Yep, and to bolster that MM himself testified that after 2001 he never once saw JS around the program with kids again.
CNN Headline on Paterno
- Thread starter Lion8286
- Start date
Yep, and to bolster that MM himself testified that after 2001 he never once saw JS around the program with kids again.
The boy was Mike Kajak, otherwise known as Victim 5. He testified that Sandusky sexually assaulted him (with no grooming) the first time they worked out together, and that he heroically escaped Sandusky before he could escalate the assault. He originally claimed it happed in 1998 when he was 10 years old and testified that he saw Sandusky with an erection, but was too young to understand the significance of it.
He changed the date to 2001 at Sandusky's trial, then changed it to 2002 when he sued Penn State. The most obvious explanation was that his attorney knew he could get a much larger settlement (he got $8 million) if he claimed it after the McQueary incident and he knew Penn State would not vet these absurd claims. In addition, the fact that he was now 14 when the "assault" allegedly occurred made his original claim that he was too young to understand the significance of an erection absurd. You are also correct that a picture of Kajak, along with 3 other "victims" is included in Sandusky's book "Touched", which was published in 2000. The picture was taken at least two years (and likely earlier) before Kajak now claims he was assaulted by Sandusky the first time the worked out together.
In addition, Kajak was also the guy brought out by the OAG during the Spanier trial to claim he was molested at Penn State after McQueary. They referred to him as "John Doe" and swore him in outside the courtroom in an attempt to hide his identity from John Ziegler, but Ziegler was not fooled and knew exactly who he was. The OAG had him cry on cue during his testimony. Spanier's attorney's, in an attempt to not come across as "victim shamers", stupidly did not cross examine the guy.
Last edited:
That would have done nothing. If C&S would have barred JS from all campus facilities following 2001, it would only make them look more guilty, supporting the notion that McQueary really did tell them about a sexual assault, and not the more likely explanation that McQueary only caught a one or two very quick glances through a mirror of Sandusky showering with a boy.
It should be very clear that Sandusky did absolutely nothing inappropriate with boys on campus after 2001. The one accuser who did claim abuse at PSU after 2001, Mike Kajak, orginally claimed it was in 1998 and changed the date to received a bigger settlement. The two other post-2001 accusers both claimed it happened outside of PSU, though one of the accusers (Aaron Fisher) stories has major problems and the other post-2001 accusers story (Victim 9) is flat out absurd.
Chambers did not interview Sandusky. She developed her diagnosis on a interview of Victim 6's mother. Chambers concluded Sandusky was a likely pedophile because Sandusky did not make proper eye-contact with the mother when he dropped V6 off at his house. That claim is inconclusive at best. It is also likely that Chambers, possibly having a "when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail" attitude, lead the mother with her questions in order to get the answers she wanted. The mother was likely angry at the time and may have simply said whatever she needed to say to get Sandusky further investigated, even if it was not completely the truth. If Chambers then made a stink when her report was rejected and the issue was further investigated, it could have opened up the possibility of malpractice being exposed.
Last edited:
I could be wrong but I thought that Chambers spoke to the mom on the phone then after hearing what she had to say met with her son to speak/interview him directly a few hrs later.
Chambers then noticed several grooming red flags while listening to V6's story. Thats when she conferred with her colleagues and when they agreed with her she made the call to childline and also sent the opinion to Schreffler for corroboration of his report.
Yes you are correct. Chambers interview the boy did notice behavior she noted as possible grooming. Though, it could also mean that Sandusky was just a naive old man who got too emotionally invested in the boys he was helping. Remember, nice guy pedophiles are trying to imitate actual nice guys. The reason I am skeptical of the 1998 incident being grooming is that Sandusky continued a relationship with this boy (with no further incidents) and allowed him to form close friendships with the other boys he was allegedly grooming/assaulting. I think an actual pedophile would view this boy, who not only resisted a grooming incident but reported it to his mother, as a danger and kick him to the curb afterward.
It has gotten to the point where if Jerry Sandusky really is a child molester, he must be real life version of Keyser Soze, managing to avoid capture for all those years by playing the part of a naive doofus. What I don't get is why Sandusky would continue to play the Verbal Kint part even after he has been sentenced and likely locked up for life.
Hmmm....whom to believe about Sandusky being a pedophile and molester....FBI profiler Jim Clemente or poster RussianEagle?
The truth is John Ziegler structured in his prison interviews with Sandusky exactly based on Clemente's profile of him. Clemente even guartanteed Ziegler would get a confession if he followed a certain procedure (by acknowledging the Sandusky was unfairly characterized as a monster, but then asking him to come clean about the relatively minor abuses his did commit). The answers Sandusky gave were completely inconsistent with the ones Ziegler expected based on Clemente's assessment.
The emails later disclosed actually support Snedden's assessment. The reason everybody freaked out when Freeh released the emails is that most people at the time (due to the error ridden and illegally leaked Grand Jury Report) mistakenly believed Mike McQueary had reported "anal intercourse" to Curley and Schultz. Those emails, in which it was decided that Sandusky would be banned from bringing boys in the football facilities (something Joe lobbied for upon Sandusky's retirement), that Curley would confront Sandusky, that the Second Mile would be informed, that Jerry should seek help if necessary, and that CYS would be notified if Jerry is not cooperative, are consistent with Snedden's view that nothing sexual was reported, but only a few glances through a mirror of Sandusky showering with a boy. In addition, if all the emails and hand written notes are viewed in their proper context, they only considered calling CYS before talking to Jerry because at some point Curley got cold feet about confronting Sandusky on his own. However, he apparently (and very ironically considering what was later reported) developed the courage to confront him on his own "after talking it over with Joe". Those emails are absurd if you believe anyone was trying to cover up child rape.
Russian Eagle...if what you share is all true...any JS has at least somewhat competent attorneys..How could he not get another trial ?
Make no mistake...JS is disturbed IMO...but I also believe that everyone deserves the right to a fair trial and clearly...his was a clown show
Why would you expect to think like a deranged sick person? He's not right in the head and has played the part for decades now, yet you somehow tie him to rational thought because you want to believe he is innocent.
A 15 to 20 minute light workout followed by a shower where they were turned on before said exercise was even completed is a major red flag.
Not defending JS, but if you recall.....hot water takes a long time to reach the gang showers.
I am not denying that, however if Sandusky really did molest dozens of kids over a period of several decades, I find it odd that until Aaron Fishers complaint in late 2008, V6 was the only one to complain to his mother after a relatively minor incident. No one else ever complained about genital grabbing, or worse. It seems most of these serial pedophiles had a whole litany of kids complaining about sexual abuse that were brushed off by other leaders. Furthermore, I would think Sandusky would want to dump the first kid in the 21 year history of the second mile to complain to his mom as soon as possible after "barely escaping being caught". But instead he not only continues an incident free relationship with the boy, he also enables him to form close friendships with the other boys he is allegedly grooming/molesting.
Don't get me wrong. Sandusky was a weird dude who likely had a psychiatric condition that caused him to want to have close friendships with pre-teen/teenage boys. I am very skeptical that there was any sexual component though. The fact that they couldn't find any pornography in Sandusky's home or computer strongly supports this theory.
Last edited:
Again you are applying rational thought to an irrational situation. Abused women have had their attacker walk them down the aisle. These people were not fully developed when this occurred. It's almost as if you want to ignore most things about child molestation or try to explain them away in normal terms. I don't think it's a hidden secret that the vast majority of abused children do not come forward for so many various reasons. There is almost no reason for a man to get alone with that many children over and over and over and over and over again. No rational person gets back in a shower with any kid after being told not to....but Jerry did and couldn't stop. Jerry groomed those kids and had to cherry pick them after feeling them out so maybe dumping the ones he knew he already could touch may have been too hard for him......again you try to apply rational thought to somehow excuse Jerry.
Jerry is what we think he is. Sorry, but nothing to date other than victim shaming has really said otherwise.
Because you find it odd doesn't mean it didn't happen. You and others of your ilk could be shown
films of Sandusky molesting children and find a reason to dismiss them.
So the whole showering alone with a child, naked bear hug, and the kid acting weird when he was dropped off had nothing to do with it?
Similar threads
