No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"

[Legion of Lions]

TSM shoulda been hammered. Start with a subpoena and seizing all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more. Interview all officers under oath. Interview dozens of other kids to see if they knew anything or were victims. Do a forensic audit. Interview outside contractors including the BoT under oath. If the evidence show necessity, subpoena the contractors records.

Charge a few TSM officers with negligence and welfare of child charges just for allowing JS to take children on road trips after '98. Additional charges for not having standard protective policies in place, especially after '98 or after the Catholic Church scandals when such policies became SOP....like no one takes a child off campus unsupervised. Make them sweat to force cooperation.

You know....standard investigative methodology.

You realize that today there exists enough information on Corbett, Fina, Freeh, Kelly and the rest of the PornDog network that there is AT LEAST "probable cause" for violation of their oaths of Office.....followed by Criminal Abuse of State resources, probable election fund crimes, Criminal Conspiracy and a host of other crimes. There is no longer any reason for the State of PA to coverup for these criminals! They need to be charged and the State needs to own up to the damages that it has created IN A PUBLIC PRESS CONFERENCE stating the fact that ....under the new administration in PA "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW"!!!

This will refute publicly that from 2010 to today - "..no one was above the law EXCEPT PA public officials..."!!

 

[MtNittany]

TSM shoulda been hammered. Start with a subpoena and seizing all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more. Interview all officers under oath. Interview dozens of other kids to see if they knew anything or were victims. Do a forensic audit. Interview outside contractors including the BoT under oath. If the evidence show necessity, subpoena the contractors records.

Charge a few TSM officers with negligence and welfare of child charges just for allowing JS to take children on road trips after '98. Additional charges for not having standard protective policies in place, especially after '98 or after the Catholic Church scandals when such policies became SOP....like no one takes a child off campus unsupervised. Make them sweat to force cooperation.

You know....standard investigative methodology.

All this would make perfect sense if any abuse actually took place (which is certainly debatable). When the first variable of a long equation is 0*, the rest of the variables don't really matter.

 

[PSU Dave]

I'm not Marsh. I'm the same person that I was 8-9 years ago when I made this screen name. Sorry that I don't wear the tinfoil hat.

Isn't that about the time frame when Marsh disappeared? Also find it odd that you're an expert on Philly sports like Marsh was. Just saying.

 

[bkmtnittany1]

I would imagine Wick Sollers will be using Snedden. His momma didn't raise a fool.

 

[step.eng69]

Yes the phantom "OAG changed the transcript" theory that has zero evidence to back it up. For folks who always hate when people assume or embellish what Joe or Tim or Gary or Gaham knew, you all spend a lot of time assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[The Spin Meister]

All this would make perfect sense if any abuse actually took place (which is certainly debatable). When the first variable of a long equation is 0*, the rest of the variables don't really matter.

-----

Wow, and I thought I was the Spin Meister. Its not up to investigators to determine guilt or innocence. They just investigate accusations, of which there were plenty.

People were fired and/or placed on leave just on accusations. A program nearly destroyed. Huge fines levied. Reputations of people, students, employees, and institutions damaged beyond repair. Yet you are saying there was not enough evidence to justify an investigation?

 

[psugisher]

Yes the phantom "OAG changed the transcript" theory that has zero evidence to back it up. For folks who always hate when people assume or embellish what Joe or Tim or Gary or Gaham knew, you all spend a lot of time assuming facts not in evidence.

Some people realize part of communication is inflection of voice, body language, etc.. whether it was transcribed correctly or not, I have no clue. The intentionally leaked grand jury report contained this and the report is designed/slanted towards the prosecution of Sandusky, so it may have been interpreted or presented as Joe saying something sexual occurred because that is their intent.

Not having any cross examine follow up to ask Joe what he meant by a sexual nature is a clear deficiency that even you should be able to acknowledge. "A sexual nature" to an 80 year old man isn't the same definition to a 20 year old man. Again, if you don't see this, you are blinded by your bias. Also, surrounding the 3 words, "a sexual nature" 3 other words were repeated in multiple ways, "I don't know."

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Why is there a picture of an actor from a hit television show at the top of the page? Looks like a blog, not an article from a reputable media outlet.

From a very reputable blogger with insider connections

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Isn't that about the time frame when Marsh disappeared? Also find it odd that you're an expert on Philly sports like Marsh was. Just saying.

Marsh creep disappeared right after Lubrano outed him for being a fraud, loser and non-graduate. That was closer to 2012-2013

 

[pandaczar12]

Some people realize part of communication is inflection of voice, body language, etc.. whether it was transcribed correctly or not, I have no clue. The intentionally leaked grand jury report contained this and the report is designed/slanted towards the prosecution of Sandusky, so it may have been interpreted or presented as Joe saying something sexual occurred because that is their intent.

Not having any cross examine follow up to ask Joe what he meant by a sexual nature is a clear deficiency that even you should be able to acknowledge. "A sexual nature" to an 80 year old man isn't the same definition to a 20 year old man. Again, if you don't see this, you are blinded by your bias. Also, surrounding the 3 words, "a sexual nature" 3 other words were repeated in multiple ways, "I don't know."

I agree with your key points that he qualified it with "I don't know" multiple times, it wasn't cross examined, and we've never heard it to verify it's accuracy. But I would like to add that the phrase "a sexual nature" is undefined. It means nothing to a 20 year old or an 80 year old. The only way it actually makes sense is with a question mark at the end of that sentence. Wasn't Scott Paterno working on this?

 

[getmyjive11]

Isn't that about the time frame when Marsh disappeared? Also find it odd that you're an expert on Philly sports like Marsh was. Just saying.

That's fine, but I don't even know who Marsh is. If you want to believe I am him instead of just someone with a different opinion, that's your prerogative. A PSU fan being from eastern PA isn't exactly unique.

 

[getmyjive11]

Some people realize part of communication is inflection of voice, body language, etc.. whether it was transcribed correctly or not, I have no clue. The intentionally leaked grand jury report contained this and the report is designed/slanted towards the prosecution of Sandusky, so it may have been interpreted or presented as Joe saying something sexual occurred because that is their intent.

Not having any cross examine follow up to ask Joe what he meant by a sexual nature is a clear deficiency that even you should be able to acknowledge. "A sexual nature" to an 80 year old man isn't the same definition to a 20 year old man. Again, if you don't see this, you are blinded by your bias. Also, surrounding the 3 words, "a sexual nature" 3 other words were repeated in multiple ways, "I don't know."

Could you explain one act that an 80 year old man would describe as being if a sexual nature between a boy and a mature male that isn't illegal?

 

[BobPSU92]

All this would make perfect sense if any abuse actually took place (which is certainly debatable). When the first variable of a long equation is 0*, the rest of the variables don't really matter.

You don't find it odd that charges were brought against sandusky and the second mile was never even investigated? I am not going to debate sandusky's guilt or innocence, but how does the oag investigate and then charge sandusky and leave the second mile completely out of it? How does the oag use raykovitz, the only mandated reporter in the Penn State case, as a witness against spanier?

 

[MtNittany]

You don't find it odd that charges were brought against sandusky and the second mile was never even investigated?

Yep. One of them is wrong and in-congruent w/ the actual facts. Which one though?

 

[royboy]

Could you explain one act that an 80 year old man would describe as being if a sexual nature between a boy and a mature male that isn't illegal?

One he didn't do, didn't see and really had no idea of what happened?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

TSM shoulda been hammered. Start with a subpoena and seizing all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more. Interview all officers under oath. Interview dozens of other kids to see if they knew anything or were victims. Do a forensic audit. Interview outside contractors including the BoT under oath. If the evidence show necessity, subpoena the contractors records.

Charge a few TSM officers with negligence and welfare of child charges just for allowing JS to take children on road trips after '98. Additional charges for not having standard protective policies in place, especially after '98 or after the Catholic Church scandals when such policies became SOP....like no one takes a child off campus unsupervised. Make them sweat to force cooperation.

You know....standard investigative methodology.

The OAG does NOT need a "subpoena" to go into a charity whenever it feels like to seize "all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more.". AG Corbutt had the POWERS AND AUTHORITY to do all of these things when he received the formal Indicated Report of Child Sexual Abuse at TSM from the Pennsylvania DPW on 3/3/2009!!! And Corrupt Corbutt knew that the DPW had alleged all of these criminal activities taking place at TSM as confirmed in Corrupt Corbutt's own SWIGJ Appication on 5/1/2009:

The Pennsylvania State Police are pursuing an investigation based upon a founded Clinton County Children and Youth Services complaint alleging sexual assault by a Centre county adult male upon a juvenile male with whom he became acquainted through his sponsorship of a· charity for disadvantaged youth. It is believed that other minor males have been similarly assaulted through this connection. The investigation concerns allegations of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors in Clinton and Centre counties.

Complete unadulterated nonsense that the AG required a subpoena to INVESTIGATE The Second Mile in March 2009! The AG had all the powers and authorities they needed to raid TSM's Offices in March 2009 and to imply otherwise is utter tripe and garbage.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Not everyone took Latin. I did - four years. And I can tell you the official motto of the PSU BoT:

"Quid lucrum mihi istic est?"

