Memory Issues

[WeR0206]

While I will wait for the final transcripts to be sure, I am told a very different set of events from someone who sat with you during the trial.

1. As part of his plea deal Tim told the OAG on 3/17/2017 that Graham was part of the plan they developed on 2/25/01 but just before that in the trial Tim told the court that he wasn't sure if Graham was part of the plan.

That seems like a pretty big deal when the trial is about whether Graham did or did not do anything as part of the incident. Tim tells the OAG that he was involved in the plan, then he changes his mind on the stand in front of the jury.

2. On cross Schultz admitted to Silver that on 3/8/2017 that he had made a statemtent saying that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy. Silver further asked if this was the first time he made such a statement to which Schultz replied correct.

Another pretty big deal. People have spent years trying to downplay what Mike said he saw, and now Gary says that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy?

I would really like to see the transcripts to see what the actual statements were, along with a comparison to the plea hearing transcripts. Either way those are both very relevant to the case.

I know you have excuses for why these aren't big deals, so like I said, keep living the dream Linda.

Instead of hyperventilating about C/S, people who may have made pleas under extortion type circumstances, its easier to look at the testimony from folks who weren't getting pressured by the corrupt OAG, folks such as JM and Dr. D. Neither one of them corrorborated MM's "sexual shower" story. In fact Dr. D's version didnt include anything at all about MM actually looking in the shower and seeing a hug from behind, etc.. All MM reported to him was the sounds, a kid peaking around the corner, then JS and the kid leaving the shower area. Same thing with JM when he summarized his call with MM minutes after the incident.

Trying to compare the previous testimony by C/S to their plea statements and also to their Spanier trial testimony shows mostly consistency but also some inconsistencies IMO due to the pressures exerted by the OAG so it's a fruitless endeavor.

Once Wendy obtained the testimony of JR admitting he was told of an incident in 01 and TSM was a proper place for laymen psu admins to take that info (since one of TSM's purposes is child protection), all the talk about the psu admins role, what they said in their plea deals, etc. is moot IMO. JR and TSM are where the report ultimately died. I dont care what JR claims TC told him, he was required to look into any and all incident reports no matter how benign.

 

[wensilver]

Thanks for the reply. You know I share your outrage about TSM. I was simply asking the question. Your answer doesn't make much sense though. Your outrage is focused on TSM so Jacks testimony makes sense but then why Mikes? Mike never spoke to TSM directly, Tim did. So it seems that if you want to know what TSM knew and when then Tim's testimony would be very important. At the very least to compare what Tim said to what Jack said about their conversation.

Apples & Oranges.

It doesn't matter what Mike said, or what Tim said - the reporting landed on Jack's doorstep.

In the end - TSM CEO Dr. Jack Raykovitz had information. I've outlined somewhere on this board the failures of this CEO of a children's charity - you can sift thru my content for that, I'm not at a decent keyboard.

I obtained Mike's testimony simply for Laura Ditka's input and embellishments.

You had to hear her for yourself to get the full impact of her inflammatory statements in front of the jury. It was never about what Mike said - we have plenty of testimony to confirm the fact that there was no "anal rape" & that the AG imagineered that one.

I've told Mike myself he was used by the AG - and his life & career aspirations were destroyed over it. The AG never needed Mike in order to properly prosecute this case. And the AG still hasn't addressed Matt Sandusky's placement in that home - if they cared so much about "the victims".

I hope this answers your concerns. I am done trying to explain myself.

My thoughts on this entire epic shitstorm are in my Signature below.

 

[no1lion99]

Perhaps you could purchase the transcripts and then compare notes with @wensilver.

I am happy to wait until the court posts them. It was Wendy who was in a rush to get them. I simply asked her why she only requested certain ones, she responded, and her explanation makes no sense to me. The PS4RS crowd was quick to once again attack Mike, or TSM, or Dranov, or whoever they can find EXCEPT the admins. This is despite new evidence that 1) Tim and Gary plead to a crime and 2) they also had inconsistent testimony. Wendy and PS4RS are quick to say they want to really fix the system, but spend a lot of time attacking someone who reported a possible assault to his superiors. That's not how to fix the system. It perpetuates falsehoods about CSA and how it can be investigated. It discourages future witnesses from coming forward. It also makes it appear, to me, that Wendy and PS4RS only really wish to protect the admins and Joe. That's my view, you may disagree.

 

[Zenophile]

I am happy to wait until the court posts them. It was Wendy who was in a rush to get them. I simply asked her why she only requested certain ones, she responded, and her explanation makes no sense to me. The PS4RS crowd was quick to once again attack Mike, or TSM, or Dranov, or whoever they can find EXCEPT the admins. This is despite new evidence that 1) Tim and Gary plead to a crime and 2) they also had inconsistent testimony. Wendy and PS4RS are quick to say they want to really fix the system, but spend a lot of time attacking someone who reported a possible assault to his superiors. That's not how to fix the system. It perpetuates falsehoods about CSA and how it can be investigated. It discourages future witnesses from coming forward. It also makes it appear, to me, that Wendy and PS4RS only really wish to protect the admins and Joe. That's my view, you may disagree.

What's your take on Karen Arnold's quote?

"There are aspects of the Sandusky case this grand jury ignored and that will bite them in the ass if the case goes forward."​

 

[Mixolydian]

There is a zero percent chance that your squawking has helped your credibility towards nailing TSM.

The supporters you attract tend to be be free Jerry types, weird single guys like Steve & Jeff still living with Mom. All transcripts aside, it'seems very odd that your fan base has that demographic.

Why don't you check who your "supporters" are? It would be extremely small and a "who's who" of the dipshits on this board.

Wendy on the other hand has widespread support.

 

[no1lion99]

What's your take on Karen Arnold's quote?

"There are aspects of the Sandusky case this grand jury ignored and that will bite them in the ass if the case goes forward."​

Well I guess there are two ways to look at this:

1. There are people who were left out of the investigations focus. That's obvious to all here. Will these people ever have to account? I don't know but I do what I can to raise my voice to those who have the power to do so.

2. The grand jury is long gone, in terms of the people who indicted. Will a new GJ session hear evidence to these things that were ignored? My guess is no, the 'system' seems to have moved on.

 

[Zenophile]

Well I guess there are two ways to look at this:

1. There are people who were left out of the investigations focus. That's obvious to all here. Will these people ever have to account? I don't know but I do what I can to raise my voice to those who have the power to do so.

2. The grand jury is long gone, in terms of the people who indicted. Will a new GJ session hear evidence to these things that were ignored? My guess is no, the 'system' seems to have moved on.

How is point #1 different from @wensilver's considerable efforts?

 

[WeR0206]

I am happy to wait until the court posts them. It was Wendy who was in a rush to get them. I simply asked her why she only requested certain ones, she responded, and her explanation makes no sense to me. The PS4RS crowd was quick to once again attack Mike, or TSM, or Dranov, or whoever they can find EXCEPT the admins. This is despite new evidence that 1) Tim and Gary plead to a crime and 2) they also had inconsistent testimony. Wendy and PS4RS are quick to say they want to really fix the system, but spend a lot of time attacking someone who reported a possible assault to his superiors. That's not how to fix the system. It perpetuates falsehoods about CSA and how it can be investigated. It discourages future witnesses from coming forward. It also makes it appear, to me, that Wendy and PS4RS only really wish to protect the admins and Joe. That's my view, you may disagree.

Points 1 and 2 that you mention could have very reasonable explanations:

1) Tim and Gary plead to a crime because they were worried about the extreme bias of the jury pool thanks to all the OAG/freeh shenanigans.

2) There are inconsistencies in their testimony because they were being asked to recall details from 10+ yr old conversations and ALSO being pressured by the OAG to take a deal especially the week before trial. Apparently the OAG was also desperate to get Spanier to plea (offered him 7 times) but he said eff you I'm going to court.

Mike gets attacked because he was the one and only witness that claimed he thought a kid was getting raped (but nvr filed a police report or expressed dissatisfaction to anyone over the yrs) and NOT ONE OAG witness backed up Mike's version of 2001 (that he reported a sexual assault/shower). With that in mind I have no idea why you are confused over Mike taking to much heat.

At Spanier's trial, if JM and or Dr. D said that MM reported a sexual shower/potential sexual assault and thus fully corroborated MM, then people's views of MM may have changed. But both men have consistently said that what Mike reported to them was essentially a vague report re: an inappropriate shower that made him feel uncomfortable and it wasn't enough to call police or child services, thus their recommendation for mike to just tell Joe the next day vs immediately call LE makes sense. In Mike's version, no ones actions in 2001 make any sense.

 

[no1lion99]

Apples & Oranges.

It doesn't matter what Mike said, or what Tim said - the reporting landed on Jack's doorstep.

In the end - TSM CEO Dr. Jack Raykovitz had information. I've outlined somewhere on this board the failures of this CEO of a children's charity - you can sift thru my content for that, I'm not at a decent keyboard.

I obtained Mike's testimony simply for Laura Ditka's input and embellishments.

You had to hear her for yourself to get the full impact of her inflammatory statements in front of the jury. It was never about what Mike said - we have plenty of testimony to confirm the fact that there was no "anal rape" & that the AG imagineered that one.

I've told Mike myself he was used by the AG - and his life & career aspirations were destroyed over it. The AG never needed Mike in order to properly prosecute this case. And the AG still hasn't addressed Matt Sandusky's placement in that home - if they cared so much about "the victims".

I hope this answers your concerns. I am done trying to explain myself.

My thoughts on this entire epic shitstorm are in my Signature below.

What Mike said doesn't matter? You have spent five years arguing that it did.






This one is my favorite:

Now the latest grand speculation that you and the crowd have is Mike was drunk despite no evidence.

https://twitter.com/wensilver/status/846316459299164160

I smell some BS. I see folks who will look for any excuse to blame everyone BUT the admins.

 

[no1lion99]

How is point #1 different from @wensilver's considerable efforts?

It has nothing to do with her efforts to lay some blame at TSM's steps. It has to do with her attempts to continually absolve CSS of wrongdoing despite the evidence. CSS told Mike they would investigate. That investigation considered of calling Wendell (when your lawyer tells you to report its a damn good idea to do that otherwise why are you paying the guy?) to see if they had to report and Tim talking to Jerry (who was close to Jerry who happened to have brought him to the football program, can anyone say conflict?). Tim, Gary, and Graham made their beds, they can't make others lie in them now.

I will continue to push for holding TSM accountable, and fighting for better services in PA. Beyond that, Jerry, Mike, Tim, Gary, and Graham all got their days in court.

 

[Mixolydian]

Says the guy who clearly missed that I obviously HAD read the thread. Thanks for the tips.

I could read her posts to you, but I can't understand them for you.

 

[berkland4]

While I will wait for the final transcripts to be sure, I am told a very different set of events from someone who sat with you during the trial.

1. As part of his plea deal Tim told the OAG on 3/17/2017 that Graham was part of the plan they developed on 2/25/01 but just before that in the trial Tim told the court that he wasn't sure if Graham was part of the plan.

That seems like a pretty big deal when the trial is about whether Graham did or did not do anything as part of the incident. Tim tells the OAG that he was involved in the plan, then he changes his mind on the stand in front of the jury.

2. On cross Schultz admitted to Silver that on 3/8/2017 that he had made a statemtent saying that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy. Silver further asked if this was the first time he made such a statement to which Schultz replied correct.

Another pretty big deal. People have spent years trying to downplay what Mike said he saw, and now Gary says that Mike told him Jerry had his arms around the boy?

I would really like to see the transcripts to see what the actual statements were, along with a comparison to the plea hearing transcripts. Either way those are both very relevant to the case.

I know you have excuses for why these aren't big deals, so like I said, keep living the dream Linda.

It is possible, as Roxine indicated, that Ditka refreshed Tim's memory of something. I don't recall her doing that but am not afraid to admit when I might be wrong. I do know for certain that she refreshed Gary's memory by handing him some notes. It's not secret that Graham was involved in the "plan". The email exchange between them shows that they discussed it. Not a big deal and certainly no conspiracy. No indication at trial that Graham attempted to infuence Tim's decision and Tim himself said that it was him, and him alone, who came up with the plan.

With regard to Gary and the testimony about Sandusky having his arms around the boy, he admitted that the first time this version entered testimony was one week prior, during the meeting between his team and the AG's when making his plea deal. The defense attorney was quick to jump on that change in testimony because oddly enough, it changed after cutting his deal with the AG. So yes a big deal - in my opinion because it suggests to me that stories changed at the urging of the AG, not because they re-remembered something. Maybe it's just me but a prosecutor coercing testimony in exchange for a plea deal is unethical as hell.

 

[AvgUser]

The fact remains that Jack Raykovitz had the same knowledge as others and failed to pursue it. I have always been of the belief this entire epic shitstorm could have been avoided had Fina & Eshbach simply skipped down the reporting chain and nailed Dr. Raykovitz and Katherine Genovese. Everyone in public office would have won. We would have gotten relevant answers, and it wouldn't have spiraled into a Half a Billion dollar debacle destroying so many in its path - this is still a smoking ruin today.

A good thought, but who would have paid the victims? <sarcasm off>

Probably very much sooner than later the Shubin's and Kline's of the world would still have seen the bank vault five miles up the road and pounced like blood-sucking... never mind

 

[berkland4]

What Mike said doesn't matter? You have spent five years arguing that it did.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

This one is my favorite:

View embedded media

Now the latest grand speculation that you and the crowd have is Mike was drunk despite no evidence.

https://twitter.com/wensilver/status/846316459299164160

I smell some BS. I see folks who will look for any excuse to blame everyone BUT the admins.

What Mike saw or didn't see is irrelevant in the case against Dr. Spanier because Mike never spoke to Graham. The only thing that mattered in this trial is what Tim and Gary told Graham and both testified under oath that they never told Graham that there was any suspicion of anything sexual having happened. Case closed.

 

[Zenophile]

It has nothing to do with her efforts to lay some blame at TSM's steps. It has to do with her attempts to continually absolve CSS of wrongdoing despite the evidence. CSS told Mike they would investigate. That investigation considered of calling Wendell (when your lawyer tells you to report its a damn good idea to do that otherwise why are you paying the guy?) to see if they had to report and Tim talking to Jerry (who was close to Jerry who happened to have brought him to the football program, can anyone say conflict?). Tim, Gary, and Graham made their beds, they can't make others lie in them now.

I will continue to push for holding TSM accountable, and fighting for better services in PA. Beyond that, Jerry, Mike, Tim, Gary, and Graham all got their days in court.

Interesting. What evidence was it that convinced you of the criminality of their behavior?

 

[Bayou Lion]

Well - that's what Harmon said - and I have no idea how any of that works. The entire Gricar thing & 1998 is yet another rabbit hole to go down.

If this is true I've gain respect for Gricar because he wasn't going to make $hit up to prosecute someone.

 

[Bayou Lion]

Apples & Oranges.

It doesn't matter what Mike said, or what Tim said - the reporting landed on Jack's doorstep.

In the end - TSM CEO Dr. Jack Raykovitz had information. I've outlined somewhere on this board the failures of this CEO of a children's charity - you can sift thru my content for that, I'm not at a decent keyboard.

I obtained Mike's testimony simply for Laura Ditka's input and embellishments.

You had to hear her for yourself to get the full impact of her inflammatory statements in front of the jury. It was never about what Mike said - we have plenty of testimony to confirm the fact that there was no "anal rape" & that the AG imagineered that one.

I've told Mike myself he was used by the AG - and his life & career aspirations were destroyed over it. The AG never needed Mike in order to properly prosecute this case. And the AG still hasn't addressed Matt Sandusky's placement in that home - if they cared so much about "the victims".

I hope this answers your concerns. I am done trying to explain myself.

My thoughts on this entire epic shitstorm are in my Signature below.

The AG needed MM to tie PSU to this matter.

 

[SmithtonLion]

You never fail to make up stuff Nellie, thanks for chiming in though. I simply posted a ? on Twitter wondering why Wendy only procured (or only posted) the Mike and Jack transcripts but never called it a conspiracy. Its also no big secret that Wendy works in close tandem with Maribeth and PS4RS.

So the question is WHY doesn't Wendy care about the Curely and Schultz transcripts? Is it because she doesn't care that THEY are lying and tried to change their story from their pleas, and because that goes against the good old "the media and OAG made up the whole thing". In the PS4RS narrative the only people who are ever "lying" and have a motive in this are the folks who make the admins look bad, except when they make themselves look bad. Then it's just an innocent mistake or no big deal that they don't care about.

I think her best point, and the one that you cannot escape from is this: If you want them posted, post them.

Otherwise, I think that you value the accusation of her "hiding the truth" more than you value the actual truth.

 

[no1lion99]

Interesting. What evidence was it that convinced you of the criminality of their behavior?

Their guilty pleas.

 

[no1lion99]

What Mike saw or didn't see is irrelevant in the case against Dr. Spanier because Mike never spoke to Graham. The only thing that mattered in this trial is what Tim and Gary told Graham and both testified under oath that they never told Graham that there was any suspicion of anything sexual having happened. Case closed.

You folks can't even decide what matters anymore. For five years it mattered that Mike never told Tim and Gary that he saw rape. Now it doesn't matter, and what matters is only what Tim and Gary told Graham, regardless if it was true. It's like you never considered that Tim and Gary would change what they told Graham, which is the whole point of having other people testify in the Spanier trial.

You did get the last part right though, the case is closed. Tim and Gary plead guilty to EWOC and Graham was convicted. The last straw that you will hold onto is Graham's appeal, which now is a slam dunk for the PS4RS folks. Of course it was a slam dunk that the CSS trial would reveal the TRUTH! and also that Tim and Gary would never "flip", so I will wait to see what the lawyers and judges say instead.

 

[no1lion99]

It is possible, as Roxine indicated, that Ditka refreshed Tim's memory of something. I don't recall her doing that but am not afraid to admit when I might be wrong. I do know for certain that she refreshed Gary's memory by handing him some notes. It's not secret that Graham was involved in the "plan". The email exchange between them shows that they discussed it. Not a big deal and certainly no conspiracy. No indication at trial that Graham attempted to infuence Tim's decision and Tim himself said that it was him, and him alone, who came up with the plan.

With regard to Gary and the testimony about Sandusky having his arms around the boy, he admitted that the first time this version entered testimony was one week prior, during the meeting between his team and the AG's when making his plea deal. The defense attorney was quick to jump on that change in testimony because oddly enough, it changed after cutting his deal with the AG. So yes a big deal - in my opinion because it suggests to me that stories changed at the urging of the AG, not because they re-remembered something. Maybe it's just me but a prosecutor coercing testimony in exchange for a plea deal is unethical as hell.

You don't have the right source so not sure why you brought her into this.

 

[no1lion99]

I think her best point, and the one that you cannot escape from is this: If you want them posted, post them.

Otherwise, I think that you value the accusation of her "hiding the truth" more than you value the actual truth.

If you are looking for the truth you evaluate ALL of the evidence, not just selected portions. Its clear wendy only valued certain parts of the truth.

 

[Zenophile]

Their guilty pleas.

Interesting. Have you ever been involved in litigation?

 

[AvgUser]

Interesting. Have you ever been involved in litigation?

Exactly,

After watching how the jury completely f***ed up Spanier's trial decision, the pleas by TC and GS are easy to understand why they did what they did.

 

[no1lion99]

Interesting. Have you ever been involved in litigation?

So this is where we all speculate as to why they plead guilty? This is where everyone turns into the best Wikilawyers around. I have only ever been involved in small claims court. I don't have a law degree, and I didn't sleep at a holiday inn last night. But I do know that it's an indisputable fact that for the rest of their lives Tim and Gary have to check the criminal box on job applications. I know that because I have seen the piece of paper they both signed saying they committed a crime. These weren't poor folks crushed by the system. They were high profile, rich folks who had unlimited funds for legal counsel.

 

[SmithtonLion]

If you are looking for the truth you evaluate ALL of the evidence, not just selected portions. Its clear wendy only valued certain parts of the truth.

Perhaps. But you are free to post what you see fit.

 

[Zenophile]

So this is where we all speculate as to why they plead guilty? This is where everyone turns into the best Wikilawyers around. I have only ever been involved in small claims court. I don't have a law degree, and I didn't sleep at a holiday inn last night. But I do know that it's an indisputable fact that for the rest of their lives Tim and Gary have to check the criminal box on job applications. I know that because I have seen the piece of paper they both signed saying they committed a crime. These weren't poor folks crushed by the system. They were high profile, rich folks who had unlimited funds for legal counsel.

Can tell me more about these "unlimited funds?"

 

[Nellie R]

You folks can't even decide what matters anymore. For five years it mattered that Mike never told Tim and Gary that he saw rape. Now it doesn't matter, and what matters is only what Tim and Gary told Graham, regardless if it was true. It's like you never considered that Tim and Gary would change what they told Graham, which is the whole point of having other people testify in the Spanier trial.

You did get the last part right though, the case is closed. Tim and Gary plead guilty to EWOC and Graham was convicted. The last straw that you will hold onto is Graham's appeal, which now is a slam dunk for the PS4RS folks. Of course it was a slam dunk that the CSS trial would reveal the TRUTH! and also that Tim and Gary would never "flip", so I will wait to see what the lawyers and judges say instead.

JY, you are missing what people are saying, hopefully not on purpose.

For the points of law being argued at the Spanier Trial, what mattered was simply this:

No matter WHAT MMQ told C/S/S , did Spanier EWOC by conspiring to prevent a report from being made. That's it. The evidence at trial (provided by just about every prosecution witness, rendering no need for a defense) totaled up to: NO, Spanier did not conspire to EWOC.

ICYMI the Jury foreman was quoted in his interview as saying it took the jury next to no time to vote 12-0 NO on the two felony charges.

The PAOAG's case was so weak, Ditka and Schulte resorted to distractions and meaningless theatrics that had zero to do with the case they were prosecuting. Their strategy was- make the jury weep for V5 ( who never had anything at all to do with the 2001 MMQ incident) so they will vote for at least a misdemeanor.

The last holdout of the original 4 who didn't buy the theatrics until other jurors coerced them into it, our Henry Fonda Juror now regrets giving in to the other 8 jurors who were fooled.

IMHO Spanier will win on appeal to the Superior Court. This kind of nonsense by PAOAG probably won't fly at the higher level, just like the original Fina crapola bringing all the other charges didn't fly.

 

[dshumbero]

What Mike said doesn't matter? You have spent five years arguing that it did.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

This one is my favorite:

View embedded media

Now the latest grand speculation that you and the crowd have is Mike was drunk despite no evidence.

https://twitter.com/wensilver/status/846316459299164160

I smell some BS. I see folks who will look for any excuse to blame everyone BUT the admins.

Really, go fiddle with yourself.

 

[Nellie R]

You never fail to make up stuff Nellie, thanks for chiming in though. I simply posted a ? on Twitter wondering why Wendy only procured (or only posted) the Mike and Jack transcripts but never called it a conspiracy. Its also no big secret that Wendy works in close tandem with Maribeth and PS4RS.

So the question is WHY doesn't Wendy care about the Curely and Schultz transcripts? Is it because she doesn't care that THEY are lying and tried to change their story from their pleas, and because that goes against the good old "the media and OAG made up the whole thing". In the PS4RS narrative the only people who are ever "lying" and have a motive in this are the folks who make the admins look bad, except when they make themselves look bad. Then it's just an innocent mistake or no big deal that they don't care about.

What are you quoting my post for? Why don't you go read Wendy's?


I have no affiliation with PS4RS and I also know Wendy pretty much works independently as well.

9 times out of 10 we all end up with the same analytical results. I find that to simply be confirmation that we are on the right track.

Why the unwarranted insults? I have ZERO need to "make things up." My track record for integrity speaks for itself. (You, on the other hand, do not have the same record, BTW)

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Really, go fiddle with yourself.

his reputation as Moron John is getting sealed as much as Funchuckles' reputation for being an unhinged sore loser

 

[Adlee73]

More links - on the charges becoming public, first reported by Ganim.

11/4/2011, 2:26pm, Charges filed (publicly) in Centre County Court
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/former_penn_state_coach_jerry.html

11/4/2011, 5:13pm, Charging documents made public (link in story)
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/charges_against_sandusky_remov.html

Link in the above article has the charging documents (actually, just the docket shee that list the charges) from PennLive (3 pages from docket sheet). Note the time stamp of 2:21pm.
http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/other/sandusky charges.pdf

According to a later article, Lou Prato explained that it wasn't Ganim who discovered the charges were public on the docket sheet. It was actually Gary Sinderson at WJAC who discovers it & tipped off Ganim.
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/55649/penn-state-coverage-shows-media-at-worst/page/2

"Sinderson is my kind of old-time reporter, and he’s not your average cameraman or videographer. It was Sinderson who first discovered the grand jury’s report was posted on the Internet that fateful Friday, Nov. 4 — placed there one day prematurely, by mistake — and then he posted it on his station’s website, and then he surprised Ganim with the news."

But even Prato got it wrong. It wasn't the grand jury report (or presentment) that became public, just the charges.

Nice work Jimmy. Speaking of leaks I could sure use your help digging more into the original leak. Here's what I've published so far but I have found a few more things you may find interesting that also tie into other leaks/tips. http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/r-r/188-da-office-sandusky-information-leak
DM me on Twitter if you get a chance & are interested.

 

[Adlee73]

I want to share some things about giving the "benefit of the doubt" and "considering the middle ground."

First, here is the tweet I have pinned at the top of my twitter account. It links to an article written by Ken Lanning back in 1996, and it's got a lot of information that's been helpful to me when digging into and trying to understand the scandal.

View embedded media

http://www.icmec.org/wp-content/upl...Backlash-and-Professionalism-Lanning-1996.pdf

Here's some extracts from that article that that are worth thinking about:

Consider the middle ground.

Most complex issues have room for difference of opinion.

Reality is often somewhere between the two extremes.

Most people would agree that just because one detail in a [] story turns out to be accurate does not mean that every detail is accurate. But many people seem to believe that if you can disprove one part of a [story], then the entire [story] is false.

Critique yourself first.

We need to make sure our own houses are in order and our information is accurate and reliable before criticizing others.​

Regarding how I approach all this stuff, I try to extend the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I actually went into some detail on this in an email I sent to @psudukie last year:

Here's how I look at things when I review things. I start from the premise that everyone is telling the truth - as they understand it, when they gave their statements. I notice apparent contradictions lots of places. Assessing those contradictions requires an analysis of the context. When was the statement given? What info was available at the time? What were the prior questions and what was the likely state of the responder - was he under stress or placed in a defensive posture? For example: the first question Curley faced at the GJ about the 2001 incident, was whether Mike told him about "anal intercourse". Curley said, "Absolutely not." Mike's own testimony confirmed this later. But it placed Curley in a defensive posture and it would have colored his responses to later questions. When he [was asked whether he heard] about other [sexual] incidents he said no. We know today that he had some sort of knowledge about 1998, but it certainly wasn't "anal intercourse."

Anyway, when giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone, and recognizing not everyone has all knowledge, you can start to make sense of things. (It doesn't mean I can convince anyone of my conclusions, though.)​

A simple way to better understand Curley's response in his original testimony may be to not assume he believed as much as others that Sandusky was guilty at the time he testified. Not A lot of info was out there in January 2011 when he gave his testimony.

 

[no1lion99]

Can tell me more about these "unlimited funds?"

They came from the same account that paid Jerrys victims.

 

[no1lion99]

JY, you are missing what people are saying, hopefully not on purpose.

For the points of law being argued at the Spanier Trial, what mattered was simply this:

No matter WHAT MMQ told C/S/S , did Spanier EWOC by conspiring to prevent a report from being made. That's it. The evidence at trial (provided by just about every prosecution witness, rendering no need for a defense) totaled up to: NO, Spanier did not conspire to EWOC.

ICYMI the Jury foreman was quoted in his interview as saying it took the jury next to no time to vote 12-0 NO on the two felony charges.

The PAOAG's case was so weak, Ditka and Schulte resorted to distractions and meaningless theatrics that had zero to do with the case they were prosecuting. Their strategy was- make the jury weep for V5 ( who never had anything at all to do with the 2001 MMQ incident) so they will vote for at least a misdemeanor.

The last holdout of the original 4 who didn't buy the theatrics until other jurors coerced them into it, our Henry Fonda Juror now regrets giving in to the other 8 jurors who were fooled.

IMHO Spanier will win on appeal to the Superior Court. This kind of nonsense by PAOAG probably won't fly at the higher level, just like the original Fina crapola bringing all the other charges didn't fly.

"People" may be saying different things, but the "mike doesn't matter" argument stems from a Wendy asking for his testimony. That's a different argument than what legal issues were in Grahams trial.

 

[Zenophile]

They came from the same account that paid Jerrys victims.

Let's assume that's true for the moment. Would those accounts have also funded the appeals?

 

[dshumbero]

"People" may be saying different things, but the "mike doesn't matter" argument stems from a Wendy asking for his testimony. That's a different argument than what legal issues were in Grahams trial.

Is that you JockstrapJonnie?

 

[dshumbero]

"People" may be saying different things, but the "mike doesn't matter" argument stems from a Wendy asking for his testimony. That's a different argument than what legal issues were in Grahams trial.

Did your mom scold you for shitting in the bed again, Jonnie?

 

[Adlee73]

its very important for people to understand ROLES in these types of situations (vs who they are as people)

I can say with 100% confidence the Joe did the right thing with the information he had in his ROLE at that time. Not a single soul who understands these things will refute that. But then folks let their emotions take over and try and assume "everyone" made mistakes when the best thing to actually analyze everyone's actions in comparison to their roles.

For example - Mike's relatives on here seem to think that the most recent events somehow exonerate or even worse yet "validate" his actions. They do nothing of the sort. Keep in mind Mike is getting paid NOT because of how he handled 2001/2, but rather of how Penn State handled him in 2011
* I wouldn't wish this on anyone, including Mike, but no recent events validate his actions

The fact that the prosecution could actually use JR as a PROSECUTION WITNESS speaks of nothing more than abuse of political power

I do respect Joe but I am not a cultist or blind loyalist - I'm a "factualist" - just made that up!

It's especially annoying considering Mark Brennan told Mike about Sandusky being investigated way back in June 2009 & Mike didn't seem to think the matter warranted coming forward to the OAG apparently. Yet somehow it was CSS covering up & withholding evidence. Somehow they were the ones letting Jerry run free. Somehow "knowing" you saw Sandusky molest & seemingly sodomize a child & staying mum despite knowing the OAG was seeking evidence is not grounds for losing your job.

 

[no1lion99]

What are you quoting my post for? Why don't you go read Wendy's?


I have no affiliation with PS4RS and I also know Wendy pretty much works independently as well.

9 times out of 10 we all end up with the same analytical results. I find that to simply be confirmation that we are on the right track.

Why the unwarranted insults? I have ZERO need to "make things up." My track record for integrity speaks for itself. (You, on the other hand, do not have the same record, BTW)

What are you quoting my post for? Why don't you go read Wendy's?


I have no affiliation with PS4RS and I also know Wendy pretty much works independently as well.

9 times out of 10 we all end up with the same analytical results. I find that to simply be confirmation that we are on the right track.

Why the unwarranted insults? I have ZERO need to "make things up." My track record for integrity speaks for itself. (You, on the other hand, do not have the same record, BTW)

I don't think you know Wendy as well as you think. I say that because I have been in several rooms with her during this cause, and strangely the same folks are usually there, namely Maribeth. Wendy's dedication is admirable, but I feel has become misguided. I respect her reason for being in this fight, but disagree with her actions recently.

Regards integrity and track record:

“Few and mean as my gifts may be, I actually am, and do not need for my own assurance or the assurance of my fellows any secondary testimony.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson