- Lasch Building Incident 2001 Shower room Victims 2...
- Untrue Statement From Freeh Report- Page 54 From F...
- There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998...
- Case In Study- Link References- 1998-2001 Complai...
- Morgan building 1998 PSU- Office incident- Were Re...
- Investigating Agencies In 1998- Incident- Not Abus...
- Dept. of Education- Clery Act; - 2001 Info.- Sandu...
- "NCAA - FREEH- Partnership In Persecutions- Penn S...
- The Jerry Sandusky Facts- Penn State Trials- READ ...
- Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video) Review...
Friday, January 30, 2015
January Archive For Don Robbins Blog- Sandusky Is Innocent- Freeh Report Is Not True.
▼ January (10)
Lasch Building Incident 2001 Shower room Victims 2-4&5- Not True- Morgan building Covered By Freeh Report
"Sandusky is Innocent"
Student Athlete Services building- Morgan building incident 1998-
Mistaken identity of man reported to be Sandusky
Incident covered by prosecution -Freeh.
2001- Morgan building incident (Actual incident)
Incident reported by prosecution never happened in the Lsach building. 2001 Victim 2.
No other incidents reported in 2001.
Victims 4 -5.
Report by prosecution from 1998 Smeal building ( Small Business Admin. building) Calhoun was not in building. No other person saw Sandusky. Petrosky did not talk to Calhoun before he left to go to security office. No one saw Calhoun leave for security building office after he made phone call. Stated he made the phone call from the building where Petrosky was in.
Petrosky said he saw no one. 12 Years later he changed his testimony. Calhoun did not say he saw Sandusky that night. He said he saw a man with a child. He did not mention Sandusky.
Nothing was said about the Morgan building incident in 1998 when Calhoun saw the man he believed to be Sandusky in a shower room with what appeared to be a child. Turned out to be a small man posing as a child as they made a video. Steinbrenner was in the shower at the time with the men making the video.
Nothing has ever been mentioned about the Sandusky look alike posing as Sandusky or the Steinbrenner incident.
The Freeh report apparently covers the fact that a man did pose as Sandusky on several occasions and several people reported seeing Sandusky when it was actually the imposter. Calhoun and Pretrosky most likely saw the imposter with the childlike man in the shower room in the Lasch building in 2000.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Untrue Statement From Freeh Report- Page 54 From Freeh Report- Untrue- (Explanation.)
Full Text On Freeh Report
Statement From Freeh Report; Untrue
Page 54 from report- Lasch building 2001- Claims by Freeh in report- Untrue
j
Victim 2 -Feb. 2001 Lash Building Information fabricated. No incident at Lasch building in 2001. No records. No witness. . Incident happened in Morgan Building at 9:30 Am in the Morgan building.
Information copied from Morgan building incident and called Sandusky incident by Freeh.
Victim 4- Alamo Bowl- Made up story. Speculation dropped. There were no charges filed. Child admitted making up story about oral sex bet.
Victim 5- No incident at Lasch building in 2001. Only record or information on incident was at Morgan building.
(Actual incident at Lasch building 1998)
There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998. . The Freeh Report Had To Be False
There wasn't any complaints about Sandusky in 1998. That's what I'm saying.
The complaints were about a man who people thought was Sandusky.
There was a complaint by the mother of the child mentioned in the Freeh report but no charges were filed.
There were other complaints and reports in 1998 -specifically concerning claims from the Morgan building actions, but it wasn't Sandusky people reported. It was another man. '
*This is the link to the article Penn State President Speaks Out About Sandusky Case -Freeh Report-http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/934eb96b299c49a6bc23a54482b46e91/US--Penn-State-President
The Freeh report concluded that former administrators Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and former football coach Joe Paterno intentionally concealed key facts about Sandusky's child sex abuse to avoid bad publicity after receiving complaints in 1998 and 2001
Sandusky was cleared by Gricar. 1998.
That's what I'm saying.
There was an incident but it wasn't Sandusky.
There was another investigation but Sandusky was cleared in it.
The Freeh report had to be false .
The complaints were about a man who people thought was Sandusky.
There was a complaint by the mother of the child mentioned in the Freeh report but no charges were filed.
