Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fina and McGettin, just two honest, hard working career prosecutors. Working to keep the Commonwealth citizenry safe. Once again asserting that no one is a above (their) law.
Any OGBOTBOTs out there want to defend one more time the pay everyone move on comatosly approach to fiduciary responsibility exhibited by BOT at a time of crisis. The extremely demonstrable poise with which they approached the situation is definitely a sign of superior leadership and rationality. Come on Fools dive in and defend them!
One of Fina's problems is that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. How would a GJ witness know anything except what was asked of him? How many witnesses would it take to reveal enough information to coherently write a story? Such BS.Too funny, the leaks to the HPN and the NYT prior to November 2011 weren't leaks but from SWIGJ witnesses??? Gee is that why both the HPN and NYT cited "sources close to the investigation" (i.e., OAG and OAG Investigators) and not SWIGJ witnesses in their articles???
If I ever need to disappear, I'm definitely hiring Shubin. He is no doubt the Better Call Saul of State College.
"Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Lindsay acknowledged he had intended to compel the now 29-year-old to testify this week, but his staff was unable to find the accuser. The lawyer said he still hopes to subpoena the man, who received a settlement from Penn State based on his claims, for a later hearing."
If I ever need to disappear, I'm definitely hiring Shubin. He is no doubt the Better Call Saul of State College.
"Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Lindsay acknowledged he had intended to compel the now 29-year-old to testify this week, but his staff was unable to find the accuser. The lawyer said he still hopes to subpoena the man, who received a settlement from Penn State based on his claims, for a later hearing."
Obviously one of the witnesses gave Ganim the letter, or at least that's who Fina is trying to pin it on.How did Ganim get the year wrong V1 came forward in her 3/31 article? How did Ganim know the V1's case went from Clinton County to Centre Co. to the OAG's office?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County." http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
Obviously one of the witnesses.So Sara, who gave you the letter?
Nitt you just beat me to it.Obviously one of the witnesses gave Ganim the letter, or at least that's who Fina is trying to pin it on.
McQ said the boy was 8-10 years old so it could not be the accuser; he would've been 14. Yet when they depict the 'rape' they use a stool to make the act appear physically possible (iirc). Regardless, a rape of a 14 year old of average height is much more feasible than a little 10 year old ( Sorry for the visual).
Obviously the OAG's office had a copy, but so did Bellefonte. I'm with @Adlee73, the leaks could have easily come from Bellefonte.Obviously one of the witnesses gave Ganim the letter, or at least that's who Fina is trying to pin it on.
What? Get the money back? They happily gave it to him. They're more likely to throw a couple million on top to keep him away.Can this dude hide forever? Someone at psu knows who is he. Wouldn't psu want to get $3 million back?
But Ira did an excellent and thorough job of vetting. Just ask the firm they hired to help broker the settlements.What? Get the money back? They happily gave it to him. They're more likely to throw a couple million on top to keep him away.
He might not have been deemed credible as V2, but they still believe he was abused. Honestly, the best fiction writer could not make this stuff up. Where is Francofan today. I would like to read his summary.AM was not deemed credible because he got the year wrong. MM is deemed credible despite getting the year wrong and was the basis for AM using that specific date.
AM deemed not credible because of his drawing of the locker room. Janitor is deemed credible, yet was on tape saying it was not JS. Other janitor deemed credible, but testified to wrong layout of locker room.
Seems AM was deemed not credible because the OAG couldn't use him as a victim.
Actually, V4 was over 16 at the time of his Alamo Bowl allegation.14 years old also didn't fit the profile of the other accusers
seriously? unrealActually, V4 was over 16 at the time of his Alamo Bowl allegation.
Ganim didn't get the letter, she heard it straight from Madeira back in February 2009 before he realized his wife's brother who he's quoted in articles saying he barely spoke with was Sandusky's adopted son.How did Ganim get the year wrong V1 came forward in her 3/31 article? How did Ganim know the V1's case went from Clinton County to Centre Co. to the OAG's office?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County." http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
So why would investigators tell V1 and attorney that a Penn State employee witnessed an act between JS and a boy. How many other accusers were told this by investigators?
He might not have been deemed credible as V2, but they still believe he was abused. Honestly, the best fiction writer could not make this stuff up. Where is Francofan today. I would like to read his summary.
I believe she had the letter. The Moulton Report makes mention that Madeira received an eight page police report from the PSP in 2009. He certainly would have known V1 came forward in 2008. The letter also makes mention of the phrase "inappropriate contact," a phrase that coincidentally appears in Ganim's article. But, I also believe your analysis could be correct in that Ganim was first tipped off on the investigation by Madeira.Ganim didn't get the letter, she heard it straight from Madeira back in February 2009 before he realized his wife's brother who he's quoted in articles saying he barely spoke with was Sandusky's adopted son.
http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/r-r/188-da-office-sandusky-information-leak
I believe she had the letter. The Moulton Report makes mention that Madeira received an eight page police report from the PSP in 2009. He certainly would have known V1 came forward in 2008. The letter also makes mention of the phrase "inappropriate contact," a phrase that coincidentally appears in Ganim's article. But, I also believe your analysis could be correct in that Ganim was first tipped off on the investigation by Madeira.
Fina saying "reasonable to believe" slays me. Who does that sound like?
AM was not deemed credible because he got the year wrong. MM is deemed credible despite getting the year wrong and was the basis for AM using that specific date.
AM deemed not credible because of his drawing of the locker room. Janitor is deemed credible, yet was on tape saying it was not JS. Other janitor deemed credible, but testified to wrong layout of locker room.
Seems AM was deemed not credible because the OAG couldn't use him as a victim.
Does it seem to anybody that this new trial really might happen?
Ya' think?FTR - When McQueary made his original statement to police, he stated that he wasn't sure if it was 2001 or 2002. It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution decided to focus on 2002 because that avoided the whole statute of limitations problem.
FTR - When McQueary made his original statement to police, he stated that he wasn't sure if it was 2001 or 2002. It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution decided to focus on 2002 because that avoided the whole statute of limitations problem.