You guys should write a book, 7 habits of highly ineffective trolls.
Sandusky Scandal Costs Approach 1/4 Billion.
- Thread starter moofafoo
- Start date
Please enlighten me. What was "dumb" about Wendy's question to Freeh?
You really are working hard lately to obfuscate. I know the Schultz testimony you referenced and your summary is completely inaccurate, shocking!!
The testimony Schultz gave was his hypothetical reponse to hypothetical question. Idiot trolls like yourself love to point out this testimony, similar to Joe's "sexual in nature", as if it's somekind of smoking gun but it's a big nothing burger. Try again.
No, it wasn't. Schultz was asked what his "impression" was of what McQueary told him. That is on page 211. On 212, Schultz is asked what could be a hypothetical question, but on 211 Schultz answers: "I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had."
It was Schultz's impression, not a hypothetical question.
I really hope that you understand the difference. Well, it cold be option #2.
No, it wasn't. Schultz was asked what his "impression" was of what McQueary told him. That is on page 211. On 212, Schultz is asked what could be a hypothetical question, but on 211 Schultz answers: "I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals or something of that sort is kind of the impression that I had."
It was Schultz's impression, not a hypothetical question.
I really hope that you understand the difference. Well, it cold be option #2.
Wrong. You need to show the full q&a sequence not just that one cherry picked answer.
Onto ignore you go. Done with you.
Wow, I quoted the testimony and Wendy Silverwood could not handle it. I guess it is the second option.
As I like to say, when someone ignores, they live in ignorance.
You're going on ignore bc you're intellectually dishonest and not interested in having a real discussion.
I am not Wendy so I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
You didnt post the full q and a from the schutlz testimony but instead pulled a louie freeh hatchet job.
Bye bye
Wendy wouldn't lower herself to let that lying turd lick her boots . . . AFTER walking through the horse stalls . . .
Oh, I thought you were ignoring me; sorry about confusing the two of you.
No, but I did cite where it could be found, so that people can go there and read it for themselves. I don't intend to type pages of testimony. I dislike spin, and your spin was either dishonest or you don't understand the meaning of the word "impression."
Now, somebody can go to page 211 and read it for themselves, not ignore it like you are doing.
Oh. I don't know were Wendy Silverwood walks, except that she walked with Kathleen Kane, the person who didn't investigate TSM for 3 1/2 years. A stable will smell much better that that company.
Last edited:
For the record...
Here is Schultz's testimony from page 211 of the 12/16/11 prelim. Notice how stufftodo left out the first part of the sentence. Then he/she has the gall to claim I'm the one putting "spin" on things smh. All Schultz knew for sure was the shower was inappropriate. His impression from MM's detail lacking report was that the shower was inappropriate. Look at the first sentence of his answer.
Stuftodo is intellectually dishonest.
12/16/11 prelim
Page 211:
Schultz was asked what MM related and Schultz said it was a very general description with no details. Then the following was asked:
Q: Did you nevertheless form an impression about what type of conduct this might have been that occured in the locker room?
A: Well I had the impression that it was inappropriate. Telling you what kind of thing I had in my mind, without being clear, without him telling me, but you know, I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed the yound boys genitals or something of that sort is the impression I had.
Q: would you consider that to be inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: Oh, absolutely. Well, I don't know the definition of sexual, but that's certainly inappropriate for somebody to do.
Record corrected.
Here is Schultz's testimony from page 211 of the 12/16/11 prelim. Notice how stufftodo left out the first part of the sentence. Then he/she has the gall to claim I'm the one putting "spin" on things smh. All Schultz knew for sure was the shower was inappropriate. His impression from MM's detail lacking report was that the shower was inappropriate. Look at the first sentence of his answer.
Stuftodo is intellectually dishonest.
12/16/11 prelim
Page 211:
Schultz was asked what MM related and Schultz said it was a very general description with no details. Then the following was asked:
Q: Did you nevertheless form an impression about what type of conduct this might have been that occured in the locker room?
A: Well I had the impression that it was inappropriate. Telling you what kind of thing I had in my mind, without being clear, without him telling me, but you know, I had the feeling that there was perhaps some kind of wrestling around activity and maybe Jerry might have grabbed the yound boys genitals or something of that sort is the impression I had.
Q: would you consider that to be inappropriate sexual conduct?
A: Oh, absolutely. Well, I don't know the definition of sexual, but that's certainly inappropriate for somebody to do.
Record corrected.
Last edited:
Because he's either a complete idiot or biased. I've already explained to him why his theory is completely illogical and against human behavior.
You did no such thing. You have claimed to several times. But you didn't.
Last edited:
Because anyone that's looked at the Freeh raw materials has essentially either agreed with the conclusions or has clammed up tight.
It's sad that you couldn't comprehend my relatively simply reply to your post, or have the ability to find that post from Thursday when challenged. It took me all of 30 seconds to find it. Instead you go directly into denial mode. If you can't do these simple things, why would you expect anyone to put any stock into anything else you ever say?
Tell us about Joe's "confession" to Lenny Moore, mbe. What court and LE agencies used this confession?
Asshat.
GTA, do every one a favor and go take a long walk off a short pier.
It's completely asinine to spend another second rehashing Schultz testimony as if it's some kind of smoking gun. It's not. All it amounts to is Schultz recalling MM didn't give any details (what MM actually told him was a general description with few details) but then expanding to what he had in his imagination as a possible scenario that may have happened, due to MM's lack of details.
It's meaningless speculation. His only takeaway from the MM meeting was the shower was inappropriate and made MM uncomfortable, which coincidentally is the exact description that JM, Dr D, Joe, Curley, and Raykovitz also gave. Fancy that!
It's completely asinine to spend another second rehashing Schultz testimony as if it's some kind of smoking gun. It's not. All it amounts to is Schultz recalling MM didn't give any details (what MM actually told him was a general description with few details) but then expanding to what he had in his imagination as a possible scenario that may have happened, due to MM's lack of details.
It's meaningless speculation. His only takeaway from the MM meeting was the shower was inappropriate and made MM uncomfortable, which coincidentally is the exact description that JM, Dr D, Joe, Curley, and Raykovitz also gave. Fancy that!
anyone with an IQ over 45 can see that Schultz's testimony was his impression of what Mike MIGHT HAVE been trying to convey. Again, like Joe's GJ testimony, it is littered with guess work and uncertainty.
You're just throwing anything up against a wall to see if it sticks.
They hadn't spoken with Sandusky about 98 or 01 when he wrote the email. So how would they know the "problem" was just a generational misunderstanding?
Why would they bring in a "professional" HR consultant rather than a state agency which trains people who work with kids? You know, the people whose job it is to deal these matters.
What expertise would an HR consultant have that TSM wouldn't in situations like this?
Questioning Freeh's conclusion about Paterno is one thing. Playing "what could have happened" with C/S/S is another entirely.
An HR consultant for suspected CSA?
Ironically, you're just throwing anything up against a wall to see if it sticks. Your post is all over the place, did you put any actual thought into it?
You don’t need to speak with someone to factor in generational differences. I guess you’ve never managed people?
You’d bring in a HR consultant when you are concerned about avoiding false accusations; you know, the people whose job it is to deal with these matters.
All of this was covered in my last post. I see a fundamental lack of reading comprehension on your part, or serious agenda driven blinders. We aren’t talking suspected CSA, so your entire post is invalid. You need to ditch your hindsight bias.
A state agency for false accusations?
You never answered my question why it's OKf or Freeh to violate the terms of his multi-million dollar agreement and not present his points publicly on campus as it states he would. Until you do that, not another word from you.
If Schultz "had the impression that it was inappropriate," if he "had the feeling that . . . Jerry might have grabbed the young boy's genitals," what could possibly justify Schultz's failure to conduct a discreet but thorough investigation and discover what was actually true?
Last edited:
He has to be invited. There has to be a place & time. The administration or BoT need to issue the invite as they issued the contract. He can't just show up randomly.
Oh brother....Perhaps the fact that Schultz was not a child abuse expert or investigator?? One could imagine up a thousand different scenarios that could have sparked MM's report. What scenerio that Schultz had in his imagination was completely meaningless.
The admins conducted as much of an investigation that non CSA experts could do without a formal written statement to police...they spoke to OUTSIDE counsel, spoke to the witness, confronted JS about his inappropriate behavior & revoked his guest privileges, then forwarded the report to the folks at TSM who were MANDATORY reporters and 1000000x more qualified to look into MM's vague ass report.
Oh yeah and the admins also followed up with the witness who was fine with their action plan and never said that MORE needed to be done based on what he felt he observed. Then they all went on with their lives for the next 9 years.
Any more brain busters???
Now let's ask the logical question why the administration or BOT can't or won't invite him to explain. Not only does the BOT not require Freeh to complete all the tasks he was required to by his contract, they gave him additional money-- upwards of $2 million more.
Have you ever done that with someone you signed a contract with? Pay them more than the original contract value and telling them they didn't have to finish all the work you were paying them for? Do you think that's good stewardship of university resources?
Have you ever done that with someone you signed a contract with? Pay them more than the original contract value and telling them they didn't have to finish all the work you were paying them for? Do you think that's good stewardship of university resources?
But the question was not "hypothetical" and I noted that it was his "impression."
Here is what you said:
Like I said, you spin like a dervish. Yes, it is pretty big if Schultz admitted under oath to that being his "impression." Something McQueary was saying left Schultz with that impression.
No it's not "pretty big". You only want to make it that way.
Sunday* I was reading a thread about someone charged significantly less than expected, asking about what to do. The consensus was to "do the right thing" and fufill his obligations, or it might come back to haunt him down the road. That meant calling up someone and pointing out that he still owed something. I know you've seen the thread, you posted in it yesterday. Exact same situation, if Freeh knows he owes PSU something per his exorbitant contract, he should go out of his way to fulfill, even if that means calling up PSU and asking them to schedule something.
*Not Thursday, Thursday was when I replied to a post of yours that you keep running away from.
