OT: Here's the JZ/RC article - from JZ's website:

[JmmyW]

This radio interview from Ziegler this morning is pure gold. For making me laugh.
http://www.foreverstatecollege.com/2018/04/05/john-zeigler-interview-4-5-18/

Ziegler says in that radio interview that the biggest bombshell is the McQueary date still being wrong. Key to his theory is Dr. Dranov's testimony about meeting Schultz three months later, and Schultz believing that meeting happened in the third week of February. Implicit within that theory is that McQueary met his dad and Dranov on the night of the incident, which Ziegler says was 12/29/2000.

Ziegler actually says in that radio interview that: "Frankly, I can't find any piece of evidence that is consistent with February 9th being the actual day. And I can't find anything that's inconsistent with December 29th." (Part 1, 10:24)

He can’t find any evidence?

He didn't look very hard. There's at least four separate publicly known pieces of evidence that support the February 9th date that Ziegler is unaware of, or simply ignored. Each of these pieces of information is increasingly compelling. The final piece by itself is all that's required to refute Ziegler's theory - and Ziegler can't credibly argue ignorance.


1) The Freeh Report establishes the meeting between Schultz, John McQueary, and Dr. Dranov as May 2001. Three months before that is February 2001.

2) Dranov's testimony at the McQueary trial establishes he met with Schultz *after* Curley had spoken to Sandusky and then Raykovitz. This places the meeting with Schultz after mid to late March 2001.

3) Anthony Sassano's testimony at the Sanduksy trial about his additional investigation into the date and the confirmation from Dr. Dranov that it was February 9, 2001.

4) And the most important piece of evidence - testimony from Tim Curley at the Spanier trial. Ziegler can't credibly say he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in courtroom while Curley testified.



1. From the Freeh Report (footnote x, p.67):

That mid-May date is consistent with Dranov's testimony that the meeting happening "three months or so" after an incident occurring on February 9th.



2. From Dranov's testimony at the McQueary Trial (10/19/2016, afternoon session, p.112):

Dranov testified at the McQueary trial about the Schultz meeting. Dranov thinks Schultz told them that the 1998 incident had been discussed with the TSM board at that time. Schultz also implied TSM had been talked to about the McQueary incident.

That bit of information places their meeting after early/mid March 2001.

3. From Sassano's testimony at the Sandusky trial (6/14/2012, p.169-170)

This establishes Dranov went to the McQueary household on February 9th, 2001.


4. If that's not enough, consider Curley's testimony at the Spanier trial (3/22/2017, p.358,389,390):

Curley was clear that he understood the incident to be on February 9th, 2001.

Curley was also clear that he accepted Sandusky initial denial, or doubt, that he was there because Sandusky wanted to check his calendar first. According to Curley, Sandusky did so and told Curley he was indeed there that night. Among all the little details that Curley might've forgotten or misremembered, this doesn't seem to be one of them - the fact of Sandusky's initial denial of the incident and the explanation that he checked his calendar, and yes, he was there that night.

Ziegler can't credibly argue he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in the courtroom during it.

 

[LundyPSU]

@JmmyW I thought the meeting between John Sr, Dranov, and Schultz was about ann affiliation agreement between PSU and their practice

 

[MtNittany]

Jimmy - Didn't MM testify to the 2002 date under oath numerous times?

Also there's this (JVP was not out of town that night):

 

[Parrish sycamore]

Surprising no one mentions the vetted content of the “poorly written” article.

 

[ChiTownLion]

God only knows, its enough to make a janitor cry.

^^ Terrific quip.

 

[wensilver]

I am still having a hard time understanding why AG Investigator Tony Sassano changed the scenario from Mike "working late on campus and swinging by Lasch about 10 pm to put his sneakers away' to being "home in bed at 8 pm watching the movie 'Rudy' on TV".

