Posted on 02/05/2013 6:24:16 PM PST by FlJoePa
In both instances, you made the posts. It is entirely your game. Have you ever had a psychological evaluation?
"Paterno did not admit guilt in the Sandusky affair."?
Just curious.
John isn't the subject, is he? I used the quote posted that Paterno himself made.
Did the BOT run the athletic department or more specifically the football program?
What positions did they hold at PSU?
No -- but they did approve Jerry Sandusky's retirement agreement with the university that gave him access to all parts of the university including the football facility and its showers over Paterno's objection. There goes your all-powerful god theory.
Read the post again. The reference was to New York and 911.
The rest is irrelevant.
Focus on the subject of the posted article. I'm not into chasing tangents.
Oh really!!!
So Paterno could have unilaterally torn up Sandusky's retirement agreement that the BOT signed off on???
Are you for real???
It's sure not stopping you here.
Another ridiculous, irrelevant strawman. Paterno stated that in hindsight he should have done more. What is it about that statement that you fail to comprehend?
You do comprehend that Sandusky was found not guilty regarding that McQueary-reported shower incident, don't you???
You do understand that, don't you -- that was NOT GUILTY of the only incident ever reported to Paterno and by Paterno.
What part of that evades your comprehension???
You're his lawyer? You can provide evidence supporting that allegation?
You do comprehend that Sandusky was found not guilty
Really?
Jerry Sandusky receives 30- to 60-year sentence - CBS News
Last Updated 1:15 p.m. ET. BELLEFONTE, Pa. Jerry Sandusky was sentenced Tuesday to at least 30 years in prison -- effectively a life sentence...
cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57528616/jerry-sandusky-re...
In the case of unknown Victim 2, the victim identified by Mike McQueary, Sandusky was found not guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, but guilty of indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors and endangering the welfare of a child with regard to victim
That's not what I wrote. This is:
"You do comprehend that Sandusky was found not guilty regarding that McQueary-reported shower incident, don't you???"
You obviously don't and don't want to deal with the whole truth. That's par for your course.
Sandusky was found not guilty on the McQueary “rape” allegation.
Mike McQueary got the date of the shower episode wrong by over a year and it was not, as the prosecution originally made a huge deal out of, the “Friday night before Spring Break.”
Jerry Sandusky was source of the correct date for the McQueary shower episode.
The McQueary event took place almost ten years before there was testimony about it.
The victim in the McQueary episode (#2) was interviewed after the indictment by a former FBI investigator and unequivocally denied McQueary’s story.
Sandusky left voice messages for Victim 2 during the Grand Jury investigation indicating that he should come forward to tell his story, but the prosecution never called him in any proceeding and now claims he doesn’t even exist.
It appears that McQueary played in Second Mile golf events after episode.
After the story broke, McQueary made up absurd stories to his friends about going after Victim 2, in contradiction of his own testimony.
The grand jury presentment, in a very unusual move, declared McQueary to be “highly credible,” even though he apparently never testified in front of the Grand Jury panel which actually voted to indict. It will eventually become clear that there are many things about McQueary which make that pronouncement particularly absurd.
McQueary has never testified that he told a specific person he saw sex of any kind and Dr. Dranov, a mandated reporter for child sex abuse, never reported what Mike told him the night of the episode.
Sandusky was found not guilty on the McQueary “rape” allegation.
So Sandusky is found NOT GUILTY of the child molestation allegation but Joe Paterno is somehow supposed to be guilty of it????
Wake up and smell the insanity of that claim.
Not guilty?
In the case of unknown Victim 2, the victim identified by Mike McQueary, Sandusky was found not guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, but guilty of indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors and endangering the welfare of a child with regard to victim
Exactly what is it you fail to comprehend?
The only insanity is that which you display defending the indefensible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.