OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"

[demlion]

You are welcome to your own opinion. What is your opinion of NCIS Special Agent John Snedden? Please identify any credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that demonstrates that Sandusky committed CSA.

Of course I am entitled to my own opinion. I need not rely on your permission to agree with the vast majority of Pennstaters, the jury, and the appeals courts.

I am also entitled to tell Frank Fina to F off without having you prove his claim that we are all insane.

 

[francofan]

Of course I am entitled to my own opinion. I need not rely on your permission to agree with the vast majority of Pennstaters, the jury, and the appeals courts.

I am also entitled to tell Frank Fina to F off without having you prove his claim that we are all insane.

Of course you don't answer to me. I never presumed that.

However, you didn't answer my question (and of course you don't have to answer if you don't want to). I will phrase it differently. What evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation do you believe clearly demonstrates that Sandusky is a sexual predator?

What is your opinion of John Snedden?

Since you have so much confidence in the Pennsylvania judicial system, do you agree with the jury's vedict of Spanier?

 

[francofan]

Franco, have you ever had contact directly with people involved with pedophelia? Either the victims or perpetrators?

I have. A close relative of mine was the victim of CSA by her own father. I observed the inflicted damage that lasted a lifetime.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I have. A close relative of mine was the victim of CSA by her own father. I observed the inflicted damage that lasted a lifetime.

Sorry to hear that about your relative.
Having worked with people on both sides of this type of situation, I can tell you that what Sandusky did is right out of the pedophile playbook. Is it 100% proof that he is a pedophile? No. Outside of pictures or DNA evidence, I’m not sure what is. But does it check off every box in the pedophile playbook? Absolutely.
Again, I have asked this question several times on here and have never seen a response that makes sense for an innocent Jerry. Why would a grown man be alone in a shower with a boy have close physical contact if it was not sexual?

 

[francofan]

Sorry to hear that about your relative.
Having worked with people on by sides of this type of situation, I can tell you that what Sandusky is right out of thebpedophile playbook. Is it 100% proof that he is a pedophile? No. Outside of pictures or DNA evidence, I’m not sure what is. But does it check off every box in the pedophile playbook? Absolutely.
Again, I have asked this question several times on here and have never seen a response that makes sense for an innocent Jerry. Why would a grown man be alone in a shower with a boy have close physical contact if it was not sexual?

I agree that Sandusky's behavior is right out a predator's playbook. I disagree that it is 100% proof that he a pedophile. I believe that you must look at the totality of the evidence. IMHO, there is a dearth of evidence that Sandusky engaged in sexual conduct or was sexually aroused in his dealings with children. If he were a sexual predator, I believe there would be tons of evidence to that effect, but I have yet to hear or see any convincing evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Sorry to hear that about your relative.
Having worked with people on by sides of this type of situation, I can tell you that what Sandusky is right out of thebpedophile playbook. Is it 100% proof that he is a pedophile? No. Outside of pictures or DNA evidence, I’m not sure what is. But does it check off every box in the pedophile playbook? Absolutely.
Again, I have asked this question several times on here and have never seen a response that makes sense for an innocent Jerry. Why would a grown man be alone in a shower with a boy have close physical contact if it was not sexual?

Because if you deny it, you can pretend it didn’t happen.

 

[demlion]

iint unn

I agree that Sandusky's behavior is right out a predator's playbook. I disagree that it is 100% proof that he a pedophile. I believe that you must look at the totality of the evidence. IMHO, there is a dearth of evidence that Sandusky engaged in sexual conduct or was sexually aroused in his dealings with children. If he were a sexual predator, I believe there would be tons of evidence to that effect, but I have yet to hear or see any convincing evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation.

Did you attend the trial? No? Then you have never, and will never, look at the totality of the evidence.

The test of a prosecutor's adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct is NOT whether he convicted an innocent man. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor gets sanctioned, but no criminal is set free.

As for evidence, there was testimony from a number of witnesses that crimes were committed upon them by JS. The only effective time to negate that testimony is during cross exam. The "Not subject to manipulation" test you propose is not the test of Evidence in any jurisdiction. At all.

Something tells me that the SIP club first hit upon this nonexistent test in this case. Tell me do you have a long history of advocating for the rights of the accused, or is this a one off because your ox got gored?

 

[MtNittany]

Something tells me that the SIP club first hit upon this nonexistent test in this case. Tell me do you have a long history of advocating for the rights of the accused, or is this a one off because your ox got gored?