Mike's very first statement to Sassano & Rossman on November 22, 2010 had him working late on campus. That's a legit action, is it not? Why does Mike have to be comfortably at home in front of the TV by 8 pm instead?

I also have to ask - if you're a GA with the football dept, and you're working late on campus - why aren't you already IN your office IN the Lasch building doing that work? Where else on campus does a Football Dept GA do Football Dept work? Can someone answer me that ?

Lastly - Feathers knows the date is February 9th, 2001 from his interview with Dravov over the phone on January 27, 2011. So why is Sassano later on digging up old TV Guides for this Rudy bullshit to triangulate the date?

What the hell.

 

[JmmyW]

@JmmyW I thought the meeting between John Sr, Dranov, and Schultz was about ann affiliation agreement between PSU and their practice

The first testimony about an affiliation agreement was from Dranov at the McQueary trial in 2016. John McQ mentioned it the next day. They both mentioned it at the Spanier trial. As for Freeh’s footnote, my guess is he pulled that from a Schultz calendar entry.

 

[JmmyW]

Jimmy - Didn't MM testify to the 2002 date under oath numerous times?

Also there's this (JVP was not out of town that night):

Do you think Ziegler proved the date was really 12/29/2000?

Do you believe Curley's testimony that Sandusky checked his calendar? If not, why do you think Curley was apparently OK with Sandusky's initial denial?

Ziegler says he didn't find ANY evidence to refute his theory. Do you think he even looked? Why do you think Ziegler totally ignores Curley's testimony?


-----
11/23/2010 - The following is the first line in McQueary's first written statement to police:
> On the Friday before spring break in either the year 2001 or 2002, 2002 I think, at approx 10 pm in the Lasch Football Building on the Penn State campus I witnessed improper behavior by Jerry Sandusky in regards to a male juvenile.

6/12/2012 - McQueary testifies at the Sandusky trial about his certainty on the date. Starting at p.234:
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061212_ JT.pdf
> Q. Originally, you thought it happened in 2002 at some date, correct?
> A. Absolutely not.

> Q. Was there any --
> A. Do you want me to explain that answer or --

> Q. Was there ever any confusion over the dates?
> A. Without a doubt.

> Q. There was no confusion over the dates?
> A. I think you just asked was there ever any confusion over the dates, and I said yes, without a doubt there was.

> Q. Okay. There was. And, in fact, at one point your testimony indicated it happened 13 months later than you're now saying it happened?
> A. You'd have to recite that testimony to me, sir. I think, in my written statement, I believed -- I think it was 2002. I think I may be quoting it directly. I think it was 2002. It may be 2001. I believe in the grand jury report I said I'm 90 percent sure it was 2002, but it could be 2001.


-----
11/11/2017 - Ziegler interviews memory expert Elizabeth Loftus

JZ says if it was so significant, how could McQ forget details such as date, focusing on pre- or post- 9/11.
EL disagrees. It's ten years later.
JZ has major problems about this - at least you'd remember the year.
EL disagrees. She was recently trying to recount a traumatic event - either she was 16 or 17 - but she was still uncertain of the year.
JZ freaks out some more
EL says "You argue it. But don't try to convince me of it."

 

[MtNittany]

Do you think Ziegler proved the date was really 12/29/2000?

Do you believe Curley's testimony that Sandusky checked his calendar? If not, why do you think Curley was apparently OK with Sandusky's initial denial?

Ziegler says he didn't find ANY evidence to refute his theory. Do you think he even looked? Why do you think Ziegler totally ignores Curley's testimony?

I didn't even mention JZ in my post. I was asking you about MM's testimony and the damning email to the OAG.

 

[PSU2UNC]

This radio interview from Ziegler this morning is pure gold. For making me laugh.
http://www.foreverstatecollege.com/2018/04/05/john-zeigler-interview-4-5-18/

Ziegler says in that radio interview that the biggest bombshell is the McQueary date still being wrong. Key to his theory is Dr. Dranov's testimony about meeting Schultz three months later, and Schultz believing that meeting happened in the third week of February. Implicit within that theory is that McQueary met his dad and Dranov on the night of the incident, which Ziegler says was 12/29/2000.

