On Penn State Cases- Videos -Links- Eye Witness Accounts
The Set Up PSU
The Evidence 2001 ( Why Schultz and Curley Are Not Guilty) 22 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/10/984/
“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor (Shower Room 2000) 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/1254/
Sandusky- Why He’s Not Guilty-Penn State case “False Evidence” 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/06/22/www-sandusky-com/
“The Actual Targets” 2001 Information (The Lie) .PSU 9 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/27/the-actual-targets-psu-falseified/
Source Of The 2001 Information- “They Knew” And What they didn’t Know 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/29/1300/
Jerry Sandusky Should Get A Pardon- Charges of Corruption Should Be Filed 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/31/jerry-sandusky-should-get-a-pardon-charges-of-corruption-should-be-filed/
“Stingray Boy Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000) 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/stingray-boy-penn-state-university-actor-shower-room-2000/
The Janitor Was Trickedhttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/the-janitor-was-tricked-into-believing-it-was-sandusky-in-2000/
Videos:
Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ
The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc
WATCH!- ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.
▶ Penn State Was Set Up! *Evidence 2001 – YouTube
New Video. Two complete hours. (How they framed Sandusky)
From eye witness account. Penn State Evidence 2001- Explains in Audio format the falsifying of evidence used to accuse Penn State of a cover up.
Two hours in length. Covers corruption in Investigations and Court case.
*Must listen for supporters of Penn State.
Proof Sandusky was framed!
Explains truth about secret falsified evidence from 2001.
via ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.
Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ
The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc
“ (Shower Room 2000) “
Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? (Yes)
Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000?
The answer is yes.
Knowing this leads one to believe that the conspiracy against Jerry Sandusky, coach Paterno, and Penn State officials, started sometime before the fake shower room incident of 2000, where the janitor was tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky licking the crotch area of a child, when in fact it was actors portraying Sandusky. (Stingray Boy)
They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident.
Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it.
(A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking.) A made up story.
A man who looks like a child. A man that looks like Sandusky. Putting on a sexually charged act for the janitor to witness.
Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.
“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000).
In the question of deception: Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000? The answer is yes. They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident. And there is poor Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it. A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking. A made up story. A man who looks like a child and a man that looks like Sandusky putting on an act for the janitor to witness. Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.
KELLY KNEW
They knew that the 2001 information, they obtained, was secret. No one knew that they had the information. They knew no one was aware that they had the information.
What they didn’t know was that there was only one source for the information. They had to have obtained the 2001 information from that source. That source had to have obtained the 2001 information from Paterno. Probably out of the logbook in his house, without his knowledge. They also didn’t know that the 2001 information had similarities with the 2002 shower room incident but it was actually a separate incident. *(I was a witness to the 2001 incident that happened in the locker room at 9:30 in the morning. )
* This is what Linda Kelly believed( Because of the information they had.) Linda Kelly: Attorney General Pennsylvania:
1. She believed that she knew the truth about the 2001 incident and knew that Jerry Sandusky molested a child in the shower room.
2. She believed that McQueary told Paterno and later recounted the incident with Schultz and Curley.
3. So, she accused Jerry Sandusky with abuse and the officials with cover up of information and failing to report child abuse.(Quote- un- Quote: The Penn State Child Abuse Failing to Report Scandal.)
Spanier Trial
Note* Ex President Spanier has launched counter suit of claim against the investigators (Freeh). School claims defamation/slander! (Here is a description of some of the evidence that was falsified.)
The evidence from 2001 that proved that there was a 2001 shower room incident, was a log entry written by Paterno in his office. He wrote the entry in his logbook shortly after the incident. (There was an incident but it wasn’t the 2002 Sandusky/McQueary incident.)
The incident was not officially investigated. It was not considered a suspicious act with respect to the possibility of child abuse.
The prosecutors stated that the 2002 incident was actually in 2001. They extracted information from the 2001 incident and said that it applied to the Sandusky incident but it didn’t. (They knew it didn’t.)
They charged Penn State University officials with covering information that they knew had nothing to do with Sandusky or suspected child abuse.
The 2001 shower room information was falsified. The fact was, that, the information used was not in any way connected to the Sandusky incident.http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_23642294/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-files-libel
The 2001 information was used to make a claim that the 2002 incident, reported about Sandusky, by McQueary , was actually in 2002. The claimants knew the information they received from secret sources was tainted. Then, later falsified and used as evidence. This is the very information that the NCAA claimed that officials covered.
The 2001 information was later used as evidence in court. It had been forged and falsified.
PSU CoP
OUT.
I’m sure that after the award in the Sandusky case, (To witness 5) people who have read what I said about the evidence in 2001, would think , “now what do you have to say about it Don?” Well, I say the same thing I did. Sandusky didn’t do it.
The school officials who signed over the settlement should be fired. The laws that are unconstitutional should be thrown out of the state employees regulations. This farce of the law and the corruption, greed and self serving interests that turned the court into a witch hunt should not be allowed to be used as a precedent for other cases.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/17/justice/penn-state-sandusky-victim-settlement/
The Supreme Court of the United States should throw out the whole case and disallow the State system to maintain separate laws for separate institutions and employees of those separate, but not equal, entities. ( Especially in higher education.)
And an independent investigation into the evidence from 2001 should be conducted by the Federal authorities. The U.S. Supreme Court should call for a
review of the case, from the beginning.
The information from 2001 should be reviewed first with respect to falsifying the evidence. And the matter of revealing the source of the 2001 evidence, (information) should be immediately called for.
That’s a good start.
The laws, that the NCAA cited, concerning their accusations that PSU officials failed to report child abuse, should be sheltered from exploitation of power.
The 2010 presentiment was false. The 2010 presentiment by the Grand Jury was false.
In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. The presentment states that on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 PM, McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and “saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”[26][27] Further investigation revealed that the correct date of the incident was actually February 9, 2001.[28]
The sound effects came from the shower room incident in 2001.
McQueary testified that the prosecutors said he heard and saw a sexual assault, but that he never told them that.
Sources: Wikipedia Online (Don Robbins) -Eye Witness 2001.
They took information from an incident that happened a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky and said that it had to do with him, and it didn’t. (In 2001)
The incident in 2001 happened. But, it didn’t include Sandusky. The investigators for Freeh and Kelly only said that it did. It didn’t. They lied and said it did but it didn’t. No one ever knew. No one checked the source of the 2001 incident. The officials were accused of covering information that had nothing to do with Sandusky.
On Penn State Cases- Videos -Links- Eye Witness Accounts
The Set Up PSU
The Evidence 2001 ( Why Schultz and Curley Are Not Guilty) 22 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/10/984/
“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor (Shower Room 2000) 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/1254/
Sandusky- Why He’s Not Guilty-Penn State case “False Evidence” 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/06/22/www-sandusky-com/
“The Actual Targets” 2001 Information (The Lie) .PSU 9 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/27/the-actual-targets-psu-falseified/
Source Of The 2001 Information- “They Knew” And What they didn’t Know 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/29/1300/
Jerry Sandusky Should Get A Pardon- Charges of Corruption Should Be Filed 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/31/jerry-sandusky-should-get-a-pardon-charges-of-corruption-should-be-filed/
“Stingray Boy Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000) 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/stingray-boy-penn-state-university-actor-shower-room-2000/
The Janitor Was Trickedhttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/the-janitor-was-tricked-into-believing-it-was-sandusky-in-2000/
Videos:
Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ
The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc
WATCH!- ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.
▶ Penn State Was Set Up! *Evidence 2001 – YouTube
New Video. Two complete hours. (How they framed Sandusky)
From eye witness account. Penn State Evidence 2001- Explains in Audio format the falsifying of evidence used to accuse Penn State of a cover up.
Two hours in length. Covers corruption in Investigations and Court case.
*Must listen for supporters of Penn State.
Proof Sandusky was framed!
Explains truth about secret falsified evidence from 2001.
via ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.
Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ
The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc
“ (Shower Room 2000) “
Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? (Yes)
Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000?
The answer is yes.
Knowing this leads one to believe that the conspiracy against Jerry Sandusky, coach Paterno, and Penn State officials, started sometime before the fake shower room incident of 2000, where the janitor was tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky licking the crotch area of a child, when in fact it was actors portraying Sandusky. (Stingray Boy)
They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident.
Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it.
(A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking.) A made up story.
A man who looks like a child. A man that looks like Sandusky. Putting on a sexually charged act for the janitor to witness.
Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.
“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000).
In the question of deception: Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000? The answer is yes. They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident. And there is poor Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it. A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking. A made up story. A man who looks like a child and a man that looks like Sandusky putting on an act for the janitor to witness. Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.
KELLY KNEW
They knew that the 2001 information, they obtained, was secret. No one knew that they had the information. They knew no one was aware that they had the information.
What they didn’t know was that there was only one source for the information. They had to have obtained the 2001 information from that source. That source had to have obtained the 2001 information from Paterno. Probably out of the logbook in his house, without his knowledge. They also didn’t know that the 2001 information had similarities with the 2002 shower room incident but it was actually a separate incident. *(I was a witness to the 2001 incident that happened in the locker room at 9:30 in the morning. )
* This is what Linda Kelly believed( Because of the information they had.) Linda Kelly: Attorney General Pennsylvania:
1. She believed that she knew the truth about the 2001 incident and knew that Jerry Sandusky molested a child in the shower room.
2. She believed that McQueary told Paterno and later recounted the incident with Schultz and Curley.
3. So, she accused Jerry Sandusky with abuse and the officials with cover up of information and failing to report child abuse.(Quote- un- Quote: The Penn State Child Abuse Failing to Report Scandal.)
Spanier Trial
Note* Ex President Spanier has launched counter suit of claim against the investigators (Freeh). School claims defamation/slander! (Here is a description of some of the evidence that was falsified.)
The evidence from 2001 that proved that there was a 2001 shower room incident, was a log entry written by Paterno in his office. He wrote the entry in his logbook shortly after the incident. (There was an incident but it wasn’t the 2002 Sandusky/McQueary incident.)
The incident was not officially investigated. It was not considered a suspicious act with respect to the possibility of child abuse.
The prosecutors stated that the 2002 incident was actually in 2001. They extracted information from the 2001 incident and said that it applied to the Sandusky incident but it didn’t. (They knew it didn’t.)
They charged Penn State University officials with covering information that they knew had nothing to do with Sandusky or suspected child abuse.
The 2001 shower room information was falsified. The fact was, that, the information used was not in any way connected to the Sandusky incident.http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_23642294/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-files-libel
The 2001 information was used to make a claim that the 2002 incident, reported about Sandusky, by McQueary , was actually in 2002. The claimants knew the information they received from secret sources was tainted. Then, later falsified and used as evidence. This is the very information that the NCAA claimed that officials covered.
The 2001 information was later used as evidence in court. It had been forged and falsified.
No comments:
Post a Comment