The charge Spanier was convicted on has statute of limitations of 2 years

[demlion]

And I was also among those who supported them. But these are three guilty verdicts. Perhaps on (relatively) minor charges. And perhaps Spanier's will be overturned on appeal... right now, he's been found guilty. It happened. It's reality. I think the process still is unfinished, but I came on this board hoping to see some sort of back and forth, but all I find is skepticism of the verdict. I am not a Penn Stater above being a good citizen/human and I don't think this paints a good picture of what it is to be a Penn Stater. But that's my opinion.. and as they saying goes, they're like assholes (everyone has one)...

And right now, OJ is not guilty. I am not running for "pennstater of the year" and at this point most pennstaters are like me: we're done with the opinions of those who don't understand why we're pissed.

It's not "reality." The statute did not apply to GS, or the other two. If calling innocent men guilty help you get along with others, do it. I never gave a damn what you thought before, and I don't now.

I suggest you get on a message board with the OGBOT, or the OAG, or Pitt fans. Since this University's leaders decided it was okay to tar us all with the same fake brush, a lot of insults have come our way. We don't take them lightly, especially when accompanied by lightweight justification not grounded in the known facts or the law.

 

[manofsteel200]

I believe he said that every day that they didn't report restarted the count, or something like that. They had the chance to report it every day, and didn't. It was some BS like that, in addition to being charged ex post facto.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the law. He will win on appeal.

 

[Mixolydian]

Immunity from criticism isn't what I was expecting. It's a message board and this is a discussion.

The name calling and general douchebaggery is why I got pissed and dropped that lovely irrelevant nugget (my professional history) on you all.

^^^^^^^^^
Says name calling pisses him off in same post where he name calls. And then proceeds to escalate his (or her?) name calling in several subsequent posts. A real hypocrite this guy (gal).

 

[WeR0206]

That is the issue many on this board have been frustrated with and railing about for the past 5 years: Second Mile has no culpability in this whatsoever. They were allowed to pull a shredding truck up to their facility and documents magically disappeared, then they just vanished like dust as an agency, then the PSU purse strings were pulled wide open for payments to victims/"victims" without true vetting, and, signing a release from future lawsuits vs. Second Mile (which is very telling to me). Now let's top it off by last week's trial and Dr. Jack getting on the stand, noting Curley reported the showering incident to him, Dr. Jack passing it up the Second Mile chain and having board members say bury this, and then Dr.Jack giving advice to Sandusky to "just wear swimming trunks when showering with kids"!!!!!! Second Mile knew about the 1998 incident also.
Top all of that off by having media outlets, opposing school people, crazy townies (see Bernie McCue), the friggin NCAA, our own disingenuous BOT, a plane flying overhead with a banner about the statue, corrupt Pa. OAG and judges, media poisoning the jury pool anywhere in the state, Louis Freeh's bullshit and recent off the reservation rant, and no one, and I mean no one in major media willing to really examine what is going on. You can't make this crap up! John Ziegler has tried, much to his credit, and many folks here dislike him and some of his message, but he has been one of the long-termed, along with Franco, Lubrano, and some folks on this board, really beating the drums about this case and it has gotten us nowhere. Even with the new info of no conspiracy and misdemeanor charges against C/S/S. If a talented investigative reporter decides to come along and touch this situation and delve into it and write a book about it would be a monumental best seller and probably an Oscar winning movie. But that is never gonna happen because no one in their right mind would try because they would get nowhere due to the big money behind this entire scenario. This is a mob story that only Scorsese could do justice to. Omertà is the word. Penn State will never be the same and, in retrospect, maybe we were all fooled, not only by Sandusky, but, most likely, by our own University. Frankly, my bullshit quotient is full and I really hope some of these dirty bastards get theirs during my lifetime.

This ^^^^^ was a fantastic post. My hat is off to you.

