Ziegler WRSC 8/19

[wensilver]

The number of things you are unaware of/ignoring in your post would fill a book

Can you provide more insight?

As always - I am watching all this from my bleacher seating in a zip code 3+ hours away. There is such a lingering stench - and I have to wonder how much wafts up the Turnpike from Philly, drifts thru Hershey and arrives at Old Main.

I have to use the analogy of your refrigerator - something really stinks and you're not sure what. You take a cursory look, toss some old food, put in a box of Baking Soda (or spray it with a $8.5 million can of FREEHbreze) but it still smells. Crikey! What the hell is festering in there?

Until that refrigerator & freezer is completely emptied and scrubbed down - it's still gonna stink.

 

[Misder2]

No need to poke holes in Sandusky's guilt. The OAG's actions in this case are the issue. When you have Erickson refer to MM's story as more vivid 10 years later....that doesn't raise suspicion? I have no investment in Sandusky's guilt or innocence. I am interested in the fact that GS2 and TC were led to believe they had council and stated such on the record. Where was Fina when this happened? Surely you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth. So the star witness for the Commonwealth testifies unchallenged, since those who dispute are indicted. We have a totally bogus crying janitor....who allegedly has dementia and can't testify. Yet he stated that the person in question was NOT Sandusky. You have the "primary" victim who had no credibility with 2 grand juries, nor to those who knew him at his school district. You have the OAG leaking to a newspaper person who is "recruiting" victims and victims communicating with one another. To put a bow on the prosecutions questionable tactics, we hear PSP lie to influence testimony.
Jerry Sandusky at the very least is a strange fellow. He put himself in the position to be prosecuted. He probably is guilty of some of the things he is accused of. I take issue with what
I consider to be grievous misconduct and deception in this case. That is what leads me to ask why?

"Surely you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth."

No I don't agree with that. The primary job of OAG, here and now, is to get convictions. I agree it shouldn't be but it is, and they have proven they will go to any lengths to succeed.

 

[marshall23]

"Surel ty you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth."

No I don't agree with that. The primary job of OAG, here and now, is to get convictions. I agree it shouldn't be but it is, and they have proven they will go to any lengths to succeed.

So conviction at any cost is the role of the OAG? I suggest you check into that.

 

[Misder2]

So conviction at any cost is the role of the OAG? I suggest you check into that.

The proof is in the pudding

 

[pandaczar12]

His actions with these kids is beyond grooming. You have the one of the nations top experts say he is in the top 1% of nice guy predators, but these guys here know more. The compare stories of 5 year old kids talking to the law in other cases versus 10 year olds testifying as adults.

Would you look at that... you made a coherent argument that wasn't centered on the "sheer number of accusers". Bravo... my work here is done.

 

[simons96]

Perhaps I can share an analogy from my life experience. One of the things I did to pay the freight when my family was young, was recreation supervision in the state prison system. The facility was maximum security with the majority of inmates convicted of murder. I organized their sport activities and refereed as needed. Over time I had conflicting sentiments in regard to how the inmates were treated by the corrections officers.
One could rationalize that these were convicts and therefore they deserved to be treated worse than a stray animal.
I see this in posts when some say JS is a pedophile and it doesn't matter that the prosecution was tainted and he is not entitled to a fair trial.

great share. I have 2 very profound memories of my time at Penn State.

one was volunteering at the Special Olympics. something the Paterno family has graciously supported for decades. But I got to watch a lot of pure joy and sportsmanship for an entire weekend. part of our "culture" I guess.

the second was being part of a traveling basketball squad and playing scrimmages at the prison (Rockview) and being able to interact with the guards and the prisoners. and how dehumanizing the experience is for most people. you can say they deserve it, which is fine, but it made me realize early on in life that our criminal justice system is no such thing. it is a warehouse of revenge and misery. it serves no practical purpose, and the prison/industrial complex has only worsened.

and a lot of people just become part of that mill, ground down and churned out as something far far less than they should be. and a lot of people, especially poor people, get railroaded by the system because it IS inherently unfair, and a lot of prosecutors are only interested in convictions instead of justice. and how some people do things just as bad if not worse than many prisoners, and get away with it because of money and connections.

 

[bjf1984]

So you're comparing that to a 3 to 5 yo child claiming he was raped with a knife?

Kids in the same age range claiming to have gone places they couldn't have or that didn't exist?

The point is these cases should never have been prosecuted at all. There's no comparison to be made except by desperate fools.

