The New C/S/S "Smoking Gun"?

[coveydidnt]

Wow. @wensilver mentions a writer's name and our troll population is like

What's the definition of a troll? In what way is Wendy not a troll?

Wikipedia says:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Wendy is a troll for sure.

Hahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Stufftodo]

The real question:

If you are right, will people like Wendy acknowledge that they would have been defending people who endangered kids these past 5 years. How will they spin it so that they can sleep at night? [Again, assuming you are right]

As for me, despite all the squalking from the shills, I have always just been wait & see what happens.

I do still believe that Sexfaire & C|_|ntfest will be brought up and used to explain the motives of these guys. It boggles my mind that the same people that rail against "porngate," which amounted to fairly innocuous emails give Spanier a free pass for "It depends on what your definition of immoral is" -- and fail to realize that to the extent that there was a "witch hunt" in Harrisburg against Spanier, it started then.

Wesilver's hypocrisy has been note, i.e. she supported the person, Kane, who did not investigate TSM.

I don't think you will have long to wait, unless CSS succeeds in delaying the trial.

A few of these people will go into Dottie Sandusky mode.

Wow. @wensilver mentions a writer's name and our troll population is like

Mention the Devil and he appears. LOL.

 

[Zenophile]

Mention the Devil and he appears. LOL.

 

[elvis63]

A troll to this crowd means disagreeing.

 

[elvis63]

I think this is it. We will be finding out stuff that is "new to us," but has known to the OAG and the defense for a few years.

Bingo . Only an idiot or certain folk here think all the evidence in a civil crime is publicly released before a trial.

 

[Zenophile]

Everybody say, "cheese."

 

[Connorpozlee]

I think this is it. We will be finding out stuff that is "new to us," but has known to the OAG and the defense for a few years.

I think what the trial is likely to prove is that it is not cut and dried from either side. It will show that they probably could/should have done more to ensure the safety of children in the community. It will also show that there was some conflicting/unclear information that they were working with. Ultimately, their will be a guilty or not guilty verdict without clarity on the situation.
At least that's my opinion.

 

[lionville]

All bombshells are years old. There's nothing new. They just haven't been dropped yet.

Yet no one flipped or has accepted a plea deal. Why not?

 

[interrobang]

I live next to a military base. Every few months there's an old WWII training round of some dud grenade or shell discovered that gets dug up during construction.

I'm thinking those are akin to the bombshells in the C/S/S case.

 

[coveydidnt]

Yet no one flipped or has accepted a plea deal. Why not?

It remains to be seen, right? But there's very little reason to flip or plea from the defense perspective until the trial is about to begin.

 

[interrobang]

There's very little reason for the defense to flip or plea when they're faced with bogus, drawn out and nearly illegal charges.

 

[nits74]

It remains to be seen, right? But there's very little reason to flip or plea from the defense perspective until the trial is about to begin.

....., or vice versa.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Ummm, that wasn't their trial, but people can't seem to figure that out. carry on!

Or.... How about not making Dranov answer the question "What did Mike tell you that night?" as happened during the preliminary hearing? Do carry on yourself!

 

[roswelllion]

The real question:

If you are right, will peoaughterple like Wendy acknowledge that they would have been defending people who endangered kids these past 5 years. How will they spin it so that they can sleep at night? [Again, assuming you are right]

As for me, despite all the squalking from the shills, I have always just been wait & see what happens.

I do still believe that Sexfaire & C|_|ntfest will be brought up and used to explain the motives of 'these guys. It boggles my mind that the same people that rail against "porngate," which amounted to fairly innocuous emails give Spanier a free pass for "It depends on what your definition of immoral is" -- and fail to realize that to the extent that there was a "witch hunt" in Harrisburg against Spanier, it started then.