You and I can only speculate on that. It could be because Corbett had powerful backers who may have been impacted had the "books" been opened. I am certain there are financial irregularities involving TSM.In addition, it is after all the AGs job to oversee charities. There is no denying that several close family members, sons, wives etc. of OGBOT were deeply invested in TSM. Perhaps those individuals were not afforded legal protections that PSUBOT enjoy. Therefore it would make sense to protect family and powerful friends OGBOT would leap to take on all "victims. Let's not forget the relationship of TSM to Commonwealth agencies in Centre County and throughout the state. How could you implicate TSM without having a state wide agency scandal?: In 1999 all the appropriate Child Protective Agencies and LE were involved in the complaint against JS. Did they whiff? Or did they honestly feel that JS didn't do anything criminal? I still don't understand how PSU can bear any responsibility for this. I really don't give a shit about who at PSU knew. My take away is, all the kings horses and all the kings men, sniffed around Jerry and said he smelled lovely.

There is no denying that empirical evidence demonstrates that MM never reported anything similar to "anal rape" to anyone. Dranov, Senior and MM decided on the night MM witnessed the shower that it was an administrative issue (because they decided not to make a report to LE or CPS) and instead to MMs supervisor JVP. Until MM was cornered by investigators 8 years later, that is precisely how everyone treated it.

We also have MM's email to Eschbach in his own words referring to the 01 incident as "whatever it was" which shows he wasn't certain of a damned thing.

 

[marshall23]

This ^^^^^ was a fantastic post. My hat is off to you.



We also have MM's email to Eschbach in his own words referring to the 01 incident as "whatever it was" which shows he wasn't certain of a damned thing.

View embedded media

At the very LEAST The Commonwealth OAG and its prosecutors IMO have a "noble cause corruption" problem. With some it is even more sinister. Their first duty is to seek the truth, not a conviction at all costs. This past week, Ditka doubled down on the questionable tactics of her esteemed predecessor, Frank Fina.

 

[Mixolydian]

This ^^^^^ was a fantastic post. My hat is off to you.



We also have MM's email to Eschbach in his own words referring to the 01 incident as "whatever it was" which shows he wasn't certain of a damned thing.

View embedded media

WeR, Is the McQueary email to Eshbach linked anywhere? I've probably seen it but can't recall for sure. Thanks!

 

[crazytoadie]

Again, if you read my subsequent posts, I do concede that Spanier's guilt does not preclude the guilt of those trained and empowered to protect children. This was a great personal frustration of mine in 2012/2013... that somehow the standard is higher for PSU administrators and a football coach than the standards applied to trained professionals.

So C/S/S who never saw the child or had a way to find the child's ID or to prevent TSM from letting Sandusky take children but took action to limit it from their realm are guilty because didn't call the police or DPW, yet the person that could have called police (MM) that night or anytime after isn't held to account? Or the mandated reporter, under law at the time fails to report, yet the state uses tortuous logic to extend that to C/S/S based on law written 6 years later and that they should have thought to report thereafter?

My point is that everyone in the saga would do things different if they could time travel back, but if we accept that people weren't perfect yet aren't criminal, then how do we not give C/S/S that courtesy. Justice is blinded not selective. The OAG didn't pursue justice, they pursued a pound of flesh based on wanted to put a scalp on their wall. That is why it isn't justice. To shoehorn the law to convict C/S/S while ignoring it for Raykovitz means the invented new legal interpretations for C/S/S while ignoring the law as written in 2001 otherwise Raykovitz would be on trial. When that happens and he is convicted like Spanier, then we are closer to justice. Until then it is smoke and mirrors.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

And right now, OJ is not guilty. I am not running for "pennstater of the year" and at this point most pennstaters are like me: we're done with the opinions of those who don't understand why we're pissed.

It's not "reality." The statute did not apply to GS, or the other two. If calling innocent men guilty help you get along with others, do it. I never gave a damn what you thought before, and I don't now.

I suggest you get on a message board with the OGBOT, or the OAG, or Pitt fans. Since this University's leaders decided it was okay to tar us all with the same fake brush, a lot of insults have come our way. We don't take them lightly, especially when accompanied by lightweight justification not grounded in the known facts or the law.

Demlion,

This whole trial seems to have been a set up. It worked right into the hands of Corbutt and the OAG. FTR could not be proven because all 3 were not mandated reporters. EWOC was not applicable for several reasons including SOL but also several other reasons such as no one could really suggest that those kids were in the direct care of GS let alone Penn State in general. I also think that being guilty of a charge that GS was convicted on, the misdemeanor version of EWOC instead of the felony version that he was charged with is also not permissible under the law. Am I right with that assumption? Shouldn't the judge informed the jury that they can't do that? He discharged them so now they can't come back to reconsider the felony version. Are they not guilty on all 3 charges?

So this whole trial had no legs to stand on to begin with and will be thrown out. It seems to me that all that was done was another PR hack job against GS, Penn State and JoePa even though he was not guilty of anything. They tried this thing in the press and won again.

The only way to reverse this is to sue for malicious prosecution and prove that MM expanded on the truth because of coercion of some level by the OAG. Corbutt is really happy today because his name is not in the mix. The people who did not want to be associated with mess from the power elite are happy today because they are out of it.

I have always believed that GSS would prove to be not guilty but I always thought that someone else would need to be named the bad guy for that to happen. The bad guys here are Corbutt and the power elite who used the second mile as their front and therefore had to protect them because their ties to the enablers would have brought them down.

You know the most about this stuff. Am I right about be found guilty of a lesser offense that was not charged out side of the law? Was this a PR thing that will be overturned? How about Corbutt and his henchmen? Guilty as charged?

 

[demlion]

Demlion,

This whole trial seems to have been a set up. It worked right into the hands of Corbutt and the OAG. FTR could not be proven because all 3 were not mandated reporters. EWOC was not applicable for several reasons including SOL but also several other reasons such as no one could really suggest that those kids were in the direct care of GS let alone Penn State in general. I also think that being guilty of a charge that GS was convicted on, the misdemeanor version of EWOC instead of the felony version that he was charged with is also not permissible under the law. Am I right with that assumption? Shouldn't the judge informed the jury that they can't do that? He discharged them so now they can't come back to reconsider the felony version. Are they not guilty on all 3 charges?

So this whole trial had no legs to stand on to begin with and will be thrown out. It seems to me that all that was done was another PR hack job against GS, Penn State and JoePa even though he was not guilty of anything. They tried this thing in the press and won again.

The only way to reverse this is to sue for malicious prosecution and prove that MM expanded on the truth because of coercion of some level by the OAG. Corbutt is really happy today because his name is not in the mix. The people who did not want to be associated with mess from the power elite are happy today because they are out of it.

I have always believed that GSS would prove to be not guilty but I always thought that someone else would need to be named the bad guy for that to happen. The bad guys here are Corbutt and the power elite who used the second mile as their front and therefore had to protect them because their ties to the enablers would have brought them down.

You know the most about this stuff. Am I right about be found guilty of a lesser offense that was not charged out side of the law? Was this a PR thing that will be overturned? How about Corbutt and his henchmen? Guilty as charged?

To be honest I'm not sure I know the answer to your main question. Sometimes they tell the jury everything, sometimes not. Perhaps one or more jurors figured it out on their own! Rather than continue to argue with those who wanted a conviction, they let them find him guilty of something they knew would not stick. To say that is not the way it is supposed to work is an understatement


As for corbutt, I would say "guilty but never charged" . In this case and in the case of Kane, the criminal law has become a means of destroying people without proof. In Kane case, she did nothing Fina and Eschbach didn't do. One is criminal, one not.

The ultimate upshot is that the criminal law becomes a means by which political agendas are accomplished. Scary stuff.

 

[kgilbert78]

This is a gross misinterpretation of the law. He will win on appeal.

It's Pennsylvania. I am not confident of this. It's been a squirrelly place ever since the Walking Purchase.

 

[lyndj]

The PSU 3 had a report of a somewhat late night shower involving an employee of TSM and one of its clients. PSU removed TSM employee privilege to use the facilities and reported the incident to his employer. TSM had the responsibility to discuss the incident with their employee and the client. TSM CEO could have, if interested, spoken to the eye witness. Please let us not take the bait that MM reported child sexual abuse at that time.

You make it sound like he was just some random employee of 2nd mile.

 

[L.T. Young]

"Lying" is something you must prove based upon TWO different statement. You seem to ignore the reality of how the OAG operates the in this matter!

If you are 10 years removed from an event AND that event AT THE TIME was NOT the CRIMINAL issue that it is today (15+ years after the fact), it is most reasonable that the details of the event will NOT be set in stone. People tend to forget details of "uneventful" happenings.

Throughout the Sandusky Era what I see here is a CONSISTENT elephant in the room. That elephant is...The State of PA is willing to MAKE UP ANYTHING - legal or illegal - in order to incriminate anyone they need to validate their illusion and "Story:". This is a matter of FACT! Legally, this changes everything!

Now, you state that there was "lying" in this about "98"! Well, if you "backfill" reality with "could-have-beens" or engineered conclusions based on unsupportable statements which support a charge as the state has done CONSISTENTLY - what is a LIE??? An entrapment based upon misiformation - that is what the State has worked to achieve.

PREMISE: If you knew about 1998 then 2001 was the "Smoking Gun" for a Crime! Yet 1998 was NOT a crime and 2001 was AT BEST an adult in the shower without another adult - a could have been without any reasonable verification in 2001. Sandusky's behavior was TSM's responsibility - not Penn State.

You are right there is LYING....problem for you is...the lying is coming from the STATE OF PA OAG office. They know that what everyone at PSU did was "reasonable man" proper. They are trying to entrap Penn State by LYING about the details of what should be "normal" in this situation - they are manufacturing a crime without evidence. If there was a crime, wouldn't the state need a "victim"?? Seems that the "victim" who stated in court that they were the person in the shower that night and NOTHING HAPPENED is not what the OAG wanted. So they LIED...they stated the "victim" was know but to God!!!! HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE. No Details - no victim!!

They only want to cover their own sorry asses from the public - the manufactured Penn State "Story" has proven to be a great tool!! Mantra of the PA OAG ----- THE HELL WITH TRUTH ------ The Hell with the Law ----- Lie like Hell!!!!

If you want to purge ":Lying" from this case, why not start with MM (No one in 2001 BY THEIR actions supports what the OAG says is MM's account of 2001) and then go after the Perjury due the OAG investigators!

WTH are you talking about?

There are emails proving they knew about 98. All the theories that were created to explain away that fact have been debunked by the people who wrote and sent them.

Schultz words, the emails, and a basic logic all contradict Spanier's claims in the New Yorker interview.

So yes, they lied about 98 making the actual premise: they lied about it for a reason.

And did you say 2001 was at best a shower between adults? Quit listening to John Ziegler.

Schultz backed up MM for the most part on the stand.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

To be honest I'm not sure I know the answer to your main question. Sometimes they tell the jury everything, sometimes not. Perhaps one or more jurors figured it out on their own! Rather than continue to argue with those who wanted a conviction, they let them find him guilty of something they knew would not stick. To say that is not the way it is supposed to work is an understatement


As for corbutt, I would say "guilty but never charged" . In this case and in the case of Kane, the criminal law has become a means of destroying people without proof. In Kane case, she did nothing Fina and Eschbach didn't do. One is criminal, one not.

The ultimate upshot is that the criminal law becomes a means by which political agendas are accomplished. Scary stuff.

Thanks DemLion. Just to clarify, are you saying that it is not legal to find someone guilty for a charge that was not made at the start of the trial? Does the misdemeanor EWOC count as not being charged because only the Felony version was charged? And finally, if the above is true, shouldn't the judge have rejected the verdict on the spot?

Thanks for indulging me.

 

[Legion of Lions]

WTH are you talking about?

There are emails proving they knew about 98. All the theories that were created to explain away that fact have been debunked by the people who wrote and sent them.

