Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?I believe that issue was resolved by the US Supreme Court.
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.
Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?I believe that issue was resolved by the US Supreme Court.
No you misread it. @francofan is making a circular argument. @crm114psu is correct. It sounds stupid.I just Googled "Circular Argument" and the top (non-sponsored) result was:
Yes Here Supreme Court refused to hear further appeal.Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?
Why do you think I work for the OAG?I wasn’t asking you and I am not interested in going back and forth with an anonymous OAG troll who is only interested in OAG propaganda and disinformation.
Go away? I don't know if JS is totally innocent. I know he didn't get a fair trial. I also know that the PSU3 were victims of a targeted/political prosecution. I know that Joe had an extremely minor, incidental role in the whole issue. I know that the prosecutor, a judge and PSU counsel were all disciplined for their actions in this matter.If he was reconvicted would you and @francofan go away?
He has nothing but BS.Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?
That's a 3rd Circuit Court of appeals case regarding Spanier's conviction on the supposed 2001 incident (have they ever really figured out the date?). The Supreme Court rarely grants cert. That's not the same as saying the Supreme Court implicitly approved it.Yes Here Supreme Court refused to hear further appeal.
John Ziegler has shown the real date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and not either of the dates that the OAG claimed it happened - March 1, 2002 (in the knowingly false grand jury presentment) or Feb. 9, 2001 (as claimed at trial). Both Gary Schultz and Malcolm Gladwell are convinced that Ziegler is right.That's a 3rd Circuit Court of appeals case regarding Spanier's conviction on the supposed 2001 incident (have they ever really figured out the date?). The Supreme Court rarely grants cert. That's not the same as saying the Supreme Court implicitly approved it.
The janitor is on tape saying it was not JSThree major events I can recall:
That is just off the top of my head.
- McQueary's father didn't recall being deposed and openly denied his testimony contradicted his deposition (this to your recollection on the same thing)
- The prosecution did a "dump" of dozens of boxes of data shortly before trial. JS's attorney asked for an extension which is very, very common. That extension request was denied. This is pretty shocking to be honest.
- That the janitor stating he saw JS with a kid wrestling was accepted as testimony. The janitor no longer had his marbles and the person that he told this to was allowed to testify since he wasn't cogent any longer. So this could have been nothing more than a couple of guys rumor-mongering with no basis of truth. Again, shocked it was allowed to be used.
sorry permitted.....as.....The janitor is on tape saying it was not JS
Hearsay testimony excepted as an "excited utterance." LOL
They refused to hear it. The matter is closed legally and the Supreme Court would have taken it for full review if it had merit.That's a 3rd Circuit Court of appeals case regarding Spanier's conviction on the supposed 2001 incident (have they ever really figured out the date?). The Supreme Court rarely grants cert. That's not the same as saying the Supreme Court implicitly approved it.
This is from @JmmyW who has refuted this crap before.John Ziegler has shown the real date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and not either of the dates that the OAG claimed it happened - March 1, 2002 (in the knowingly false grand jury presentment) or Feb. 9, 2001 (as claimed at trial). Both Gary Schultz and Malcolm Gladwell are convinced that Ziegler is right.
JmmyW is wrong. I had a back and forth with him and he is totally unconvincing. Feb. 9 was not a quiet night on campus as MM said that the night of the v2 incident was. If you wish to dispute, please refute what Ziegler has stated in the article I linked to or state where Gary Schultz is wrong in his interview with Ziegler. The Dec. 29 date fits the whole of the testimony of Dr. Dranov, Mike’s dad, Gary Schultz as well as MM and JS and Feb. 9 just doesn’t work.This is from @JmmyW who has refuted this crap before.
And some bonus question you didn't ask:
What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
that whole JS trial really had a lot of issues that were brought up at the time. I remember something really strange happening with McQueary's father where he openly lied on the stand, was called out on it, but the judge just said to move along. I think JS's lawyer was pretty bad as well. And then all the victims coming out after the trial where when some of them did talk or their stories released were easily showed to be false (ie...one of them described the existing locker room which had been renovated after the alleged incident, another that described timing which was shown to be false by just looking at the historical PSU football schedule, etc...). Then you had the second hand information from the janitor story which was really out there not believable admitted as prime evidence.
I am in know way saying JS is innocent, but that trial was a sham and full of inconsistency.
@JmmyW has already done it and Ziegler refuses to debate him. We both know why.JmmyW is wrong. I had a back and forth with him and he is totally unconvincing. Feb. 9 was not a quiet night on campus as MM said that the night of the v2 incident was. If you wish to dispute, please refute what Ziegler has stated in the article I linked to or state where Gary Schultz is wrong in his interview with Ziegler. The Dec. 29 date fits the whole of the testimony of Dr. Dranov, Mike’s dad, Gary Schultz as well as MM and JS and Feb. 9 just doesn’t work.
Whether or not Ziegler agreed to debate, Jmmy is still wrong and you are unable to refute Ziegler and Schultz.@JmmyW has already done it and Ziegler refuses to debate him. We both know why.
Why do you think I work for the OAG?Whether or not Ziegler agreed to debate, Jmmy is still wrong and you are unable to refute Ziegler and Schultz.
You are just regurgitating OAG propaganda which is what I expect from an OAG troll. Please keep this baloney off this thread. If you must post, please start you own thread or move to the test board.
Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.Why do you think I work for the OAG?
No one involved disputes that MMQ saw Jerry in a shower with a child, when Jerry would have good reason to think no one would be around.
There is no innocent reason.
The date does not change that.
Maybe, just maybe, it would piss him off enough to leave! 👏 🙏As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
It’s not a Penn state scandalCorrect.
And from one of the posts above, there's this from McQueary even as he protested that he was being misrepresented:
>>"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."<<
Guy in the shower with a kid not his own, alone, late in the evening, kid's hands up and face against the wall, rhythmic and slapping sounds, a witness testifying it was a "sexual act."
But never mind, there's no doubt an innocent explanation.
Then add in the all the other accusers and the the mountain of evidence, some circumstantial and some direct, going back to 1998-99.
Jerry Sandusky is the lowest piece of scum on the planet earth and is getting off easy spending the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer's expense. In another time and place, his punishment would have been much harsher.
As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
Yes, MM saw Jerry in a shower with Allan Myers, a 13 year old boy who was like a son to Jerry. Allan asked Jerry to stand with him on senior night in his last home high school football game. Allan invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Allan also wrote two letters to the editor in local newspapers supporting Sandusky.No one involved disputes that MMQ saw Jerry in a shower with a child, when Jerry would have good reason to think no one would be around.
There is no innocent reason.
The date does not change that.
Correct.
And from one of the posts above, there's this from McQueary even as he protested that he was being misrepresented:
>>"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."<<
Guy in the shower with a kid not his own, alone, late in the evening, kid's hands up and face against the wall, rhythmic and slapping sounds, a witness testifying it was a "sexual act."
But never mind, there's no doubt an innocent explanation.
Then add in the all the other accusers and the the mountain of evidence, some circumstantial and some direct, going back to 1998-99.
Jerry Sandusky is the lowest piece of scum on the planet earth and is getting off easy spending the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer's expense. In another time and place, his punishment would have been much harsher.
As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
You and JJ, two Penn Live twits.Ho one involved disputes that MMQ saw Jerry in a shower with a child, when Jerry would have good reason to think no one would be around.
There is no innocent reason.
The date does not change that.
These all don't come from the OAG narrative if by that you mean what was put forth and the trials of Jerry and CSS. Lots of it were not relevant to the trial.Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.
I'm not on their payroll.Do you have any connection, even slight to the OAG or the old guard BOT?
Not proven that AM was Victim 2, plus AM did indicate Jerry for CSA and was paid for it.Yes, MM saw Jerry in a shower with Allan Myers, a 13 year old boy who was like a son to Jerry. Allan asked Jerry to stand with him on senior night in his last home high school football game. Allan invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Allan also wrote two letters to the editor in local newspapers supporting Sandusky.
Why didn't Amendola call him at trial? We both know that answer don't we?The innocent reason that Allan provided to Curtis Everhart, Joe Amendola’s investigator is that they were showering at the end of a road trip to Washington Pa.
Four juries disagreedMcQueary is not a credible witness.
No material changes in any of them.He told 4 or 5 different versions of what happened.
Joe corroborated MM and so did Schultz to the GJ.None of the 5 people who he told of the incident contemporaneously in 2001 said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault.
How do you know that?He didn't recall any hint of a sexual assault until 10 years later.
Did Snedden interview MM?NCIS special agent John Snedden who did a federal investigation in 2012 as part of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearance renewals did not find MM to be credible.
So? "slightly twisted"MM complained in an email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach twisted his words in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation.
Typical for CSA vicsNone of the Sandusky accusers made contemporaneous reports
The jury believed them.and all of their stories changed and got worse over time. There is not a single accuser story that stands on its own that makes the case that they were molested by Jerry beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury disagreed.If you disagree, please identify the accuser and state the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just like Bill CosbyCircumstantial evidence that supports Jerry's innocence among other things includes his excellent reputation and clean record before 2011,
Not relevantno pornography ever found in his possession,
Again, not relevant. Plus he said Dotty and he had sex every week. Wow!and his medical diagnosis of hypogonadism resulting in low testosterone levels and a low sex drive.
So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.
The traffic pattern doesn't matter, the BJC for a big event is visible for miles, let alone from Lasch.
Does anyone recall where the game day entrance to the hockey games was located? Right next to Lasch you say?
And you don't regurgitate propaganda do you? You have the most closed mind of anyone posting here. None of your "developments" over the past 10 years have provided the least bit of momentum towards the effort of freeing Jerry.Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.
Do you have any connection, even slight to the OAG or the old guard BOT?
The boy crying wolf.....LOL talk to staff at Central Mountain Schools......LOLAnd you don't regurgitate propaganda do you? You have the most closed mind of anyone posting here. None of your "developments" over the past 10 years have provided the least bit of momentum towards the effort of freeing Jerry.
Yet you are on here regurgitating the same BS crap that you've been spewing for years. Like the boy crying "wolf" in the fable. Zig said this or Sned said that and it is a MONUMENTAL must read!!!! Has less teeth than a fart in a hurricane.
Looking forward to 10 more years! LOLThe boy crying wolf.....LOL talk to staff at Central Mountain Schools......LOL
It’s not a Penn state scandal
Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?
McQueary is not a credible witness. He told 4 or 5 different versions of what happened. None of the 5 people who he told of the incident contemporaneously in 2001 said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault. He didn't recall any hint of a sexual assault until 10 years later. NCIS special agent John Snedden who did a federal investigation in 2012 as part of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearance renewals did not find MM to be credible. MM complained in an email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach twisted his words in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation.
None of the Sandusky accusers made contemporaneous reports and all of their stories changed and got worse over time. There is not a single accuser story that stands on its own that makes the case that they were molested by Jerry beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disagree, please identify the accuser and state the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence that supports Jerry's innocence among other things includes his excellent reputation and clean record before 2011, no pornography ever found in his possession, and his medical diagnosis of hypogonadism resulting in low testosterone levels and a low sex drive.
Jerry - thank you for your kind words. For what it is worth, I am sincere in my beliefs and don't believe that I am in denial; but rather am confident in my understanding of what I have learned about what has happened and what hasn't happened in this saga. I also believe I am realistic in that there is a very good chance that Jerry Sandusky and Graham Spanier may die before it becomes apparent and widely accepted that there was a miscarriage of justice in their cases.Franco, I'm prepared to believe you're sincere in your crusade, but the psychological syndrome on display in your posts is called Denial. A classic symptom is looking at a mountain of evidence and grabbing a few odd straws because for whatever reason the truth is too painful to deal with.
As a devout Catholic, I saw a very similar dynamic in the case of the Church scandals. It's not uncommon: protecting the powerful at the expense of the weak in order to prevent or limit damage to the institution even as many ordinary, decent people associated with the institution prefer not to know or later deny the reality because the truth challenges their cherished beliefs and concept of who they are as human beings.
Listen, linked below is a handy little article that concisely presents some of the damning facts. The testimony of victims. The accounts of eyewitnesses. The words of Sandusky himself. I don't expect this to convince you because you need your Alternative Reality. But no unbiased person could examine this evidence and come up with any conclusion other than Jerry Sandusky is scum and should spend the rest of his life in jail.
Jerry Sandusky, the monster no one wanted to see
It is the defining tragedy of the case: Not only that Jerry Sandusky repeatedly, systematically violated children, but that he was allowed to get away with it for so long.www.cbssports.com
This is the best concise summary I've ever read. Congrats on that. I don't think Jerry is completely "innocent" but I don't think he was as bad as the prosecution wanted you to believe. I believe he got his rocks off in the grey area between being a creepy father figure for troubled kids and molestation.Jerry - thank you for your kind words. For what it is worth, I am sincere in my beliefs and don't believe that I am in denial; but rather am confident in my understanding of what I have learned about what has happened and what hasn't happened in this saga. I also believe I am realistic in that there is a very good chance that Jerry Sandusky and Graham Spanier may die before it becomes apparent and widely accepted that there was a miscarriage of justice in their cases.
I did read the article by Matt Hinton that came out on June 23 right after Sandusky was convicted. At the time, I didn't follow the case very close but thought the jury got it right and probably would have thought that the article presented damning facts. You are correct that at this time as I have learned more and taken a deep dive into the facts and evidence in the case that I now am not convinced that Sandusky posed a threat in any of the 9 situations presented in the article for the following reasons.
1. I am convinced that McQueary did not witness a sexual assault of v2, that the identity of v2 is known, that the date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and that Sandusky never harmed Allan Myers.
2. The v6 incident was thoroughly investigation in a month long investigation by the Centre County DA, the Penn State police, the State College police, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare with no charges filed and Sandusky not indicated for child abuse. V6 maintained a 13+ year non-sexual relationship with Sandusky and only claimed he may have been groomed in 2011 when the story broke.
3. The v8 janitor incident is ridiculous. How did the prosecution get convictions of 5 counts in an incident where there was no victim, no eye witness, no date provided, and the alleged witness is recorded on tape saying the perp was not Jerry Sandusky.
4. V4's allegations only came to light after a highly improper interview with Pennsylvania State Police(PSP) where PSP lied to v4 about the accusers who had come forward and this only took place after v4's lawyer asked the PSP if they were able to bring up other allegations against Sandusky in the interview with v4. This episode was caught on tape and the PSP officers lied about it in court.
5. V9's allegations about being abused in a sound proof basement are demonstrably false.
6. Joe Miller's recounting of wrestling at Central Mountain High School did not include allegations that it included anything sexual.
7/8. V1's allegations don't stand on there own. The OAG declined to charge Sandusky on the v1 allegations after a 2 year investigation (2008-2010) that didn't come up with any additional evidence. The McQueary incident only came to light after the November 2010 election. It took over 6 months before v1 first alleged a sexual act. 2 grand juries didn't believe him. He was only able to testify before the grand jury with his therapist present. 12 people who are all very close to v1 (aunts, girlfriends, best friends, parents of friends, neighbors, etc.) have been willing to state on the record in their own name that they don't believe v1 was ever abused by Sandusky.
9. Matt Sandusky is not credible. He testified to the grand jury that he was never abused by his father. He asked the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18. He asked a judge to give unsupervised access for Jerry Sandusky to his two children. Matt's suicide attempt was the result of Matt and his girlfriend being despondent over Jerry and Dottie not permitting Matt and his girlfriend to share a bedroom in their house and not because he had been abused.
You sound like Nixon in his I am not a crook speech. It is readily apparent that you are a troll. I don't believe that you have no connection to the OAG. You have no explanation for your motivation in your incessant need to comment on anything that runs counter to the highly suspicious actions of the OAG and their false narratives.These all don't come from the OAG narrative if by that you mean what was put forth and the trials of Jerry and CSS. Lots of it were not relevant to the trial.
I'm not on their payroll.