Bucceroni describes "the way it worked" and how the boys were introduced to wealthy and 'powerful' men who were interested in sexual behavior with them.
One thing Mr. Bucceroni makes clear in this interview is that Joe Paterno was never a part of this in any way.
"We were told to be on our best behavior if Joe Paterno ever showed up at any of these fund raisers. The men involved did not want anything getting back to Paterno about any questionable behavior."Bucceroni states the pedophiles would be touching them, placing their hands on their knees or rubbing their backs, until the word came Paterno was about to arrive. At that point, they backed off completely and played it straight.
The Thorn - Bucceroni interview is in two parts and a good deal of the discussion involving the instructions on behavior around Joe Paterno starts around the 14 min mark of the first interview. HERE
Part 2 of the interview goes into Bucceroni's cooperation with Law Enforcement including the FBI among other things. The two interview segments run about 35 minutes.
VICTOR THORN does an interview with Greg Bucceroni."
ReplyDeleteHave you guys at Framing Paterno gone over to the dark side?
The Sandusky sex ring isn't the only object of Thorn's journalistic attentions. Perhaps you're familiar with these fruits of his investigative labors:
The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century's Greatest Fabrication"
Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America"
But you must not think that Thorn limits his attentions to Jews. You may be unaware of his classic study on the Kennedy assassination :
"JFK's Gay Slayers"
There is a ton of stuff on Thorn on the Internet, including the website, American Free Press, to which you linked for the interview, and www.wingtv.net, where his books are sold.
Were you so happy at finding someone who had a good word for Joe that you didn't care who produced the interview? Don't you think that most people would be highly suspicious of Bucceroni's "evidence" if they knew Thorn's background? Why didn't you disclose it?
If you were unaware of Thorn's backround, what does that say about your review process before posting "evidence"?
These are Greg Bucceroni's own word absolving Paterno in any implication he was somehow part of any TSM ring - as has been speculated by others.
DeleteI couldn't care less about the source of the interview - the only thing here that is relevant are Greg's words stating unequivocally that Paterno was not involved. That's good information for eliminating that speculation.
I see that you changed the date on the embarrassing Thorn-Bucceroni interview posting from August 19, 2012 to August 14, 2012. You wouldn't be trying to hide it, would ya? Now you have an August 14, 2012 posting linking to an August 19, 2012 interview on American Free Press. Did you guys invent time travel?
DeleteYou could save yourself some grief and just delete the damn thing, but there's still the problem of the Victor Thorn ARTICLE which you posted on July 22, 2012. You introduced that article with:
"A new article sent to me and the Second Mile Sandusky Scandal website by Victor Thorn just minutes ago. This is some dynamite that could serve to alter the media narrative and help shift the blame for this situation to where it actually belongs: The Second Mile and some powerful people in the State of Pennsylvania. This is just beginning folks - there is more to come that will be very explosive."
You defended inclusion of the Thorn interview by saying :
"I couldn't care less about the source of the interview - the only thing here that is relevant are Greg's words stating unequivocally that Paterno was not involved. That's good information for eliminating that speculation."
The July 22, 2012 article was in VICTOR THORN's own words, not Bucceroni's words. Could you "care less about the source" of that article? You could delete that "dynamite" article together with the interview, but I believe that would leave you with nothing on the TSM pedophile "fundraisers".
So that leaves you "married" to Thorn unless you want to ditch your only juicy TSM items. It's your call.
Either way, I will continue to enjoy your website.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou need to fix your "Search This Blog" engine. It still takes you to the August 19, 2012 version of this posting.
ReplyDeleteI've thought it over and you're probably going to have to delete the interview and the article. Otherwise, every time you update the TSM sex ring story (with or without Thorn's input) you'll have to disclose his pivotal role in bringing it to your attention and his prior literary output. It's too bad. It was a very interesting line of inquiry.
ReplyDeleteI just discovered that you linked to a SECOND Victor Thorn article on July 30, 2012. It doesn't turn up when you search Thorn on your search engine. That makes two articles on July 22, 2012 and July 30, 2012 and an interview on Agust 19, 2012 (moved to August 14, 2012). Is there any other author given such prominence on your website? Are you comfortable with this?
ReplyDeleteUnknown,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your concern re: Victor Thorn and I agree he's not the best person to use for a source.
Gary Sinderson, WTAJ-TV, Altoona/Johnstown, PA interviewed Bucceroni prior to Thorn's interview.
http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/more-details-emerge-new-sandusky-investigation/nRFSb/
There are more interview notes available at another site.
It makes you wonder what kind of person combs through blog posts to research the backgrounds of a source for an interview and would be embarrassed by someone else's opinions or writing?
ReplyDeleteI'm not in the least interested in anything in this instance but what Gregg Bucceroni had to say and who is asking the question makes no difference in the answer.
The worry and edicts of "unknown" are strange to me. Telling us what we "have to delete", what we "have to fix", what we have to be "embarrassed" about and what "grief" we will experience. Pretty strange stuff from "unknown". As if "unknown" is someone who's edicts and instructions have some kind of viable impact. My advice to "unknown" is to find someplace else to voice your concern.
Why do you keep referring to what Bucceroni said "in this instance"? You know damn well that you published two ARTICLES on July 22, 2012 and July 30, 2012 written by Thorn containing THORN's words, not Bucceroni's words. Why are you so willing to accept ARTICLES from the author of "The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century's Greatest Fabrication", "Made in Israel: 911 and the Jewish Plot Against America" and "JFK's Gay Slayers"? Do those works represent the standard which you apply to determine the reliabilty of your "sources"?
ReplyDeleteMy "instructions" may not have any impact, but I assume that you want to get media coverage of your website at some point. What do you think the "impact" will be when the reporter Googles your contributors? What do you think the subject of his report will be?
As far as investigating your sources is concerned, that is something YOU should be doing before you publish their articles. Do you just publish anything you receive as long as you agree with it?
As far as voicing concerns elsewhere, where would you suggest, Central PA ADL and Penn State LGBTA? What other websites would you recommend?
Where do you guys get the gall to attack the media for being biased sources of news about Joe Paterno when YOU consider the author of The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century's Greatest Fabrication", "Made in Israel: 911 and the Jewish Plot Against America" and "JFK's Gay Slayers" to be an acceptable source of such news?
Instead of pissing off someone kind enough to alert you to a public relations nightmare, why don't you just admit your mistake, promise not to repeat it and APOLOGIZE?