Erickson Note: McQueary "more vivid...ten years later"

[rmb297]

Fina Feared Being "Nifonged" By Kane (Part 1)

Attorney General Kane stated the emails in the "porngate" prompted Fina's attack on her, however, Fina also feared that Moulton's investigation could cause him to be disbarred.

By
Ray Blehar

At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.

Sound familiar?

In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Read more

 

[WeR0206]

Fina Feared Being "Nifonged" By Kane (Part 1)

Attorney General Kane stated the emails in the "porngate" prompted Fina's attack on her, however, Fina also feared that Moulton's investigation could cause him to be disbarred.

By
Ray Blehar

At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.

Sound familiar?

In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Read more

Thanks for posting Ray. Looking forward to part 2. And yet there are still boneheads/astroturfers posting on this site that Fina has nothing to fear....yeah right

That Erickson notebook is proving to be quite the goldmine...

 

[91Joe95]

But the motives and intentions of Erickson and the bot were above reproach, to say nothing of their actions.

 

[BobPSU92]

But the motives and intentions of Erickson and the bot were above reproach, to say nothing of their actions.

Because of their pedigree?

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Erickson of the $40K per month pension I dare say is the highest grossing puppet since Kermit the Frog.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Can somebody please refresh my memory and also clarify some things?

Who was Erickson speaking with when he wrote these notes?

Who is "scumbag" in reference to? I presume it's Sandusky as the notes reference that "scumbag" is apparently under investigation.

What is meant by "Spring 2002 - call on cell phone"?

Thanks

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Hmmmmm ,,,,,,,,, "Scumbag"? The possibilities are endless........

 

[Bushwood CC]

Can somebody please refresh my memory and also clarify some things?

Who was Erickson speaking with when he write these notes?

What is "scumbag" in reference to?

What is meant by "cell phone call in spring of 2002?

Thanks

Erikson is taking notes from a meeting with OAG Investigators - presumably the meeting is with a group of PSU administrators working with OAG regarding C/S/S charges. Pretty sure "scumbag" is OAG Investigators' code name for Sandusky which is why it is placed in quotes (e.g., that is how OAG Investigators are referring to him). Not sure what is meant by cellphone call in Spring 2002, but that is the exact timeframe when the Executive Committee of PSU BOT released an Official Press Release that they had effectively gifted 15 Acres of land that was formerly part of PSU's Campus to "scumbag" & his charity (sold at a minute fraction of it's actual value - e.g., like 5% - 10% of actual market value). The 2002 Press Release praises what a great man "scumbag" is and goes on to say that the land will be used to build the Campus Facility for "Scumbag's" charity, The Second Mile, that "Scumbag" had always dreamed of building (e.g., his dream grooming and pedophile hunting grounds). How wonderful that PSU's BOT is helping enable "Scumbag's" dreams and what an amazing coincidence that the land would be provided immediately following TSM getting permanently expelled from PSU's Campus as a direct result of MM's 2001 Employee Incident Report! Also what a coincidence that Bruce Heim, whose BOT bio refers to him as a local R/E magnate, would supply Sandusky access to the Hilton Garden's Facility's for use by Sandusky and TSM after the TSM PSU campus ban and then shortly thereafter a R/E transaction at the largess of the PSU BOT to "Scumbag" & his charity effectively giving him a piece of PSU's Campus that TSM had just been banned from only months earlier, so "Scumbag's" dream facility could be built on PSU's former campus-owned property. What an amazing coinky-dink!

 

[wensilver]

*must control urge to <redacted> Fraudney, Peetzy & Ken "there are no do overs in life" Frazier*
UNNNGGGHHHHHH

 

[rmb297]

Can somebody please refresh my memory and also clarify some things?

Who was Erickson speaking with when he wrote these notes?

Who is "scumbag" in reference to? I presume it's Sandusky as the notes reference that "scumbag" is apparently under investigation.

What is meant by "Spring 2002 - call on cell phone"?

Thanks

It isn't clear who Erickson is speaking with, but whomever it is has information that came from the OAG/Fina. There are other pages of the notes that confirm this.

"Scumbag" is NOT Sandusky. "Scumbag" is a PSU employee who was not charged by the OAG, but investigated under Fina's premise that "a lot of people know." When this person, like everyone else, denied knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, Fina considered charging him with perjury. And like everyone else who was charged, Fina had no evidence to prove this individual lied.

"Spring 2002 - call on cell phone" refers to another PSU employee who alleged to have received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident. Upon further investigation, I found this person not to credible (as did the OAG). This person was never brought forth as a witness to testify in the case.

 

[marshall23]

I think common sense, based on the actions of responsible people,are now reinforced with evidence. MM, JM Dr.D, JVP, GS, TC, GS2, and yes even JR all acted as if no evidence of crime was witnessed. JS, alone with a child, in the shower, was at the least inappropriate. If reported as such, empirical evidence suggests that CYS would have passed.
What motive did the OAG have for sharing info with Erickson? Was he then intended to share these tidbits with trustees who were invested with securing a conviction of GS2 and TC? Who were these trustees and what did they or their corporations stand to gain?I'm interested in hearing who was behind planting CB as General Counsel. To me it suggests she was intent, along with other Trustees in protecting actions taken by BOT during her tenure.

 

[dwiz]

Erikson is taking notes from a meeting with OAG Investigators - presumably the meeting is with a group of PSU administrators working with OAG regarding C/S/S charges. Pretty sure "scumbag" is OAG Investigators' code name for Sandusky which is why it is placed in quotes (e.g., that is how OAG Investigators are referring to him). Not sure what is meant by cellphone call in Spring 2002, but that is the exact timeframe when the Executive Committee of PSU BOT released an Official Press Release that they had effectively gifted 15 Acres of land that was formerly part of PSU's Campus to "scumbag" & his charity (sold at a minute fraction of it's actual value - e.g., like 5% - 10% of actual market value). The 2002 Press Release praises what a great man "scumbag" is and goes on to say that the land will be used to build the Campus Facility for "Scumbag's" charity, The Second Mile, that "Scumbag" had always dreamed of building (e.g., his dream grooming and pedophile hunting grounds). How wonderful that PSU's BOT is helping enable "Scumbag's" dreams and what an amazing coincidence that the land would be provided immediately following TSM getting permanently expelled from PSU's Campus as a direct result of MM's 2001 Employee Incident Report! Also what a coincidence that Bruce Heim, whose BOT bio refers to him as a local R/E magnate, would supply Sandusky access to the Hilton Garden's Facility's for use by Sandusky and TSM after the TSM PSU campus ban and then shortly thereafter a R/E transaction at the largess of the PSU BOT to "Scumbag" & his charity effectively giving him a piece of PSU's Campus that TSM had just been banned from only months earlier, so "Scumbag's" dream facility could be built on PSU's former campus-owned property. What an amazing coinky-dink!

It's incredible that that is all true and nobody cares. Must be that football culture, and none of that stuff.

 

[Bushwood CC]

I think common sense, based on the actions of responsible people,are now reinforced with evidence. MM, JM Dr.D, JVP, GS, TC, GS2, and yes even JR all acted as if no evidence of crime was witnessed. JS, alone with a child, in the shower, was at the least inappropriate. If reported as such, empirical evidence suggests that CYS would have passed.
What motive did the OAG have for sharing info with Erickson? Was he then intended to share these tidbits with trustees who were invested with securing a conviction of GS2 and TC? Who were these trustees and what did they or their corporations stand to gain?I'm interested in hearing who was behind planting CB as General Counsel. To me it suggests she was intent, along with other Trustees in protecting actions taken by BOT during her tenure.