Ziegler actually says in that radio interview that: "Frankly, I can't find any piece of evidence that is consistent with February 9th being the actual day. And I can't find anything that's inconsistent with December 29th." (Part 1, 10:24)

He can’t find any evidence?

He didn't look very hard. There's at least four separate publicly known pieces of evidence that support the February 9th date that Ziegler is unaware of, or simply ignored. Each of these pieces of information is increasingly compelling. The final piece by itself is all that's required to refute Ziegler's theory - and Ziegler can't credibly argue ignorance.


1) The Freeh Report establishes the meeting between Schultz, John McQueary, and Dr. Dranov as May 2001. Three months before that is February 2001.

2) Dranov's testimony at the McQueary trial establishes he met with Schultz *after* Curley had spoken to Sandusky and then Raykovitz. This places the meeting with Schultz after mid to late March 2001.

3) Anthony Sassano's testimony at the Sanduksy trial about his additional investigation into the date and the confirmation from Dr. Dranov that it was February 9, 2001.

4) And the most important piece of evidence - testimony from Tim Curley at the Spanier trial. Ziegler can't credibly say he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in courtroom while Curley testified.



1. From the Freeh Report (footnote x, p.67):

That mid-May date is consistent with Dranov's testimony that the meeting happening "three months or so" after an incident occurring on February 9th.



2. From Dranov's testimony at the McQueary Trial (10/19/2016, afternoon session, p.112):

Dranov testified at the McQueary trial about the Schultz meeting. Dranov thinks Schultz told them that the 1998 incident had been discussed with the TSM board at that time. Schultz also implied TSM had been talked to about the McQueary incident.

That bit of information places their meeting after early/mid March 2001.

3. From Sassano's testimony at the Sandusky trial (6/14/2012, p.169-170)

This establishes Dranov went to the McQueary household on February 9th, 2001.


4. If that's not enough, consider Curley's testimony at the Spanier trial (3/22/2017, p.358,389,390):

Curley was clear that he understood the incident to be on February 9th, 2001.

Curley was also clear that he accepted Sandusky initial denial, or doubt, that he was there because Sandusky wanted to check his calendar first. According to Curley, Sandusky did so and told Curley he was indeed there that night. Among all the little details that Curley might've forgotten or misremembered, this doesn't seem to be one of them - the fact of Sandusky's initial denial of the incident and the explanation that he checked his calendar, and yes, he was there that night.

Ziegler can't credibly argue he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in the courtroom during it.

Jimmy, thanks for pulling and posting all that info. A good refresher since I haven't look at a lot of the testimony in while.

However, I don't think this speaks to JZ's theory. His theory (as I understand it, and I'm not saying I for sure buy it) is that MM saw JS in the shower in December and then didn't say anything about it for 3 months (until the Kenny Jackson departure), then told his dad and Dranov, then talked to Paterno. So that doesn't preclude (I don't believe) any of the timeline you have posted above.

I don't think he is saying that MM saw the event in December, talked his dad and Dranov that night and then the three of them decided to sit on the info for 3 months (I guess this is possible, but that's a pretty devious plan by all three of them and seems less likely than MM being a lone wolf).

I think the original 2002 date was suggested by the OAG so as to not have to deal with statute of limitation issues, but then they had to "agree" to a new date to match it up with significant evidence (that you've posted above) as to when the meetings with MM happened.

 

[NC2017]

Everything JZ does is this way. He has a severe case of shiny object syndrome, and all of his posts and podcasts are too long without a clear train of thought. His yelling and screaming style of speaking doesn't help either. He's informed on a lot of things, but his style is one of the main reasons why nobody takes him seriously. That, and his insistence the JS is 100% innocent of all wrongdoing.

Contrarian personality disorder; Contrarian journalism is characterized by articles and books making counterintuitive claims, or attacking what is said to be the conventional wisdom (a phrase attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith) on a given topic. A typical contrarian trope takes the form, "everything you know about topic X is wrong".(Wiki)

 

[RussianEagle]

This radio interview from Ziegler this morning is pure gold. For making me laugh.
http://www.foreverstatecollege.com/2018/04/05/john-zeigler-interview-4-5-18/

Ziegler says in that radio interview that the biggest bombshell is the McQueary date still being wrong. Key to his theory is Dr. Dranov's testimony about meeting Schultz three months later, and Schultz believing that meeting happened in the third week of February. Implicit within that theory is that McQueary met his dad and Dranov on the night of the incident, which Ziegler says was 12/29/2000.

Ziegler actually says in that radio interview that: "Frankly, I can't find any piece of evidence that is consistent with February 9th being the actual day. And I can't find anything that's inconsistent with December 29th." (Part 1, 10:24)

He can’t find any evidence?

He didn't look very hard. There's at least four separate publicly known pieces of evidence that support the February 9th date that Ziegler is unaware of, or simply ignored. Each of these pieces of information is increasingly compelling. The final piece by itself is all that's required to refute Ziegler's theory - and Ziegler can't credibly argue ignorance.


1) The Freeh Report establishes the meeting between Schultz, John McQueary, and Dr. Dranov as May 2001. Three months before that is February 2001.

2) Dranov's testimony at the McQueary trial establishes he met with Schultz *after* Curley had spoken to Sandusky and then Raykovitz. This places the meeting with Schultz after mid to late March 2001.

3) Anthony Sassano's testimony at the Sanduksy trial about his additional investigation into the date and the confirmation from Dr. Dranov that it was February 9, 2001.

4) And the most important piece of evidence - testimony from Tim Curley at the Spanier trial. Ziegler can't credibly say he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in courtroom while Curley testified.



1. From the Freeh Report (footnote x, p.67):

That mid-May date is consistent with Dranov's testimony that the meeting happening "three months or so" after an incident occurring on February 9th.



2. From Dranov's testimony at the McQueary Trial (10/19/2016, afternoon session, p.112):

Dranov testified at the McQueary trial about the Schultz meeting. Dranov thinks Schultz told them that the 1998 incident had been discussed with the TSM board at that time. Schultz also implied TSM had been talked to about the McQueary incident.

That bit of information places their meeting after early/mid March 2001.

3. From Sassano's testimony at the Sandusky trial (6/14/2012, p.169-170)

This establishes Dranov went to the McQueary household on February 9th, 2001.


4. If that's not enough, consider Curley's testimony at the Spanier trial (3/22/2017, p.358,389,390):

Curley was clear that he understood the incident to be on February 9th, 2001.

Curley was also clear that he accepted Sandusky initial denial, or doubt, that he was there because Sandusky wanted to check his calendar first. According to Curley, Sandusky did so and told Curley he was indeed there that night. Among all the little details that Curley might've forgotten or misremembered, this doesn't seem to be one of them - the fact of Sandusky's initial denial of the incident and the explanation that he checked his calendar, and yes, he was there that night.

Ziegler can't credibly argue he was unaware of this testimony - he was sitting in the courtroom during it.

Here is the main issue I have with Curley's testimony. He was trying to remember an event that occurred 10 years earlier, while he was constantly having his memory "refreshed" by bad information over the past year. Sandusky may have told Curley he would go check his calendar, but then remembered he showered with Allan Myers 6 weeks before that. Then told Curley, yes he did shower with Myers and Curley mis-remembered it as Jerry telling him he did check his calendar. Trying to recall details like this over a 10 year period is almost impossible.

Ziegler also believes that Joe got the impression that MM had seen Jerry in the shower the night before, even if it wasn't true. After all, it was only a three minute meeting. Joe would have then relayed that to Curley and Schultz.

I admit I'll have to do a little more research on the Dranov dates, but its entirely possible that the May date was obtained, like so much other information on this case, by reverse engineering. Dranov knew the meeting was a few months after the incident, and since he was told the incident occurred in February, he figured the meeting had to be May.

What motivation would Sandusky have for doubting the Febuary 9 date unless it wasn't true? It only served to vindicate him after the March 2002 date was proven to be bullshit.

 

[Osprey Lion]

Too long to copy/paste - link here

Have you considered asking the moderators to start a JZ board? That way all of the nuts can be in
one bag.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

gotta admit, I am not surprised by this tweet:

 

[LaJolla Lion]

gotta admit, I am not surprised by this tweet:

View embedded media

Because it is common f--king sense maybe.

 

[towny87.1]

I try to stop by once in a while and see how the "poor innocent Jerry lunatics" and the "JoePa nut jobs" are doing. Good to see Jimmy still around to provide some realistic perspective.

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

Sure, if you say so.

 

[nits74]

Have you considered asking the moderators to start a JZ board? That way all of the nuts can be in
one bag.

And yet, here you are. Go figure.

 

[RussianEagle]

I try to stop by once in a while and see how the "poor innocent Jerry lunatics" and the "JoePa nut jobs" are doing. Good to see Jimmy still around to provide some realistic perspective.

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

So you are saying Tim and Gary know Joe is the guilty one, but continue to worship him so much that they'd rather go to jail that rat a dead guy out? I correct my assertion from a previous post, this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Sure, if you say so.

lol seems credible.

btw Jimmy's post suffers from what a lot of people accuse JZ of doing: a lot of supposition based on who you find credible. It is equally plausible Mike completely fabricated the Feb 9. 2001 date after seeing "something" in Dec 2000 and sitting on it.

 

[MtNittany]

People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

I guess that blind loyalty that you are imagining only went so far down the pay scale at PSU, huh?

BTW if anyone should have gone to jail outside of JS, shouldn't it have been the guy who claimed he saw a boy being sodomized in a shower and did nothing about it?

 

[LundyPSU]

I try to stop by once in a while and see how the "poor innocent Jerry lunatics" and the "JoePa nut jobs" are doing. Good to see Jimmy still around to provide some realistic perspective.

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

Towny with another drive by. If it was going to be handled in house, then I guess you, Mike, John Sr, John Jr, Dranov, etc were all in on it, too

 

[towny87.1]

lol seems credible.

btw Jimmy's post suffers from what a lot of people accuse JZ of doing: a lot of supposition based on who you find credible. It is equally plausible Mike completely fabricated the Feb 9. 2001 date after seeing "something" in Dec 2000 and sitting on it.

It isn't even remotely plausible, but even then Jerry molesting a boy in the shower in December vs February doesn't sound like it would help him too much.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It isn't even remotely plausible even then Jerry molesting a boy in the shower in December vs February doesn't sound like it would help him too much.

1) Why isn't it remotely plausible?

2) If Mike observed whatever it is he observed in December and it was so horrific/criminal/sexual that not only did he not call the police (ever), he also didn't tell anybody about it for 3 months, certainly speaks to him not seeing a sexual assault at Lasch.

 

[gohigh79]

I guess that blind loyalty that you are imagining only went so far down the pay scale at PSU, huh?

BTW if anyone should have gone to jail outside of JS, shouldn't it have been the guy who claimed he saw a boy being sodomized in a shower and did nothing about it?

I know this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there's actually a lot of truth in it.

Tim Curley owed his career to Joe Paterno's success as head football coach (and frankly to Jerry Sandusky's success as defensive coordinator). He would absolutely maintain loyalty to JVP and protect him.

