If you can't figure past The terminally-obtuse "Covey".........take a day off, your brain must be over-taxed
Covey Logic:
The alterations do not say......
"Hey Everybody!!!! We covered up for Sandusky"
Ergo - nothing was altered
Good Grief
Ray Blehar: Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete
- Thread starter step.eng69
- Start date
If you can't figure past The terminally-obtuse "Covey".........take a day off, your brain must be over-taxed
Covey Logic:
The alterations do not say......
"Hey Everybody!!!! We covered up for Sandusky"
Ergo - nothing was altered
Good Grief
I don't really follow this post either.
I think he/she is making a fair point about the doctoring of the material. Doesn't add up to me, but I am willing to be (and according to my wife and kids, usually am) wrong.
Carry on.
if a doctor, engineer, lawyer or cop do not sign their work, do you think someone just signs for them? There is a difference between my wife signing my credit card or someone signing my work product.
It wasn't "rocket surgery"
That said, so long as you're not sitting on a jury, it doesn't matter
So, not worth worrying about
Whether I understand his methodology or not is not an issueBarry, you should understand his Dogmaticness.
Whether he spews obtuse, inane crap is.
Carry on
In the meantime, anytime you EVER feel that you have received "dogma" from ME.....and it is an issue which you feel is important........
If that ever happens you're welcome to ring me up anytime and discuss
Fair?
So is your evidence "ironclad" or just a logical conclusion. I ask because I have heard a lot of logical conclusions that never see the light of day in the Pa court system.
Second is the altered evidence administrative or "game changing"
Let me put it this way, if you were handed a four-dollar bill would you believe it was real?
It would be "game changing" if the court system wasn't corrupt.
If you're smart you write "see id" instead of sign the back of your card. This forces retailers to check your signature and the ID the person is holding. (If it's a stolen card and ID, you've already reported that and the card won't go thru). Retailers are trained to check ID's for fakes, btw.
The point is, the OAG is/was not presenting valid evidence. That should be an eyebrow-raiser for anyone who comes before a court.
SOP? Maybe u can point out the page in the HR manual?
Where is it SOP?
Maybe if you are planning a surprise birthday party for that nosy IT guy.
Otherwise, it's just SOP when you are ... Covering something up, watering something down?
Come on, be serious.
Last edited:
Could be an arrangement of the timeline. Without seeing the original pages I can't say why it was done. There were some points of disagreement as to how the interview of Sandusky went on June 1 and whether Schreffler and Lauro had decided on if it was concluded or not.
Last edited:
Nope. Wrong again. This is too easy.
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/7-credit-card-myths-1267.php
Oh you mean you aren't 110% sure of everything like both sides are. People shovel so much sh!t here daily that opinions have become fact. People here are abuse experts, legal experts, forensic experts, besides the others that are apparently the moral authorities and pretend to know exactly what everyone knew and when. I think Tom needs to create a new board and literally call it the SH!T show where people can rehash MM, coach email, victims social habbits, and the GJ testimony for eternity.
Lajolla, my favorite is when people try to demean you (the universal you, not you in particular) for voicig an opinion or questioning somebody else's opinion. It's like adult middle school.
Why not also question footnote 142 which also points to the same thing?
Here's what I'm talking about. Footnote 138 and 139 both reference page 18 (the June 1st interview of Sandusky with PSU police and DPW)...yet are clearly identifying separate versions. Something's up here.
I think this is just evidence that there were multiple authors pulling this together and a bit of sloppiness and perhaps a bit rushed.
It doesn't seem necessarily nefarious.
Footnote 142 is essentially the same as 138...the incident report number was left out. That, I can see, as simply being a mistake. But 139 is quite a bit different in referring to some kind of control number.
All the other footnotes referring to the police report are written consistently i.e. none have the kind of notation that #139 does. It seems to be more than coincidental that the exact page (18) that has a number of unusual features about it also happens to be referred to in two different ways in the FR. And since it was referring to the same page as the footnote before it it would be a simple process to type "Id" and not write out 015_0000018. That's not just a typo.
And you know this how exactly?
The only way you could know this is if you had seen the original emails. Which seems VERY unlikely.
It doesn't matter. I assure you that this point won't be raised by the defense at trial. So you'll see soon.
It does matter, because it goes to your credibility.
It is more believable that you know it won't be brought up at trial (i.e. it's possible that you have been speaking with the defense team, although based on your biases, I kind of doubt that too).
Again, the only way you could know if the emails were not doctored is if you have seen the original emails. I'm 99.9% certain that you have not.
Not sure about needing another board and totally disagree about the name of it if there was one. Otherwise I agree with the gist of your post about anybody really knowing the facts at this point.
This are many important aspects to this topic to many here including myself. Pretending there aren't perpetuates the notion that we are more about moving on and only care about football. Will we gain any ground on any of that? Who knows, but until then I for one can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I don't care much about my credibility, but I'm trying to help others. When one KNOWS something, and a whole subculture rises from nonsense counter to it, it's disturbing.
It is like the common dis that "the trolls are being paid." If they aren't, but that meme is pushed very very hard by the tin foil subculture, it just solidifies the knowledge that they are full of crap.
I know this one thing, at least. Since the email tampering meme is endlessly pushed, I tend to think that the people behind pushing it are full of crap about everything else too.
Whether I understand his methodology or not is not an issue
Whether he spews obtuse, inane crap is.
Carry on
In the meantime, anytime you EVER feel that you have received "dogma" from ME.....and it is an issue which you feel is important........
If that ever happens you're welcome to ring me up anytime and discuss
Fair?
It's fair. Perhaps someday will chat. But there is lot of dogma here on the board, and a lot of mystifying beliefs, and at rare times a few understand where the authentic culture problem is. You should carry on.
Here's a link to a website written by a party who has no connection to PSU and is a subject-matter expert (including being an attorney) - HIT THIS LINK.
The author has a long list of why the investigation, especially the use of a SWIGJ, is inherently flawed and contrary to applicable Pennsylvania Law -- including the seminal case, Aaron Fisher's Case, was mishandled under PA Child Protective Services Law as detailed in these citations HIT THIS LINK and HIT THIS LINK. The site is repleat with scores of citations as to how Pennsylvania's CPS and SWIGJ Codes were intentionally violated by the PA OAG regarding V1's Case and from the get the go (i.e., by AG Corbutt and his personally named "lame-duck" replacement, AG Kelly, upon assuming the office of Governor). The site is also repleat with scores of citations as to how Sandusky's, Curley's, Schultz's and Spanier's basic civil rights as guaranteed by both the Pennsylvania and US Constitions were wontonly trampled by the Corbett-directed OAG from the get go.
But let me guess, because this party, who has no horse in the game AND PROVIDES DETAILED CITATIONS for all of his conclusions, doesn't agree with you - "he's full of $hit"???
Can I ask a serious question? How do you come to know that the author of this has no horse in the game? No connection to Sandusky, PSU, or any of the other players?
Surely not just because he says so, under cloak of anonymity?
And the Clemente report who was also written by a SME stated Jerry was in the top 1% of serial pedophiles. He didn't say he thought Jerry was done wrong and he was commissioned on behalf of the Paterno's. So you're calling them liars now as they aren't fighting for Jerry's new trial as they know better.
Anyone can try and do this circular dance, but only a few have now convinced themselves that they are on to something. Maybe you can join Steve Masters the next time he visits Jerry and put a palm to the glass too. That would be awesome.
What does the Clemente Report have to do with the OAG INTENTIONALLY and MASSIVELY violating both PA CPS and SWIGJ Law in regards 100% of their indictments related to V1's seminal report to CMHS???
Last edited:
BTW, let me get this straight, you're saying you couldn't give a $hit if the OAG intentionally trampled both PA CPS and SWIGJ Law in trampling and tyrannizing the fundamental civil rights, as guaranteed by both the PA and US Constitutions, of all of the parties they "Indicted" for criminal conviction (which included Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier)??? Seriously??? IOW, you wouldn't have cared if you had been one of the innocent parties of their collateral damage??? Yea, sure, right.....LMFAO.....why do I get the feeling you're a hypocritical, lying @sshole like the perpetrators of this tyranny???
You have been on this site forever and it used to be the referees. Then it was UM. Now it's the entire judicial system as anyone dare hurt PSU and you'll be there. I think it's a shame the witch hunt took down innocent people not named Jerry Sandusky. Now read that sentence again, because I have stated it too many times to count and either you're a f--king moron or you just only want to hear what you anticipate will be said.
Seriously, how many times can I say CSS and Joe caught a raw deal due to the witch hunt...200 or so isn't enough. That crap isn't getting walked back now and IF YOU ACTUALLY REALLY DID CARE, you sure as shit wouldn't be wasting any real time here like you do every f--king day on it. You are FOS and just like to scream on this site, but as much time as you waste on here, maybe you could make a change to the state judicial system if you actually decided to put some effort into it. Instead you act like a f--king maniac yelling TROLL all damn day long and don't really do a thing for your just cause. Why not really try and make a change since you want to PRETEND to be so passionate about it.
How about them apples BODE aka Get Real?
The fact that you don't care about your credibility speaks volumes. Perhaps you meant to say "I don't care what others think about my credibility". Or perhaps you really don't care.
If you truly "KNOW" then please answer one question for me: have you personally seen the original emails?
At any rate, I don't think the "altered emails" matter much in terms of the CSS trial. The OAG has no case.
The only reason the altered emails would matter would be in terms of prosecuting whoever altered them.
well the altered emails matter because of WHY they were altered. and they most definitely were.
because after reviewing "3 million" records, Freeh and the OAG had bupkiss on C/S/S for 2001. So they cherry picked a few emails, presented them out of context and out of sequence, made a few alterations to beef up their narrative, and ran with it.