'Fairly innocuous emails'' I don't think I am a prude but from what i saw if you think these were innocuous you are weird.
. I don't know a company that if these emails were shared the employees wouldn't be fired
. The very people responsible for overseeing sexually sensitive cases are getting yucks from disgusting emails.
. If you had a wife or daughter that was involved in a sexual complaint would you want the judges overseeing the case to be passing these emails on their free time.
. if i was passing these emails around and my spouse found them there would be hell to pay.
To me that is not innocuous.

 

[coveydidnt]

'Fairly innocuous emails'' I don't think I am a prude but from what i saw if you think these were innocuous you are weird.
. I don't know a company that if these emails were shared the employees wouldn't be fired
. The very people responsible for overseeing sexually sensitive cases are getting yucks from disgusting emails.
. If you had a wife or daughter that was involved in a sexual complaint would you want the judges overseeing the case to be passing these emails on their free time.
. if i was passing these emails around and my spouse found them there would be hell to pay.
To me that is not innocuous.

The President of the United States has been in multiple Playboy videos. I really don't think anyone is going to make a case that those emails were more salacious than a Playboy video.

Anyway, somehow you seem to be saying that the mere existence of these emails, in the 2010's, somehow excuses endangering kids in 2001.

 

[RussianEagle]

Boy sexually assaulted in a Penn State shower by Sandusky.

According to a unanimous jury verdict.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sandusky was actually found not guilty of Indecent Assault concerning the 1998 incident. He was found guilty of unlawful contact, corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of children because the jury saw the incident as Sandusky likely "grooming" the boy so he would be willing and open to engaging with him sexually in the future, but the jury verdict did not say that the a sexual assault took place in that incident.

What's interesting is that the boy in the shower from the 1998 incident (Victim 6) remained friends with Sandusky well into adulthood. He even sent Jerry a "Happy Father's Day" text in 2010, only a year before the shitstorm. Only after Sara Ganim contacted his mother and several of his friends (Victims 3, 4, and 5) turned on Sandusky did he finally become a Sandusky accuser himself.

I also do not believe Victim 6 claimed there were any other inappropriate incidents following the 1998 shower bear hug, so even the idea that Sandusky was "grooming" him during that particular episode is quite questionable itself.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Blah, blah, blah. Next thing that will pop up as an explanation by the loons will be Dick Witvoet did it.

Blah, blah, balh is all you do. You are a disgrace as an American. Instead of making $hit up wht don't you follow the constitution and the law that protects you just like the rest of us. That privilege also carries the responsibility of respecting actual evidence and individual rights instead of vomiting crap on a message board.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

The real question:

If you are right, will people like Wendy acknowledge that they would have been defending people who endangered kids these past 5 years. How will they spin it so that they can sleep at night? [Again, assuming you are right]

As for me, despite all the squalking from the shills, I have always just been wait & see what happens.

I do still believe that Sexfaire & C|_|ntfest will be brought up and used to explain the motives of these guys. It boggles my mind that the same people that rail against "porngate," which amounted to fairly innocuous emails give Spanier a free pass for "It depends on what your definition of immoral is" -- and fail to realize that to the extent that there was a "witch hunt" in Harrisburg against Spanier, it started then.

You seem to be obsessed with this whole C*ntfest idea. This seems to be your shtick that you harp on in numerous posts. Just like Jacobs and his meeting at Lasch with Sloane and his dictaphone.

Are you John Lawless? (Hmm, any connection to "Harry Lawless" from Centre Hall who JJ and his pals are all FB friends with?) Or maybe a member of NAMBLA whose membership got rejected? Of course, you could be all of the above.

It's apparent the trolls are working OT and getting more numerous as the trial date gets closer. You could teach the Russian twitter trolls a thing or two.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

PSA - to JJ, Elvis, Covey, Jive & that crew that claim to have explosive information on the PSU3. I placed a call to Cate Barron over at the Harrisburg Patriot - News.

We had a nice chat - I told her to watch this thread for your content.

Kisses! Mwahhhh!

So you mean this probably wouldn't be a good time to mention JJ's previous problems with the law?

 

[coveydidnt]

So you mean this probably wouldn't be a good time to mention JJ's previous problems with the law?

Cate is a nice person who knows well what Wendy is all about and what she has said in the past about her & her paper.

I don't think she'll be going out of her way to do any favors for WS.

 

[Stufftodo]

So you mean this probably wouldn't be a good time to mention JJ's previous problems with the law?

Oh, please, enlighten us. I'm still waiting for all the supposed "relationships" I, or JJ, supposedly have.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

"I or JJ." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jonny, Jonny, Jonny, you keep demanding that we provide you with the information we're aware of, but you're being a big meanie and won't share what you claim to know. That's OK, I'm sure the people who need to know do know exactly what kind of a mental case they're dealing with.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Or.... How about not making Dranov answer the question "What did Mike tell you that night?" as happened during the preliminary hearing? Do carry on yourself!

Odd how some wanted the truth so badly now are afraid of the trial before it happens. I'd like to hear what the state has and what this 3 have to say for themselves. Apparently you know it all already. I have no idea what the state has because they haven't presented a ton that screams massive cover up. Dumb mistakes, but nothing criminal as far as I can tell. it is weird though how some of those crying the loudest for the truth have already predetermined the trial to be unfair. Sounds as if only one outcome makes it fair I guess.

 

[Stufftodo]

"I or JJ." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Jonny, Jonny, Jonny, you keep demanding that we provide you with the information we're aware of, but you're being a big meanie and won't share what you claim to know. That's OK, I'm sure the people who need to know do know exactly what kind of a mental case they're dealing with.

So, in other words, you have caught in another lie. First I supposedly have "relationships" that seem to include a sitting DA and you think this is terrible. Then there is type of "problems with the law." Now there is some sort of "mental" problem.

These seem to exist only in your mind. Perhaps, you are a "mental case," one that is suffering delusions.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Odd how some wanted the truth so badly now are afraid of the trial before it happens. I'd like to hear what the state has and what this 3 have to say for themselves. Apparently you know it all already. I have no idea what the state has because they haven't presented a ton that screams massive cover up. Dumb mistakes, but nothing criminal as far as I can tell. it is weird though how some of those crying the loudest for the truth have already predetermined the trial to be unfair. Sounds as if only one outcome makes it fair I guess.

Do you fully trust the PA judicial system in total?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

So, in other words, you have caught in another lie. First I supposedly have "relationships" that seem to include a sitting DA and you think this is terrible. Then there is type of "problems with the law." Now there is some sort of "mental" problem.

These seem to exist only in your mind. Perhaps, you are a "mental case," one that is suffering delusions.

The assclown who has insisted for several months that he isn't Jonathan Jacobs is going to call someone else a liar.

The guy who creates numerous fake profiles on various social media sites and sits commenting on them 24/7 is going to claim someone else is delusional.

You're a complete sociopath, Jacobs. Watch what you wish for. The second any "evidence" you had to offer gets presented, the defense will be all over you and everything about you will come out-- why you left DPW, why you haven't held down real job in 2 decades, those problems you've had with the law. This obvious problem you have with misogyny. I'm willing to bet the AG is aware of all that too and wouldn't touch you with a 40' cane. They know their case is flimsy enough without having someone crazier than Bernie McCue getting involved.

 

[Stufftodo]

The assclown who has insisted for several months that he isn't Jonathan Jacobs is going to call someone else a liar.

I have insisted on anything. I just have never confirmed nor denied my identity.

The guy who creates numerous fake profiles on various social media sites and sits commenting on them 24/7 is going to claim someone else is delusional.

And your mommy named you "Royal Coaster?" I limit it to one account per site.

You're a complete sociopath, Jacobs. Watch what you wish for. The second any "evidence" you had to offer gets presented, the defense will be all over you and everything about you will come out-- why you left DPW, why you haven't held down real job in 2 decades, those problems you've had with the law.

I can assure you I have worked in the last 20 years. I certainly wouldn't object to telling you why I left any any employment, after I reveal my identity.

And those "criminal problems" again? What are they?

This obvious problem you have with misogyny.

So now I have women and am, according to you, friends with a DA who happens to be a woman. Boy, you can't even keep you delusions straight.

I'm willing to bet the AG is aware of all that too and wouldn't touch you with a 40' cane. They know their case is flimsy enough without having someone crazier than Bernie McCue getting involved.

Well, the OAG is quite aware of me, so you are right on that point.

You claim a lot things here, but when asked to back them up, you get angry and retreat into you own little delusional world. Is Jerry innocent in that world?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Do you fully trust the PA judicial system in total?

No. There is no perfect judicial system on this planet. Get outside tha Pa bubble and you'll see Pa is not the only far from perfect state. I think you can at least hear the evidence before you scream foul though.

 

[Legion of Lions]

The assclown who has insisted for several months that he isn't Jonathan Jacobs is going to call someone else a liar.

The guy who creates numerous fake profiles on various social media sites and sits commenting on them 24/7 is going to claim someone else is delusional.

You're a complete sociopath, Jacobs. Watch what you wish for. The second any "evidence" you had to offer gets presented, the defense will be all over you and everything about you will come out-- why you left DPW, why you haven't held down real job in 2 decades, those problems you've had with the law. This obvious problem you have with misogyny. I'm willing to bet the AG is aware of all that too and wouldn't touch you with a 40' cane. They know their case is flimsy enough without having someone crazier than Bernie McCue getting involved.

Honest evaluation of the whole C/S/S legal case & Trial. The State's entire case has been based 100% on legal corruptions.

This simple fact is based on the ability of misinformation and "manipulated testimonies" to convince a tainted jury pool that a guilty verdict is the only "socially acceptable" conclusion to the "Sandusky - Penn State" Sex scandal. I expect the C/S/S case will draw heavily from historically established trial "evidence" ("evidence" which has been proven over time to be flawed and perjured) in addition to the mountains of misinformation and suppositions generated since 2011 as a method of continuing the "Penn State illusion". This is the OAG's hope (only hope based upon the facts of 2001) that a jury today will respond as they did when this was PAGE ONE outrage.

I also expect that much of the defense evidence - no matter how factual, logical and verifiable - will be thrown out by the judge and that the media will again be used to create the "could have beens" which form the core of the C/S/S OAG case. NOTHING WILL CHANGE - the corruption of the PA legal system is real and this fact is the ONLY thing that C/S/S have to fear in this trial.

The intense "Troll Patrol" postings which promise "new smoking gun evidence" are confirmation of the lack of real courtroom evidence. However, I do expect another "Bernie McQ clone" to emerge as a last ditch (media targeted) attempt to reinvigorate the "Outrage Factor" against C/S/S. Place your bets....Justice or will Corruption prevail again in PA??

 

[CDW3333]

You're in denial to think that there's no middle ground between innocent horsing around and sexual assault. I would hope something like that never happens to my kids but I would certainly see a big difference between a grown man rubbing up against my kid naked and having anal sex with him.

• I'm pretty sure that TSM got wind of the 1998 situation
• We know that JS got his victims came from TSM
  
• Coincidentally JS was moved to consultant status around 2001
  
• Curley reported what MM said to Raykovitz in 2001
• TSM stopped paying JS in 2009 at the same time they told him to stop camping out with boys.
• Genovese was advised to resign from TSM because of the JS rumors.
• TSM was in business of dealing with young children. Next to the DPW they should have seen red flags before anybody else.

Yet in your mind TSM didn't have a reason to suspect anything. Same with John McQueary & Dranov. Only a football coach and administrators had that knowledge and expertise.

Are you serious?

"I would certainly see a big difference between a grown man rubbing up against my kid naked and having anal sex with him."

An adult male rubbing his naked genitals against a boy's naked buttocks is absolutely sexual assault. In fact, under those circumstances it's hard to believe there wouldn't be some degree of penetration (even if unintentional) making it anal rape.

Are you absolutely sure you're serious??

 

[roswelllion]

The President of the United States has been in multiple Playboy videos. I really don't think anyone is going to make a case that those emails were more salacious than a Playboy video.

Anyway, somehow you seem to be saying that the mere existence of these emails, in the 2010's, somehow excuses endangering kids in 2001.

You are goofy. I was commenting on your innocuous email comment. My point is anyone who participated in these emails should be kicked out of public office. Nothing to do with anyones actions in 2001. The fact that Wendy is outraged over this stuff is to her credit not to demean her.

Two simple questions. Do you work for an employer? If the answer to that is yes, if you were sending or receiving these email around your office and it was discovered by HR or the company President, would you be fired?

Nuff said

 

[Stufftodo]

You are goofy. I was commenting on your innocuous email comment. My point is anyone who participated in these emails should be kicked out of public office. Nothing to do with anyones actions in 2001. The fact that Wendy is outraged over this stuff is to her credit not to demean her.

Two simple questions. Do you work for an employer? If the answer to that is yes, if you were sending or receiving these email around your office and it was discovered by HR or the company President, would you be fired?

Nuff said

And yet, she shows no outrage that Kane, the disgraced Whitchfinder General, didn't investigate TSM. The porn is clearly legal. Maybe there is something illegal at TSM.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

No. There is no perfect judicial system on this planet. Get outside tha Pa bubble and you'll see Pa is not the only far from perfect state. I think you can at least hear the evidence before you scream foul though.

"Far from perfect" eh? Is that Latin for corrupt?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

"Far from perfect" eh? Is that Latin for corrupt?

I lived in NOLA for close to 2 decades. Pa corruption is for beginners.

 

[bjf1991]

And yet, she shows no outrage that Kane, the disgraced Whitchfinder General, didn't investigate TSM. The porn is clearly legal. Maybe there is something illegal at TSM.

You're a GD disgrace to humanity.

If you were not so obnoxiously pestiferous, you would just be pitiful and pathetic.

Good Lord.

 

[artsandletters]

Boy sexually assaulted in a Penn State shower by Sandusky.

According to a unanimous jury verdict.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a link for that verdict? I'm unfamiliar with your claim.

 

[Stufftodo]

You're a GD disgrace to humanity.

If you were not so obnoxiously pestiferous, you would just be pitiful and pathetic.

Good Lord.

I don't support covering up for pedophiles. I don't really care about the opinions of the people that do.

Do you have a link for that verdict? I'm unfamiliar with your claim.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html

The charge was Unlawful Contact (Felony 3) and Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor). Sandusky was found not guilty on Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse.

 

[colt21]

I don't support covering up for pedophiles. I don't really care about the opinions of the people that do.

Let me start with - i don't support those who cover up for a pedo either

But let me ask you this - who exactly is it that you think covered up for a pedo since we already know (based on the evidence already available) it wasn't CS or S ?

 

[elvis63]

Odd how some wanted the truth so badly now are afraid of the trial before it happens. I'd like to hear what the state has and what this 3 have to say for themselves. Apparently you know it all already. I have no idea what the state has because they haven't presented a ton that screams massive cover up. Dumb mistakes, but nothing criminal as far as I can tell. it is weird though how some of those crying the loudest for the truth have already predetermined the trial to be unfair. Sounds as if only one outcome makes it fair I guess.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[elvis63]

Let me start with - i don't support those who cover up for a pedo either

But let me ask you this - who exactly is it that you think covered up for a pedo since we already know (based on the evidence already available) it wasn't CS or S ?

That has not been decided and why these charges are still here.