This isn't blind loyalty, though: Curley and Paterno had been around Sandusky for decades and would know with certainty that any of these "allegations" that came up against him (both the one they heard about in 1998 and the "story" that Mike McQueary came to them with in 2001) were untrue or, at worst, a misunderstanding. As letting the 2001 "story" get out to outside organizations/investigations would only bring undue harm to the football program and university's reputation, keeping it in-house was completely the correct course of action.

Schultz likely didn't have the same loyalty to Paterno, but he likely does to Spanier (who in turn maintained loyalty to Curley and Schultz and even issued his statement supporting them publicly). That Curley, Schultz, and Spanier would defend Paterno and the decision the four of them made together to keep McQueary's "story" about Sandusky in-house should be no surprise. Curley did go to Jack Raykovitz, but given the goal to keep undue scrutiny away, Curley would have tailored his words in such a way as to keep Raykovitz/TSM from bringing in such scrutiny (perhaps even going as far to telling Raykovitz that Penn State had fully investigated the "story" and determined it was completely unfounded).

If Mike McQueary had shown the same loyalty to the coach who gave him (now seemingly undeserved) chances as quarterback (ahem, 1998 Citrus Bowl) and graduate assistant/coach by clamming up when the OAG came calling, this could all have been avoided. However, given what is clear about McQueary's mental acumen and decision-making capability, one can only blame him so much for how Corbett's OAG weaponized his "story" to take down Spanier (with the near-gleeful cooperation of some OGBOT members to act on their grudge against Coach Paterno and take him down as well).

 

[psudukie]

Gohigh, I am not looking to start shit. When you are asked to testify, you take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Testifying has zip to do with loyalty.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Gohigh, I am not looking to start shit. When you are asked to testify, you take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Testifying has zip to do with loyalty.

I'm not trying to start anything either, but how do you reconcile that what MM said under oath does not jive with what lots of other people said under oath?

 

[psudukie]

Unc I am a huge believer in mikes testimony.. first off he’s testified three times in court several times in depositions and his testimony has yet to be impeached, refuted and or challenged.

I would love to see someone challenge Tim’s 180 from grand jurybteatimon tobtrial testimony... horseplay... to no horseplay. I would love to see sone of you challenge tim and Gary’s words as hard as you challenge mikes.

Again I am not here to start shit but this s a fairly anti mije board and that’s fine. I recognize my bias bitvsone of the opposing side needs to recognize their bias.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Unc I am a huge believer in mikes testimony.. first off he’s testified three times in court several times in depositions and his testimony has yet to be impeached, refuted and or challenged.

I would love to see someone challenge Tim’s 180 from grand jurybteatimon tobtrial testimony... horseplay... to no horseplay. I would love to see sone of you challenge tim and Gary’s words as hard as you challenge mikes.

Again I am not here to start shit but this s a fairly anti mije board and that’s fine. I recognize my bias bitvsone of the opposing side needs to recognize their bias.

I understand where are coming from, but I don't interpret Mike's testimony the same way you do. Hope all is well with you.

 

[marshall23]

I try to stop by once in a while and see how the "poor innocent Jerry lunatics" and the "JoePa nut jobs" are doing. Good to see Jimmy still around to provide some realistic perspective.

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

It doesn't matter what your theory is....if MM is telling the truth, you knew that Sandusky was a pedophile and you were a coward and never reported him to CYS. You have no right to an opinion as such.

 

[marshall23]

If what MM has said under oath is 100% true, then why did he not report on his own to CYS? Why did he not (and JM as well) take Curley and Schultz to task and tell them that they were not satisfied with how the incident was handled? If MM saw sexual abuse of a child, why did Dr. Dranov say he heard nothing from MM that required a call to LE or CYS? Simple questions.

 

[psudukie]

Marshall...

How many times on these boards and posts have we heard how upstanding and good css are? Certainly I had that opinion although I have never met Gary. Given that if these men came back to you and said this is all we can do we investigated it etc... all you folks would tell them they are full of shit? I don’t buy that. Could of we my family been naive, I suppose so. I would like to believe when dealing with the very upper levels of a universitybyou can take them at their word.

