Ray Blehar: Evidence in 2001 Twisted, Tainted, and Incomplete

[Stufftodo]

Did you miss the part about him being at Summer Camp in 2010? I also wouldn't conclude that Sandusky couldn't access a kid at a banquet given that NONE of the parents were told that Jerry wasn't allowed access. They were so used to seeing him one on one with kids that they'd have thought nothing if he and a child went somewhere.

No, but yiu did not say what his involvement was. Was he on a dais at an awards ceremony, or was it involvement with children?

Clinton County CYS admitted that it didn't put a protection plan in place. Rather, CYS called TSM to tell them they were severing ties.
.

Yes that was teir plan. At that point, Sandusky was on the Childlink register.

As for one of the victims, he was question and said that nothing happened; he admitted it only in 2011-12. I don't recall a second one, but Moulton also looked at that.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Members of the charity admitted that Sandusky was kept around after 2009 for fundraising purposes but was not supposed to be involved in children's programs. However there are several instances where Jerry was attending activities for children, including the 2010 Summer Challenge Camp, a banquet in Clearfield, and another banquet in Philadelphia.

Moreover, there never was a "Protection Plan" created by DPW in conjunction with the charity. Nor was the charity told that he was alleged to have had raped children at the charity. If the claim here is that the charity lied to donors and participants for almost 2 years about Jerry than the OAG should have gone after people at TSM for prosecution - they didn't.

 

[rmb297]

No, but yiu did not say what his involvement was. Was he on a dais at an awards ceremony, or was it involvement with children?

Yes that was teir plan. At that point, Sandusky was on the Childlink register.

As for one of the victims, he was question and said that nothing happened; he admitted it only in 2011-12. I don't recall a second one, but Moulton also looked at that.

From what I was told, he was still splashing around in the pool in 2010. TSM/Raykovitz said this was okay because it was in a group setting.

That's a far cry from TSM's statement that Sandusky wasn't allowed in children's activities after 2008.

Victim 9 testified to being victimized in late Summer 2009. D.F. should have been found in 2011 when the investigators uncovered the lists in Jer's basement. He wasn't questioned until 2012 -- when he admitted being victimized.

Frank Fina stated D.F.'s story wasn't credible -- but it was MORE credible than V10's

 

[Stufftodo]

From what I was told, he was still splashing around in the pool in 2010. TSM/Raykovitz said this was okay because it was in a group setting.

I would ask the source, but again, if he was monitored and in a setting with other adults, it would make a difference.

Victim 9 testified to being victimized in late Summer 2009. D.F. should have been found in 2011 when the investigators uncovered the lists in Jer's basement. He wasn't questioned until 2012 -- when he admitted being victimized.

Frank Fina stated D.F.'s story wasn't credible -- but it was MORE credible than V10's

Victim 9 testified that nothing happened during his initial appearance before the grand jury. He also indicated that it was sometime in 2008-09, but before August 2009, so we don't know of any overlap.

Now, you will have to identify D.F. I could not find a D.F. in Moulton nor as a victim. Could you explain?

 

[Royal_Coaster]

I would ask the source, but again, if he was monitored and in a setting with other adults, it would make a difference.

You have some serious issues. I'd love for you to find some parents who'd say they'd be OK with their kid being in a pool with a guy under investigation for CSA even if other it's in a "public" setting.

 

[rmb297]

I would ask the source, but again, if he was monitored and in a setting with other adults, it would make a difference.

Adults were there all the other times he groped kids in the pool. How would it be different this time.? Hell, Jerry was probably making sure to get his gropes in as he looked toward his future in the slammer. Had to love some of his semi-confessions to CYS!

According to the counselor, Jerry would always show up in the evenings for play time in the pool. That didn't stop after 2008.

In 1998, Jerry was told to stop showering with kids. He didn't.

No reason to believe that after being told to stop messing with kids in 2009 that he obeyed.

See AF, DF, and Victim 9.

Victim 9 testified that nothing happened during his initial appearance before the grand jury. He also indicated that it was sometime in 2008-09, but before August 2009, so we don't know of any overlap.

