Spanier targeting Lubert

[moofafoo]

First, where, in that entire post, did I call Ganim a "genius." I mentioned how her first story was off (the real story was worse).

Second, unlike you, apparently, I am not going to accept what is out there at face value, because we keep finding out stuff.

Here are a few examples:

1. Ganim's first story (3/31/11) was about a victim in 2008, a boy hugged in a shower room in 1998. In the latter case, it could have meant that Sandusky, while others were in the shower with, put his arm around the shoulder of the boy, or that boy hugged Sandusky to thank him for the treat of being in shower room with the team. I assumd that it was something innocent being misconstrued and the witness mentioning it to his parent. On 11/5/11, we all found out that the witness was another victim (B.K.) and that it was reported to the police at the time. We also discovered 6 victims that were not mentioned in Ganim's article.

2. About a month after the first presentment, we had a second presentment with two more victims.

3. In July, we got to see all that documentation at end of the Freeh Report. What Freeh's conclusions, opinions, and speculation were of small importance. The documentation at the back of the report is what is important.

4. We get things like like the letter to Bagwell from the DOJ listing that Paterno was "one of the primary targets of an investigation," federal investigation, at the time of his death. You might wish to google "target of an investigation."

5. We have then those insurance suit claims about Paterno knowing about Sandusky in the 1980's. We don't have the details so there is the possibility that they are not corroborated. In some of them might have a third person corroboration. We don't know.

6. Finally, Courtney speaks and says that he advised Shultz to report it and let DPW do what it considered appropriate. Of course we have no evidence that it was reported, even though there is evidence of one that was reported 2 1/2 years before the 2001 incident.

All those things consider, do you really have any reason why I should be optimistic?

What a complete jackass you are, stuff'tdoodoo/mbe. You parrot the bullshit of JoJ through your hatred for Paterno and Penn State. Stick to PL and the Liar where there are other idiots like you. All you do is spin the homespun bullshit of other clowns.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Either you believe McQueary lied or you believe the Comm. Of PA lied.

The State said there was anal intercourse with a boy and a naked Sandusky in the shower in Lasch.. McQueary said he never saw such activity, nor said those words before the grand jury. Sworn testimony. When he complained about it he was told by the Asst AG to sit down. That's all I need to know.

Proof that the "OAG Version" of MM's testimony is a fraud....MM talked with NUMEROUS people in 2001. NONE of those people acted like there was even a remote SEXUAL ACT in MM's recount of what he saw. Their words AND their actions in 2001 all confirm this!!!!

I submit that the MM version that the OAG used as "the lynchpin" of this entire case was constructed by the OAG in order to bring PSU's deep pockets and Media Spotlight to a legal case that would have died a natural death due to ineffective LEGAL evidence.

With MM's "RAPE of a 10 yr old" story, the public would, by emotional knee-jerk, turn off its intellect and follow the absurd path that the OAG created WITHOUT QUESTION. This allowed THREE key things to happen:

(1) The media would distribute to the public the kind of speculative "mis-information" necessary to create the legal confusion essential for what was LOGICALLY (alone) a case of governmental incompetency and potential illegal campaign contributions.
(2) The linkage of PSU was essential to allow the group controlling the OAG to create "plausible denial" opportunities for the MANY suspicious activities and issues that it needed to obtain cover for its real purpose - PROTECT "highly placed insiders" and the (illegal aspects of) TSM operations. PSU's "shadow" has been an essential part of this deception and crime.
(3) The "Bank of PSU" was necessary to "compensate" those who cooperated with the OAG unit in creating/promoting the entire illusion. Without the C/S/S implication of CRIMINAL ACTS, there would not be the opportunity for the "civil action payments" to be delivered as engineered. Much too much similarity with other state of PA cases where, because of the collusion currently at work in PA courts, politics and "influential elites", we see the same "blueprint" of coverup. The Bank of PSU funded all of this to the tune of $250M+.

By now, it is obvious that MM's one version - the one originally delivered to the Media in 2011 - was the key to operating the machinery ENGINEERED for the most criminal case of Governmental Abuse of Power in the past 100 years.