There were other complaints and reports in 1998 -specifically concerning claims from the Morgan building actions, but it wasn't Sandusky people reported. It was another man. '
*This is the link to the article Penn State President Speaks Out About Sandusky Case -Freeh Report-http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/934eb96b299c49a6bc23a54482b46e91/US--Penn-State-President
The Freeh report concluded that former administrators Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, and former football coach Joe Paterno intentionally concealed key facts about Sandusky's child sex abuse to avoid bad publicity after receiving complaints in 1998 and 2001
Sandusky was cleared by Gricar. 1998.
That's what I'm saying.
There was an incident but it wasn't Sandusky.
There was another investigation but Sandusky was cleared in it.
The Freeh report had to be false .
Case In Study- Link References- 1998-2001 Complaints Invalidated- Evidence Falsified?
Penn State president 'not a fan' of Freeh report into Sandusky, criticizes NCAA penalties Article.
The complaints about Sandusky in 1998 was a matter of mistaken identity and a matter of a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with sexual allegations. Sandusky was cleared on both accounts.
In 2001, the complaints were fabricated by the prosecutors in 2012. The 2001 incident and any reports had nothing to do with Sandusky. http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2014/10/2001-incident-had-nothing-to-do-with.html
The Freeh investigators may have falsified evidence or received falsified evidence. http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/01/t-jerry-sandusky-facts-penn-state.html
Either way evidence was falsified and complaints were fabricated.
The Freeh investigators may have falsified evidence or received falsified evidence. http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/01/t-jerry-sandusky-facts-penn-state.html
Either way evidence was falsified and complaints were fabricated.
Next phase- Planting evidence. Was evidence [planted by prosecutors?
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Morgan building 1998 PSU- Office incident- Were Reports Mistaken For Speculation?
Morgan building PSU campus 1998- Office break in- incident- crime- office lower level- C.I.A.- F.B.I.- Reports sealed classified-
Questions whether Sandusky was in the area at the time. Sandusky cleared, matter dropped. Investigation outcome not shared with public.
Incident had nothing to do with Sandusky. There was a man who looked like Sandusky seen in the area at the time.
Reports on the other man not made public.
Security guard missing? Unknown.
Information on Gricar or other agencies reports could be mistaken for speculation on Sandusky.
Questions whether Sandusky was in the area at the time. Sandusky cleared, matter dropped. Investigation outcome not shared with public.
Incident had nothing to do with Sandusky. There was a man who looked like Sandusky seen in the area at the time.
Reports on the other man not made public.
Security guard missing? Unknown.
Information on Gricar or other agencies reports could be mistaken for speculation on Sandusky.
Investigating Agencies In 1998- Incident- Not Abuse- Sandusky Cleared- Officials Not Notified- Gricar Investigation 1998-
Excerpt from: NCAA FREEH Worked Together-
ESPN Article- NCAA and FREEH Worked Together- Statement from article:
"The culture of Penn State's football program and university leaders' duty to report suspected criminal behavior were central findings of the Freeh report."
(Highlight CRIMINAL behavior.) Criminal, not just sexual crimes, but any crimes.
There was an indication on crimes during 1998 and sometime before and after 1998 Sandusky was reported by people, but it wasn't Sandusky. .
Gricar during this time was called in and cleared Sandusky concerning another investigation.
Sandusky was reported to have been seen in an area during an incident that was apparently looked into by several different agencies at the time. The incident was not about abuse or sexual crimes.
It was found out by Gricar that Sandusky was not the person people thought they saw during the time the incident occurred. (The crime. Not the shower room incident.)
Like I said, there was a man in the area at the time of the incident but it wasn't Sandusky. People apparently mistook him for Sandusky on that occasions and several other occasions.
So there was enough information to make a determination that there was something happening and the officials did not have reports on what was investigated by those agencies. The officials were not told anything about the incident and the agencies kept the investigation classified.
This may have made it look like they did not respond to the situation.
Also Sandusky was said to have been in the area at the time. So there may have been a report on him by Gricar or other agencies that were investigating the matter.
I know that it wasn't Sandusky there at that time because I saw the man in the shower room in the Morgan building in 1998. The man wasn't Sandusky. Even though Calhoun was told that it was.