You know what's even harder to believe? MM was so freaked over what he claimed was horseplay a week later. Or that he would tell people about horseplay on message boards. That night and the next morning, by all accounts, MM was visibly shaken and very upset. But he said it was just horseplay?

(Shhh. LOL, he doesn't even see the inanity of his own "arguments". Don't tell him....just let him go. This is going to be entertaining)

 

[L.T. Young]

No need to poke holes in Sandusky's guilt. The OAG's actions in this case are the issue. When you have Erickson refer to MM's story as more vivid 10 years later....that doesn't raise suspicion? I have no investment in Sandusky's guilt or innocence. I am interested in the fact that GS2 and TC were led to believe they had council and stated such on the record. Where was Fina when this happened? Surely you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth. So the star witness for the Commonwealth testifies unchallenged, since those who dispute are indicted. We have a totally bogus crying janitor....who allegedly has dementia and can't testify. Yet he stated that the person in question was NOT Sandusky. You have the "primary" victim who had no credibility with 2 grand juries, nor to those who knew him at his school district. You have the OAG leaking to a newspaper person who is "recruiting" victims and victims communicating with one another. To put a bow on the prosecutions questionable tactics, we hear PSP lie to influence testimony.
Jerry Sandusky at the very least is a strange fellow. He put himself in the position to be prosecuted. He probably is guilty of some of the things he is accused of. I take issue with what
I consider to be grievous misconduct and deception in this case. That is what leads me to ask why?

Well there was another janitor that saw Sandusky leaving the shower with a child that night. Do you really think it was someone else in that shower with a kid?

I'm sorry but the idea that in 2001 MM said it was just horseplay seems as far fetched as him saying it was anal rape. It sounds like TC went with what JS told him and MM didn't press it.

I'll go back to the quote I stated earlier- If you think you can live in this world and be no part of it, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

If you think you can attack every witness, attack everything the prosecution did, and draw parallels to other cases that are nothing like this one without defending Sandusky you're wrong.

It's really pathetic to be honest.

 

[L.T. Young]

(Shhh. LOL, he doesn't even see the inanity of his own "arguments". Don't tell him....just let him go. This is going to be entertaining)

You're a moron with no counter argument but you have to post something.

 

[WeR0206]

Well there was another janitor that saw Sandusky leaving the shower with a child that night. Do you really think it was someone else in that shower with a kid?

I'm sorry but the idea that in 2001 MM said it was just horseplay seems as far fetched as him saying it was anal rape. It sounds like TC went with what JS told him and MM didn't press it.

I'll go back to the quote I stated earlier- If you think you can live in this world and be no part of it, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

If you think you can attack every witness, attack everything the prosecution did, and draw parallels to other cases that are nothing like this one without defending Sandusky you're wrong.

It's really pathetic to be honest.

Yes and that other janitor didnt have anyone corroborate his story..the prosecution promised there would be a second person to corroborate and they just so happened to forget to have that person actually testify...and of course the judge somehow saw nothing wrong with that..whoopsies!! How convenient for the state/current narrative! The state also had the actual witness on the record stating that JS wasn't the person he saw that night. Somehow the state went with the uncorroborated hearsay version over the version of the actual witness..hmmm. Nothing to see here!!

IMO it will be shown that fina played fast and loose with the rules to get the testimony/results he wanted.

 

[marshall23]

I wonder how many convictions are obtained when the day month and year of the alleged crimes are incorrect, the location of the crime is wrong and the prosecutor can't produce the witness or a victim. It is amusing that The Commonwealth and its minions are sending in the scrubs in a last ditch effort to turn the tide. They might as well be Kamikazes.

 

[L.T. Young]

It is not funny at all. It is scary as hell because it could happen to me (or you) next.

Nothing happened to Jerry. His actions are what put him where he is, nothing else.

Keep pretending Sandusky is the victim.

 

[L.T. Young]

Yes and that other janitor didnt have anyone corroborate his story..the prosecution promised there would be a second person to corroborate and they just so happened to forget to have that person actually testify...and of course the judge somehow saw nothing wrong with that..whoopsies!! How convenient for the state/current narrative! The state also had the actual witness on the record stating that JS wasn't the person he saw that night. Somehow the state went with the uncorroborated hearsay version over the version of the actual witness..hmmm. Nothing to see here!!

IMO it will be shown that fina played fast and loose with the rules to get the testimony/results he wanted.