It has never been about the "victims" - it has always been about what happens when corruption drives the governmental/legal processes of a State.

LEGALLY - without the sensational OAG presentment version (NOT MM's "other" versions - certainly not any 2001 delivered version) and without the opportunity to destroy the PSU "squeaky clean" brand created by Paterno (assisted by a politically controlled executive BOT) - this entire public assassination could have NEVER happened.

 

[coveydidnt]

It would be human nature to either report what you heard, or not report it at all. Given all that was going on, logic would dictate that they would want to give a full report to avoid future scandal.

Please stop trying to rationalize a watered down report.

They had the advice of the Attorney, WC, so they basically had to report *something*. But they didn't want to create/add to the current scandal, especially after Spanier weighed in. Now they are stuck. They can't really report nothing or they will be acting against legal advice. They don't want to report the whole thing, including unknowns, which would trigger an investigation and add to current scandal.

So they have the idea to talk to Jerry first. He turns on the "Aw Shucks" routine and is sufficiently believable that they are able to rationalize that it was just horseplay in the shower. An issue to be avoided in the future, but not that big of a deal. So this is what is conveyed to TSM. In their minds, it wasn't watered down. In hindsight, they probably wonder if they unconsciously watered it down, but in testimony and memory, their mind is probably sticking to the horseplay-only version. Paterno & Mike were not involved with this part, so their testimony was more strongly suggestive of CSA. If they were later informed of actions taken it was probably to the effect of, "we reported the incident as required". Paterno/Mike may have interpreted that differently than CSS would have meant, but it's an awkward topic, and everyone was willing to hear what they wanted to hear.

BTW, I largely excuse CSS for this. Jerry was, according to Clemente, a top 1% offender, and would easily have been able to fool people - he'd done it before, and for years.

It doesn't change the notion that in hindsight it would have been better to make a full report to TSM and probably authorities.

There's no coverup. Just an error. And possibly an understandable error.

 

[LundyPSU]

Either you believe McQueary lied or you believe the Comm. Of PA lied.

The State said there was anal intercourse with a boy and a naked Sandusky in the shower in Lasch.. McQueary said he never saw such activity, nor said those words before the grand jury. Sworn testimony. When he complained about it he was told by the Asst AG to sit down. That's all I need to know.

But Mike did say that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy.

 

[WeR0206]

They had the advice of the Attorney, WC, so they basically had to report *something*. But they didn't want to create/add to the current scandal, especially after Spanier weighed in. Now they are stuck. They can't really report nothing or they will be acting against legal advice. They don't want to report the whole thing, including unknowns, which would trigger an investigation and add to current scandal.

So they have the idea to talk to Jerry first. He turns on the "Aw Shucks" routine and is sufficiently believable that they are able to rationalize that it was just horseplay in the shower. An issue to be avoided in the future, but not that big of a deal. So this is what is conveyed to TSM. In their minds, it wasn't watered down. In hindsight, they probably wonder if they unconsciously watered it down, but in testimony and memory, their mind is probably sticking to the horseplay-only version. Paterno & Mike were not involved with this part, so their testimony was more strongly suggestive of CSA. If they were later informed of actions taken it was probably to the effect of, "we reported the incident as required". Paterno/Mike may have interpreted that differently than CSS would have meant, but it's an awkward topic, and everyone was willing to hear what they wanted to hear.

BTW, I largely excuse CSS for this. Jerry was, according to Clemente, a top 1% offender, and would easily have been able to fool people - he'd done it before, and for years.

It doesn't change the notion that in hindsight it would have been better to make a full report to TSM and probably authorities.

There's no coverup. Just an error. And possibly an understandable error.

The "whole thing" reported to the admins by MM was an unknown, that's the issue. MM's report was vague and full of assumptions. MM didn't see any hands, privates, etc....all he had was the sounds he heard and the fact that JS was in the shower with some kid. MM never filed a police report so the admins did all they could do from their end (since they had no control over JS' access to kids) which was get advice from counsel, confront JS about his behavior, revoke guest privileges, then tell TSM (who were mandatory reporters and had direct control over JS' access to kids).

You also keep forgetting that MM, the one and only witness, never expressed dissatisfaction nor said more needed to be done when the admins followed up with him.

