1998-2000-2001-2002- NOT SANDUSKY- It Wasn't Sandusky- ( It Was An IMPOSTER! )

   1998 Penn State - Reports- Morgan Building- On Campus- Complaints- Suspicions- NOT SANDUSKY. It was an IMPOSTER!
    (Man mistaken for Jerry Sandusky) Man seen in shower room. WAS NOT SANDUSKY.

    2000 Penn State - Man seen by Calhoun (Janitor) in Lasch building. WAS NOT SANDUSKY. Was not Sandusky. Looked like Sandusky but wasn't. Same man- WAS An IMPOSTER!

    2001 Penn State - Lasch building incident. NOT SANDUSKY.
     *McQUEARY incident was actually in 2002. 2001 Lasch building incident and testimony was made up. ( 2001 Evidence falsified.)
     2001 information came from Morgan building incident. Reports/Paterno notes/Police reports were all from Morgan building incident in shower room at 9:30 AM in the morning. Not from the Lasch building.

    2002- Actual incident at Lasch building- McQUEARY did not see or verify the man in shower was Sandusky. It was not Sandusky. It was a man who looked like Sandusky. McQueary was mistaken about the identity of the man in the shower room. In 2002.

1998 - Not Sandusky
1998 - Not Sandusky
2000 - Not Sandusky
2001 - Not Sandusky
2002 - Not Sandusky

In Response To @NittnyBlue2002- Explaining Morgan/ Lasch building Incidents- Evidence Tampering- Cover Up By Prosecution.

@NittanyBlue2002\ I tried to explain what happened as best I could.   I don't think McQueary lied. I think he saw the impostor and thought it was Sandusky.    I think the prosecutors tried to confuse the issue, and did. They must have had something to show McQueary to convince him that the incident was in 2001 instead of 2002.   I say they had evidence from the Morgan building incident and it was used as evidence against Sandusky. That's where the confusion comes into play.     The point is that everything about the impostor and the Morgan building was covered up by the investigators. But the evidence was called the Lasch building evidence. That's called falsifying the evidence.    No one wanted the impostor reports to surface because it would cast doubt on Sandusky being guilty.    The very evidence from the Morgan building must have been used to accuse the officials and also accuse Sandusky of rape in 2001.    That's what I'm saying. The only provable incident and evidence was from the Morgan building in 2001.    The information that proves the Morgan building incident was covered by the investigators.   The reports about the impostor in the shower rooms was also covered by the prosecutors.    Now do you understand what I'm talking about?   I was a witness to the impostor  in the shower room in 1998.

Questions About McQueary and Janitors Testimony- Revised. Read! Sandusky is innocent.

 The individual  that the janitors said they saw in the shower room in the Lasch building was Sandusky or it was not Sandusky? The small person, that was with the man they said they thought was Sandusky, a small man or a child?  
 Was the small person the same as the person McQuery said he saw in the shower room with the person he thought was Jerry Sandusky?
  Can the prosecutors (investigators) match the individual that McQueary said he saw with Sandusky  (in the Lasch building) to the small person the janitors said they saw with Sandusky?  
    Did McQueary ever give a description? Did the janitors? Did their description match? 
  " Now wait!" Was the small person that Calhoun (Jim Calhoun,)  saw with me in 1998 in the Student Services Building - (this was  before the incident with Petrosky in 2000), the same as the person he saw in 2000 with Petrosky? I THINK IT WAS.
   I think the same person was also seen by McQuery in 2000 or 2001 or whenever he said he saw a person who looked like Sandusky with a small person who appeared to be a child, maybe 12 years old. I believe that in all three incidents, the small person was actually a adult male, but just small.  
    What I'm saying is that there was a man who people mistook as Sandusky. He had a male friend who was small that people thought was a young boy. McQuery saw them together thinking it was Sandusky. The janitors saw them together and thought it was Sandusky. Calhoun and I saw them together. Calhoun was told the person in the shower room he saw with me in 1998 was Sandusky but it wasn't. He believed the small man was a child, but he wasn't. I knew the small man was not a child that Calhoun and I saw in the shower room. I knew the man who looked like Sandusky wasn't. 
    I believe Sandusky is in jail because of mistaken identity and being framed. That's all.

"The testimony from 2001 Penn State Trials had to be coached. In other words they lied."

The prosecutors/investigators took  information from an incident that happened in 2001- a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky in the Lasch building. And then claimed that the information from the Morgan building incident had to do with Sandusky, in the Lasch building, but it didn’t.

http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-testimony-from-2001-had-to-be.html

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.

The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied.

"The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied."

The prosecutors/investigators took  information from an incident that happened in 2001- a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky in the Lasch building. And then claimed that the information from the Morgan building incident had to do with Sandusky, in the Lasch building, but it didn’t.

http://donrobbinsnewcmagazine2.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-testimony-from-2001-had-to-be.html

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.

The testimony from 2001 had to be coached. In other words they lied.

 

"The PSU/Sandusky Prosecutors Used 2001 Evidence But Falsified It" (Victims Testimony Was Coached)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/penn-state-officials-attorney-calls-victim-fraud/story?id=17508219

   We know victim #2 changed his story. He could not diagram the shower room. Or which shower room in the Lasch building.

    Knowing that the 2001 incident never took place in the Lasch building, and covering the fact that an incident did take place in the Morgan building, (Student Athlete Services) in Feb of 2001, the supposed victim #2 must have been coached by the prosecutors in making up a story about 2001.

    Looking at the testimony from a standpoint if keywords used, I would speculate that certain phrases were told to the victims in private and they used the terms they were told to use in testimony. Such words as attacked, role model, victimized, were used in characterization and seemingly coached into their statements.   

         The information they (the investigators) had about 2001 was acquired from the Morgan building incident. The information, (Not what McQueary first said.) but the physical information from reports about the incident in the Morgan building. The actual information from the actual incident that happened.   The evidence. The information. From 2001.  The evidence they had about an incident in 2001.

  The POLICE report (from the Morgan building incident) - the Security guards report- (from the Morgan building incident) Paterno’s report- (from the Morgan building incident) The page in Schultz’ office about the incident. The administration report. The witnesses to the actual incident. (I was one of them.) The actual information from the Morgan building incident was used as evidence, about a story they made up about a 2001 Lasch building incident.

 There is no other recorded incident from 2001. The evidence was suppressed. That 2001 evidence was suppressed by the prosecutors. The information from an actual incident in 2001 was falsified and used to try and prove a story that was made up about the Lasch building.

   The incident was falsified.

  The victims were coached.  There was no Lasch building incident in 2001. All the evidence was concerning the Morgan building incident. The prosecutors used the evidence but falsified it.

   They also had to cover up the actual incident reports and what Paterno wrote into his office log about the Morgan building incident.

    I believe the falsified evidence was shown to the NCAA. And with that, they made the decision to pursue sanctions against the University and punish the officials.

Read posts by Don Robbins on Jerry Sandusky is Innocent Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/jerrysanduskyisinnocent

"A Cult of Accusations" by Don Robbins (Jerry Sandusky is Innocent.)

“Cult of Accusations”

 A cult of accusations.

Organized.

Practiced.

Studied.

Orchestrated.

Connected.

Strategized.

Determined.

Sophisticated.

Manipulative.

Coercive.

Demoralizing.

Degrading.

Deliberate.

Persecuting.

Aggressive.

Arrogant.

Social.

Governmental.

Legal.

Psychological.

Grifts[DR1] .

Schemes.

Corruption.

Agency.

Office.

Authority.

 

Jerry Sandusky is innocent.

 

                  * Don Robbins 2015-

---

 [DR1]

"A man that looked like Sandusky that was messing around in the showers." True- Prosecutors Knew It.

   They knew there was a man on campus posing as Jerry Sandusky. One time he was in a shower room in the Morgan building in 1998 making a video that made it look like Sandusky was messing with a child.
     I believe the man was seen by other people and even reported by some. A security guard also reported him in 1998.
    I believe that he was reported in 1998 and there was evidence about him trying to get people to believe he was Sandusky.
     The prosecutors knew it! The Freeh investigators must have known it too.
      The prosecution didn't want anyone to know there was such a man that looked like Sandusky that was messing around in the showers.
   I think he was the man that was seen in 2002 by McQueary. I think he was also the same man Calhoun saw in the shower room in 1998 and in 2000.
 Not Sandusky.

The (Prosecutors) Covered Up An Incident in 2001 -(Not) The Officials- Sandusky Was Framed-

    The incident that was covered up at Penn State in 2001 wasn't in the Lasch building, concerning the person calling themselves victim #2.
  The incident that was covered up in 2001 was in the Student Athlete Services building. The prosecutors are covering up the incident in the Student Athlete Services building because the information from that incident was said to have been about the Lasch building incident. (They lied.)
   The real information from the Student Athlete Services building is the very information that was used to accuse the officials of covering up information. When the truth was- that, there was no incident involving Sandusky, McQueary and a child in the shower room in the Lasch building in 2001.
    Can anyone understand what they did? They used information from another incident and said that it proved something happened in the Lasch building in 2001. They then, accused the officials of covering up the information that they falsified.
  The 2001 information was falsified.

  They covered up the sources of the 2001 information because they knew it had nothing to do with Sandusky or the Lasch building and McQueary.
   The source of the information was from reports on the Student Athlete Services building in the shower room in FEBURARY 2001.
    
  
   

Sandusky Set Up On Victim #2- Police Looking For Information- - Mistaken Identity-

  I believe the incident in 1998 was a set up so police could get Sandusky to talk to the mother of the person called victim #2. As they listened in another room in her house, they hoped to get information from Sandusky on a crime that happened on the campus, but not near the Lasch building.
   The man who people mistook for Jerry Sandusky  in 1998 was reported  several times for inappropriate behavior.   ( Shower  room incident 1998 at the Morgan building.)http://donrobbinspennstate.blogspot.com/2014/08/there-is-person-that-janitor-calhoun.html  Police did not know if the man people reported was Jerry Sandusky or not.

They wanted to check and see if he was in the area of the crime, when it happened. They tried to trick him into admitting he was with boys at the Morgan building shower room,  the day the crime took place. The crime did happen near the Morgan building, on campus, and they knew it.
People had reported seeing Sandusky at that time.

  Later, he was cleared from suspicion of being in the area and they dropped the matter about the boy. (Called victim #2)
 
   Gricar cleared Sandusky from reports of inappropriate behavior.

   The man who looked like Sandusky acted inappropriately and people noticed and reported him as Sandusky. They must have known there was a man who was mistaken for Sandusky.

   The same man was seen in the shower room by witnesses in 1998, in the Morgan building. And in the area where the crime happened.
  A security guard also witnessed the actions of the man who looked like Sandusky in the shower room in the Morgan building.

  Was there a report written by the security guard? Yes, but I know it came up missing.

    Later, some time after 1998, Schultz wrote a false report on one incident that never happened. 

 

The 2001 Lasch Building Incident Never Happened. Actual Incident Was In Morgan Building.

The 2001 Incident in the Lasch building was a made up story.  
Here, I'll explain it to you:
   The information from the incident in 2001 that the investigators had didn't confirm the story about the Lasch building, because the 2001 information that Freeh had, came from the Morgan building incident. The 2001 Morgan building incident actually happened.  (I was there.)
The 2001 Lasch building incident claims didn't actually happen.
    The 2001 Lasch building incident was made up. It was NOT true.

   I do not believe that McQueary saw Sandusky in the Lasch building in 2002 anyway. I think the man he saw was a man who only looked like Sandusky, but wasn't Sandusky.
    The same man was reported in 1998. And that is also the same man that Calhoun said he saw in the Lasch building in 2000.

"Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent" by Don Robbins

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/how-penn-state-beat-the-sandusky-rap.html
Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent

Lawyers, government, organizational rhetoric, technicalities, laws, bylaws, regulations, studies, more investigations, discoveries, internal memos, emails, discussions, sanctions, fines, definitions, committees, boards, examinations, insights, moral judgments, Grand juries, judges, police, investigators, reports, courts, statements, media coverage, analysis, viewpoints, counter points, arguments, hearsay, testimony, evidence, claims, witnesses, victims, dates, crimes, punishment, accusations, convictions, prosecutors, defenders, …….

    Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  

 

                                                                    

Don Robbins 2015

 

 

 

 

Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent

Lawyers, government, organizational rhetoric, technicalities, laws, bylaws, regulations, studies, more investigations, discoveries, internal memos, emails, discussions, sanctions, fines, definitions, committees, boards, examinations, insights, moral judgments, Grand juries, judges, police, investigators, reports, courts, statements, media coverage, analysis, viewpoints, counter points, arguments, hearsay, testimony, evidence, claims, witnesses, victims, dates, crimes, punishment, accusations, convictions, prosecutors, defenders, …….

    Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  

 

                                                                     Don Robbins 2015