ADVERTISEMENT

Federal Investigator states PSU3/Paterno are clearly innocent.

A third party's opinion is not admissible in court, unless that person is determined to be an "expert" by the court (term of art), and the subject matter upon which he will opine is one requiring specialized knowledge (beyond the "ken" of the average layperson). Even a well qualified person like Snedden wouldn't be permitted to voice an opinion on issues and on the ultimate issues to be decided by the jury.

THIS

Also Snedden is working to totally different rules when it comes to security clearances. It really comes down to can the government trust GS information he is cleared to handle and does GS have issues that could allow a foreign agent to compromise GS. The fact he made a wrong decision wrt to JS issue really have little bearing in his ability to handle classified material nor is going to be something that he can be compromised.
 
THIS

Also Snedden is working to totally different rules when it comes to security clearances. It really comes down to can the government trust GS information he is cleared to handle and does GS have issues that could allow a foreign agent to compromise GS. The fact he made a wrong decision wrt to JS issue really have little bearing in his ability to handle classified material nor is going to be something that he can be compromised.
Srsly? So some lobbyist/quasi foreign nationalist comes to GS and says "Hey, we need your input/help on Situation X. We also have information that you covered up for a pedophile, btw"...and that would mean nothing?

Why go through the clearance at all then?
 
Kind of like his hero in prison.

Do you find Snedden credible? Do you find his investigation into Spanier when he was granted a Top Secret/SCI clearance a reasonable conclusion or do think it was faulty?

Do you find victim 5's testimony credible? How do you explain that he gave 3 different years (1998, 2001, and 2002) for his alleged abuse that only occurred once? How do you explain his trial testimony that he never met Sandusky before he was supposedly abused by him in 2002 when there was a picture of him in Sandusky's book Touched that was published in 2000?
 
Last edited:
How do you explain that he gave 3 different years (1998, 2001, and 2002) for his alleged abuse that only occurred once? How do you explain his trial testimony that he never met Sandusky before he was supposedly abused by him in 2002 when there was a picture of him in Sandusky's book Touched that was published in 2000?
He can't.
 
Do you find Sneddnen credible? Do you find his investigation into Spanier when he was granted a Top Secret/SCI clearance a reasonable conclusion or do think it was faulty?

Do you find victim 5's testimony credible? How do you explain that he gave 3 different years (1998, 2001, and 2002) for his alleged abuse that only occurred once? How do you explain his trial testimony that he never met Sandusky before he was supposedly abused by him in 2002 when there was a picture of him in Sandusky's book Touched that was published in 2000?

Yep, I believe anyone before Jerry. You think somehow this puff piece changed my mind on Jerry? Really? Trying to discredit victims is all you and JZ have and it disgusts me. I hope JZ apologizes to you one day for leading you down this BS rabbit hole you are stuck in. I BELIEVE EVERY VICTIM BEFORE JZ AND JERRY! Is that clear so you stop asking like you will get a different answer.
 
Yep, I believe anyone before Jerry. You think somehow this puff piece changed my mind on Jerry? Really? Trying to discredit victims is all you and JZ have and it disgusts me. I hope JZ apologizes to you one day for leading you down this BS rabbit hole you are stuck in. I BELIEVE EVERY VICTIM BEFORE JZ AND JERRY! Is that clear so you stop asking like you will get a different answer.

@MtNittany was spot on. You can't explain victim 5's contradictions and you don't even try. If you read my post carefully, you would have known I wasn't asking you to believe JZ or JS. I was asking your opinion of Special Agent John Snedden as well as that of journalist Ralph Cipriano. I take from your response that you don't have a favorable opinion of either one of these gentleman. I have an order of magnitude more respect for them than I do for the likes of Louis Freeh, Dan Berstein or Dan Wetzel. Do you respect Freeh, Berstein and/or Wetzel more than Snedden and Cipriano?
 
Srsly? So some lobbyist/quasi foreign nationalist comes to GS and says "Hey, we need your input/help on Situation X. We also have information that you covered up for a pedophile, btw"...and that would mean nothing?

