As expected the Three Muskateers get off on a legal technicality
- Thread starter pittbb80
- Start date
LOL Your lack of self awareness is stunning but no unexpected. You don't care what people think yet you are on a message board caring about what people think and defending your GOd JOE P.
You really are dumb
Power and money can get u out of anything. Just ask OJ Simpson. There are people out there that think he is innocent as well.
Actually not. I don't care what people think because it doesn't matter. What matters is facts and law, not message board fodder that is totally unsubstantiated. No conspiracy, no perjury = no cover up. Bummer it doesn't match message board hate. If you notice, the people that stood up have won every court case. Do you get that? That includes the State of Pennsylvania. And you won't find anyone here defending the BOT, I assure you. Let me know when the haters win a court case. From Louie to the NCAA, they all have two things in common, they lie, proven, and they lose everytime.
That is right, you don’t care what people think! Why not put yourself in a quiet place and try to think what these victims are thinking! People like you are what is wrong in our society. I can only hope you are not a parent!
You don't care about what other people think but your're here debating the issue......
Your'e also too dumb to know the difference between the standards required for conviction in a court of law and being guilty........As said previously you probably think OJ is innocent
Finally, explain why Penn State has paid millions of dollars to the victims if their leadership did nothing wrong..........why was Paterno fired immediately..........why did they rush to accept the NCAA sanctions......
Yeah yeah....the highly successful business men on the BOT were incompetent..........As I said.....you really are dumb
Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Mr. Paterno: In the shower.
Q: Where was the shower?
Mr. Paterno: In the Lasch Building.
Q: Is that on the campus of Penn State University?
Mr. Paterno: It’s right on the campus.
Q: Did you tell Mike McQueary at that time what you were going to do with that information that he had provided to you?
Mr. Paterno: I don’t know whether I was specific or not. I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me.
Even though Jerry does not work for the football staff any longer, I would refer his concerns to the right people.
Q: You recall this taking place on a Saturday morning, the conversation with Mike?
Mr. Paterno: Yes.
Q: When did you — did you do something with that information?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I can’t be precise.
I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.
Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.
Q: Did he identify who that older person was?
Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.
Q: You’re saying that at the time this incident was reported to you, Sandusky was no longer a coach?
Mr. Paterno: No, he had retired voluntarily. I’m not sure exactly the year, but I think it was either ‘98 or ‘99.
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.
So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.
Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?
Mr. Paterno: In the shower.
Q: Where was the shower?
Mr. Paterno: In the Lasch Building.
Q: Is that on the campus of Penn State University?
Mr. Paterno: It’s right on the campus.
Q: Did you tell Mike McQueary at that time what you were going to do with that information that he had provided to you?
Mr. Paterno: I don’t know whether I was specific or not. I did tell Mike, Mike, you did what was right; you told me.
Even though Jerry does not work for the football staff any longer, I would refer his concerns to the right people.
Q: You recall this taking place on a Saturday morning, the conversation with Mike?
Mr. Paterno: Yes.
Q: When did you — did you do something with that information?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I can’t be precise.
I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.
Thank you for making my point. No one believes that piece of garbage. Hell, why do you think all sanctions were dropped and all wins restored? Hello? What did the NCAA base everything on? If it was accurate, why was everything dropped? You cannot have your own truth. Good grief, the Freeh report is a joke.
Hes another sicko that probably thinks its perfectly ok for a grown ass man to shower naked alone with a young boy on a Friday evening and rubbing up against him.......nothing to see here its just horse play....
Im sure hed be cool with his kids spending some quality shower time with ole Jerr too.....
That case will be going up to the PA Supreme Court. It ain't over. Hard to get your head around these guys benefitting from the incompetence and blunders of their own corporate counsel with charges as serious as these.
I'm not talking about the BOT and clearly you have to know, that no one supports them so try again...
Uh news flash...........all the sanctions were not dropped...........and UPS paid millioins of dollars to the victims due to the piece of garbage....
You are right though.....none of the lunatic JOEBOTS believe the free report............
An old but pretty fair assessment of the FREEH report and the Paterno rebuttal
For those that don't want to read the entire thing here is the cliff notes summary
So what can we conclude? That Penn State officials understood Jerry Sandusky was sexually abusing a child on university property as far back as 2001, but that no report was made to the proper authorities. And while no clear motive for their inaction has been established, it's nearly impossible not to draw the conclusion that Joe Paterno didn't do enough. Don't believe me? Just ask the Paterno family. "It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs." That's from the statement issued by the Paternos on the morning that Freeh released his report. They added: "We accept this criticism."
but one thing is certain can you believe a man who willingly lies........
"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."
So: Paterno admitted that McQueary wasn't specific about what he saw Sandusky doing alone at night with a boy in a shower, but he said it wouldn't have mattered because he couldn't have comprehended such a thing anyway
http://deadspin.com/5983159/what-th...on-got-right-and-wrong-about-the-freeh-report
For those that don't want to read the entire thing here is the cliff notes summary
So what can we conclude? That Penn State officials understood Jerry Sandusky was sexually abusing a child on university property as far back as 2001, but that no report was made to the proper authorities. And while no clear motive for their inaction has been established, it's nearly impossible not to draw the conclusion that Joe Paterno didn't do enough. Don't believe me? Just ask the Paterno family. "It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs." That's from the statement issued by the Paternos on the morning that Freeh released his report. They added: "We accept this criticism."
but one thing is certain can you believe a man who willingly lies........
"You know, he didn't want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don't know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."
So: Paterno admitted that McQueary wasn't specific about what he saw Sandusky doing alone at night with a boy in a shower, but he said it wouldn't have mattered because he couldn't have comprehended such a thing anyway
http://deadspin.com/5983159/what-th...on-got-right-and-wrong-about-the-freeh-report
"How many times does the media need to be proven wrong before people wake up and realize they are nothing more than propaganda?"
You mean the media, i.e. Sara Ganim, that put a stop to decades of child rape? If it weren't for the media, the three Stooges would still be running PSU, JayPa would be head coach (the old phony would have still pooped his pants one last time, maybe just not as soon) and the red head would be offensive coordinator, good old Jer would still be sitting in the president's box on fall Saturdays, and the Tickle Monster would still be going Slap, Slap, Slap, Slap, Slap, Slap in the Lasch showers. Sounds like a Hotshoe wet dream.
I love how everyone knows what Joe knew!!!!Hell I don't know what I knew when I did know it!!!!!Keep going guys this is better than shoveling snow.
I did not see OJ kill his ex wife - I believe he was guilty
I have never seen a Plum Fairy - I do not believe they exist
I have read 80% of the Freeh report and enough deposition that I believe that not only did Paterno, Curley, Spanier and Schultz know that JS raped a young male but that the purposely held information so as to not tarnish the university.
Take off the UPS visors! This will not end in our lifetimes unless there is a true admission of guilt which I believe there will be before the other 3 leave this earth. One or more will tell all to try to save their soul.
I have never seen a Plum Fairy - I do not believe they exist
I have read 80% of the Freeh report and enough deposition that I believe that not only did Paterno, Curley, Spanier and Schultz know that JS raped a young male but that the purposely held information so as to not tarnish the university.
Take off the UPS visors! This will not end in our lifetimes unless there is a true admission of guilt which I believe there will be before the other 3 leave this earth. One or more will tell all to try to save their soul.
The DA (Fina) and the Judge (Feudale) took the Attorney (Baldwin) into a room for some discussions. They, DA and Judge, asked Baldwin who she represented and she stated Penn State.
Now this is where it falls apart. The Judge asked each of defendants if they had representation and all three stated Baldwin was their attorney. The DA and the Judge, with full knowledge that she wasn't representing the individuals, did not notify the defendants. Legal representation is one of the basic rights that we have as Americans.
Now, if the DA and the Judge violated this basic law what else was violated?
It's sickening these guys just get off free. But allowing the attorney's testimony to stand could've opened up something big. In all seriousness, how dumb did this lady have to be? I've never even heard of an attorney trying to pull something like that. Leave it to the Three Stooges to hire this moron.
Now, considering how dumb she would really have to be to do that, maybe there's another side of things. Is it possible they realized this was the only way for them to get out of being charged? I mean this is just so bizarre. Why would the attorney think she could testify against them? Why was she even allowed to in the first place?
Now, considering how dumb she would really have to be to do that, maybe there's another side of things. Is it possible they realized this was the only way for them to get out of being charged? I mean this is just so bizarre. Why would the attorney think she could testify against them? Why was she even allowed to in the first place?
Why did the Judge allow this to happen. Feudale knew she was NOT representing them and he knew that they thought she was representing them. Feudale will likely be disbarred and possibly see some jail time.
But you left out Dear ol State, Joe and the stooges in your last sentence. They all failed miserably.
