Update on Ziegler’s fake accuser
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
The sane people on this board never thought or cared about his appeal. Your "we" is crazy.
Just wondering how many who testified changed their stories from "no abuse" to what they said under oath at trial? They didn't know one another did they?I hope they didn't have the same lawyer and a visit to a therapist that specializes in "mining" for memories.
Keep wondering. When you have an answer, let us know.
I am cheering for the pedophile to stay in jail. Only in your warped mind would one make such a stupid leap.
He doesn't know and neither do you. That is what courts are for. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Several people claimed that he didn't receive a fair trial which is often the case for those who
don't plead guilty. Lemmings like you have grabbed onto that and made it your cause. As I have suggested several times to others of your ilk, contact the Innocence Project. They have been successful
in freeing many wrongly convicted. There seem to be enough of you to make an impression if you present
all of your so called injustices to them. I'd really be interested to know what they think of his case.
Osprey apparently thinks that if you pile bullshit high enough - it stops stinking
My real opinion is if it is high enough, we have you.
If that makes sense to you, you are not only crazy but sick.
You are really thick. Let's pretend he is exonerated of those charges. The facts of MM reporting
suspected sexual abuse and the actions taken thereafter remain the same. If you think the media
and public opinion will suddenly change, you are sadly mistaken. And as stated
earlier, the downside is PSU will be getting negative ink for the duration of the retrial.
It is not a fact that MM reported suspected sexual abuse. Nothing in the actual evidence from 2001 supports this fantasy!
Only an idiot would say that. You qualify as evidenced by those who "liked" your inane statement.
It was all made up! This was just one big lie and smear campaign. Everyone is in on it!!!! Keep it on the down low!!! LOL @ this crap!!!
MM testified that he witnessed suspected CSA. That is evidence whether you want to accept it or not. Paterno agreed as well
He testified he didn't see any abuse. Just a situation where he assumed abuse would be occurring.
"I don't know what you would call it"
I don't care what he said ten years later. I'm talking about actual evidence from 2001.
I'm saying that the emails and notes from 2001 corroborate the testimonies of Curley and Schultz, refuting what Mike now says. Feel free to challenge my assertion.
I see you edited your post to quote correctly... congrats on figuring out something we've all understood for years. You apparently still have trouble figuring out where to put line breaks. That might warrant a second edit. You might want to consider fixing your basic posting inadequacies before accusing someone of being unable to read in the future.
Anyway, back on topic. I'm still waiting for you to explain your delusions, as I politely asked back in post #342:
Which was attributed to the slapping sounds he heard. And we all know there is no other possible explanation for those slapping sounds but a boy being sodomized. It's probably defined in Webster's dictionary as such.
Then you are totally ignoring the child abusing billing from the attorney.
And you can't just ignore testimony, it's evidence.
It doesn't matter what he attributed it to, the fact remains that he suspected CSA and under today's law, it would need to be reported to authorities.
Sandusky had a 5 year agreement allowing him to bring kids from TSM to the facilities as part of his retirement deal (Friends Fitness Program). It was in writing. They needed legal advice if they were going to break that agreement.
You ignore the testimonies of Curley and Schultz!
They needed that advise because they expected child abuse. Unless you think the lawyer just put it on the bill for shits and giggles.
And generally speaking, a 3rd party eye witness' testimony is more compelling than that of the accused.
The emails and notes from 2001 do not support this assertion. Prove me wrong!
again, good time to point out that the wing nut brigade will:
- place sole importance on Joe Pa's use of the words "sexual nature" (out of any other context, and dropping all modifiers) as "proof" McQueary reported CSA
- insert words that were never used in the C/S/S emails to fabricate the idea that they knew McQueary reported CSA
Why did the attorney describe it as suspected child abuse then if it wasn't? How do you reconcile that with your view point?
The fact that you can't help yourself and keep posted it about it suggests that you do think about it and you do care.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/
There you go, why not call amnesty international too? They might be interested.
There you go, why not call amnesty international too? They might be interested.
Yes, legal can ONLY be consulted if you someone tells you about suspected CSA. Legal council is used for absolutely no other reason.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