Schultz words, the emails, and a basic logic all contradict Spanier's claims in the New Yorker interview.

So yes, they lied about 98 making the actual premise: they lied about it for a reason.

And did you say 2001 was at best a shower between adults? Quit listening to John Ziegler.

Schultz backed up MM for the most part on the stand.

Lies???? 1998 linkage???

1998...SO WHAT!!! There was a full investigation in 1998. No Charges...therefore No "..direct line.." to the State's absurd conclusion that if a vague report is reported, that 1998 is the "smoking gun" for child crimes.

I know of no laws that states that a child showering (alone) with an adult - even if unsupervised - is a crime. If this is something that requires a new law to be implemented....then so be it. We should not be convicting anyone of "..what could have happened...".

Accepting the premise that THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR ALONE is a crime is the foundation of this engineered illusion of crimes. The State of PA has promoted this distortion against C/S/S against only by using "tweaked" testimony obtained in 2011 - 10 years after the event. It sells the public on the "possibility of a crime" and then lets their imagination to fill in the rest - Adults are not allowed with children in the shower!!!.. PERIOD...this is the 1998 linkage you base your statements on.

MM's testimony has been validated by the actions of everyone who he talked to him in 2001 that NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE HAPPENED that night. Even MM's OWN actions that night in 2001 DO NOT SUPPORT anything which could be considered criminal or reportable. Finally, the "victim" that stated he was "the boy in the shower" stated "...nothing inappropriate happened that night with Sandusky"..." How much more can you say about the key "report of a crime" by MM in 2011+!!!!

NOW...how much proof do you need that your constant reference to emails proving "...they knew about 98..." is nothing but HOLLOW WORDS designed to DECEIVE people into believing an engineered distortion of a 2001 event - it does not pass the truth test based upon MULTIPLE historically verifiable actions taken at the time of the incident.

That is what we are dealing with here - a SINGLE incident - what "quality information" exists on which to evaluate what happened in that incident. There is mounting credible evidence to support that the state of PA OAG inluenced, modified, made up the very "evidence" you state is "proof of Guilt" - MM's "testimony".

If you want lies for a reason....START with MM's 2011 testimony - why should that testimony which is REFUTED by every other person's actions in 2001 be singled out as "TRUE". In a fair court, MM would be charged with PERJURY - a sworn testimony in conflict with ALL OTHER INFORMATION any not verifiable by any means. Yet...this is the cornerstone of 1998-2001 linkage of "Guilt" by C/S/S.

This entire matter has been now been exposed for what it is..... an OBVIOUS OAG collusive CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER.

Next you will try to support your deceptive statements by quoting "The Freeh Report". You can support any accusation you like if the quality of your "evidence" does not matter!

 

[demlion]

Thanks DemLion. Just to clarify, are you saying that it is not legal to find someone guilty for a charge that was not made at the start of the trial? Does the misdemeanor EWOC count as not being charged because only the Felony version was charged? And finally, if the above is true, shouldn't the judge have rejected the verdict on the spot?

Thanks for indulging me.

It is odd, say the least, that the judge left an opening for the jury to convict him of a misdemeanor, given that the only way to get to a misdemeanor was to have a failure on the claim of course of conduct.

I am guessing there is something I do not understand, in addition to the fact that the statute is an indistinct and vague piece of crap.

 

[dshumbero]

Lies???? 1998 linkage???

1998...SO WHAT!!! There was a full investigation in 1998. No Charges...therefore No "..direct line.." to the State's absurd conclusion that if a vague report is reported, that 1998 is the "smoking gun" for child crimes.

I know of no laws that states that a child showering (alone) with an adult - even if unsupervised - is a crime. If this is something that requires a new law to be implemented....then so be it. We should not be convicting anyone of "..what could have happened...".

Accepting the premise that THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR ALONE is a crime is the foundation of this engineered illusion of crimes. The State of PA has promoted this distortion against C/S/S against only by using "tweaked" testimony obtained in 2011 - 10 years after the event. It sells the public on the "possibility of a crime" and then lets their imagination to fill in the rest - Adults are not allowed with children in the shower!!!.. PERIOD...this is the 1998 linkage you base your statements on.

