In poker this is what's known as a "tell."
Last edited:
The New C/S/S "Smoking Gun"?
- Thread starter dshumbero
- Start date
Wow such astute observations. Or crazy ramblings. I'll say crazy.
In a few weeks I'm pretty sure I'll be that dumb guy that told people Trump would win . Which I did and he did if you recall .
In fact I think they will be found guilty and it will be shocking to see who testifies for the prosecution. Stufftodo alluded to some possible witnesses .
But either way I'll claim copping pleas as guilty just to be clear .
Now what are you going to do if that happens ? Who will be the dumb one ?
Maybe Jer's dick was so big, it ruptured JockstrapJacobs spine and disabled him.
You former FOS idiot.
It was so big, little boys buried their faces in pillows and cried, while the damage went away.
Moron.
Last edited:
The OAG didn't do the investigating in 1998, but yes they could demonstrate that.
Royal, I have not mentioned the Dictaphone. That is quite secondary or tertiary. I am talking about what happened in the case. Then, I am talking about what happened in the investigation.
Your first two statements are false.
And no, it wasn't the football program. This went well beyond the football program.
Last edited:
We don't even have proof that Sandusky raped anyone on campus in 2001. Other than "slapping sounds"
No my first two statements are not false
that being said I do not doubt things had nothing to do with and go way beyond the football program
but again, my statements are most certainly not false-
TC was NOT a mandated reporter at the time (not now either but different law and for different reasons
TSM/JR were mandatory reporters
please tell me how that 100% true fact (not opinion) is false ?
You really are a massive POS. I can't believe they let you continue to post here.
@Tom McAndrew do you think this is appropriate for the board??
That's what elvis refuses to acknowledge.
- Raykovitz was a mandatory reporter
- Seems to me you could argue that Dranov was a mandatory reporter.
- Seems to me that C&S would be third on that list
Of course I'm not an expert about the law in this area and some pretty unusual things have already happened in this case. The BOT stayed in place while shunning responsibility. The AG lied in the presentment without penalty. MM got nearly as much money as Joe made in his lifetime in spite of testimony that his being a whistleblower had nothing to do with his not getting a job. So who knows what's going to happen?
Anybody who knows TC understands that the chances of him knowingly, willingly, lying, in particular about such an issue as this, are infinitesimally small. It's beyond ridiculous. Finding people who are willing to testify regarding his character and his truthfulness is going to be absurdly easy, if needed.
And yet, the question remains: why do some people desperately want CSS to be convicted? Unless you are a gleeful sPitter, why would anyone want this to happen? Particularly people who claim that they are alumni?
And yet, the question remains: why do some people desperately want CSS to be convicted? Unless you are a gleeful sPitter, why would anyone want this to happen? Particularly people who claim that they are alumni?
We have had a veritable parade of Tokyo Rose characters for how long? They change their names in an effort to disguise their mission and to whom they report. These people are scum by any name they wish to use. We've known for some time that powerful people and interests are being shielded in this case. The Commonwealth Syndicate controls the OAG and the judicial branch of this state. One only needs to point to how PornGate just "went away."
No chance 0, that Tim lied to JR. If his intent was to bury the incident, he wouldn't have discussed it with JR at all.
I think you're probably correct but it is possible that Curley's meeting with Raykovitz was an attempt to cover his butt while making sure JS didn't bring more kids on campus. It's also possible that Curley didn't want to do any more damage than necessary to his colleague JS.
I think there's a 5% chance that Curley soft peddled his story.
You don't understand what's involved to prove a conspiracy case. The email you cite doesn't prove any intent to endanger children. You're spinning like Freeh and reading something sinister into an email which isn't specific about anything.
You are right about the jury deciding. All the prosecution needs to do is get the jury all fired up and pissed off at C/S/S, facts be damned. It's their only option as this point aside from dropping the remaining charges.
I think that one thing is indisputable.....if PSU made a decision to revoke Sandusky's privilege to bring TSM children to campus facilities (due to behavior of JS involving a child) JR had an obligation to follow up. It doesn't matter what Tim said.
What was there to soft-peddle?
According to Curley, it was horseplay in the shower, right?
So that must be what he told Raykovitz, who was probably puzzled as to why he was being told this.
Or Curley perjured himself.
You pick.
The purpose of telling Raykovitz was, obviously, to have an "out" when the excrement hit the fan.
Yeah, they planned all of this stuff years in advance.
The Saturday shift is not a strength for you guys.
The Saturday shift is not a strength for you guys.
Good to have you back. What's your connection to Penn State again?
Oh yeah, Curley told JR that Jerry was horsing around in a shower with a boy and his guest privileges were being revoked. No, that shouldn't raise any eyebrows with a mandated reporter and child care expert. But you keep making excuses for him and TSM.
If I'm the CEO of a wildly successful children's charity known as the Second Mile - and I owe that success to the PARASITIC relationship my Second Mile charity has with the university - and that university just bounced my Second Mile kids from campus, complaining of my charity founder, major fundraiser and my good friend being in a shower late at night with a youth, with no clothes on - you'd be damned sure I'd sit Jerry down at my next tete a tete and say to him "What the hell do you think you are doing? This is how it's gonna be from now on".
But that never happened, and you all know that.
To get back to the original point of the thread - if there was a "smoking gun" I would have thought the AG would have leaked it by now, or simply let Louis Freeh do the dirty work.