You must be confused.
Victim 9 came forward after the November 4, 2011 Sandusky presentment.

From the Moulton Report:

"On November 9, 2011, Tpr. Michael Elder received a telephone call from a Mifflin
County School District official who identified S.P. (later designated Victim 9), a student andformer Second Mile participant, as a possible Sandusky victim. Later that day, Tpr. Elder interviewed S.P., who described sexually explicit conduct by Sandusky."

Victim 9 appeared at the grand jury only once.

Overlap- YES.
The last time I checked, August 2009 came after January 2009 - when the abuse was "indicated." He testified he was victimized through his 16th birthday in July 2009. Definitely victimized when Jerry shouldn't have had access.

Now, you will have to identify D.F. I could not find a D.F. in Moulton nor as a victim. Could you explain?

D.F. filed a lawsuit AFTER being contacted by the OAG in 2012 and alleging abuse.

Fina decided -- likely because of allegations into 2009 -- to not prosecute the case because D.F.'s story wasn't credible. His story was more credible than V10's because it alleged a relationship over a period of years, grooming, and eventual sexual contact.

Victim 10 testified he was with Sandusky twice and molested both times. No grooming involved. Fina prosecuted V10's allegations -- he just happened to mention being groped in a PSU pool (likely after reading the presentment). Later, V10's civil lawsuit alleged dozens of assaults, that he was like a family member of the Sandusky's, and numerous outings to sporting events and picnics.

Victim 10 had served time in prison for strong-armed robbery and had prior arrests for drug possession. Called the hotline after the presentment came out.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

The child predator unit specializes in catching on-line predators. That wasn't Jerry's MO.
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Criminal/Child_Predator_Section/

seems there would be better trained police than, for example, a drug enforcement officer

 

[Stufftodo]

Again according to Moulton:

The investigation reached the end of 2009 with only one Sandusky victim, A.F., available to testify. Tpr. Rossman did succeed in identifying M.S., who later described himself as another Sandusky victim, in the fall of 2009. During an October 29, 2009, interview with Tpr. Rossman, however, M.S. flatly denied that Sandusky had ever touched him inappropriately. Much later, during the Sandusky trial in June 2012, M.S. contacted OAG and stated that he had in fact been the victim of sexual abuse by Sandusky.

Victim 9 testified that it ended sometime before his 16th birthday, which was August of 2009. He thought it might have after his 15th birthday, 2008. It means that any molestation may have ended by January 2009; he was in TSM through 2008, only. He could not pin a date on the final time it happened. His testimony is here:

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf

Again, please provide information on D.F., like his filings in the suit.

Victim 10 was from 1997.

 

[dshumbero]

Adults were there all the other times he groped kids in the pool. How would it be different this time.? Hell, Jerry was probably making sure to get his gropes in as he looked toward his future in the slammer. Had to love some of his semi-confessions to CYS!

According to the counselor, Jerry would always show up in the evenings for play time in the pool. That didn't stop after 2008.

In 1998, Jerry was told to stop showering with kids. He didn't.

No reason to believe that after being told to stop messing with kids in 2009 that he obeyed.

See AF, DF, and Victim 9.



You must be confused.
Victim 9 came forward after the November 4, 2011 Sandusky presentment.

From the Moulton Report:

"On November 9, 2011, Tpr. Michael Elder received a telephone call from a Mifflin
County School District official who identified S.P. (later designated Victim 9), a student andformer Second Mile participant, as a possible Sandusky victim. Later that day, Tpr. Elder interviewed S.P., who described sexually explicit conduct by Sandusky."

Victim 9 appeared at the grand jury only once.

Overlap- YES.
The last time I checked, August 2009 came after January 2009 - when the abuse was "indicated." He testified he was victimized through his 16th birthday in July 2009. Definitely victimized when Jerry shouldn't have had access.



D.F. filed a lawsuit AFTER being contacted by the OAG in 2012 and alleging abuse.

Fina decided -- likely because of allegations into 2009 -- to not prosecute the case because D.F.'s story wasn't credible. His story was more credible than V10's because it alleged a relationship over a period of years, grooming, and eventual sexual contact.

