OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
Jonelle was Frank's underling. When Jonelle told MM he had to keep quiet about the OAG twisting his words in the false GJP, rest assured that that directive came from Fina.
If Fina gets anything more than a slap on the wrist then Jonelle's get out of jail free card might be taken anyway; otherwise there will be no consequences for Jonelle. My bet is that there will be no consequences for Jonelle in this case.
Just released a picture of Frank giving his testimony.
I have been in court several times as an expert witness. Please let me tell you the one lesion I learned. The word Truth is not a part of the legal system and you will not find that concept in the myriad of legal researchable data available.
Fina loved being a bully. Now he claims he's the victim. LOL
“They’re vicious, frankly,” Fina said...
Wonder what Sue Paterno might be thinking about that accusation from Frankie?
“These are people,” Fina said, referring to his most severe critics, “who believe that Sandusky is innocent. They believe Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are innocent.”
Uh... no. Don't believe I've ever seen Wensilver claim Sandusky is innocent nor do most of the commenters on this board.
Wonder what Sue Paterno might be thinking about that accusation from Frankie?
“These are people,” Fina said, referring to his most severe critics, “who believe that Sandusky is innocent. They believe Spanier, Schultz, and Curley are innocent.”
Uh... no. Don't believe I've ever seen Wensilver claim Sandusky is innocent nor do most of the commenters on this board.
I am baffled by the fact that most of the commenters on this board are willing to acknowledge that prosecutionary misconduct reached epic proportions in the Sandusky case, but are not willing to acknowledge that Sandusky may be innocent.
I believe that Sandusky deserves a fair trial. I believe that some, if not most of the claimants are frauds. Completely innocent? I'm not willing to go that far.....which is why I'd like to see another trial.
Is that Fina's defense for his own breaking of the law?
You do have a point, but my biggest issue with the “maybe Sandusky is guilty of minor crimes” theory is why hadn’t he attempted a plea bargain or confessed to having a problem after his conviction (something that certainly would have made his prison sentence more comfortable).
Also, if his thing was watching naked boys in the shower for gratification, I find it absurd that no pornography of his was ever discovered.
WTF, I thought Wendy's name was Wensilver, correct me if I'm wrong.
She's here richie incognito.
I'm sure Penn State will give him a nice settlement, if they haven't already.
Many people are worried about appearances and therefore are unwilling to appear the slightest bit sympathetic towards an accused pedophile. They don't want to deal with the OUTRAGE.
that will undoubtedly come with such a position.
I don’t believe Sandusky committed CSA on any of the thirty some claimants who collected settlements from Penn State. To be guilty of CSA, Sandusky has to have had at least have had sexual intent.
I agree with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there isn’t any credible evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that Sandusky committed CSA. Are you aware of any credible evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that Sandusky commuted CSA? In the unlikely event that there ever is a retrial, what is the most likely evidence that you think that might be produced that would demonstrate CSA?
Now that we have all the facts that we're going to have, it's clear there was no conspiracy to cover up child molestation.
There was, however, a conspiracy to leverage the Sandusky case to get Spanier fired and inflict as much damage on Penn State as possible, and Fina was at the heart of that conspiracy.
They bent and broke every law and rule they could to make it happen: coercing witnesses, leaking grand jury information to the news media, "accidentally" pre-releasing the presentment, working with the anti-Paterno faction on the BOT to influence the Freeh report, and filing ridiculously inflated charges against Schultz and Spanier when they knew they couldn't actually make those cases.
The one thing Fina and all these guys weren't counting on was Corbett losing, Kane winning and change at the state Supreme Court. Those developments busted up the old boy Republican network that ran the state's criminal justice system -- and would have protected Fina. So whatever rule-breaking Fina may have committed in order to do Corbett's bidding, he will face consequences.
I won't prejudge him because we don't know the specifics of these charges, but if he does have to turn over his law license for a time because of this, I will celebrate with a bottle of champagne and steak dinner just like Corbett celebrated after he had gotten Spanier and Paterno fired.
There was, however, a conspiracy to leverage the Sandusky case to get Spanier fired and inflict as much damage on Penn State as possible, and Fina was at the heart of that conspiracy.
They bent and broke every law and rule they could to make it happen: coercing witnesses, leaking grand jury information to the news media, "accidentally" pre-releasing the presentment, working with the anti-Paterno faction on the BOT to influence the Freeh report, and filing ridiculously inflated charges against Schultz and Spanier when they knew they couldn't actually make those cases.
The one thing Fina and all these guys weren't counting on was Corbett losing, Kane winning and change at the state Supreme Court. Those developments busted up the old boy Republican network that ran the state's criminal justice system -- and would have protected Fina. So whatever rule-breaking Fina may have committed in order to do Corbett's bidding, he will face consequences.
I won't prejudge him because we don't know the specifics of these charges, but if he does have to turn over his law license for a time because of this, I will celebrate with a bottle of champagne and steak dinner just like Corbett celebrated after he had gotten Spanier and Paterno fired.
Last edited:
I’m not a lawyer and thus, do not tvet the nuisances of the law. But it would seem to me that the interpretation of the accuser is more (or at least equally as) important as the accused. In other words, if I’m sitting next to you in a movie theater and lean over and place my penis on your leg, does it really matter if I got anything out of it or not?
How can you say we have ALL the facts? In this thread alone, Lubrano is suggesting new facts in the Freeh review.
Rodney and Karen with the flies on her, are preparing a letter of apology.
I can’t wait until president Barrens’s report comes out. That will really get him.....Wendy is my cyber-girlfriend
You go girl!! (but watch your back because we all know Fina is dangerous and apparently now has “targets”)
New facts that we'll never hear about since the A9 are taking such an extreme interpretation of the court order allowing them to see the materials.
Problem is despite Sandusky weird behavior, I don’t think there was any genital contact. It’s more consistent with a behavior of a naive old man who grew up in a rec center where everyone showered together and horseplay was common.
Victim 6 is the only accuser who I believe is credible. He never claimed anything other than being lifted in the shower. According to Mark Pendergrast, he told Victim 8 that he was still questioning Sandusky’s guilt as late as January 2012, after the arrest the subsequent shitstorm. But he felt pressured by his mother to claim victimhood.
Victim 8 only alleged Sandusky touched his penis after receiving therapy from Cindy McNab that supposedly recovered his memory. He stated he had no memory of any inappropriate contact before the therapy. However, the belief that one can repressed memories of traumatic events, then recover them through therapy is pseudoscientific. John Zieglers fake accuser used the same therapist as V8.
V3 had a similar story to V8, alleging penis touching only after therapy from Cindy McNab, who was associated with corrupt attorney Andrew Shubin. V3 also contradicted his trial testimony in his statement seeking a settlement from PSU.
V5 is the one who changed the date from his abuse from 1998 to 2002 and said it was the first time he ever worked out with Sandusky, despite being pictured in Sandusky’s autobiography which was published in late 2000. V5 also contradicted his trial testimony in his statement seeking a settlement from PSU.
V1 and V4 were notorious liars who each claimed many repeated acts of oral sex with Sandusky, but neither testified to Sandusky’s testicular atrophy.
V9 and V10 both came forward after the arrest and both told absurd stories. V9 claimed forcibly rape and V20 contradicted himself in s post trial interview. Both Jerry and Dottie claim they don’t even know who V10 is.
I’m not really looking for a recap of all accounts, honestly. I was just pointing out Franco’s point that he often makes about it only being a crime if Sandusky had sexual intent. I doubt that is true, though I admittedly do not know the intrincacies of the law.
OK Poz, now give it me in layman's terms, not in legalese.
Just because you don’t get a charge out of rubbing your schlong against somebody doesn’t mean that person doesn’t feel offended by your schlong being rubbed against them.
Is that cleearly stated?
Last edited:
Considering the fairy tale version he believes, doesn't that make him the truther?
I find that generally it's the person who uses the term "truther" who is projecting their behaviors on others.
Just because you don’t get a charge out of rubbing your schlong against somebody doesn’t mean that person doesn’t feel offended by your schlong being rubbed against them.
Is that cleearly stated?
I would think rubbing your schlong against someone is CSA. It seems to me that by itself that would indicate sexual intent.
I am not aware of any credible reports of Sandusky rubbing his schlong against anybody that weren’t subject to manipulation. Are you referring to a specific incident?
Similar threads
