Replies

Did you know that the jury acquitted Sandusky of any criminal action in the incident that McQueary reported to Paterno. This incident around which there was supposedly this great coverup was found by the jury to be a non-incident.

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=215

Is your real name John Ziegler? Your posts here match his editorials.
Yes I did know this and no it doesn't change anything.
The problem for you, Ziegler and the other Paterno apologist is that the shower victim has come forward now. If the victim had come forward during the trial Sandusky would have been convicted of that charge as well.

Before writing anymore theories you should read-up on Occam's razor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

The Freeh Report has this statement written about five times “No record or communication indicates that anyone made any effort to determine the identity of the child in the shower or whether the child had been harmed.”

The problem for you, Ziegler and the other Paterno apologist is that the shower victim has come forward now.

No -- the problem for this shower victim's lawyers in the civil trial will be whose testimony to affirm in this incident: Paterno's saying something of a sexual nature did occur according to McQueary which was set aside by the jury or McQueary's doctor saying that he reported that it wasn't sexual which was relied upon by the jury.

That jury decision presents a problem for Freeh's Report that he conveniently avoided. And it will present a problem for any prosecution of Curry, et al because McQueary will get torn apart on the stand.

That's not exactly true. Since the boy was from The Second Mile, they notified the Second Mile of the incident. What did the Second Mile do with the information??? Did Freeh follow that trail???