Victim 10 testified he was with Sandusky twice and molested both times. No grooming involved. Fina prosecuted V10's allegations -- he just happened to mention being groped in a PSU pool (likely after reading the presentment). Later, V10's civil lawsuit alleged dozens of assaults, that he was like a family member of the Sandusky's, and numerous outings to sporting events and picnics.

Victim 10 had served time in prison for strong-armed robbery and had prior arrests for drug possession. Called the hotline after the presentment came out.

Nothing like the sound advice of Dr. Jack "I got off scott free" Raykovitz to "slap on a jockstrap and swimming trunks".

 

[rmb297]

Again according to Moulton:

The investigation reached the end of 2009 with only one Sandusky victim, A.F., available to testify. Tpr. Rossman did succeed in identifying M.S., who later described himself as another Sandusky victim, in the fall of 2009. During an October 29, 2009, interview with Tpr. Rossman, however, M.S. flatly denied that Sandusky had ever touched him inappropriately. Much later, during the Sandusky trial in June 2012, M.S. contacted OAG and stated that he had in fact been the victim of sexual abuse by Sandusky.

The question is were they victimized while Sandusky was under investigation.

Answer: Yes.

When they came forward or were found isn't relevant.

Victim 9 testified that it ended sometime before his 16th birthday, which was August of 2009. He thought it might have after his 15th birthday, 2008. It means that any molestation may have ended by January 2009; he was in TSM through 2008, only. He could not pin a date on the final time it happened. His testimony is here:

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/sandusky_061412_ JT.pdf

Again, please provide information on D.F., like his filings in the suit.

Victim 10 was from 1997.

Victim 9's birthday was July 29th. 1993 -- not in August.

Under cross-examination Victim 9 was clear his victimization continued until he was 16 -- in July 2009 (see page 236).

I posted a link to the D.F. lawsuit in my last response to you. Click on "lawsuit." At the beginning, D.F.'s legal team alleges victimization during the period from 2004 to 2012. Specifies one incident in 2008. Recalls another incident occurring in 2008 or 2009.

It doesn't matter if V10 was from 1997 or not. The point was that his story was less credible than D.F.'s -- yet Fina prosecuted Sandusky for V10 and not D.F.

 

[Stufftodo]

The question is were they victimized while Sandusky was under investigation.

Answer: Yes.

When they came forward or were found isn't relevant.

Again, if a victim actively denies he is a victim, there is not anything the OAG can do.

Victim 9's birthday was July 29th. 1993 -- not in August.

Under cross-examination Victim 9 was clear his victimization continued until he was 16 -- in July 2009 (see page 236).

Again, he was not clear as to the end date and said sometime between the time he was 15 and 16.

I posted a link to the D.F. lawsuit in my last response to you. Click on "lawsuit." At the beginning, D.F.'s legal team alleges victimization during the period from 2004 to 2012. Specifies one incident in 2008. Recalls another incident occurring in 2008 or 2009.

The suit cites two specific occasions, on in "2008 or 2009" the other being specifically August, 30 2008.

The only reference of 2012 is when the police discovered the victim. It wasn't "held back" by Fina or anyone else.

Again, even if 2009 is included, the OAG did not have that case until March of 2009.

It doesn't matter if V10 was from 1997 or not. The point was that his story was less credible than D.F.'s -- yet Fina prosecuted Sandusky for V10 and not D.F.

It does make a difference when they discovered the victim.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

It's amazing how a guy with mobility issues can contort himself into all kinds of positions to try to show that TSM, OAG, CYS, DPW, and the 2011 BOT did absolutely nothing wrong, or have anything to hide, or have anything to be held accountable for.

 

[rmb297]

Again, if a victim actively denies he is a victim, there is not anything the OAG can do.



Again, he was not clear as to the end date and said sometime between the time he was 15 and 16.



The suit cites two specific occasions, on in "2008 or 2009" the other being specifically August, 30 2008.

The only reference of 2012 is when the police discovered the victim. It wasn't "held back" by Fina or anyone else.

Again, even if 2009 is included, the OAG did not have that case until March of 2009.



It does make a difference when they discovered the victim.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing -- and not even bothering to check the facts.

BYE (i.e. you're on ignore)

 

[Stufftodo]

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing -- and not even bothering to check the facts.

BYE (i.e. you're on ignore)

No, I'm reading the information, not slanting to fill an agenda. In both cases, the victim gives the incidents as being in one of two years, 2008 or 2009. In one, the date of specific incident is in August 2008. Further, you seen to have forgotten that the OAG didn't get the case until March of 2009. Without the date, an answer of "maybe it was 2009" does not tell us anything.

Someone who ignores lives in ignorance.

 

[artsandletters]

I posted the following in another unrelated thread but I thought I'd add it here.

Hey, mn78, have you read Michael Lewis's non-fiction book, 'The Undoing Project'? I'm about 50 pages in and, as with all of Lewis's books, I recommend it. So far, much of what I've read reminds me of all the JS discussions over the years; more specifically, Mike McQueary, what he heard, what he saw and his recall of those things. Here:

"The human mind was just bad at seeing things it did not expect to see, and a bit too eager to see what it expected to see."

"Of Danny Kahnemann's many doubts the most curious were the ones he had about his own memory. He'd delivered entire semesters of lectures straight from his head without a note. To his students he'd seemed to have memorized entire textbooks, and he wasn't shy about asking them to do it, too. And yet when he was asked about some event in his past, he'd say that he didn't trust his memory and so you shouldn't, either."

"Why does a person's understanding of what he sees change with the context in which he sees it?"

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

No, I'm reading the information, not slanting to fill an agenda. In both cases, the victim gives the incidents as being in one of two years, 2008 or 2009. In one, the date of specific incident is in August 2008. Further, you seen to have forgotten that the OAG didn't get the case until March of 2009. Without the date, an answer of "maybe it was 2009" does not tell us anything.

Someone who ignores lives in ignorance.

Ignoring you is living in ignorance??? LMFAO! That's a classic!

 

[Stufftodo]

Ignoring you is living in ignorance??? LMFAO! That's a classic!

And I will be reminding you of how classic it is.

It is further a bit of irony, since I said Blehar was at least partly right about something on another thread.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

And I will be reminding you of how classic it is.

It is further a bit of irony, since I said Blehar was at least partly right about something on another thread.

The only thing ignoring you causes is someone to miss a bad clown show....

 

[Stufftodo]

The only thing ignoring you causes is someone to miss a bad clown show....

You can keep saying that and people can keep laughing at you.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You can keep saying that and people can keep laughing at you.

 

[bjf1991]

I posted the following in another unrelated thread but I thought I'd add it here.

Hey, mn78, have you read Michael Lewis's non-fiction book, 'The Undoing Project'? I'm about 50 pages in and, as with all of Lewis's books, I recommend it. So far, much of what I've read reminds me of all the JS discussions over the years; more specifically, Mike McQueary, what he heard, what he saw and his recall of those things. Here:

"The human mind was just bad at seeing things it did not expect to see, and a bit too eager to see what it expected to see."

"Of Danny Kahnemann's many doubts the most curious were the ones he had about his own memory. He'd delivered entire semesters of lectures straight from his head without a note. To his students he'd seemed to have memorized entire textbooks, and he wasn't shy about asking them to do it, too. And yet when he was asked about some event in his past, he'd say that he didn't trust his memory and so you shouldn't, either."

"Why does a person's understanding of what he sees change with the context in which he sees it?"

O assume the work you are referencing here is a work of fiction.......but:

It's amazing - and sad..... VERY SAD - that most folks in contemporary society are seemingly incapable of placing solid scientific fact ahead of "old wive's tales"

This subject has been beaten to death more than once on this board - - - because of its obvious spill over to the entire "Sandusky" episode

But the simple fact is this:

Any "recollections of undocumented events and conversations" is always going to be HIGHLY unreliable

It should NEVER, in a best case scenario, be used as a the only, or the primary, source of "proving" a historical event

------------------


Given that the degree of "unreliability" increases drastically based upon:

1 - How much time has passed

2 - How "traumatic" the events were (for lack of a better word....maybe "unusual" would be a better term)

And

3 - How much outside "post-event" information has been introduced (i.e., finding out that JS has become a man accused of multiple counts of CSA)

The PSU situation is the GD Gold Standard on all of these areas (Time, "Unusualness", and Outside Information)........

One would be hard pressed to find ANY situation in the history of the World - seriously - that was a more emphatic example of a situation where you should never even CONSIDER lending weight to "recollections"


And yet, here we sit:

5 Years Later ......... 1/2 a BILLION DOLLARS, at least, squandered .......... Lord knows how many lives damaged ...........

All (to date) based on nothing but:

Recollections of events from EVERYONE involved in EVERY aspect (NOT just what folks like to focus on - MM and "the shower")

That should be treated (certainly from a legal standpoint) as, essentially, worthless - with regard to trying to "prove" the historical events in question .......

by anyone who has even the most basic understanding of science and fact....... Even if the folks involved were relatively congruent with regard to their recollections


If this trial, beginning March 20 commences - and we are subjected to nothing more than the same decade-old circle jerk - God help us all

 

[artsandletters]

O assume the work you are referencing here is a work of fiction.......but:

It's amazing - and sad..... VERY SAD - that most folks in contemporary society are seemingly incapable of placing solid scientific fact ahead of "old wive's tales"

This subject has been beaten to death more than once on this board - - - because of its obvious spill over to the entire "Sandusky" episode

But the simple fact is this:

Any "recollections of undocumented events and conversations" is always going to be HIGHLY unreliable

It should NEVER, in a best case scenario, be used as a the only, or the primary, source of "proving" a historical event

------------------


Given that the degree of "unreliability" increases drastically based upon:

1 - How much time has passed

2 - How "traumatic" the events were (for lack of a better word....maybe "unusual" would be a better term)

And

3 - How much outside "post-event" information has been introduced (i.e., finding out that JS has become a man accused of multiple counts of CSA)

The PSU situation is the GD Gold Standard on all of these areas (Time, "Unusualness", and Outside Information)........

One would be hard pressed to find ANY situation in the history of the World - seriously - that was a more emphatic example of a situation where you should never even CONSIDER lending weight to "recollections"


And yet, here we sit:

5 Years Later ......... 1/2 a BILLION DOLLARS, at least, squandered .......... Lord knows how many lives damaged ...........

All (to date) based on nothing but:

Recollections of events from EVERYONE involved in EVERY aspect (NOT just what folks like to focus on - MM and "the shower")

That should be treated (certainly from a legal standpoint) as, essentially, worthless - with regard to trying to "prove" the historical events in question .......

by anyone who has even the most basic understanding of science and fact....... Even if the folks involved were relatively congruent with regard to their recollections


If this trial, beginning March 20 commences - and we are subjected to nothing more than the same decade-old circle jerk - God help us all

It's non-fiction. Pick it up, Barry. Well worth the time.

 

[coveydidnt]

Grab your popcorn - I just about a week or two the defense gets to present Ray's proof that the emails are forged!!

I don't think they will, and if they did try that, they would lose their entire case for sure.

Because ... they weren't forged.

On this board, there's been much wishful thinking fueled by the fantastical fabrications of a certain blogger. When they aren't used as WEAPONS by the defense, it ought to cause a little bit of head-scratching around here, dontcha think?

 

[Stufftodo]

Grab your popcorn - I just about a week or two the defense gets to present Ray's proof that the emails are forged!!

I don't think they will, and if they did try that, they would lose their entire case for sure.

Because ... they weren't forged.

On this board, there's been much wishful thinking fueled by the fantastical fabrications of a certain blogger. When they aren't used as WEAPONS by the defense, it ought to cause a little bit of head-scratching around here, dontcha think?

Got this from another site:

"03/11 Sandusky will never be charged

11/11 Sandusky will never be convicted.

06/12 The Freeh Report will exonerate everyone at Penn State.
07/12 The NCAA will never sanction Penn State.
07/12 Spanier will never be indicted.

01/13 Kane will drop the charges against the PSU 3
07/13 The charges will be dismissed at the preliminary hearing.

03/14 Moulton will show a massive conspiracy

07/14 PSU will fight the sanctions.

09/14 Corbett, Emmert, Erickson, and the BoT will be arrested.
10/14 PSU/NCAA do not want to be deposed; they will fold
12/14 The PSU 3 want the trial, but the state is delaying it.

01/15 Corman's going to get everything back. It is a big victory.

03/15 Kane isn't in any trouble.
12/15 Kane will drop some bombs on Williams, Fina, et c.

12/15 Kane will not be removed from office by the Senate ( Partial)
12/15 Kane will win the federal lawsuits

03/16 Reese will not serve jail time. (Pending)

06/16 Kane will never be convicted

10/16 Kane will never serve a day in jail.
10/16 McQueary will not win his lawsuit.
10/16 The conspiracy charge against the PSU 3 will not be reinstated

10/16 The PSU 3 case will never go to trial

02/17 The PSU 3 will be found not guilty. (Pending)

02/17 All the e-mails are faked. (Pending)

You will note that there are 24 items, three of which are pending."

They call it "the crow list."

 

[elvis63]

You should add in plea deals and guilty verdicts . Obviously one can exclude the other, well sort of I guess .
Probably should update that list;

 

[coveydidnt]

Got this from another site:

"03/11 Sandusky will never be charged

11/11 Sandusky will never be convicted.

06/12 The Freeh Report will exonerate everyone at Penn State.
07/12 The NCAA will never sanction Penn State.
07/12 Spanier will never be indicted.

01/13 Kane will drop the charges against the PSU 3
07/13 The charges will be dismissed at the preliminary hearing.

03/14 Moulton will show a massive conspiracy

07/14 PSU will fight the sanctions.

09/14 Corbett, Emmert, Erickson, and the BoT will be arrested.
10/14 PSU/NCAA do not want to be deposed; they will fold
12/14 The PSU 3 want the trial, but the state is delaying it.

01/15 Corman's going to get everything back. It is a big victory.

03/15 Kane isn't in any trouble.
12/15 Kane will drop some bombs on Williams, Fina, et c.

12/15 Kane will not be removed from office by the Senate ( Partial)
12/15 Kane will win the federal lawsuits

03/16 Reese will not serve jail time. (Pending)

06/16 Kane will never be convicted

10/16 Kane will never serve a day in jail.
10/16 McQueary will not win his lawsuit.
10/16 The conspiracy charge against the PSU 3 will not be reinstated

10/16 The PSU 3 case will never go to trial

02/17 The PSU 3 will be found not guilty. (Pending)

02/17 All the e-mails are faked. (Pending)

You will note that there are 24 items, three of which are pending."

They call it "the crow list."

That's some list. I'm sure though that somehow Mike's Dick pics & the fact that Ganim laughed on camera 5 years after her Pulitzer was awarded somehow factor into why none of these came through.

Not to mention the Janitor witness that never even worked at Penn State (oops - I mentioned it).

I struggle to think of a single thing that the conspiracy trolls actually have right.

 

[nits74]

There were a few coming from your side also. Such as the Paterno lawsuit against the NCAA will be thrown out: The Corman suit won't get anywhere; The A9 suit to review the Freeh Report is going nowhere. Works both ways you see. Probably more, but unlike you guys, I don't have the time or inclination to review every thread since 2011. These are just from memory.

 

[francofan]

Nice for Covey, JJ, and Elvis to all of a sudden revive this thread after a 2 week period of being dormant. I am surprised that Jive didn't jump in as well.

You guys seem very cocky about how you think the CSS trial will play out. I think it will play out differently, but I have to commend all of you for putting up a good show.

If you don't mind, would you please humor me and give me your thoughts on some of what might be contentious issues on the overall Penn State/Sandusky scandal.

1. Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual or just Louis Freeh's opinion?

2. Do you believe that Mike McQueary was an eyewitness to an anal rape in the Lasch building in February 2001?

3. Do you think the Penn State BOT made a prudent move in firing Joe Paterno in November 2011 right after Sandusky was arrested?