No doubt, don't forget when she was "planted" either, January 2010 - right in the midst of the "Climate-gate" fraud involving Federal (and private) Grants. There was significant pressure on the PA OAG to do an investigation as PSU's Meteorology Dept played a major role, if not THE MAJOR ROLE, in the intentionally falsified research via Professor Mann to support additional funding (Federal authorities did not like what was whafting from this fraud at all). The falsified research and email exchanges came to light in the Oct/Nov 2009 timeframe and we all know that GOP-tied Trustees were running the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT and the GOP-controlled OAG probably wanted to manage the twin cesspools of "Climate-gate" and the V1 CMHS/DPW/CYS/TSM SWIGJ resulting from massive "oversight" of the GOP OAG's political benefactors on the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT. Baldwin, a former Chair & Vice Chair of the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT, was conveniently inserted in the midst of the Climate-gate uproar in Jan 2010 just in time to rubberstamp a fraudulent "whitewash" internal investigation report of Climate-gate in March 2010 that absolved Mann & PSU. The GOP-controlled OaAG never investigated the matter and cited PSU's internal whitewash sham report as support for no need to investigate further despite evidence of "grant fraud" that went well into the hundreds of millions of $$$ S.

 

[JoeBatters1]

It isn't clear who Erickson is speaking with, but whomever it is has information that came from the OAG/Fina. There are other pages of the notes that confirm this.

"Scumbag" is NOT Sandusky. "Scumbag" is a PSU employee who was not charged by the OAG, but investigated under Fina's premise that "a lot of people know." When this person, like everyone else, denied knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, Fina considered charging him with perjury. And like everyone else who was charged, Fina had no evidence to prove this individual lied.

"Spring 2002 - call on cell phone" refers to another PSU employee who alleged to have received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident. Upon further investigation, I found this person not to credible (as did the OAG). This person was never brought forth as a witness to testify in the case.

Thanks Ray! By the way, do you have any idea who "scumbag" might be? Also, can you please refresh my memory as to how these notes from Erickson became public? Thanks again.

 

[rmb297]

Thanks Ray! By the way, do you have any idea who "scumbag" might be? Also, can you please refresh my memory as to how these notes from Erickson became public? Thanks again.

Of course I know who "scumbag" is....I redacted the notes.

So far only about five pages of notes are in the public domain - and I put them there. Many more are not.

 

[7out]

"Scumbag" is NOT Sandusky. "Scumbag" is a PSU employee who was not charged by the OAG, but investigated under Fina's premise that "a lot of people know." When this person, like everyone else, denied knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, Fina considered charging him with perjury. And like everyone else who was charged, Fina had no evidence to prove this individual lied.

"Spring 2002 - call on cell phone" refers to another PSU employee who alleged to have received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident. Upon further investigation, I found this person not to credible (as did the OAG). This person was never brought forth as a witness to testify in the case.[/QUOTE]


Ray - it speaks volumes what you chose to redact. Is the "scumbag" in reference to Bradly or Schiano. The phone call in 2002 is in reference to Jay and Kenny Jackson. Funny they still had the year wrong for that. Why not post all of the notes. your excuses for not doing so, just don't hold up. Why are you only wanting people to know partial truths instead of figuring out what really happened. When all of the info at hand at the time (whether right or wrong) is why people made the decision they did.

If Erickson really believed at the time that Jay and Kenny Jackson spoke about the 2001 incident and it lined up with McQueary testimony that meant many others did indeed lie from PSU especially football office. Wouldn't that have had an influence on many decisions made

If Erickson really believed that Bradley was going to be charged from the feds for mail fraud that may or may not have include NCAA violations wouldn't that have an impact on what they asked Freeh to do

Again isn't the full truth important

Also just because someone doesn't testify doesn't mean they weren't considered credible. How would that person's testimony change how the Sandusky trial went and that persons testimony wouldn't have been needed in a prelim hearing.

Your recent piece is typical for you. You get a few things right that makes it look like you know what your talking about then you go off a cliff and make ziegler style assumptions having to forget very other important facts to make those same assumptions

 

[rmb297]

I think common sense, based on the actions of responsible people,are now reinforced with evidence. MM, JM Dr.D, JVP, GS, TC, GS2, and yes even JR all acted as if no evidence of crime was witnessed. JS, alone with a child, in the shower, was at the least inappropriate. If reported as such, empirical evidence suggests that CYS would have passed.
What motive did the OAG have for sharing info with Erickson? Was he then intended to share these tidbits with trustees who were invested with securing a conviction of GS2 and TC? Who were these trustees and what did they or their corporations stand to gain?I'm interested in hearing who was behind planting CB as General Counsel. To me it suggests she was intent, along with other Trustees in protecting actions taken by BOT during her tenure.

The OAG and PSU had been working together to railroad Spanier, et al, since March 2011. Baldwin was in on it, as confirmed by her staying silent about not representing Spanier at the grand jury. http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2014/08/trial-transcripts-add-evidence-that.html

A real investigation into the PSU BOT would surface financial malfeasance, profiteering, and possibly another sex scandal.

Baldwin's hiring http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/01/who-knew-part-2-hiring-of-cynthia.html

 

[rmb297]

Ray - it speaks volumes what you chose to redact. Is the "scumbag" in reference to Bradly or Schiano. The phone call in 2002 is in reference to Jay and Kenny Jackson. Funny they still had the year wrong for that. Why not post all of the notes. your excuses for not doing so, just don't hold up. Why are you only wanting people to know partial truths instead of figuring out what really happened. When all of the info at hand at the time (whether right or wrong) is why people made the decision they did.

If Erickson really believed at the time that Jay and Kenny Jackson spoke about the 2001 incident and it lined up with McQueary testimony that meant many others did indeed lie from PSU especially football office. Wouldn't that have had an influence on many decisions made

If Erickson really believed that Bradley was going to be charged from the feds for mail fraud that may or may not have include NCAA violations wouldn't that have an impact on what they asked Freeh to do

Again isn't the full truth important

Also just because someone doesn't testify doesn't mean they weren't considered credible. How would that person's testimony change how the Sandusky trial went and that persons testimony wouldn't have been needed in a prelim hearing.

Your recent piece is typical for you. You get a few things right that makes it look like you know what your talking about then you go off a cliff and make ziegler style assumptions having to forget very other important facts to make those same assumptions

Unlike the OAG and Louis Freeh, I make sure to redact anything that could cause the reputations of innocent people to be smeared. I will eventually release all the notes, properly redacted, of course.

 

[NittPicker]

Of course I know who "scumbag" is....I redacted the notes.

So far only about five pages of notes are in the public domain - and I put them there. Many more are not.

I admire the time and effort you put into uncovering the truth. Most others have taken the "move on" attitude and are happy with a false narrative. One question though. If the notes are in the public domain why redact them? By doing so you open yourself up to many of the same criticisms aimed at the OAG and BoT. Hiding information, framing a story to suit your purposes, etc. Maybe if Fina's "scumbag" is known the media may take notice and finally ask some real questions of Fina like why he feels an innocent person is a scumbag.

 

[lionlurker]

"

If Erickson really believed at the time that Jay and Kenny Jackson spoke about the 2001 incident and it lined up with McQueary testimony that meant many others did indeed lie from PSU especially football office. Wouldn't that have had an influence on many decisions made

If Erickson really believed that Bradley was going to be charged from the feds for mail fraud that may or may not have include NCAA violations wouldn't that have an impact on what they asked Freeh to do

For your second post, rather than drop the mail fraud tip in rather surreptiously, would you care to explain? Or are you just going to smear Bradley and let it hang?

For the record, we are well-versed in new posters coming here and taking what might appear to be the BOT side of the argument.

 

[nits74]

Fina Feared Being "Nifonged" By Kane (Part 1)

Attorney General Kane stated the emails in the "porngate" prompted Fina's attack on her, however, Fina also feared that Moulton's investigation could cause him to be disbarred.

By
Ray Blehar

At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.

Sound familiar?

In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.

Don't take my word for it, though.

Read more

Ray, haven't yet had time to get through this, but skimming through it quickly this may be your best and most convincing work to date.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Unlike the OAG and Louis Freeh, I make sure to redact anything that could cause the reputations of innocent people to be smeared. I will eventually release all the notes, properly redacted, of course.

Yes. Just because the rogue OAG thought a person was a "scumbag" does not mean that he/she was a scumbag. The rogues at the OAG were the scumbags, but that does not mean they know one when they see one. It some circles this would be viewed as a Rovian tactic, and nothing more.

The others have a point: it would probably be instructive to know who these guys were attempting to frame as a scumbag. But, I figure we have to trust your judgement fpr now.

In the interim, I supposed it is too much to expect a member of the media to ask Rod what his notes mean. Much easier to simply pretend that they do not exist. SMH. Again.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

For your second post, rather than drop the mail fraud tip in rather surreptiously, would you care to explain? Or are you just going to smear Bradley and let it hang?

For the record, we are well-versed in new posters coming here and taking what might appear to be the BOT side of the argument.

Yeah. That, also, is Rovian in nature.

 

[rmb297]

I admire the time and effort you put into uncovering the truth. Most others have taken the "move on" attitude and are happy with a false narrative. One question though. If the notes are in the public domain why redact them? By doing so you open yourself up to many of the same criticisms aimed at the OAG and BoT. Hiding information, framing a story to suit your purposes, etc. Maybe if Fina's "scumbag" is known the media may take notice and finally ask some real questions of Fina like why he feels and innocent person is a scumbag.

The notes are not in the public domain and revealing names would possibly subject the individuals to harm, such as damage to their reputations and harassment in many forms.

I've held onto these notes for over two years and during that time attempted to corroborate the information they contain. I found that some of the information was not corroborated and was merely the opinions being set forth by the OAG. The OAG was trying to prove that Sandusky's misconduct with kids was "notorious" and a lot of people at PSU knew. That was simply not the case -- serial criminals are experts and hiding their crimes -- that's why they are known as "serial" criminals.

Fina was trying to prove a massive cover-up by PSU....all the while ignoring the cover up by The Second Mile. As court documents indicate, Judge Cleland helped Fina steer clear of implicating The Second Mile as well.

 

[lionlurker]

As usual, they think we are idiots.

 

[rmb297]

Yes. Just because the rogue OAG thought a person was a "scumbag" does not mean that he/she was a scumbag. The rogues at the OAG were the scumbags, but that does not mean they know one when they see one. It some circles this would be viewed as a Rovian tactic, and nothing more.

The others have a point: it would probably be instructive to know who these guys were attempting to frame as a scumbag. But, I figure we have to trust your judgement fpr now.

In the interim, I supposed it is too much to expect a member of the media to ask Rod what his notes mean. Much easier to simply pretend that they do not exist. SMH. Again.

Actually, the accusation of someone being a "scumbag" was leveled by PSU BOT member, Ira Lubert, not Frank Fina.

 

[7out]

Unlike the OAG and Louis Freeh, I make sure to redact anything that could cause the reputations of innocent people to be smeared. I will eventually release all the notes, properly redacted, of course.

That very same info you redacted you used for years saying how Erickson was going to be wearing an orange jump suit soon. Selectively choosing who you smear and using the excuse of taking the high ground is laughable .

By no means am I defending Erickson it just happens to be a perfect example of your hypocrisy. Playing to your audience is all you are doing - Any evidence that Jay would have known about 2001 wouldn't go over well on this board or to any Penn Stater and that is why you redacted it. If that portion of the notes are wrong why wouldn't any other portion be wrong.

Choosing who you smear and selectively telling what facts you know is well within your rights to do so just stop pretending that you are looking for the full truth while doing so. You are playing the same game as those who you are criticizing

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Actually, the accusation of someone being a "scumbag" was leveled by PSU BOT member, Ira Lubert, not Frank Fina.

Well, heck. There is another one that the media could ask, then. Hah!!

 

[rmb297]

Ray - it speaks volumes what you chose to redact. Is the "scumbag" in reference to Bradly or Schiano. The phone call in 2002 is in reference to Jay and Kenny Jackson. Funny they still had the year wrong for that.

While I'm not confirming anything above, the fact that the year is wrong is central to the lack of credibility of the person who came forward. It's a very significant error in consideration of the situation at the time.

 

[lionlurker]

Choosing who you smear and selectively telling what facts you know is well within your rights to do so just stop pretending that you are looking for the full truth while doing so. You are playing the same game as those who you are criticizing

And yet, you chose to smear Bradley a few posts ago.

 

[7out]

For your second post, rather than drop the mail fraud tip in rather surreptiously, would you care to explain? Or are you just going to smear Bradley and let it hang?

For the record, we are well-versed in new posters coming here and taking what might appear to be the BOT side of the argument.

It was only mentioned because that is what was in Erickson's notes that Ray redacted - If you want to change Erickson's notes go ahead but it doesn't change how and why this all played out the way it did - Bradley is a big boy and can handle himself. Obviously any thing that has happened in the past is just that and won't effect him going forward.

I have been watching and reading this board for many years - I think since around 2012 - I can assure you I am not on the BOT's side.

 

[Maddog]

I think common sense, based on the actions of responsible people,are now reinforced with evidence. MM, JM Dr.D, JVP, GS, TC, GS2, and yes even JR all acted as if no evidence of crime was witnessed. JS, alone with a child, in the shower, was at the least inappropriate. If reported as such, empirical evidence suggests that CYS would have passed.
What motive did the OAG have for sharing info with Erickson? Was he then intended to share these tidbits with trustees who were invested with securing a conviction of GS2 and TC? Who were these trustees and what did they or their corporations stand to gain?I'm interested in hearing who was behind planting CB as General Counsel. To me it suggests she was intent, along with other Trustees in protecting actions taken by BOT during her tenure.

I'm having a senior moment - who is JR in your post?

 

[rmb297]

That very same info you redacted you used for years saying how Erickson was going to be wearing an orange jump suit soon. Selectively choosing who you smear and using the excuse of taking the high ground is laughable .

By no means am I defending Erickson it just happens to be a perfect example of your hypocrisy. Playing to your audience is all you are doing - Any evidence that Jay would have known about 2001 wouldn't go over well on this board or to any Penn Stater and that is why you redacted it. If that portion of the notes are wrong why wouldn't any other portion be wrong.

Choosing who you smear and selectively telling what facts you know is well within your rights to do so just stop pretending that you are looking for the full truth while doing so. You are playing the same game as those who you are criticizing

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the evidence doesn't support that I am playing to "my audience." If I was doing that, I would have went along with Corman's story that the NCAA crammed down the sanctions under the threat of the death penalty. But I didn't. In fact, well before any of the Corman stuff came out, I posted that Erickson and the NCAA were cooperating. That was not popular among a lot of people.

My goal is to find the truth and make sure PA's kids get the protection they deserve, not win popularity contests.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

I'm having a senior moment - who is JR in your post?

Referencing TSM guy, I think.

 

[dwiz]

Obviously any thing that has happened in the past is just that and won't effect him going forward.

Yeah. That's how everything in this situation has played out. Bravo.

 

[Maddog]

No doubt, don't forget when she was "planted" either, January 2010 - right in the midst of the "Climate-gate" fraud involving Federal (and private) Grants. There was significant pressure on the PA OAG to do an investigation as PSU's Meteorology Dept played a major role, if not THE MAJOR ROLE, in the intentionally falsified research via Professor Mann to support additional funding (Federal authorities did not like what was whafting from this fraud at all). The falsified research and email exchanges came to light in the Oct/Nov 2009 timeframe and we all know that GOP-tied Trustees were running the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT and the GOP-controlled OAG probably wanted to manage the twin cesspools of "Climate-gate" and the V1 CMHS/DPW/CYS/TSM SWIGJ resulting from massive "oversight" of the GOP OAG's political benefactors on the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT. Baldwin, a former Chair & Vice Chair of the all-powerful EC of the PSU BOT, was conveniently inserted in the midst of the Climate-gate uproar in Jan 2010 just in time to rubberstamp a fraudulent "whitewash" internal investigation report of Climate-gate in March 2010 that absolved Mann & PSU. The GOP-controlled OaAG never investigated the matter and cited PSU's internal whitewash sham report as support for no need to investigate further despite evidence of "grant fraud" that went well into the hundreds of millions of $$$ S.

One problem with this theory - numerous investigations in both the US and UK, including by the two most respected scientific organizations in the world (the AAAS and British Royal Society) have concluded that there was no fraud or falsified research by Mann, and his research has been independently replicated and confirmed by at least 13 other groups of researchers from around the globe.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Falsely? A bit premature with your opinion don't you think? What evidence has surfaced over the last four years showing that Gary and Tim reported the locker room incident to authorities for investigation (police, child services, etc)? I know of none. Further, It was the people who sat on the grand jury who ultimately determined whether Tim and Gary's testimony was credible (lied) and whether charges were warranted, not Fina. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial. Possibly, but again it was the people who sat on the grand jury who removed that possibility not Fina.

Don't take my word for it, though.

I'll take the word of the grand jury participants instead. I also look to the herculean efforts of Tim and Gary's counsel to suppress Baldwin's testimony. That's enough for me to conclude that they weren't falsely accused as you theorize.


Read more

 

[dwiz]

Like moths to a flame, out of the woodwork they come...

 

[BobPSU92]

One problem with this theory - numerous investigations in both the US and UK, including by the two most respected scientific organizations in the world (the AAAS and British Royal Society) have concluded that there was no fraud or falsified research by Mann, and his research has been independently replicated and confirmed by at least 13 other groups of researchers from around the globe.

I guess that explains why Mann is still employed by Penn State.

 

[sluggo72]

"Scumbag" is NOT Sandusky. "Scumbag" is a PSU employee who was not charged by the OAG, but investigated under Fina's premise that "a lot of people know." When this person, like everyone else, denied knowledge of Sandusky's crimes, Fina considered charging him with perjury. And like everyone else who was charged, Fina had no evidence to prove this individual lied.

"Spring 2002 - call on cell phone" refers to another PSU employee who alleged to have received a contemporaneous report of the 2001 incident. Upon further investigation, I found this person not to credible (as did the OAG). This person was never brought forth as a witness to testify in the case.

Ray - it speaks volumes what you chose to redact. Is the "scumbag" in reference to Bradly or Schiano. The phone call in 2002 is in reference to Jay and Kenny Jackson. Funny they still had the year wrong for that. Why not post all of the notes. your excuses for not doing so, just don't hold up. Why are you only wanting people to know partial truths instead of figuring out what really happened. When all of the info at hand at the time (whether right or wrong) is why people made the decision they did.

If Erickson really believed at the time that Jay and Kenny Jackson spoke about the 2001 incident and it lined up with McQueary testimony that meant many others did indeed lie from PSU especially football office. Wouldn't that have had an influence on many decisions made

If Erickson really believed that Bradley was going to be charged from the feds for mail fraud that may or may not have include NCAA violations wouldn't that have an impact on what they asked Freeh to do

Again isn't the full truth important

Also just because someone doesn't testify doesn't mean they weren't considered credible. How would that person's testimony change how the Sandusky trial went and that persons testimony wouldn't have been needed in a prelim hearing.

Your recent piece is typical for you. You get a few things right that makes it look like you know what your talking about then you go off a cliff and make ziegler style assumptions having to forget very other important facts to make those same assumptions[/QUOTE]


it sounds like to me you have all the answers here, so why not step up and tell us what really happened?? and Why?? Once again its you that says you have the answers.