Why go through the clearance at all then?

Exactly how was he going to be compromised??? When he was being investigated by Snedden, the information already out there in the public. GS was deemed truthful and honest by Snedden via his investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
@MtNittany was spot on. You can't explain victim 5's contradictions and you don't even try. If you read my post carefully, you would have known I wasn't asking you to believe JZ or JS. I was asking your opinion of Special Agent John Snedden as well as that of journalist Ralph Cipriano. I take from your response that you don't have a favorable opinion of either one of these gentleman. I have an order of magnitude more respect for them than I do for the likes of Louis Freeh, Dan Berstein or Dan Wetzel. Do you respect Freeh, Berstein and/or Wetzel more than Snedden and Cipriano?
MtNittany who was such a tool to Miami fans and trolled them so hard they literally found out who he was and confronted him. Yeah I knew 15 plus years ago when I saw him spewing that hate that something was wrong there. Jerry molested children. Don't be mad at me you and a few others cannot accept it.
 
MtNittany who was such a tool to Miami fans and trolled them so hard they literally found out who he was and confronted him. Yeah I knew 15 plus years ago when I saw him spewing that hate that something was wrong there. Jerry molested children. Don't be mad at me you and a few others cannot accept it.

I am not mad at you. I feel sorry for you that you are close minded and have bought into all of the false narratives. You probably still believe that McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower. I don't take any of your ad hominem attacks personally. I realize they come from an individual who is insecure. I don't doubt that your are a Penn State fan, but you don't strike me as an independent thinker. By the way, you still haven't explained victim 5's contradictions and the reason is because there is no explanation.
 
I am not mad at you. I feel sorry for your idol worshipping mentality that you are close minded and have bought into all of the false narratives. You probably still believe that McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower. I don't take any of your ad hominem attacks personally. I realize they come from an individual who is insecure. I don't doubt that your are a Penn State fan, but you don't strike me as an independent thinker. By the way, you still haven't explained victim 5's contradictions and the reason is because there is no explanation.
Yep. I feel sorry your idol worshiping won't allow you to accept reality. You care about a legacy only and don't care or simply choose to block out what Jerry did. He used a children's charity to hand pick kids and get off. I don't take any delusional freak seriously as I know some people have trouble dealing with reality. You're like a young child who still thinks Santa is real. You'll never come to grips that Jerry is a monster. You feel it is an attack, but I actually feel sorry for you. You're the type of guy that would give money to JZ. I just hope it wasn't that much and has stopped.
 
Last edited:
Yep. I feel sorry you idol worshiping won't allow you to accept reality.

Please continue to believe what you want to believe. I will continue to believe conclusions based on where the facts and evidence leads me. I don't know conclusively whether or not JS sexually abused any minors, but I do know that his trial was patently unfair. I am impressed with his new PCRA judge, Judge Foradora. Foradora says that he expects to make a ruling of whether or not he will grant Sandusky a new trial by the end of the year. I like Sandusky's chances.
 
Please continue to believe what you want to believe. I will continue to believe conclusions based on where the facts and evidence leads me. I don't know conclusively whether or not JS sexually abused any minors, but I do know that his trial was patently unfair. I am impressed with his new PCRA judge, Judge Foradora. Foradora says that he expects to make a ruling of whether or not he will grant Sandusky a new trial by the end of the year. I like Sandusky's chances.
You try so hard Steve, but you are in denial. It's just how some cope I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
People who oppose your view do so with facts. All you do is state your opinion. We know what that is so why keep posting?
With facts that they cherry pick. Most of which are nothing but recycled JZ attacks on the victims. I'll speak my mind when I feel like it, but thanks for the concern. Facts are Jerry showered and touched young boys. 8 victims , not eyewitnesses, but his targets confirmed what he is. So you think JS is innocent too? If so, sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
With facts that they cherry pick. Most of which are nothing but recycled JZ attacks on the victims. I'll speak my mind when I feel like it, but thanks for the concern. Facts are Jerry showered and touched young boys. 8 victims , not eyewitnesses, but his targets confirmed what he is. So you think JS is innocent too? If so, sorry.
You must feel like it a lot. Your posts are getting old. Talk about something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
as someone who once had Top Secret security clearance, I can assure you these investigations are no joke.