So it was another man the janitor saw with a child in the shower?

That would make it two men with kids in the shower that night. Wow, that's a real revelation. Or maybe the janitor really did have dementia?

And now we're back to Fina, again. I get it, you hate Fina and think he's the devil. That doesn't change the fact Sandusky is a pedophile and it never will.

You attack every single thing presented and claim to believe JS is guilty, how? How can every witness being lying, every prosecutor have broken the law, and Sandusky be guilty?

Look who I'm talking to, the guy who still won't admit Kathleen Kane has ever lied.

 

[SteveMasters]

So it was another man the janitor saw with a child in the shower?

That would make it two men with kids in the shower that night. Wow, that's a real revelation. Or maybe the janitor really did have dementia?

And now we're back to Fina, again. I get it, you hate Fina and think he's the devil. That doesn't change the fact Sandusky is a pedophile and it never will.

You attack every single thing presented and claim to believe JS is guilty, how? How can every witness being lying, every prosecutor have broken the law, and Sandusky be guilty?

Look who I'm talking to, the guy who still won't admit Kathleen Kane has ever lied.

Jim Calhoun, the janitor that allegedly witnessed a sexually assault by Sandusky, made a statement to Commonwealth investigator Trooper Yakicik on May 15, 2011 that he remembered Coach Sandusky and that he didn't believe that Sandusky was the person he saw. ( paragraph 365, p.85 of the PCRA).

Ronald Petrosky was the janitor who provided the hearsay testimony at trial regarding the v8 counts, but was not corroborated by co-worker Jay Witherite as promised.

I am amazed that the prosecution was able to get guilty verdicts on the v8 counts without any testimony from a victim or from a eye witness, and when the exact date was not specified. To make matters worse, the alleged eye witness made a statement to investigators that Sandusky was not the man he saw and the Commonwealth failed to have a corroborating witness for the hearsay statement as promised.

IMO, Sandusky deserves a new trial based on the absurdity of the v8 verdicts alone.

 

[Raffycorn]

The felony indecent assault did not come from the shower incident.

You should check the verdicts again.

 

[simons96]

I wonder how many convictions are obtained when the day month and year of the alleged crimes are incorrect, the location of the crime is wrong and the prosecutor can't produce the witness or a victim. It is amusing that The Commonwealth and its minions are sending in the scrubs in a last ditch effort to turn the tide. They might as well be Kamikazes.

I couldn't find any high profile case that was even comparable.

 

[no1lion99]

Jim Calhoun, the janitor that allegedly witnessed a sexually assault by Sandusky, made a statement to Commonwealth investigator Trooper Yakicik on May 15, 2011 that he remembered Coach Sandusky and that he didn't believe that Sandusky was the person he saw. ( paragraph 365, p.85 of the PCRA).

Have you ever wondered why that was the ONLY part of the interview released by the PCRA counsel? JC had dementia, in the next sentence he probably said that a UFO took away the victim too.

Regardless, we all know that as told the janitor story was a hoax, but that doesn't make Jerry innocent. When I hear people talking about suspicion of the victims stories, they never seem to be able to then explain why Jerry confirmed (or could not deny) all of AF's allegations in his early interviews. He dropped his appeal of the indicated finding, he sat on the sidelines in the courtroom. Enough already.

 

[simons96]

Have you ever wondered why that was the ONLY part of the interview released by the PCRA counsel? JC had dementia, in the next sentence he probably said that a UFO took away the victim too.

Regardless, we all know that as told the janitor story was a hoax, but that doesn't make Jerry innocent. When I hear people talking about suspicion of the victims stories, they never seem to be able to then explain why Jerry confirmed (or could not deny) all of AF's allegations in his early interviews. He dropped his appeal of the indicated finding, he sat on the sidelines in the courtroom. Enough already.

walking the line down the middle, I really believe that questioning the credibility of some of the victims lies completely on the shoulders of prosecutors/investigators who behaved unethically. so much of this "scandal" would have been avoided if they had maintained their integrity about investigating/prosecuting Sandusky.

 

[SteveMasters]

Have you ever wondered why that was the ONLY part of the interview released by the PCRA counsel? JC had dementia, in the next sentence he probably said that a UFO took away the victim too.

Regardless, we all know that as told the janitor story was a hoax, but that doesn't make Jerry innocent. When I hear people talking about suspicion of the victims stories, they never seem to be able to then explain why Jerry confirmed (or could not deny) all of AF's allegations in his early interviews. He dropped his appeal of the indicated finding, he sat on the sidelines in the courtroom. Enough already.

Hi John. I am pleased to see that you understand that the v8 counts are a hoax. The question I have is how many of the other counts are without merit as well. The v2 counts are certainly very suspect. The only way we can find out is to have a new fair trial. Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you already stated that you believe that Sandusky's first trial was not entirely fair. Do you believe that he deserves a new trial?

Joe Amendola recommended against challenging the AF charges when JS was first indicated and I believe that was terrible advise. Do you believe that Sandusky had effective defense representation at trial?

IMO, Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger were very ineffective in their defense as they were totally unprepared for trial. They should have walked away from the case when their requests for continuances were denied and they realized that they were unable to offer a defense that their client deserved. I believe that defense counsel made several key mistakes:

1. Advised against challenging the v1 charges when first indicated and against having a preliminary hearing that could have exposed more of the accuser's stories
2. Promised the jury that Sandusky would testify and then walked it back
3. Were totally unprepared for cross examining the accusers and other witnesses as exemplified by not interviewing accusers before trial and Amendola asking Rominger to cross examine McQueary with only thirty minutes notice
4. Advised giving Bob Costas interview without any preparation before interview
5. Mismanaged v2 and v8 charges by not introducing exculpatory statements
6. Ineffectively challenging the deplorable behavior of the OAG for their acts of prosecutorial misconduct and other misdeeds

 

[NonJohnchuck]

Jim Calhoun, the janitor that allegedly witnessed a sexually assault by Sandusky, made a statement to Commonwealth investigator Trooper Yakicik on May 15, 2011 that he remembered Coach Sandusky and that he didn't believe that Sandusky was the person he saw. ( paragraph 365, p.85 of the PCRA).

So if this is what we have to hang our hats on, there's yet another child rapist preying on children in athletic department showers.

Is this really what you want us to believe?

Because if so, that really is proof of a coverup.

 

[no1lion99]

Sorry Steve, but before I go any further please answer my question first. If the janitor tape is so exculpatory, where is the rest of the transcript? I would then be happy to answer your questions.

 

[SteveMasters]

Sorry Steve, but before I go any further please answer my question first. If the janitor tape is so exculpatory, where is the rest of the transcript? I would then be happy to answer your questions.

I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you? Are you saying that Trooper Yakicic did not interview Jim Calhoun on May 15, 2011 (paragraphs 364-365 of Sandusky's PCRA)? You have already acknowledged that the v8 counts are based on a hoax.

 

[SteveMasters]

So if this is what we have to hang our hats on, there's yet another child rapist preying on children in athletic department showers.

Is this really what you want us to believe?

Because if so, that really is proof of a coverup.

I don't want you to believe anything. I am just citing Lindsay's PCRA. Do you think that paragraph 365 correctly reflects what Jim Calhoun stated to Trooper Yakicic on May 15, 2011? It seems credible to me.

 

[WeR0206]

So if this is what we have to hang our hats on, there's yet another child rapist preying on children in athletic department showers.

Is this really what you want us to believe?

Because if so, that really is proof of a coverup.

The better question is, if Calhoun didn't see JS that night, why didn't the OAG want to find out who the hell it was that Calhoun saw? Did they not care at all...or only care about a JS/PSU incident?

Also, if Calhoun had demensia (which I'm not discounting, btw) why didn't the OAG have his doctor testify to that fact/diagnosis?

 

[Misder2]

The better question is, if Calhoun didn't see JS that night, why didn't the OAG want to find out who the hell it was that Calhoun saw? Did they not care at all...or only care about a JS/PSU incident?

Also, if Calhoun had demensia (which I'm not discounting, btw) why didn't the OAG have his doctor testify to that fact/diagnosis?

"Also, if Calhoun had demensia (which I'm not discounting, btw) why didn't the OAG have his doctor testify to that fact/diagnosis?"

Why would they?

 

[WeR0206]

"Also, if Calhoun had demensia (which I'm not discounting, btw) why didn't the OAG have his doctor testify to that fact/diagnosis?"

Why would they?

To corroborate/verify the OAGs claim that calhoun did in fact have dementia thus making calhouns statements/testimony unreliable.

The OAGs word alone isn't good enough for me and it shouldn't have been good enough for the court. Unbelievable that the defense counsel didn't object to this. OAG says calhoun can't testify due to dementia, doesn't have a doctor testify to that fact, then brings in a hearsay witness and doesn't have anyone corroborate the hearsay witness. Wtf??

 

[Misder2]

To corroborate/verify the OAGs claim that calhoun did in fact have dementia thus making calhouns statements/testimony unreliable.

The OAGs word alone isn't good enough for me and it shouldn't have been good enough for the court. Unbelievable that the defense counsel didn't object to this. OAG says calhoun can't testify due to dementia, doesn't have a doctor testify to that fact, then brings in a hearsay witness and doesn't have anyone corroborate the hearsay witness. Wtf??

It worked. OAG did what they set out to do, get a conviction.

 

[SteveMasters]

It worked. OAG did what they set out to do, get a conviction.

This is why I believe that hearings into the merits of the PCRA are warranted. We need to get to the bottom of the OAG's shenanigans.

 

[Misder2]

This is why I believe that hearings into the merits of the PCRA are warranted. We need to get to the bottom of the OAG's shenanigans.

What I said had nothing to do with shenanigans. The job of the OAG is to get a conviction.

 

[WeR0206]

It worked. OAG did what they set out to do, get a conviction.

Yep, it sure did...just goes to show how prejudiced the jury was at that point (no victim, no witness, no set date, time, location...no problem!! Claim that the witness had dementia and hearsay witness' story not corroborated...no problem!).

Too bad for the OAG that their shenanigans are getting called out and they have to answer for them. It will be interesting to see what they say re: V8 in their response to the PCRA.

IMO there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to bring the V2 and V8 charges except to help cement the narrative of a PSU cover up in order to deflect attention away from the state's CYS/DPW and TSM's failures re: JS. Why bring charges on such weak cases (cases where the state couldn't even produce a victim--especially the V8 case where there wasn't even a witness) when there were supposedly dozens of other victims they could have used?

 

[WeR0206]

What I said had nothing to do with shenanigans. The job of the OAG is to get a conviction.

Well, that's the rub. The OAG can get all the convictions they want but if they broke rules, ethics, etc. (with a judge in their back pocket allowing the shenanigans) to get those convictions then the authenticity of those convictions becomes questionable.

If the OAG would have just done everything by the book then these questions never would have come about. JS wouldn't have anything to point out when filing a PCRA, appeal, etc.

 

[no1lion99]

I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you? Are you saying that Trooper Yakicic did not interview Jim Calhoun on May 15, 2011 (paragraphs 364-365 of Sandusky's PCRA)? You have already acknowledged that the v8 counts are based on a hoax.

You don't know that there IS any rest of a transcript? Did you really type that? You purport to be the expert anlyst of the PCRA, yet it appears your analytical skills are only slightly better than Amendola or Lindsay:

Yet the ONLY part of the tape recording transcript released to the public is 4 questions and answers. Get real Steve. The paragraph you reference confirms the existence of further audio. It says "after describing..." thus it is clearly stating there is more audio.

 

[SteveMasters]

You don't know that there IS any rest of a transcript? Did you really type that? You purport to be the expert anlyst of the PCRA, yet it appears your analytical skills are only slightly better than Amendola or Lindsay:

Yet the ONLY part of the tape recording transcript released to the public is 4 questions and answers. Get real Steve. The paragraph you reference confirms the existence of further audio. It says "after describing..." thus it is clearly stating there is more audio.

Get real yourself John. I have never said I am an expert analyst of the PCRA. I have read it and find it compelling. You are welcome to your own opinions. I believe that some of what you have said in the past even makes sense. If you want to engage me, then please answer my questions. If you don't want to engage me, then please stop trying to discredit me. You can't have it both ways. Here are my questions to you.

1) Do you consider yourself an expert analyst of Sandusky's PCRA?

2) Do you believe that Sandusky got a fair trial?

3) Do you believe that Sandusky got effective defense representation at trial?

4) Do you believe that AM is V2? If not, do you believe that V2 is known?

5) Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in 2001?

6) Do you believe that the November 2001 Grand Jury Presentment accurately stated what was known about the V2 counts at the time?

7) Do you have any problems with Corporal Leiter's suggestive interviewing techniques that he used with V4?

8) Do you believe that the OAG falsely charged Curley and Schultz to silence and discredit them?

9) Do you believe that Sandusky deserves a new fair trial?

10) Do you really want to know what exactly happened and didn't happen in this whole fiasco?

 

[no1lion99]

Get real yourself John. I have never said I am an expert analyst of the PCRA. I have read it and find it compelling. You are welcome to your own opinions. I believe that some of what you have said in the past even makes sense. If you want to engage me, then please answer my questions. If you don't want to engage me, then please stop trying to discredit me. You can't have it both ways. Here are my questions to you.

I can have it any way I want. You throw around how compelling the PCRA is, along with citing it, yet apparently don't even know what it says, or how it fits into context. But what the heck

1) Do you consider yourself an expert analyst of Sandusky's PCRA? No because I am not a lawyer. But I can easily pick about 5-10 places where Lindsay does himself no favors and even exposes bigger problems for JS/TSM.

2) Do you believe that Sandusky got a fair trial? Been here already Steve. No. Also straw man.

3) Do you believe that Sandusky got effective defense representation at trial? Yes. Bad representation does not equal ineffective. They are not legally one and the same.

4) Do you believe that AM is V2? If not, do you believe that V2 is known? No. Likely.

5) Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in 2001? No. He is on record confirming this.

6) Do you believe that the November 2001 Grand Jury Presentment accurately stated what was known about the V2 counts at the time? No, again this is documented in the record.

7) Do you have any problems with Corporal Leiter's suggestive interviewing techniques that he used with V4? No.

8) Do you believe that the OAG falsely charged Curley and Schultz to silence and discredit them? This is likely. Though my thoughts on C/S/S are much more complicated than a simple yes/no here.

9) Do you believe that Sandusky deserves a new fair trial? Yes. Also won't matter, same result.
10) Do you really want to know what exactly happened and didn't happen in this whole fiasco? Yes. Also accept I will never know much of what occurred.

Now prepare your next set of straw men. I will enjoy knocking those over as well.

 

[SteveMasters]

I can have it any way I want. You throw around how compelling the PCRA is, along with citing it, yet apparently don't even know what it says, or how it fits into context. But what the heck

1) Do you consider yourself an expert analyst of Sandusky's PCRA? No because I am not a lawyer. But I can easily pick about 5-10 places where Lindsay does himself no favors and even exposes bigger problems for JS/TSM.

2) Do you believe that Sandusky got a fair trial? Been here already Steve. No. Also straw man.

3) Do you believe that Sandusky got effective defense representation at trial? Yes. Bad representation does not equal ineffective. They are not legally one and the same.

4) Do you believe that AM is V2? If not, do you believe that V2 is known? No. Likely.

5) Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in 2001? No. He is on record confirming this.

6) Do you believe that the November 2001 Grand Jury Presentment accurately stated what was known about the V2 counts at the time? No, again this is documented in the record.

7) Do you have any problems with Corporal Leiter's suggestive interviewing techniques that he used with V4? No.

8) Do you believe that the OAG falsely charged Curley and Schultz to silence and discredit them? This is likely. Though my thoughts on C/S/S are much more complicated than a simple yes/no here.

9) Do you believe that Sandusky deserves a new fair trial? Yes. Also won't matter, same result.
10) Do you really want to know what exactly happened and didn't happen in this whole fiasco? Yes. Also accept I will never know much of what occurred.

Now prepare your next set of straw men. I will enjoy knocking those over as well.

Yes, you can have it any way you want; however your attempts to discredit me become very suspect if you refuse to engage me. In any case, thank you for responding to my questions.

I am surprised that you agree with me and believe that Sandusky deserves a new trial. However, I do not think it will be the same result because I don't think the v8 counts will be the same. I also don't believe that Corporal Leiter's interviewing techniques are an acceptable practice. He should not have told v4 about what any of the other accusers said and he should not have lied about it. I wonder if he used this same approach to the other accusers that he interacted with. I believe that AM is not an impostor and is the real V2. I am also very interested in seeing what the Commonwealth has to say in response to the PCRA and what Judge Cleland decides are the next steps.

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

4) Do you believe that AM is V2? If not, do you believe that V2 is known? No. Likely.

Ok, so the real V2 allowed AM to claim his $3 million and stood by and said nothing? Also didn't Shubin admit recently that AM is indeed V2?

 

[no1lion99]

4) Do you believe that AM is V2? If not, do you believe that V2 is known? No. Likely.

Ok, so the real V2 allowed AM to claim his $3 million and stood by and said nothing? Also didn't Shubin admit recently that AM is indeed V2?

One, so now Shubin is trustworthy? Amazing how that happened.

Two, you assume that a possible real V2 never got paid, or even gives two shits about $$$. Neither are necessarily a fact.

 

[no1lion99]

Yes, you can have it any way you want; however your attempts to discredit me become very suspect if you refuse to engage me. In any case, thank you for responding to my questions.

I am surprised that you agree with me and believe that Sandusky deserves a new trial. However, I do not think it will be the same result because I don't think the v8 counts will be the same. I also don't believe that Corporal Leiter's interviewing techniques are an acceptable practice. He should not have told v4 about what any of the other accusers said and he should not have lied about it. I wonder if he used this same approach to the other accusers that he interacted with. I believe that AM is not an impostor and is the real V2. I am also very interested in seeing what the Commonwealth has to say in response to the PCRA and what Judge Cleland decides are the next steps.

Not sure why you would be surprised. Seeing how I spent the better part of a weekend having an honest conversation with you via DM. Second, I have engaged you further to demonstrate how little you seem to know about the very topic you claim to know, about which I have shown you to once again be wrong on the facts. Yet in all this time you have conceded pretty much nothing, still all in on the innocence project, still buddying up with Jer in the slammer.

All you do is ask the same straw man questions you did months ago.

Regardless of what you think about Leiters practices, the only thing that matters is are they legal. I am no lawyer but the ones I speak to say yes. Maybe the judge will disagree.

 

[SteveMasters]

Not sure why you would be surprised. Seeing how I spent the better part of a weekend having an honest conversation with you via DM. Second, I have engaged you further to demonstrate how little you seem to know about the very topic you claim to know, about which I have shown you to once again be wrong on the facts. Yet in all this time you have conceded pretty much nothing, still all in on the innocence project, still buddying up with Jer in the slammer.

All you do is ask the same straw man questions you did months ago.

Regardless of what you think about Leiters practices, the only thing that matters is are they legal. I am no lawyer but the ones I speak to say yes. Maybe the judge will disagree.

As you know I am not a lawyer either, but I am friends with several lawyers who have attempted to explain to me some nuances of some of the issues that may come into play in the PCRA. I understand the odds are stacked against the defendant in an PCRA and it is very easy for the judge to dismiss the claim out of hand.

I know you have said in the past that you didn't think JS's initial trial was fair, but I do not remember you ever advocating that JS deserves a new trial. It seems to me that you would prefer that the PCRA be rejected out of hand than for JS to win a new trial, but I may be wrong.

I am asking the same questions because I believe they are still as relevant as they were a couple of months ago, if not more so. The sense that I get is that more and more people realize that JS did not receive a fair trial in the first place and that he deserves a new trial.

I know that we disagree on a lot of things in this case, but I don't believe you are a bad person or have a nefarious motive for our difference of opinions. I don't buy that you have demonstrated anything at all with what I do and do not know about the facts in the case. Please humor me and tell me just exactly what you have demonstrated regarding the facts that I have wrong.

Call it what you want. My motives are for as much of the truth as possible to be known and for justice to served. I want justice for Spanier, Curley, and Schultz as well as for Sandusky. I want a new fair trial for Sandusky and for the chips to fall where they may. If a new trial finds him guilty of CSA, then he should have to suffer the consequences. If a new trial exonerates him, then I believe he deserves a settlement from the responsible parties that exceeds what the accusers got. If it can be shown that any of the accusers committed fraud in negotiating a settlement with Penn State, I would then like to see the responsible parties (accusers, attorneys, etc.) suffer the consequences. I would also like to see the responsible parties within the OAG have to answer for their prosecutorial misconduct and have to face the appropriate consequences. In addition, I would like to see the responsible parties within the Penn State BOT, the NCAA, and Louis Freeh's organization be held to account for their malfeasance.

 

[no1lion99]

I don't buy that you have demonstrated anything at all with what I do and do not know about the facts in the case. Please humor me and tell me just exactly what you have demonstrated regarding the facts that I have wrong.

This is the problem Steve, it's all about what you BELIEVE. You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are flat out wrong on facts. I just showed that with the post of the transcript. You asked if I knew there was more than what the PCRA used (i.e. JC said it wasn't JS) and the PCRA itself PROVES there is more (how much more is still to be determined because it isn't included in the exhibits, just a place holder page), even if you don't have access to the exhibits yet (which I do).

Your refusal to accept these type of things means one of two things; you aren't interested in the real truth or you wouldn't understand it anyway.