 

[Stufftodo]

What a complete jackass you are, stuff'tdoodoo/mbe. You parrot the bullshit of JoJ through your hatred for Paterno and Penn State. Stick to PL and the Liar where there are other idiots like you. All you do is spin the homespun bullshit of other clowns.

What part of, "I don't think Paterno committed perjury," or "I think Paterno reported it promptly," are you having a conceptual problem with Pnnykitty. Are you really that stupid. Well, looking at you posts, the answer is obviously yes.

 

[WyomingLion]

What part of, "I don't think Paterno committed perjury," or "I think Paterno reported it promptly," are you having a conceptual problem with Pnnykitty. Are you really that stupid. Well, looking at you posts, the answer is obviously yes.

Hey, your back! Is Sara Ganim still a genius? You tried to pretend you didn't say it and when I copied your post (669) ......crickets. You said it own it.
You throw out garbage and speculation and see what sticks or hope it sticks and if called on it run, deny, or do that awkward dance. You are disingenuous and that's being kind. Go join the genius club with Sara...or is that you

 

[Stufftodo]

But Mike did say that he believed JS was sodomizing the boy.

It is sort of like this. You are near your teenage daughter's bedroom. You daughter is screaming, "Oh my God! Say my name; say my name! Faster."

The door is open and you look in. You see she, and her boyfriend, partially under a sheet. The boyfriend clearly is not wearing a shirt; the rest of him is under the sheet. Did you see them having sex?

 

[Stufftodo]

Here is what I said.

"
I can remember the comments of many who were outraged that Ganim's story was published. Now, she looks like a genius and the people complaining look like morons."

Yes, compared to you and people that were complaining about her original story, she "looks like a genius." It is a comparison.

Noting that, you just illustrated my point in the comparison.

I hope you are not an alumnus of Penn State.

 

[WyomingLion]

Here is what I said.

"
I can remember the comments of many who were outraged that Ganim's story was published. Now, she looks like a genius and the people complaining look like morons."

Yes, compared to you and people that were complaining about her original story, she "looks like a genius." It is a comparison.

Noting that, you just illustrated my point in the comparison.

I hope you are not an alumnus of Penn State.

Now here come the qualifying statements. Keep doing the awkward dance. Done with you.
No I think you illustrated my point, when called on something you resort to personal slurs. True colors showing?

 

[moofafoo]

What part of, "I don't think Paterno committed perjury," or "I think Paterno reported it promptly," are you having a conceptual problem with Pnnykitty. Are you really that stupid. Well, looking at you posts, the answer is obviously yes.

What I think is you're full of JoJ and PL shit. What don't you get?

 

[Stufftodo]

Now here come the qualifying statements. Keep doing the awkward dance. Done with you.

No, exactly what I originally posted. You are done with everything, because this has moved on well ahead of what you are willing, or able, to comprehend.

 

[Stufftodo]

What I think is you're full of JoJ and PL shit. What don't you get?

You must be really special, Ed.

 

[moofafoo]

You must be really special, Ed.

You're full of shit, Shuttlesworth/mbe.

 

[Royal_Coaster]

Hmmm, let's see... insanely protective of Lubert, and almost nearly as much of dear stupid Sara.

 

[lionlurker]

After 5 years, you'd think they'd come up with a new schtick.

 

[coveydidnt]

After 5 years, you'd think they'd come up with a new schtick.

I heard it was actually George Steinbrenner not Jerry in the shower that night.

 

[LundyPSU]

It is sort of like this. You are near your teenage daughter's bedroom. You daughter is screaming, "Oh my God! Say my name; say my name! Faster."

The door is open and you look in. You see she, and her boyfriend, partially under a sheet. The boyfriend clearly is not wearing a shirt; the rest of him is under the sheet. Did you see them having sex?

I disagree with that analogy. But the point of my post was that Mike in his police statement and GJ testimony pretty confidently said that JS was sodomizing the boy. So the fact that the presentment stated that is not a stretch. Yet, everyone has been screaming about the OAG for writing it.

 

[lionlurker]

I heard it was actually George Steinbrenner not Jerry in the shower that night.

That actually makes more sense than a lot of the stuff you and your buddies have put out there trying to justify the actions of the BOT.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I disagree with that analogy. But the point of my post was that Mike in his police statement and GJ testimony pretty confidently said that JS was sodomizing the boy. So the fact that the presentment stated that is not a stretch. Yet, everyone has been screaming about the OAG for writing it.

just to clarify, Mike has NEVER testified with certainty that he was witnessing the anal rape of a boy, which is what the GJ presentment emphatically stated.

He even sent an angry email to Eshbach saying that

 

[Stufftodo]

I disagree with that analogy. But the point of my post was that Mike in his police statement and GJ testimony pretty confidently said that JS was sodomizing the boy. So the fact that the presentment stated that is not a stretch. Yet, everyone has been screaming about the OAG for writing it.

McQueary saw something and made a logical assumption; he also stated that he didn't see the actual act. I am agreeing with your point.

If that was your teenage daughter, you would assume, reasonably, that she was having sex. You didn't see here having sex, did you? If you were asked if you saw penetration, you would say, truthfully, that you did not.

 

[coveydidnt]

just to clarify, Mike has NEVER testified with certainty that he was witnessing the anal rape of a boy, which is what the GJ presentment emphatically stated.

He even sent an angry email to Eshbach saying that

Just to clarify. A GJ presentment is NOT a finding of fact. It lays out what GJ believes will be likely to be proven at trial.

 

[LundyPSU]

just to clarify, Mike has NEVER testified with certainty that he was witnessing the anal rape of a boy, which is what the GJ presentment emphatically stated.

He even sent an angry email to Eshbach saying that

So he said that JS was sodomizing the boy, but couldn't say with 100% certainty b/c he didn't actually see penetration. So he strongly believed that was what he witnessed. And that he told C/S that it was intercourse between JS and the boy.

Sorry, but I still don't understand the uproar about the presentment based on what he has said. Now, if you want to question the believability of Mike's testimony, then that makes more sense. I think Mike sent the angry email to Eshbach b/c he was getting hammered for walking out on a kid that he believed was being abused.

 

[kevina001]

Just to clarify. A GJ presentment is NOT a finding of fact. It lays out what GJ believes will be likely to be proven at trial.

Also to clarify, that GJ presentment was leaked out to the public in order to whip everyone into a frenzy. And it is safe to say the public and media made no distinction between the GJ presentment and fact.

 

[Zenophile]

McQueary saw something and made a logical assumption; he also stated that he didn't see the actual act. I am agreeing with your point.

If that was your teenage daughter, you would assume, reasonably, that she was having sex. You didn't see here having sex, did you? If you were asked if you saw penetration, you would say, truthfully, that you did not.

Did all the clowns bring straw men today?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

So he said that JS was sodomizing the boy, but couldn't say with 100% certainty b/c he didn't actually see penetration. So he strongly believed that was what he witnessed. And that he told C/S that it was intercourse between JS and the boy.

Sorry, but I still don't understand the uproar about the presentment based on what he has said. Now, if you want to question the believability of Mike's testimony, then that makes more sense. I think Mike sent the angry email to Eshbach b/c he was getting hammered for walking out on a kid that he believed was being abused.

well, to be fair . . . that is what he said in 2011

I get the feeling by everyone's reaction in 2001 he probably told a more toned down version.

but there is a big difference between "I definitely saw" and "I'm pretty sure I saw but didn't actually see"

 

[WeR0206]

MM's own testimony, that both the boy and JS were standing upright with both feet on the ground, would make "some type of sodomy" (MM's claim in his statement/GJ testimony) physically impossible even if MM THOUGHT that's what was happening.

It's why the OAG had to go the absurd route of putting a mannequin on a stool during the Js trial just to make it feasible. That's odd, I don't remember MM describing a stool being in the shower....hmmmm.

In the 12/16/11 prelim MM finally admitted he wasn't 100% sure what they were doing bc he couldn't see any hands/privates (hmm maybe this is why he never went to police that night??).