Imagine the gall of a "victim's advocate" like Toxine implying that this professional investigator would compromise such an investigation, and subsequently national security, because he went to Penn State.
From some of the responses you can tell which of us have gone thru this type of clearance and which haven't, can't you? :rolleyes:

FYI: @HartfordLlion ? They look into what you ate for breakfast every day of your life along with every other detail...
 
Funny how you don't seem to mind those posters here fighting for Jerry's "innocence" all that much. I have no idea WTF you are, sorry.

You don't strike me as someone devoid of intelligence LaJolla. What I don't get is how you equate someone someone fighting for due process and wanting to see a level playing ground in the justice system with someone who is fighting for Jerry's "innocence."

Advocating for a new trial does not equal fighting for Jerry's innocence. Something stinks to high heaven in this whole fiasco and the stench will not be removed until the truth is known. I believe that a new trial for Sandusky will go a long way toward removing the stench.
 
You don't strike me as someone devoid of intelligence LaJolla. What I don't get is how you equate someone someone fighting for due process and wanting to see a level playing ground in the justice system with someone who is fighting for Jerry's "innocence."

Advocating for a new trial does not equal fighting for Jerry's innocence. Something stinks to high heaven in this whole fiasco and the stench will not be removed until the truth is known. I believe that a new trial for Sandusky will go a long way toward removing the stench.
Steve, you seem like a decent guy...but I don't feel pity for Jerry in any way at all. I don't know why this bothers you so much, but the man took advantage of children who were already dealt a bad hand by most accounts. You're more concerned about Joe's legacy than anything else. Joe is fine in my eyes and I highly doubt if he were alive he would be leading any charge to help that POS. He did this to satisfy his own sick needs and there is no odor on this planet that can remove that stench.
 
Someone I have on ignore that compulsively posts their opinion over and over... I wonder who that could be?
200.webp
 
Steve, you seem like a decent guy...but I don't feel pity for Jerry in any way at all. I don't know why this bothers you so much, but the man took advantage of children who were already dealt a bad hand by most accounts. You're more concerned about Joe's legacy than anything else. Joe is fine in my eyes and I highly doubt if he were alive he would be leading any charge to help that POS. He did this to satisfy his own sick needs and there is no odor on this planet that can remove that stench.

Thanks for the compliment, I guess. I believe that Joe's legacy will take care of itself, so I am not so concerned about that. You are correct though that I realized that something wasn't right when the Freeh Report was published and I heard the Paterno family rebuttal. Up until then, I thought Sandusky was guilty as charged and getting what he deserved. As I learned more about about what happened with the trial it became clear to me that something wasn't right. The shennaningans that happended with the trial has led me to question the verdict. If Sandusky is truely guilty of the crimes that he is accused of, it shouldn't be that hard to prove. It is not clear to me that the stench eminating from the fiasco is associated with Sandusky's guilt or something else. I suspect it is something else.
 
Thanks for the compliment, I guess. I believe that Joe's legacy will take care of itself, so I am not so concerned about that. You are correct though that I realized that something wasn't right when the Freeh Report was published and I heard the Paterno family rebuttal. Up until then, I thought Sandusky was guilty as charged and getting what he deserved. As I learned more about about what happened with the trial it became clear to me that something wasn't right. The shennaningans that happended with the trial has led me to question the verdict. If Sandusky is truely guilty of the crimes that he is accused of, it shouldn't be that hard to prove. It is not clear to me that the stench eminating from the fiasco is associated with Sandusky's guilt or something else. I suspect it is something else.
You march up 8+ victims to testify and there will be more at a second trial along with Jerry's need to get young boys alone over and over and over and over and over and over again....he'll be convicted every single time. You can think what you need to that the trial was rigged or something, but the outcome isn't changing anytime soon. This case wasn't a close call by any stretch and most rational people get that. If he gets a second trial, the same people here won't believe the outcome regardless of what happens. I saw that over the last few weeks as even when evidence is presented that kind of confirms things....people still deny it or spin it away just so they don't feel foolish for grandstanding like they did the last few years. Some very bad myths were destroyed at GS's trial and people still were acting as if that wasn't the case. So sorry if I don't buy the fact another trial in PA will suddenly have everyone here saying...ok...Jerry got a fair shake. It just wond happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
Please continue to believe what you want to believe. I will continue to believe conclusions based on where the facts and evidence leads me. I don't know conclusively whether or not JS sexually abused any minors, but I do know that his trial was patently unfair. I am impressed with his new PCRA judge, Judge Foradora. Foradora says that he expects to make a ruling of whether or not he will grant Sandusky a new trial by the end of the year. I like Sandusky's chances.
But it isn't fact and evidence that lead you to your conclusions. If you went with the evidence, the victims' and MM's testimonies would make it clear to you that Jerry is one of the worst serial pedophiles in the history of our country. Protecting Paterno's legacy is what drives your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
You don't strike me as someone devoid of intelligence LaJolla. What I don't get is how you equate someone someone fighting for due process and wanting to see a level playing ground in the justice system with someone who is fighting for Jerry's "innocence."

Advocating for a new trial does not equal fighting for Jerry's innocence. Something stinks to high heaven in this whole fiasco and the stench will not be removed until the truth is known. I believe that a new trial for Sandusky will go a long way toward removing the stench.
I am amazed at how effective the "methods" that have been used to manage the Public's perception of key issues here have been over the past 6+ years.

The public "Story" is that Sandusky is a Pedophile - proven in a court of law. Whether Sandusky is Guilty or innocent HAS NO IMPACT ON WHAT IS BEING Stated by saying the trial "convicting: Sandusky was ILLEGAL.Why is it so hard to see that a re-trial is the fair and just next step with Sandusky??? This has NOTHING to do with saying Sandusky is innocent. It only admits that the case which convicted Sandusky has way too many "suspicious" issues - many actually illegal - for the public to know "reality"

This again is one where a very emotionally directed "Story" was established which, by its basic legal processes and "quality components" of evidence used, created questionable legal results. Legal abuses should not be part of establishing Guilt in a Court process.

I question the basic motives of the OAG and the resulting public trial information because of the methods used seemed to focus on ONLY establishing a pre-ordained "reality complex" version of PUBLIC guilt. Today....too many people want to shout down anyone who questions anything about Sandusky - those invested in the "forget about suspicious issues" are definite about ignoring anything "but what I believe". These people are too positive that "guilt" has been HONESTLY (and LEGALLY) established so ..."just move on..." - when moving on COULD be creating a "cover-up" for potential illegal aspects of this case.

If a new trial provides the same "guilty" results, then we will KNOW that Sandusky is guilty as charged. The "suspicious" element here would then fall away. This is a requirement of justice - no "beyond a reasonable doubt" suspicious elements.

I have no problems with agreeing with those who believe Sandusky is "Guilty" IF on what we judge him "Guilty" of is proven in an unbiased, fair legal environment. Additionally the evidence used in the trial has to have more attention to the "details" of testimony. Money-based accusations alone is not evidence.

As Sandusky's "Guilt" has been publicly established today, there are to many serious questions concerning THE LEGAL CASE for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
You march up 8+ victims to testify and there will be more at a second trial along with Jerry's need to get young boys alone over and over and over and over and over and over again....he'll be convicted every single time. You can think what you need to that the trial was rigged or something, but the outcome isn't changing anytime soon. This case wasn't a close call by any stretch and most rational people get that. If he gets a second trial, the same people here won't believe the outcome regardless of what happens. I saw that over the last few weeks as even when evidence is presented that kind of confirms things....people deny it or spin it away just so they don't feel foolish for grandstanding like they did the last few years.

I don't believe the outcome will change in 2017, but a trial may happen in 2018 and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I not sure how many of the ~30 accusers that Penn State gave settlements with would testify at a new trial, but I suspect that it will be considerly less than 30. In my opinion, the accusers that have the most credibility are the six identified before the grand jury presentment (v1, v3-v7). I have not been particularly swayed by either v9, v10, or any others who surfaced after the trial. The accuser that I think may have the most credibility is v1. I would be very interested to see if his story still holds water after an effective cross examination.
 
But it isn't fact and evidence that lead you to your conclusions. If you went with the evidence, the victims' and MM's testimonies would make it clear to you that Jerry is one of the worst serial pedophiles in the history of our country. Protecting Paterno's legacy is what drives your opinion.
Good use of the "Story" deception. I could give a "RAT' ***" about Paterno's legacy. Paterno died years ago!! I question how important his "Legacy" was when he was alive, let alone now. That Paterno statement is just another excuse made to insult and discredit anyone who even QUESTIONS the "STORY".

FACT------We have a COURT convictions on people who don't exist...we have evidence that doesn't pass the basic "smell test". We have some very questionable methods of getting "testimony" from "victims". All serious and credible reasons to dispute the "public story" of LEGAL guilt!!

To say that what we know is not tainted and that he is "...one of the worst serial pedophiles in the history of our country..." is nothing but a direct quote from the OAG Grand Jury Presentment circus. You know how accurate that abortion of a document was.....That scares me!!!

Continue the "Story" deception anyone????
 
I don't believe the outcome will change in 2017, but a trial may happen in 2018 and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I not sure how many of the ~30 accusers that Penn State gave settlements with would testify at a new trial, but I suspect that it will be considerly less than 30. In my opinion, the accusers that have the most credibility are the six identified before the grand jury presentment (v1, v3-v7). I have not been particularly swayed by either v9, v10, or any others who surfaced after the trial. The accuser that I think may have the most credibility is v1. I would be very interested to see if his story still holds water after an effective cross examination.
You have no idea which accusers have which credibility as you never interviewed a single one of them. You have one side of the story, JS's and JZ's version of that. You never sat down with these victims so please stop telling me which ones you deem credible. The simple fact that you say it will be less than 30 like that is some victory is hysterical...honestly...actually a very amusing statement. Just like MM was going to get torn to shreds at GS's trial or Tim ...moving the line and hoping that some attorney will somehow trip up all of the victims on the stand is a stretch. Most attorney's know that they can only go so far before they lose a judge or jury when going after the victims. Again...I don't care if he gets a new trial or not...it's pretty safe to say he is where he needs to be. I'll stop with the back and fourth with you on this as your bias is over the top for Jerry over the victims. The simple fact you visited him in prison is so crazy to me that I really can't describe it. I have better fish to fry then to worry about that POS. I really do. I'll speak my mind on the matter because I don't think the one voice mentality that people crave here is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
You have no idea which accusers have which credibility as you never interviewed a single one of them. You have one side of the story, JS's and JZ's version of that. You never sat down with these victims so please stop telling me which ones you deem credible. The simple fact that you say it will be less than 30 like that is some victory is hysterical...honestly...actually a very amusing statement. Just like MM was going to get torn to shreds at GS's trial or Tim ...moving the line and hoping that some attorney will somehow trip up all of the victims on the stand is a stretch. Most attorney's know that they can only go so far before they lose a judge or jury when going after the victims. Again...I don't care if he gets a new trial or not...it's pretty safe to say he is where he needs to be. I'll stop with the back and fourth with you on this as your bias is over the top for Jerry over the victims. The simple fact you visited him in prison is so crazy to me that I really can't describe it. I have better fish to fry then to worry about that POS. I really do. I'll speak my mind on the matter because I don't think the one voice mentality that people crave here is a good thing.

Do you believe that MM witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower in 2001 (or was it in 2002)?

Please explain, if you can, v5 apparent contradictions. Did he testify at that he was molested the first he met Sandusky in 2002 (or was it in 1998 or 2001 as he had previously testified)? How do you explain the picture of Sandusky with v5 in Sandusky's book that was published in 2000?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Do you believe that MM witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower in 2001 (or was it in 2002)?

Please explain, if you can, v5 apparent contradictions. Did he testify at that he was molested the first he met Sandusky in 2002 (or was it in 1998 or 2001 as he had previously testified)? How do you explain the picture of Sandusky with v5 in Sandusky's book that was published in 2000?
Since you aren't reading my posts and apparently never have Steve....."I'll stop with the back and fourth with you" is what I typed in my post. I already answered the MM stuff for you and the GJ questions dozens of times, but you apparently don't recall anything you don't want to hear or just assume things. MM said there was no anal rape so yes I believe that there was no anal rape. Again...have a great day...you aren't convincing at all Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
You have no idea which accusers have which credibility as you never interviewed a single one of them

Did these "victims" have any incentive to lie? (YE$)
Did these "victims'" stories change over time? (YES)
Were there character witnesses that testified that some of the "victims" were known to be liars? (YES)
Were these "victims" able to give any specific dates for their stories of abuse? (NO)
Did the Philadelphia Eagles offer a "victim" tickets to an Eagles game as a way to keep him quiet about Jerry? (YES, according to the victim and his therapist. hahaha)

That is why I have questions.

And you haven't tried to explain Victim 5's contradictions with his story. And it is because you CAN'T, other than to say he is lying.
 
Did these "victims" have any incentive to lie? (YE$)
Did these "victims'" stories change over time? (YES)
Were there character witnesses that testified that some of the "victims" were known to be liars? (YES)
Were these "victims" able to give any specific dates for their stories of abuse? (NO)
Did the Philadelphia Eagles offer a "victim" tickets to an Eagles game as a way to keep him quiet about Jerry? (YES, according to the victim and his therapist. hahaha)

That is why I have questions.

And you haven't tried to explain Victim 5's contradictions with his story. And it is because you CAN'T, other than to say he is lying.

Yep, they all lied and said...screw that nice man that helped me as a child, I'm getting paid. Jerry was told once about not showering with kids and to any other rational adult that would put the biggest fear in the world in them...not our Jerry though. He still had to do it and had to touch kids. He couldn't help but to get all of these kids along and never once had a rational reason why he got dozens of kids that were not his own alone over and over and over and over and over and over again. He admitted to blowing raspberries on a 10 year boys stomach...that isn't 2-4 year old, but a 10 year old. Notice how Ray never sides with you guys about Jerry...why is that?

The dates changing on a decade old crime isn't some smoking gun as people are acting like they just solved the case here. You can call all of the victims liars if you need to, but I'll keep calling Jerry Sandusky a sick POS who molested children. You may not like hearing that, but it is the reality of the situation.


200.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: pnnnnnnnnylion
Since you aren't reading my posts and apparently never have Steve....."I'll stop with the back and fourth with you" is what I typed in my post. I already answered the MM stuff for you and the GJ questions dozens of times, but you apparently don't recall anything you don't want to hear or just assume things. MM said there was no anal rape so yes I believe that there was no anal rape. Again...have a great day...you aren't convincing at all Steve.

I can't remember everything you have posted, but believe it or not I do read your posts. Thank you for acknowledging that the grand jury presentment was false. This falsehood was extremely prejudicial and has contributed to the polluted jury pool that exists in Centre and Dauphin county as well as across the nation. The only way to remedy it is to have a new trial and let the chips fall where they may fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dshumbero
The dates changing on a decade old crime isn't some smoking gun as people are acting like they just solved the case here. You can call all of the victims liars if you need to, but I'll keep calling Jerry Sandusky a sick POS who molested children. You may not like hearing that, but it is the reality of the situation.

Ok. Can you explain "Victim 2" writing a letter to the editor of the local paper in support of Jerry shortly after his arrest, then giving a statement to the defense squarely in support of Jerry, then flipping right before the trial? Why do you think he did that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dshumbero
Ok. Can you explain "Victim 2" writing a letter to the editor of the local paper in support of Jerry shortly after his arrest, then giving a statement to the defense squarely in support of Jerry, then flipping right before the trial? Why do you think he did that?
I was thrilled about the Gordon commit.;)
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT