FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Baloney overblown
Speculation on your part that is overblown. "Overblown" is also one of your intellectual crutches when you have no argument.
No it's not. The public doesn't like CSA in any form and that's what MM saw and reported
While the public does not like CSA in any form, "anal rape" is a far more disturbing image than "inappropriate touching."
Overblown. You conspiracy boobs are all the same (JFK and Area 51). You nit pick stuff in the case (Sarah Ganim hasn't written a book so she MUST be lying!, MM said he wore blue but it was red!)
You don't think it is odd that Ganim hasn't written a book??

You don't think it is odd that her new podcast got 86'd after one episode?

If MM got the color of the outfit wrong, that means he is inherently a bad witness and you have to doubt anything else he says.
and look for unimportant inconsistencies and then scream "CONSPIRACY!"
You thinking an inconsistency is unimportant does not make it so.
THE GJP later used better words to describe what MM reported. He thought he saw anal sodomy.
You miss the point. Once the public had it in their brains that MM saw anal rape, the narrative was written. You can't unring that bell.
It was reveled at trial although it may have looked like that he didn't see insertion so they acquitted Sandusky on that charge but convicted him on 4 more regarding Victim 2. This is why you will never change the narrative because you have nothing solid just BS around the edges. LOL
This is incredibly important and I bet that most people in the public don't realize that JS was acquitted of the anal rape charge. Which is the very charge that the entire case was based on.

"LOL" yourself, you cretin.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Because he's a hack

Another hack
If you think everyone is a hack, why don't you tell us who you are? Your qualifications must be AMAZEBALLS if you think all of these others (including award winning authors) are hacks.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
I'm not. Prove it or STFU.
Prove you are who you say.
Do you understand what PII is and why I'm not giving you that?
Because you are a fraud and a coward
So unless you can tell me something that you consider independently verifiable that isn't PII, we have a problem.
No, YOU have the problem
Or you can just admit there is zero reason I would lie about any of this.
I've already explained why you lie about it.
You don't even need to apologize.
Don't worry LOL you won't see that.
Nor should you. Fortunately for you, I haven't lied about either of those things.
You have
Right. YOU are making the accusation, therefore YOU have to prove it.
No, you are making the claim. On you to prove it or be called a liar. A person who really was those things would have done so long ago.
Nope, just crushing your spine with my 2 tons of intellect.
No, in your head is two tons of 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Prove you are who you say you are or STFU
Tell me SPECIFICALLY what you will accept as proof, or STFU. I've offered. You've provided ZERO evidence that I am lying other than "you think I am."
I am living in your head rent free. Think about what you just said. Hint: It makes you look like a fool and certainly not a heroic scientist who risked his life for his country. 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
It makes me look like someone who stands up for themselves. I've never called myself a hero, but I have absolutely risked my life doing science for my country (not just in Antarctica BTW).
PROVE IT OR STFU.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Prove you are who you say.
I have tried multiple times. I've offered to do more but you have to tell me SPECIFICALLY what you will accept that isn't PII.
Because you are a fraud and a coward
I'm neither.
No, YOU have the problem
You are everyone's problem here because you won't go away.
I've already explained why you lie about it.
I haven't lied about ANYTHING about myself. STFU, ostrich ****er.
Don't worry LOL you won't see that.
So even if I prove you wrong, you won't apologize? So you are a human piece of shit, is that what you are saying
No, you are making the claim. On you to prove it or be called a liar. A person who really was those things would have done so long ago.
I'm not "claiming" anything. I told you what my job was. You say I'm lying. Prove it.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Did PSU get the 60 million back? You admitted they did not so they were not rescinded and the other were removed AFTER the bad eggs (CSS and JoePa) were canned and Sen Mitchell reported that they were cooperating. So, you are wrong but won't admit it. LOL Hypocrite!

They do not

It is much worse and that is why PSU got such heavy sanctions. Violating a rule IS an infraction booby.
The fact that you cannot admit you are wrong about this (even though I have 100% shown you are wrong) means you will never admit you are wrong about anything. You are intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Speculation on your part that is overblown. "Overblown" is also one of your intellectual crutches when you have no argument.
Overblown perfectly describes your silly nitpicking
While the public does not like CSA in any form, "anal rape" is a far more disturbing image than "inappropriate touching."
But not sexually molesting
You don't think it is odd that Ganim hasn't written a book??
Irrelevant
You don't think it is odd that her new podcast got 86'd after one episode?
She doesn't have JoeBots like you paying for Ziegler's.
If MM got the color of the outfit wrong, that means he is inherently a bad witness and you have to doubt anything else he says.
BS
You thinking an inconsistency is unimportant does not make it so.
You thinking it is important does not make it so.
You miss the point. Once the public had it in their brains that MM saw anal rape, the narrative was written. You can't unring that bell.
You miss the point as the jury properly weighed that charge and threw it out. However, you further miss that Sandusky WAS convicted of felonies regarding Victim 2 so just because he didn't commit deviant intercourse does NOT mean he did not molest illegally that boy.
This is incredibly important and I bet that most people in the public don't realize that JS was acquitted of the anal rape charge. Which is the very charge that the entire case was based on.
Are you high again? He was convicted of 45 counts!!!!!!! Again, you are picking nits stupidly thinking the entire case rested on MM seeing anal rape. You are dim.
"LOL" yourself, you cretin.
I like it when you get mad. LOL
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
I have tried multiple times. I've offered to do more but you have to tell me SPECIFICALLY what you will accept that isn't PII.
Not photoshopped lies
I'm neither.
You're both
You are everyone's problem here because you won't go away.
Why don't YOU go away?
I haven't lied about ANYTHING about myself. STFU, ostrich ****er.
You have lied about all of it.
So even if I prove you wrong, you won't apologize?
Don't get ahead of yourself. Prove me wrong first. And you know how.
So you are a human piece of shit, is that what you are saying
Look in the mirror
I'm not "claiming" anything. I told you what my job was. You say I'm lying. Prove it.
You are
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
The fact that you cannot admit you are wrong about this (even though I have 100% shown you are wrong) means you will never admit you are wrong about anything. You are intellectually dishonest and a fraud.

That fact that you said all the sanctions were rescinded and I PROVED you wrong means you will never admit you are wrong about anything. You are intellectually dishonest and a fraud.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
That fact that you said all the sanctions were rescinded and I PROVED you wrong means you will never admit you are wrong about anything. You are intellectually dishonest and a fraud.
Dude, I sent you a NYT article saying the sanctions were rescinded. Are you saying the NYT got it factually wrong?

The only two sanctions that were not rescinded were:

1) The immediate transfer rule (because that had already expired)
2) The $$ which is was not feasible to take back because it had already been allocated for charitable uses.

Citing those two things as proof that the NCAA didn't "take it back" is dishonest on your part.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Tell me SPECIFICALLY what you will accept as proof, or STFU. I've offered. You've provided ZERO evidence that I am lying other than "you think I am."
I've done that. You refuse because you area fraud and a coward
It makes me look like someone who stands up for themselves.
A secure honest person knows who he is and doesn't need to argue with some anonymous person on a chat board desperately and then getting upset because he isn't believed. The fact that you do this shows you area fraud.
I've never called myself a hero, but I have absolutely risked my life doing science for my country (not just in Antarctica BTW).
Liar
PROVE IT OR STFU.
NO
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Not photoshopped lies
Haven't sent you any of those, so that's irrelevant.
You're both
Nope. STFU, ostrich ****er.
Why don't YOU go away?
Because this is MY board. I'm an alum. You are not. **** right off.
You have lied about all of it.
Not a single lie.
Don't get ahead of yourself. Prove me wrong first. And you know how.
Since you won't accept anything online; I've offered to meet you. You've mocked that idea. Basically, you won't give me an opportunity to prove you wrong because you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Dude, I sent you a NYT article saying the sanctions were rescinded. Are you saying the NYT got it factually wrong?

The only two sanctions that were not rescinded were:

1) The immediate transfer rule (because that had already expired)
2) The $$ which is was not feasible to take back because it had already been allocated for charitable uses.

Citing those two things as proof that the NCAA didn't "take it back" is dishonest on your part.
So all the sanctions weren't rescinded? You were wrong then. Be a man (LOL) and admit it then.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
I've done that. You refuse because you area fraud and a coward
You haven't been specific. I've tried to work with you but as I've postulated, you refuse to allow me to prove it because you know you are wrong.
A secure honest person knows who he is and doesn't need to argue with some anonymous person on a chat board desperately and then getting upset because he isn't believed. The fact that you do this shows you area fraud.
One of my flaws is that I am very stubborn. I will never, ever let you "win." I will never stop defending myself. If you stop calling me a liar, I will let it go. But every single time you call me a liar, I will defend myself.
No once.
Get a life.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
That fact that you said all the sanctions were rescinded and I PROVED you wrong means you will never admit you are wrong about anything. You are intellectually dishonest and a fraud.
Show me where I said "all". I said the sanctions were rescinded. That is true.

And I explained the two inconsequential ones could not be rescinded (one for timing reasons and one for fiscal reasons).
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Haven't sent you any of those, so that's irrelevant.
All of them are except the medal you bought on Amazon
Nope. STFU, ostrich ****er.
Yep silly boy
Because this is MY board. I'm an alum. You are not. **** right off.
It is NOT your board and you don't know anything about me. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Not a single lie.
Several
Since you won't accept anything online; I've offered to meet you. You've mocked that idea.
I gave you a place we could meet. I move around a bit. Would New Zealand be better?
Basically, you won't give me an opportunity to prove you wrong because you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.
Sure I will and you know how. Until you do.......
 

Elwood Blues

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2002
1,987
1,216
1
Wow. I hadn't checked in on this dumpster fire of a thread in a few weeks and I see the fire is still raging. Obviously, nobody is changing their mind on this story, regardless of how persuasive one's argument might be. Anyone who cares about this has long formed a fixed opinion, and any further discussion is nothing more than confirmation bias.

My view - the most relevant evidence came from Dr. Dranov. On the night of the incident, he asked MM three times whether he saw anything of a sexual nature and three times MM said no. https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

You will not find a more credible individual than Jon Dranov, M.D. I can't imagine any reason he would have to lie here. If you believe him, then it's also easy to believe that MM gave at worst - vague, squishy accounts to everyone thereafter. This explains the actions of Joe and also C/S/S. Was there negligence? Quite possibly. Was there criminal activity motivated by bad motives? I believe not.

Glad I could clear that up for you. You may now go about your lives.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
All the sanctions that could be rescinded were rescinded.

Admit you are wrong, ostrich ****er.
Moving the goalposts! Penalty for you silly boy. See what I mean. You accuse me of what you yourself are guilty of. Hypocrite!
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Overblown perfectly describes your silly nitpicking
Wrong. It's just a crutch you have when you have no argument.
But not sexually molesting
No idea what this means. It is absurd that you think lying about "anal rape" didn't set a false narrative from which it was impossible to recover.
Irrelevant
It's not irrelevant. What explanation do you have that she didn't write a book? It's not because her career has taken off and she's too busy with other things.
She doesn't have JoeBots like you paying for Ziegler's.
No, she only has the backing of the Pulitzer Prize people. LOL, you moron.
Clearly you've never watched a lawyer cross examine someone. If a witness is getting details about what they saw wrong, it puts into doubt EVERYTHING of what they say.
You thinking it is important does not make it so.
Right back at you, Boots.
You miss the point as the jury properly weighed that charge and threw it out. However, you further miss that Sandusky WAS convicted of felonies regarding Victim 2 so just because he didn't commit deviant intercourse does NOT mean he did not molest illegally that boy.
God you are dim. The point is that the narrative of anal rape set the wheels in motion. The jury pool was tainted. Public opinion would never have let a jury acquit regardless of the facts.
Are you high again? He was convicted of 45 counts!!!!!!! Again, you are picking nits stupidly thinking the entire case rested on MM seeing anal rape. You are dim.
See above.
I like it when you get mad. LOL
I like making you look like a moron.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Wow. I hadn't checked in on this dumpster fire of a thread in a few weeks and I see the fire is still raging. Obviously, nobody is changing their mind on this story, regardless of how persuasive one's argument might be. Anyone who cares about this has long formed a fixed opinion, and any further discussion is nothing more than confirmation bias.

My view - the most relevant evidence came from Dr. Dranov. On the night of the incident, he asked MM three times whether he saw anything of a sexual nature and three times MM said no. https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

You will not find a more credible individual than Jon Dranov, M.D. I can't imagine any reason he would have to lie here. If you believe him, then it's also easy to believe that MM gave at worst - vague, squishy accounts to everyone thereafter.
Have you read Joe's testimony to the GJ AND the OAG? Pretty clear MM told him that it was sexually inappropriate. Isn't that enough to call the police?
This explains the actions of Joe and also C/S/S. Was there negligence? Quite possibly. Was there criminal activity motivated by bad motives? I believe not.
Why would Spanier think they could be vulnerable for not reporting?
Glad I could clear that up for you. You may now go about your lives.
Except Elwood that is not true. @JmmyW has explained that before. That statement is allegedly from a sealed GJ record that was never released. Here is what Dranov said at Sandusky's trial:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROMINGER

Q: But, doctor, you asked him three times if he saw a sexual act?