IOW all this talk from MM/OAG about sodomy is complete speculation and would violate the laws of physics to even be happening. The only thing MM could say with certainty is that JS was showering with the kid and it weirded him out (rightfully so).

 

[LundyPSU]

McQueary saw something and made a logical assumption; he also stated that he didn't see the actual act. I am agreeing with your point.

If that was your teenage daughter, you would assume, reasonably, that she was having sex. You didn't see here having sex, did you? If you were asked if you saw penetration, you would say, truthfully, that you did not.

still a bad analogy

 

[Obliviax]

still a bad analogy

Exactly. A friend of mine got sued for making creepy remarks to a gal at work. the case was thrown out and I congratulated him. He looked at me, sheepishly, and said "I am innocent in a court of law, but guilty in the court of public opinion. I should be better." I think that is appropriate here. The point is, there is a legal threshold and a moral one. They are not the same.

CS&S needed to act in accordance of the law, not what they thought or felt, at this point in time.

 

[baircub1!]

The "whole thing" reported to the admins by MM was an unknown, that's the issue. MM's report was vague and full of assumptions. MM didn't see any hands, privates, etc....all he had was the sounds he heard and the fact that JS was in the shower with some kid. MM never filed a police report so the admins did all they could do from their end (since they had no control over JS' access to kids) which was get advice from counsel, confront JS about his behavior, revoke guest privileges, then tell TSM (who were mandatory reporters and had direct control over JS' access to kids).

You also keep forgetting that MM, the one and only witness, never expressed dissatisfaction nor said more needed to be done when the admins followed up with him.

Think MM was just in over his head... He was weirded out by what he " saw" which was Jerry and the kid in the shower... Told his Dad and Doc.., then Paterno who told his bosses.

The idea that this was a conspiracy... Is beyond ridiculous.

But.. When OAG gets this... MM has nowhere to go and they " Carpe Diem"... MM is no longer in any control but merely a puppet in what OAG plans to do...

Scary the power of an AG' office has ESPECIALLY a corrupt one of one that is on a mission...

 

[Stufftodo]

Did all the clowns bring straw men today?

Not a strawman, an analogy.

In the case of the teenage daughter, perhaps she is playing a prank on you. She is wearing a bathing suit, the boyfriend shorts, and they have a video camera to catch your reaction. If you call up the boyfriend's mother, and tell him exactly what you saw, she may assume that here son was having sex with your daughter.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Think MM was just in over his head... He was weirded out by what he " saw" which was Jerry and the kid in the shower... Told his Dad and Doc.., then Paterno who told his bosses.

The idea that this was a conspiracy... Is beyond ridiculous.

But.. When OAG gets this... MM has nowhere to go and they " Carpe Diem"... MM is no longer in any control but merely a puppet in what OAG plans to do...

Scary the power of an AG' office has ESPECIALLY a corrupt one of one that is on a mission...

now here's the funny thing the trolls always overlook

the OAG had a complaining VICTIM (Aaron Fisher) who reported first hand abuse. CYS labeled Sandusky as an "indicated" abuser.

so . . . why the obsession of McQueary? Why didn't they move forward on Sandusky with the sex crimes unit the moment Sandusky was indicated? McQueary's account was flimsy at best. They didn't need it to go after Sandusky.

All you hear is this PennLive circle jerk nonsense to keep the focus on Penn State

 

[Obliviax]

Not a strawman, an analogy.

In the case of the teenage daughter, perhaps she is playing a prank on you. She is wearing a bathing suit, the boyfriend shorts, and they have a video camera to catch your reaction. If you call up the boyfriend's mother, and tell him exactly what you saw, she may assume that here son was having sex with your daughter.

And when you "ASS-U-ME" you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me". Assume don't cut it in a court of law. What hung JS, wasn't MM, it was MM in addition to 20 other people lined up to testify. CS&S probably knew about 1998, with its full investigation that led to nothing, and they associated that 1998 even to the 2001 event. With no victim to talk to, nothing to be proven the way MM related the story.

 

[Stufftodo]

And when you "ASS-U-ME" you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me". Assume don't cut it in a court of law. What hung JS, wasn't MM, it was MM in addition to 20 other people lined up to testify. CS&S probably knew about 1998, with its full investigation that led to nothing, and they associated that 1998 even to the 2001 event. With no victim to talk to, nothing to be proven the way MM related the story.