4. Do you believe that Penn State did a reasonable job of vetting the accusers who were looking for settlements from Penn State after the Sandusky trial?

 

[dshumbero]

Got this from another site:

"03/11 Sandusky will never be charged

11/11 Sandusky will never be convicted.

06/12 The Freeh Report will exonerate everyone at Penn State.
07/12 The NCAA will never sanction Penn State.
07/12 Spanier will never be indicted.

01/13 Kane will drop the charges against the PSU 3
07/13 The charges will be dismissed at the preliminary hearing.

03/14 Moulton will show a massive conspiracy

07/14 PSU will fight the sanctions.

09/14 Corbett, Emmert, Erickson, and the BoT will be arrested.
10/14 PSU/NCAA do not want to be deposed; they will fold
12/14 The PSU 3 want the trial, but the state is delaying it.

01/15 Corman's going to get everything back. It is a big victory.

03/15 Kane isn't in any trouble.
12/15 Kane will drop some bombs on Williams, Fina, et c.

12/15 Kane will not be removed from office by the Senate ( Partial)
12/15 Kane will win the federal lawsuits

03/16 Reese will not serve jail time. (Pending)

06/16 Kane will never be convicted

10/16 Kane will never serve a day in jail.
10/16 McQueary will not win his lawsuit.
10/16 The conspiracy charge against the PSU 3 will not be reinstated

10/16 The PSU 3 case will never go to trial

02/17 The PSU 3 will be found not guilty. (Pending)

02/17 All the e-mails are faked. (Pending)

You will note that there are 24 items, three of which are pending."

They call it "the crow list."

JockstrapJohn's bullshit list with his sniffers from Pitt.

 

[elvis63]

I won't humor you because I think you're crazy . You think Jerry is innocent .

Cocky? Meh, I just think most here are wrong and I've seen the crazies here act quite cocky with muss less grounding in reality .

 

[Stufftodo]

1. Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual or just Louis Freeh's opinion?

2. Do you believe that Mike McQueary was an eyewitness to an anal rape in the Lasch building in February 2001?

3. Do you think the Penn State BOT made a prudent move in firing Joe Paterno in November 2011 right after Sandusky was arrested?

4. Do you believe that Penn State did a reasonable job of vetting the accusers who were looking for settlements from Penn State after the Sandusky trial?

1. Both, and in places inaccurate.

2. I believe what was happening was rape; I do understand that he could not see actual penetration.

3. No, but I couldn't see him continuing on the field after that.

4. Don't know.

 

[elvis63]

JockstrapJohn's bullshit list with his sniffers from Pitt.

He's right you loon. I've seen all of these predictions and I've seen people continually get guesses wrong.

It's like hoping by corso to pick your team with the added knowledge this crowd is even more wrong than him;

 

[elvis63]

1. Both, and in places inaccurate.

2. I believe what was happening was rape; I do understand that he could not see actual penetration.

3. No, but I couldn't see him continuing on the field after that.

4. Don't know.

Since children can't consent to sexual activity , any sexual activity between and an adult and child can be called rape. So yeah , Sandusky committed rape on V2.

And steve here is a loon.

 

[bjf1991]

Nice for Covey, JJ, and Elvis to all of a sudden revive this thread after a 2 week period of being dormant. I am surprised that Jive didn't jump in as well.

You guys seem very cocky about how you think the CSS trial will play out. I think it will play out differently, but I have to commend all of you for putting up a good show.

If you don't mind, would you please humor me and give me your thoughts on some of what might be contentious issues on the overall Penn State/Sandusky scandal.

1. Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual or just Louis Freeh's opinion?

2. Do you believe that Mike McQueary was an eyewitness to an anal rape in the Lasch building in February 2001?

3. Do you think the Penn State BOT made a prudent move in firing Joe Paterno in November 2011 right after Sandusky was arrested?

4. Do you believe that Penn State did a reasonable job of vetting the accusers who were looking for settlements from Penn State after the Sandusky trial?

Why the "moderators", or whatever the hell they are called, have allowed STD / Elvis / and the rest of the Annoying Clown Posse ......
To masturbate all over the board for the last several weeks, is beyond me


It has become just as idiotic over here as the TOS became

I never go there anymore, I'm guessing that after killing that Board, these dick-touchers deciding to bring their traveling asshole convention over here

 

[dshumbero]

He's right you loon. I've seen all of these predictions and I've seen people continually get guesses wrong.

It's like hoping by corso to pick your team with the added knowledge this crowd is even more wrong than him;

He's like you, a PL asshole, nothing more.

 

[coveydidnt]

Nice for Covey, JJ, and Elvis to all of a sudden revive this thread after a 2 week period of being dormant. I am surprised that Jive didn't jump in as well.

You guys seem very cocky about how you think the CSS trial will play out. I think it will play out differently, but I have to commend all of you for putting up a good show.

If you don't mind, would you please humor me and give me your thoughts on some of what might be contentious issues on the overall Penn State/Sandusky scandal.

1. Do you believe the Freeh Report is factual or just Louis Freeh's opinion?

2. Do you believe that Mike McQueary was an eyewitness to an anal rape in the Lasch building in February 2001?

3. Do you think the Penn State BOT made a prudent move in firing Joe Paterno in November 2011 right after Sandusky was arrested?

4. Do you believe that Penn State did a reasonable job of vetting the accusers who were looking for settlements from Penn State after the Sandusky trial?

1) The Freeh report has nothing to do with what happened in 2001.

2) What Mike saw or thought he saw has nothing to do with what the administrators did. It DOES matter what he told them.

3) I think Joe left the BoT no choice when he grandstanded and said that he wouldn't step aside. That may have been the only mistake he made in all of this. He forced the issue needlessly. Regardless, this has no bearing on the trial of CSS.

4) The accusers looking for settlements have nothing to do with the trial of CSS.

 

[francofan]

1. Both, and in places inaccurate.

2. I believe what was happening was rape; I do understand that he could not see actual penetration.

3. No, but I couldn't see him continuing on the field after that.

4. Don't know.

You can at times come up with responses that I don't totally disagree with JJ.

1. I believe the Freeh Report is a farce in spite of having some accurate information.

2. Thank you for acknowledging that MM did not witness an anal rape. MM wrote in an email to Jonelle Eschbach that she twisted his words in her writing of the grand jury presentment.

3, Joe may or may not have been able to continue on the field, but he absolutely did not deserve to be summarily fired over the phone after 61 years of commendable service to the University

4. Thank you for also realizing that Penn State may have made payments to some accusers that were not based on factual complaints.

 

[francofan]

Since children can't consent to sexual activity , any sexual activity between and an adult and child can be called rape. So yeah , Sandusky committed rape on V2.

And steve here is a loon.

So you are humoring me when you said you wouldn't.

That wasn't my question. Do you think Mike McQueary witnessed an "anal" rape in the Lasch building in February 2001?

Call me whatever you want Elvis. Coming from you, I take it as a badge of honor.

 

[RussianEagle]

Since children can't consent to sexual activity , any sexual activity between and an adult and child can be called rape. So yeah , Sandusky committed rape on V2.

And steve here is a loon.

How do you know what happened between V2 and Sandusky was sexual activity? The only individual to ever claim to be V2 said it was not.

 

[francofan]

1) The Freeh report has nothing to do with what happened in 2001.

2) What Mike saw or thought he saw has nothing to do with what the administrators did. It DOES matter what he told them.

3) I think Joe left the BoT no choice when he grandstanded and said that he wouldn't step aside. That may have been the only mistake he made in all of this. He forced the issue needlessly. Regardless, this has no bearing on the trial of CSS.

4) The accusers looking for settlements have nothing to do with the trial of CSS.

1. I believe the Freeh Report and the CSS trials are joined at the hip.

2. I disagree. If MM provided the adminstrators with a horsing around report that made him feel uncomfortable, then I believe it has everything to do with the way they reacted.

3. I believe the way the BOT fired Joe was horrendous.

4. On the other hand, the trial of CSS has everything to do with the accusers looking for settlements.