Erickson's Notebook Reveals Deceptions, Possible Crimes
- Thread starter rmb297
- Start date
Tell them according to Eric the Red Barron. They're not trained according to that ahole.
I won't be surprised if Sue does not want Joe's name on a field or the House he Built after all the truth is out. I do hope the family gets a massive settlement though and hope the truth is out before anything happens to Sue. I will NEVER forgive them for the fact that they destroyed his life's work and then he died before we could reclaim his rightful place in history.
You and Desmond make a nice team. A regular dynamic duo. If you attempted to be superheroes, you could be called the Retarded Avengers! Rooting out supposed injustices where none exists! Or better yet how about starring in a new Dumber and Dumber but with an ebony and ivory twist!
Stop shopping the Paterno insider nonsense.
Wait, wouldn't releasing that info actually be helpful to victims both past and future? I guess you're a pedophile enabler at your very core.
I have yet to see anything that points to your PSU fandom. In fact, by your logic you and Desmond are best buds since childhood.
Geezus......where was Dahmus when I needed him??
Next time one of the OG toadies forces the UP Police to bring me into the station house for a sit-down - to be questioned in their fairy-tale investigation....I'll just let them know they aren't real cops, and tell them I'll just take a rain check.
Of all the idiotic toady arguments......in the history of forever.....that has to be one of the most disingenuous we have seen. He has brought TOS's circle-jerk over here......this is the type of stuff that has filled up that board for the last 3 years.
Here he is.
Impressed?
Wait- so you admit Desmond is a liar and has no idea of what he's talking about.........and you're ok with this? That puts him in good standing with you? I think that's pretty much all I need to know about this argument.
Yes, it is. I knew him in college.
(I found the picture via Google Images just searching his name.)
I have never claimed to be an insider. I don't know any of the Paternos myself, although I greatly admired Joe when I was growing up. I mention my background when some of you idiots think I must be a Pitt fan or something.
Don't remember you at all, and your profile isn't even public. Drop me an email if you want to explain who you are. It should tell people something that I'm not afraid of being linked to my opinions.
You aren't afraid of being an idiot.
Sorry, I don't reveal my identity on the interwebs. The fact that you do is your problem.
Holy crap pnny, you really need to step back and take a breath. This is way to serious for you and your little obsession with pennlive is crazy too. Maybe keep the crazy over there if you can?
I'm not afraid of being linked to opinions unpopular with truthers, that's for sure. I will, and have, tell other Penn Staters these same things to their faces.
Perhaps one should question whether you are who you say you are, and whether you're actually being paid by the Paternos or CSS to sow doubt here.
Do you wear your hat when you tell other Penn Staters to their face that Desmond is really a cool guy & not nearly as dopey as he seems?
I wear that hat everywhere. Wouldn't you? It's an over-sized hat. It's funny. It's funny because it's ah, bigger than, ah.. [ clears throat ] ..you know, a normal hat.
Was that hat stolen during the 2002 Nebraska game?
First off, you are basing your argument against the emails in question on one piece of evidence that I included in the recent blogpost. I especially liked your comment to the effect that most IT people would dismiss the html tags immediately as just a formatting error.
Well, that we agree on --- most (lazy) IT people would do that....but not the five experts I shared the email with, who all concluded the error was suspicious and that to know for sure if there was tampering, it had to be compared with the original file. And that is all anyone is asking to have done.
However, here are the other relevant pieces of the puzzle that make this email (and others of suspicious origin), especially that the chain of custody of the emails was broken.
1. The OAG forensics expert, under oath, never established a date for the AG obtaining the emails. He testified that the emails were missing "from the inventory" and that Schultz's network file share was provided to him on a DVD on March 23, 2012. A DVD, not a forensic drive. Also, the expert did not say WHO provided him with the DVD.
2. Freeh claimed to discover the emails on March 20, 2012 and that he immediately provided them to the OAG. Freeh's computers were not connected to the University's system, making it easy for his group to alter the original files without leaving a trace.
3. The Moulton Report stated the Penn State emails were turned over to the PA State Police on July 7, 2011. If the email in question said what it said as shown in the Freeh Report, then there was no excuse for the OAG not to charge Spanier with FTR (under its interpretation of the statute) in November 2011. The AG, in the Conspiracy of Silence presentment, lied about them obtaining in the first four months of 2012.
4. PSU's computer forensics expert, John Corro, testified that he turned the emails over to Baldwin in April 2011.
5. At Spanier's grand jury hearing on April 13, 2011, Frank Fina argued that PSU should provide emails prior to 1997 and in his justification cited the use of "coded language" in the emails. Why would Fina make such an argument if he hadn't already viewed the 2001 emails??
And, getting back to anomalies, Spanier's signature block should not be on the bottom of the email. It should have been Schultz's. That error is also present on the other 2001 email that appears to be subject to tampering.
Finally, please let everyone in Boston know that they were wrong to mourn the death of the MIT police officer -- because he wasn't a real cop.
Last edited:
Amendola didn't use an expert witness to discredit the "repressed memory tactic" because no witness testified to undergoing repressed memory therapy. Please check the transcripts.
Victim 7 is the only victim who made any mention of memories coming back through "counseling" and talking about it, but did not specifically mention repressed memory therapy. Quite honestly, my take is that the prosecutors helped some of the victims recover memories and/or remember things differently -- like a crime that occurred in 1998 now is remembered as occurring in 2001.
As for the crack defense team, their appeal certainly missed a lot of errors by Amendola that were more egregious than the ones they cited. Funny, those omissions also protect The Second Mile.
Also, the crack defense team made a number of factual errors, plus presented new evidence that displayed Sandusky's motivation for working out with kids was to eventually end up showering with them.
I agree with you that the trial was a complete fiasco (and again, the Lindsay Law Firm didn't mention attempted jury tampering) and also agree that the appeal is a long-shot.
Last edited:
None of your statements above are remotely compelling to anybody who understands how email typically works in the real world. But before I go on to that, I notice on twitter that you found another smoking gun in which the same email appears in two different accounts with timestamps exactly four hours apart!
Do you have any idea why the fact that the timestamps (as viewed from the relevant client) are precisely four hours apart tells you something very important?
1. Your five experts are unknown. As is what you shared with them. As is what you told them about how the emails were obtained. I draw no conclusions from that.
2. I don't care. This is irrelevant to your claims about things that "show" or "prove" that the emails were fraudulent. Freeh is under no obligation to meet your standards in his report. If these emails are used in court, your argument may hold some merit, IF this is all they've got.
3. Irrelevant to your claims that the emails have been shown to be altered.
4. Irrelevant to your claims that the emails have been shown to be altered.
5. Irrelevant to your claims that the emails have been shown to be altered.
6. (signature block) - not conclusive of anything. Unless you have the digital original, you have no idea whether this was the original email printed out, a forwarded email, an draft email saved off by Schultz for future use, etc.
As is usual, you have thrown a bunch of unrelated claims against the wall in the hopes that we'll forget that the one critical claim didn't stick. The emails have not been shown to be fraudulent or altered. Be sure to let your friends on the CSS defense team know that some of these may work to establish reasonable doubt, by all means, but that's not the standard under which Freeh was supposed to work (nor should he have).
Yes, that explains Ray quite well. The emails must be forged so let me figure out why they are forged.
What happened to TOS? Did it finally reach "critical mass of inanity"? If so, how did you escape once the black hole formed?
Timestamps exactly four hours apart would be the difference between GMT and EDT. Not a big deal that it slipped by me as I was working late last night (with a large volume of information) and posting to twitter -- but that has nothing to do with the issue of the authenticity of the 2001 emails.
Recall that you said any IT person would discount the html tags as a typical everyday error. Well, the five I simply handed these emails to didn't conclude that at all -- with no prompting from me. All had issues with the 2001 emails and the 1998 email that had time and date stamps out of order and two headers. Again, all said the original files should be pulled for comparison.
While Freeh didn't work under a reasonable doubt standard, the emails were accepted as smoking gun evidence -- despite the fact that they were never authenticated. Certainly, the OAG's IT expert added doubt as to whether these were the original emails -- as did the Moulton Report. Are you a media member, per chance? It seems the media likes to ignore inconvenient facts too.
Chain of custody and the lack of action/charges is relevant (points 3, 4, and 5) to the case of the email being altered. Again, if it said in July 2011 what is said in July 2012, then why wasn't Spanier charged in November 2011? Please answer this question.
Adding to the case, is this quote from Ken Frazier: "those documents say what they say and no amount of hand waving can change what those documents say?"
Finally, thanks for making my point. Why won't PSU turn over the digital originals for examination-- if indeed they are authentic emails?
Last edited:
Ray,
even the emails as potentially doctored don't say a lot. If viewed through an objective lens, there's still no smoking gun. There is no language in any of those brief emails that indicates they are specifically discussing how to deal with Jerry sexually molesting a young boy.
if I sent you an email that said we need to take care of Mrs. Mia Wallace, it would not automatically indicate we were discussing murder.
even the emails as potentially doctored don't say a lot. If viewed through an objective lens, there's still no smoking gun. There is no language in any of those brief emails that indicates they are specifically discussing how to deal with Jerry sexually molesting a young boy.
if I sent you an email that said we need to take care of Mrs. Mia Wallace, it would not automatically indicate we were discussing murder.
