It seems to me that the I don't know line is something you cling to. I love how you totally ignore the rest of his testimony which points to being told of possible CSA.
No Sex Scandal at Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job"
- Thread starter lubrano
- Start date
Not from victim 2. Congrats to Jerry on that one.
So who is the "third-party eyewitness" you keep referencing? BTW, it is impossible for JVP - or anyone else - to be a "third-party eyewitness" as only the party doing the seeing can be an "eyewitness". Your statement in this case is doubly absurd as the OAG's (and doddle-brains) claimed "eyewitness" has testified under oath in a PA Court of Law multiple times, including the 30th PA SWIGJ he testified before, that he was, IN FACT, NOT AN EYEWITNESS diametrically contrary to the OAG's claim as to how he would testify.
I think we both know who the eyewitness is. If you disapprove of the"third party" part, that's fine. It doesn't change anything with ejat I said.
He absolutely was an eyewitness.
He wasn't an "eyewitness" to the OAG's Indictment claims according to the legal definition and his own under oath testimony (including to the 30th SWIGJ) you insufferable, full of nothing but bull $hit douche-bag. You repeatedly saying it's so doesn't actually make it so idiot-boy.
Yes he was an eyewitness. Everyone knows he was and accepted it as fact. Jerry is a guilty, sick pedophile. Accept reality.
No idiot-boy, McQueary testified multiple times under oath that he DID NOT SEE what he was SPECULATING about - including making this testimony to the 30th SWIGJ, the SWIGJ he actually testified before, as confirmed by a 30th SWIGJ Grand Juror. There is a very clear legal definition of "eyewitnessing" something and SPECULATING with "relative" confidence absolutely VIOLATES the legal definition and is not "eyewitnessing" something moron.
You understand that CSA is not limited to anal sex, right?
Jive
It's like I have to check in every so often just to straighten you out
Again repeat after me
JOE DID EXACTLY AS HE SHOULD HAVE, IN HIS ROLE, WITH THE INFORMATION HE WAS GIVEN, AT THAT TIME
now as a side note
He was not a WITNESS TO ANYTHING
He was, a supervisor who received a report from a subordinate
He looked up in the book what to do
Then he did that
It's a matter of Joe's 'it was a sexual nature' being followed by a period or a question mark by the transcriber. The difference is obvious, or it should be, right?
The same, in effect.
God damnit. It does not matter how Joe described what he thinks Mike told him ten years later. There's a bunch of you who are total, insufferable blockheads for continuing to bring this up. What matters is how Joe responded in 2001. Stop being so bloody stupid. Did you not read Mike's testimony at the Spanier trial. There was no mention of sexual nature to Joe in 2001. Now STFU please with this talk.
Ten years later does not matter. 2001 is all that matters. How is it that the blockheads don't get what is so clear to anyone with a brain?
Last edited:
You can play all the silly little games you like idiot-boy - THE FACT remains that Mike McQuery DID NOT SEE the things that the OAG claimed he saw and would act as an "eyewitness" about in both the 33rd SWIGJ Presentment which supported the accompanying Indictments. Mike McQueary not only defacto testified under oath in a PA Court of Law multiple times (including the 30th SWIGJ, the actual SWIGJ and Grand Jurors he testified to, not the 33rd SWIGJ or its Grand Jurors) that he did not IN FACT see those things, and could only speculate about them, but he added for good measure that HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE HE HAD SEEN SUCH A THING! "Anyone" in his testimony would have included all OAG Investigators as well as JVP, his father, Dr. Dranov, Curley, Schultz or anyone else you phucking insufferable douche-bag.
Again, you can twist and turn and move the goal posts as much as you like, but it will NEVER CHANGE THE FACT that Mike McQueary via his own testimony under oath in a PA Court of Law DIAMETRICALLY REFUTED the OAG's claims as to what he SAW and "Eyewitnessed"! Speculating about something is not SEEING something or "eyewitnessing" that thing and by Mike McQueary's own testimony, he states that the OAG is LYING when they say he said he SAW or EYEWITNESSED what they claim! He only SPECULATED about such things at the OAG's request, but never said he SAW or EYEWITNESSED those things -- IOW idiot-boy, the OAG made those claims up out of whole clothe and put them into Mike McQueary's mouth according to none other than Mike McQueary!!!
People are smart enough to figure the gist of things without being told explicitly what happened.
Indecent assault on a minor is CSA. MM testified that he never saw anal rape, however, he did see skin to skin contact in a compromising position and he heard sexual noises. He witnessed CSA.
You truly are a moron and a douche-bag.....Mike McQueary DID NOT act as an "eyewitness" to what the OAG directly stated he would testify to in both their Presentment and accompanying Indictments - IN FACT, he acted as a direct witness to absolutely REFUTE the claims of the OAG as to what he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" (i.e., Mike McQuery's own words and testimony under oath, including to the 30th SWIGJ, prove that the OAG Intentionally MISREPESENTED - otherwise known as lying - Mike McQueary's testimony to them in regards to what he SAW and EYEWITNESSED.). Speculating on something - even if you are asked to speculate by the OAG - is NOT EYEWITNESSING something you insufferable idiot.
Last edited:
You understand that overcharging is not exactly unique to this case, right? The system worked... Jerry was found not guilty of that charge. Why are you so hung up on it? Regardless, he witnessed CSA and JS was convicted of such. Don't be mad at me for stating reality.
But no anal rape and that's the singular statement that set off the firestorm against Joe and C/S/S. Without that bogus anal rape claim we are dealing with an entirely different narrative
No it wouldn't. Just having MM catch Sandusky in a shower with a boy and telling Joe about it would have been enough. People would have heard about the other boys that Jerry had sex with and still been outraged that it was not stopped in 2001.
So you're opinion is Jerry Sandusky did not engage inappropriately wiith children at all? Or just not at PENN State?
There are several I don't knows to cling to in a 7 minute interview. I don't know trumps everything else. If someone knows, they don't repeatedly say I don't know. That is patently obvious to anyone but an imbecile (you and a very few others).
You on the other hand don't know much of anything but say you do know. Laughable honestly.
He found emails that proved they lied about certain things.
That doesn't mean Freeh found evidence to support his conclusions though. Quite the opposite if you're going by what was on the record.
Bullshit. If "people would have heard" that Joe was only told about Sandusky and a boy in the shower and then did the right thing and reported it up to his boss this would have ended in days vis a vis PSU. Nobody cared about Sandusky, Curley Sandusky, McQueary, etc. The only cared about Joe Paterno.
The anal rape lie in the GJP was the first nail and the PSU sanctioned Freeh hack job was the final nail. All it would have taken was the BOT not throwing its coach and administrators under the bus in the first few days before they even knew what the phuck even happened.
First...what is ....did not engage inappropriately with children at all...". It certainly did not involve raping 10 year olds in Penn State showers!!!
Honest Truth....I do not believe ONE SINGLE WORD about any of this situation. Jerry's behavior is only known to us by "testimony" that is subject to so much manipulation by so many people in PA government that I don't trust what is known about Jerry's hair color. WE KNOW NOTHING!!!!!! We certainly know nothing that can be verified and we have no idea if Jerry passed from stupidly inappropriate to criminal. The evidence is too tainted for use in a courtroom.
Now, as a reply to this I expect you will continue to dredge up the same old Sh*T - the same statements based on testimony THAT CAN NOT EVEN BE VERIFIED BY any means - especially direct AUDIO tape.
Doesn't it seem unusual that there is no ability to audit ANYTHING (this was by design). Doesn't it seem unusual that Sandusky's "Guilt" is established by unverifiable "testimonies" from an event is 16 years in the past - AND YET - from 2009 till 2012 - when there was current and therefore VERIFIABLE proof of what Sandusky was doing was open to VERIFIABLE REVIEW - all that the State of PA did was allow TSM to SHRED ALL ITS RECORDS. These are the same records that would have expose "what really was happening with Sandusky and TSM Kids"???? This can only be because tainted/BOGUS/unverifiable information was need to re-engineer a shaky "Story" about Sandusky and Penn State so that the "Story" smoke covered REAL CRIMES and criminals.
What I am saying is the "Story" has an added LOW THRESHOLD of believablity because of the "Time distortions" which create "evidence" (speculation).
Sandusky may be NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIMES...or he could be Jack the Ripper...WHO KNOWS! Everything we know about Sandusky is "tainted" and therefore unusable!
Unfortunately for you, significant portions of this "Story" are eroding AS WE SPEAK...I say that the house of cards created by Corbett and his PACORN is about to IMPLODE.
How can this be said?? Hint - Check Corbett's budget - notice the excessive increases in his "consulting fees" during this time period. This "line item" is weakest link in this illusion and the key to exposing the REAL CRIMES.
I just hope you've gotten paid for all your past efforts on this board trying to re-enforce the "Story"!
If you're going to insult someone at least have the courtesy to include everything. Cherry picking a couple statements without context is weak.
There's a good reason Snedden wasn't called as a witness. Once the emails were authenticated by Curley and Schultz his report was about as useful as soiled toilet paper.
Snedden would have been crushed on cross. The prosecution would have handed him the emails and blown up his report because they played no role in it. The result would have been the jury seeing Spanier as a liar.
As far as the gossip statement, are you really so deluded you can't see how grade school "he was just jealous of my popularity" is?
Seriously, say it was a clash of personalities or political/philosophical differences.
To the average person not obsessed with this case it comes off as teenage gossip or an excuse for being fired.
I'm not sure if you think I'm defending Freeh's conclusions because I put stock in some of the things he dug up? I'm not at all.
To be fair there's a reasonable argument that he could have been searching for a specific term like molest(ing).
Before the usual suspects start attacking this notice the "could have been". I'm just saying it's possible like Joe asking himself "a sexual nature".
Jive doesn't say "could have been". Most people realize Joe's statement in the GJP was extremely vague. But jive knows what he meant.
Joe said if he knew Sandusky was harming children he would have stopped it (Posnanski book). That is consistent with his 61 year track record. That track record is where my bias comes from. If you want to believe the contrary have at it. No evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.
I was just presenting an argument.
I think Joe did the best he could in a difficult situation. He didn't do anything out of malice. He's the least important part of this thing.
While in general I DO think it's a red herring to discuss the "sexual nature" aspect because a naked elderly man in a shower with a young boy alone in a restricted access locker room late on a Friday night should be enough cause for concern in and of itself, I still think your post is incorrect.
Yes what matters is what Joe did, which is report it up the chain of command. It would be relevant though to the admins case if all agreed he described it as an explicitly "sexual" act. That is why this point is discussed IMO.
Rewind back to KC Johnson who blogged about Duke Lacrosse and their "rape scandal".
So much of this is eerily similar - and yet no one in the PA press corps will address the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove their case. Had they ethically and professionally prosecuted this case, instead of corruptly Nifonging it as a political whack job - it could have turned out so much differently for all involved.
So much of this is eerily similar - and yet no one in the PA press corps will address the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove their case. Had they ethically and professionally prosecuted this case, instead of corruptly Nifonging it as a political whack job - it could have turned out so much differently for all involved.
Mike did not describe it as ' a sexual act' until ten years later when he was in the hands of the OAG. Why does this have to be repeated daily? Dranov, John McQ, Curley, Schultz, none of them were told of anything sexual. You and others have chewed this bone to dust. That you and others continue to blockheadedly persist in bringing up what Joe said ten years later is a non-starter and very annoying. Stick to 2001. That is what matters.
Then I guess you consider Joe Paterno to be a liar. That's fine. Just say so.
OMG. You're back to ten years after, aren't you? I can't continue with you. Busy day for my ignore list.
I don't know doesn't trump everything. If he truely didn't know, he would have just stated as such without the other details. No one outside of the few in this board take what he said as that he didn't have a clue as to what happened.
Wrong. You still don't get why people were/are mad. Not surprising, but sad.
Says they guy who can't figure out the gist of things when they are explained to him explicitly over and over again.
"I don't know what you would call it"
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Penn State Football Welcomes four More Enrollees to Campus- Latest: Marty Leap
-