Hotshoe, let me explain something to you. The court of public opinion is different from a court of law. In the latter, we are innocent until proven guilty. Outside of it, we are all entitled to look at evidence and form an opinion. We need no proof to come to that conclusion. OJ was found to be innocent in a court of law, and yet I (and probably you too) am firmly convinced he killed those two people.
The PSU coverup is clear to me, and its clear to most people, and that isn't going to change. I don't care what Costas or some other individual may think. And when I use the word coverup, that doesn't mean they sat around and said 'we have to cover this up.' There was just an understanding that they had a personnally destructive time bomb on their hands and they did nothing.
You may be one of the many black/white PSU thinkers who thinks of Paterno as either saint or sinner, and can't accept Paterno did anything wrong because it would destroy your hold on the sainthood image. Well, I don't hate Paterno. But I do hold him accountable, morally, for his role (one among many) in the collective inaction.
I particularly hold him accountable for putting the brakes on the plan to move forward to report Sandusky. Curley's email was critical, where he wrote "After talking with Joe...;" this reversed Curley's thinking about moving forward with the plan. This doesn't put it ALL on Paterno; it does point to a critical role he played in maintaining the silence.
And their is clear evidence that he was willing to put the program ahead of all else, including the safety of his players. Just look at the incident where he refused to warn his black players about a real threat against black students because he said it might hurt the university's reputation (and his recruiting ability) and that he wouldn't do anything to hurt that reputation. So, no warning to his players.
You can play criminal defense attorney if you like and try to finesse the Curley email in a way that twists the meaning of it in another direction, but you would just be wasting your time. You won't ever change anyone's opinion.
Now that is a FACT. But of course when something is so obvious even the most delusional Nitters can't argue, they act like that information isn't there.
Paterno himself testified before the grand jury that something of a "sexual nature" occurred in the Lasch showers. Gee, there is so much ambiguity in Joe's own testimony before the grand jury. I mean, how could anyone possibly take Joe's own words to be honest and accurate as to what he knew?
I do find it curious how often the Nitters in this thread trumpet their desire for FACTS!!!!! The words "facts" as the rest of society knows the definition has been co-opted by Penn Staters to mean the return to Sainthood of Joesus, even if his own testimony is that he knew what was happening in real time.
The Joebots only want "FACTS!!!!" that ignore Joe's own testimony and revert back to the phony image he CULTivated for years. It speaks volumes for what a cult of personality there was and still is around Paterno when so many Penn States hate their own university for firing the football coach,
Last edited:
every JVP sticker is a slap in the faces of the victims
the school should have been shut down, not just the football program
Well, I would say some of that evidence remains hidden purposefully by Penn State. If one of these civil suits would get to trial without a big money settlement, that evidence would come out in court. If that evidence is so favourable to Penn State, why do they keep settling these suits to the tune of well over $100 million dollars? Remember this is the athletic department that needed 7 home football games to fund the women's volleyball team and all of the other non-revenue sports. $100 million dollars plus is a lot of volleyball scholarships.
That, and an effective cover-up hides this evidence. So Spanier, the president of the university doesn't realise that university counsel represents the university and is not his own personal legal representation? This was a brilliant plan to get the charges thrown out.
That, and an effective cover-up hides this evidence. So Spanier, the president of the university doesn't realise that university counsel represents the university and is not his own personal legal representation? This was a brilliant plan to get the charges thrown out.
Ex post facto provisions of the US Constitution didn't figure into the Court's ruling on Sandusky's pension. Nor did the actions of "legislators". It has been a while since I read the decision of the Commonwealth Court, but my recollection is that the basis for the decision was that he was no longer an employee of SPU at the time the specific crimes for which he was convicted were committed. The state's pension forfeiture law is quite specific in its application to employees, the applicable crimes and when they were committed.
In this case the court found the SERS board erred in the law's application to him. At the time his pension was revoked by SERS, I was surprised by that decision. To people unfamiliar with the pension law, it seemed a just punishment. But, it was inconsistent with the statute as Commonwealth Court ruled unanimously.
JoeP was in the service, he played college football, he coached college football yet swore he did not know about man on man homosexual sex. (Not made up in anyone's mind.) How can you believe one word that liars club spewed?
Easy enough to do.
Look at the back of your hand. First, take your forefinger and bend it into your palm. Next, take your thumb and bend it down to cover your forefinger. Then take your ring finger and bend it down into your palm. Finally, take your pinkie and bend it into your palm. Look at the back of your hand now. There's your evidence, Slappy.