MM's testimony has been validated by the actions of everyone who he talked to him in 2001 that NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE HAPPENED that night. Even MM's OWN actions that night in 2001 DO NOT SUPPORT anything which could be considered criminal or reportable. Finally, the "victim" that stated he was "the boy in the shower" stated "...nothing inappropriate happened that night with Sandusky"..." How much more can you say about the key "report of a crime" by MM in 2011+!!!!

NOW...how much proof do you need that your constant reference to emails proving "...they knew about 98..." is nothing but HOLLOW WORDS designed to DECEIVE people into believing an engineered distortion of a 2001 event - it does not pass the truth test based upon MULTIPLE historically verifiable actions taken at the time of the incident.

That is what we are dealing with here - a SINGLE incident - what "quality information" exists on which to evaluate what happened in that incident. There is mounting credible evidence to support that the state of PA OAG inluenced, modified, made up the very "evidence" you state is "proof of Guilt" - MM's "testimony".

If you want lies for a reason....START with MM's 2011 testimony - why should that testimony which is REFUTED by every other person's actions in 2001 be singled out as "TRUE". In a fair court, MM would be charged with PERJURY - a sworn testimony in conflict with ALL OTHER INFORMATION any not verifiable by any means. Yet...this is the cornerstone of 1998-2001 linkage of "Guilt" by C/S/S.

This entire matter has been now been exposed for what it is..... an OBVIOUS OAG collusive CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER.

Next you will try to support your deceptive statements by quoting "The Freeh Report". You can support any accusation you like if the quality of your "evidence" does not matter!

ltyoung is a PL clown. Disciple of Jacque.

 

[Legion of Lions]

It is odd, say the least, that the judge left an opening for the jury to convict him of a misdemeanor, given that the only way to get to a misdemeanor was to have a failure on the claim of course of conduct.

I am guessing there is something I do not understand, in addition to the fact that the statute is an indistinct and vague piece of crap.

Your questioning seems perfectly reasonable to me.

(Rhetorical Question...) What would the motive be for a judge to allow the consistency of such "suspiciously stretched legal opinions and actions"???? I'm sorry...try hard as I might, I can't get ANY reasonable handle on the past 6 years unless you consider this as a Harrisburg PA instituted political conspiracy that involves a LOT of people. Those involved ALL received $$$ benefits (and more) from publicly promoting a "Penn State Football Criminal Culture". As with most criminality, $$$MONEY$$$$ still is the primary motive for promoting a deceptive "alternate reality". However, if you do consider a "conspiracy viewpoint", you can then see all those "friction points" that make no current sense suddenly fitting together perfectly.

 

[bjf1991]

1) I recognize that a court of law is more impartial than this board of lifetime PSU fans.

2) I love Penn State and have since I was a child. I have future plans of rejoining the community both educationally and, and maybe one day, in a leadership capacity. I am only saying this to demonstrate I have zero interest in these guys being guilty. It damages the institution and the "brand".

3) I have been that guy for the past 5 years that has lived outside the state and has had to constantly answer inane questions about what happened. In all instances, I said how much BS was involved with the Freeh Report(which I've unfortunately read twice). But I always have said that if these guys were found guilty of crimes, I would concede their personal (not institutional) guilt.

There is no institution or program at Penn State that facilitated Sandusky's child rape. But we need to accept that there may be moments at which most individuals would have acted more aggressively. It may be that these guys failed to act in a reasonable capacity. If that is the case, we need to accept and not shun the truth.

You don't know anything more today than you knew (or at least could have known, if you wanted to) four years ago.

That's what it is.

 

[tsgoodling]

Four words. Swim Trunks Jack Raykovitz.

?????? What is this?

 

[Adlee73]

Explain how you got to this conclusion?

Also, insulting my intelligence is a non-starter. Let's not go there.

You just called a bunch of posters "****ing Homers" you hypocrite. Please do as you threatened & stop posting on this board.

 

[Adlee73]

F#ck the law, right?


That's a shame because there's a bizarre wrinkle to the case. The statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. The incident that Spanier was convicted of, however, dated back to 2001 -- the infamous shower incident involving a naked Jerry Sandusky and a boy that was witnessed by graduate assistant Mike McQueary.

That means the jury convicted Spanier on a crime that the statute of limitations had already expired on. You may hear more about that on appeal, where Spanier's legal team is confident of winning. Once they got their case out of Dauphin County.

OK so everyone here wants to know about the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child in PA.
Basically it's 2 years after the child turns 18 or in other words when the child would've turned 20.
Now ask yourself why was it so important to the prosecution the boy McQueary saw in the shower be possibly 10 years old & the date of the incident be 2002. Well how old would that boy in the shower be in 2011 if he was 10 years old in 2002?
Considering the PSU3 weren't charged till several months after February 2011 that statute of limitations should be expired regardless. Unfortunately that so-called intelligent jury couldn't do the math.

 

[kailuapat]

I have not practiced law in PA in a long time. But I have been practicing criminal defense for over twenty years. The prosecution in most states must prove the elements of the offense, attendant circumstances, jurisdiction, venue, men's rea and TIMELINESS. The last one actually requires the prosecution to prove the charge was brought within the timeframe of the Statute of Limitations beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[maxxedout]

And right now, OJ is not guilty. I am not running for "pennstater of the year" and at this point most pennstaters are like me: we're done with the opinions of those who don't understand why we're pissed.

It's not "reality." The statute did not apply to GS, or the other two. If calling innocent men guilty help you get along with others, do it. I never gave a damn what you thought before, and I don't now.

I suggest you get on a message board with the OGBOT, or the OAG, or Pitt fans. Since this University's leaders decided it was okay to tar us all with the same fake brush, a lot of insults have come our way. We don't take them lightly, especially when accompanied by lightweight justification not grounded in the known facts or the law.

The more I've read over the past couple of days, the more i do expect this to be appealed. I hope so and I am thankful that there will be a fresh set of eyes on the case if an appeal occurs.

I actually read this to be aggressive and I don't think you intended that.

Believe me I understand how you'd be on edge with the douchebaggery towards our school over the past five years. I've lived it, too. I wore NCAA (national communist aa) shirts and still proud shirts and had heated fights even in the workplace about what it means to be a penn stated and how full of shit the freeh conclusions were... but I don't think I'm alone in saying that a court of law is more credible than the NCAA, the B1G, and the BOT.

 

[maxxedout]

You just called a bunch of posters "****ing Homers" you hypocrite. Please do as you threatened & stop posting on this board.

Yes. I stand by there being some posters that are "homers" and will stand by a guilty person despite evidence to the contrary. Remove the "****ing" and I stand by what I said... I do apologize for my language and that I used labels which has obfuscated my intended message. Three guys convicted of a crime in a court of their peers. It means something. The guilt of others does not eviscerate their own, however minimal.

There is a due process and it was followed. It is a superior due process even at its worst than the court of BWI.

 

[demlion]

The more I've read over the past couple of days, the more i do expect this to be appealed. I hope so and I am thankful that there will be a fresh set of eyes on the case if an appeal occurs.

I actually read this to be aggressive and I don't think you intended that.

Believe me I understand how you'd be on edge with the douchebaggery towards our school over the past five years. I've lived it, too. I wore NCAA (national communist aa) shirts and still proud shirts and had heated fights even in the workplace about what it means to be a penn stated and how full of shit the freeh conclusions were... but I don't think I'm alone in saying that a court of law is more credible than the NCAA, the B1G, and the BOT.

As a general matter your claim might be true, but these are the PA courts. As a matter of stats regarding how often they are wrong/crooked, you might have a point, but in the individual case in PA, the more political the case the more likely it's wrong. And this is quite political, lit off as it was by a governor, and his porny AG staff.

It is possible that NONE of those institutions are trustworthy. I think that is the most likely conclusion. And once they are incredible, who cares about degree?

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Yes. I stand by there being some posters that are "homers" and will stand by a guilty person despite evidence to the contrary. Remove the "****ing" and I stand by what I said... I do apologize for my language and that I used labels which has obfuscated my intended message. Three guys convicted of a crime in a court of their peers. It means something. The guilt of others does not eviscerate their own, however minimal.

There is a due process and it was followed. It is a superior due process even at its worst than the court of BWI.

I wish due process was followed but it was not. No way no how. The judges have let so many things go by that are just unbelievable. No SOL. Changing charges in the middle of the trial. He should have stop the trial when the prosecution rested because they did not prove their case on several grounds. Having the victims testify was highly prejudicial.

My fear however is that this may not be overturned in the state court system. The Feds have to get involved and they may not have jurisdiction.

 

[L.T. Young]

Lies???? 1998 linkage???

1998...SO WHAT!!! There was a full investigation in 1998. No Charges...therefore No "..direct line.." to the State's absurd conclusion that if a vague report is reported, that 1998 is the "smoking gun" for child crimes.

I know of no laws that states that a child showering (alone) with an adult - even if unsupervised - is a crime. If this is something that requires a new law to be implemented....then so be it. We should not be convicting anyone of "..what could have happened...".

Accepting the premise that THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR ALONE is a crime is the foundation of this engineered illusion of crimes. The State of PA has promoted this distortion against C/S/S against only by using "tweaked" testimony obtained in 2011 - 10 years after the event. It sells the public on the "possibility of a crime" and then lets their imagination to fill in the rest - Adults are not allowed with children in the shower!!!.. PERIOD...this is the 1998 linkage you base your statements on.

MM's testimony has been validated by the actions of everyone who he talked to him in 2001 that NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE HAPPENED that night. Even MM's OWN actions that night in 2001 DO NOT SUPPORT anything which could be considered criminal or reportable. Finally, the "victim" that stated he was "the boy in the shower" stated "...nothing inappropriate happened that night with Sandusky"..." How much more can you say about the key "report of a crime" by MM in 2011+!!!!

NOW...how much proof do you need that your constant reference to emails proving "...they knew about 98..." is nothing but HOLLOW WORDS designed to DECEIVE people into believing an engineered distortion of a 2001 event - it does not pass the truth test based upon MULTIPLE historically verifiable actions taken at the time of the incident.

That is what we are dealing with here - a SINGLE incident - what "quality information" exists on which to evaluate what happened in that incident. There is mounting credible evidence to support that the state of PA OAG inluenced, modified, made up the very "evidence" you state is "proof of Guilt" - MM's "testimony".

If you want lies for a reason....START with MM's 2011 testimony - why should that testimony which is REFUTED by every other person's actions in 2001 be singled out as "TRUE". In a fair court, MM would be charged with PERJURY - a sworn testimony in conflict with ALL OTHER INFORMATION any not verifiable by any means. Yet...this is the cornerstone of 1998-2001 linkage of "Guilt" by C/S/S.

This entire matter has been now been exposed for what it is..... an OBVIOUS OAG collusive CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER.

Next you will try to support your deceptive statements by quoting "The Freeh Report". You can support any accusation you like if the quality of your "evidence" does not matter!

You're the poster boy for why Ziegler has a loyal following on BWI.

No matter how many words you use, caps you employ, and statements you bold it doesn't make your argument valid or relevant.

You're incapable of making a concise argument or accepting the truth. C/S/S lied about having knowledge of 98, period. They didn't chose to do so for fun.

Does that mean they were part of a "conspiracy of silence" to protect (fill in the blank) from the fallout of Sandusky's predilections? Of course not.

It means they knew they screwed up and tried to avoid the consequences of a mistake 10 years after the fact. That's it, an honest mistake that had a terrible outcome.

You can keep blaming everyone (many of them deserving) except the three guys that lied for 5 years, or you can accept C/S/S lying played a role in this giant cluster **** picking up steam.