MR: McGETTIGAN: Objection. That's just a leading question and improper redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q: Right?

A: In the conversation, yes. I didn't use the term did you see a sexual act. I kept saying what did you see and each time he would come back to the sounds. I kept saying what did you see. And it just seemed to make him more upset. So I backed off that.

That's a lot different than the "Q: Did you see a sexual act? A: No." that everyone likes to falsely tell.
 
Last edited:

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
Wow. I hadn't checked in on this dumpster fire of a thread in a few weeks and I see the fire is still raging. Obviously, nobody is changing their mind on this story, regardless of how persuasive one's argument might be. Anyone who cares about this has long formed a fixed opinion, and any further discussion is nothing more than confirmation bias.

My view - the most relevant evidence came from Dr. Dranov. On the night of the incident, he asked MM three times whether he saw anything of a sexual nature and three times MM said no. https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

You will not find a more credible individual than Jon Dranov, M.D. I can't imagine any reason he would have to lie here. If you believe him, then it's also easy to believe that MM gave at worst - vague, squishy accounts to everyone thereafter. This explains the actions of Joe and also C/S/S. Was there negligence? Quite possibly. Was there criminal activity motivated by bad motives? I believe not.

Glad I could clear that up for you. You may now go about your lives.
Well stated. Thanks for chiming in.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
Wrong. It's just a crutch you have when you have no argument.
No it's a response to a nothing burger.
No idea what this means. It is absurd that you think lying about "anal rape" didn't set a false narrative from which it was impossible to recover.
Using the term sexually molest would have the same impact as anal sodomy to the public. Nobody lied about it. It's what MM thought he saw and told the OAG so.
It's not irrelevant. What explanation do you have that she didn't write a book? It's not because her career has taken off and she's too busy with other things.
Does her not writing a book make CSS, JoePa and Sandusky innocent? Use you feeble brain Rooster
No, she only has the backing of the Pulitzer Prize people. LOL, you moron.
Yeah she has that award and none of your conspiracy hacks have that.
Clearly you've never watched a lawyer cross examine someone. If a witness is getting details about what they saw wrong, it puts into doubt EVERYTHING of what they say.
No it doesn't. You've lied about a lot here but I believe you when you say you are heterosexual (well except for your infatuation with me LOL).
Right back at you, Boots.
And right back at you Super Chief
God you are dim. The point is that the narrative of anal rape set the wheels in motion. The jury pool was tainted.
No more than any other high profile case. Just our system.
Public opinion would never have let a jury acquit regardless of the facts.
Yet they DID acquit him of that charge didn't they? Wrong again. Will you admit it?
See above.

I like making you look like a moron.
I like watching you dance. Keep at it please. LOL
 
Last edited:

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,052
357
1
You know I don't read all this drivel, right? I know a fellow who was in the investigation and saw everything . Ziegler and Snedden don't know squat , they never had access to all the case material .
They're just con men taking advantage of weak minded people like yourself.
So next time you copy and paste, just save the effort . I have a better source for information than those two.


Bizarre, but on the tenth anniversary of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Sara Ganim is hosting a podcast where she claims that Shawn Sinisi, a previously unknown alleged victim of Jerry Sandusky's, was the first alleged Sandusky victim to die as a result of that alleged abuse.

"In so many ways, Shawn Sinisi was a textbook abuse victim: he was ashamed, confused, angry, unable to admit or discuss what had happened," Ganim says on the new podcast, The Mayor of Maple Avenue, which was Shawn Sinisi's nickmame. "He was a child who seemingly overnight went from a happy go lucky and outgoing kid to a quiet, distant, and then troubled young man."

"He began to escape his pain and bury his memories of abuse with drugs and alcohol," Ganim said. "He became an addict. And when his addiction led him down a darker path, he was given yet another label: criminal."

There's only one problem with Ganim's tragic story of abuse. Shawn Sinisi, who grew up in Altoona, PA, isn't around to speak for himself; in 2018, he died of an overdose of heroin laced with fentanyl, at 26. But "during his lifetime," wrote Don Litman, a civil lawyer for Sandusky, to lawyers for the Sinisi family, Shawn Sinisi "unequivocally stated that he was not sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky."

So did Josh Sinisi, Shawn's older brother, who attended the Second Mile camps with his brother, and claimed that they stayed together overnight at Sandusky's house.

That's the story told in a trio of contemporaneous police reports from 2011 and 2012 emanating from the state attorney general's office that are marked "confidential." That's why Litman, who's defending Sandusky against a civil suit filed by the Sinisi family on March 12, 2021, has told the Sinisis, who are the featured guests on the Ganim podcast, that they are engaged in "publishing false and misleading information." So Sandusky's lawyer has called on the parents of Shawn Sinisi to cease and desist.

Litman, who referred a request for comment to Sandusky's criminal layers, has demanded that the Sinisi family take the podcast series off the internet "or we shall bring this to the attention of the Court and seek injunctive relief along with further consequences for such blatant misconduct."


Ronald Carnevali, a lawyer for the Sinisi family, did not respond to a request for comment.

But those contemporaneous police reports have a lot to say.

On May 27, 2011, Agent Anthony Sassano of the state attorney general's office interviewed Shawn Sinisi at his home.

In the Sandusky grand jury probe, Sassano was the lead investigator of a joint seven-member task force between the state attorney general's office and the state police that went out knocking on the doors of some 300 young men who had been participants in programs sponsored by The Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for wayward youth.

What the task force that worked under Sassano and then Deputy Attorney Jonelle Eshbach were looking for was victims of sex abuse, but they weren't very successful.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Sassano testified that the special task force had interviewed 250 men who were former members of the Second Mile charity, but they only found one man who claimed to be a victim of abuse.

According to a Penn Live story that was based on Ganim's "reporting" for her new podcast, "The Sinisis say that Shawn disclosed a small part of his abuse to detectives when Sandusky came under a grand jury investigation, but he was already mired in the underworld of drugs and addiction by the time the case went to trial. His mother said investigators told her it wasn’t worth pitting two brothers against each other."

The police reports, however, tell a different story.


When Sassano went to see Shawn Sinisi on May 27, 2011, the then 19-year-old told the agent that he and his older brother Josh had attended the Second Mile summer camps annually for one week between 2004 and 2007, when he would have been between approximately 12 and 16, until Shawn "lost interest in the programs as he became older."

The programs at the Second Mile had been recommended to Josh Sinisi, who had "mental problems" similar to Attention Deficit Disorder by Josh Sinisi's counselor, Shawn Sinisi told Sassano, according to the police report.

Shawn Sinisi, then 19 years old, told Sassano that he and his brother stayed overnight at Sandusky's home seven or eight times, and that the two brothers "always were together in these overnight stays and summer camp stays."

"Shawn indicated he did not know why Sandusky showed a special interest in him and/or his brother," Sassano wrote. "He indicated that Sandusky would tell him he loved him and occasionally gave him a kiss on the head. He indicated that he did not view these acts as sexual in nature."

On March 30, 2011, Ganim, then working for the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, published the first story that disclosed there was a secret grand jury of Sandusky under way, amid allegations that Sandusky was a serial sexual abuser of children.

"He [Shawn Sinisi] indicated he never felt uncomfortable around Sandusky and would tell me if anything inappropriate had occurred," Sassano wrote.

"He [Shawn Sinisi] elaborated that he [Sandusky] has a current legal charge of rape pending against him and if something was done by Sandusky, he would report it," Sassano wrote.

But Shawn Sinisi wasn't claiming to be a victim. Instead, he was a booster of Sandusky.

"Shawn indicated he believes Sandusky is a great role model as he helps people in need," Sassano wrote.

What Shawn Sinisi's Older Brother Told Agent Sassano Of The A.G.'s Office

Four days after he interviewed Shawn Sinisi, on May 31, 2011, Agent Sassano returned to interview Josh Sinisi, then 23.

Josh Sinisi told Sassano that he began attending Second Mile events in 2001, when he was a 12 year-old seventh grader, and stayed in the program until 2005 or 2006, when he was 16 or 17.

Josh Sinisi said he developed a "closer relationship" with Sandusky, and stayed overnight with his brother at Sandusky's house about a dozen times. Josh Sinisi said he used to attend Sandusky family tailgate parties at Penn State football games, and then go to the football games.

Josh Sinisi said that Sandusky used to throw footballs to him, and that they played Polish soccer together, and lifted weights.

As the task force typically did, Agent Sassano of the state attorney general's office proceeded to ask a bunch of leading questions.

"I asked him [Josh Sinisi] if Sandusky ever touched him physically in any way that made him feel uncomfortable," Sassano wrote, and Josh Sinisi "indicated no."

"I asked if Sandusky ever tried to get him to take a shower with him at PSU, and if so, did he touch him and again he indicated no," Sassano wrote.

Josh "Sinisi indicated that if Sandusky had ever done touched him in a sexual manner, he would have let his mother know and he would not have tolerated it even at his younger age," Sassano wrote.

Not even the free publicity from Sara Ganim was beneficial for the state attorney general's investigation of Sandusky, when it came to Agent Sassano's interviews with the Sinisi brothers.

Josh "Sinisi indicated he heard of the allegations against Sandusky in the news and that he does not believe they are true," Sassano wrote. "He indicated that Sandusky is a very generous and most positive person who helps people [kids] with problems. He indicated to this day, he has occasional contact with Sandusky via phone and considers him a friend."

That's the story that Josh Sinisi told, but it wasn't the story that Sassano was hoping to hear.

Agent Sassano Interviews Shawn's Brother A Second Time

On May 9, 2012, when the state attorney general's office was getting ready to prosecute Sandusky at trial, Sassano returned to visit Josh Sinisi again to see if he would tell a different story, as did so many of Sandusky's accusers after they had initially said they weren't abused.

But Josh Sinisi didn't change his story.

Josh Sinisi told Sassano that he first met Sassano at the Penn State swimming pool, where Sandusky was often "horsing around in the pool with a lot of the kids."

When he stayed over at Sandusky's house, Josh Sinisi told Sassano, he brought his girlfriend along, as well as his brother, Shawn.

"He [Josh Sinisi] aways felt very comfortable with Jerry Sandusky and also brought a lot of his cousins with him to go to games and hang out at the Sanduskys' house," Sassano wrote.

"He stated that after staying at Sandusky's house many, many times, he knows that Sandusky would have had ample opportunity to abuse him if he was so inclined to do so," Sassano wrote.

But, "He [Sandusky] never once tried anything out of line with Sinisi," Sassano wrote. Instead, Josh "Sinisi stated that Sandusky is kind of a grandfatherly, huggy type of guy and genuinely tries to encourage kids with his enthusiasm. His hugging and caring for the kids is never sexual at all."

Josh Sinisi told Sassano "that he does not believe that these allegations are true and feels that this might be some attempt by these kids to get money from Penn State and Jerry Sandusky."

Josh Sinisi added that "he has never heard anyone speak about Jerry Sandusky in a negative way" and that Sandusky "always had a tremendous impact on a lot of kids."

Josh Sinisi also told Sassano that "Sandusky was a positive influence in his life to say the least. Sandusky set Sinisi on his life course and Sinisi feels he would have never gotten into college and would never bein the position he is in today without Sandusky's help," Sassano wrote. "He [Josh Sinisi] said that Sandusky was extremely influential in his life."

What Marianne Sinisi Told The Newspapers

When Sandusky retired as a football coach, in a Sept. 17, 2010 story published in the Altoona Mirror, Josh Sinisi described Sandusky in an email as "kind, loving, caring, generous, strong, positive, successful."

In the story dug up by blogger Ray Blehar, Josh Sinisi, who had attention deficit disorder as a child, told the newspaper that Sandusky "taught me to be strong and never let anything [or anyone] stand in my way between what I wanted."

"He's an amazing man," agreed Marianne Sinisi.

When the sex abuse scandal hit the media, the Sinisis didn't change their story, and they continued to publicly defend Sandusky.

On Nov. 6, 2011, after Ganim's bombshell on the leaked grand jury report, Marianne Sinisi was quoted on statecollege.com as saying about the charges against Sandusky, "I don't believe it. I think he is a good man, and they are railroading him.

In the story, disclosed on Twitter by reporter John Ziegler, Josh Sinisi added, "I don't think it is true at all . . . I just went to a Penn State game with him a few weeks ago . . . I think it is ridiculous. I don't believe the charges are true at all."

Josh Sinisi told statecollege.com that he spent a lot of time with Sandusky. "He had the opportunity to do things with me and my brother," he said, but it never happened.

A year after her son's death, in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feature story on Dec. 24, 2019, Marianne Sinisi discussed her tragic loss, as well as the work of a charity she founded to aid the families of drug addicts. But according to the story that was posted on Twitter by Ziegler, Marianne Sandusky never even mentioned Sandusky.

On the new podcast, however, Marianne Sinisi tells Sara Ganim an entirely different story.

According to the Penn Live story based on Ganim's reporting, "Years would pass before Shawn told his mother and a lawyer that he was sexually abused by Sandusky. Afraid of disappointing his family, who were fans of Sandusky’s mentorship for Josh, Shawn began coping by self-medicating, first with alcohol and marijuana, quickly escalating to hardcore drugs."

And now, according to Penn Live, Josh Sinisi has changed his story as well.

According to the Penn Live story, "Brother Josh, who was also in Sandusky’s orbit, said the convicted child molester used his good relationship with him to intimidate Shawn into being silent. It worked for many years. Shawn kept his abuse bottled up, instead turning to drugs to cope, starting at age 13."

Phil Lauer, a criminal defense lawyer who is representing Sandusky in his appeal of his conviction, "I was not aware of the Sinisi family ever coming forward in the previous ten years."

Sara Ganim's Story Of Abuse

"In the summer of 2019, I got a call from a woman who identified herself as Marianne Sinisi," Ganim said. "She wanted to talk to me about her son Shawn — and what had happened just a year earlier, when Shawn was found unconscious on the floor of a McDonald’s bathroom in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Shawn died that night of an overdose. He was just 26 years old."

"Marianne sounded somewhat frantic on the phone that day as she described what had happened to her youngest child," Ganim said. "She reached out to me to share her story, because Shawn had also been a victim. A victim of a man who is now one of the most well known serial pedophiles, Jerry Sandusky."

"Jerry Sandusky’s conviction was punishment for what he had done, and it ensured that he could not harm any other children, but it couldn’t undo the abuse — or the consequences and myriad of ways it would manifest in his victims’ lives," Ganim said according to a transcript of the first episode of the podcast posted online.

"As someone who had followed the Sandusky story since the very beginning, I recognized immediately: that Shawn’s death marked a grim milestone — a fatality stemming from Jerry Sandusky’s abuse," Ganim said according to the transcript.

The Sinisi family is suing Penn State. The Penn Live story, based on Ganim's reporting, states, "Penn State had agreed to pay for Shawn to go to The Meadows, a treatment facility in Arizona with a sterling reputation . . ."

"What they [the Sinisi family] did know is that after just eight days in the rehab center, Shawn was told to leave. He was put on a plane to Pittsburgh, with no safe destination lined up for him."

"His family doesn’t know exactly what happened from there. He ended up at a McDonald’s and overdosed in the bathroom."

“Our poor Shawn,” his mother Marianne told Penn Live. “I felt like he wasn’t cared for at all ... not even leaving the planet."

In a Nov. 3rd press release, Meadowlark Media announced the new multi-episode podcast chronicling the Jerry Sandusky scandal that would be broadcast "on the 10th anniversary of his arrest."

'"The Mayor of Maple Avenue' is a multi-part investigative podcast with reporting by Sara Ganim," the press release states.

"Sinisi died in 2018 at the age of 26 from an opioid overdose. He is the only one of Sandusky’s victims known to have died since the former coach was convicted on 45 counts of sexual child abuse."

The press release says the podcast is a "joint project between the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Pulitzer Center for Local Reporting."

“Sara’s powerful reporting details how Shawn spent 14 years bouncing between jail, rehab facilities, and homelessness," the press release says. "The endless roadblocks the young man and his family faced, as they attempted to overcome addiction and trauma, clearly point to a national rehab system in drastic need of overhaul.”

"The Mayor of Maple Avenue will debut Thursday, Nov. 4 (the 10th anniversary of Sandusky’s arrest and indictment), available on your podcast platform of choice, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify."

To get a response to this story, I emailed or tweeted Ganim, Meadowlark Media, the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Pulitzer Center for Local Reporting, but all of these alleged champions of the First Amendment are stonewalling.

Not one of them respond to my requests for comment.

More Holes In Ganim's Story Of Abuse

There are a few more problems with the story that Ganim and the Sinisis are peddling.

If Shawn Sinisi was an alleged victim of Sandusky's, why didn't he come forward any time after Sandusky was convicted on June 22, 2012 until Sept. 4, 2018, when Sinisi died?

That's what 41 men did and 36 of them got paid a total of $118 million, or an average of $3.3 million each. But when Penn State was taking in all those claims, investigating nothing and writing some big checks, Shawn Sinisi wasn't on the list of alleged victims.

Why not? Why would Shawn Sinisi and/or his family miss out on the gold rush?

Instead, the Sinisi family filed a lawsuit two years after Shawn's death in Philadelphia in 2020 but waited until March 12th of this year to notify the defendants in the case about the civil complaint in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

The complaint is filed against Sandusky, the Second Mile, and Jack Raykovitz, former president, CEO and executive director of the Second Mile, and his wife, Katherine, who was the charity's executive vice president. In that lawsuit, Penn State is not listed as a defendant.

In the 77-page complaint, the lawyer for the Sinisis reprises the entire now-discredited narrative of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, complete with the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy in the Penn State showers that was an invention of the fiction writers in the state attorney general's office, and the alleged cover up conducted by top Penn State officials, which was the invention of the authors of the Freeh Report.

On this blog, I have printed an 8,000 word summary of what really happened in the case, compiled from thousands of pages of court records, and hundreds of pages of confidential records that are still under seal.

It's a synopsis that thoroughly debunks the entire false narrative from start to finish. If you haven't read it previously, you might want to take a look.

The typical pattern with most of Sandusky's accusers was that they initially denied they'd been abused. And then they'd hire a lawyer, undergo scientifically-discredited recovered memory therapy, and then they'd say that the doors of their minds had been opened, and now they recalled all kinds of abuse that they had apparently forgotten about.

But nowhere in the 77-page complaint filed by the Sinisis does it mention any recovered memory therapy undergone by Shawn. While the complaint claims that Shawn Sinisi was alone when he was abused by Sandusky, the complaint never mentions Josh Sinisi, Shawn Sinisi's older brother, who, according to the three police reports was always with Shawn whenever they attended a Second Mile event, or stayed over at Sandusky's house.

The Civil Claim Filed By The Sinisis Against Sandusky

The complaint does state that in the summer of 2000, Shawn Sinisi, then eight years old, attended a summer camp sponsored by the Second Mile that was held on the Penn State campus.

That's in stark contrast to Shawn Sinisi's interview with Agent Sassano, when he states that he began attending Second Mile events in 2004, when he was approximately 12 years old.

The complaint is also in stark contrast with older brother Josh Sinisi's interview with Agent Sassano, where he stated he began attending Second Mile events in 2001, when he was a 12-year-old seventh grader.

But the complaint states that back in 2000, when Shawn was eight, that Sandusky "began to groom Shawn Sinisi to become a victim of his sexual assaults."

"During that summer camp, Sandusky would, among other things, swim in the pool with Shawn Sinisi and grope his genitalia," the lawsuit claims. The following summer, in 2001,Sandusky continued to sexually assault Shawn Sinisi, including while in the showers of the Lasch Building."

"Over the next several years, Sandusky continued to groom Shawn Sinisi, spend excessive time with Shawn Sinisi, purchase gifts for Shawn Sinisi and his family, and sexually assault and abuse Shawn Sinisi," the complaint states.

"Sandusky continued to invite Shawn Sinisi to events hosted by Penn State and The Second Mile; invited Shawn Sinisi to attend various sporting events as his guest, including Penn State, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Philadelphia Eagles football games; invited Shawn Sinisi to attend football camps hosted by Penn State and The Second Mile on various Penn State campuses; invited Shawn to his home in State College, Pennsylvania, where Shawn was encouraged to spend the night on numerous occasions; and invited Shawn Sinisi to Penn State athletic facilities in order to exercise and spend time with Sandusky."

"During these activities, Sandusky sexually assaulted Shawn Sinisi in various manners," the complaint states.

"As a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse suffered by Shawn Sinisi at the hands of Sandusky, Shawn Sinisi began to utilize drugs and alcohol in order to manage and/or cope with the physical and emotional trauma, physical and mental pain, and other damages and injuries, as set forth above."

"Shawn Sinisi continued to utilize drugs and alcohol to manage and/or cope with the damages and/or injuries he suffered, as set forth above, until around or about September 4, 2018, when he overdosed on heroin and died," the complaint concludes.

"The death of Shawn Sinisi is a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Sandusky."

The Problems With Sara Ganim's Reporting

Ganim, who, at 24, won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on Sandusky, was the beneficiary of many leaks about the supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Sandusky, leaks that would forever poison Sandusky's reputation, and deprive him of his right to a fair trial.

Ganim reported on a prior 1998 investigation into another Sandusky shower incident that turned out to be unfounded. Somebody in the know had leaked to Ganim a police report from the prior 1998 case that had turned up no crime, a police report that was supposed to be expunged.

Who gave Ganim that police report? There's a short list of suspects, a few of whom were employed by the state Attorney General's office.

In a 79-page diary compiled by former FBI Agent Kathleen McChesney, who was an investigator for former FBI Director Louis Freeh during his civil investigation into an alleged cover up at Penn State, McChesney recorded that one of the first documents that Freeh's investigators sought was a "1998 investigation report [that] has been provided," regarding the investigation of that first shower incident, a police report that was supposed to have been expunged.

On Jan. 4, 2012, McChesney wrote that during a meeting with investigator Anthony Sassano and another official from the state attorney general's office, she learned that the "1998 police report" was "out of sequence and filed in administrative rather than criminal." And that the Penn State police chief and the original investigator from the 1998 incident were the "only ones who knew."

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify deputy Attorney General Frank Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

Scrheffler became convinced that there was a leak in the state attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky.

On March 12, 2012, the retired detective called Richard Sethman, one of Freeh's investigators.

What did Schreffler have to say? According to a confidential report from Sethman, the retired detective stated that "it has been clear to him from the beginning that there has been a leak of information in the attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky."

How did Schreffler know that?

"In March of 2011," the report says, "Sara Ganim, a reporter for the Patriot News in Harrisburg came to his residence and asked pointed questions about the 1998 Sandusky investigation," Sethman wrote after his conversation with the retired detective.

"Ganim advised Schreffler that she had a copy of the Pennsylvania State University Police report. She made specific reference to what Schreffler had written in the report. Schreffler asked Ganim how she got a copy of the report but Ganim would not reveal her source."

Besides publishing grand jury leaks that permanently destroyed Sandusky's chances for a fair trial, Ganim also functioned during the secret grand jury probe of Sandusky as an official courier for the A.G.'s office.

According to a brief filed by Sandusky's appeal lawyers, at a time when the grand jury probe was struggling to find victims, and in danger of expiring, Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave McCord the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, had a message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."

At Sandusky's trial, rather than have Ganim testify in court, the prosecutors from the state attorney general's office admitted in a legal stipulation that Ganim had acted as a messenger for the state attorney general's office by contacting McCord.



In 2017, Ganim, then working for CNN, struck again with a highly prejudicial scoop that was the result of another leak.

Ganim claimed she had obtained a one-page police report about the 1998 shower incident that "bolsters evidence" that the late Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno, "knew years before Jerry Sandusky's arrest that his longtime assistant might be abusing children."

The one page Pennsylvania state police report from 2011, supposedly obtained from a source, Ganim wrote, is "described here for the first time." The report, which she never published, supposedly "lays out an account from whistleblower Mike McQueary," who was telling Paterno about the since-discredited story about the rape in the showers of a 10-year-old boy.

"Paterno allegedly told McQueary in 2001 that the claim against Sandusky 'was the second complaint of this nature he had received," according to the police report, which was written after Sandusky's arrest 10 years later," Ganim wrote.

"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."

As somebody who's read a lot of police reports, those are some pretty dramatic flourishes.

Here's the rest of the story, as reported by Ganim:

"Then he [Paterno] made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection."

The police report also noted, Ganim wrote, that Paterno allegedly told McQueary that Dottie Sandusky, Jerry's wife, had told Sue Paterno, Joe's wife, that "Jerry doesn't like girls."

Ganim's 2017 scoop was immediately denounced as false by both the Paterno family and Sandusky's wife.

"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."

"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."

"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry."

"The incident in question is the 1998 [shower] episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded," Dottie Sandusky wrote.

"I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."

To sum up, this month marks the tenth anniversary of Sara Ganim's report of the illegal grand jury leak of the grand jury presentment that contained the false allegation that Jerry Sandusky had been by seen a lone witness raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers. The leak to Ganim set off the entire media firestorm over the alleged sex abuse scandal at Penn State.

Now on the tenth anniversary of that sorry event, Sara Ganim has taken it upon herself to provide all of us with a fresh example of how, when it comes to Jerry Sandusky, her reporting can't be trusted.

Quote Reply
Report Edit Delete
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
You were wrong. And the NCAA pulled some back for good behavior from PSU as they should have.
There was never any bad behavior which Mitchell quickly discovered after he arrived on campus. There were no "cultural" problems at PSU that needed to be corrected.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,340
1
No it's a response to a nothing burger.

Using the term sexually molest would have the same impact as anal sodomy to the public. Nobody lied about it. It's what MM thought he saw and told the OAG so.
This is speculation on your part. I think most rational humans would admit that "anal rape" is going to be regarded more harshly than "molestation."
Does her not writing a book make CSS, JoePa and Sandusky innocent? Use you feeble brain Rooster
It doesn't automatically mean that, but it is curious and casts doubt on her work. What possible reason could she have for turning down a book deal?
Yeah she has that award and none of your conspiracy hacks have that.
Cipriano has won awards.
No it doesn't. You've lied about a lot here but I believe you when you say you are heterosexual (well except for your infatuation with me LOL).
It's not been proven that I have lied about anything, so your argument falls apart immediately. (you are oddly hung up on sex and people's sexual orientation. I think you need to seek help)
No more than any other high profile case. Just our system.
That doesn't make it fair or right.
Yet they DID acquit him of that charge didn't they? Wrong again. Will you admit it?
Wrong about what? I'm not wrong that the incorrect GJP affected public perception of the case, drove the sensationalized media coverage and ultimately affected the jury pool.
I like watching you dance. Keep at it please. LOL
I'll keep beating you down; it amuses me.

But right now I'm going to work out, shower and then go out to nice dinner with friends. Enjoy your sad weekend masturbating to Mark Emmert's letter.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
There was never any bad behavior which Mitchell quickly discovered after he arrived on campus. There were no "cultural" problems at PSU that needed to be corrected.
Hiding a pedophile for decades might be one of those problems. The culture allowed him free reign. Some bad culture still exists. You are part of it.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,052
357
1
For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy

So far, during the entire sordid 10-year-history of this case, the corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary has been remarkably single-minded as well as highly successful in its desire to keep Jerry Sandusky rotting in prison for the rest of his days. And that corrupt judiciary has been even more remarkable -- and similarly successful -- in circling the wagons over the years to deny any and all appeals. That's despite overwhelming evidence of rampant official misconduct and wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that pervades the entire case.

But on Feb. 5, 2019, state Superior Court Judge Carolyn Nichols wrote a 70-page opinion denying Sandusky a new trial, an opinion she foolishly staked to the credibility of former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.

In her opinion, the Hon. Judge Nichols bought former Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach's argument that she and Fina had set an "internal trap" for the person in their office who was leaking grand jury secrets to reporter Sara Ganim. The gullible Judge Nichols also bought the argument that Fina couldn't have been the leaker because he had previously asked the grand jury judge to investigate those same leaks.

"It is a fact of human nature that one engaged in or aware of misconduct he does not wish to have exposed does not ask an outside source to investigate it," Judge Nichols opined. She didn't mention this in her 70-page opinion, but she's probably also convinced that O.J. Simpson is still out looking for the real killers. That's how laughable Judge Nichols's opinion is right now after Frank Fina has been completely outed as an overzealous and unprincipled prosecutor with a demonstrated track record for leaking grand jury secrets.

Since Judge Nichols wrote her august opinion based on the credibility of Frank Fina, the state Supreme Court on Feb. 19th voted unanimously to suspend Fina's law license for a year and a day. The state's high court made that decision after Fina was found guilty by the court's disciplinary board for "reprehensible" and "inexcusable" misconduct in his grand jury questioning of former Penn State counsel Cynthia Baldwin.

Baldwin was the lawyer for three high-level Penn State administrators under investigation by Fina, in his overzealous Penn State probe. The disciplinary board found that Fina was so out of control in his pursuit of the Penn State administrators that he actually browbeat Baldwin into becoming a grand jury witness who flipped and testified against her three clients -- former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley -- without telling her clients that she had thrown them to the wolves.

The disciplinary board also found that in order to get Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, to breach the attorney-client privilege, Fina had to hoodwink the grand jury judge about what his real intentions were when he was questioning Baldwin behind closed doors. That's the same gullible grand jury judge -- the Hon. Barry Feudale -- whom Fina asked to investigate the grand jury leaks.

On top of that mess, Sandusky's appeal lawyers are now in possession of a 79-page diary kept by former decorated FBI Agent Kathleen McChesney that records multiple instances of former deputy Attorney General Frank Fina leaking multiple grand jury secrets -- as well as transcripts and other grand jury records -- to McChesney and the other investigators working for former FBI Director Louis Freeh, in his supposedly "independent" investigation of Penn State.

In their motion for a new trial which has gone completely unreported by the rest of the media, Sandusky's lawyers filed the diary with the court under seal, and asked for permission to convene an evidentiary hearing. Sandusky's lawyers are seeking to drop subpoenas on Freeh, Fina, McChesney, Eshbach and others and question them under oath about the rampant collusion between the two investigations, as outlined in McChesney's diary, that tainted both probes.

How does the Honorable Judge Nichols get around that diary?

In addition to the diary, other newly discovered evidence shows that one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky, a Penn State professor, wasn't being completely candid when Sandusky's trial lawyer asked her what she told Freeh's investigators during a prior interview.

Had Sandusky's lawyer seen the Freeh Group's report of their interview of the juror, they would have discovered that she was a disgruntled employee who was already convinced, based on what she'd read in the newspapers, that Penn State had orchestrated a cover up of Sandusky's alleged crimes with children.

Had Sandusky's lawyer read that report, he would have never allowed the disgruntled and highly opinionated Penn State professor to sit on the jury that convicted Sandusky. And when Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's overwhelmed trial lawyer, was questioning the juror, Frank Fina, sitting over at the prosecutor's table, stayed silent. He never divulged that he was collaborating with Freeh's investigators on a regular basis, and may have even had his own copy of the juror's interview with Freeh's investigators.

How does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around an ethical cloud over that juror?

And in the McChesney diary, written by a former FBI agent who rose up the ranks to become the first woman to ever hold the No. 2 job in the bureau, McChesney casually drops the fact that she's been told Judge John Cleland isn't going to let anything delay Sandusky's rushed trial date.

How did she know that? In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers quote an affidavit from Amendola saying it wasn't him who told McChesney. So in their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers propose subpoenaing Judge Cleland to the evidentiary hearing, so he can explain that situation.

So now we already have an ethical cloud over not only one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky, and we also have a mushroom cloud over Fina, who sat silently while the juror was being questioned. And we also have an ethical cloud over the trial judge, who was hellbent on convicting Sandusky before the start of the 2012 Penn State football season, so the NCAA and Penn State could strike a deal on voluntary sanctions that would save the Nittany Lions from the death penalty.

And how does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around that?

Meanwhile, Sandusky's appeal lawyers are seeking to comb through thousands of pages of confidential documents known as the "source materials" for the Freeh Report. These are thousands of pages still under seal as the corrupt majority on the Penn State board of trustees seeks to keep an ongoing cover up in operation.

But every day, more of these documents are being leaked, on the scale of a Frank Fina type operation. And these documents that the Penn State board of trustees would like to keep secret are filled with further proof of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State.

Much of this information may be exculpatory, as the kind of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that Judge Nichols said didn't exist when she wrote her boneheaded opinion that denied Sandusky a new trial based on the non-existent, since-shredded credibility of Frank Fina.

Such as on March 12, 2012, when Louie Freeh's investigators got a phone call from Ronald Schreffler, a retired detective with the Penn State University Police Department. Schreffler was the detective who investigated the so-called first shower incident involving Jerry Sandusky and a young boy, back in 1998. It was an investigation of possible sex abuse that multiple authorities subsequently concluded was unfounded.

In the phone call, documented in a report by Richard Sethman, one of Freeh's investigators, Schreffler stated that "it has been clear to him from the beginning that there has been a leak of information in the attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky."

How did Schreffler know that?

"In March of 2011," the report says, "Sara Ganim, a reporter for the Patriot News in Harrisburg came to his residence and asked pointed questions about the 1998 Sandusky investigation," Sethman wrote after his conversation with the retired detective.

"Ganim advised Schreffler that she had a copy of the Pennsylvania State University Police report. She made specific reference to what Schreffler had written in the report. Schreffler asked Ganim how she got a copy of the report but Ganim would not reveal her source."

[But Frank Fina is still out looking for him, a search that could end the next time Fina looks in the bathroom mirror].

Schreffler subsequently told a neighbor who was a retired state police captain "about his encounter with Ganim and of his concern for a leak in the investigation."

On April 4, 2012, Sethman and another Freeh investigator, Tom Cloud, interviewed Schreffler. During the interview, the men at the table discussed the leak to Ganim of the 1998 police report.

"Schreffler stated that he wasn't sure of how information from the 1998 investigation has been leaked to the media but felt that it must be someone involved in the investigation."

Schreffler addd that the media somehow knew that there had been a conflict between the attorney general's office and the state police over whether to include the alleged victim of the 1998 shower incident, identified as Victim No. 6, in the official ranks of Sandusky's alleged victims, which according to Schrefler, "is information that only an insider would know."

In Pennsylvania, however, it can be dangerous to underestimate the level of official corruption. So if the Pennsylvania judiciary succeeds in circling the wagons again, and denying Sandusky's latest bid for a new trial, his only remedy will be, like Graham Spanier, to head to the federal courts, in search of a judge familiar with the U.S. Constitution.

It worked for Spanier, who, as soon as he escaped the corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary, found a federal magistrate who understood the Constitution. The magistrate immediately threw out the entire bankrupt case against the former Penn State president that had been ratified by every level of that corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary.

Either way, the truth will leak out, even amid a news blackout. Because no matter what the courts do, what's in those confidential documents will be shouted all over Big Trial.

More secrets that Frank Fina and Jonelle Eshbach and Louis Freeh and Mark Dambly don't want you to know.

Tracking the truth of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State has been a lonely vigil. Besides Big Trial, the only media outlet covering the new developments in the Sandusky case has been Search Warrant, a podcast hosted by three cops.

Big Trial was interviewed on one of those podcasts; Search Warrant has devoted a second podcast to a character witness for Sandusky who had intimate knowledge of a couple of the so-called victims in the case. The character witness also had an interesting story to tell about how one of the prosecutors in the case allegedly attempted to intimidate her after she testified.

In a brief preview of what's coming on future Search Warrant podcasts, John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, condemned the mainstream media's "failure to follow through on their obligation to be our watchdog."

"We at Search Warrant are currently unraveling the largest case of prosecutorial misconduct you will ever see," Snedden said. He talked about the McChesney diary written by the former FBI agent who "mistakenly thought it would never see the light of day."

"The diary details blatant collusion, corruption, and criminal acts on the part of the prosecution," Snedden said, before issuing what amounts to a declaration of war.

"Nobody hates a dirty cop or a a dirty prosecutor more than we do at Search Warrant," Snedden said.

"Follow along with us as we unravel this shocking, true story of how prosecutors denied men their constitutional and civil rights to fulfill a political vendetta. Join us as the tables are turned on dirty cops and dirty prosecutors who thought they could get away with it. It's a battle of good versus evil . . . It's about justice."

Meanwhile, the man at the center of this controversy called in today from the State Correctional Institute at Somerset.

In a phone interview, Sandusky said even he was optimistic about where his long-running case is headed next.

"I've been through so much that I don't want to get excited and very optimistic, but I am encouraged," he said. Despite being locked up for 30 to 60 years, "I've been hopeful forever," Sandusky said.

"I keep hoping the people are going to realize the travesty and all of the dishonesty and deception and everything that has transpired during this whole thing," he said. "That's my hope as much as anything. That they'll open their eyes and see."

"A lot of my coaching experiences weren't easy," recalled Sandusky, who was Joe Paterno's defense coach.

"But we were fighters who battled. I was surrounded by people like that and that's how I feel about this. This is wrong and I'm going to fight as long as I can fight."
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
This is speculation on your part.
As it is on yours
I think most rational humans would admit that "anal rape" is going to be regarded more harshly than "molestation."
Not enough to make the difference you imagine
It doesn't automatically mean that, but it is curious and casts doubt on her work. What possible reason could she have for turning down a book deal?
Why don't you ask her?
Cipriano has won awards.
Nothing close to a Pulitzer.
It's not been proven that I have lied about anything, so your argument falls apart immediately. (you are oddly hung up on sex and people's sexual orientation. I think you need to seek help)
You have made claims about yourself and not proven it. You therefore are a liar. You are obsessed with me personally and even your JoeBot buddies can see that. So, having such an infatuation with an anonymous internet poster tell me YOU need the help.
That doesn't make it fair or right.
Life's not fair. So?
Wrong about what? I'm not wrong that the incorrect GJP affected public perception of the case, drove the sensationalized media coverage and ultimately affected the jury pool.
"Public opinion would never have let a jury acquit regardless of the facts." is what you said. And they did acquit him of that charge. You were wrong even though the GJ said he did it. Man up!
I'll keep beating you down; it amuses me.
Like a moth to a flame. You aren't beating me down either. I'm making you dance Liar
But right now I'm going to work out, shower and then go out to nice dinner with friends. Enjoy your sad weekend masturbating to Mark Emmert's letter.
Enjoy playing League of Legends in mommies basement "drbigbeef"! LOL
 
Last edited:

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,248
259
1
You haven't been specific. I've tried to work with you but as I've postulated, you refuse to allow me to prove it because you know you are wrong.
I've been very specific but you refuse because you are a fraud and a coward
One of my flaws is that I am very stubborn. I will never, ever let you "win."
Listen to yourself and how sick you are. "Win" what? What a fool. I'm having fun with you.
I will never stop defending myself.
😂
If you stop calling me a liar, I will let it go.
You are a liar
But every single time you call me a liar, I will defend myself.
Liar
Many times
Get a life.
I AM your life. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues