the trolls the same question numerous times and they refuse to answer and ignore it or give one word ansers. They dont have an explanation for how something can be covered up when no one secures the silence of the only witness, the people the witness spoke to, and the victim. You sure as shit don't tell an outside entity that has a legal requirement to look into any and all incidents!!
Step 1 in a cover up is tell as few people as possible and secure all lose ends. That never happened.
1. The cover story to Raykovitz that someone was just "uncomfortable" with Sandusky's conduct. The second, to John McQueary was that the incident had been "investigated."
2. If your belief is based on statute, then cite the part. Are you the one that kept babbling about the "judicial authority" that DPW has, but that is non existent?
3. I said there was a coverup (though not a conspiracy) in 1998. I said that believe that at least one of CSS were involved in it. That is far from saying that they "masterminded" it.
That is simple. The witness reported it up the chain of command. As noted, the cover story was given to people outside of the University.
I finally realized what you are. You're "the Woim" to Butch from the Little Rascals. You're Grover Dill to Scut Farkas. In other words, you're the toadie to the loud mouth bully. All you do is chirp from behind the shoulder of your leader, even though in reality your are sociopaths. All tough talk with nothing to back it up. Because the reality is, if you had to stand on your own, you'd turn tail and run away like the p*ssyboy you are.
You have nothing to contribute to this or any thread other than your phony tough sounding "Yeah-hehs" and "Nuh-uhs" echoing the other trolls. As long as you want to be a 60s icon, I suggest you change your handle to PussyGalore64. Definitely more appropriate.
Potentially? Wait, now you are saying that what Sandusky did may not have even been inappropriate???
That's what Alan Meyers said.....for free!
Can anyone explain why anytime I ask a question of Jonny Jacobs, stufftodo answers it? Do other people here on the board often answer questions asked of someone else? Just curious.
What was covered up? Penn State didn't investigate the incident. Child services, the police and DA's office did. Are you saying PSU officials influenced that investigation?
I think you are confusing covering up a perceived crime with preserving the privacy of a man they believed to be innocent.
I finally realized what you are. You're "the Woim" to Butch from the Little Rascals. You're Grover Dill to Scut Farkas. In other words, you're the toadie to the loud mouth bully. All you do is chirp from behind the shoulder of your leader, even though in reality your are sociopaths. All tough talk with nothing to back it up. Because the reality is, if you had to stand on your own, you'd turn tail and run away like the p*ssyboy you are.
You have nothing to contribute to this or any thread other than your phony tough sounding "Yeah-hehs" and "Nuh-uhs" echoing the other trolls. As long as you want to be a 60s icon, I suggest you change your handle to PussyGalore64. Definitely more appropriate.
Desperate much? 8 days until jury selection, tick tock.
Read what a cover up actually is. Understand the difference between active and passive . Then get a few clues .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up
According to your definition, "A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information"
It has been stated ad nauseum and in testimony that nobody has ever been told, coerced, forced or otherwise quieted or demanded to conceal information about 2001. There is zero evidence to support it. Zero.
That is why the word cover up is a fail in this instance. Something like 12-13 people were told and not one that I am aware of was instructed to make it go away. If that is inaccurate, please feel free to correct me. A bad decision or series of bad decisions doesn't automatically equate to a "cover up". It's easy to say now they should have made the call, but that is with a lot more information available to us.
Amen. In 2017 hindsight makes it obvious what should have happened. But I'm very interested in learning what info they had and what their decision making criteria was within the context of 2001.
