Probably because he keeps having to pay for more troll time on PL. I'm sure that he was the one who ran the troll op that tortured us for years.
SIAP: Interesting press conference announced for 10AM on 2/25/19 purportedly to address Freeh review
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Probably because he keeps having to pay for more troll time on PL. I'm sure that he was the one who ran the troll op that tortured us for years.
Somebody is still paying for the troll operations at PL. The trolls are still going strong. I am guessing it is probably the people that have the most to hide such as Corbett, Freeh, Fina, etc.
Surprisingly, "the fund" never runs dry. 5 cents a post, 1 cent per 10 clicks. Best deal anywhere!
I firmly believe the earth is round, and I don't waste my time responding every "denier" out there. Makes you wonder why he 'he doth protest too much'? Look at other people who acted the same way, Lou Anna Simon, Craig Carton, Bernie McCue, etc.
From what I've seen from Freeh and the BOT statement, they don't dispute any of the findings of the A7 report, they merely complain that either there was a response to Freeh's nonsensical conclusion (actually his opinion, per Freeh himself under oath) and that there was a leak that enabled the report to be made public.
Imo, gives even more validity to the A7 report and dispute vs. Freeh's stated conclusions. That's a big story, and worth digging into deeper, especially given Freeh's propensity for writing expensive conclusions to support a dictated narrative by his clients. Public knowledge of his business model could and should put him out of business.
I didnt' know a lot of stuff that was in the Snedden report and that he talked about but than that could be on me. After awhile I had JS burnout and fatigue.
Maybe you should have gone to the PC and asked those questions.
I mean you seem to be "interested" in it now.
They all have skeletons in their closets, in Bernie McCue's case it was young boys as well.
Wonder whats on their computers? hmmmm..
My thoughts, exactly. When the A7 Report was made public, Dambly, Barron, et. Al. didn't dispute the contents. They feigned outrage at the perceived violation of confidentiality that was never promised or assured in the first place.
Maybe you should have gone to the PC and asked those questions.
I mean you seem to be "interested" in it now.
I was gonna suggest we all wear name tags. At least I was able to finally meet Barry in person. What a great guy.
I have a theory on that. I recall that someone asked Amendola when Jerry took the accusations seriously......and Amendola replied something like, "when the verdict came in." Some of the claims were so outrageous....like repeated forced anal rape in JS's family room with Dottie home. If Sandusky didn't think the testimony would be judged as credible, he may have wished to keep his condition private. If most of us were questioned on our sex lives with our wives (those of us who are/were married for 30-40 years...we might lie about the frequency and intensity....LOL). It might have been the last thing Jerry and Dottie wanted broadcast....Jerry has withered testicles or whatever.
Likewise, I wonder if the "victim" who claims he was repeatedly raped anally, would have consented to testing if it were a condition of a financial settlement.
Well, we know what was on Fina's computer...that paragon of virtue.
Both. Cipriano saw Sandusky's medical records from his visit to the Hershey Medical Center in the 2006-2008 time frame. He has low testosterone levels and a low sperm count. I believe he was diagnosed with hypogonandism. In Pendergrast's research for his book, he asked both Jerry and Dottie about their sex life and they both said around 2-3 times per week. I don't believe that Jerry's medical condition prevented him from having sex, but I am guessing that he didn't have a hyper active sex life.
This is one of the key mysteries/ flaws in Pendergast's book. First, Dottie & Jerry did not really match in their descriptions/ count per week. Second, it dosen't jive with his supposed condition. Third, the supposed condition wasn't diagnosed or didn't surface til 2007, so no impact vis a vis the accusations.
The whole area is potentially significant, but pendergast just lets it all slide.
That's a red flag that his book wasn't trying to get to the truth.
Wrong. The red flag is in this word.
I bet most would answer “2-3” times a week if asked the same question. It’s one of those societal norms.
Actually, there are no flaws in the Pendergrast book, pure facts on every page.
Jerry Sandusky is a name well known—and well hated—to most Americans. Before retiring as an assistant coach of Penn State’s football team, he founded The Second Mile, an organization to help deprived young people in Pennsylvania. But his association with young boys eventually led to his downfall, and to the downfall of others. In 2008 the police began investigating Sandusky for sexual abuse of children, discerning a pattern of grooming and then of diverse forms of sexual abuse. A grand jury was convened a year later, and in 2011 Sandusky was charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse. Four charges were dropped, and in 2012 Sandusky was convicted of 45 of the remaining 48 charges of sex abuse. He was sentenced to between 30 and 60 years in prison—a life sentence for someone who was 67. He’s now in solitary confinement, as convicted pedophiles don’t fare well in prison, since they’re often attacked by fellow inmates.
At the time of the trial, nobody had any doubt about Sandusky’s guilt, and the press jumped on the story. It wasn’t just Sandusky who was involved: someone who thought he saw Sandusky raping a boy reported it to Penn State’s iconic football coach Joe Paterno, who, along with three other University officials, were found in an internal review to have covered up reports of Sandusky’s abuse. Paterno was fired after a long career (he died of cancer not long thereafter), and the three officials, who were also fired, were convicted or pleaded guilty to child endangerment, perjury, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. Graham Spanier, the President of Penn State, was forced to resign, and the university was fined $860 million as well as giving $109 million to those who claimed to be Sandusky’s victims.
Then, in October of last year, Mark Pendergrast, who’s also published on the fallacy of “recovered memory”, came out with a book called The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement . In his view, Sandusky is “probably innocent.” But how could that be, with ten alleged victims in the trial and the press backing up the allegations?
I haven’t read Pendergrast’s book, but the Skeptic article by Fred Crews, “Trial by therapy: the Jerry Sandusky case revisited“, summarizes the book in an accessible way. I’d recommend reading it, as Crews isn’t somebody who is gullible, and has spent his career as a skeptic, largely about Freud and issues of recovered memory. I note as well that THE expert on the fatal flaws of “recovered memory”, Elizabeth Loftus, has also endorsed Pendergrast’s book:
“If potential readers are convinced that Jerry Sandusky is guilty, they need to read The Most Hated Man in America. This meticulously researched, provocative, and wonderfully written book by Mark Pendergrast, an enormously important contributor to the repressed memory debate, will certainly make them see another side. Maybe they will think twice.”
—ELIZABETH LOFTUS, Distinguished Professor of Psychology & Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, author, The Myth of Repressed Memory and other books.
While Crews’s article is best fleshed out by reading the book, it summarizes the main problems with the case. These include a completely lame defense for Sandusky, with his lawyers not even presenting exculpatory evidence, and, most of all, the fact that every accusation against Sandusky seems problematic, with many based on flawed or faulty recollections and even on prompting by police and therapists who wanted Sandusky to be guilty. A huge swath 0f testimony is based on this kind of forced “recovered memory”, and research has shown that forgotten memories of trauma are deeply problematic and almost always wrong. Crews goes through each of the ten alleged victims of Sandusky’s abuse featured at the trial, including the accusation of Sandusky was seen raping a young man in the shower (this eyewitness report appears to be wrong). The judge admitted 12-year-old hearsay testimony, and some witnesses who said they saw or experienced no sexual abuse later changed their minds after treatment with recovered memory therapy and pressure from the police.
I agree, unless trying one was trying to use the opposite as part of the defense.
Trying one was trying?
He never used it as part of his defense, try to keep up. If what I’ve read about JS is true, he likely never thought he needed to bring up the condition at trial. Didn’t he think he’d be found not guilty to the very end?
Here is a link to Ray Blehar's blog post on the Press Conference.
Ray states that Lindsay's plans to use Brady violations as a hail Mary strategy in his appeal for a new trial to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Lindsay has stated if the PA. Supreme Court denies a new trial that they are effectively eliminating Brady as a means to compel the prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense as the OAG made arguments in the Sandusky case while admitting that Brady violations occurred have argued that it didn't matter. I believe that Lindsay will also raise several other strong issues in their appeal and am anxious to read their appeal which I believe is due by March 5 and what the PA supreme court decides.
Ray does bring up Snedden's talk but only in reference to Sassano requesting the report on his investigation. He doesn't bring up the fact that Snedden found McQueary to be a totally unreliable witness who is not remotely credible. He also didn't being up that Snedden found corruption in the investigations that were done by the OAG and Freeh and that the scandal was a vendetta by Tom Corbett against Graham Spaniel.
Ray does mention Ralph Cipriano's talk about how Penn State paid 36 claimants $118 million with virtually no vetting whatsoever and Ralph's interview of the FBI profiler who worked the CSA case in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia case where the profiler identified several red flags of potential fraud were present in the Penn State case. However, Ray did not have any comments on the red flags of no contemporaneous reports, accusers who stories constantly changes, and enhanced memory therapy that permeate this case.
Ray seems to acknowledge that a new trial is a possibility. I disagree with Ray's assessment that if Lindsay wins a new trial that the result will likely be the same same, I believe it will be game over for the OAG if Lindsay wins a new trial.
I am glad that Ray took the time to come to the press conference that demonstrates to me that he realizes that Sandusky's defense has some very compelling arguments that the existing narratives about Sandusky have some gaping holes in them. I just wish he would acknowledge the elephant in the room that the case against Sandusky is not very strong.
https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2019/02/sanduskys-hail-mary-is-brady.html
Ray states that Lindsay's plans to use Brady violations as a hail Mary strategy in his appeal for a new trial to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Lindsay has stated if the PA. Supreme Court denies a new trial that they are effectively eliminating Brady as a means to compel the prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense as the OAG made arguments in the Sandusky case while admitting that Brady violations occurred have argued that it didn't matter. I believe that Lindsay will also raise several other strong issues in their appeal and am anxious to read their appeal which I believe is due by March 5 and what the PA supreme court decides.
Ray does bring up Snedden's talk but only in reference to Sassano requesting the report on his investigation. He doesn't bring up the fact that Snedden found McQueary to be a totally unreliable witness who is not remotely credible. He also didn't being up that Snedden found corruption in the investigations that were done by the OAG and Freeh and that the scandal was a vendetta by Tom Corbett against Graham Spaniel.
Ray does mention Ralph Cipriano's talk about how Penn State paid 36 claimants $118 million with virtually no vetting whatsoever and Ralph's interview of the FBI profiler who worked the CSA case in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia case where the profiler identified several red flags of potential fraud were present in the Penn State case. However, Ray did not have any comments on the red flags of no contemporaneous reports, accusers who stories constantly changes, and enhanced memory therapy that permeate this case.
Ray seems to acknowledge that a new trial is a possibility. I disagree with Ray's assessment that if Lindsay wins a new trial that the result will likely be the same same, I believe it will be game over for the OAG if Lindsay wins a new trial.
I am glad that Ray took the time to come to the press conference that demonstrates to me that he realizes that Sandusky's defense has some very compelling arguments that the existing narratives about Sandusky have some gaping holes in them. I just wish he would acknowledge the elephant in the room that the case against Sandusky is not very strong.
https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2019/02/sanduskys-hail-mary-is-brady.html
Narcissists, when used to enormous power, expect enormous deference. Freeh gets neither from the PSU community, which irritates the Corbett out of him.
LOL.....the only ones here with withered testicles are Jockstrap and his PL pal farts and letters.
For those of you that are interested, the presentations at the press conference given by Jeff Byers, Al Lindsay, John Snedden, Dick Anderson, and Ralph Cipriano have been posted to big trial blog.
Here is the link to Jeff Byers' talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/jeff-byers-truth-of-entire-story.html
Here is the link to Al Lindsay's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/federal-agent-two-politically-motivated.html
Here is the link to John Snedden's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/federal-agent-on-ag-freeh-two.html
Here is the link to Dick Anderson's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/the-cat-is-out-of-bag.html
Here is the link to Ralph Cipriaano's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/an-x-rated-comic-book-that-cost-penn.html
All 5 speakers are reasonable people and are well versed on the facts of the case. All 5 gave compelling talks that Sandusky was railroaded. I believe that Sandusky was railroaded as well.
Here is the link to Jeff Byers' talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/jeff-byers-truth-of-entire-story.html
Here is the link to Al Lindsay's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/federal-agent-two-politically-motivated.html
Here is the link to John Snedden's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/federal-agent-on-ag-freeh-two.html
Here is the link to Dick Anderson's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/the-cat-is-out-of-bag.html
Here is the link to Ralph Cipriaano's talk:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/an-x-rated-comic-book-that-cost-penn.html
All 5 speakers are reasonable people and are well versed on the facts of the case. All 5 gave compelling talks that Sandusky was railroaded. I believe that Sandusky was railroaded as well.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting. Did you happen to review Blehar's blog following the press conference?
I did and I believe that Ray is dead wrong in his analysis. Ray has said that Sandusky's trial was unfair, that the OAG engaged in questionable behavior, that the old guard BOT were wrong in their handling of what transpired 8 years ago, that the Freeh Report is a farce, that a number of the claimants are likely charlatans, that many of the claimants lawyers are unscrupulous, and that McQueary's testimony is very questionable; however, his insistence that Sandusky is a liar and that AM could not be v2 among other things helps to enable the likes of Tom Corbett, Frank Fina, Louis Freeh and the old guard BOT to escape accountability for their misdeeds in the fiasco imho.
I was somewhat surprised at the response I got to my question about TSM and their role in tacitly approving the tearing down the good names of C/S/S/P. Lindsay and others were oddly defensive about TSM, stating the org. did a lot of good things and dismissing any suggestion that Rakovitz had at least some culpability in the narrative. Yes, TSM did a lot of good things. They (Dr. Jack) also did not do what they were supposed to do with Tim's report.
I believe that if the media and public had focused on the fact that Curley took McQ's report to Rakovitz, and was 'helped' to compare that with Rakovitz's testimony vs. Spanier a few years later where he stated that he is a proper reporting authority for such things, it would be clear that PSU did the right thing with what they were told by McQ. No cover-up, just as the courts later determined, and no child endangerment. Those misinformed beliefs were a big part of what the public perception is to this day wrt these men and PSU in general. I still cannot understand why that aspect is not shouted for all to hear. Spanier's strange defense strategery just buried it.
The PSU team did what they thought was needed given what was told to them. If mistakes were made, they were honest ones based on what they knew. And 1998 just reinforced that there was going to be not much to this anyway, yet still they took the report forward as they should have.
Central Mtn HS was applauded for taking their report to Rakovitz. Curley spent time in jail for doing the same thing.
Had Rakovitz been honest and ethical about he and others (Heim) at TSM waving off Tim's report, and 'fessed up being negligent in investigating what was their responsibility to investigate, the focus would have shifted to TSM. And then later, TSM was indemnified in the payment agreements to the victims, real and/or imagined. (mostly the latter). And that circles us back to the OGBOT and their involvement with TSM.
The panel simply replied that they did not know why TSM was indemnified, Lindsay pleaded 'all before my time on this case', and others shrugged it off as not important. And I get that it is not all that important wrt Sandusky, but Dick Anderson spoke largely about JVP and PSU and the overwhelmingly positive culture that always existed. Stressing that PSU and JVP did the right thing with the report is an integral part of that 'defense', and it uses Jack's own testimony!
TSM certainly has a shield of teflon in this for whatever reasons.
I'm not sure that my frustration over this will ever subside. Having PSU recognize JVP again, to the extent well-deserved and well-earned, will be the only way, probably. And I'm getting older by the day.
As an aside, as someone once mentioned to me, Dr. Jack's wife, Kitty Genovese, is from a family (in a couple of senses) of the same name. Probably nothing to that, though....