That hasn't happened.
I also find it interesting that the AG is trying to nail these guys over emails - yet former Attorney General Beemer was complaining of the Gansler report and these porno emails taken out of context, casting aspersions and ruining reputations in the Office of Attorney General. The AG can't have it both ways.
I'd have a bunch of women on that jury and I'd show them the photos of anal rape that Frank Fina and his pornslinging pals were into. I'd show them the backchanneling these guys did with Freeh & the NCAA. I'd show them all the prosecutorial misconduct Frank Fina was up to. I'd discuss Patrick Blessington and the concurrent case with the Phila Archdiocese.
I'd ask why the state Attorney General is wasting taxpayer resources pursuing this case, cooking up conspiracy theories on the taxpayer dime, digging up dirt on their families and not investigating the undisputed gateway to all these victims - the Second Mile. I'd drag Tom Corbett's ass in. I'd put Dr. Jack Rayovitz on the stand, along with a few others from Second Mile.
There's no need to put Mike on the stand IMO. He's irrelevant.
I'd go full bore against the prosecutors that cooked up this case, their collusion with Freeh, the Patriot-News and their complete failures to properly serve the public they were sworn to protect.
I notice the #1 apologist for child abuse has shown up. Is she an ex girlfriend of Fina or something?
I'm not sure if this is a verified account, but supposedly, Raykovitz told a reporter that his response to Curley, to paraphrase, was " If you're inferring to me that Jerry Sandusky is a child molester, you're out of your mind."
That doesn't sound like Curley soft-pedaled anything.
Yep, a child care expert that observed JS daily for years said this, but Joe Paterno had to know, right?
I think you overplay the "horseplay" statement. I think it's clear that C&S knew that MM was upset by what he had experienced and that some boundaries were probably crossed. That said there is a big difference between being told of inappropriate touching and rape.
I don't think MM told C&S anything that they would have considered to be "sexual assault" or rape. He didn't tell his dad, Dranov, or Joe so why should I believe that he told C&S? Therefore I don't believe Curley told Raykovitz about rape.
It would be a big problem if MM told C&S about rape and C only told Rakovitz about horseplay. I think the likelihood of this scenario is only 5%. It's just inconsistent with all other testimony.
You say that Raykovitz would be puzzled why Curley told him about JS alone in the shower with a young boy and that PSU didn't want that to continue. Are you kidding?
He knew everything. He ran that place, y'know.
Wendy, I agree with everything you say, except for the part about putting McQueary on the stand. I don't see anyway to not do that. His embellishments are the main reason this whole mess happened.
The consistent theme to this is that of all the people who heard the MM story about that Friday night in the Lasch building, not one felt that calling the authorities was the proper way to go. Are we to believe that all of them, from JM, Dr. D, Paterno, C/S/S, and Courtney to Dr. Raykovitz and Bruce Heim were bad people who didn't put the welfare of young boys first? Every one of them? I don't know if I've ever seen anything more overblown than this whole fiasco.
And there's the rub:
IF we see a trial (and we will have that answered soon enough):
All that "stuff" that you - - or I - - or any other intelligent human being - - would bring up during the trial?
All THAT "stuff"?
What's the chances that "His Honor" Boccabella would even consider - for a minute - allowing any of THAT "stuff" to be brought up in front of a jury?
I'm thinking the % chances of THAT happening are approximately equal to "i-squared + 1"
_______________
Now, the chances that we see YET ANOTHER MikeM vs CS Circle-Jerk?
With a lot of irrelevant, worthless, obtuse, emotional, obfuscating bullshit piled on top?
I'd put those odds at about - with rounding
- 100%God bless the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!
Whatever. You guys are grasping at straws now.
Didn't JR say something to TC to the effect "if you are telling me JS is a ped you are crazy" . That tells me
1. TC was concerned
2 based on what TC has said MM told him he did not soft pedal the story
3. JR heard enough he should have investigated.
There are only two alternatives. Horseplay or something of a sexual nature. Nobody has testified to a third (although Schultz testified to both).
Also, the Penn State police commissioner (Schultz) had already looked into this and concluded that nothing untoward had happened, so what is Raykovitz supposed to do? Is he supposed to read Curley's mind and realize that even though Penn State concluded that nothing had happened and that it was a case of horseplay it was something else?
And this brings up something else. Where is the evidence that TSM was on notice that Sandusky was a pedophile. After 51/2 years why hasn't any employee or volunteer come forward to say TSM knew? Where's the equivalent of McQueary, the janitor, the second janitor (from 2005) and the Penn State cops (i.e relatively low level)? Where's the equivalent of Paterno (high level). Where is the equivalent of #6's mother (a complaining parent)? Or number 6's psychologist (a professional). And where are the emails implicating TSM?
If PSU was so concerned that TSM know about horseplay in the shower in 2001, why didn't they report '98 where a professional opined that Sandusky was a probable pedophile?
Are you serious?
Why in He!! Would JR be "puzzled" about hearing that - that is utterly ludicrous!
HE WAS THE MAN IN CHARGE AT TSM
It matters not one bit what TC told JR-only that he did tell him
Soft pedaling, as some of you claim, means jack squat anyway
He was told - he has a legal responsibility to do very specific things - he didn't - there is no pinning that on TC or anyone who came before that
Last edited:
