Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Posted First On NewC- "The Middle Class Hook Up" Painting by Don Robbins (Chasing Robert Wood)

. The legislative response mechanism is hooked up to the middle class, or it's supposed to be. And yet  there is still a problem in outcome based decision making in politics.

   If the middle class has the most power to elect leaders and after they are elected; those elected officials make decisions that become detrimental to the middle class, then something is wrong. 


   My opinion is that the problem is deception on the part of party backed elections. Where the candidates running for office know how to tell people what they want to hear along party lines, but when it comes to voting on issues in Washington there seems to be some discrepancies with respect to promises that were made during the elections. Or before.


   The Constitution is supposed to be a provider of rights based on what is right and a guideline to help in regulating decisions made in leadership that affect the people. Or the mass. The effects of political decision-making should be for the overall good of the people.


   And what do we do when the Constitution isn't enough to keep them rascals in line up there in Washington D.C.? That's the question!


   Even the wealthiest businessmen are looking for answers on how to get some muscle back into the middle class.  But you know..... I think the middle class needs to be the largest group of people to begin with and that's what makes for a healthier economy, ultimately, and becomes closer to fairness in political decision-making through positive influence.

  
  .
Painting by Don Robbins.
Graphic enhancements with Xara

(Chasing Robert Wood)

 




 

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Some Posts To Read About The Penn State case

Two things missing:
The DA- Ray Gricar. And- The film from the shower room.

Shower Room Incident that happened in 1998. I was there. The janitor was there. Security broke up the hassle between me and the four naked men in the shower. The janitor came in after the argument.- with a security guard. (As far as I know he was a security guard.)

















  They fabricated the information from 2001 used it against Sandusky and charged him with a crime he didn't commit. Simple. He was framed. 

   The information they had came from an incident in a locker room in 2001. I was there when the incident took place. 


   Paterno made a note of the incident in his logbook. Schultz came to the office Paterno was at and he had a trainee type a brief on the incident. That was the paper in his office.


    That's where the prosecutors got the 2001 information. It still wasn't enough to convince them to go after Sandusky and the officials like fanatics. 


    I believe there was a video tape made in 1998. The tape was recorded in the same shower room as the incident in 2001. The person acting like they were molesting a child in the video was not Sandusky. It was not Sandusky.


 The man did look a lot like Sandusky but it was a different man. 

    The janitor and I saw the man close up. The security guard that came into the shower room with the janitor saw the same man. 

    
By-Don Robbins
"Paterno"

Question: How did you know a video tape was made in a shower room at Penn State in 1998?
Answer: "I was there. I saw them."
                                                           Don Robbins


   The morning the shower room incident happened in 2001, Paterno wrote a note in his logbook or notebook. (Link To Magazine)
http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/?view=magazine
    After the authorities and security dropped the matter, Schultz came to Paterno in the small office, there in the building where the incident happened. I was still there.
      Schultz was with a trainee/student that was training to be a security guard. He had the trainee write a report on the incident. He typed it on typewriter paper with a typewriter.
       They took the paper with them when they left.

  Apparently, the paper had been put up in  the security office and was forgotten about for all those years.

      I don't think Schultz remembered the incident or the paper. No one else did. 

   I didn't remember what happened until after the trial.  

Friday, August 22, 2014

Letters To Maine Intro- Pts. 1-2-3 Complete.

Letters to Maine:

       How do I start? Just start, I guess.
  First of all; I was most likely born in a town called Bangor Maine. If you live there or near Bangor Maine you might know where it is.
  I’m writing in Word. Usually I write in blog. But it messes up so much that you have to watch the page. While I’m in Word you don’t have to worry about it that much.
    I pay a fee to use it. Each month it is taken out of my SSI check. Really, that’s not a joke!
    The lasers have my back hurting so much I can’t hardly set here and write. I put on a back pack with books and stuff in it to help keep the lasers from hurting so much. It’s pretty much laser alley here.
    Nothing can stop them completely. Government and rich people kind of terrorism. If poor people shot someone in the government with a laser the C.I.A. would be crawling around like flies.
   There was a lot of reasons people wanted me dead to begin with. Being born in Bangor Maine was one I guess.
   How I found out I was born in Bangor Maine is a story in itself. If you are from Bangor Maine or have relatives there, you may have known about the murders in 1959-60. Probably 1960. If I was born in 1959 then I would guess that my parents were murdered in 1960.
   I don’t know much about my real parents. I know that they lived in a house by a lighthouse. The lighthouse was just down the road from the place. It was a small wood framed house, painted white. The garage was detached and set at the end of the driveway. The driveway was a white chat driveway. A sidewalk went down the side of it about half way to the road. By the road, that was a blacktop, two lane, there were tall straight trees in a line. There was about twenty planted side by side. All about the same height.
   The neighbors down the road as you were headed towards town had some type of oriental stuff in their yard. On down the road there was a large house that sat on the other side of the road.
   As you pulled up to the house coming in from the road, the house set on the left. The entrance everyone used was on the side facing the blacktop. The patio was on that side of the house. There was a large pine tree just past the patio. You could see the top of the lighthouse from the patio. There was an entrance on the side by the driveway, but mostly people used the patio entrance. There was a door with a metal work letter on it. I can’t remember what letter it was.
   As you walked through the patio side door you entered the den. To the right was a dining room and kitchen I suppose. To the left was a door. Probably went to a bedroom. Straight through the den was a hallway that went to the bathroom.
   There was a dresser setting in the hallway with a mirror on it. It set in a cutaway. It was on the right. A man that was dressed like a woman held me there. One of the killers I suspect.
   He apparently left me in a stroller on the patio by the sidewalk to freeze to death. That night a warm stream of air came from somewhere, probably the Gulf of Mexico and that kept me alive until some people found me.
    After the miracle on the patio I was taken to the orphanage. They knew who I was. But I never did.
    The reason I say that is because lawyers came to talk to me when I was nine years old. They turned over a large parcel of land in Connecticut and some companies. There was other properties. Houses and offices. Shopping malls. Most of it had to do with CBS. That’s all I remember.
   I never had much to do with any of it. After I was 11 I forgot about it and no one ever said anything more to me about it. Apparently, my parents had inherited the properties and they were dead so I was next to receive the inheritance. If their father knew me he never contacted me. I never knew who he was and I never knew my parents.
     That might give some people there a clue as to who I would be. I think Smith had to do with CBS. As in General Electric.
    If any of the other people I was related to knew who and where I was, they didn’t care to contact me. I figured some got money out of the deal. What happened to all the properties is anybody’s guess. I know that all of the properties weren’t taken or sold. Some of the properties were put in trust but I never saw those people either.
    It was funny that after all those years the men in California that had to do with Capitol Records found me and told me I owned the company. I was there for a short time in Los Angeles. I was ill. I walked away and forgot the whole thing. Never went back. The company was eventually sold to Sony Corporation.
   
    Like I said I wanted to know who I was. I never knew. How many murders could have happened in the Bangor Maine area around 1960? And people who lived by a lighthouse?
    Was all that money keeping me from finding out things that the criminals didn’t want me to know? It seemed that way.
   I always thought that before I got old I would go to Maine and try to find out my real identity.
    This is the journal I will keep:
                       
                                 Don Russell Robbins
  My birth certificate said I was born in  Oklahoma on August ------- My parents were ---------They resided in Mingo Oklahoma at the time. He worked for machine shops in the area. They are both dead.
  
  
 

   You would think it would be easy enough to find out who my real parents were but it wasn’t. 

Message To Wildlife Explioters/Killers

A Message To Wildlife Killers


 God never intended for freaks that are sadistic killers to kill innocent animals for no reason other than having fun and calling it sport.

    I don't believe that Jesus would want people who exploit animals- by killing for fun and profit- to hide behind his name and claim that he supports their habits. Or that their actions are acceptable in church or heaven. They're not.

   

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Does The Defense Know Of The 1998 Video? Penn State case against Officials.

   Right now; it seems that the attorneys for the accused officials at Penn State believe they have enough of a case to prove their clients innocent. But the judge may or may not allow new evidence into the court.
 " I was wandering, after two years of writing about the Sandusky trial and investigation -also studying the case against the officials - Would my testimony be allowed?"
                       
  (I was there in 2001 when the real incident happened.) 
                                          
I was also directly involved in  incidents in 1998, twice, with Calhoun. He told his side of the story but I never told my version, that's a little bit different.
    
  I also knew of the video tape that was made to look like Sandusky was doing something bad in a shower room. I wander if the prosecution or defense attorneys knew of that tape?
                                     
                                                       
                                                                 
                                                                                        



 

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

"Stellar Reaction" Vector Research.

  In the circumstance of vector research, the only way to save the planet is to counteract the interjection that was made into the vector pattern values. Unless that is done, molecular breakdown will occur and then mono-pole effect. After that stellar reaction. That is how stars are born.

"If There Was A Video Tape"

  If there was a video tape of a man mocking Sandusky molesting a child, that was made for a joke; How many people saw it? How many thought it was real? How many was told it was?

     What would it be if  league owners saw the tape and laughed about it with Steinbrenner and knew that it was used to convince the prosecution to press charges against Sandusky and accuse the officials at Penn State of a cover up?

   If there was a cover up to protect Steinbrenner's antics would those people deserve to lose their jobs?

   If the prosecutors knew the tape was a fake but used it to convince authorities to press charges anyway, would they deserve to lose their jobs?



The Truth About The Sandusky Trial- What Happened In 2001- The 1998 Shower Room Tape- "Paterno"

  They fabricated the information from 2001 used it against Sandusky and charged him with a crime he didn't commit. Simple. He was framed. 

   The information they had came from an incident in a locker room in 2001. I was there when the incident took place. 


   Paterno made a note of the incident in his logbook. Schultz came to the office Paterno was at and he had a trainee type a brief on the incident. That was the paper in his office.


    That's where the prosecutors got the 2001 information. It still wasn't enough to convince them to go after Sandusky and the officials like fanatics. 


    I believe there was a video tape made in 1998. The tape was recorded in the same shower room as the incident in 2001. The person acting like they were molesting a child in the video was not Sandusky. It was not Sandusky.


 The man did look a lot like Sandusky but it was a different man. 

    The janitor  (Calhoun) and I saw the man close up. The security guard that came into the shower room with the janitor also saw the same man. 

    
By-Don Robbins
"Paterno"

Question: How did you know a video tape was made in a shower room at Penn State in 1998?
Answer: "I was there. I saw them."  
                                                           Don Robbins

Link To Blog Archive- Penn State Case- Posts- Pictures-Others

http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50 blog archive. Read post explaining why Sandusky is innocent. Schultz-Curley-Spanier innocent of charges. Sandusky was framed. Officials were falsely accused. Information was falsified in origional trial. Don Robbins (eye witness). I never testified.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Search Page- Blog post- Officials Trial-Links- DonRobbinsReturns -Breif on trial hearing

schultz trial penn state - Google Search
Prosecutors allege the three engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" by not reporting what they knew about an allegation of a locker room assault by Sandusky in 2001. Sandusky is now in prison serving a 30- to 60-year sentence on 45 counts of child sex abuse.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/07/30/Penn-State-s-Spanier-Curley-and-Schultz-to-stand-trial-on-all-charges-in-Sandusky-case/stories/201307300204#ixzz3AlzhQGMw



http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/2014/08/conclusions-by-don-robbins-personal.html

schultz trial penn state - Google Search

schultz trial penn state - Google Search
Prosecutors allege the three engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" by not reporting what they knew about an allegation of a locker room assault by Sandusky in 2001. Sandusky is now in prison serving a 30- to 60-year sentence on 45 counts of child sex abuse.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/07/30/Penn-State-s-Spanier-Curley-and-Schultz-to-stand-trial-on-all-charges-in-Sandusky-case/stories/201307300204#ixzz3AlzhQGMw



http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/2014/08/conclusions-by-don-robbins-personal.html
Prosecutors allege the three engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" by not reporting what they knew about an allegation of a locker room assault by Sandusky in 2001. Sandusky is now in prison serving a 30- to 60-year sentence on 45 counts of child sex abuse.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/07/30/Penn-State-s-Spanier-Curley-and-Schultz-to-stand-trial-on-all-charges-in-Sandusky-case/stories/201307300204#ixzz3AlzhQGMw



http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/2014/08/conclusions-by-don-robbins-personal.html

Sunday, August 17, 2014

"Sandusky Was Not Allowed To Use Facilities After 1998- McQueary's Changing Testimony"

  Sometime before the Alamo scare in 1998; where Sandusky was questioned about an incident that never happened and where no charges were filed or dropped, it was requested by the Penn State officials who were in charge of campus regulations that personnel not bring visitors to the campus to use facilities after hours.
    That included Sandusky. Sandusky had on occasion used the campus facilities, including the Lasch building for his charity work.
    In the years 1998-2000 and on through 2011 Sandusky wasn't allowed to use the Lasch building for his charity work. After 1998, it was specifically requested by authorities that he not use the main campus at all. But to use the satellite campus for his activities with the children in his charity. The swimming pool was on the other campus.
    The idea that he was in the building with a child in 2000 and no one said anything about it, is hard to believe. Children were also supposed to be checked into security if they were brought into the campus buildings after hours.
   It would be very difficult to be in the Lasch building after hours with a child and security not know. 
    The story about Sandusky being in the building in 2001 isn't true at all, in the case of McQueary's testimony that he changed twice. Once about hearing sounds coming from the shower room that night,and the other about the years, 2001-2002. At first he said 2002. (Later the prosecutors claimed that the year was 2001 instead of 2002, even though the officials and coaches agreed that the year was 2002 when he told them about Sandusky. He also claimed that he called the police or informed security that night when at first he said he did nothing except waited until the next day and told Paterno.

The 2001 McQueary/Sandusky Incident Never Happened."

  The incident that the prosecution said happened in the year 2001 between McQueary and Sandusky, never happened in 2001. They either fabricated (falsified) the 2001 evidence or they made a mistake about the information they had from 2001.

   I say they falsified the information and never explained why they were so positive that the 2002 incident actually happened in 2001. 

    I believe that McQueary saw the imposter, not actually Sandusky.

Conclusions by Don Robbins- Personal Accounts- Eye Witness- Penn State Case-Trials- Sandusky-Schultz-Paterno-

I believe that the sounds from the video tape that was made in 1998 in the shower room at Penn State by Steinbrenner and company (the Sandusky impostor and the others) was played back in the shower room incident in 2001. I was there in 2001 during the incident. I was there in 1998 when the video was made.

  I believe it was the same shower room where the video was made.

  I think a video surfaced that people thought had Sandusky in it but it was an impostor.

  I believe some people saw the video in secret and believed Sandusky molested a child in the shower room. And then they pressed charges.

  I believe that the 2001 incident information was added to the testimony, about, what was believed to be Sandusky abusing children.

  I believe that information was falsified in the case.

  I believe the impostor may have committed other acts that were bordering on abuse that were blamed on Sandusky. 

  I believe the 2001 incident information that was obtained from the writings of Paterno and Schultz was used against Sandusky after it was falsified by the prosecution.

I believe Sandusky and the Penn State officials are innocent of the charges they faced in the Penn State sex scandal case.

Sources: Don Robbins -personal accounts-Research- Web- Articles- Google-Bing- 

"The Paper In The Security Office- Where It Came From" Schultz Case- Penn State

   The morning the shower room incident happened in 2001, Paterno wrote a note in his logbook or notebook. (Link To Magazine)
http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/?view=magazine
    After the authorities and security dropped the matter, Schultz came to Paterno in the small office, there in the building where the incident happened. I was still there.
      Schultz was with a trainee/student that was training to be a security guard. He had the trainee write a report on the incident. He typed it on typewriter paper with a typewriter.
       They took the paper with them when they left.

  Apparently, the paper had been put up in  the security office and was forgotten about for all those years.

      I don't think Schultz remembered the incident or the paper. No one else did. 

   I didn't remember what happened until after the trial.  

Friday, August 15, 2014

"Schultz Did Not Know The 2001 (unofficial) Incident Report Was In His Office"

http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/pretrial-hearing-set-for-spanier-curley-and-schultz,1416476/

   "Schultz did not know the paper with the 2001 incident information was in the security office where he worked. "
   " The paper was typed on a blank typewriter paper with a typewriter. In 2001. (I was there in 2001 when it was typed.)"

"The 2001 incident did not involve people in a shower. (I was a witness to what happened.)"


"No one remembered the 2001 incident. But Kelly knew the paper was in Schultz' office, HOW!?"

"How did Kelly and no one else know the information from the 2001 (unofficial) report was in Schultz' office?"

"The prosecutors said the 2001 information applied to the McQueary/Sandusky incident. IT DIDN'T."






Another Day Another Post About Penn State-Trials- "Question Of The Day"

   A Sandusky impostor was on campus in 1998. He did take part in activities in the shower room that were filmed. Calhoun the janitor and (Don Robbins) that's me, saw the impostor in the shower room in 1998. I went into the shower room just before the janitor and the security guard. The incident was never mentioned.

    The impostor is the man that Calhuon thought was Sandusky. He saw the impostor again in 2000 at the Lasch building. Petrosky saw the same man as Calhoun in 2000, also.

     There was an impostor.
 There was a video tape made.

 There is a high probability that people saw the impostor and believed it was Sandusky. The question is whether or not the prosecutors heard testimony from people who had mistaken the impostor for Sandusky? Probably, they did.

     Question of the day-
                                   Here it is: Did McQueary inform the Penn State  officials in 2001 about seeing Sandusky in a shower room with a child at 9:30 PM in the Lasch building? 
                                    The answer is no. He didn't. 
McQueary did inform officials in 2002 about an incident where he said he saw Sandusky in the shower room at the Lasch building at 9:30 PM and he didn't know if it involved inappropriate behavior or not. 

All of the officials and Paterno agreed that's what McQueary reported. And it was in 2002, not 2001. 

*The information that convinced the prosecutors to file charges and say that the 2002 incident actually happened in 2001 has never been revealed.

It wasn't on the testimony of McQueary that the prosecution accused the officials of a cover up. It wasn't on the testimony of McQueary that the state prosecutors filed charges against Sandusky.It was on the strength of the 2001 information. So where did the prosecutors get the information that made them so sure that Sandusky was guilty?

Was it a video tape that the prosecutors couldn't use as evidence but looked like Sandusky molesting a child?

Was it information from Paterno's logbook that mentioned a shower room incident in 2001? And a paper in Schultz's office that mentioned the same 2001 incident that was mentioned in Patern's logbook?

I think it was.

If so, where did Kelly find out about the paper that was in Schultz's office?

Was there a break in?

Was a mistake made about the 2001 incident?

 Did they see the logbook entry and think it was actually about Sandusky when it wasn't.

 Did they lie about it? Was the information falsified? And then used to place guilt on Sandusky and then later accuse the officials of not reporting suspicion of child abuse?

I believe that is what actually happened.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/pretrial-hearing-set-for-spanier-curley-and-schultz,1416476/









Thursday, August 14, 2014

Made Possible by Google Drive- Freeh and Kelly Knew 2001 Information Was Falsified

There are people who know the truth about the 2001 secret evidence, the prosecution accused Penn State officials of covering up about Sandusky.
Kelly and the Pennsylvania State Police originally filed charges after Freeh released information that his investigators discovered about 2001.
"As far as I'm concerned, both Kelly and Freeh knew the 2001 information was obtained illegally and was then falsified to implicate Sandusky, but the actual target was Penn State officials."
Falsified yes, but the information was believed to be about Sandusky in the beginning.
It comes down to a matter of who obtained the information, first. And at what point the decision was made to deceive others about the information, and who made the decision to lie.

Penn State Case- 4 Posts- Video Tape Conspiracy?

"What Calhoun Saw in 1998 in the Shower Room"

There is a person that the janitor Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998. That person that Calhoun saw was not Sandusky. 
Calhoun was told that it was Sandusky.  He believed it was.
That was the same man that he saw in the Lasch building in 2000. He was not Jerry Sandusky.
   
The men in the shower room in the building where the janitor saw them, in 1998, were making a video tape. George Steinbrenner was one of the men who was in the shower room.

The little man and the man who looked like Sandusky (but wasn't) are the two people that Calhoun and Petrosky said they saw in the Lasch building in 2000.
http://wnep.com/2012/06/13/testimony-about-another-sandusky-assault-witnessed-in-showers/



"Was A Video Tape Made From The 1998 Incident?"


  Was a video tape shown to prosecutors that could not be submitted as evidence but made them think it was Sandusky molesting a child in a shower room?

  Was that video tape made in 1998? And did the janitor see the men in the shower room while they were making the parody of Sandusky with a man who looked like Sandusky? (Yes.)

   A man who looked like Sandusky but wasn't? (Yes)



"What Happened In The Shower Room in 1998"

  I knew a teacher that worked in a building on campus. She taught  a class that was located on the second floor of the building. I was waiting for her one evening. I was on the first floor. She was upstairs grading papers and stuff. 
   I heard a scream coming from the shower room/locker room down the hall from where I was standing. I went into the locker room and heard the sounds of what sounded like a child being tortured. Or raped. The sound was disturbing to hear -at least. 
   I entered the shower room area where I saw 4 people. Two were naked. One was in street clothes and one was wearing shorts and no shirt. Three of the men were large over six feet tall. One of the people  appeared to be a child. 
   I walked past the men and asked the child if he was OK. I was surprised to see that that the child was not a child at all! He was a man but just little. A really little man. He did look like a twelve year old boy. Maybe even younger.
  He told me to get out! He cussed me and told me to go away. Like he was mad at me for asking him if he was OK.
   The other men started harassing me and one that was holding a video camera threatened me. Said he would kick my ass if I didn't get outta there! I said something back and they said something back to me. George Steinbrenner was one of those men.
   
   Then, the janitor (Calhoun) and a security guard came into the shower  room. The janitor saw the man that looked like Jerry Sandusky. The security guard told me to leave and the janitor to leave and he would take care of the situation. 
    The janitor and I left the shower room. 

  What I heard and saw in the shower room, it looked to me like they were making a video tape to make it look like Sandusky was molesting a child.
   The man did look enough like Sandusky yo fool someone into believing that it was Sandusky. 

   The janitor never mentioned seeing those men that evening on the shower room. He never said anything about Steinbrenner being there.
   The security guard never mentioned it either. At the trial or during the investigations.

This is a diagram of the same shower room from the incident in 2001 where the audio tape was played that sounded like what happened in 1998. 







"Was There A Conspiracy To Frame Jerry Sandusky?"

   Question: Was there a conspiracy to frame Jerry Sandusky using a man (actor) to pose as Sandusky?
   
    Answer: I say there was. And I caught them in the act in 1998 in the shower room where I saw the man who looked like Sandusky acting like he was molesting a child. A man was in the shower room holding a video camera. Apparently they were making a film that made it look like Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower room. (Actually, the child was a little man.)
   
   The question about the prosecution against Sandusky and the Penn State officials, is whether or not any of the authorities saw a fake tape of what they thought was Sandusky molesting a child in a shower room, but they believed it was and pressed charges. And then accused officials of covering up information about Sandusky.

Did investigators see a fake video tape and think it was Sandusky? That is the question.

The other question concerning the Penn State officials being charged with a cover up, is whether the 2001 information about the shower room incident was fabricated. I say that it was.

The 2001 information was about a different incident. There was only one incident of that nature in 2001. I was there. Sandusky and McQueary wasn't.

"Was Sandusky Framed?" "Did Prosecutors See A Fake Tape"? And 2001 evidence fabricated.

   Question: Was there a conspiracy to frame Jerry Sandusky using a man (actor) to pose as Sandusky?
   
    Answer: I say there was. And I caught them in the act in 1998 in the shower room where I saw the man who looked like Sandusky acting like he was molesting a child. A man was in the shower room holding a video camera. Apparently they were making a film that made it look like Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower room. (Actually, the child was a little man.)
   
   The question about the prosecution against Sandusky and the Penn State officials, is whether or not any of the authorities saw a fake tape of what they thought was Sandusky molesting a child in a shower room, but they believed it was and pressed charges. And then accused officials of covering up information about Sandusky.

Did investigators see a fake video tape and think it was Sandusky? That is the question.

The other question concerning the Penn State officials being charged with a cover up, is whether the 2001 information about the shower room incident was fabricated. I say that it was.

The 2001 information was about a different incident. There was only one incident of that nature in 2001. I was there. Sandusky and McQueary wasn't.

"The Fake Video Rape Tape From 1998 at Penn State (How it Happened)

  I knew a teacher that worked in a building on campus. She taught  a class that was located on the second floor of the building. I was waiting for her one evening. I was on the first floor. She was upstairs grading papers and stuff. 
   I heard a scream coming from the shower room/locker room down the hall from where I was standing. I went into the locker room and heard the sounds of what sounded like a child being tortured. Or raped. The sound was disturbing to hear -at least. 
   I entered the shower room area where I saw 4 people. Two were naked. One was in street clothes and one was wearing shorts and no shirt. Three of the men were large over six feet tall. One of the people  appeared to be a child. 
   I walked past the men and asked the child if he was OK. I was surprised to see that that the child was not a child at all! He was a man but just little. A really little man. He did look like a twelve year old boy. Maybe even younger.
  He told me to get out! He cussed me and told me to go away. Like he was mad at me for asking him if he was OK.
   The other men started harassing me and one that was holding a video camera threatened me. Said he would kick my ass if I didn't get outta there! I said something back and they said something back to me. George Steinbrenner was one of those men.
   
   Then, the janitor (Calhoun) and a security guard came into the shower  room. The janitor saw the man that looked like Jerry Sandusky. The security guard told me to leave and the janitor to leave and he would take care of the situation. 
    The janitor and I left the shower room. 

  What I heard and saw in the shower room, it looked to me like they were making a video tape to make it look like Sandusky was molesting a child.
   The man did look enough like Sandusky yo fool someone into believing that it was Sandusky. 

   The janitor never mentioned seeing those men that evening on the shower room. He never said anything about Steinbrenner being there.
   The security guard never mentioned it either. At the trial or during the investigations.

This is a diagram of the same shower room from the incident in 2001 where the audio tape was played that sounded like what happened in 1998. 




The Man That Looked Like Sandusky- The 1998 Video tape-

  Was a video tape shown to prosecutors that could not be submitted as evidence but made them think it was Sandusky molesting a child in a shower room?

  Was that video tape made in 1998. And did the janitor see the men in the shower room while they were making the parody of Sandusky with a man who looked like Sandusky? (Yes.)

   A man who looked like Sandusky but wasn't? (Yes)

The Janitors Did Not See Sandusky in 2000- They Saw A Look Alike.

There is a person that the janitor Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998. That person that Calhoun saw was not Sandusky. 
Calhoun was told that it was Sandusky.  He believed it was.
That was the same man that he saw in the Lasch building in 2000. He was not Jerry Sandusky.
   
The men in the shower room in the building where the janitor saw them, in 1998, were making a video tape. George Steinbrenner was one of the men who was in the shower room.

The little man and the man who looked like Sandusky (but wasn't) are the two people that Calhoun and Petrosky said they saw in the Lasch building in 2000.
http://wnep.com/2012/06/13/testimony-about-another-sandusky-assault-witnessed-in-showers/

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Arts by Don Robbions (Pictures) Visit Store!





Was A Video Tape Shown To Investigators In Secret?



Was a video tape shown to investigators, that was said to have been recorded in secret?
Did the video tape come from the 1998 shower room incident?

   I say that the audio part of the video tape that was made in the shower room in 1998 
was played in the shower room incident in 2001.

*

That Man Was Not Jerry Sandusky. It wasn't Jerry Sandusky In The Shower Room!

  The janitors that testified at the Jerry Sandusky trial about claims of sexual abuse 
at Penn State by Sandusky didn't see Sandusky in 2000 at the Lasch building. 
They saw a man who looked like Sandusky. They saw the same man I saw in the 
shower room in another building on campus in 1998.
One of the janitors saw the same man in the shower room at the same time I did. 
He came into the  shower room right after me. You could hear the commotion from 
the hall. He entered the shower room with a security guard from the school.
   The people in the shower room were making a video tape.

  The janitor claimed that he first saw Sandusky with a child in a building he
 was working in, in 1998. He said the man was the same as the man he saw in 
the Lasch building in 2000. It was. And that man was and is not Jerry Sandusky.

2001 Incident Was Falsified- Sandusky Was Framed. True- Don Robbins (Witness)

http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_23642294/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-files-libel


How do I know this?
There was one incident in 2001. I was there when the actual incident happened. The information from that incident was obtained and used to suggest a cover up.
There was an incident in 2002 between McQueary and who he said was supposed to have been Sandusky. 
The information from 2001 was used to convinced prosecutors that the incident that was reported in 2002 was 2001. 
Or, they said it was to implicate Sandusky.

I believe that it was possible to check the information from 2001. Checking the information would have cleared suspicion of wrongdoing. 
The 2001 information could be used to suggest abuse and cover up of abuse.
The question is; Whether the investigators and prosecutors knew it.




It seems that they did.

The Main Question About The Penn State Case - 2001 Information- Who Had It?

  No one had the information from the actual 2001 shower room incident. (1 ) Where did the prosecution get the information? 
   The 2001 incident information was gathered after 2001. 
   *Yes. The Paterno house was broken into in 1998. I said it was. I knew it was. But the 2001 information came from the same people. That's what I'm saying.
    So what was the 1998 information and where did it come from? The same people!
   The question is who were the people that gave the prosecutors information?
  And how did Kelly know that the 2001 information was on a paper in the office of the head of campus security? No one knew the 2001 information was typed on the paper. 

(Sandusky was NOT involved in the actual 2001 incident.)

(1) The information they had from 2001 that made them think there was a Sandusky incident in 2001. That is the information.
 I said, that because of the nature of the information, it had to be obtained in secret.

It was used to accuse. To accuse Sandusky of an act in 2001, when it was first said to have been in 2002.
The 2001 evidence was used to convince the prosecutors to change the date of the accusation from 2002 to 2001.

It is known that the incident in 2001 happened (I was a witness) and the 2001 incident didn't apply to Sandusky in any way; That means that the 2002 incident was the actual incident! And that any information from the 2001 incident does not apply to Sandusky or Penn state officials covering up the information.

 There was a cover up! The investigators covered up, where, the 2001 information was obtained from. (And probably who it was obtained from.)

And the cover up of the fact that the information was known to be falsified but used to try and convict those who were  accused, anyway.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Janitors Story Doesn't Add Up. Neither does the Prosecutors. Questions Still Unanswered. (Perfect)

  It's not only the janitors story that doesn't add up - it's also the prosecutors story that never added up to begin with.

  The 2001 information was used to frame Sandusky. That is true, but where did the prosecutors get the information in the first place?

   Why didn't anyone question the validity of their information and the credibility of their sources?






"Perfect"





 

Monday, August 11, 2014

The Janitors Story Doesn't Add Up- Video with reading. My testimony of what I saw at Penn State.

Video favorites at YouTube-Janitors Sandusky Penn State-

   The people in the shower room in 1998 that the janitor and I both saw were making a video tape. They were acting like someone was being molested. The man in the shower room looked like Sandusky but it wasn't.
    Nothing was ever said about the incident because one of the men was George Steinbrennr. The owner of the N.Y. Yankees baseball team.

(The other incident in 1998):
   The janitor first said that he saw a man on the second floor of the building he was supposed to be working in, when he got back from wherever he had gone to. This was also in 1998. I was there that night. Security asked everyone in the building if they had seen anything. No one said they saw or heard anybody suspicious. The other janitor later changed his story and said that he did see somebody and that it was Sandusky.
   If the first janitor did see somebody in a shower room in 1998 it wasn't Sandusky. I don't think he saw a man on the second floor of the building that night when he claimed he saw and heard what he believed to be a sexual battery on a child by a man in the building.
   I know he saw a man in the shower room in 1998 because I was there. It wasn't Sandusky. It was a man that looked like Sandusky.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

That Man Was Not Jerry Sandusky. It wasn't Jerry Sandusky In The Shower Room!

  The janitors that testified at the Jerry Sandusky trial about claims of sexual abuse at Penn State by Sandusky didn't see Sandusky in 2000 at the Lasch building. They saw a man who looked like Sandusky. They saw the same man I saw in the shower room in another building on campus in 1998.
One of thje janitors saw the same man in thje shower room at the same time I did. He came into the  shower room right after me. You could hear the commotion from the hall. He entered the shower room with a security guard from the school.
   The people in the shower room were making a video tape.

  The janitor claimed that he first saw Sandusky with a child in a building he was working in, in 1998. He said the man was the same as the man he saw in the Lasch building in 2000. It was. And that man was and is not Jerry Sandusky.

Friday, August 8, 2014

"What Was Left Out Of The Story" 1998 Penn State Incident Shower Room-Steinbrenner. Janitors testimony- Don Robbins- witness.

   "This is getting ridiculous! (Listen please.) The janitors changed their story about 1998. One said he saw a man; the other said he didn't. The other changed his mind after ten years. 
    I know the first janitor didn't see a man with a kid in the building, on the second floor in 1998, because I was there at the time. He wasn't even on the second floor."
 http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-of-janitors-testimony-against.html

     "They both said that they saw Sandusky with a kid in the Lasch building in 2000 coming from the shower and walking down the hall.  The prosecutors asked them if it was the same man they saw in 1998. They said it was. That's like saying I saw a man named Vince Lombardi and was told it was Paterno. And later saw Lombardi again and told the prosecutors it was Paterno."


   *What wasn't revealed, was the shower room incident in 1998, that the janitor said nothing about. Or he did and the prosecution scared him into keeping silent because it was George Steinbrenner who he saw in the shower room in a building on campus. Like I said."


  The  1998 incident where the janitor said he saw a man in a building on campus, happened in one building and the Steinbrenner shower room incident happened in the building the teacher that I  knew worked in. It was across the parking lot. 

There was a building next door to the building where the janitor said he saw the man. The buildings looked a lot alike.

1998: Janitor claims to see man with child on second floor of building where he came to work. 

          Later testifies that the man was Sandusky. No one else in the building had seen the man. Janitors 2&3 testify they saw no one. I told security I was on the floor and saw nobody. The teacher told security she saw nobody. No one saw the janitor in the building at the time. The janitor called security after the teacher and I returned from her building. 

1998: The building that the teacher worked in was where the janitor and I saw Sandusky in the shower             room. There was a shower room and small locker room in that building on the ground floor.

    The janitor came into the shower room with a man from security. The security agent broke up the argument between me and the other men in the shower room. (Before we started to fight each other.)
I heard the sounds and went into the shower room before the janitor and security guard. 
   I thought the small man in the shower making the screaming sounds was a child. The man with him was a man that looked like Sandusky. I knew the man wasn't Sandusky. He just looked like him. The little man got rude with me when I asked him if he was OK. He said, "just go the f__k  away and get outta here!" Like that. The man with the video camera then threatened me and also told me to leave in a demanding voice. It made me mad.
  The janitor never said anything about the incident publicly. Security never said anything about it either.
Apparently somebody didn't count on me being there or remembering it.

2011: The janitor testified that the man he saw in 1998 was Sandusky. The other janitor changed his testimony and said he saw the man too. But it wasn't allowed in evidence. The statement that was made about 2000 was. 

* (There was no person in the shower room in 2001. Only sounds. There was no other incident in 2001. There was no other info on the 2001 incident or any other incident from 2001. If there was a video tape it was faked in 1998.

                                                  Don Robbins 

Leave comments or Email. I will get back to you as soon as possible.

   Click ads and share. Thanks!







   

Thursday, August 7, 2014

"What The Prosecutors Covered Up?" Penn State Janitors Testimony (Note) Pictures "Future U.S. Territory"

  The same janitor http://donrobbinsreturns.blogspot.com/  mentioned in the previous post either did not mention seeing Steinbrenner with a Sandusky impostor in the shower room in 1998, or the investigators left out the information in the presentment. Or covered up the Steinbrenner incident. I believe they covered it up and convinced the janitors to lie.  Who knew about Steinbrenner?
sandusky-trial-janitor-testimony-james-calhoun-ronald-petrosky 





X "Review Of The Janitors Testimony Against Sandusky" X

 "Review Of The Janitors Testimony Against Sandusky" Penn State Justice-Eye Witness Account 

The evening that the janitor came to the building to help the two other janitors working in the building; he said he saw a man on the second floor where he was working. He called security. This was about 45 minutes after he came to the building.
  The problem with that statement to the prosecution and investigators at Penn State, who questioned the janitors, is that the janitor wasn't on the second floor when he said he saw a man there with a child.

 The second janitor that worked in the building said he never saw or heard any man there at the time. The other janitor, who was a student soldier, also said she did not see anybody. Security asked me and I said I was on the floor before and I walked into the building with the janitor and the teacher through the back door.

  ( The janitor was never on the second floor at the time.)  That's what I told security when they asked me.
 This was after we ( me and the teacher) got back from the other building.
Her father worked on the second floor in an office that dealt with copyright issues.

 She, (his daughter) was with her child, as was the case continually when she went to see her father. She worked in the building across the way.
 We had gone over there to her classroom to do something and then came back to the building where her father worked. The building where the janitor said he saw the man.

 
   The other janitor changed his statement, later, and said that he did see someone that night.

While we were in the other building where the teacher worked we saw two men in the small office downstairs. The janitors boss said he did not let them into the office. He said the other janitor that came to the other building had a key to the office but not the front doors or entrances to the buildings. The doors were locked after hours. We were there about 30 minutes and then went back to the other building. Her child was with us the whole time.
Security asked if we saw anybody before we left and went to her building. We said no.  We  never saw the janitor on the second floor before we left. We were on the second floor with her father at least 30 minutes before we went to the other building.

Someone let the men into the office in the other building. The door was locked from the inside while the men were searching the office. Nobody saw the janitor that said he saw the man in the building until we got back from the other building. Strange.

"For Paterno" 

This is a diagram of the office in the building on the lower floor.
It's the same office mentioned above. The teacher's classroom was upstairs. The staircase to the second floor was past the locker room. This building and shower room is where the 2001 incident actually took place. There was no other incident in 2001. Sandusky was in no way connected to the incident here. The actual incident and information about it had nothing to do with the Lasch Football building. That part of the story was also made up by prosecutors.
In 1998 George Steinbrenner and some other men were in this building in the shower room. The janitor mentioned above and I saw them. They were making a video tape. A man who looked like Jerry Sandusky was acting like he was molesting a  man who looked like a kid. Gross sounds were made by them, like a joke or something. 


Stuff- ACTION RIDER Enhanced With Adobe- Paper Football-Hoffa- Immigration Solution

  My solution to the immigration question was to let Americans vote in their counties to allow more immigrants citizenship, or not. As long as they can live in the county and then the state after they pass citizenship test.
   America is the richest country in the world and we can afford to allow more people into the nation to become citizens at this time.
   Thank you.

  Jimmy Hoffa died in Hosston Louisiana in 1975. I was with him when he died. I was a minor at the time.

   Just thought I'd put that in there. The FBI might try and look there.

Well, I was gone for a while, wasn't I? So here's an ACTION RIDER picture!
I'm trying out a new APP.

. This is a paper football. The picture was edited by Adobe free APP from Windows! Great huh?
I make the paper footballs and flip them across the room to try to shoot them into a glass. It's fun!
When I was a kid I played all the time. The APP works good.
Original picture


Enhanced with Adobe 
I like the enhanced version.