I would agree with you that it is inappropriate, but inappropriate is not necessarily illegal.
FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again
- Thread starter GulfCoastLion
- Start date
There most certainly have been different stories. Shall I list them for you again?
And the original grand jury who heard MM did NOT believe him.
Sigh. You are terrible at logic.
All of George Washington is dead, but not all people who are dead are George Washington.
Not necessarily. I think you are putting too much weight in her PhD.
Perhaps not.
Alternatively, I think therapist/counselors have confirmation bias and unconsciously WANT to find problems where there are none.
See above -- no conspiracy necessary.
Well, "C" hasn't been giving interviews, but S and S are certainly very believable. Certainly more believable than any of the accusers.
To what end? Why would EJ care if he believed his father was guilty?
I can see how he might rub you the wrong way, but like it or not, he's done good research on this.
Incorrect.
You are biased as well. Us scientists are better at putting aside our biases to look at the data objectively. You obviously cannot do that (or will not do that).
They are both bad; agreed. It is also bad when you get wrongly convicted of either.
Legally they are the same.
He was overcharged and oversentenced.
Not to me.
They are both bad; agreed. It is also bad when you get wrongly convicted of either.
Legally they are the same.
He was overcharged and oversentenced.
Not to me.
You aren't helping anyone. All you are doing is wasting people's time and taking up bandwidth.
You cannot be more wrong about this.
If you are correct, please explain why it isn't in the database.
Please explain why the word "infractions" isn't used in that website you apparently pleasure yourself to.
The Freeh report is deeply flawed as both the Paterno report and the A9 report. Even President Barron admitted it was flawed.
According to you, they did, albeit many years later. In reality, they made it up (or greatly embellished it), when a payday was apparently.
Nope, and nope.
I doubt them because their stories make no sense.
No, I didn't. Cowturd answers nothing...he's wrong, and so are you.
I don't think 90% is high, but I also don't think most people realize that they've been sexually assaulted.
If you've been touched when you didn't want to be touched, and this was done for the purposes of sexual gratification, that's sexual assault. Extreme example, your "Aunt" Sally says "What a handsome young man!" and give you a hug that last a little bit too long which "makes her bird twitch". That's sexual assault.
Furthermore, if you every been groped in a public place (e.g. crowded subway, dance floor or sporting event), that's sexual assault
Finally, if you've ever had sex (including non-intercourse activities) when you've been too drunk to consent, that's sexual assault.
No point in reporting. Not a big deal. Certainly not the end of the world.
Because in this case, no one was sexually assaulted.
Look for it in the next edition of the National Enquirer. Enquiring minds want to know!
Sure and show me where they MATERIALLY change. Also, explain why all juries believed him.
Did they say that? A No True Bill does not mean they didn't believe him.
I think you're smoking stuff again.
NO I'm adding that she worked with the child and would know if he were lying and she was licensed which meant she had more training.
She was
Speculation and bias from you. Did you seek help after your were diddled?
I see where PSU should have taken her report seriously. Maybe would have kept CSS out of prison?
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be more productive and therapeutic if we returned this thread to a discussion of whether we hate ESPN, SI, or Emmert more?
Gotta go with Emmert...reminds me of the episode of The Office when Michael says - if he were in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden and Toby (the HR rep) and had a gun with two bullets, he would shoot Toby twice.
Gotta go with Emmert...reminds me of the episode of The Office when Michael says - if he were in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden and Toby (the HR rep) and had a gun with two bullets, he would shoot Toby twice.
I can see why he doesn't. I just thought of a pattern I see here from you regarding the victims.
You are angry at them for two reasons. You were molested and did not get justice and they did. And they got paid. Further you rationalized your own molestation "it isn't a big deal to get groped" (actually it is) and then you pretended to "man up" and just let it go. Those kids (not adults like you) couldn't do anything about it and since they didn't "man up" and just power through you are mad at them for dragging your religion through the mud. After all, PSU and Joe are much more important than those troubled loser boys right?
You are one hurting dude and that explains a lot about your psychopathy.
Same reason Jay would care.
No he hasn't and he has caused many of the victims to be harassed and have their names drug through the mud. His "research" is rank speculation, lies and made up conspiracy theories. No self respecting ""scientist" would piss on him. But a religious cult member would.
Correct
I'm not biased towards PSU, CSS or Sandusky and you are. That is the difference. Your own sexual molestation is what drives your bias.
But in this case that is not true
Poor analogy. First Degree Murder and Grand Larceny are both Felonies they are not the same.
He was properly charged and was made an example of as too often fat cats get off.
But you are driven by the demons of your own molestation.
Last edited:
Yes they did. Only deviant intercourse did they acquit Sandusky of. And MM had said he didn't see insertion. See Count 8 on Victim 2.
I'm pointing out to you how much your own personal molestation effects you now. This is why you don't believe the victims.
I've posted the proof. You just refuse to accept it
The NCAA already did and I posted it.
There can be no sanctions without infractions.
Not in the case of Fisher for sure and neither the other six. They had no idea that anyone would believe them. Something you related to when you were honked. Plus I think the fact that MM saw it first hand gave them the courage to come forward. If the guy who molested you was made by another victim wouldn't you come forward too? Since you didn't think anyone would believe you AS AN ADULT why would you think a child wouldn't feel the same way?
Could you identify who did it?
And they got justice and you didn't.
Bird twitch? Your example is silly
Is that what happened to you? Explain
So women shouldn't report getting groped? It is a big deal. You are saying a lot about your psychopathy by downplaying it. So, how did your molestation inform you that these kids were lying? You said you knew they were BS because of your personal experience.
Is that based on your experience. Describe how.
The dates are surely material, no? And only sounds is a big difference than seeing assault, no?
All juries didn't believe him (see below).
In this case it kinda does. If he testified to being an eye witness to a sexual assault and was believable, they is 100% chance the grand jury indicts (having served on a grand jury, I can tell you first hand that the old "you can indict a ham sandwich saying, is 100% true).
You are preoccupied with drugs. Very odd.
You should read up on confirmation bias for therapists.
The sentencing guidelines overlap so EWOC and reckless driving so it is very possible to get the same punishment for each offense. Additionally, misdemeanors (unlike felonies) do not restrict the civil rights of the defendant. So as much as you want this SINGULAR charge to be a big deal, it really isn't.
He very clearly wasn't. Ex post facto is a huge deal. The courts botched it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
When there are no other eye witnesses and you can't even provide dates of when the supposed abuse took place it is pretty hard to mount a defense. That's what their civil attorneys told them when they helped them "craft" (read: make up) their stories to maximize PSU's willingness to pay.
MM didn't see anything. He "heard" slapping and projected his own fantasies into the locker room.
Never said it was a guy. Why do you make that assumption? It was a woman.
Nothing to do with age. Has to do with gender dynamic. But additionally, my experience is irrelevant to the Sandusky accusers. Their testimony is not believable. Full stop.
Of course.
They definitely didn't get justice. They abused the system to get a payout to waste on muscle cars and meth and in the process ruined the lives of many people.
It's not in the database and the word "infractions" is never used. That proves you are wrong. Every time you refute this you make yourself less and less credible.
I wasn't molested; I was assaulted. Those are two different things.
Additionally, that should make me MORE willing to believe the accusers, not less. Their stories are completely unbelievable.
You have a terrible grasp on pop culture references.
They can; it's up to them. But it's probably not worth the effort unless it is really egregious or in a workplace setting.
Not exactly what I said, but carry on.
Again, my experience doesn't have anything to do with my analysis of their testimonies. For example, anyone who reads this and thinks that this is a reliable witness is a moron:
Boy In The Shower Says He Can't Remember 34 Times
By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry S...
Nope....but I knew you were full of shit the first time you hit the keyboard. Not much thinking at all on your part, let alone critical.
Actual news:
onwardstate.com
Basically, post-conviction sentencing at the state level isn't technically complete, so the federal appeal can't start yet.
Judge Pauses Jerry Sandusky's Federal Appeal
A federal judge has put on hold Jerry Sandusky’s latest appeal of his 2012 child sexual abuse convictions.
onwardstate.com
Basically, post-conviction sentencing at the state level isn't technically complete, so the federal appeal can't start yet.
Another news snippet from today:
This is from the Athletic which is behind a paywall, but it is talking about Mark Emmert stepping down. Short excerpt related to our discussion:
"There were the early missteps, such as the NCAA overreach in the Penn State sexual abuse scandal, penalties that the organization had to walk back."
So as I've said, the NCAA overreached its authority by imposing sanctions without infractions. It was a mistake.
theathletic.com
This is from the Athletic which is behind a paywall, but it is talking about Mark Emmert stepping down. Short excerpt related to our discussion:
"There were the early missteps, such as the NCAA overreach in the Penn State sexual abuse scandal, penalties that the organization had to walk back."
So as I've said, the NCAA overreached its authority by imposing sanctions without infractions. It was a mistake.
How Mark Emmert 'lost the locker room'
What separates the toughest part of the job of any NCAA president from the part Mark Emmert actually got wrong?
theathletic.com
We will disagree that PSU2UNC is affected by his personal situation. Most every single victim that has alleged Sanduky abuse, if not every single accuser, changed their stories.
Example:
Allen Myers at the Sandusky PCRA hearing/deposition (?) when asked about his statement to Curtis Everheart and Sassano (?). To Paraphrase, "Yes, that's what I said then. This is what I say now"
Of course his tune changed after he lawyered up for beaucoup dollars.
WTBOH highlights the wildly differing stories of a number of other alleged victims. And, let us not forget how Matt Sandusky saw Dollars on the table and changed his tune faster than a NY minute. And there is a couple hours of how AJ Dillen exposed how stories and memories were manipulated for financial gain.
In other words, there are many people who do not believe the incredulous stories of abuse such as being butt-raped 100 times!
Not necessarily as I have pointed out below.
Did they say so?
Kinda means you can't say they didn't believe him you are incorrect.
Not when the person being accused is a pillar of the community. As Corbett said, it is very hard to convict these types and you only get one chance. Sandusky was a beloved figure in the community and it took overwhelming evidence to take him down. MM was not the only piece that got him. It was the combination of others.
You seem to be using them at times. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here as otherwise I would think a mini stroke or something mental.
Exactly. You can evidently have a crime (e.g., Spanier/EWOC) for a law that didn't exist at the time of an alleged crime occurred. Hence you can have an overzealous NCAA/Emmert issue sanctions simply because Erickson bent over and said shove it high up my butt.
Doesn't apply here. She wasn't looking for CSA, just recognized the actions of Sandusky. If there was any bias, then it would have been for Jerry not against him as he was the sh*t in State College and Chambers knew that too. Are you saying that she was out to get Jerry? Why?
