^^^^absurd^^^^^
Sandusky Appeal Hearing Article
- Thread starter Open Mind 1
- Start date
^^^^^Beyond absurd. Dumb post of the day.^^^^
You're the glory hole champ
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.
Last edited:
.
You lie like a warehouse full of rugs. Admitting that you can’t stop lying is a start.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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?Great idea. Let's just get rid of Court Rooms and the Judiciary all together - we can just hash everything out on Twitter.
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.
Better yet do it on Kalshi.Great idea. Let's just get rid of Court Rooms and the Judiciary all together - we can just hash everything out on Twitter.
These are facts.. Dranov and Dad said MM never told them it was sexual but CSS knew it was as evidenced by the emails. MM never spoke to Raykovitz and Curley was careful not to give Jack anything actionable. Curley testified to that.
The NCAA guidelines that were not in place then tells Athletic personnel not to handle it send it to PROPER authorities. CSS and Joe handled it in house. In violation of today's standards.
As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps." Louis Freeh This shows Joe was part of the decision at best agreeing with Curley not to report or at worst changing his mind to not report it.
Your just being dishonest and you lack objective judgement. It's OK to have a different opinion. The problem is that you insist that opinions are facts. Lois Freeh himself denied that.
Reciting The Freeh report doesn't make those conclusions factual. Freeh himself publicly acknowledged that some of his conclusions were based on his own judgment rather than definitive proof.
Freeh has said that while his report was intended to be an objective investigation, certain findings were shaped by his own assessment of the evidence. For example, in discussions about the report’s conclusions on whether Penn State officials knew of sexual abuse and whether they acted with malicious intent, Freeh has admitted that he could not prove those points beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his conclusions reflected his own interpretation of the available information.
Louis Freeh, former FBI Director and later lead investigator in the Penn State child abuse scandal, has publicly acknowledged that some of his conclusions in the Freeh Report were based on his own judgment rather than definitive proof.
In interviews and public statements, Freeh has said that while his report was intended to be an objective investigation, certain findings were shaped by his own assessment of the evidence. For example, in discussions about the report’s conclusions on whether Penn State officials knew of sexual abuse and whether they acted with malicious intent, Freeh has admitted that he could not prove those points beyond a reasonable doubt, and that his conclusions reflected his own interpretation of the available information.
This admission was made in the context of criticism that the report assumed knowledge and intent without sufficient evidence. Freeh’s own words, as reported in media coverage and public commentary, indicate that he recognized there were multiple plausible interpretations of the evidence, and that his conclusions were not absolute facts but his professional opinion based on the investigation.
Freeh also acknowledged that some investigative choices — such as not interviewing certain witnesses like Mike McQueary — were made at the request of state prosecutors, which he said was part of the investigation’s plan. While these points are about investigative process, they underscore that his conclusions were informed by both evidence and the constraints and guidance he received, and that he did not present them as incontrovertible truth.
In short, Freeh has not denied the findings in his report, but he has recognized that they were his own conclusions drawn from the evidence, and that they could be interpreted differently by others. This admission aligns with his broader acknowledgment that the investigation was subject to the limits of the information available and the decisions made during the process
Freeh admitted his report was largely his opinion. In other words a bunch of boolsheet.
Latest
-
01
BWI
Penn State's Checklist for a Successful Season Opener
-
02
BWI
Penn State Notebook: Trust, Rocco Becht and the questions facing the Nittany Lions in Week 1
-
03
BWI
Projecting Penn State's injury report heading into the Nittany Lions' season opener
-
04
BWI
Penn State wants to play its backup quarterback; a note on two new starters, more takeaways from Tuesday before Marshall
-
05
BWI
Penn State - Marshall visitor list features several recruits who could earn an offer