The question will be what actually did happen in 1998, relative to the investigation. There is a thread on that, and there is a lot of strangeness in that investigation.

Now, I will guarantee that we will find out more about it, one way or the other.

 

[moofafoo]

The question will be what actually did happen in 1998, relative to the investigation. There is a thread on that, and there is a lot of strangeness in that investigation.

Now, I will guarantee that we will find out more about it, one way or the other.

Yes, that you're full of shit, stuff'tdoodoo.

 

[WeR0206]

Think about this....according to Dr. D what MM described to Dr. D that night not only wasn't bad enough for him to recommend MM going to UPPD ASAP but not even bad enough to tell MM to inform CYS/place an anonymous call to ChildLine, just in case. This would certainly be an option Dr. D would be aware of since he was trained in reporting suspected child abuse. If MM was somehow worried about possible future job ramifications if he rocked the boat an anonymous call to ChildLine would be the perfect option, it's the reason why ChildLine takes anonymous calls/tips.

I find that extremely odd when factoring in MM's 2010 statements and testimony that he was certain some kind of sex was occurring and reported it as such. If so Dr. D and JM's advice that night (don't tell UPPD but wait until the morning to tell Joe) make no sense whatsoever.

Also I don't believe the troll narrative for one second that MM gave a more detailed description 10 days later to some college admins he hardly knew versus the description he gave his dad and good family friend HOURS after the incident.

 

[moofafoo]

Think about this....according to Dr. D what MM described to Dr. D that night not only wasn't bad enough for him to recommend MM going to UPPD ASAP but not even bad enough to tell MM to inform CYS/place an anonymous call to ChildLine, just in case. This would certainly be an option Dr. D would be aware of since he was trained in reporting suspected child abuse. If MM was somehow worried about possible future job ramifications if he rocked the boat an anonymous call to ChildLine would be the perfect option, it's the reason why ChildLine takes anonymous calls/tips.

I find that extremely odd when factoring in MM's 2010 statements and testimony that he was certain some kind of sex was occurring and reported it as such. If so Dr. D and JM's advice that night (don't tell UPPD but wait until the morning to tell Joe) make no sense whatsoever.

Also I don't believe the troll narrative for one second that MM gave a more detailed description 10 days later to some college admins he hardly knew versus the description he gave his dad and good family friend HOURS after the incident.

In 10 years,Mike never told his ex girlfriend, ex wife or any other turd that ass fing took place. NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stufftodo]

Yes, that you're full of shit, stuff'tdoodoo.

Typical lack of substance.

Well, Pnnykitty, from what folks have said about your track record, even when you attempt substance, your generally get it wrong. I peek in to PennLive from time to time; I wish I had a copy of that failed prediction list, or whatever they call it. It was both enlightening and entertaining.

Well, PnnyKitty, the next time it shows up on PL, I'll copy it and share it here.

 

[moofafoo]

Typical lack of substance.

Well, Pnnykitty, from what folks have said about your track record, even when you attempt substance, your generally get it wrong. I peek in to PennLive from time to time; I wish I had a copy of that failed prediction list, or whatever they call it. It was both enlightening and entertaining.

Shove it straight up your ass with the rest of JoJinPhila bullshit.

 

[Stufftodo]

Think about this....according to Dr. D what MM described to Dr. D that night not only wasn't bad enough for him to recommend MM going to UPPD ASAP but not even bad enough to tell MM to inform CYS/place an anonymous call to ChildLine, just in case. This would certainly be an option Dr. D would be aware of since he was trained in reporting suspected child abuse. If MM was somehow worried about possible future job ramifications if he rocked the boat an anonymous call to ChildLine would be the perfect option, it's the reason why ChildLine takes anonymous calls/tips.

According to Dranov and McGueary, Sr., MM did not tell them what happened, only that he was virtually incoherent. They knew MM saw something, but not what he saw. What ever it was, it was a severe shock.

It also did come out in the McQueary trial, that he had referenced the incident, without specifics, to players at one point.