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]