I agree Jeffrey, however, the media took them to be smoking guns and informed the Sheeple of the same. Just the other day, some Rutgers person was quoting from the 2001 email "after talking it over with Joe" as proof that Paterno stopped the report from being made.Ray,
even the emails as potentially doctored don't say a lot. If viewed through an objective lens, there's still no smoking gun. There is no language in any of those brief emails that indicates they are specifically discussing how to deal with Jerry sexually molesting a young boy.
if I sent you an email that said we need to take care of Mrs. Mia Wallace, it would not automatically indicate we were discussing murder.
That was the "power" of Louis Freeh, buttressed by the collusion of board members Peetz, Frazier, Erickson, and Tomalis.
It's an example of either your incredible lack of judgement or your purposeful choice to confuse and mislead people, serving the interests of the CSS defense teams. Many of your twitter followers jumped on that and retweeted it and are now sure you dug up yet another smoking gun (just like how you PROVED that the janitor wasn't even employed by Penn State during the time the relevant assault happened, right?) - some of that can't be put back in the bottle.
It should show people that you are not qualified in any way to discuss emails, though. That's such an obvious example. It didn't "slip by you" - your bias (either conscious, as in, you're being paid to produce work like this, or unconscious) was to assume that the emails were faked - so anything that could possibly be presumed to support that had to be interpreted through that lens.
I have no interest in playing another game of "respond to the ten other things thrown up against the wall to confuse the issue". The issue I responded to was whether the claims you made about the emails were as substantive as you pretend, and they are most definitely not.
As for "Why won't PSU turn over the digital originals for examination-- if indeed they are authentic emails?", because they probably don't have them in their original form. Just a guess.
Last edited:
Ray,
even the emails as potentially doctored don't say a lot. If viewed through an objective lens, there's still no smoking gun. There is no language in any of those brief emails that indicates they are specifically discussing how to deal with Jerry sexually molesting a young boy.
if I sent you an email that said we need to take care of Mrs. Mia Wallace, it would not automatically indicate we were discussing murder.
You just lost your L.A. privileges.
First, please provide any evidence that proves the janitor was working at PSU at the time of the incident. Neither PSU, nor anyone else, has produced a credible record to dispute the information that the payroll office provided stating his employment started on 12-31-2000.
Next, you are simply being obtuse not to relate the chain of custody and the failure to charge issue with the authenticity of the contents of the email. It's not a game of throwing things against the wall. It is a case of showing the timeline of a piece of evidence and the actions that occurred because of it. The facts are that the actions and lack of actions by the OAG defy explanation.
Finally, your opinion or judgment of my credibility is quite irrelevant. This case isn't about me -- it's about the truth. I am revealing that truth and not being paid a dime to do so. As for being biased, it is an investigator's job to question everything and not take anything at face value. Similarly, forensic accountants review financial reports with a bias to catch the reporter cheating.
Louis Freeh was paid $8.1 million for a highly inaccurate and biased report. The OAG produced highly inaccurate and biased grand jury reports. And Old Main went along with those reports. That gives anyone who cares about Penn State (we were all indicted as part of an uncaring culture) a reason to put every document and every statement related to this case under a microscope.
Last edited:
Really? You yourself admitted your 'proof' that he wasn't working at PSU was mistaken. Are you really backing away from backing away now?
Given that I accepted a "facsimile" based on trust due to a technology issue, I was quite miffed when an authentic version was never provided or published. As such, I retracted the correction until such time that authentic information is produced.
Note that the "correction" post on the janitor incident has been removed from the blog and other posts questioning his employment remain.
On a related note, Paul Silvis, in conducting a whisper campaign that the janitor was employed by PSU, stated that Calhoun told him about the 2000 incident when Calhoun worked for Silvis at Restek. Apparently, Silvis either didn't take Calhoun's report seriously or he was a witting enabler of Sandusky.
The tweet from Ray:
"CORRECTIONS: Janitor was working at PSU. Ganim contacted mother in January 2011. Details: http://t.co/t5b1bZZwcU"
The link to which it referred is no longer available.
"CORRECTIONS: Janitor was working at PSU. Ganim contacted mother in January 2011. Details: http://t.co/t5b1bZZwcU"
The link to which it referred is no longer available.
Well, anyone reviewing the 1998 emails objectively can easily question their authenticity. Therefore, it isn't a stretch to question the 2001 emails. Freeh's job was to conclude guilt and present 'evidence' to support.
Even if the 2001 are authentic, there is not a damn thing in there to indicate JVP's guilty of anything. Quite frankly, it is easy to reasonably conclude that JVP believed the incident was being handled appropriately.
Even if the 2001 are authentic, there is not a damn thing in there to indicate JVP's guilty of anything. Quite frankly, it is easy to reasonably conclude that JVP believed the incident was being handled appropriately.
Similar threads
