FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
I have but all of those contain my name. And I'm not giving you my name. So unless you want something with my name blacked out (which you will then claim is photoshopped), then that won't work, will it?
You could give titles and dates published/won etc. The last stuff you faked had virtually the whole thing blacked out. But they have to be something I can verify. Taking your word (since you are a liar) won't cut it Super Chief.
 
Last edited:

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest getting a hobby. Perhaps search a word puzzles? Or cross stitch? Those seem on par with your cognitive capabilities.
Oh yeah it is. You seem to be pretty good at photo shop.
It's not a crazy claim. It's stating what my job is. If someone said, "Hey, I sell insurance" would you say "BS, prove it!" It's a job. Many people have similar jobs. Lots of STEM people among PSU grads. Lots of scientists and engineers on this board. It is far from a crazy assertion. It's not like I'm saying I'm in the CIA or something. It is not something that needs to be proved. It's a simple fact, just like "My mom was a teacher." Not complicated; not something you need to prove.
We've been thru that. Liar
But the difference is that claiming you have a friend who is close to the case and providing cryptic information that they have supposedly provided to you IS actually relevant to this discussion and therefore something someone might lie about. Furthermore, if one did know an investigator, there is zero chance they are blabbing about information that isn't in the public record. So that claim is far less believable (although not impossible) than me saying I'm a scientist.
Not really. Friends talk about work all the time. I have caught you in lies before (like your saying I started the insults) and others called you out. So, you are lying with this as well for reasons I have put forth before.
It's not irrelevant because you are never getting my name.
Not what I asked for
So unless you can come up with an example that doesn't involve PII just STFU about.
I will not. You come up with a way that meets my criteria.
You don't have to admit you are wrong (even though you are), you don't have to apologize (you really should), just never mention it again.
I'll mention it every time you bring it up.
I will also never mention it again, because it really doesn't matter and you have made a federal case about it FOR ZERO GOOD REASON.
You can stop any time you wish or ignore it. LOL But you can't.
I would have ignored it if you hadn't accused me of multiple horrible falsehoods.
Oh please, you poor thing. Go look at some of your insults. Actually, most of them are stupid.
Nothing is faked. Happy to prove it.
I've told you how
Again, it isn't. But I'm happy to prove it anyway. You just have to tell me how (without using PII).
I don't care about PII one way of the other. I gave you the criteria and examples so it's on you.
You would look in the mirror and see me? You are either terrible at the English language or you are a moron.
I would see you as I am showing you up.
You haven't given me an example that doesn't involve PII. So you are either dumb as a post or being purposefully obtuse.
Neither
you are the one with mental issues, ostrich ****er.
There you go with that porn again. You need to see somebody about that.
It's not porn; it's a TV show on Hulu, your Puritanical ****.
You silly boy
Yes, and proud of it.
Proud of being a dumbass. That's rich.
WTF is a "porn TV show"??? You are really hung up about sex. I assure you the reference has ZERO to do with porn.
You seem to like it a lot
Most people I know don't like to be accused of being a liar, or being a racist or stealing valor. All of those falsehoods have been hurled at me by you. I'm defending myself. Again, if you drop it, I too will drop it. If you keep bringing it up, I will keep making you look like a moron.
I will not drop it. I'm laughing at your "defending your anonymous persona" BS. You are just crazy. You look like a moron every time you rise to the bait you fool.
LOL. A secure person wouldn't spend his days looking for attention on another team's message board.
Like you? You don't know this is not my team either.
You clearly are because you get all upset about "porn." I think you need sex counseling, my dude. I pity your partner. I seriously doubt he or she or they is satisfied.
I'm not upset by it just puzzled by your obsession with it. I doubt you have a partner. Maybe that's why you need the porn so much and all the sex talk.
You make the allegation; you provide the proof. Or STFU.
Nope. Burden is on you.
This is nonsensical. If no one told you what your morality is, how do you know what it is? You didn't come up with it yourself (as you have said). So who told you?
I follow objective morality. You should read up on it.
I do neither of those things.
You do both
I think it's evil and sick that your spread lies on another team's message board.
I think it's sick and evil that you defend a pedophile and slander his victims on that same board.
They clearly are as I and other have shown time and time again.
Nope
Objective according to who? Who told you what your morals should be? How do you reconcile this with the examples I have given you? Why are your set of morals better than the Baptists or the Mormons or the Muslims or the Scientologists or the Members of the Church of the FSM? How is that objective?
See above and do some more study. You are quite retarded on this subject
Right
First of all, "unwashed masses" is a common phrase. Second of all, even if you are taking it literally how does hygiene related to narcissism???
It shows a phony (like the rest of your persona) superiority you "think" you posses but really don't.
Totally wrong. I'm not a gamer and I have no idea what those other forums even are.
It's you
The only relevant thing here is that I am smarter than you which is a dead certain lock.
Not in any way Rooster. LOL
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
what gets me is that these anti-PSU guys are saying "The police covered up 1998" and in the next breath "Paterno should have called the police". You really can't have it both ways.
Who has said the police covered up 1998?
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,079
376
1
I don't care about any of that.

  • there was a complaint by a mother
  • her son wouldn't corroborate that there was a crime
  • they hired not one but two psychologists
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself
  • they had the mom wear a wire and try to get JS to incriminate himself again
I think that was a pretty damn good effort and if there was a conspiracy to cover it up, they would NOT have done much of anything. If I am going to rob a bank, I don't go tell the getaway car mechanic, the bank manager, two other random people and my roommate.

OK, but -

On Friday, Nov 11, 2011, Sara Ganim, who had publicly identified Mike McQueary as the “graduate assistant” in the grand jury presentment who had supposedly witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the shower, wrote that McQueary was “getting blasted by the public for doing too little.”
He had received several death threats. The same day, newly appointed Penn State President Rodney Erickson announced that McQueary was being placed on administrative leave “after it became clear he could not continue coaching.” Erickson pointedly continued: "Never again should anyone at Penn State feel scared to do the right thing.”
McQueary was hard to miss around town. He stood six feet five inches, topped by short bristles of bright orange-red hair, which gave him the nickname Big Red. Now people were asking one another, “Why didn’t Big Red stop it?”
On Tuesday, McQueary had called an emotional meeting with his Penn State players. He looked pale and his hands were shaking.
“I’m not sure what is going to happen to me,” he said. He cried as he talked about the Sandusky shower incident. According to one of the players, “He said he had some regret that he didn’t stop it.”
Then McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual.
It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Dranov and others, however, that McQueary did not witness sodomy that night in February 2001. He thought something sexual was happening, but as he emphasized later, the entire episode lasted 30 to 45 seconds, he heard the sounds for only a few seconds, and his glance in the mirror was even quicker.
Ten years after the event, his memory had shifted and amplified, after the police told him that they had other Sandusky victims. Under that influence, his memory made the episode much more sexually graphic.
As I have written previously, all memory is reconstructive and is subject to distortion. That is particularly true when many years have intervened, and when current attitudes influence recall of those distant events. It is worthwhile quoting here from psychologist Daniel Reisberg’s 2014 book, The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.
“Connections between a specific memory and other, more generic knowledge can allow the other knowledge to intrude into our recollection,” Reiserberg notes. “Thus, a witness might remember the robber threatening violence merely because threats are part of the witness’s cognitive ‘schema’ for how robberies typically unfold.”
That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.
“As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”
In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”
On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.
“I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”
But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.
In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. “Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”
Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.
McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.
McQueary had painted himself into a difficult corner. If he had really seen something so horrendous, why hadn’t he rushed into the shower to stop it? Why hadn’t he gone to the police? Why hadn’t he followed up with Paterno or other Penn State administrators to make sure something was being done? Why had he continued to act friendly towards Sandusky, even taking part in golfing events with him?
When angry people began to ask these questions, that first week in November 2011, McQueary emailed a friend. "I did stop it not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” he wrote. He now said that he had in essence contacted the police about the incident by alerting Joe Paterno, which led to Gary Schultz talking to him about it, and Schultz was the administrator the campus police reported to.
“No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
Subsequently, McQueary changed his story somewhat. He now recalled that he had loudly slammed his locker door, which made Sandusky stop the abuse, and that he had taken yet a third look in the shower to make sure they had remained apart.
At the trial, he said that he had “glanced” in the mirror for “one or two seconds,” then lengthened his estimate to “three or four seconds, five seconds maybe.” During that brief glance, he now said that he had time to see Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall, and that he saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement” of his midsection.
But neither the newly created sodomy scene nor the slammed locker would save McQueary
By the time of the trial, eight accusers had been “developed,” as Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach put it. But Allan Myers, the boy in the shower in the McQueary incident, had been so public and vehement in his previous defense of Sandusky that the prosecution did not dare call him to testify.
When police inspector Joseph Leiter first interviewed him on September 20, 2011, Myers had emphatically denied that Sandusky had abused him or made him uncomfortable in any way.
After the Grand Jury Presentment was published on November 5, 2011, with its allegations that Mike McQueary had witnessed sodomy in a locker room shower, Myers realized that he was “Victim 2,” the boy in the shower that night, but that the sounds McQueary heard were just snapping towels or slap boxing. Myers then gave a detailed statement to Joseph Amendola’s investigator, Curtis Everhart, denying that Sandusky had ever abused him.
But within two weeks, Myers had become a client of Andrew Shubin. For months, Shubin refused to let the police interview Myers without Shubin being present, and he apparently hid Myers in a remote Pennsylvania hunting cabin to keep them from finding him.
After a February 10, 2012, hearing, Shubin verbally assaulted Anthony Sassano, an agent for the attorney general's office, outside the courthouse, cursing him roundly. “He was very vulgar, critical of me,” Sassano recalled. “Let’s call it unprofessional [language], for an attorney.”
Shubin was angry because the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t interview Myers, who, he claimed, had stayed at Sandusky’s house “over 100 times” where he had been subjected to “both oral and anal sex.” But the police still refused to allow Shubin to be present during any interview.
Soon afterwards, Shubin relented, allowing a postal inspector named Michael Corricelli to talk to Allan Myers alone on February 28, 2012. But during the three-hour interview, Myers never said Sandusky had abused him. On March 8, Corricelli tried again, but Myers again failed to provide any stories of molestation. On March 16, Corricelli brought Myers to the police barracks for a third interview in which Anthony Sassano took part. Asked about three out-of-state trips, Myers denied any sexual contact and said that Sandusky had only tucked him into bed.
“He did not recall the first time he was abused by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his notes, nor did Myers recall how many times he was abused. “He indicated it is hard to talk about the Sandusky sexual abuse because Sandusky was like a father to him.” Finally, Myers said that on a trip to Erie, Pennsylvania, Sandusky put his hand inside his pants and touched his penis. Sassano tried valiantly to get more out of him, asking whether Sandusky had tried to put Myers’ hand on his own penis or whether that had been oral sex. No.
Still, Myers now estimated that there had been ten sexual abuse events and that the last one was in the shower incident that McQeary overheard. “I attempted to have Myers elaborate on the sexual contact he had with Sandusky, but he refused by saying he wasn’t ready to talk about the specifics,” Sassano wrote. Myers said that he had not given anyone, including his attorneys, such details. “This is in contrast to what Shubin told me,” Sassano noted.
On April 3, 2012, Corricelli and Sassano were schedule to meet yet again with the reluctant Allan Myers, but he didn’t show up, saying that he was “too upset” by a friend’s death.
“Corricelli indicated that Attorney Shubin advised him that Myers had related to him incidents of oral, anal, and digital penetration by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his report. “Shubin showed Corricelli a three page document purported to be Myers’ recollection of his sexual contact with Sandusky. Corricelli examined the document and indicated to me that he suspected the document was written by Attorney Shubin. I advised that I did not want a copy of a document that was suspected to be written by Attorney Shubin.” Sassano concluded: “At this time, I don’t anticipate further investigation concerning Allan Myers.”
That is how things stood as the Sandusky trial was about to begin. Karl Rominger wanted to call Myers to testify as a defense witness, but Amendola refused. “I was told that there was a détente and an understanding that both sides would simply not identify Victim Number 2,” Rominger later recalled. The prosecution didn’t want such a weak witness who had given a strong exculpatory statement to Curtis Everhart. Amendola didn’t want a defense witness who was now claiming to be an abuse victim. “So they decided to punt, to use an analogy,” Rominger concluded.