Classic Dem twist here - blame and shame someone just asking a few questions for not exhibiting past goodness and virtue.

Again - Fina and Jonelle cheated. Who got the worst of their cheating?

 

[francofan]

iint unn

Did you attend the trial? No? Then you have never, and will never, look at the totality of the evidence.

The test of a prosecutor's adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct is NOT whether he convicted an innocent man. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor gets sanctioned, but no criminal is set free.

As for evidence, there was testimony from a number of witnesses that crimes were committed upon them by JS. The only effective time to negate that testimony is during cross exam. The "Not subject to manipulation" test you propose is not the test of Evidence in any jurisdiction. At all.

Something tells me that the SIP club first hit upon this nonexistent test in this case. Tell me do you have a long history of advocating for the rights of the accused, or is this a one off because your ox got gored?

Larry,

I am not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you.

You seem to have no interest in answering my questions about specific evidence that you believe demonstrates that the jury got it right. That is your prerogative.

I just want the truth to become evident, I am not ready to move on as I believe that many injustices have taken place in this fiasco. I think Penn State has been wronged. I think that Joe Paterno has been wronged. I think that Graham Spanier has been wronged. I think that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have been wronged. And yes, I think that Jerry Sandusky has been wronged.

 

[roswelllion]

Put me on a jury and the basic fact that he was investigated by police for showering with and having physical contact with a boy while doing so, warned and agreed to not do so again in the future, then was witnessed doing so again a few years later would lead me to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Interesting. So he was told not to do it and did it again. Guilty - i agree
He was also found to have done nothing wrong in the first incident, can you agree that was also the likely outcome. So guilty of showering with youth against police instructions. What is the sentence for that?

 

[demlion]

Classic Dem twist here - blame and shame someone just asking a few questions for not exhibiting past goodness and virtue.

Again - Fina and Jonelle cheated. Who got the worst of their cheating?

His questions show his lack of any history of giving a damn about injustice in criminal court. I have noticed it is a common theme among SIP denizens. It accounts for his insistence that I re-prove the case. They proved it when it counted, to the satisfaction of the jury, and Jerry is where he belongs.

All the victim-shaming and other justifications for SIP make you feel better, but do not cut much ice.

 

[roswelllion]

Sorry to hear that about your relative.
Having worked with people on by sides of this type of situation, I can tell you that what Sandusky is right out of thebpedophile playbook. Is it 100% proof that he is a pedophile? No. Outside of pictures or DNA evidence, I’m not sure what is. But does it check off every box in the pedophile playbook? Absolutely.
Again, I have asked this question several times on here and have never seen a response that makes sense for an innocent Jerry. Why would a grown man be alone in a shower with a boy have close physical contact if it was not sexual?

I fortunately have not been involved with these issues directly, but i thought porn was a classic "tell" for these folks and there wasn't any with JS.

 

[ForesterGump]

Just curious, but you also think the jury got it right in the Spanier case?

If juries always "get it right", then there is no need for appeals. Too often in cases with media coverage, the defendant has to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution proving the guilt. The media has proven the guilt way in advance of any trial.

 

[demlion]

Just curious, but you also think the jury got it right in the Spanier case?

If juries always "get it right", then there is no need for appeals. Too often in cases with media coverage, the defendant has to prove his innocence, rather than the prosecution proving the guilt. The media has proven the guilt way in advance of any trial.

Juries get it wrong all the time. That is what appeals are for. How are Jerry's appeals working out for him?

But both Spanier and Jerry bear the burden of showing how it was wrong. Spanier has a MUCH better shot.

But in no case do I lose this argument by failing to re-prove the JS case to loons.

 

[psuro]

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.

Agree with this.

 

[BobPSU92]

To summarize:

LOONS.

SCHLONG.

TRUTH.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Interesting. So he was told not to do it and did it again. Guilty - i agree
He was also found to have done nothing wrong in the first incident, can you agree that was also the likely outcome. So guilty of showering with youth against police instructions. What is the sentence for that?

He was not charged, not found to have done nothing wrong. He was a grown man showering with an unrelated boy, having physical contact with him. I can tell you that he did something wrong. Even Franco would agree with that.
“So guilty of showering with youth against police instructions.” You left out alone, which is a pretty important part of the equation. What is the sentence for that? I guess whatever portion of his conviction sentence that incident accounts for. I don’t know exactly. I do know that if I was told never to be in that situation again, I would have absolutely no problem keeping myself out of that situation again. But I am not sexually attracted to young boys. If I was, and was presented with an opportunity to do so, I would probably have a hell of a difficult time denying myself that opportunity.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I fortunately have not been involved with these issues directly, but i thought porn was a classic "tell" for these folks and there wasn't any with JS.

It is a tell. However, It is not as much of a tell as showering with boys and having physical contact with them.

 

[roswelllion]

His questions show his lack of any history of giving a damn about injustice in criminal court. I have noticed it is a common theme among SIP denizens. It accounts for his insistence that I re-prove the case. They proved it when it counted, to the satisfaction of the jury, and Jerry is where he belongs.

All the victim-shaming and other justifications for SIP make you feel better, but do not cut much ice.

Dem,
So i assume you feel the same way with TC GS and GS. 2 plead, and one was convicted. They got "convictions when they counted"

 

[Keyser Soze 16801]

Isn't this a supposed to be a thread about Fina?

 

[ouirpsu]

Put me on a jury and the basic fact that he was investigated by police for showering with and having physical contact with a boy while doing so, warned and agreed to not do so again in the future, then was witnessed doing so again a few years later would lead me to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I take it you've never been on a jury?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I take it you've never been on a jury?

I have been

 

[indynittany]

It is a tell. However, It is not as much of a tell as showering with boys and having physical contact with them.

Where's the sexual intent? Both V6 and V2 said there was none!

 

[Connorpozlee]

Where's the sexual intent? Both V6 and V2 said there was none!

What about the trial? Ignoring those that testified?

 

[indynittany]

What about the trial? Ignoring those that testified?

Not ignoring them. I just think they were "convinced" the same way MM was.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Not ignoring them. I just think they were "convinced" the same way MM was.

Of course.

 

[roswelllion]

He was not charged, not found to have done nothing wrong. He was a grown man showering with an unrelated boy, having physical contact with him. I can tell you that he did something wrong. Even Franco would agree with that.
“So guilty of showering with youth against police instructions.” You left out alone, which is a pretty important part of the equation. What is the sentence for that? I guess whatever portion of his conviction sentence that incident accounts for. I don’t know exactly. I do know that if I was told never to be in that situation again, I would have absolutely no problem keeping myself out of that situation again. But I am not sexually attracted to young boys. If I was, and was presented with an opportunity to do so, I would probably have a hell of a difficult time denying myself that opportunity.

I agree with everything you just said. Wrong and illegal we agree [again are different] . Alone [that was a given and yes it was wrong. I am not even attempting to defend the guy. what I am saying is that you and Dem seem to want to pick and choose. In your case he did something wrong even after being told not to. Apparently whatever it was in 1998 was NOT enough to charge the guy.
With Dem because he was found guilty he must have done it, however I don't think Dem feels that way about the gang of 3. Just reads like a double standard to me.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I agree with everything you just said. Wrong and illegal we agree [again are different] . Alone [that was a given and yes it was wrong. I am not even attempting to defend the guy. what I am saying is that you and Dem seem to want to pick and choose. In your case he did something wrong even after being told not to. Apparently whatever it was in 1998 was NOT enough to charge the guy.
With Dem because he was found guilty he must have done it, however I don't think Dem feels that way about the gang of 3. Just reads like a double standard to me.

I don’t know enough about dem to know where he’s coming from.
I am not picking and choosing. I do have experience with people on both sides of the equation in instances like this. I am focusing primarily on what, to me, is the most convincing part of this whole thing. Jerry was investigated by police for possible sexual abuse in ‘98. He promised never to do that again. He did it again and was caught. What non-sexual reason would he have done that for?

 

[demlion]

I agree with everything you just said. Wrong and illegal we agree [again are different] . Alone [that was a given and yes it was wrong. I am not even attempting to defend the guy. what I am saying is that you and Dem seem to want to pick and choose. In your case he did something wrong even after being told not to. Apparently whatever it was in 1998 was NOT enough to charge the guy.
With Dem because he was found guilty he must have done it, however I don't think Dem feels that way about the gang of 3. Just reads like a double standard to me.

2 of the 3 admins pled guilty. That is the end of the analysis. Spanier case is different because I still think there is no way the law applies to him. But we shall see. We have ALREADY SEEN with Jerry. His deal is over.

 

[AvgUser]

2 of the 3 admins pled guilty. That is the end of the analysis. Spanier case is different because I still think there is no way the law applies to him. But we shall see. We have ALREADY SEEN with Jerry. His deal is over.

No way the law applies to Curley and Schultz either. They pled because they realized the corruption in this state is way out of control. And that is what this thread is about... Fina being taken to task for his rampant corruptive behavior, his lies, and is outright negligence of adhering to the law.

 

[lubrano]

2 of the 3 admins pled guilty. That is the end of the analysis. Spanier case is different because I still think there is no way the law applies to him. But we shall see. We have ALREADY SEEN with Jerry. His deal is over.

Curley and Schultz had no choice but to plead guilty. The jury pool was poisoned by the OAG from the outset when they knowingly introduced a false Presentment. In layman’s terms, that’s known as prosecutorial misconduct.

As for FF, a simple worker bee he was not.

 

[BobPSU92]

Curley and Schultz had no choice but to plead guilty. The jury pool was poisoned by the OAG from the outset when they knowingly introduced a false Presentment. In layman’s terms, that’s known as prosecutorial misconduct.

As for FF, a simple worker bee he was not.

Thank you, Anthony.

I still stand by Graham, Tim, and Gary because I am convinced that they did not knowingly protect a pedophile and are not guilty of the charges against them. The evidence brought out does not support the charges, and we now know that there were various motivations at play, all of them sinister.

 

[RussianEagle]

iint unn

Did you attend the trial? No? Then you have never, and will never, look at the totality of the evidence.

The test of a prosecutor's adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct is NOT whether he convicted an innocent man. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor gets sanctioned, but no criminal is set free.

As for evidence, there was testimony from a number of witnesses that crimes were committed upon them by JS. The only effective time to negate that testimony is during cross exam. The "Not subject to manipulation" test you propose is not the test of Evidence in any jurisdiction. At all.

Something tells me that the SIP club first hit upon this nonexistent test in this case. Tell me do you have a long history of advocating for the rights of the accused, or is this a one off because your ox got gored?

How do you feel about the fact the for two of those key trial accusers ( V5 and V3), their statements in the their claims seeking money against PSU contradict thier testimony during the trial?

 

[lionville]

2 of the 3 admins pled guilty. That is the end of the analysis. Spanier case is different because I still think there is no way the law applies to him. But we shall see. We have ALREADY SEEN with Jerry. His deal is over.

So you’re saying that Loui Freeh was correct then? Is that based on your review of the Freeh source materials?

 

[RussianEagle]

Not ignoring them. I just think they were "convinced" the same way MM was.

Not to mention that V3 and V7 said nothing happened until after hiring Andrew Shubin and both undergoing “therapy” with Cindy McNab.

V4 also claimed nothing happened an even brought his girlfriend and kid to visit Sandusky, then he hired Ben Androzzi and the story changed.

 

[RussianEagle]

2 of the 3 admins pled guilty. That is the end of the analysis. Spanier case is different because I still think there is no way the law applies to him. But we shall see. We have ALREADY SEEN with Jerry. His deal is over.

I do not see how this can be the “end of the analysis” because according to the OAG, they haven’t even found the boy in the shower yet!

 

[lionville]

Curley and Schultz had no choice but to plead guilty. The jury pool was poisoned by the OAG from the outset when they knowingly introduced a false Presentment. In layman’s terms, that’s known as prosecutorial misconduct.

As for FF, a simple worker bee he was not.

 

[green2623]

He should have died after his first time like most drones do.

 

[roswelllion]

Curley and Schultz had no choice but to plead guilty. The jury pool was poisoned by the OAG from the outset when they knowingly introduced a false Presentment. In layman’s terms, that’s known as prosecutorial misconduct.

As for FF, a simple worker bee he was not.

Well here is my deal. I actually think JS is guilty of some stuff. Of what I am not sure. when i read russian eagle and all the vics with questions i wonder exactly what JS is guilty of, but i don't want to be defending him. My beef is that all the posts about a poison jury pool, and a corrupt OAG really preventing TC GS and GS getting a fair trial I agree. Why doesn't that same poisoning and corruption apply to JS?

 

[demlion]

How do you feel about the fact the for two of those key trial accusers ( V5 and V3), their statements in the their claims seeking money against PSU contradict thier testimony during the trial?

That was for penn state to question. It did not make that fight. I feel badly about it, but I am not going to blame that on Frank F ina. That was PSUs own, self inflicted wound .