Uncategorized

In Response To @NittnyBlue2002- Explaining Morgan/ Lasch building Incidents- Evidence Tampering- Cover Up By Prosecution. | DonRobbinsNewC magazine2

In Response To @NittnyBlue2002- Explaining Morgan/ Lasch building Incidents- Evidence Tampering- Cover Up By Prosecution. | DonRobbinsNewC magazine2

via In Response To @NittnyBlue2002- Explaining Morgan/ Lasch building Incidents- Evidence Tampering- Cover Up By Prosecution. | DonRobbinsNewC magazine2.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 treports 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.