Mike McQueary Takes The Stand [From Chapter 15]
Mike McQueary then took the stand to tell his latest version of the shower incident with “Victim 2” (i.e., the unnamed Allan Myers), where he heard “showers running and smacking sounds, very much skin-on-skin smacking sounds.” (Later in his testimony, he said he heard only two or three slapping sounds that lasted two or three seconds.) He had re-framed and re-examined his memory of the event “many, many, many times,” he said, and he was now certain that he had looked into the shower three separate times, for one or two secondseach, and that he saw “Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against the shower. The showers are running and, and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy’s hands are up on the wall.” He saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement.” After he slammed his locker, McQueary said, they separated and faced him. Surprisingly, he said that Sandusky did not have an erection. When Amendola failed to object, Judge Cleland inserted himself, obviously fearful of future appeal or post-conviction relief issues. “Wait, wait, wait, just a second,” he warned McGettigan. “I think you have to be very careful for you not to lead this witness.”A few minutes later, the judge asked both lawyers to approach the bench. “I don’t know why you’re not getting objections to this grossly leading [questioning],” he told McGettigan, who said, “I’m just trying to get through it fast.”McQueary recounted how he had met with Joe Paterno.“I made sure he knew it was sexual and that it was wrong, [but] I did not go into gross detail.” Later, he said, he met with Tim Curley, the Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a university vice president. In an email quoted during his testimony, McQueary had written, “I had discussions with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police.” He now explained that by this he meant just one person, since Schultz oversaw the university police department. With only an hour’s warning, Joe Amendola asked Karl Rominger to conduct the cross-examination of McQueary and handed him the file. Rominger did the best he could, asking McQueary why in 2010 he had told the police that he’d looked into the showers twice but had now added a third viewing, and he questioned him about his misremembering that the shower incident occurred in 2002 rather than 2001. Rominger also noted that McQueary had told the grand jury, “I was nervous and flustered, so I just didn’t do anything to stop it.” Now he was saying that he slammed the locker, which allegedly ended the incident. Without meaning to, McQueary indirectly helped Sandusky’s case by explaining the demanding work schedule of a Penn State football coach, typically reporting to work Sunday through Tuesday at 7 a.m. and working until 10 p.m. or later. Then, Wednesday through Friday, it was 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. If Sandusky kept the same hours, it was difficult to see when he would have managed to molest all those boys, at least during preseason training and football season.
Finally, McQueary revealed that he had filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State for having removed him from his football coaching job in the midst of the Sandusky scandal. “I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong to lose that job," he said.


In his brief appearance for the defense, physician Jonathan Dranov recalled the February night in 2001 that his friend and employee, John McQueary, had called to ask him around 9 p.m. to come over, because his son Mike was upset by something that had happened in a Penn State locker room.
When he came in, Mike was sitting on the couch, “visibly shaken and upset.” The younger McQueary said he had gone to the locker room to put away some new sneakers and “he heard what he described as sexual sounds.”
Dranov asked him what he meant. “Well, sexual sounds, you know what they are,” McQueary said. “No, Mike, you know, what do you mean?” But he didn’t explain. “He just seemed to get a little bit more upset. So I kind of left that.”
McQueary told him that he looked toward the shower “and a young boy looked around. He made eye contact with the boy.” Dranov asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened, and McQueary said he did not. Then, as Dranov recalled, McQueary said that “an arm reached out and pulled the boy back.”
Was that all he saw? No, McQueary said “something about going back to his locker, and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out, and it was Jerry Sandusky.” Dranov asked McQueary three times if he had actually witnessed a sexual act. “I kept saying, ‘What did you see?’ and each time he [Mike] would come back to the sounds. I kept saying, ‘But what did you see?’ “And it just seemed to make him more upset, so I back off that.”
Karl Rominger asked Dranov, “You’re a mandatory reporter?” Yes, he was, meaning that he was legally bound to report criminal sexual activity to the police. He did not do that, since he obviously didn’t conclude that it was warranted. He only told Mike McQueary to report the incident to his immediate supervisor, Joe Paterno.
As a follow-up witness, a Second Mile administrator named Henry Lesch explained that he had been in charge of the annual golf tournament, in which Mike McQueary had played in June 2001 and 2003. The implication was that this seemed strange behavior, supporting an activity in which Jerry Sandusky was a leading sponsor and participant, if McQueary had witnessed sodomy in the shower in February 2001.

One last hearing took place three months later, on November 4, 2016, when Allan Myers finally took the stand. He had evaded all subpoena attempts for the August hearings. Jerry Sandusky could hardly
recognize the overweight, bearded, sullen 29-year-old, who clearly didn’t want to be there.
He wouldn’t use Sandusky’s name, referring to him as “your client” in response to Al Lindsay’s questions. Yes, he had gone to the Second Mile camps for a couple of years “until your client hand-picked me,” he said. He admitted, however, that he had regarded Sandusky as a father figure and that he had lived with the Sandusky’s the summer of 2005, before he attended Penn State. “I left because he was controlling,” Myers said.
Lindsay had him read the notes of his September 2011 police interview, in which he said that Sandusky never made him uncomfortable and had not abused him, and that he didn’t believe any of the allegations.
“That would reflect what I said then,” Myers said, “not what I would say now.” That would become his refrain during his testimony, which appeared to be well-rehearsed, along with “I don’t recall.”
Yes, he had told Curtis Everhart that “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else….I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.” Yes, he had denied any anal or oral intercourse or any abuse at all. “That’s what I said then," he said.
Yes, Shubin was Myers’ lawyer for his DUI charge, and then he represented him as a claimed Sandusky victim, and yes, he had received a settlement from Penn State. And yes, he said, he was Victim 2.
During her cross-examination, Jennifer Peterson asked Myers, “And you told him [Anthony Sassano] that you were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, right?” Surprisingly, he didn’t agree. “I don’t remember exactly what I said in the meetings. I know then I was more forthcoming, but not all the way coming, because still processing everything and dealing with it.” It sounded as if he might have been in repressed memory therapy.
Peterson asked again, “Were you sexually abused?” This time he answered, “Yes,” although he didn’t actually say that it was Sandusky who had abused him. And there the matter was left.

* * *
Meanwhile, several Sandusky-related legal decisions came down, all of them relying on the truth of the abuse narrative.
Three weeks before Cleland’s recusal, Mike McQueary won his whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State, with the jury awarding the former Penn State coach $7.3 million.

At the end of November 2016, Judge Thomas Gavin ruled that that amount wasn’t enough, so he added another $5 million. In doing so, he cited prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach’s testimony during the trial that McQueary had been a terrific grand jury witness: “He was rock solid in his testimony as to what he had seen,” Eshbach said. “He was very articulate. His memory was excellent.”
Eshbach, the author of the notorious Grand Jury Presentment, was correct that McQueary had been articulate, but his “rock solid” testimony had morphed from what he told his father and Jonathon Dranov in February 2001 – that he heard sounds but witnessed no sexual abuse – to his grand jury testimony ten years later.
And he kept modifying his story and memory after that. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that McQueary had suffered “humiliation” when Graham Spanier publicly supported Curley and Schultz, which by implication impugned the assistant coach. Gavin later added another $1.7 million to pay for McQueary’s lawyers’ fees.
The Fallout [From Chapter 23]
Former federal investigator John Snedden, who interviewed many players in the Penn State drama soon after the trial, concluded that there was no cover-up because there was nothing to cover up. Mike McQueary had only heard slapping sounds in the shower. If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have intervened to stop a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"
Snedden’s boss told him, as a rookie agent, that the first question to ask in an investigation is, “Where is the crime?” In this case, there didn’t appear to be one. "I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses.”

* * *
In 2016, psychologist Julia Shaw published The Memory Illusion, a summary of her own and others’ work. “[My colleagues and] I have convinced people they have committed crimes that never occurred, suffered from a physical injury they never had, or were attacked by a dog when no such attack ever took place,” she wrote.
The Memory Hackers (2016), a Nova public television program, featured one of Shaw’s subjects recalling an illusory crime in three sessions. In that study, over 70 percent of her subjects developed false memories.
“What could have been turns into what would have been turns into what was,” the experimental psychologist explained. Her conclusion? “Any event, no matter how important, emotional or traumatic it may seem, can be…misremembered, or even be entirely fictitious…. All of us can come to confidently and vividly remember entire events that never actually took place.”
Experimental psychologist Frederic Bartlett made similar observations in his classic 1932 text, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Our memories, he noted, “live with our interests and with them they change.” We tend to incorporate details of what really happened, along with other inserted elements, perhaps from a movie we saw or a book we read, or a story someone else told us. This kind of “source amnesia” is amazingly common. In fact, many of us are sure something happened to us, when it was our sibling who actually experienced it.
That is how Mike McQueary’s memory of the infamous 2001 shower changed. The night of the shower, he said he had heard slapping sounds but had not seen anything incriminating. Ten years later, his retrospective bias led him to have questionable memories of seeing Sandusky moving his hips behind a boy in the shower. With rehearsal, his new memories were solidified, and he became quite confident in them. That phenomenon, called “the illusion of confidence” by The Invisible Gorilla authors, is not unusual, either.
There may have been other factors influencing McQueary's recollections of that infamous shower incident.
When he was first contacted by police, Mike McQueary, at that time a married man, apparently sent a “sexting” photo of his own penis to a female Penn State student in April 2010. He may have thought that was why the police wanted to talk to him, and why he didn’t want to meet with them in his home.
ESPN journalist Don Van Natta, Jr, initially intended to include this information in a feature article about McQueary, but it was cut from the published piece.
In 2017 McQueary, now divorced, texted another photo of his erect penis to a woman. Investigator John Ziegler obtained the text messages and photo and published them at framingpaterno.com.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,079
376
1
Sometimes pressure (by whatever definition) is applied to people to put certain things in or leave out others in various reports. That's the rigging part. And what do I know, but....

I recommend reading Murder in the Stacks where it's quite believably laid out how PSU handled that one in 1969. Bad pub was nothing PSU wanted. PSU the idyllic institution wasn't interested in drawing a lot of attention to that incident and did the Aardsma family no favors according to DeKok the author. I can certainly believe a similar route would be taken 30 or 40 years later with Sandusky. Just recognize we're not ever going to be told the whole story. My beef was always with how PSU kicked the fans and alums to the curb in the aftermath. What did we do wrong? Go to the games and cheer?

If outcomes were manipulated in 1998 then 2011 makes more sense. That's all I'm saying because in a vacuum 2011 makes zero sense at all. I'm not calling out who was responsible or who called the shots. I'd be interested to read Spanny's book but I'm not pre-ordering it or anything like that.

Maybe some manipulation.

It was a group of 11 trustees who called on the full 38-member board to release the full 200-page critique of the 267-page Freeh Report, formally renounce Freeh's findings, and try to recoup some of the $8.3 million that the university paid Freeh.

"I want to put the document in your hands so you can read it yourself, but I can't do that today," said Alice Pope, a trustee and St. John's University professor about the internal review of the source materials for the Freeh report.

But the materials that Pope and six other trustees had to sue the university to obtain are still under seal according to a 2015 court order. And the university's lawyers have recently advised the 11 minority trustees that the report they worked on for more than two years remains privileged and confidential, and out of reach of the public.

So yesterday, Pope called on the full board to release the 200-page report as early as their next meeting, on July 20th. But chances are slim and none that the board's chairman, Mark Dambly, and other majority board members will ever willingly open Pandora's box. They don't want to reveal to the public the facts that the university has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep buried for the past six years. Facts that will present further evidence of just how badly the trustees, Louie Freeh, and the attorney general's office thoroughly botched the Penn State investigation in a rush to judgment. Not to mention the media.

The full board of trustees, Pope noted yesterday, never voted to formally adopt the findings of the Freeh Report, which found that Penn State officials had covered up the sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky.

"Rather, the board adopted a don't act, don't look and don't tell policy" Pope said that amounted to a "tacit acceptance of the Freeh Report." A report that Pope said has resulted in "profound reputational harm to our university along with $300 million in costs so far."

In addition to the $60 million in fines, the university's board of trustees has -- while doing little or no investigating -- paid out a minimum of $118 million to 36 alleged victims of sex abuse, in addition to spending more than $80 million in legal fees, and $50 million to institute new reforms aimed at preventing future abuse.

That internal 200-page report and the materials it draws upon may still be privileged and confidential. But Big Trial has obtained a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of that internal review dated Jan. 8, 2017, plus an attached 25-page synopsis of evidence gleaned from those confidential files still under court seal.

According to the executive summary, "Louis Freeh and his team disregarded the preponderance of the evidence" in concluding there was a cover up at Penn State of Jerry Sandusky's crimes.

There's more: "Louis Freeh and his team knowingly provided a false conclusion in stating that the alleged coverup was motivated by a desire to protect the football program and a false culture that overvalued football and athletics," the executive summary states.

In the executive summary, the trustees faulted Freeh and his investigators for their "willingness . . . to be led by media narratives," as well as "an over reliance on unreliable sources," such as former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin.

Freeh, the executive summary states, also relied on "deeply flawed" procedures for interviewing witnesses. The interviews conducted by Freeh's investigators weren't done under oath, or subpoenas, and they weren't tape-recorded, the executive summary states. Those faulty methods led to "biased reporting of interview data" and "inaccurate summaries" of witness testimony.

At yesterday's press conference, Pope said the 11 trustees wanted to know the degree of cooperation Freeh's team had with the NCAA and the state attorney general's office during their investigations. According to statecollege.com, state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman has previously stated that the coordination between Freeh and the NCAA during the Penn State investigation was at best inappropriate, and at worst "two parties working together to get a predetermined outcome."

In the executive summary, the trustees cited "interference in Louis Freeh's investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, wherein information gathered in the criminal investigations of Penn State officials was improperly (and perhaps illegally) shared with Louis Freeh and his team."

This is a subject Big Trial will explore in a subsequent blog post. But earlier this year, I wrote to Louis Freeh, and asked if he and his team was authorized to have access to grand jury secrets in Pennsylvania. He declined comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope addressed this topic, saying, "additional information has emerged in the public domain indicates cooperation between the PA Office of Attorney General and Freeh. We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the Office of Attorney General."

Yesterday, Freeh issued a statement that ripped the minority trustees. "Since 2015," he wrote, "these misguided alumni have been fighting a rear-guard action to turn the clocks back and to resist the positive changes which the PSU students and faculty have fully embraced." He concluded that despite consistent criticism of his report by the minority trustees, in the last six years, they have produced "no report, no facts, news and no credible evidence" that have damaged the credibility of his investigation.

But in the executive summary, the trustees blasted Freeh for having an alleged conflict of interest with the NCAA, and they cited some credible evidence to prove it.

"Louis Freeh's conflict of interest in pursuing future investigative assignments with the NCAA during his contracted period of working for Penn State," the executive summary states, "provided motivation for forming conclusions consistent with the NCAA's goals to enhance their own reputation by being tough on Penn State."

In a criminal manner, such as the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia investigation, the NCAA lacked legal standing. But the NCAA justified its intervention in the case by finding that a lack of institutional control on the part of Penn State enabled the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.

In their synopsis of evidence, the trustees relied on internal Freeh Group emails that showed that while Freeh was finishing up his investigation of Penn State, he was angling for his group to become the "go to investigators" for the NCAA.

On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and a partner of Freeh's. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."

In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."

A spokesman for Freeh did not respond to a request for comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope said the "NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them from punishing Penn State," but that the "NCAA decided to punish Penn State anyway in order to enhance its own reputation." She added that documents made public to date show that the "NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh investigation."

"We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the NCAA."

At yesterday's press conference, Pope also raised the issue of a separate but concurrent federal investigation conducted on the Penn State campus in 2012 by Special Agent John Snedden. The federal investigation, made public last year, but completely ignored by the mainstream media, reached the opposite conclusion that Freeh and the attorney general did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.

Pope stated she wanted to know more about the discrepancies between the parallel investigations that led to polar opposite conclusions.

Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.

Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.

After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.

That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.

In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.

That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.

On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and, "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."

On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was
"a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.

At the same time Snedden was investigating Penn State, former FBI Director Louis Freeh was writing his report on the Penn State scandal, a report commissioned by the university, at a staggering cost of $8.3 million.

Freeh concluded that there had been a cover up. His report found a “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university,” which included Spanier, who had repeatedly been severely beaten by his father as a child, requiring several operations as an adult. Freeh also found that Spanier, Paterno, along with Schultz, the former Penn State vice president and Curley, the school’s ex-athletic director, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities.”
But critics such as the minority trustees have noted that the ex-FBI director reached his sweeping conclusions without his investigators ever talking to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier briefly, at the end of his investigation. And confidential records viewed by the trustees show that Freeh’s own people disagreed with his conclusions.

According to those records, Freeh's own staff reviewed a May 21, 2012 draft of the Freeh Report, which was subsequently turned over to Penn State officials. The lead paragraph of the draft said, “At the time of the alleged sexual assaults by Jerry Sandusky, there was a culture and environment in the Penn State Athletic Department that led staff members to fail to identify or act on observed inappropriate conduct by Sandusky.”
The draft report talked about an environment of fear that affected even a janitor who supposedly saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the showers in 2002: “There existed an environment within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat of losing his job outweighed the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.”
Over that paragraph in the draft report, a handwritten note said, “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” Freeh, however, in his final version of his report, included that charge about the janitor who allegedly saw Sandusky assault another boy in the showers but was so fearful he didn’t report it.

But when the state police interviewed that janitor, Jim Calhoun, he stated three times that it wasn’t Sandusky he had seen sexually abusing a boy. [The state police didn’t ask Calhoun who was the alleged assailant.] At Sandusky’s trial, however, the jury convicted the ex-coach of that crime, in part because his defense lawyer never told the jury about the janitor’s interview with the state police.

In a written statement, Freeh confirmed that the person who wrote “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” was one of his guys.

"Throughout the review at the Pennsylvania State University, members of the Freeh team were encouraged to speak freely and to challenge any factual assertions that they believed are not supported," Freeh wrote on Jan. 10, 2018.

"Indeed the factual assertions of the report were tested and vetted over a period of many months and, as new evidence was uncovered, some of the factual assertions and conclusions evolved," he wrote. "Our staff debated, refined and reformed our views even in the final hours before the report's release."

In another handwritten note on the draft of the report, somebody wrote that there was "no evidence" to support Freeh's contention that a flawed football culture was to blame for the Sandusky sex scandal.

"Freeh knew the evidence did not support this," the executive summary says. But in his final report, Freeh wrote about "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."
While Freeh concluded there was a coverup at Penn State, his investigators weren’t so sure, according to records cited by the trustees in their executive summary.

On March 7, 2012, in a conference call, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who was one of Freeh’s senior investigators, noted that they had found “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.”
In a written statement to this reporter, Freeh claimed that shortly after McChesney made that observation, his investigators found “the critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence” in a 2001 “email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier.”

In that email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, the administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities, and telling him to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

In the email chain, Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

Curley subsequently told Sandusky to stop bringing children into Penn State facilities, and informed officials at The Second Mile about the 2002 shower incident witnessed by McQueary, an incident that the prosecutors subsequently decided really happened in 2001. But Penn State didn’t inform the state Department of Public Welfare about Sandusky, which Freeh claimed was the smoking gun.
By definition, however, a cover-up needs a crime to hide. And Penn State’s administrators have repeatedly testified that when McQueary told them about the 2001 or 2002 shower incident, he described it as horseplay.

Also, an earlier 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and another boy, referred to by Freeh, was also investigated by multiple authorities, who found no crime, nor any evidence of sex abuse.
Freeh, however, claimed that a trio of college administrators should have caught an alleged serial pedophile who, in that 1998 shower incident, had already been cleared by the Penn State police, the Centre County District Attorney, as well as a psychologist and an investigator from Centre County’s Department of Children and Youth Services. To buy into the conclusions of the Freeh Report, you’d also have to believe that Penn State’s top officials were dumb enough to plot a cover up on the university’s own computers.

In their executive report, the trustees refer to the allegations of a cover up as "unfounded." Freeh, however, maintained that in the six years since he issued his report, its findings have been repeatedly validated in court.

"The Freeh team's investigative interviews and fact-finding were not biased and no outcome was ever predetermined," Freeh wrote. "Their only mandate, to which they adhered, was to follow the evidenced wherever it led. The final report I issued is a reflection of this mandate."

"The accuracy and sustainability of the report is further evidenced by the criminal convictions of Spanier, Schultz, Curley," Freeh wrote. Other developments that verified the conclusions of his report, Freeh wrote, include "voluntary dismissals by the Paterno Family of their suit against the NCAA, Spanier's dismissal of his defamation suit against Freeh, the jury and court findings in the McQueary defamation and whistleblower cases, and the U.S. Department of Education's five-year investigation resulting in a record fine against Penn State."

At yesterday's board of trustees meeting, however, trustee Pope, cited public criticisms of the Freeh Report that included:

-- "On a foundation of scant evidence, the [Freeh] report adds layers of conjecture and supposition to create a portrait of fault, complicity and malfeasance that could well be at odds with the truth . . . [As] scientists and scholars, we can say with conviction that the Freeh Report fails on hits own merits as the indictment of the university that some have taken it to be. Evidence that would compel such an indictment is simply not there." -- A group of 30 past chairs of the Penn State faculty.

-- "The Freeh Report was not useful and created an 'absurd' and 'unwarranted' portrait of the University. There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case." -- Penn State President Eric Barron.

-- "On Nov. 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to fire Joe Paterno in a hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or opportunity to discuss and consider the complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no chance to respond. That was a mistake. I will always regret that my name is attached to that rush to injustice."

"Hiring Louis Freeh and the tacit acceptance of his questionable conclusions, without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn State culture was yet another mistake. . . Those who believe we can move on without due process for all who have been damaged by unsupported accusations are not acting in Penn State's best interest . . . We have the opportunity to move forward united inner commitment to truth. I urge all who love Penn State's name to fight on." -- Resignation speech of former 18-year trustee Alvin Clemens.

-- "Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.

-- "Clearly the more we dig into this, the more troubling it gets. There clearly is a significant amount of communication between Freeh and the NCAA that goes way beyond merely providing information. I'd call int coordination . . . Cleary, Freeh was way past his mandate. He was the enforcement person for the NCAA. That's what it looks like. I don't know how you can look at it any other way. It's almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State. At a minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties working together to get an outcome that was predetermined."-- State Senate majority leader Jake Corman.

In summation, Pope said, "Some have said that the university's interests are best served by putting this unfortunate chapter behind us. We think differently. We believe that the only way to move forward is from a solid foundation based on an honest appraisal of our history. How can we create effective solutions if we might be working with a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems involved?"

"Our review, which took nearly two and a half years to complete, was a serious and thorough effort," Pope said. "We look forward with sharing the results of our analysis of the Freeh Report's source material without colleagues on the board at our meeting in July."
 

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,046
3,502
1
Have at it. You are still a L-I-A-R hahahahahahaha
I'll keep calling out your lies cult member.
And on the McAndrews site, where there is a similar thread, you again lead the pack with over 22% of the post in one thread alone. Your ass is being handed to you there too Frankie.

Have much of a life? Appears not. Keep on deluding yourself OAG boy.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
And on the McAndrews site, where there is a similar thread, you again lead the pack with over 22% of the post in one thread alone. Your ass is being handed to you there too Frankie.

Have much of a life? Appears not. Keep on deluding yourself OAG boy.
Silly boy. LOL
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
And on the McAndrews site, where there is a similar thread, you again lead the pack with over 22% of the post in one thread alone. Your ass is being handed to you there too Frankie.

Have much of a life? Appears not. Keep on deluding yourself OAG boy.
Not any more. Truthfinder aka Nole now has 0% of the posts. It seems that the mods have restricted his posting privileges. Imho, this is a good thing as I believe we have already had too much OAG propaganda and disinformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,046
3,502
1
Not any more. Truthfinder aka Nole now has 0% of the posts. It seems that the mods have restricted his posting privileges. Imho, this is a good thing as I believe we have already had too much OAG propaganda and disinformation.
Oh. I hadn’t noticed. I guess that is why two full pages of drivel were vaporized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Not any more. Truthfinder aka Nole now has 0% of the posts. It seems that the mods have restricted his posting privileges. Imho, this is a good thing as I believe we have already had too much OAG propaganda and disinformation.
Don't know about "Truthfinder" but I am still here! LOL
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
You could give titles and dates published/won etc. The last stuff you faked had virtually the whole thing blacked out. But they have to be something I can verify. Taking your word (since you are a liar) won't cut it Super Chief.
How can I give titles and dates published without revealing my name?

If I give you more than one paper, you can cross reference authors and come up with my name. If I only give you one paper, you can easily google each author, figure out which one went to PSU and UNC and come up with my name.

As I said, you will never get my name.

I'm not asking you to take my word. I've tried (repeatedly) to show you. The obvious answer is NOT that I have researched obscure federal forms to fake, and bought some random medal on ebay and learned to photoshop really, really well; the obvious answer is that I am who I say I am.

So if you can come up with a way to verify this without knowing my name, I'm happy to accommodate you. Or you can use some logic, admit you are wrong and admit who I say I am. Or, as I've said before, just STFU about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
Oh yeah it is. You seem to be pretty good at photo shop.
I'm good at many things, but am actually quite bad at photoshop (I actually don't even have actual Photoshop; the blacking out I did I had to do in Paint, which sucks).
We've been thru that.
Your argument makes no sense. No one, even a loony toon like you, would go through the trouble that you claim I have gone to to fake a persona. If I was into faking personas, I just would have abandoned this account and made another one. Occam's Razor points you to one conclusion: I am who I say I am.
Not really. Friends talk about work all the time.
Not about things they shouldn't be talking about.
I have caught you in lies before (like your saying I started the insults) and others called you out. So, you are lying with this as well for reasons I have put forth before.
You have never caught me in a lie. Any disagreement about who started the insults arises from a) which of the 409 threads you have invaded you are referring to and b) that we disagree about what an insult is.
Not what I asked for

I will not. You come up with a way that meets my criteria.

I'll mention it every time you bring it up.

You can stop any time you wish or ignore it. LOL But you can't.

Oh please, you poor thing. Go look at some of your insults. Actually, most of them are stupid.
My insults are clever and witty. Your insults are moronic.
I've told you how
Everything you have suggested reveals PII, as I've explained repeatedly.
I don't care about PII one way of the other. I gave you the criteria and examples so it's on you.
You are never getting my PII so you need to come up with another example. Or you can just STFU.
I would see you as I am showing you up.
Not really how mirrors work, moron.
There you go with that porn again. You need to see somebody about that.
a) it's not porn it's a TV show about Canadian small town life.
b) there is nothing wrong with porn.
You seem to like it a lot
I do like sex a lot. You don't? That's weird. Maybe you have low T. I hear that happens a lot to old fogies like you.
I will not drop it. I'm laughing at your "defending your anonymous persona" BS. You are just crazy. You look like a moron every time you rise to the bait you fool.
You look like a moron for doubting me. If you hadn't accused me of horrible things, I would have let this drop. But I will never stop defending myself against allegations of racism and valor theft.
Like you? You don't know this is not my team either.
You've made it abundantly clear that PSU is not your team.
I'm not upset by it just puzzled by your obsession with it.
My obsession with calling you an ostrich ****er is that it is an absurd accusation, just like you accusing me of being a lying racist valor stealer. The origin of it is a sitcom on Hulu/Crave TV. You should check it out.
I doubt you have a partner.
Wrong. She's a scientist too.
Maybe that's why you need the porn so much and all the sex talk.
What is wrong with sex talk? My friends (both male and female) talk about sex all the time. You must be some frigid whackjob.
Nope. Burden is on you.
You make the accusation. I'm innocent until proven guilty.
I follow objective morality. You should read up on it.
The idea of objective morality is flawed.
See above and do some more study. You are quite retarded on this subject
Prove it. Calling someone a racist with zero evidence is pretty shitty thing to do, even for you.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
How can I give titles and dates published without revealing my name?
Not my concern
If I give you more than one paper, you can cross reference authors and come up with my name. If I only give you one paper, you can easily google each author, figure out which one went to PSU and UNC and come up with my name.
See above
As I said, you will never get my name.
I can understand why a liar would want to remain anonymous
I'm not asking you to take my word.
I'm not
I've tried (repeatedly) to show you. The obvious answer is NOT that I have researched obscure federal forms to fake, and bought some random medal on ebay and learned to photoshop really, really well; the obvious answer is that I am who I say I am.
Or that you are crazy. I think that more likely.
So if you can come up with a way to verify this without knowing my name, I'm happy to accommodate you. Or you can use some logic, admit you are wrong and admit who I say I am. Or, as I've said before, just STFU about it.
Liar
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
I'm good at many things, but am actually quite bad at photoshop (I actually don't even have actual Photoshop; the blacking out I did I had to do in Paint, which sucks).
Your good at making up personas but your posts are too stupid to carry them off.
Your argument makes no sense. No one, even a loony toon like you, would go through the trouble that you claim I have gone to to fake a persona. If I was into faking personas, I just would have abandoned this account and made another one. Occam's Razor points you to one conclusion: I am who I say I am.
Crazy people do crazy things. As you have admitted before.
Not about things they shouldn't be talking about.
Sure they do
You have never caught me in a lie.
Several
Any disagreement about who started the insults arises from a) which of the 409 threads you have invaded you are referring to and b) that we disagree about what an insult is.
You started it and was called out by another poster.
My insults are clever and witty. Your insults are moronic.
Your insults are stupid and juvenile.....like you!
Everything you have suggested reveals PII, as I've explained repeatedly.
Not my problem
You are never getting my PII so you need to come up with another example. Or you can just STFU.
I'm not going to STFU Liar.
Not really how mirrors work, moron.
I can understand why you would avoid them
a) it's not porn it's a TV show about Canadian small town life.
b) there is nothing wrong with porn.
Porn is for sick people like you.
I do like sex a lot. You don't? That's weird. Maybe you have low T. I hear that happens a lot to old fogies like you.
You do talk about it a lot which tells me you don't have much of it.
You look like a moron for doubting me. If you hadn't accused me of horrible things, I would have let this drop. But I will never stop defending myself against allegations of racism and valor theft.
I am laughing at an anonymous person "defending" themselves. You are a liar, and gamer who wears blackface and you stole valor.
You've made it abundantly clear that PSU is not your team.
Nope
My obsession with calling you an ostrich ****er is that it is an absurd accusation, just like you accusing me of being a lying racist valor stealer. The origin of it is a sitcom on Hulu/Crave TV. You should check it out.
You are right that your comments are absurd. I don't watch porn.
Wrong. She's a scientist too.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
What is wrong with sex talk? My friends (both male and female) talk about sex all the time. You must be some frigid whackjob.
Yeah you do talk about it a lot. Kind of obsessed. You must be what they call an incel. This makes sense given your phony persona.
You make the accusation. I'm innocent until proven guilty.
You made the claim. Liar until your prove it.
The idea of objective morality is flawed.
The idea of subjective morality is flawed

Prove it. Calling someone a racist with zero evidence is pretty shitty thing to do, even for you.
I have the evidence shown on your gaming profile "drbigbeef" LOL
 
Last edited:

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
Not my concern
You are asking for something no one in their right mind would give you. You have already demonstrated that you will say horrible and false things about people. I strongly believe if you had my real name, you'd do the same thing to me IRL.
I can understand why a liar would want to remain anonymous
See above. It is your crazy behavior that means I will remain anonymous. I'm not risking you SWAT'ing me or spreading lies about me that would affect my career.

Your assertion that I have gone to these lengths to somehow create a persona are crazy. None of my assertions about who I am or what I do are unusual or hard to believe. AND I have shown you documentation that backs me up. You are the crazy person here who keeps bringing this up.

You do it to distract people away from actually discussing the facts of the case because you know you are on the losing side of that. Just like you refuse to admit you are wrong about me, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
Your good at making up personas but your posts are too stupid to carry them off.
Oh, so now I'm good at making up personas? Please tell me, what other personas have I made up? You are clueless and sad.
Crazy people do crazy things. As you have admitted before.
Yep, crazy things like you being on this board (with which you have no affiliation) after midnight trying to prove someone isn't who they say they are, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT HAND. That, Ginger, is crazy behavior.
We disagree about who started the insults. What other lies have you "caught" me in? That you actually have proof for (hint: the answer rhymes with "hero")
You started it and was called out by another poster.
Perhaps on one thread, but not originally.
Your insults are stupid and juvenile.....like you!
You have a terrible sense of humor.
Not my problem
It is, in that you are asking for something you will never get. So STFU about it and focus on the discussion at hand.
I'm not going to STFU Liar.
Prove I'm lying, ostrich ****er.
I can understand why you would avoid them
Because I'm not vane?
Porn is for sick people like you.
LOL. You are a Puritanical turd.
You do talk about it a lot which tells me you don't have much of it.
I never bring up sex. You bring it up. You think Canadian sit coms are porn. You are a moron.
I am laughing at an anonymous person "defending" themselves.
Most people defend themselves when falsely accused of horrible things.
You are a liar, and gamer who wears blackface and you stole valor.
Thank you for illustrating my point about false accusations. You have zero proof of any of those claims, all of which are horrible and shown to be false.
You are right that your comments are absurd.
Glad we agree that both of our insults of each other are absurd. I know you don't **** ostriches (it would take two maybe three guys to **** an ostrich and even then it would have to be a sick ostrich) so using that example illustrates how dumb your accusations against me are.
I don't watch porn.
Maybe you should start so you can at least know the difference between an award winning TV show and porn.
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Not sure why that's funny. She in a different field than I am (biotech) and has moved into a managerial role in private industry so she isn't publishing anymore.
Yeah you do talk about it a lot. Kind of obsessed. You must be what they call an incel. This makes sense given your phony persona.
Most people talk about sex a lot. Unless they are prudes like you. I'm definitely not celibate so "incel" doesn't apply.
You made the claim. Liar until your prove it.
I claim that that water is wet. Do I need to prove that or do we agree that this is an assertion that doesn't require proof? On the other hand if you claim water isn't wet, you would need to show proof. No normal person requires someone to prove what their job is, especially if it is a very normal job.
I have the evidence shown on your gaming profile "drbigbeef" LOL
That's not evidence. All that shows is that profile exists (or you claim it does. I can't find any profile for this gamer guy that has blackface). There is nothing to tie that to me (because it isn't me). As previously stated, I'm not a gamer.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
You are asking for something no one in their right mind would give you. You have already demonstrated that you will say horrible and false things about people. I strongly believe if you had my real name, you'd do the same thing to me IRL.
You made a claim about yourself and use it to further your argument (I'm the smartest in the room LOL) and I asked for proof. You refuse to give it (that's not faked) and so I call you out as a liar. Most posters on here don't talk about their own lives but stick to the issues. You brought yourself up and you won't provide proof of who you are. Therefore, you are a liar and poseur. You hide behind your anonymity but must "defend" LOL yourself and expect anyone to just believe you. Sorry Rooster, ain't happening.
See above. It is your crazy behavior that means I will remain anonymous.
Pot meet Kettle on the crazy. You are posting almost daily on an obscure defunct football board defending a pedophile and his enablers. No "scientist" would do such but a lying made persona loser living in mommies basement would.
I'm not risking you SWAT'ing me or spreading lies about me that would affect my career.
Lol, what "career". You remain anonymous to avoid the exposure of your lies and nuttiness.
Your assertion that I have gone to these lengths to somehow create a persona are crazy.
The fact that you go to these lengths are crazy. Actually they are not that difficult to do. But a crazy person would do it nonetheless.
None of my assertions about who I am or what I do are unusual or hard to believe.
Yeah they are, "saving the world" LOL
AND I have shown you documentation that backs me up.
Fake
You are the crazy person here who keeps bringing this up.
No you do. You could shut up at any time. But as the nut you are you must make me acknowledge your fake persona. But I won't till I get the evidence I asked for.
You do it to distract people away from actually discussing the facts of the case because you know you are on the losing side of that.
No that is what you are doing by responding to my calling you out. YOU are on the losing side of this argument and CSS remain convicted criminals and Sandusky is still in jail. The correct narrative of the PSU coverup and scandal remain so you are left with trying to get me to accept your fake persona. LOL
Just like you refuse to admit you are wrong about me, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
No evidence at all has been presented that was not faked.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Oh, so now I'm good at making up personas? Please tell me, what other personas have I made up? You are clueless and sad.
drbigbeef? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Yep, crazy things like you being on this board
Hypocrite
(with which you have no affiliation)
You don't know that
after midnight
Not where I am
trying to prove someone isn't who they say they are, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT HAND.
That you keep bringing up
That, Ginger, is crazy behavior.
Yes you are crazy
We disagree about who started the insults.
No you lie about it
What other lies have you "caught" me in?
Several, go back and read up
That you actually have proof for (hint: the answer rhymes with "hero")
Lots rhythms with Devil
Perhaps on one thread, but not originally.
You admit your lie then? Good progress!
You have a terrible sense of humor.
You have the sense of humor of a 13 year old.
It is, in that you are asking for something you will never get. So STFU about it and focus on the discussion at hand.
Quit lying about yourself and focus on the discussion at hand.
Prove I'm lying, ostrich ****er.
Liar
Because I'm not vane?
Because you would hate what you see.
LOL. You are a Puritanical turd.
You are a sick incel
I never bring up sex.
Constantly
You bring it up.
Liar
You think Canadian sit coms are porn. You are a moron.
You like porn. You are sick and an incel.
Most people defend themselves when falsely accused of horrible things.
Not when they are anonymous. LOL
Thank you for illustrating my point about false accusations. You have zero proof of any of those claims, all of which are horrible and shown to be false.
Certainly I have
Glad we agree that both of our insults of each other are absurd.
No yours are absurd.
I know you don't **** ostriches (it would take two maybe three guys to **** an ostrich and even then it would have to be a sick ostrich) so using that example illustrates how dumb your accusations against me are.
It's just your juvenile stupidity striving to find something to throw back at my calling you out as a liar. Hasn't worked has it? LOL
Maybe you should start so you can at least know the difference between an award winning TV show and porn.
Nope
Not sure why that's funny. She in a different field than I am (biotech) and has moved into a managerial role in private industry so she isn't publishing anymore.
Because it's a lie. It also shows the depth of your delusion.
Most people talk about sex a lot.
Teenagers do
Unless they are prudes like you.
You mean grownups
I'm definitely not celibate so "incel" doesn't apply.
Not likely hence your constantly talking about sex. And it's involuntarily celibate.
I claim that that water is wet. Do I need to prove that or do we agree that this is an assertion that doesn't require proof? On the other hand if you claim water isn't wet, you would need to show proof.
Stupid analogy
No normal person requires someone to prove what their job is, especially if it is a very normal job.
I think they call it a background check or a resume validation or a reference? You are clueless. How did they miss your arrest records? LOL
That's not evidence. All that shows is that profile exists (or you claim it does. I can't find any profile for this gamer guy that has blackface). There is nothing to tie that to me (because it isn't me). As previously stated, I'm not a gamer.
You are the only one who uses that handle, which you have before, and still do on social media. It's you.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
You made a claim about yourself and use it to further your argument (I'm the smartest in the room LOL) and I asked for proof.
And I have you proof. You refusing to believe it is on you.
You refuse to give it (that's not faked)
I've not given you any faked info. Just because it *could* be faked does not mean it was.
and so I call you out as a liar.
With zero evidence that I am. You suspect I am a liar ( you are wrong) but you have zero proof.
Most posters on here don't talk about their own lives but stick to the issues.
Wrong. There are entire threads where people talk only about their lives. Just shows you what an outsider you are.
You brought yourself up and you won't provide proof of who you are. Therefore, you are a liar and poseur.
I showed you proof. You just don't like it and refuse to admit you are wrong.
You hide behind your anonymity but must "defend" LOL yourself and expect anyone to just believe you.
You also hide behind you anonymity. Tell us your name and we'll go from there.
Pot meet Kettle on the crazy. You are posting almost daily
Hardly. I was gone for almost two weeks. I only checked in because YOU tagged me.
on an obscure defunct football board defending a pedophile and his enablers. No "scientist" would do such but a lying made persona loser living in mommies basement would.
Just shows that you don't know any scientists in real life.
Lol, what "career". You remain anonymous to avoid the exposure of your lies and nuttiness.
If I was actually a janitor, why would I care if you exposed me?
The fact that you go to these lengths are crazy. Actually they are not that difficult to do. But a crazy person would do it nonetheless.
Alternatively, everything I say is true, which means it is zero effort to show you the things I have shown you.
Yeah they are, "saving the world" LOL
How is that hard to believe? You are a moron.
Prove it.
No you do. You could shut up at any time. But as the nut you are you must make me acknowledge your fake persona. But I won't till I get the evidence I asked for.
You will not shut up regardless of what I send you. I could send you my real name and you would say "no, that's not you, you just googled some guy on the internet". You will never admit you are wrong even in the face of enormous proof that this is the case.
No that is what you are doing by responding to my calling you out. YOU are on the losing side of this argument and CSS remain convicted criminals and Sandusky is still in jail. The correct narrative of the PSU coverup and scandal remain so you are left with trying to get me to accept your fake persona. LOL
Wrong, I'm here to discuss the facts of the case. I do not expect these discussions to lead to anyone's exoneration (that's generally not how things work) but that doesn't mean finding the truth is any less important.
No evidence at all has been presented that was not faked.
You have no proof that anything I sent you was faked. Again, just because something *can* be faked doesn't mean it was (e.g. the moon landing could have been faked but it wasn't).
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
drbigbeef? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
That's not a "persona" that my username on twitter. If you read my tweets, you'll see that I'm exactly the same person there as I am here.
You don't know that
I do. You've proved this over and over again.
Not where I am
I guess they don't allow you clocks in the insane asylum.
That you keep bringing up
Because you keep accusing me of horrible untrue things.
Lots rhythms with Devil
Are you drunk?
You admit your lie then? Good progress!
You've polluted so many threads on this board with your nonsense it's hard to keep track.. It is possible in one of those threads, I insulted you before you insulted me, but I'm confident the first insult was flung by you. I suspect you didn't even consider it an insult (e.g. calling someone a "pedophile enabler" is definitely an insult BTW) but that doesn't mean it wasn't an insult.
You have the sense of humor of a 13 year old.
And?
Quit lying about yourself and focus on the discussion at hand.
Quit calling me a liar (and worse) and I'd be happy to focus on the case we are discussing.
Prove it.
You are a sick incel
You are a deluded prude.
You like porn. You are sick and an incel.
LOL at porn somehow being evil. Are you a Jesus person? That would explain a lot, you ignoramus.
Certainly I have
How?
Not likely hence your constantly talking about sex. And it's involuntarily celibate.
In order to be an incel you have to be celibate. I am not (are you? You seem to hate all things sex related) therefore I cannot be an incel. Seriously, your logic skills are terrible.
Stupid analogy
How is it stupid? You don't have to prove mundane statements that you make. Stating my job is not a statement that requires proof.
I think they call it a background check or a resume validation or a reference? You are clueless. How did they miss your arrest records? LOL
I'm not applying for a job with you (thank god). I sent you transcripts for both of my degrees (which is really above and beyond what I should have done) but you think they are fake even though they have the watermarks/seals...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You are the only one who uses that handle, which you have before, and still do on social media. It's you.
Wrong again. There is apparently a gamer (which I am not) who also uses it. I realize it's confusing to you that usernames are not unique, but try to keep up with the technology...LOLOLOL.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
And I have you proof. You refusing to believe it is on you.
You have not.
I've not given you any faked info. Just because it *could* be faked does not mean it was.
It is fake. All of it.
With zero evidence that I am. You suspect I am a liar ( you are wrong) but you have zero proof.
The burden is on you to prove your claim. You have not. You are a liar
Wrong. There are entire threads where people talk only about their lives. Just shows you what an outsider you are.
Not while debating this topic. Only you.
I showed you proof. You just don't like it and refuse to admit you are wrong.
You have not shown any proof.
You also hide behind you anonymity. Tell us your name and we'll go from there.
I don't make claims about myself as do you. Plus you are violating rules asking me for my name.
Hardly. I was gone for almost two weeks. I only checked in because YOU tagged me.
Like a moth to a flame. You can't help yourself. LOL
Just shows that you don't know any scientists in real life.
I know several and you ain't one.
If I was actually a janitor, why would I care if you exposed me?
Because you are crazy and have zero sense of self worth. That's why you boast of a phony persona.
Alternatively, everything I say is true, which means it is zero effort to show you the things I have shown you.
Nope
How is that hard to believe? You are a moron.
Stupid posts like that one
Prove it.
Liar
You will not shut up regardless of what I send you. I could send you my real name and you would say "no, that's not you, you just googled some guy on the internet". You will never admit you are wrong even in the face of enormous proof that this is the case.
I've told you what to do. Why won't you do it? It's a simple request really. LOL
Wrong, I'm here to discuss the facts of the case.
Wrong, you propose conspiracy theories which are nutty and need to be debunked. Hence my presence.
I do not expect these discussions to lead to anyone's exoneration (that's generally not how things work) but that doesn't mean finding the truth is any less important.
Hedging your bets? LOL You're damn right they won't be exonerated and the only fools that will believe you are JoeBots and fools who don't know better. I'm here for them.
You have no proof that anything I sent you was faked. Again, just because something *can* be faked doesn't mean it was (e.g. the moon landing could have been faked but it wasn't).
But you did fake them. Liar
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
You have not.
You have not proved that what I showed you was fake. You *think* it is fake because you want to be fake, because you refuse to admit you are wrong. Any rationale person would look at the preponderance of evidence I've shared with you and realize that I am who I say I am.
It is fake. All of it.
Prove it. You have zero evidence that it is fake.
The burden is on you to prove your claim. You have not. You are a liar
Wrong. The burden is on the accuser. Prove I am lying.
Not while debating this topic. Only you.
Not true at all. Many people have talked about their jobs, their spouses jobs, their friends jobs -- all as they relate to this case. Who is lying now?
You have not shown any proof.
I have shown you multiple items of proof. You cannot prove them to be fake (because they are not).
I don't make claims about myself as do you.
The "claims" about myself are not relevant to the case, so why do you care? I'm allowed to say what my job is and mention things relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to do the same, that's fine, but embarking on a libelous campaign against me is pure insanity.
Plus you are violating rules asking me for my name.
You asked for my name first. If you want to give up your PII, go for it. I will not.
Like a moth to a flame. You can't help yourself. LOL
YOU tagged ME, your ignorant piece of excrement.
I know several and you ain't one.
I assure you I am. And I have proved that I am.
Because you are crazy and have zero sense of self worth. That's why you boast of a phony persona.
Nothing phony about me, Ginger.
When I say "Prove it" and you respond with "Liar" it just reinforces that you have ZERO evidence that I am lying.
I've told you what to do. Why won't you do it? It's a simple request really. LOL
You will never get my name. If there is something else that will satisfy you, let me know.
Wrong, you propose conspiracy theories which are nutty and need to be debunked. Hence my presence.
Your presence is NOT required on this board, I assure you. And your "side" is the side of conspiracy theories, not mine.
Hedging your bets? LOL You're damn right they won't be exonerated and the only fools that will believe you are JoeBots and fools who don't know better. I'm here for them.
I don't think anyone on this board thinks that our discussions will lead to exonerations, so if that's your reason for being here, feel free to **** right off.
But you did fake them. Liar
Prove it. You cannot because everything I've shown you is 100% real.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
That's not a "persona" that my username on twitter. If you read my tweets, you'll see that I'm exactly the same person there as I am here.
It's your gaming handle as well.
I do. You've proved this over and over again.
Not at all
I guess they don't allow you clocks in the insane asylum.
Well, I'm thinking you didn't post because they took your internet privilege's away? LOL
Because you keep accusing me of horrible untrue things.
LOL you're anonymous you fruitcake!
Are you drunk?
Are you?
You've polluted so many threads on this board with your nonsense it's hard to keep track.. It is possible in one of those threads, I insulted you before you insulted me, but I'm confident the first insult was flung by you. I suspect you didn't even consider it an insult (e.g. calling someone a "pedophile enabler" is definitely an insult BTW) but that doesn't mean it wasn't an insult.
You start all the insults and not just with me but anyone who disagrees with you. You can't win the debate with logic so you obscure with insults and brag about your phony persona.
It's stupid and juvenile
Quit calling me a liar (and worse) and I'd be happy to focus on the case we are discussing.
Stop lying
Prove it.
It's on you
You are a deluded prude.
You are a sick incel
LOL at porn somehow being evil. Are you a Jesus person? That would explain a lot, you ignoramus.
Porn is for sick people as I said but then we've already determined you are a sick hater.
Often
In order to be an incel you have to be celibate. I am not (are you? You seem to hate all things sex related) therefore I cannot be an incel. Seriously, your logic skills are terrible.
The key is involuntary you idiot. This explains your obsession with sex. Like an adolescent.
How is it stupid? You don't have to prove mundane statements that you make. Stating my job is not a statement that requires proof.
I prove what I say often regarding the PSU case but you ignore it.

But look through my posts. You see no talk about me unlike you who are like a child wanting attention. That is because it has no relevance to me. Then there is your obsession to get me to accept your fake persona. That shows your neurosis. I don't have to proof anything because I don't talk about myself because I TRULY am secure and IDGAF what you think. But you do care about what I think and have dedicated lots of your time to try to make me accept your lies. You'll keep it up too. LOL Dance Monkey Dance! LOLOLOLOL
I'm not applying for a job with you (thank god).
Yeah I'd use a red flag law on you.
I sent you transcripts for both of my degrees (which is really above and beyond what I should have done) but you think they are fake even though they have the watermarks/seals...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Easily faked
Wrong again. There is apparently a gamer (which I am not) who also uses it. I realize it's confusing to you that usernames are not unique, but try to keep up with the technology...LOLOLOL.
LOL it's you Rooster. You just aren't very original. LOL
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
You have not proved that what I showed you was fake.
I don't have to prove it. You have to prove it is legit and I told you how.
You *think* it is fake because you want to be fake, because you refuse to admit you are wrong. Any rationale person would look at the preponderance of evidence I've shared with you and realize that I am who I say I am.
Your "evidence" is nonexistent.
Prove it. You have zero evidence that it is fake.
Burden on you
Wrong. The burden is on the accuser. Prove I am lying.
Burden is on the claimant
Not true at all. Many people have talked about their jobs, their spouses jobs, their friends jobs -- all as they relate to this case. Who is lying now?
Not on this thread. Not like you.
I have shown you multiple items of proof. You cannot prove them to be fake (because they are not).
You cannot prove they are legit but I told you how.
The "claims" about myself are not relevant to the case, so why do you care?
Because you are a liar
I'm allowed to say what my job is and mention things relevant to the discussion.
I'm allowed to ask for proof and it you don't provide it call you a liar.
If you don't want to do the same, that's fine, but embarking on a libelous campaign against me is pure insanity.
Can't libel an anonymous person
You asked for my name first. If you want to give up your PII, go for it. I will not.
I did not. Another lie.
YOU tagged ME, your ignorant piece of excrement.
But you responded monkey boy! LOL
I assure you I am. And I have proved that I am.
You have not
Nothing phony about me, Ginger.
All fake Rooster. But I agree you are childish.
When I say "Prove it" and you respond with "Liar" it just reinforces that you have ZERO evidence that I am lying.
No, it just means you are a liar. Stand and Deliver!
You will never get my name. If there is something else that will satisfy you, let me know.
Not my concern to figure out more than what I have told you.
Your presence is NOT required on this board, I assure you. And your "side" is the side of conspiracy theories, not mine.
No, my narrative is that of Courts of Law. Which is fact.
I don't think anyone on this board thinks that our discussions will lead to exonerations, so if that's your reason for being here, feel free to **** right off.
No, but I don't want someone to read your filth and not have the correct side muted. This is mostly an echo chamber here and I am messing up the rhythm. LOL
Prove it. You cannot because everything I've shown you is 100% real.
No it isn't.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
It's your gaming handle as well.
Not a gamer. I've never played online games.
Well, I'm thinking you didn't post because they took your internet privilege's away? LOL
Nope just too busy with work to deal with your ****ery.
LOL you're anonymous you fruitcake!
So that makes telling lies about someone OK? It does not.
I'm not typing nonsense sentences like you are.
You start all the insults and not just with me but anyone who disagrees with you. You can't win the debate with logic so you obscure with insults and brag about your phony persona.
Wrong. When you insult me (calling me a liar, calling me a pedophile enabler, calling me a valor stealer, calling me a racist), I respond in kind.
Stop lying
Never lied.
It's on you
Not sure why it is so hard for you to admit that the burden is on the accuser (you).
Porn is for sick people as I said but then we've already determined you are a sick hater.
Why is porn for sick people? You are frigid and hate sex. Did your priest touch you when you were a kid and ruin your libido?
The key is involuntary you idiot. This explains your obsession with sex. Like an adolescent.
Dude, you are a moron. One can be celibate without being an incel, but if you are not celibate you cannot be an incel. Your logic skills are exceptionally bad.
I prove what I say often regarding the PSU case but you ignore it.
I disprove everything you say, but you ignore it because you focus on "what your gut tells you" and not facts.
But look through my posts. You see no talk about me unlike you who are like a child wanting attention.
Lots of other people make mentions in passing to facts about themselves, both on this topic or on others. If you want to be Mr. Mysterioso, cool, but don't project your craziness onto everyone else.
That is because it has no relevance to me. Then there is your obsession to get me to accept your fake persona. That shows your neurosis.
If it is of no relevance to you (nor should it be) STFU about it; quit calling me a liar, racist, valor thief and I will stop talking about it. I stopped talking about it for weeks, until YOU tagged ME to start this shit talking again. Admit it: you missed me.
I don't have to proof anything because I don't talk about myself because I TRULY am secure and IDGAF what you think. But you do care about what I think and have dedicated lots of your time to try to make me accept your lies. You'll keep it up too.
Again, I'm only defending myself against your vicious libel. Stop with that, and I'll stop discussing anything about myself.
Yeah I'd use a red flag law on you.
LOL. You better tell them US government to revoke my security clearance then.
Easily faked

LOL it's you Rooster. You just aren't very original. LOL
Not a gamer, so not it is not.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Not a gamer. I've never played online games.
Liar
Nope just too busy with work to deal with your ****ery.
But you keep coming back LOL
So that makes telling lies about someone OK? It does not.
This shows how stupid you really are. You're anonymous you dope.
I'm not typing nonsense sentences like you are.
You are typing nonsense
Wrong. When you insult me (calling me a liar, calling me a pedophile enabler, calling me a valor stealer, calling me a racist), I respond in kind.
I know and it's hilarious.
Never lied.
Mostly did
Not sure why it is so hard for you to admit that the burden is on the claimant (you).
Fixed it
Why is porn for sick people? You are frigid and hate sex. Did your priest touch you when you were a kid and ruin your libido?
As an incel you don't understand why porn is bad. That's why you are sick.
Dude, you are a moron. One can be celibate without being an incel, but if you are not celibate you cannot be an incel. Your logic skills are exceptionally bad.
You don't know what the term means
I disprove everything you say, but you ignore it because you focus on "what your gut tells you" and not facts.
You disproved nothing
Lots of other people make mentions in passing to facts about themselves, both on this topic or on others. If you want to be Mr. Mysterioso, cool, but don't project your craziness onto everyone else.
No they don't not like you do. My personal life and info have no bearing on the guilt of Joe and CSS.
If it is of no relevance to you (nor should it be) STFU about it; quit calling me a liar, racist, valor thief and I will stop talking about it. I stopped talking about it for weeks, until YOU tagged ME to start this shit talking again. Admit it: you missed me.
Not as much as you missed me LOL
Again, I'm only defending myself against your vicious libel. Stop with that, and I'll stop discussing anything about myself.
Can't liable an anonymous person idiot.
LOL. You better tell them US government to revoke my security clearance then.
LOL. You have no such thing.
Not a gamer, so not it is not.
You are and it is.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,856
6,353
1
I don't have to prove it. You have to prove it is legit and I told you how.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I have already proved more than anyone has to just to shut you up. But, with NO evidence of fakes and no evidence of me lying, you keep up this nonsense. STFU.
Your "evidence" is nonexistent.
You've provided zero evidence that I am lying. So even if what I've provided you is only 10% believable, it is more evidence than you provided me.
Burden on you
Wrong. Always on the accuser.
Burden is on the claimant
You are claiming I am lying. Prove it.
You cannot prove they are legit but I told you how.
I don't have to. You cannot prove they are fake (because they are real). Stop asking me for PII.
Because you are a liar
Not once.
I'm allowed to ask for proof and it you don't provide it call you a liar.
You have asked for proof and I've provided it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.
Can't libel an anonymous person
Not in a legal sense, but it is still written lies (which is the definition of libel).
I did not. Another lie.
Wrong. You are asking for information that cannot be provided without revealing my name, my contact information and where I work. If you want to ask for information that doesn't include PII, I will provide it.
But you responded monkey boy! LOL
Because you called me out, ostrich ****er.
You have not

All fake Rooster.
All real, ostrich ****er.
But I agree you are childish.

No, it just means you are a liar. Stand and Deliver!
Already delivered. Read the documents again.
Not my concern to figure out more than what I have told you.
Stop asking for PII or I will turn you in to the mods.
No, my narrative is that of Courts of Law. Which is fact.
You still don't understand what facts are.
No, but I don't want someone to read your filth and not have the correct side muted. This is mostly an echo chamber here and I am messing up the rhythm. LOL
You are just wasting bandwidth with your conspiracy theories.
No it isn't.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,079
376
1
I'll believe someone in the case that has worked a careers worth of these than a paid narrative report .






