Sandusky Appeal Hearing Article

[Alphalion75]

Wrath of Joebots harassing him. Now he has the dough and wants to redeem himself with JoeBot Nation.

^^^^absurd^^^^^

 

[Alphalion75]

The record shows that Paterno knew of at least one credible report (2001) that Sandusky was involved in inappropriate sexual conduct with a child and had been aware of prior concerns. While he did report the 2001 incident to his superiors, multiple investigations concluded that he failed to use his influence to stop Sandusky and protect children. Joe also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky.

^^^^^Beyond absurd. Dumb post of the day.^^^^

 

[Tor_Eckman]

Wrath of Joebots harassing him. Now he has the dough and wants to redeem himself with JoeBot Nation.

Quiet. Quiet, lying liar.

 

[Phils rug]

In the shower especially.

You're the glory hole champ

 

[Truthtelling]

Quiet. Quiet, lying liar.

No can do JoeBot

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Are you arguing with yourself again, clown?

 

[bdgan]

The record shows that Paterno knew of at least one credible report (2001) that Sandusky was involved in inappropriate sexual conduct with a child and had been aware of prior concerns. While he did report the 2001 incident to his superiors, multiple investigations concluded that he failed to use his influence to stop Sandusky and protect children. Joe also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky.

You're expressing opinion, not facts. Dad, Dranov, Joe, Curley, and Shultz all said MM didn't tell them about sexual assault. You can add Jack Raykovitz at TSM to that list. You're taking a questionable leap to suggest that Dad, Dranov, and Raykovitz were honest and Joe, Curley, and Shultz were liars.

he failed to use his influence to stop Sandusky and protect children.
What influence? He did exactly what the NCAA calls for him to do. Besides, the BOT overruled Joe about allowing JS to bring kids into the Lasch Building.


Joe also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky.
You have no evidence of this other than that Curley's note said he talked to Joe and that HE made the decision to confront JS before taking the next step.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

The record shows that Paterno knew of at least one credible report (2001) that Sandusky was involved in inappropriate sexual conduct with a child and had been aware of prior concerns. While he did report the 2001 incident to his superiors, multiple investigations concluded that he failed to use his influence to stop Sandusky and protect children. Joe also participated in the decision not to report Sandusky.

What made up.

 

[Tor_Eckman]

No can do JoeBot

You lie like a warehouse full of rugs. Admitting that you can’t stop lying is a start.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Rittmeyer already has no credibility so his claims that he was "conspired to sway and change" his testimony is moot.

So NOW Rittmeyer has no credibility? But his testimony that he was abused WAS credible? Testimony that was going to net him millions of dollars? Lol.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Could be countless things--including making more money off his story
Do we believe for a second he doesn't have a deal lined up?

So to be clear, your position is that Rittmeyer testified he was abused and that was credible and had nothing to do with a payout (which he received). However, recanting his testimony is not credible and is 100% about money? (which he has not received and is totally hypothetical)

Lol.

 

[KingLando]

So NOW Rittmeyer has no credibility? But his testimony that he was abused WAS credible? Testimony that was going to net him millions of dollars? Lol.

Did you read what I wrote?

 

[KingLando]

So to be clear, your position is that Rittmeyer testified he was abused and that was credible and had nothing to do with a payout (which he received). However, recanting his testimony is not credible and is 100% about money? (which he has not received and is totally hypothetical)

Lol.

Where was it said he was credible?
The jury, at the time, found him credible. Now we know he's untrustworthy...that's not debatable. Once someone recants testimony they no longer have any credibility. That's not an opinion. They lied under oath and should be prosecuted.

 

[Chris92]

Where was it said he was credible?
The jury, at the time, found him credible. Now we know he's untrustworthy...that's not debatable. Once someone recants testimony they no longer have any credibility. That's not an opinion. They lied under oath and should be prosecuted.

Tell us about Troopers Leiter and Rossman. They testified at trial they never led accusers or discussed other accuser's details, yet the defense produced the audio tape of them doing just that. They were also under oath, dismissed from the witness stand and reminded not to discuss the case. One returns to the stand and admitted to discussing the case when asked by Roeminger. The second trooper returns to the stand and denies discussing the case in the court hallway.

Were the troopers held in contempt, prosecuted for perjury or was the case declared a mistrial?

 

[KingLando]

Tell us about Troopers Leiter and Rossman. They testified at trial they never led accusers or discussed other accuser's details, yet the defense produced the audio tape of them doing just that. They were also under oath, dismissed from the witness stand and reminded not to discuss the case. One returns to the stand and admitted to discussing the case when asked by Roeminger. The second trooper returns to the stand and denies discussing the case in the court hallway.

Were the troopers held in contempt, prosecuted for perjury or was the case declared a mistrial?

Lol you're joking right? Please tell me you're joking

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

What is the motivation for Rittmeyer to come forth and recant his testimony of almost 15 years ago? He was awarded $5.5 million. So what's to gain by going through this process? I just don't get it.

What's to gain? Maybe the "truth" - some of you a-holes are so morally debased it's off the charts.

 

[Alphalion75]

What's to gain? Maybe the "truth" - some of you a-holes are so morally debased it's off the charts.

My friend, seeking the "truth" obvious. But Rittmeyer could simply recant his testimony by doing an interview. No, my question is why do the hearing? Sandusky's legal team knows that he'll never be granted a 2nd trial solely on RR's recant.

 

[Open Mind 1]

Lol you're joking right? Please tell me you're joking

This part of the case is actually a very big deal. You thinking it’s laughable tells all of us everything we need to know. KingLando condones lying on the stand. Got it.

 

[KingLando]

This part of the case is actually a very big deal. You thinking it’s laughable tells all of us everything we need to know. KingLando condones lying on the stand. Got it.

I can tell you've never been in a courtroom
Well maybe on trial

 

[ChiTownLionPSU]

Tell us about Troopers Leiter and Rossman. They testified at trial they never led accusers or discussed other accuser's details, yet the defense produced the audio tape of them doing just that. They were also under oath, dismissed from the witness stand and reminded not to discuss the case. One returns to the stand and admitted to discussing the case when asked by Roeminger. The second trooper returns to the stand and denies discussing the case in the court hallway.

Were the troopers held in contempt, prosecuted for perjury or was the case declared a mistrial?

Lol you're joking right? Please tell me you're joking

Some reporters said back then that this could have imploded the entire case, so are you the one who is joking?

 

[KingLando]

Some reporters said back then that this could have imploded the entire case, so are you the one who is joking?

"some reporters said" is meaningful?
Did it implode the case or even cause minor damage?
You actually proved my point

 

[PSUFTG]

. No, my question is why do the hearing? Sandusky's legal team knows that he'll never be granted a 2nd trial solely on RR's recant.

Great idea. Let's just get rid of Court Rooms and the Judiciary all together - we can just hash everything out on Twitter.

 

[ChiTownLionPSU]

 

[Alphalion75]

Great idea. Let's just get rid of Court Rooms and the Judiciary all together - we can just hash everything out on Twitter.

Wow! Your read on my post was a stretch. My point is simple. One witnesses recanted testimony in the context of numerous witnesses will not earn Sandusky a new trial. Heck a witness in Ted Bundy's trial recanted her testimony. Sandusky's lawyers know this. So what is their plan beyond the recanted testimony to get a new trial?

 

[Chris92]

Wow! Your read on my post was a stretch. My point is simple. One witnesses recanted testimony in the context of numerous witnesses will not earn Sandusky a new trial. Heck a witness in Ted Bundy's trial recanted her testimony. Sandusky's lawyers know this. So what is their plan beyond the recanted testimony to get a new trial?

They're going to get Fina on the stand and ask if him if he ordered the Code Red. Of course, Fina is going to say he followed the law and the evidence brought a predator to justice.

If they get V10 on the record saying he was coached, manipulated and mislead by the prosecution, they also have the rolling audio tape of that happening with V4. That's 2 of 8 Vs that testified at trial. Is that enough for this judge or another judge to set up another hearing to examine misconduct by the investigators/prosecution? It seems as though that would need to happen before they would have any hope of a new trial.

 

[Alphalion75]

They're going to get Fina on the stand and ask if him if he ordered the Code Red. Of course, Fina is going to say he followed the law and the evidence brought a predator to justice.

If they get V10 on the record saying he was coached, manipulated and mislead by the prosecution, they also have the rolling audio tape of that happening with V4. That's 2 of 8 Vs that testified at trial. Is that enough for this judge or another judge to set up another hearing to examine misconduct by the investigators/prosecution? It seems as though that would need to happen before they would have any hope of a new trial.

I agree.

 

[Binder74]

Great idea. Let's just get rid of Court Rooms and the Judiciary all together - we can just hash everything out on Twitter.

Better yet do it on Kalshi.