"What's in it for me?"

What is the Latin phrase for "We are the most corrupt @ssholes, ignoring our fiduciary duties, that you'd ever hope to find on a single Board". Not sure if the "@" translates well...

 

[step.eng69]

The OAG does NOT need a "subpoena" to go into a charity whenever it feels like to seize "all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more.". AG Corbutt had the POWERS AND AUTHORITY to do all of these things when he received the formal Indicated Report of Child Sexual Abuse at TSM from the Pennsylvania DPW on 3/3/2009!!! And Corrupt Corbutt knew that the DPW had alleged all of these criminal activities taking place at TSM as confirmed in Corrupt Corbutt's own SWIGJ Appication on 5/1/2009:

​

Complete unadulterated nonsense that the AG required a subpoena to INVESTIGATE The Second Mile in March 2009! The AG had all the powers and authorities they needed to raid TSM's Offices in March 2009 and to imply otherwise is utter tripe and garbage.

Sir, you are correct

 

[no1lion99]

Some people realize part of communication is inflection of voice, body language, etc.. whether it was transcribed correctly or not, I have no clue. The intentionally leaked grand jury report contained this and the report is designed/slanted towards the prosecution of Sandusky, so it may have been interpreted or presented as Joe saying something sexual occurred because that is their intent.

Not having any cross examine follow up to ask Joe what he meant by a sexual nature is a clear deficiency that even you should be able to acknowledge. "A sexual nature" to an 80 year old man isn't the same definition to a 20 year old man. Again, if you don't see this, you are blinded by your bias. Also, surrounding the 3 words, "a sexual nature" 3 other words were repeated in multiple ways, "I don't know."

Joe's statement is internally consistent with "sexual" not being a question.

The question is set up by the AG:

"Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?"

Joe replies:

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster."

Then elaborates:

"It was a sexual nature."

Then further qualifies THAT statement with another:

"I’m not sure exactly what it was."
i.e. Mike implied sexual content but no specific act

Then adds for good measure:

"I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."

Yes I agree, many folks have differing views of what constitutes "sexual nature". That isn't how I read Joe's words in context, but rather that he didn't have the proper vocabulary to describe what Mike told him. These are different things and require less fanciful thinking than some grand conspiracy.

What I do know is that to the only licensed psychologist (that we know of) who ever evaluated one of these incidents Jerry's tickle and hug games in showers late at night with young boys were very clearly a concern. I don't think you need an advanced degree in psychology though to think that a naked boy in a private shower with a naked elderly man late on a Friday night should be looked into by a professional or an MDIT.

 

[getmyjive11]

One he didn't do, didn't see and really had no idea of what happened?

One that he was told vaguely about... but not vague enough to preclude him from knowing it was of a sexual nature.

 

[The Spin Meister]

The OAG does NOT need a "subpoena" to go into a charity whenever it feels like to seize "all documents, phone records, computers, cell phones, faxes, minutes of meetings, emails, texts, financial/bank records, and more.". AG Corbutt had the POWERS AND AUTHORITY to do all of these things when he received the formal Indicated Report of Child Sexual Abuse at TSM from the Pennsylvania DPW on 3/3/2009!!! And Corrupt Corbutt knew that the DPW had alleged all of these criminal activities taking place at TSM as confirmed in Corrupt Corbutt's own SWIGJ Appication on 5/1/2009:

​

Complete unadulterated nonsense that the AG required a subpoena to INVESTIGATE The Second Mile in March 2009! The AG had all the powers and authorities they needed to raid TSM's Offices in March 2009 and to imply otherwise is utter tripe and garbage.

----
Calm down there, hyper-breathe. We are on the same side.

I am not a lawyer and don't know the minutia of our legal system. If no subpoena is required, all the more disgusting and suspicious that no investigation was undertaken.

 

[marshall23]

In fairness, there was an incident at Penn State that resulted in Sandusky being prohibited from bringing Second Mile youths to campus facilities. Curley met with Raykovitz to inform him of this incident and resulting prohibition. At the very least he had an obligation to respond to that.

"We've had to tell him to back off kids before."

 

[91Joe95]

Marsh creep disappeared right after Lubrano outed him for being a fraud, loser and non-graduate. That was closer to 2012-2013

Actually, Marsh outed himself, which made it all the more hysterical.

 

[marshall23]

One that he was told vaguely about... but not vague enough to preclude him from knowing it was of a sexual nature.

Joe was interviewed by Sassano and Co. right before he testified. LOL

 

[getmyjive11]

Joe was interviewed by Sassano and Co. right before he testified. LOL

So it was all Joe's fault? Okay?

 

[marshall23]

So it was all Joe's fault? Okay?

Run with it shitwad.

 

[getmyjive11]

Run with it shitwad.

That's what you are saying, not me. Your implication is that Joe crafted his testimony around what Sassanian told him. If so, how is it not his fault?

 

[step.eng69]

Run with it shitwad.

Any board siblings want to rent my monkey for the afternoon?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I am not a lawyer and don't know the minutia of our legal system. If no subpoena is required, all the more disgusting and suspicious that no investigation was undertaken.

In Pennsylvania, all Charities and Non-Profits continue their existence at the pleasure of the State's standing AG (in fact, such entities must apply to the AG to even exist in the first place!....i.e., if their seminal application is rejected by the AG, they never exist in the first place.). The AG needs no reason whatsoever to go in and inspect or audit the entity without notice -- LET ALONE, "with reason" provided by the Charity's other State Regulator, the DPW, implying criminal activity of any kind which defacto would make the entity "fraudulent", especially when the AG has evidence from the Charity's licensor, the PA DPW, that the Charity was founded by the Founder, and most powerful regulatory-listed "Control Person", for the fraudulent purpose of Sexually Abusing Children!

IOW, your statement, "If no subpoena is required, all the more disgusting and suspicious that no investigation was undertaken." is spot on!

 

[psugisher]

Could you explain one act that an 80 year old man would describe as being if a sexual nature between a boy and a mature male that isn't illegal?

None, but clarification would be needed to know what Joe meant. Joe knew why he was there.. and the attorney used the word fondling to lead Joe to where the attorney wanted Joe to go. Hugging might be "a sexual nature" to Joe. I don't know. You don't know. He was never asked to clarify what he meant and we certainly don't know if his voice inflected the way he would if he was asking a question.

 

[pandaczar12]

Could you explain one act that an 80 year old man would describe as being if a sexual nature between a boy and a mature male that isn't illegal?

That's what you are saying, not me. Your implication is that Joe crafted his testimony around what Sassanian told him. If so, how is it not his fault?

GMJ11... first dazzles us with his critical thinking ability, now with his writing ability.

One that he was told vaguely about... but not vague enough to preclude him from knowing it was of a sexual nature.

Which might mean something if that phrase had any meaning, and wasn't qualified multiple times. I'd also like to point out that he wasn't cross examined and we've never heard his testimony to verify it's accuracy. So please stop pathetically clinging to it.

 

[WeR0206]

GMJ11... first dazzles us with his critical thinking ability, now with his writing ability.



Which might mean something if that phrase had any meaning, and wasn't qualified multiple times. I'd also like to point out that he wasn't cross examined and we've never heard his testimony to verify it's accuracy. So please stop pathetically clinging to it.

In addition to that, as others have mentioned, the guy who read Joe's testimony into the record was James Barker, a Corbett crony involved in GJ's (who Kane fired).

Anyone who still clings to Joe's brief GJ testimony is showing a bias IMO. Joe makes it abundantly clear the only thing HE KNEW FOR SURE was that MM was upset and some sort of inappropriate shower took place between JS and a youth. Joe's statement to the press after the crap hit the fan reaffirms this same notion.

 

[psugisher]

Joe's statement is internally consistent with "sexual" not being a question.

The question is set up by the AG:

"Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?"

Joe replies:

"Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster."

Then elaborates:

"It was a sexual nature."

Then further qualifies THAT statement with another:

"I’m not sure exactly what it was."
i.e. Mike implied sexual content but no specific act

Then adds for good measure:

"I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."

Yes I agree, many folks have differing views of what constitutes "sexual nature". That isn't how I read Joe's words in context, but rather that he didn't have the proper vocabulary to describe what Mike told him. These are different things and require less fanciful thinking than some grand conspiracy.

What I do know is that to the only licensed psychologist (that we know of) who ever evaluated one of these incidents Jerry's tickle and hug games in showers late at night with young boys were very clearly a concern. I don't think you need an advanced degree in psychology though to think that a naked boy in a private shower with a naked elderly man late on a Friday night should be looked into by a professional or an MDIT.

I'll agree with you that Joe didn't have the words to describe. He was led by the AG with the word fondling, he knew why he was there and he was fumbling for words and used sexual nature. I just don't see why you see those words and believe Joe was absolutely sure about the use of them but they couldn't have been used because he was simply struggling to remember and communicate. You can read it how you want, but clarification was needed if you wanted to actually understand what he was saying.

And I don't believe it was a private shower.. it was a community shower. Showering after workouts is pretty normal or at least it used to be. What did happen to that psychology report anyway? Who ignored it again?

 

[getmyjive11]

None, but clarification would be needed to know what Joe meant. Joe knew why he was there.. and the attorney used the word fondling to lead Joe to where the attorney wanted Joe to go. Hugging might be "a sexual nature" to Joe. I don't know. You don't know. He was never asked to clarify what he meant and we certainly don't know if his voice inflected the way he would if he was asking a question.

Would you consider a man hugging a boy in the shower as appropriate? To the point where you would not suspect possible CSA? Was it normal for grown men to be grabbing boys as part of showering after working out?

 

[francofan]

Would you consider a man hugging a boy in the shower as appropriate? To the point where you would not suspect possible CSA? Was it normal for grown men to be grabbing boys as part of showering after working out?

The 98 incident that I believe you are referencing was investigated thoroughly for possible CSA by CYS and the Centre County DA with the results being that Sandusky was not indicated and no charges filed.

 

[getmyjive11]

The 98 incident that I believe you are referencing was investigated thoroughly for possible CSA by CYS and the Centre County DA with the results being that Sandusky was not indicated and no charges filed.

So what? It was still suspected CSA and should have been (and was) investigated. And just because he never admitted to more than a bear hug doesn't mean that more didn't happen. It was still a sexual act that our poor laws didn't see as a crime.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I'll agree with you that Joe didn't have the words to describe. He was led by the AG with the word fondling, he knew why he was there and he was fumbling for words and used sexual nature. I just don't see why you see those words and believe Joe was absolutely sure about the use of them but they couldn't have been used because he was simply struggling to remember and communicate. You can read it how you want, but clarification was needed if you wanted to actually understand what he was saying.

And I don't believe it was a private shower.. it was a community shower. Showering after workouts is pretty normal or at least it used to be. What did happen to that psychology report anyway? Who ignored it again?

don't forget, Joe did an interview with law enforcement a few hours prior to this testimony. He did not use the words "sexual nature"

 

[Mixolydian]

Would you consider a man hugging a boy in the shower as appropriate? To the point where you would not suspect possible CSA? Was it normal for grown men to be grabbing boys as part of showering after working out?

Long way between "knowing it was of a sexual nature" and "suspecting possible CSA". Long way. You said both on this very page. Make up your mind dipshit. Or maybe just say "I don't know what you would call it". Because you don't, just like Joe didn't. Go fondle yourself.

 

[no1lion99]

You don't find it odd that charges were brought against sandusky and the second mile was never even investigated? I am not going to debate sandusky's guilt or innocence, but how does the oag investigate and then charge sandusky and leave the second mile completely out of it? How does the oag use raykovitz, the only mandated reporter in the Penn State case, as a witness against spanier?

While I agree with your frustration on TSM skating, if you haven't already seen it I highly recommend you read Jimmys post on whether JR was indeed a mandated reporter.

It raises the possibility that no one in this case was an MR, although if you are going to treat

I'll agree with you that Joe didn't have the words to describe. He was led by the AG with the word fondling, he knew why he was there and he was fumbling for words and used sexual nature. I just don't see why you see those words and believe Joe was absolutely sure about the use of them but they couldn't have been used because he was simply struggling to remember and communicate. You can read it how you want, but clarification was needed if you wanted to actually understand what he was saying.

And I don't believe it was a private shower.. it was a community shower. Showering after workouts is pretty normal or at least it used to be. What did happen to that psychology report anyway? Who ignored it again?

Lasch football locker room showers were not open to the general public. Let's call it "restricted", would that be ok? Having been a member of the staff Jerry would know when would be a good time to get some slap and tickle time with his "Friends" from the TSM program.

 

[Legion of Lions]

So what? It was still suspected CSA and should have been (and was) investigated. And just because he never admitted to more than a bear hug doesn't mean that more didn't happen. It was still a sexual act that our poor laws didn't see as a crime.

So what you are saying is....just because it was investigated THOROUGHLY by legal authorities "...doesn't mean that more didn't happen..."

By MORE aren't you saying something like - A LEGAL investigation is NOT ENOUGH - We have a "Moral responsibility" to go beyond "the minimum LEGAL standards" set forth by our laws.

We now need to admit that this incident just ignored the Alien Abduction of this child that could have happened here on Penn State Campus!!!! Whose to say that this crime also did not happen just because "he" never admitted to more???