Anyway again as I mentioned analyze and critique css as hard as you do mike.

It’s the weekend and I am sick so not starting some back and fourth.

 

[bdgan]

Marshall...

How many times on these boards and posts have we heard how upstanding and good css are? Certainly I had that opinion although I have never met Gary. Given that if these men cane vaxkbtibyou and said this is all we can do we investigated it etc... all you folks would tell them they are full of shit? I don’t buy that. Could of we my family been naive, I suppose so. I would like to believe when dealing with the very upper levels of a universitybyou can take them at their word.

Anyway again as I mentioned analyze and critique css as hard as you do mike.

It’s the weekend and I am sick so not starting some back and fourth.

What is vaxkbtibyou?

 

[bdgan]

I try to stop by once in a while and see how the "poor innocent Jerry lunatics" and the "JoePa nut jobs" are doing. Good to see Jimmy still around to provide some realistic perspective.

Tim was planning on reporting Jerry to outside authorities (not just TSM) and Joe asked him to handle it in house. That is all you need to know about why this had been such cluster from the beginning. People out to protect Joe at all cost and even willing to go to jail for it.

What a dumb post.

1. You have zero evidence that Joe instructed C&S to handle things in house.
2. Even if he did, C&S should have done their job.
3. Your buddy MM said Joe was great through the whole thing.

 

[marshall23]

It is failed logic to say.....I saw a crime and reported it to someone who did nothing and therefore I am in the clear. Add to that, even though they didn't deal with my report properly, I never complained and cashed their checks for 10 years.

 

[psudukie]

Fixed by beautiful typo ... which I have many of. I am sorry

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

What a dumb post.

1. You have zero evidence that Joe instructed C&S to handle things in house.
2. Even if he did, C&S should have done their job.
3. Your buddy MM said Joe was great through the whole thing.

Good point, given that we are told that Mike never lies.

 

[marshall23]

What a dumb post.

1. You have zero evidence that Joe instructed C&S to handle things in house.
2. Even if he did, C&S should have done their job.
3. Your buddy MM said Joe was great through the whole thing.

First evidence that Towny is a dunce. If JVP told them to handle it in house, why did they go to TSM? LOL

 

[psufan94979]

79...Clam up about a pedophile...I will say it again, clam up about a person who did awful things to kids...nope, not kids missing class, not a kid popping a drug test...not a kid having a beer at age 20...a pedophile, a guy who did terrible things for YEARS.

Ok. You go clam up about that...you and the other folks who knew about it for 25 years...that is unbelievable you said that. And frankly that is why we are here today, cause people didn’t do crap about a pedophile.

Have you ever once thought, damn, mike did go to joe and told him and maybe that is loyalty. He went to Joe about that and a few other interesting things. He was loyal to joe.

I will leave you with one little never before seen piece of paper, one of many many things people don’t know, or have not seen...because people in power love to deceive...and outright lie.

Yes, people knew, for a very long time...just the tip of the iceberg, more will come.

 

[marshall23]

79...Clam up about a pedophile...I will say it again, clam up about a person who did awful things to kids...nope, not kids missing class, not a kid popping a drug test...not a kid having a beer at age 20...a pedophile, a guy who did terrible things for YEARS.

Ok. You go clam up about that...you and the other folks who knew about it for 25 years...that is unbelievable you said that. And frankly that is why we are here today, cause people didn’t do crap about a pedophile.

Have you ever once thought, damn, mike did go to joe and told him and maybe that is loyalty. He went to Joe about that and a few other interesting things. He was loyal to joe.

I will leave you with one little never before seen piece of paper, one of many many things people don’t know, or have not seen...because people in power love to deceive...and outright lie.

Yes, people knew, for a very long time...just the tip of the iceberg, more will come.

bullshit