2/14: Jessie Keith, Survivor(?) of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse speaks out. Article & video

[ChiTownLion]

According to zig this article is about Jessie's father.

No explanation as to name change.

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/the-curious-case-of-edward-manigo#axzz4YmXq2FWe

This whole thing is really, really strange. No mention of his son in this story.

Reporting Jerry Sandusky

Manigo was transferred to the janitorial team, working nights cleaning the bathrooms in the gym. He believes this was the result of the altercation with his coworker. One night soon after he took over the new shift, he saw an unexpected vehicle outside the gym at 10:30 p.m. His supervisor dismissed his concerns when he called to report it. He entered the shower area and encountered the assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, who said he was there with his “son.” Per protocol, Manigo filed a report to alert the school that someone was in the building after-hours. When it happened again the following week in the football stadium shower, he says Sandusky claimed, “Me and my son were lifting weights, we’ll be about 15 to 20 minutes.”​

 

[MtNittany]

Senior wrote a better screenplay than Dawn and Michael Gillum. Pay the man.

 

[getmyjive11]

I don't think that's true. I think its fair to question some of the alleged victims when their stories are inconsistent or if they changed their story after a lawyer waved money at them. Questioning these people is not the same as calling all of the victims liars or saying that Sandusky is completely innocent.

But they are questioning the victims that testified; the ones that Jerry was convicted of abusing. That's deplorable.

 

[psulion2001]

But they are questioning the victims that testified; the ones that Jerry was convicted of abusing. That's deplorable.

Deplorable is a word that REALLY Triggers these cranky old snowflakes...

 

[psulion2001]

I don't think that's true. I think its fair to question some of the alleged victims when their stories are inconsistent or if they changed their story after a lawyer waved money at them. Questioning these people is not the same as calling all of the victims liars or saying that Sandusky is completely innocent.

Keep burying your head in the sand if you think there aren't tons of people who post here trying to say Jerry was framed. Keep enabling them with that type of talk. So he gets convicted of 35 counts instead of 48 counts if he gets a new trial. Whoop dee freaking do! Same result and we get to hear Sandusky PSU in the news again.

 

[getmyjive11]

Keep burying your head in the sand if you think there aren't tons of people who post here trying to say Jerry was framed. Keep enabling them with that type of talk. So he gets convicted of 35 counts instead of 48 counts if he gets a new trial. Whoop dee freaking do! Same result and we get to hear Sandusky PSU in the news again.

Not to mention forcing the victims to confront their accuser again.

 

[Adlee73]

But they are questioning the victims that testified; the ones that Jerry was convicted of abusing. That's deplorable.

One could say those who insist that a court ruling should never be questioned are either fools or fascistic.

 

[Talpsu]

It does. But so far noone seems to remember his name from the trial, and as far as I know all the names were in the transcripts.

Except for V2 & V8. Do we have a V8 claim now? How does a kid from Columbus manage to get into the football facilities at PSU?

There are people on these boards @ChiTownLion ? that don't shy away from contacting press to clear up issues with articles. I hope someone asks the author of this piece what the deal is.

I'm assuming the same way a little boy tracks down Joe in the football facility and tells him that his long time assistant of 2 years abused him.... On his bicycle

 

[nittanydave1]

Not to mention forcing the victims to confront their accuser again.

But didn't many of Sandusky's victims voluntarily choose to continually confront their abuser by maintaining a relationship with him into adulthood?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

But didn't many of Sandusky's victims voluntarily choose to continually confront their abuser by maintaining a relationship with him into adulthood?

What does that mean? Does that mean abuse didn't occur? Are you thinking victims of abuse don't often maintain or see an abuser as adults? That isn't the case with victims of abuse so it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not someone was abused. There are articles out there showing where this can and has occurred and it has nothing to do with JS. Saying they saw an abuser or kept in contact doesn't mean abuse didn't occur. I'm not sure if this is one of those things JZ raised as a point and people here took it to mean that proves he didn't do it. People who have never been abused certainly think it's odd as it doesn't make sense, but it does happen apparently. Since you raised it as a question, here is your answer.

https://www.pandys.org/articles/continuingrelationshipswithabusivefamily.html

"Why does this happen? Why would a woman raped by her father let him give her away at her wedding? Why does the son subjected to sexual abuse by his mother continue to submit to demands for his money? Why would incest survivors eat Christmas dinner with people who continue to degrade them? This article will look at some of the reasons."

"Many survivors have such profound deficiencies in self-protection that they can barely imagine themselves in a position of agency or choice. The idea of saying no to the emotional demands of a parent, spouse, lover or authority figure may be practically inconceivable. Thus, it is not uncommon to find adult survivors who continue to minister to the needs of those who once abused them and who continue to permit major intrusions without boundaries or limits. Adult survivors may nurse their abusers in illness, defend them in adversity, and even, in extreme cases, continue to submit to their sexual demands."

 

[getmyjive11]

One could say those who insist that a court ruling should never be questioned are either fools or fascistic.

The likelihood of a court ruling being wrong goes down with each additional charge. He was convicted of over 40 charges... he's a pedo. Let it go.

 

[getmyjive11]

But didn't many of Sandusky's victims voluntarily choose to continually confront their abuser by maintaining a relationship with him into adulthood?

That literally means nothing.

 

[kevina001]

According to zig this article is about Jessie's father.

No explanation as to name change.

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/the-curious-case-of-edward-manigo#axzz4YmXq2FWe

So let's all follow along here. Jesse Keith was on the news with his story of being a Sandusky victim. The story referred to him as "one of nine people abused as youngsters by Jerry Sandusky", which would lead to the logical conclusion that he was a trial accuser. But unfortunately, according to the trial transcripts, he was not.

Then we learn that apparently Joe Paterno hooked his dad up with a job at Penn State back in the day. But since Penn State is an extremely racist place, and because his dad reported Jerry Sandusky being in the showers late at night with young boys, the school made it its mission to ruin his dad's life and get him accused of multiple crimes. Yet, in Jesse's sob story about his abuse at the hands of Sandusky, he doesn't mention his dad's plight once.

Not only does Jesse not mention his poor dad's plight in this news feature, but in the linked article above where Jesse's dad details all of the horrors that Penn State put him through because he reported Jerry, he fails to mention that his own son was one of Jerry's victims.

Now, even the most naïve of you who shout from the rooftops on how terrible it is to question the victims in this case....even you guys have to see that this is all total bullshit, right? Right?

 

[dwiz]

So let's all follow along here. Jesse Keith was on the news with his story of being a Sandusky victim. The story referred to him as "one of nine people abused as youngsters by Jerry Sandusky", which would lead to the logical conclusion that he was a trial accuser. But unfortunately, according to the trial transcripts, he was not.

Then we learn that apparently Joe Paterno hooked his dad up with a job at Penn State back in the day. But since Penn State is an extremely racist place, and because his dad reported Jerry Sandusky being in the showers late at night with young boys, the school made it its mission to ruin his dad's life and get him accused of multiple crimes. Yet, in Jesse's sob story about his abuse at the hands of Sandusky, he doesn't mention his dad's plight once.

Not only does Jesse not mention his poor dad's plight in this news feature, but in the linked article above where Jesse's dad details all of the horrors that Penn State put him through because he reported Jerry, he fails to mention that his own son was one of Jerry's victims.

Now, even the most naïve of you who shout from the rooftops on how terrible it is to question the victims in this case....even you guys have to see that this is all total bullshit, right? Right?

I won't know what to think until Roxine chimes in and tells me.

 

[MtNittany]

I won't know what to think until Roxine chimes in and tells me.

Roxy has been busy trolling the senior centers. Putting together a "Victims of the 50's" support group. She needs sponsors, btw...

 

[Mixolydian]

What does that mean? Does that mean abuse didn't occur? Are you thinking victims of abuse don't often maintain or see an abuser as adults? That isn't the case with victims of abuse so it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not someone was abused. There are articles out there showing where this can and has occurred and it has nothing to do with JS. Saying they saw an abuser or kept in contact doesn't mean abuse didn't occur. I'm not sure if this is one of those things JZ raised as a point and people here took it to mean that proves he didn't do it. People who have never been abused certainly think it's odd as it doesn't make sense, but it does happen apparently. Since you raised it as a question, here is your answer.

https://www.pandys.org/articles/continuingrelationshipswithabusivefamily.html

"Why does this happen? Why would a woman raped by her father let him give her away at her wedding? Why does the son subjected to sexual abuse by his mother continue to submit to demands for his money? Why would incest survivors eat Christmas dinner with people who continue to degrade them? This article will look at some of the reasons."

"Many survivors have such profound deficiencies in self-protection that they can barely imagine themselves in a position of agency or choice. The idea of saying no to the emotional demands of a parent, spouse, lover or authority figure may be practically inconceivable. Thus, it is not uncommon to find adult survivors who continue to minister to the needs of those who once abused them and who continue to permit major intrusions without boundaries or limits. Adult survivors may nurse their abusers in illness, defend them in adversity, and even, in extreme cases, continue to submit to their sexual demands."

I don't doubt any of that. How often do those same types ultimately then confront and face their abuser in court as adults? How often do they do it when there aren't large financial stakes involved? I don't profess to know the answer and it certainly wouldn't prove they are lying, just curious. Maybe somebody has studied that.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't doubt any of that. How often do those same types ultimately then confront and face their abuser in court as adults? How often do they do it when there aren't large financial stakes involved? I don't profess to know the answer and it certainly wouldn't prove they are lying, just curious. Maybe somebody has studied that.

Fair questions and how many really ever even have money to go after. Let's not forget PSU opened up the wallet here for some GD reason, but how many abusers have $$$'s or the old employer ready to write checks. I would think the percentage is so small that it isn't even funny.

 

[didier]

This whole thing is really, really strange. No mention of his son in this story.

Reporting Jerry Sandusky

Manigo was transferred to the janitorial team, working nights cleaning the bathrooms in the gym. He believes this was the result of the altercation with his coworker. One night soon after he took over the new shift, he saw an unexpected vehicle outside the gym at 10:30 p.m. His supervisor dismissed his concerns when he called to report it. He entered the shower area and encountered the assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, who said he was there with his “son.” Per protocol, Manigo filed a report to alert the school that someone was in the building after-hours. When it happened again the following week in the football stadium shower, he says Sandusky claimed, “Me and my son were lifting weights, we’ll be about 15 to 20 minutes.”​

He says he filed a discrimination suit and had a couple of cases in Centre County court. We should be able to find some record of those if true.

 

[kentuckycb]

The likelihood of a court ruling being wrong goes down with each additional charge. He was convicted of over 40 charges... he's a pedo. Let it go.

I think Jerry is guilty of abusing children. That said, the "likelihood" theory is a very dangerous one for good people who work with children. We can't become a society that convicts people because "they all can't be lying." Sadly we're well on the way.

 

[PSU2UNC]

You defend Jerry's son who was molesting people. GFY

Did you actually read the charges? Jeff Sandusky didn't "molest" anyone. His alleged crimes (which are very serious) are all of the electronic variety.

 

[Zenophile]

Did you actually read the charges? Jeff Sandusky didn't "molest" anyone. His alleged crimes (which are very serious) are all of the electronic variety.

He's moved on from that article.

 

[kevina001]

Did you actually read the charges? Jeff Sandusky didn't "molest" anyone. His alleged crimes (which are very serious) are all of the electronic variety.

Facts don't matter. Being the one who is most outraged is what counts!

 

[psulion2001]

Did you actually read the charges? Jeff Sandusky didn't "molest" anyone. His alleged crimes (which are very serious) are all of the electronic variety.

Trying to get a teenage girl to perform oral sex on you isn't molestation? Maybe YOU and the apologists should read the article. Sicko.

 

[psulion2001]

He's moved on from that article.

Sad snowflakes like you can't move on from a coach getting fired. Like it's the worst thing that's ever happened in your life. Bunch of goddamn crybabies. You need any sessions with a shrink to get past such adversity?

Poor Franklin, just took us to the Rose Bowl and all you guys can do is cry about Sandusky being in jail and Paterno being fired. I was upset when he got fired too, but I'm past it. Grow up, crybaby.

 

[Zenophile]

Sad snowflakes like you can't move on from a coach getting fired. Like it's the worst thing that's ever happened in your life. Bunch of goddamn crybabies. You need any sessions with a shrink to get past such adversity?

Poor Franklin, just took us to the Rose Bowl and all you guys can do is cry about Sandusky being in jail and Paterno being fired. I was upset when he got fired too, but I'm past it. Grow up, crybaby.

A perfect reply -- thank you. From Ken Lanning's The "Witch Hunt, "The "Backlash," and Professionalism:

2) Polarization. Each side tends to take an all-or-nothing approach to complex issues. You are either with them or against them. Dialogue with the other side is consorting with the enemy and constitutes guilt by association and betrayal. Each side disseminates written material and brings together individuals of like beliefs. When someone from the other side is invited to participate, it is primarily as a token to be ridiculed for his or her "absurd" views. Both sides attack anyone who seems to take a position in the middle.

3) Attack the messenger. Each side focuses its attacks and criticism on the person of the messenger rather than on the substance of the message. It is easy to claim (and difficult for the groups to prove otherwise) that the witch hunt is composed of fanatics with personal agendas, antifamily views, and one world government plans or that the backlash is composed of pedophiles and satanists attempting to conceal their activity. One way to personally attack and dismiss the messenger is to simply label him or her as part of the witch hunt or backlash. ​

 

[Zenophile]

You want someone to get beat up because they don't think a coach getting fired 5 years ago is the biggest tragedy in human history? You guys really are psychotic. Seek help.

 

[demlion]

You want someone to get beat up because they don't think a coach getting fired 5 years ago is the biggest tragedy in human history? You guys really are psychotic. Seek help.

Blaming that coach meant that they never did anything to examine the hideous and systemic problems that led to continued abuse and the deaths of a number of PA children. Firing and blaming Joe was not the tragedy. The tragedy was diverting attention from the failures of the system.

It is astonishing how many of you trolls do not get this. I have a low opinion of your intelligence, but you make it worse every day.

 

[psulion2001]

That's the guy who said I should be beat up, or did you conveniently gloss over that post?

 

[Mixolydian]

Sad snowflakes like you can't move on from a coach getting fired. Like it's the worst thing that's ever happened in your life. Bunch of goddamn crybabies. You need any sessions with a shrink to get past such adversity?

Poor Franklin, just took us to the Rose Bowl and all you guys can do is cry about Sandusky being in jail and Paterno being fired. I was upset when he got fired too, but I'm past it. Grow up, crybaby.

Take your broad lectures and GFY. Thanks iin advance.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I think Jerry is guilty of abusing children. That said, the "likelihood" theory is a very dangerous one for good people who work with children. We can't become a society that convicts people because "they all can't be lying." Sadly we're well on the way.

Exactly - the "Likelihood Theory" has nothing to do with whether he received a "fair trial" as defined within the "due process rights" provisions and protections of both the PA and US Constitutions. Nor does it have anything to do with whether the State (i.e., the prosecution which was the OAG in this case), who was highly conflicted in this case due to the massive negligence of direct State Agencies and TSM a direct agent of these entities, engaged in "prosecutorial misconduct" in fabricating evidence and testimony (and directing the investigation to a SWIGJ in the first place as CPS Law clearly called for V1's case to be prosecuted in the Court District of the local DPW CYS Office that submitted the "Indicated" investigation report). Beyond all that, the "standard" for a criminal proceeding is "beyond any reasonable doubt", not "more likely than not" (i.e., preponderance of the evidence which is the standard in civil court). The issue of whether he received a "fair trial" or whether his Constitutionally-protected "due process" civil rights were violated (the subject-matter of the PCRA) has nothing to do with "he is likely guilty anyway" opinions.....like any other citizen, he is entitled to a "fair trial" (just as C/S/S are) - period.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Trying to get a teenage girl to perform oral sex on you isn't molestation? Maybe YOU and the apologists should read the article. Sicko.

I hope you are not a PSU grad because your vocabulary is lacking.

"Molest" means to assault or abuse someone sexually (there is a more arcane meaning that means "to pester", but that's not illegal). He was charged with solicitation of a minor for asking for oral sex via text message. So I am correct: this is illegal and wrong, but not molestation.

 

[kevina001]

Oh cool, you reply with memes. People like you are why civil discourse has gone down the crapper.

Civil discourse, like this?

They do nothing but feed into the cult narrative. F them.

Or this?

You defend Jerry's son who was molesting people. GFY

Or this?

People like You have serious issues.

Must be nice to have it so well you think a coach getting fired is the worst adversity you faced in your life. Snowflake.

Or this?

Deplorable is a word that REALLY Triggers these cranky old snowflakes...

Or this?

WTF is wrong with you guys?

 

[psulion2001]

Blaming that coach meant that they never did anything to examine the hideous and systemic problems that led to continued abuse and the deaths of a number of PA children. Firing and blaming Joe was not the tragedy. The tragedy was diverting attention from the failures of the system.

It is astonishing how many of you trolls do not get this. I have a low opinion of your intelligence, but you make it worse every day.

You think its not about Joe? These guys want Sandusky to be innocent because they think it will exonerate Joe. It's pathetic.

I get that there are more players in this whole saga. You want reform in the system? That's great. But I'm sick of all the Free Jerry, victim blaming, Ziggy conspiracy BS. Some people on this board are psychos. I remember seeing people here cheering Stuart Scott's death because he criticized Paterno. That's psychotic. I see someone post an article "so and so has great things to say about PSU bouncing back" and most of the responses will be like "BUT THAT GUY WASN'T 100% BEHIND JOE DURING THE SCANDAL SCREW HIM TO HELL!"

These guys act like a coach getting fired was the worst thing to ever happen to them. If that's the worst thing to ever happen in their life, good for them I guess?

And go through my post history, I'm not a troll. I'm a PSU fan, I just hate the BS I read on the board. Don't get me started on the stones in glass house threads I see from time to time...

Some guy just said I should be beaten up, and I'm called a troll. Like I said, these people have issues.

 

[kentuckycb]

Exactly - the "Likelihood Theory" has nothing to do with whether he received a "fair trial" as defined within the "due process rights" provisions and protections of both the PA and US Constitutions. Nor does it have anything to do with whether the State (i.e., the prosecution which was the OAG in this case), who was highly conflicted in this case due to the massive negligence of direct State Agencies and TSM a direct agent of these entities, engaged in "prosecutorial misconduct" in fabricating evidence and testimony (and directing the investigation to a SWIGJ in the first place as CPS Law clearly called for V1's case to be prosecuted in the Court District of the local DPW CYS Office). Beyond all that, the "standard" for a criminal proceeding is "beyond any reasonable doubt", not "more likely than not" (i.e., preponderance of the evidence which is the standard in civil court). The issue of whether he received a "fair trial" or whether his Constitutionally-protected "due process" civil rights were violated (the subject-matter of the PCRA) has nothing to do with "he is likely guilty anyway" opinions.....like any other citizen, he is entitled to a "fair trial" (just as C/S/S are) - period.

I agree. There are much bigger issues at stake here beyond just Jerry Sandusky and Penn State. Not the least of which is fixing our legal system to justly protect children AND the good people who care for them.

 

[Zenophile]

That's the guy who said I should be beat up, or did you conveniently gloss over that post?

Let's stay focused on the name calling.

 

[psulion2001]

Civil discourse, like this?



Or this?



Or this?



Or this?



Or this?

Yes, at least I can come up with my own thoughts. Copying and pasting memes is for brain dead clowns.

 

[psulion2001]

Let's stay focused on the name calling.

"Internet Tough Guy" isn't namecalling?

 

[Zenophile]

"Internet Tough Guy" isn't namecalling?

You tell me, snowflake. I'm a brain dead clown.

 

[kevina001]

These guys act like a coach getting fired was the worst thing to ever happen to them.

Worst thing to happen to me? No, not at all.

Seeing all of the grandstanding and lie spreading by the media to completely trash Joe's reputation without any evidence of wrongdoing, and assuming the worst in spite of 80+ years of evidence that he should be getting the benefit of the doubt? Probably THE biggest injustice I've ever seen.

 

[jim cummings]

You think its not about Joe? These guys want Sandusky to be innocent because they think it will exonerate Joe. It's pathetic.

I get that there are more players in this whole saga. You want reform in the system? That's great. But I'm sick of all the Free Jerry, victim blaming, Ziggy conspiracy BS. Some people on this board are psychos. I remember seeing people here cheering Stuart Scott's death because he criticized Paterno. That's psychotic. I see someone post an article "so and so has great things to say about PSU bouncing back" and most of the responses will be like "BUT THAT GUY WASN'T 100% BEHIND JOE DURING THE SCANDAL SCREW HIM TO HELL!"

These guys act like a coach getting fired was the worst thing to ever happen to them. If that's the worst thing to ever happen in their life, good for them I guess?

And go through my post history, I'm not a troll. I'm a PSU fan, I just hate the BS I read on the board. Don't get me started on the stones in glass house threads I see from time to time...

Some guy just said I should be beaten up, and I'm called a troll. Like I said, these people have issues.

Why don't you skip the thread if it's that bothersome to you? You can't. You hate the topic but you feel the need to voice your opinion.

troll--
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

You are a troll. If you don't like it GTFO