ESPN Article- NCAA and FREEH Worked Together- Statement from article:
"The culture of Penn State's football program and university leaders' duty to report suspected criminal behavior were central findings of the Freeh report."
(Highlight CRIMINAL behavior.) Criminal, not just sexual crimes, but any crimes.
There was an indication on crimes during 1998 and sometime before and after 1998 Sandusky was reported by people, but it wasn't Sandusky. .
Gricar during this time was called in and cleared Sandusky concerning another investigation.
Sandusky was reported to have been seen in an area during an incident that was apparently looked into by several different agencies at the time. The incident was not about abuse or sexual crimes.
It was found out by Gricar that Sandusky was not the person people thought they saw during the time the incident occurred. (The crime. Not the shower room incident.)
Like I said, there was a man in the area at the time of the incident but it wasn't Sandusky. People apparently mistook him for Sandusky on that occasions and several other occasions.
So there was enough information to make a determination that there was something happening and the officials did not have reports on what was investigated by those agencies. The officials were not told anything about the incident and the agencies kept the investigation classified.
This may have made it look like they did not respond to the situation.
Also Sandusky was said to have been in the area at the time. So there may have been a report on him by Gricar or other agencies that were investigating the matter.
I know that it wasn't Sandusky there at that time because I saw the man in the shower room in the Morgan building in 1998. The man wasn't Sandusky. Even though Calhoun was told that it was.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Dept. of Education- Clery Act; - 2001 Info.- Sandusky Falsely Imprisoned- Penn State Set Up- (Opinion) DRR.
In and
before 1998 at the Morgan building shower room. The guy who looked like Jerry
Sandusky was running around the campus, and shower rooms, doing stuff to make
people believe it was Jerry Sandusky. Him and his accomplice.
The Department Of Education investigation; Where is the 2001 incident information? Is collusion a part of this picture?
Collusion
NOUN
noun: collusion
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:
NOUN
noun: collusion
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:
From WIKIPEDIA:
Penn State University[edit]
Main article: Penn State sex abuse scandal
The U.S. Department of Education is investigating Penn State over the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Their investigation arises from the university administration's alleged failure to report allegations of sex offenses on campus by a former school official as being a violation of the Act. Former Penn State Defensive Coach Jerry Sandusky has been convicted of sexually abusing several young boys over several years, including incidents on campus.[13] A campus safety advocacy group called the scandal "the most extensive investigation the Department of Education has ever conducted".The Clery laws:
Clery Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.svg) | |
| Long title | Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act |
|---|---|
| Nicknames | Clery Act |
| Enacted by | the 101st United States Congress |
| Citations | |
| Public Law | Pub.L. 101–542 |
| Codification | |
| Acts amended | Higher Education Act of 1965 |
| Titles amended | 20 |
| U.S.C. sections amended | 20 U.S.C. § 1092, et al |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| Major amendments | |
| Pub.L. 102–26 Pub.L. 102–325 Pub.L. 105–244 Pub.L. 106–386 | |
The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $35,000 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
"NCAA - FREEH- Partnership In Persecutions- Penn State Trials and Investigations" (2001 Evidence) "Witch Hunt"
I'm saying that Freeh's office had the 2001 information, and (they did) to begin with, assume, that it was about Sandusky. And then, sometime later, realized that it wasn't actually about Sandusky. They knew it wasn't because they could check it. But never admitted or reported that they did.
At some time the information was talked about or shared with the NCAA. At that point the NCAA believed the officials to be guilty- at Penn State- of covering for Sandusky.
That's fine, but you have to understand that it was also possible for the NCAA to check the information from the 2001 incident and make the determination that the information was falsified.
They did not try to validate the 2001 information. They did not check sources, They did not look into the actual incident at the Morgan building.
It's like they knew the accusations would stick, after seeing the 2001 evidence. And they went with the sanctions. (Regardless of the truth.)
The question is; After learning about the emails between the Freeh office and the NCAA, did the NCAA know the information was falsified?
If the NCAA checked the 2001 information, they would not have accused the officials. It's that simple. But they did. That's all. They did.
Jerry Sandusky was falsely accused and the officials were falsely accused by the NCAA. There was a partnership in persecutions.
My conclusion is that the Freeh office and the NCAA knew the 2001 information, that they accused the officials of covering, was in fact falsified. They knew the information did not prove Sandusky guilty of molesting any child in a shower room on 2001.
The NCAA knew the information was not covered up by officials. They knew together and went ahead with the witch hunt.
At some time the information was talked about or shared with the NCAA. At that point the NCAA believed the officials to be guilty- at Penn State- of covering for Sandusky.
That's fine, but you have to understand that it was also possible for the NCAA to check the information from the 2001 incident and make the determination that the information was falsified.
They did not try to validate the 2001 information. They did not check sources, They did not look into the actual incident at the Morgan building.
It's like they knew the accusations would stick, after seeing the 2001 evidence. And they went with the sanctions. (Regardless of the truth.)
The question is; After learning about the emails between the Freeh office and the NCAA, did the NCAA know the information was falsified?
If the NCAA checked the 2001 information, they would not have accused the officials. It's that simple. But they did. That's all. They did.
Jerry Sandusky was falsely accused and the officials were falsely accused by the NCAA. There was a partnership in persecutions.
My conclusion is that the Freeh office and the NCAA knew the 2001 information, that they accused the officials of covering, was in fact falsified. They knew the information did not prove Sandusky guilty of molesting any child in a shower room on 2001.
The NCAA knew the information was not covered up by officials. They knew together and went ahead with the witch hunt.
The Jerry Sandusky Facts- Penn State Trials- READ CAREFULLY! READ VERY CAREFULLY. READ IT. STUDY IT!
Alamo bowl 1999 - Nothing happened between Sandusky and the child he saw with his wife at the game. There were no charges dropped because there were no charges filed in the first place. The suspicions were dropped about Sandusky after the kid admitted nothing happened between him and Jerry Sandusky.
1998- Calhoun (Smeal building ) Nothing happened in the building. There was no person seen by anybody in the building that evening. There was no suspicious activities. It's doubtful that Calhoun was in the building. Petrosky said he did not see any suspicious person that evening in the building. *He changed his testimony at the court, when Sandusky went on trial.
1998 Shower Room (Student Athlete Services building) Not Sandusky- * A man who looked like Sandusky with a (child impersonator) and George Steinbrenner and chauffer making a video- mocking a sexual assault.
Sandusky was not present. Calhoun was apparently told it was Sandusky. (It wasn't Sandusky.)
Office broken into later that week -where report on incident was probably filed. (In the Student Athletic Services building.)
Security guard- myself and Calhoun witnessed the video taping in the shower room.
*Ray Gricar- It was my theory that the security guard came up missing and Gricar traced the disappearance back to the shower room incident in 1998. And then Gricar came up missing.
(Along with the report that the security guard wrote about the Steinbrenner-Sandusky look alike- incident. )
2000- Lasch building shower room incident, where Petrosky saw, with Calhoun, the same man that Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998. (Not Sandusky.) It wasn't Sandusky. The child imposter was probably with him at the time.
2001- Shower room incident in the Student Athletic Services building. No person present in the shower room. Sounds only. Most likely, sounds from fake tape made in 1998. Some of the same people saw me- and played the sound effects when I entered the locker room- with the people touring the campus.
Log entry about the incident in Paterno's notebook. (In the building where the incident happened.) Handwritten by Paterno.
(I witnessed it.) I was there in the office when he wrote the notes on the incident.
Other information about the incident was typed on a paper in the office in the Student Athletic Services building office- (same office-and Paterno was there)- down the hall from the locker room. That paper was apparently filed in his office, by Schultz, and then forgotten about.
2001- No other incident concerning a shower room on campus.
Nothing was reported in 2001 about Jerry Sandusky. The incident that McQueary reported was actually in 2002. The Prosecutors were wrong. Whatever evidence they had about the 2001 incident was in the Student Athletic Services building at 9:00 in the morning. That evidence has not been made public. There may have also been a video tape that people thought Sandusky was in , but wasn't. (It wasn't Sandusky.)
2002- Nothing happened. -Mcqueary saw a man who looked like Sandusky with the little man. (Child imposter) Little man had light brown wavy hair, gray blue eyes, was about 4'7 feet tall. Weight about 100 pounds.
It looks like there was an attempted frame up, on Jerry Sandusky- possibly an extortion attempt that went wrong. The security guard may have came up missing after the report was filed. And the Gricar came up missing when he put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Did the security guard come up missing? Was Gricar investigating the disaperance of the security guard?
Did the look alike convince people he was Sandusky? Did he fondle children to make people believe it was Sandusky? We know he was making a video tape in the shower room in 1998. If people saw the tape they may have assumed it was Sandusky and then thought he was guilty. Is that the reason they became so motivated and sure he was guilty?
I believe that is what happened. I believe that Sandusky is innocent.
DID GRICAR SEE THE TAPE? DID BALDWIN? DID FREEH SEE THE TAPE? DID KELLY?
? WHERE IS THE TAPE ?
1998- Calhoun (Smeal building ) Nothing happened in the building. There was no person seen by anybody in the building that evening. There was no suspicious activities. It's doubtful that Calhoun was in the building. Petrosky said he did not see any suspicious person that evening in the building. *He changed his testimony at the court, when Sandusky went on trial.
1998 Shower Room (Student Athlete Services building) Not Sandusky- * A man who looked like Sandusky with a (child impersonator) and George Steinbrenner and chauffer making a video- mocking a sexual assault.
Sandusky was not present. Calhoun was apparently told it was Sandusky. (It wasn't Sandusky.)
Office broken into later that week -where report on incident was probably filed. (In the Student Athletic Services building.)
Security guard- myself and Calhoun witnessed the video taping in the shower room.
*Ray Gricar- It was my theory that the security guard came up missing and Gricar traced the disappearance back to the shower room incident in 1998. And then Gricar came up missing.
(Along with the report that the security guard wrote about the Steinbrenner-Sandusky look alike- incident. )
2000- Lasch building shower room incident, where Petrosky saw, with Calhoun, the same man that Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998. (Not Sandusky.) It wasn't Sandusky. The child imposter was probably with him at the time.
2001- Shower room incident in the Student Athletic Services building. No person present in the shower room. Sounds only. Most likely, sounds from fake tape made in 1998. Some of the same people saw me- and played the sound effects when I entered the locker room- with the people touring the campus.
Log entry about the incident in Paterno's notebook. (In the building where the incident happened.) Handwritten by Paterno.
(I witnessed it.) I was there in the office when he wrote the notes on the incident.
Other information about the incident was typed on a paper in the office in the Student Athletic Services building office- (same office-and Paterno was there)- down the hall from the locker room. That paper was apparently filed in his office, by Schultz, and then forgotten about.
2001- No other incident concerning a shower room on campus.
Nothing was reported in 2001 about Jerry Sandusky. The incident that McQueary reported was actually in 2002. The Prosecutors were wrong. Whatever evidence they had about the 2001 incident was in the Student Athletic Services building at 9:00 in the morning. That evidence has not been made public. There may have also been a video tape that people thought Sandusky was in , but wasn't. (It wasn't Sandusky.)
2002- Nothing happened. -Mcqueary saw a man who looked like Sandusky with the little man. (Child imposter) Little man had light brown wavy hair, gray blue eyes, was about 4'7 feet tall. Weight about 100 pounds.
It looks like there was an attempted frame up, on Jerry Sandusky- possibly an extortion attempt that went wrong. The security guard may have came up missing after the report was filed. And the Gricar came up missing when he put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Did the security guard come up missing? Was Gricar investigating the disaperance of the security guard?
Did the look alike convince people he was Sandusky? Did he fondle children to make people believe it was Sandusky? We know he was making a video tape in the shower room in 1998. If people saw the tape they may have assumed it was Sandusky and then thought he was guilty. Is that the reason they became so motivated and sure he was guilty?
I believe that is what happened. I believe that Sandusky is innocent.
DID GRICAR SEE THE TAPE? DID BALDWIN? DID FREEH SEE THE TAPE? DID KELLY?
? WHERE IS THE TAPE ?
 |
| 1998 Incident -Security- Calhoun-Myself -See Steinbrenner in Shower Room Making a Video Tape. |
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video) Review by Don Robbins -picture
This review is from: Places In The Heart (Amazon Instant Video)
Sally Fields performance ...I don't have words to describe this masterpiece. It's probably the greatest single performance in the history of movies. Danny Glover- John Malkovich- "yes, it's a great movie. An American treasure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)