Eliminating threads

[SteveMasters]

Well, there's one thing for certain.

You are a pathetic human being and a sad representative of Penn State. I hope you don't actually have a degree from Dear Old State.

You are welcome to your own opinions. I am assuming that you think I am pathetic because I believe in due process. Do you believe in due process? Do you think that Sandusky received a fair trial?

I don't appreciate being insulted, but I don't wish to reciprocate. I believe you are misguided.

 

[johnsonguy45]

Masters the Martyr.

Using due process to rationalize the dealings of a pedophile. You're doing a great job.

 

[SteveMasters]

Masters the Martyr.

Using due process to rationalize the dealings of a pedophile. You're doing a great job.

I am sorry that you don't believe in due process. Do you believe in vigilante justice?

 

[johnsonguy45]

I am sorry that you don't believe in due process. Do you believe in vigilante justice?

Do you believe in unicorns?

 

[Misder2]

I am sorry that you don't believe in due process. Do you believe in vigilante justice?

I believe vigilante justice has it's place in our society, given the right circumstances

 

[mn78psu83]

Do you believe in unicorns?

I didn't before today, but I just read that it's been recently discovered that an American orthodontist shot one in a remote part of India. He's really in trouble.

 

[SteveMasters]

I believe vigilante justice has it's place in our society, given the right circumstances

Please humor me and let me know the right circumstances for vigilante justice. I believe that it can make a bad situation worse

 

[SteveMasters]

Do you believe in unicorns?

What do unicorns have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[mn78psu83]

I believe vigilante justice has it's place in our society, given the right circumstances

The spirit of Buford agrees.

 

[LundyPSU]

I believe that Sandusky is likely innocent, but I don't know. What I do know is that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial. We need a new trial to know if he is innocent or not.

Do you think Sandusky's first trial was fair?

Do you think the victims will now testify that they were not abused? What was not accurate in the GJP?

I certainly believe that there was plenty of BS from the OAG and the trial. I am hopeful that the C/S/S trials happen for us to have a much better understanding of what happened and involvement of PSU. But that doesn't mean JS is innocent or likely innocent. JS demonstrated disturbing behavior for a number of years and he even admitted it. There is no rational explanation for it and why it didn't stop, despite him knowing it was risky behavior and even being told by police and DPW to STOP. He couldn't or wouldn't. Which tells me there was intent behind his actions.

 

[B_Levinson]

kind of reminds me of the joke about the OJ criminal trial: the LAPD was so incompetent, they couldn't even frame a guilty man.



I'm sorry, but anyone who feels Sandusky's trial served the interests of justice is ignoring one, simple aspect of the trial: if he was so obviously guilty, WHY would the OAG feel the need to engage in so many sketchy and unethical practices to convict him?

would any of them feel comfortable being accused of (and convicted of) a crime for which there was no victim, no police report, no witness, no date, no evidence?? Gawd, that should make anyone to the right of Kafka feel unsettled.

"the LAPD was so incompetent, they couldn't even frame a guilty man" is worth circulating.

This is why lawyers don't want engineers on juries. Engineers will actually assess the evidence rather than listen to the prosecutor's histrionics about protecting children. Maybe a side benefit of having a P.E. license is that you will never be assigned to a jury. Accountants, who also deal in impartial facts, also might be excused from jury duty (a benefit of having a CPA). Then again, they had one (played by Karl Malden) in Twelve Angry Men.

I can tell you that, had I been on the Sandusky jury and known about the prosecutor lying about McQueary's testimony, and two investigators essentially coaching a witness, they'd have had to show me video of Sandusky sexually assaulting a minor, as well as expert and impartial testimony that the video was not somehow fabricated--remember that they could put Forrest Gump into a movie with, as I recall, Lyndon Johnson. And that was roughly 20 years ago.

 

[B_Levinson]

Well, there's one thing for certain.

You are a pathetic human being and a sad representative of Penn State. I hope you don't actually have a degree from Dear Old State.

Somebody with a Penn State degree knows how to think, e.g. about the implications of a dishonest Grand Jury presentment and investigators who coach witnesses. It sounds like you are the one who never completed your Penn State degree, assuming you even started/

 

[johnsonguy45]

Somebody with a Penn State degree knows how to think, e.g. about the implications of a dishonest Grand Jury presentment and investigators who coach witnesses. It sounds like you are the one who never completed your Penn State degree, assuming you even started/

Keep writing your letters, Bill. I just hope you wear a raincoat--pissing into the wind isn't a fun endeavor.

 

[B_Levinson]

Do you think the victims will now testify that they were not abused? What was not accurate in the GJP?

I certainly believe that there was plenty of BS from the OAG and the trial. I am hopeful that the C/S/S trials happen for us to have a much better understanding of what happened and involvement of PSU. But that doesn't mean JS is innocent or likely innocent. JS demonstrated disturbing behavior for a number of years and he even admitted it. There is no rational explanation for it and why it didn't stop, despite him knowing it was risky behavior and even being told by police and DPW to STOP. He couldn't or wouldn't. Which tells me there was intent behind his actions.

You are 100 percent correct about Sandusky's bad judgment.

This does not change the fact that a job that was not done right must be done over. E.g. if I reject some parts with a gage that turns out to have not been calibrated properly, this doesn't make the parts good, but it means I have to measure them again with a calibrated gage. Not only that, I also have to go back and measure the parts I thought were good. Sandusky's trial was defective and must therefore be done over. The results might or might not be the same, just as in the example with the parts and the gages.

 

[B_Levinson]

Keep writing your letters, Bill. I just hope you wear a raincoat--pissing into the wind isn't a fun endeavor.

My friends and I have already flushed more than half of the 11/9 BOT down the toilet, along with One Term Tommy and Linda Kelly. Erickson and Suhey are now pariahs in the Penn State community, the NCAA's own reputation is in ruins, and we are far from done with the lowlifes who ruined Penn State's reputation.

 

[ralpieE]

Keep writing your letters, Bill. I just hope you wear a raincoat--pissing into the wind isn't a fun endeavor.

He continually makes you look silly.

 

[RobBliz]

You are welcome to your own opinions. I am assuming that you think I am pathetic because I believe in due process. Do you believe in due process? Do you think that Sandusky received a fair trial?

I don't appreciate being insulted, but I don't wish to reciprocate. I believe you are misguided.

What part of due process does convicted by a jury of his peers omit? How is it not due process that he is seeking a new trial? Just because he doesn't get a new trial and has been convicted doesn't mean he didn't receive due process.

 

[SteveMasters]

Do you think the victims will now testify that they were not abused? What was not accurate in the GJP?

I certainly believe that there was plenty of BS from the OAG and the trial. I am hopeful that the C/S/S trials happen for us to have a much better understanding of what happened and involvement of PSU. But that doesn't mean JS is innocent or likely innocent. JS demonstrated disturbing behavior for a number of years and he even admitted it. There is no rational explanation for it and why it didn't stop, despite him knowing it was risky behavior and even being told by police and DPW to STOP. He couldn't or wouldn't. Which tells me there was intent behind his actions.

I don't think it is likely that any of the accusers will recant and now testify that they were not abused. That being said, I think it is likely in a new trial that if Sandusky has effective counsel that they will be able to impeach some of the accuser testimony.

The key falsehood in the GJP is that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in March 2002. The date of the incident was February 2001 and McQueary did not witness a sexual assault, but rather heard noises that he thought may have been sex.

I agree with you that the BS from the OAG does not mean JS is innocent or likely innocent. I also agree that JS demonstrated inappropriate behavior. However, I am not as sure as you are regarding what exactly the intent behind his actions were.

When you don't do a job right, you often have to do the job over. The OAG did not do right in the trial and it was nowhere close to being fair. Therefore, the OAG should have to conduct a retrial. We will then have a much better picture of just how guilty Sandusky is.

 

[LundyPSU]

My friends and I have already flushed more than half of the 11/9 BOT down the toilet, along with One Term Tommy and Linda Kelly. Erickson and Suhey are now pariahs in the Penn State community, the NCAA's own reputation is in ruins, and we are far from done with the lowlifes who ruined Penn State's reputation.

So if Jerry's appeal is denied or he is re-tried and found guilty and if C/S/S are found guilty, I assume you would also flush them given they ruined Penn State's reputation?

 

[LundyPSU]

I don't think it is likely that any of the accusers will recant and now testify that they were not abused. That being said, I think it is likely in a new trial that if Sandusky has effective counsel that they will be able to impeach some of the accuser testimony.

The key falsehood in the GJP is that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in March 2002. The date of the incident was February 2001 and McQueary did not witness a sexual assault, but rather heard noises that he thought may have been sex.

I agree with you that the BS from the OAG does not mean JS is innocent or likely innocent. I also agree that JS demonstrated inappropriate behavior. However, I am not as sure as you are regarding what exactly the intent behind his actions were.

When you don't do a job right, you often have to do the job over. The OAG did not do right in the trial and it was nowhere close to being fair. Therefore, the OAG should have to conduct a retrial. We will then have a much better picture of just how guilty Sandusky is.

The key falsehood in the GJP was the portrayal of MM incident? Why was it false in the GJP? Seems to me it was accurate based on what Mike testified to and told investigators.

 

[johnsonguy45]

My friends and I have already flushed more than half of the 11/9 BOT down the toilet, along with One Term Tommy and Linda Kelly. Erickson and Suhey are now pariahs in the Penn State community, the NCAA's own reputation is in ruins, and we are far from done with the lowlifes who ruined Penn State's reputation.

Yes, your letters to Merck and others have brought down Corbett, Kelly and half the BOT.

Keep dreaming, Billy.

 

[SteveMasters]

What part of due process does convicted by a jury of his peers omit? How is it not due process that he is seeking a new trial? Just because he doesn't get a new trial and has been convicted doesn't mean he didn't receive due process.

I agree he is attempting to get due process from his PCRA. I just think he did not get due process in the original trial and the trial was patently unfair.

Are you familiar with his PCRA? I believe the PCRA makes a compelling case that the trial was unfair and that he deserves a new trial. Where is it wrong?

 

[RobBliz]

I agree he is attempting to get due process from his PCRA. I just think he did not get due process in the original trial and the trial was patently unfair.

Are you familiar with his PCRA? I believe the PCRA makes a compelling case that the trial was unfair and that he deserves a new trial. Where is it wrong?

I am not familiar with the PCRA. If there was something wrong with the trial he will be granted a new one. There is nothing wrong with that. I am just of the opinion, that outside of a few people on the internet, people think he got a fair trail. And as such, he is going to die in jail, where i personally believe he belongs.

I think you present your argument well and respectfully. I just think that reality is not on your side. Just my two cents.

 

[SteveMasters]

I am not familiar with the PCRA. If there was something wrong with the trial he will be granted a new one. There is nothing wrong with that. I am just of the opinion, that outside of a few people on the internet, people think he got a fair trail. And as such, he is going to die in jail, where i personally believe he belongs.

I think you present your argument well and respectfully. I just think that reality is not on your side. Just my two cents.

Thank you for respecting my opinion. It is not clear that he will be granted a new trial even if there is something clearly wrong. The bar in a PCRA is very high. My understanding is that maybe 1% of PCRAs are successful. The person who will make the initial ruling on the PCRA is Judge Cleland, the judge who presided over the first trial, and he may dismiss it out of hand without looking into the merits. He made a number of questionable rulings in the original trial that went against the defense, notably denying all requests for continuances in the face of substantial new discovery. I would estimate that the chances that Judge Cleland holds hearings to looks into the merits of the PCRA are at best 50-50 and probably lower than that. Of course, any decision he makes can always be appealed and Sandusky has stated that he will fight the charges against him until his last breath if necessary.

I think you are right that most people are not aware of the irregularities in the first trial. I also think there is a good chance that Sandusky will die in prison. However, I am not so sure that is where he belongs. We would have a much better view of whether or not he does, if he received a new fair trial that IMO he deserves.

 

[GTACSA]

SteveMasters posted:

"The key falsehood in the GJP is that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in March 2002. The date of the incident was February 2001 and McQueary did not witness a sexual assault, but rather heard noises that he thought may have been sex."


McQueary testified that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration.

That supports the GJP that stated that the boy was being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky; which is what sodomy is and is what McQueary testified he witnessed..

This actual testimony is much different than your quote.

 

[ralpieE]

SteveMasters posted:

"The key falsehood in the GJP is that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in March 2002. The date of the incident was February 2001 and McQueary did not witness a sexual assault, but rather heard noises that he thought may have been sex."


McQueary testified that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration.

That supports the GJP that stated that the boy was being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky; which is what sodomy is and is what McQueary testified he witnessed..

This actual testimony is much different than your quote.

Beyond ridiculous.

 

[SteveMasters]

SteveMasters posted:

"The key falsehood in the GJP is that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower in March 2002. The date of the incident was February 2001 and McQueary did not witness a sexual assault, but rather heard noises that he thought may have been sex."


McQueary testified that he saw Jerry behind a maybe 10 year old boy in the shower in what appeared to be a sexual position and that he was pretty sure, relatively sure, that Sandusky was sodomizing the boy although McQueary admitted he did not see actual penetration.

That supports the GJP that stated that the boy was being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky; which is what sodomy is and is what McQueary testified he witnessed..

This actual testimony is much different than your quote.

Please read pages 6-7 of the Grand Jury presentment and the statement "He [Mike McQueary] saw a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

This is a false statement. If MM had actually saw what was stated, he would have seen actual penetration. In addition, what MM told Dr. Dranov immediately after the incident was that he heard noises that sounded like sex but that he did not witness any sex. This is also what Tim Curley and Gary Schultz say that MM told them in 2001. MM's testimony became more explicit in 2011, but he still acknowledged that he didn't witness CSA. I think what MM said in 2001 is more reliable than what he said 10 years later in 2011.

 

[LundyPSU]

Please read pages 6-7 of the Grand Jury presentment and the statement "He [Mike McQueary] saw a naked boy, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."

This is a false statement. If MM had actually saw what was stated, he would have seen actual penetration. In addition, what MM told Dr. Dranov immediately after the incident was that he heard noises that sounded like sex but that he did not witness any sex. This is also what Tim Curley and Gary Schultz say that MM told them in 2001. MM's testimony became more explicit in 2011, but he still acknowledged that he didn't witness CSA. I think what MM said in 2001 is more reliable than what he said 10 years later in 2011.

Please review Mike's GJ testimony and statements to investigators. That is what was used for the GJP.

 

[SteveMasters]

Please review Mike's GJ testimony and statements to investigators. That is what was used for the GJP.

Whatever was used for the GJP, MM did not witness a rape in the shower and the OAG knew he didn't. It was extremely prejudicial and not fair.

 

[LundyPSU]

Whatever was used for the GJP, MM did not witness a rape in the shower and the OAG knew he didn't. It was extremely prejudicial and not fair.

You an be critical of what Mike testified to, what he actually saw or heard, and who or what he told people at the time. But, Mike told the GJ and investigators that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy. The GJP reflects what Mike told them.

 

[ralpieE]

You an be critical of what Mike testified to, what he actually saw or heard, and who or what he told people at the time. But, Mike told the GJ and investigators that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy. The GJP reflects what Mike told them.

And it isn't factual.

 

[SteveMasters]

You an be critical of what Mike testified to, what he actually saw or heard, and who or what he told people at the time. But, Mike told the GJ and investigators that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy. The GJP reflects what Mike told them.

Yes, MM believed JS was sodomizing the boy (at least from what he said in 2011) but he did not say that he saw or witnessed it. I believe that there is a significant difference in saying I saw sex as opposed to saying I heard noises and thought it was sex. I believe the OAG knew that MM didn't witness sex, but included it in the GJP for impact. It obviously had an impact and it was extremely prejudicial.

 

[B_Levinson]

The key falsehood in the GJP was the portrayal of MM incident? Why was it false in the GJP? Seems to me it was accurate based on what Mike testified to and told investigators.

Read what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. He said under oath that he did not actually see something he believed reportable as a crime. This means he did not see a minor being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.

 

[B_Levinson]

Yes, MM believed JS was sodomizing the boy (at least from what he said in 2011) but he did not say that he saw or witnessed it. I believe that there is a significant difference in saying I saw sex as opposed to saying I heard noises and thought it was sex. I believe the OAG knew that MM didn't witness sex, but included it in the GJP for impact. It obviously had an impact and it was extremely prejudicial.

There is a very significant difference. If, for example, I see somebody I do not know sneaking around in my back yard late at night, I can tell the police somebody is sneaking around my yard and I don't know what he is up to. If I tell them he is trying to break into my house, that's a false report to an agency of public safety and, if I tell that to a court, it is perjury. All I know is that the person MIGHT be planning to break into my house.

However, it seems entirely OK under Pennsylvania's standards for the prosecution team to do exactly that--take McQueary's story to the effect that he saw and heard something that made him uncomfortable, and say he actually saw a sexual assault. In other words, whoever wrote the presentment would be guilty (if an ordinary citizen rather than somebody who seems to enjoy special privileges) of the equivalent of perjury or a false report to an agency of public safety. That has, by the way, been pointed out by certified mail to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, with the appropriate sections of the PA Code cited with regard to dishonest conduct as an attorney, and inflammatory conduct by a prosecutor.

 

[simons96]

"the LAPD was so incompetent, they couldn't even frame a guilty man" is worth circulating.

This is why lawyers don't want engineers on juries. Engineers will actually assess the evidence rather than listen to the prosecutor's histrionics about protecting children. Maybe a side benefit of having a P.E. license is that you will never be assigned to a jury. Accountants, who also deal in impartial facts, also might be excused from jury duty (a benefit of having a CPA). Then again, they had one (played by Karl Malden) in Twelve Angry Men.

I can tell you that, had I been on the Sandusky jury and known about the prosecutor lying about McQueary's testimony, and two investigators essentially coaching a witness, they'd have had to show me video of Sandusky sexually assaulting a minor, as well as expert and impartial testimony that the video was not somehow fabricated--remember that they could put Forrest Gump into a movie with, as I recall, Lyndon Johnson. And that was roughly 20 years ago.

we are all free to believe what we want to believe, and while some of the victim testimony was compelling and heartbreaking . . .

I find it odd that there was NO physical evidence. that dates of abuse were either changed or left open. of all the victims, AF is the first one (in 2009) to file a contemporaneous report. and even then had to go through 3 juries to get an indictment. clear shenanigans by investigators and the OAG. one series of convictions where there was no victim, no date, no witness.

some things just don't add up. to be intelligent enough to be aware of that does not make me a horrible person. in fact, most of the rebuttal to this line of inquiry is not based on discussing the FACTS, but usually bottoms out as ad hominem attacks.

 

[ralpieE]

The total lack of any physical or medical evidence at the time of these supposed assaults is of great concern.

 

[WeR0206]

Read what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. He said under oath that he did not actually see something he believed reportable as a crime. This means he did not see a minor being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.

Excellent point Bill...in addition to that....

In the 12/16/11 prelim for C/S MM also testified to the following (which CONTRADICTS his statements to OAG in 2010 and GJ testimony that he was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a boy--there's a big difference between saying "I think" something happened and "I'm certain" or "I saw" something happen and this discrepancy would definitely affect the way people responded to MM's story in 2001):

Pg. 67: MM said he and his dad decided right away that Joe needed to know what happened before Dr. D even came over. They considered calling the police but didn't even though MM was “perfectly confident he saw a serious or severe sexual act”.

**this testimony simply defies credulity. If you were "perfectly confident" a severe sex act between a man and child was occurring how do you consider it then NOT call the police ASAP???**

Page 72 (re: discussion with Joe)
Q: Did you explain to him anal intercourse?

A: No. I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, that it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the words anal or rape in this -- since day one.

Q: Right, and you didn't use those words because you weren't sure that that is what was happening in the shower, right?

A: Ma'am. I'm sure I saw what I saw in the shower. I'm sure of that. I did not see insertion or penetration and I didn't hear protests or any verbiage but I do know what I saw and the positions they were in that -- and it was very clear that it looked like there was intercourse going on, ma'am.

Q: But you would not say for sure that that's what you saw?

A: I’ve testified that I cannot tell you 1,000 percent sure that that’s what was going on

Q: Well, let’s just say 100 percent sure

A: Okay, 100 percent sure

Q: Okay, you can’t say that?

A: No

**This testimony shows that Roberto was FINALLY able to get MM to admit that he wasn't sure what JS and the boy were doing in 2001, which is huge IMO. This admission is the exact OPPOSITE of what MM claimed in his 2010 OAG interview and GJ testimony...that he was CERTAIN JS was sodomizing a kid in 2001 and reported it as such. The only way to be certain about something is if you actually see it. MM never saw any sex acts which the GJP claims.**

Also, in JM's cross examination at the same 12/16/11 hearing (you know, the one he couldn't remember testifying at when asked during the summer 2012 JS trial) re: MM's 2001 report JM said:

Page 151:
Q: In this meeting with Mr. Schultz, did you tell Mr. Schultz that what Mike had seen was a crime?

A: I never used the word crime, I made it, Im sure, clear that it was at least a very inappropriate action and what Mike described to me led me to believe it was sexual in nature.

Q: Okay, so you think the way you described it to Mr. Schultz was at least inappropriate and from what Mike said perhaps sexual in nature?

A: I think Mr. Schultz went away from that meeting with that understanding, yes.

**Since when is a severe sex act/certain sodomy between a man and child something that has so much grey area? How could it possibly be described as "at least a very inappropriate action" instead of a very clearly illegal action?? The way MM spoke in his 2010 OAG interview and GJ appearances he made it VERY clear that there was ZERO grey area or room for interpretation in his story. He said he was certain JS was sodomizing the boy. No wonder JM tried to claim he didn't remember giving this testimony...it completely blows the state's narrative out of the water**

 

[johnsonguy45]

The total lack of any physical or medical evidence at the time of these supposed assaults is of great concern.

Yes, to retards like you and Bill.

Good Christ, you guys are sick.

 

[ralpieE]

Yes, to retards like you and Bill.

Good Christ, you guys are sick.

There would be pain and damage that could not be concealed. Where is it?

 

[LundyPSU]

Read what McQueary told the Curley/Schultz preliminary hearing. He said under oath that he did not actually see something he believed reportable as a crime. This means he did not see a minor being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.

We are talking about the GJP. The only thing relevant in that discussion is what Mike told the GJ and investigators, which was what the GJP was based on. Would we be in a different place, if the GJP said that based on what Mike heard and positioning of JS and the boy, Mike believed JS was sodomizing the boy? No, we would be in the same exact position.

Like I said before, if you want to be critical about what Mike testified to, what he believed was occurring, what he old people and when, then that is fair game. But the GJP reflects what Mike told investigators and the GJ prior to Nov 2011