Check out the Spanier info.




What if that infamous locker room incident that Mike McQueary supposedly witnessed 16 years ago -- featuring a naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with an underage boy -- had nothing to do with sex? And what if the only two officials at PSU who ever spoke directly to former PSU President Graham Spanier about that incident really did describe it as just "horseplay" and not sex?

And what if the guy advancing this contrarian story line was not some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a decorated U.S. special agent? A guy who had already done a top-secret federal investigation five years ago into the so-called Penn State scandal but nobody knew about it until now?

There would be no pedophilia scandal at Penn State to cover up. And no trio of top PSU officials to convict of child endangerment. The whole lurid saga starring a naked Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing little boys in the shower would be fake news. A hoax foisted on the public by an unholy trio of overzealous prosecutors, lazy and gullible reporters, and greedy plaintiff's lawyers.


Yesterday, on veteran TV reporter John Ziegler's podcast, John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.

Curley and Schultz told Spanier that the person who had given the report "was not sure what he saw because it was around the corner and that what he has reported was described as "horse play" or "horsing around." In his report, Snedden said that Spanier "assumed the terminology of horse play or horsing around came from Joe Paterno."

"They all agreed that Curley would talk to Jerry Sandusky, tell him not to bring kids into the locker room facilities," Snedden wrote. "And Curley was to tell the Second Mile management that it was not good for any of the Second Mile kids to come to the athletic locker room facilities, and that they should suspend that practice."

Spanier, Snedden wrote, never was told "who the person was who made the report. But "nothing was described as a sexual or criminal in any way," Snedden wrote.

The initial conversation between Spanier, Curley and Schultz about the Sandusky shower incident lasted 10 minutes, Snedden wrote. A few days later, Curley told Spanier "in person that the discussion had taken place and that everything went well."

"The issue never came up again with Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky, or anyone," Snedden wrote. "It did not appear very significant to anyone at the time."


Gary Schultz corroborated Spanier's account. Schultz told Snedden that back in February 2001, Tim Curley told him "something to the effect that Jerry Sandusky had been in the shower with a kid horsing around and wrestling. And Mike McQueary or a graduate assistant walked in and observed it. And McQueary or the graduate assistant was concerned."

Schultz believed the source of Curley's information was Joe Paterno, and that the conduct involved was horseplay.

"McQueary did not say anything of a sexual nature took place," Snedden wrote after interviewing Schultz. "McQueary did not say anything indicative of an incident of a serious sexual nature."

While Snedden was investigating Spanier, Louie Freeh was writing his overpriced $8.3 million report where he came to the opposite conclusion that Snedden did, that there was a coverup at Penn State. Only Louie Freeh didn't talk to Curley, Schultz, Paterno, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier relatively briefly, at the end of his investigation, when he had presumably already come to his conclusions.

Ironically, one of the things Spanier told Freeh was that Snedden was also investigating what happened at Penn State. But that didn't seem to effect the conclusions of the Louie Freeh report, Snedden said. He wondered why.

He also wondered why his report had no effect on the attorney general's office, which had already indicted Curley and Schultz, and was planning to indict Spanier.

"I certainly think that if the powers that be . . . knew what was in his report, Snedden said, "They would certainly have to take a hard look at what they were doing."

Freeh and the AG, Snedden said, should have wanted to know "who was interviewed [by Sneddedn] and what did they say. I mean this is kind of pertinent to what we're doing," Snedden said of the investigations conducted by Freeh and the AG.

"If your goal in any investigation is to determine the facts of the case period, the circumstance should have been hey, we'll be happy to obtain any and all facts," Snedden said.

Snedden said he understood, however, why Freeh was uninterested in his report.

"It doesn't fit the narrative that he's [Louie Freeh] going for," Snedden said.

Freeh was on a tight deadline, Ziegler reminded Snedden. Freeh had to get his report out at a highly-anticipated press conference. And the Freeh report had to come out before the start of the football season. So the NCAA could drop the hammer on Penn State.

"He [Freeh] doesn't have time to read a hundred page report," Snedden said. He agreed with Ziegler that the whole disclosure of the Freeh report was "orchestrated" to come out right before the football season started.

It may have been good timing for the news media and the NCAA, Snedden said about the release of the Louie Freeh report. But it didn't make much sense from an investigator's point of view.


"I just don't understand why," Snedden told Ziegler, "why would you ignore more evidence. Either side that it lands on, why would you ignore it?"

Good question.

Snedden was aghast about the cost of the Louie Freeh report. His six-month federal investigation, Snedden said, "probably cost the federal government and the taxpayers $50,000 at the most. And he [Freeh] spent $8.3 million," Snedden said. "Unbelievable."

In a statement released March 24th, Freeh hailed the conviction of Spanier as having confirmed and verified "all the findings and facts" of the Freeh report. On Ziegler's podcast, however, Snedden was dismissive of Freeh's statement.

"It's like a preemptive strike to divert people's attention from the actual conviction for a misdemeanor," Snedden said about Freeh. Along with the fact that he jury found "no cover up no conspiracy," Snedden said.

"In a rational world Louie Freeh is completely discredited," Ziegler said. "The Freeh report is a joke." On the podcast, Ziegler ripped the "mainstream media morons" who said that the jury verdict vindicated Freeh.

"Which is horrendous," Snedden added.

Ziegler asked Snedden if he had any doubt that an innocent man was convicted last week.

"That's what I believe, one hundred percent," Snedden said about the "insane jury verdict."

About the Penn State scandal, Snedden said, "I've got to say it needs to be examined thoroughly and it needs to be examined by a competent law enforcement authority." And that's a law enforcement authority that "doesn't have any political connections with anybody on the boards of trustees when this thing hit the fan."

As for Snedden, he left the Penn State campus thinking, "Where is the crime?"

"This case has been all about emotion," Ziegler said. "It was never about facts."

"Exactly," Snedden said.

As someone who has spent the past five years investigating the "Billy Doe" case, I can testify that when the subject is sex abuse, and the media is involved, the next stop is the Twilight Zone. Where hysteria reigns, and logic and common sense go out the window.

Earlier in the podcast, Ziegler talked about the "dog and pony show" put on by the prosecution at the Spanier trial. It's a good example of what happens once you've entered the Twilight Zone.


At the Spanier trial, the 28-year-old known as Victim No. 5 was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. When the jury came out, they were surprised to see Victim No. 5 already seated on the witness stand.

As extra sheriff's deputies patrolled the courtroom, the judge announced to the jury that the next witness would be referred to as "John Doe."

I was in the courtroom that day, and I thought the hoopla over Victim No. 5's appearance was bizarre and prejudicial to the case. In several sex abuse trials that I have covered in Philadelphia, the victim's real name was always used in court, starting from the moment when he or she was sworn in in the courtroom as a witness.

The judges and the prosecutors could always count on the media to censor itself, by not printing the real names of alleged victims out of some misguided social justice policy that borders on lunacy. At the exact same time they're hanging the defendants out to dry.

Talk about rigging a contest by what's supposed to be an impartial media.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecutor proceeded to place a box of Kleenex next to the witness stand. John Doe seemed composed until the prosecutor asked if he had ever been sexually abused. Right on cue, the witness started whimpering.

"Yes," he said.

By whom, the prosecutor asked.

By Jerry Sandusky, John Doe said, continuing to whimper.

The actual details of the alleged sex abuse were never explained. The jury could have left the courtroom believing that Victim No. 5 had been sexually assaulted or raped.

But the sexual abuse Victim No. 5 was allegedly subjected to was that Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

For that alleged abuse, Victim No. 5 collected $8 million.


I kid you not.

There was also much confusion over the date of the abuse.

First, John Doe said that the abuse took place when he was 10 years old, back in 1998. Then, the victim changed his story to say he was abused the first time he met Sandusky, back when he was 12 or 13 years old, in 2000 or 2001, but definitely before 9/11, because he could never forget 9/11. Next, the victim said that he was abused after 9/11, when he would have been 14.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution used "John Doe" or Victim No. 5 for one main purpose: to prove to the jury that he had been abused after the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident of February, 2001. To show the jury that more victims were abused after Spanier, Curley and Schultz had decided to initiate their alleged coverup following the February 2001 shower incident.

But there was only one problem. To prove John Doe had a relationship with Sandusky, the prosecution introduced as an exhibit a photo taken of the victim with Sandusky.

Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
I don't have to prove anything to you. I have already proved more than anyone has to just to shut you up. But, with NO evidence of fakes and no evidence of me lying, you keep up this nonsense. STFU.
Not happening liar
You've provided zero evidence that I am lying. So even if what I've provided you is only 10% believable, it is more evidence than you provided me.
I don't have to provide anything to you. You made the claim
Wrong. Always on the accuser.
Wrong always the claimant
You are claiming I am lying. Prove it.
You are claiming you are a heroic scientist who saves the world LOLOLOL Prove it!
I don't have to. You cannot prove they are fake (because they are real). Stop asking me for PII.
You do. They are fake.
Not once.
Many times
You have asked for proof and I've provided it. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue.
It's fake. That's why I don't "like" it LOL
Not in a legal sense, but it is still written lies (which is the definition of libel).
Prove it
Wrong. You are asking for information that cannot be provided without revealing my name, my contact information and where I work. If you want to ask for information that doesn't include PII, I will provide it.
I am asking for information I can independently verify. Simple.
Because you called me out, ostrich ****er.
Silly boy. You really are a sensitive little wuzzy aren't you? How funny that you love to dish it out but you can't take it. LOL
All real, ostrich ****er.
LOL Getting under your skin I see.
Already delivered. Read the documents again.
Fake
Stop asking for PII or I will turn you in to the mods.
I haven't asked for you any. You've already done that and you've asked me for my PII hypocrite.
You still don't understand what facts are.
Yes I do. You don't understand what speculation is.
You are just wasting bandwidth with your conspiracy theories.
The facts are there and out in the world about the PSU scandal. What you are peddling is a conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited: