ADVERTISEMENT

What we know after 4 years....

Legion of Lions

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2011
839
1,531
1
It has taken 4 years.... but today the TRUTH about the Sandusky Scandal is becoming obvious.

What was the most reasonable case - that whatever Sandusky's actions were in 2001 at PSU have been distorted by a well orchestrated media PR campaign designed to hide real crimes and real criminals.

The "Public Truth" of a Penn State Criminal Football program and a "Pedophile enabling" Joe Paterno can now be solidly disproven as information now exists for a more reasonable scenerio than what has driven "the court of public opinion". This public story - taken as public fact - is what it always appeared to be....total BS! I can only hope that the Paterno suit proves all of this in court.

HOWEVER, after 4 years here is what we now know. It serves as a checklist of what needs in-depth investigation by an "uncontrolled" or influenced entity:

(1) The OAG Presentment document (the core of the Criminal PSU Illusion) was designed to contain KNOWN mis-information. Its motive for the content errors must be questioned and investigated.

(2) There are features of MM's personal life that put into questions ANY of his various versions of the 2001 testimony. Immediate and direct investigation into MM's testimony is required and the potential personal influences which could have effected the shifting sands of his testimony need to be publicly exposed.

(3) There is a pattern of using the "Grand Jury" system as a method of hiding information where politically motivated campaigns are concerned. It is reasonable to assume that the Grand Jury is being used to hide information so that campaigns created by the Political Elite of PA" can be conducted. It appears that the destruction of anyone or thing that appose the agenda of PA's "political elite" is subject to Grand Jury investigation. (ask Kathleen Kane about all this). No one sees this as "Strange"??? The secrecy aspect of the Grand Jury and a "letter of the law" interpretation is actually being used to create and then promote cover for personal agendas and other potential criminal activities.

(4) The state of PA's court system has been influenced (at least) if not compromised throughout the Sandusky Case. It is these features that have extended the C/S/S trials as a method of further removing the truth from the public's eye. This brings to question the entire legal process inside PA.

(5) The "Political Elite" in the State of PA have permitted (or designed) a BOT structure that will take any action which advances its political needs - including stealing money and hiding collusive political and personal agendas. The no audit or oversight features of the PSU BOT operations exist - especially in the matter of Sandusky. This is criminally negligent. It proves (or at least STRONGLY SUGGESTS) the political incest that exists within the BOT executive group.

(6) Freeh is just as his historical resume confrims - he is someone that will write "a report" as dictated by ANYONE who pays him - without regards to facts, laws or sound moral principals. He is a hired gun who was recommended by Tom Corbett as someone who would "certify" the story the OAG created as a means to deflect public attention to PSU . This is a method of protecting REAL crimes and criminals.

(7) The NCAA is in collusion with the OAG, Freeh, and the NCAA in creating a public image of "Criminal Football Culture" without ONE SHREAD OF LEGAL EVIDENCE. There are publicly viewable emails that support the fact that the NCAA "maliciously targeted" Penn State and Joe Paterno in its actions with the full knowledge that no authority - legally or contractually - existed for such actions. The result of the NCAA's actions is that MILLIONS of DOLLARS were extorted from PSU funds - a federal crime - and yet NO charges have been (or will be) filed. REMEMBER...this is 503C corporation that has as part of its core charter to INSURE College Sports do not allow unfair advantages on the field for those who exceed the concepts of an "amateur" focus in College Sports.

(8) The NCAA Sanction package was constructed ONLY to extort money for its own use and to KILL athletics at Penn State. NO OTHER ACTIONS EVER TAKEN BY THE NCAA - including the SMU Death Penalty - have had as their primary target the total destruction of a member institution's sports program. This "package" alone is bad faith execution of the NCAA charter. Again based on the MILLIONS in consequences this is a CRIMINAL ACT.

There are many more specifics which are now known. There are many CREDIBLE QUESTIONS concerning each of the key players in the Sandusky Scandal - certainly not the least of which is ...TSM, PA Child Protection Services, the sale of the PA COURT SYSTEM to those with enough money or power.....all of this should now be fully investigated.

With so many questions about the operations of the State of PA, WHERE IS THE FEDERAL PROECTION for us all which needs to address these issues???
 
Great post.

Also that three innocent men convicted guilty in the court of public opinion will never get the chance to defend themselves. It's sickening. They will walk and everyone will make it sound like some kind of corruption led to it. The corruption lies with those that are putting the guys and their families through this forever? What in the hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
Great post.

Also that three innocent men convicted guilty in the court of public opinion will never get the chance to defend themselves. It's sickening. They will walk and everyone will make it sound like some kind of corruption led to it. The corruption lies with those that are putting the guys and their families through this forever? What in the hell.

First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.


So youre saying if you throw enough shit against the wall something might stick? Also how is there a clear failure to report under a state statute that didn't even exist in 2001? Doesn't seem so clear to me
 
C/S/S are probably going to make what some of the victims' settlements look like pennies down the line.

Nothing was handled right. Every window that was open to a lawsuit was opened and actually a BoT member yelled out the window each step. Most screwed up and disorganized collective group of "intelligent" leadership ever assembled. Exaggeration? Not by much.
 
Not one of the 3 will be convicted of failure to report......it has already been established that they had no legal requirement to do so( in the Commonwealth, where you might recall they are charged). You are worse than a hypocrite for having the word "stonewalling" in your vocabulary. If you are an advocate for sunshine.... talk to the misanthropes that are paying you and see what their response is to "opening the books" on the entire matter. Oh wait, we already know $$$$ their answer to that. It might be best if you return to your duties as President and ONLY member of the John Surma fanclub. He might be depressed and in need of his boots being licked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.
There is absolutely no justifcation, real or contrived, for what has been done to these men. Get over yourself.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.


You're still an idiot, "persona non grata". Get back to Penn Live.
 
So youre saying if you throw enough shit against the wall something might stick? Also how is there a clear failure to report under a state statute that didn't even exist in 2001? Doesn't seem so clear to me


The State claims "on-going crime" Good luck with that BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
So youre saying if you throw enough shit against the wall something might stick? Also how is there a clear failure to report under a state statute that didn't even exist in 2001? Doesn't seem so clear to me

Don't try to argue anything that goes against CR66's pro-BOT, knee burns agenda - she doesn't like that and that's not what she is getting paid to do.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

Sometimes I'm not sure if you're serious or if you just enjoy stirring the pot. I'm not a legal expert so I don't have an opinion regarding their obligation to report, but I do know this much:
  • MM's dad and Dranov both testified that MM didn't tell them about anything sexual.
  • Joe testified that MM didn't tell him about anything so egregious as what was presented to the GJ.
  • MM testified that he used soft language with Joe.
  • C/S/S all testified that they considered MM's report to be about inappropriate horseplay.
The bottom line is that it is difficult to believe John McQueary, Dranov, and MM's admission about what he told Joe but NOT believe C/S/S. Besides, they did inform Raykovitz. I seriously doubt that any of these guys will be found guilty of a coverup or failure to report.

I do think it's possible that Shultz was less than honest in his testimony. That tells me that he had an "oh $h!t" moment and he was covering his butt for screwing up and not doing more (with the benefit of hindsight).

I agree that C/S/S are stonewalling but that doesn't mean they are guilty. The court doesn't always get it right so why not play it safe? Besides, how can a person prove a negative? And FWIW the prosecution has also been stonewalling. If they had such a strong case why would they be reluctant to release more information?
 
Just wondering, does thinking Sandusky is guilty make one "Pro-BOT"? Asking for a friend...

I don't think the BOT cares one iota whether Sandusky is guilty or not. Staunchly defending the BOT, even in the face of history and facts not supporting your argument, is what makes CR66 so "pro-BOT". She is a known BOT-schill who claims to have connections when in reality she's likely nothing more than a sycophant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
Just wondering, does thinking Sandusky is guilty make one "Pro-BOT"? Asking for a friend...

Nah.

Sandusky is guilty. The reason he was so good at getting away stuff is he tricked people. It sounds simple and it is. Some people may have even had a clue, I am almost certain our AD, President, and football coach were not the lead candidates for "knowing". Being a goofy asshole is not a crime. Stealing 7 million dollars to have a report constructed that will make you look better in the longterm to cover some already horrible moves and will destroy lives and cost 100's of millions is. A report that literally had emails without context as "key" evidence for conclusions.

The people that were interviewed by Freeh's team were badgered. And that report was what they got?! And those conclusions were reasonable? Yeah ok.
 
Last edited:
Question - Does anyone think Joe held the football program hostage from 2000-2011, daring the BOT to fire him? I just don't like the fact that a great man, who often said he doesn't golf, fish, travel, etc. may have done just that. The program was slowly become poor to mediocre. Joe started to perform poorly in press conferences and act woefully old on the sidelines and the booth. Might, there be a chance he for at least 5-6 years dared the BOT to fire him, thus creating more animosity? I still think he would have been the face of college football FOREVER, if he would have retired after the 2002 season.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

Wow. So by your view of things, the reason these men haven't yet had their trial is solely because their counsel is "stonewalling". I know that you are a troll regarding this issue, so there is no use trying to reason with you. But for the other folks reading this thread, things don't work that way in our legal system. I was hoping that CR66 would not like topic view and go elsewhere, but alas, that is not the case.
 
Question - Does anyone think Joe held the football program hostage from 2000-2011, daring the BOT to fire him? I just don't like the fact that a great man, who often said he doesn't golf, fish, travel, etc. may have done just that. The program was slowly become poor to mediocre. Joe started to perform poorly in press conferences and act woefully old on the sidelines and the booth. Might, there be a chance he for at least 5-6 years dared the BOT to fire him, thus creating more animosity? I still think he would have been the face of college football FOREVER, if he would have retired after the 2002 season.

I don't agree with the words "held hostage" but I appreciate your point. I'm sure that a number of BOT members had animosity for Joe because he had so much fan support that it was difficult to force him to retire. I'm sure that their frustration grew over the years and they seized the opportunity to get rid of him after the GJ presentment became public.

  1. Shame on them! Whose fault is it if they lacked the courage to stand up to Joe?
  2. Joe was going to be gone soon anyway. They didn't need to handle things the way they did.
  3. They fired Joe by phone at night instead of face to face. They didn't allow him to speak. They didn't wait for an investigation. It doesn't get much worse than that.
  4. It all backfired anyway. Their approach alienated fans and alumni and cost the university hundreds of $millions.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

The judge is the one stonewalling.
Probably on orders from former AG.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act.

Think you can prove that? I'm more confident that their lawyers can prove the opposite than that you and/or the State can prove what you claim.

Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

Stonewalling? You have to be kidding. The 3 respective defenses have raised issues, the Judge took forever to rule on some of the motions, and those rulings are being appealed. Trying to get charges dismissed, or the testimony of certain individuals thrown out, is not stonewalling.

Pretty much any defense lawyer will tell you that it's better to have a case dismissed before going to trial than to actually go to trial. Clearing the air, and removing any doubts about their innocence, are things that, unfortunately, can't be addressed until the cases are dismissed, or until after the trials. From what I've been told, each is anxious to clear the air, but on the advice of counsel, all of them are staying mute about the situation until the case is dismissed, or until after the trial. You're far too smart to not be able to figure that out on your own.
 
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

As for your "clear failure to report", balderdash. The law was changed after the incidents occurred. Besides they were not mandatory reporters.
 
I don't think the BOT cares one iota whether Sandusky is guilty or not. Staunchly defending the BOT, even in the face of history and facts not supporting your argument, is what makes CR66 so "pro-BOT". She is a known BOT-schill who claims to have connections when in reality she's likely nothing more than a sycophant.
The biggest concern they have is the upcoming depositions. Even CR66 will admit that.
 
This "psuphillyfan14" smells an awful lot like an expert on parliamentary procedures.

All that turd does is go "LALALALA you're a Penn Live troll" to anyone he disagrees with. Not only is it pathetic but its downright laughable that he actually believes that Penn Live, a dying newspaper, is actually employing people to troll message boards.

But then again he actually believes Sandusky is innocent so....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trey Suevos
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

bootlicker.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mn78psu83
First off, It's all but certain that one or more of the three will be found guilty of at least one of the charges leveled against them. At the very least, there was a clear failure to report an incident that should have been reported to law enforcement and/or CS required under state statutes and the federal Clery Act. Further, if the three don't get an opportunity to defend themselves in court, it will be because their legal counsel is stonewalling the process with the hopes of never seeing the inside of a courtroom. If the defendants want to clear the air and remove all doubts about their innocence, they should tell their counsel to stop the stonewalling and let them tell their story in front of a jury.

enh I don't want to start the new era of the BWI board by replying to this worthless piker, but it is important to affirm what C/S/S are being charged with in re 2001. and why your post is a steaming pile of donkey sputum.

ready?? Even the OAG concedes they did nothing illegal in 2001. The FTR charges are part of this very weird prosecutorial trick where the OAG says they were not legally required to report ANYTHING in 2001, regardless of what they were told. However, the reporting mandates changed in 2007. At which point the prosecutions says C/S/S SHOULD have come forward and reported what they were told in 2001. People seem to miss this legal nuance that is, by many standards, just friggin insane.

the stonewalling is clearly coming from the judge, who doesn't want to touch any of these legal issues with a 10 foot pole. You're implying that your right to challenge the prosecution's case before trial is a form of stonewalling, because obviously even if the prosecutions makes sh*t up as they go along and charges you with some ridiculous twisting of the law, then you should cede your Constitutional rights and just duke these issues out in front of a jury.

Spanier, Curley, and Schultz have made it pretty clear they will fight bogus charges, but they also want to have their side of the story made public. you seem to fall into this disingenuous cycle of getting drunk at the country club, talking to your good pal Kenny, then deciding you will post some completely nonsensical attack on a board where LITERALLY NO ONE buys your BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewEra 2014
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT