Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: jospehm20
We are going to agree to disagree on Joe Paterno. If I feel up to detailed response in the day time (it is now 2:22 AM) I may reply one more time. Basically, you have no actual evidence and just a bunch of unsubstantiated suspicions. You are not at all concerned about Michael McQueary or Curley or Schultz or the lavender-loving ringleader of the PSU pro-pervert circus. In fact, you say that "it does not really matter who was dominant in the decision to keep it quiet." Fee, Fie, Fo, Fum, I smell a planted axiom or twelve. You sound like Hillary on Benghazi except that she actually knows what she is talking about and lies as usual. You are playing Captain Ahab and imagine that the dead Joe Paterno is starring as Moby Dick. Careful! Moby Dick sank the Pequod and Captain Ahab with it and lived to frolic in the Atlantic Ocean thereafter.

A short list of things that seem not to concern you at all include: the role of perv coddler and PSU president Graham Spanier, the role of Curley, the role of Schultz, whether the disappearance and presumed murder of Ray Gricar had anything to do with the pervert rape culture of Gerry Sandusky, whether any university trustees or political big shots were involved and, if so, whom and how? I get that you are outraged at the kiddie rapes. I don't get why the late Joe Paterno is the single target of your undeviating wrath when it should seem that many others were more responsible (assuming that Paterno failed, in any way, in his ACTUAL responsibilities, which are not to substitute his guesswork as a football coach for actual law enforcement, and not to pass McQueary's non-credible gossip along as Gospel fact. Paterno witnessed absolutely NOTHING. But, hey, what does that matter? Some folks are out there with pitchforks and torches and a blood lust that just MUST be satisfied against the dead celebrity. If Paterno's now dead scalp can be taken, by GOD, those tabloid readers will join the mob. What good is it to fix blame on the likes of Spanier and Curley and Schultz and any other co-conspirators that NOBODY has ever herd of? The only justification to go after them is IF they wre guilty in any way leading to Sandusky's criminal perversions. That doesn't satisfy the Ooompah Band, though, does it?

Ever wonder how the Salem Witchcraft trials may have gotten hand? Oh, magistrate, Goody Bradford looked cross-eyed at me two weeks ago and three days later I became ill with the flu. She's a witch, I tell you! Burn her at the stake!!! No inquiry first! None of that irritating due process tripe that those lawyers hide behind! We weren't hindered by constitution or a bill of rights. We had our suspicions. Who needs evidence??? Right?

As to Senator De Camp's book, the Franklin County Coverup, I have not read it recently but I have a copy and my recollection is that "Child Prostitution Ring" does not begin to adequately describe the goings on in that scandal.

As to Grand Juries, state and federal, we who have practiced law are inclined to observe that a grand jury can be dominated by a prosecutor into "indicting a ham sandwich." If the Nebraska prosecutor is protecting the potential defendants, he can persuade the grand jury NOT to indict by act or omission of the prosecutor. The Jon Benet Ramsay case, anyone? I once served as the paid attorney for a grand jury in a domestic murder case. My fellow grand jurors included a nun who said she could not vote for an indictment because our state might impose a death penalty (2/3 was necessary to indict) and a bunch of other folks who wanted neither discussion nor deliberation because of parking rates in an adjacent lot and their desire to leave it behind because it was Friday afternoon. Contemplating that Obozo was re-elected, that long ago experience comes to mind to explain voter negligence or perfidy. Read De Camp's book and you are quite likely to have a different take on the case in Nebraska.

Or, perhaps you are a hopeless case. The clock neareth three. Good night!

43 posted on 01/30/2013 12:58:45 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em, Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk

No, it is the same DeCamp and it is called the Franklin case. I don’t think there were multiple high profile child abuse ring cases named Franklin in Nebraska. I never wrote that I am not concerned about the other people, they will have their day in court. I think it is shocking that a group of men decided protecting a football program was more important than stopping what they knew was an active child molester. I also think things would have turned out much better for everybody had they done the right thing and pressed charges against Sandusky in 2002.


44 posted on 01/30/2013 2:21:01 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson