Federal Investigator states PSU3/Paterno are clearly innocent.
- Thread starter Adlee73
- Start date
Have you sat down and interviewed any of the victims? If not, then you also have no idea how credible they are.
So another one in they all lied camp or will you stay on the fence and claim it was just the bad trial? Either way..don't care.
So another one in they all lied camp or will you stay on the fence and claim it was just the bad trial? Either way..don't care.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing someone for not knowing a series of facts, when the poster DOESN'T KNOW THE FACTS EITHER.
The only people that KNOW which victims are telling the truth are the VICTIMS (who have an incentive to lie) and Sandusky (who also has an incentive to lie).
So I don't really care what you believe (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but anyone who thinks they know to a certainty everything that happened here is sadly mistaken.
So because only the victims and Sandusky know the truth, you think it's okay that people here call the victims liars? That they shame the victims and hold them
In lower regard than a convicted serial pedophile?
I think it is OK for people to ask questions about the voracity of anyone's testimony when there are either inconsistencies in the testimony or facts that contradict that testimony. I don't care who that person is: wife, mother, grandfather, football coach, POTUSA or victim of CSA.
You seem to think that anyone who claims CSA is automatically above reproach. That's just not the case.
Well...to be fair....I didn't visit Jerry in prison and then pretend to be impartial....now did I? You want to talk hypocrisy...it's people like you calling me out for saying Jerry is guilty, but don't say BOO to franco or pnny. It's beyond hypocritical...it's downright funny. But hey, nobody knows if Jerry is a pedophile..right....wink, wink. We can pretend on Tom's site to please the cult Jerry was framed.
Only a sucker believes everything these "victims" are spewing. When they contradict themselves in their various accounts of what happened, it's not hard to detect the bullshit. I'm tired of all this PC pansy pussyfooting around all of these "victims". If they are going to collect millions of dollars, they should have to answer some questions.
I also did not visit Jerry is prison. So what's your point?
You can absolutely say Jerry is guilty. He was found guilty in court. That's a fact.
What I object to is when you think that because he was found guilty by a jury that means that everything he says is false and everything his accusers say is true.
We have no idea what Jerry really did and to whom. We know what a jury thinks he did. As is often the case in these types of trials, the jury based their verdict almost entirely on victim testimony. That's extremely weak evidence in the grand scheme of convictions.
That does not mean that Jerry is innocent. But that also doesn't mean that this verdict can't be questioned, or that there weren't irregularities in the trial that are concerning.
Are there any inconsistencies in Jerry's testimony?
If not, why do you suppose that is?
There's always some inconsistency in testimony because we're human.
If you could post a link to Jerry's trial testimony, I'll take a quick look & see if anything jumps out as particularly compelling.
Lol
Sure, I'd be happy to link to Sandusky's sworn testimony.
It is right here:
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY AUGUST 12 2016 TRANSCRIPT.pdf
start on page 14.
Feel free to point out any inconsistencies.
Last edited:
"The abuse happened in 1998, the first time I met Jerry Sandusky."
"I remember the abuse happened in 2001, because it was the summer right before September 11."
"The abuse happened in 2002, because I remember it was the summer after September 11".
Nope, this isn't court testimony from three different "victims". It is court testimony from the same guy. I'd call this a little more than "inconsistency because he's human".
The "scene of the crime" in the presentment was the EALR building. It was later changed to Lasch. Why did it change? The original version mentioned a sauna. The new Lasch facility was built with a sauna. Now the million dollar question(or is it $8 million), does EALR have a sauna? Perhaps it does, anyone know?
I tend to think that anyone who testified against their abuser who was ultimately convicted should not be attacked like they are here. A jury heard their testimony and unanimously believed that their abuser attacked them. That should be enough.
There are some people who are "attacking", but most people are "questioning." Those are two different things.
Calling the victims liars is attacking. Saying Jerry is innocent is attacking. The time for questioning was during the trial. That was done and the victims were found credible by the jury. End of story.
Sure. Thanks. Now I'll just compare that to his other testimony (like the truthers do for the victims). I'm having trouble putting my finger on that other testimony. Isn't there something from his trial/preliminary hearing?
I'd be a LOT more impressed by the people who question the victims if they actually looked & compared to other trials and other cases for similar crimes.
I hear a lot of "the trial was patently unfair." It seems that if so, they should be able to point out many many trials which were handled "fairly, " by comparison.
You are entitled to that opinion I guess, but questioning the veracity of what someone says is not necessarily a personal attack.
Saying Sandusky is innocent isn't an attack on anyone.
I've served on juries and they are, by and large, not capable of independent thought.
Also, I missed my opportunity to ask questions during the trial. Oh, right. Our legal system doesn't work that way (nor should it). So it is perfectly valid for me to ask questions whenever I like.
Question are only bad if you don't like the answers. Your opposition to this line of questioning speaks volumes, not only about your bias, but about the truth.
Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.
Sure, it's right there with the testimony from Victims 2 and 8. I'll wait while you pull that up.
(see two can play at "jackassery")
YAY! Save this post please. He says he will STOP.
Saying that Sandusky is innocent is an attack on the victims because it paints them as liars. It's shameful whether you want to believe it is or not.
Again, you DO NOT KNOW if any of them, some of them, or none of them are liars.
Nor do I.
But your insistence that it is impossible that any of them are lying is laughable because you DO NOT KNOW that.
If any of them are liars, then calling them liars isn't an attack; it is the truth.
You object when anyone says Sandusky could be innocent (he could be) or that any of the victims could be lying (they could be).
Again, just because a jury says something, doesn't make it true.
No, he cannot be innocent. That's what you are not getting... there is no way that piece of trash is innocent.
Your refusal to admit the uncertainty in our knowledge of the truth demonstrates my point.
I'm saying that we don't know the truth. You are saying we do. You are wrong.
Further, your extremely eloquent verbiage (piece of trash) further demonstrates your bias and inability to think about what we do know in a critical fashion.
HARRISBURG -- The foreman of the jury that convicted former Pennsylvania State University President Graham B. Spanier of child endangerment said Thursday that he believes the verdict was a "mistake," and he regrets not changing his vote and forcing a mistrial.
Richard Black, a 78-year-old retired truck driver from Dauphin County, said he’s made peace with the jury's decision last week. But Black said if he saw Spanier today, he’d say “I’m sorry.”
His comments, in an interview in the state Capitol, is likely to deepen the divide over the split verdict and what it means to Penn State faithful.
After a day of deliberations, the Dauphin County panel of seven women and five men convicted Spanier, 68, of misdemeanor child endangerment for not taking steps to alert child-welfare authorities in 2001 after learning Jerry Sandusky had been caught showering with a boy after hours in a campus locker-room shower.
The jury acquitted Spanier of the more serious felony conspiracy and endangerment charges, and downgraded what had been a felony endangerment charge to a misdemeanor.
Richard Black, a 78-year-old retired truck driver from Dauphin County, said he’s made peace with the jury's decision last week. But Black said if he saw Spanier today, he’d say “I’m sorry.”
His comments, in an interview in the state Capitol, is likely to deepen the divide over the split verdict and what it means to Penn State faithful.
After a day of deliberations, the Dauphin County panel of seven women and five men convicted Spanier, 68, of misdemeanor child endangerment for not taking steps to alert child-welfare authorities in 2001 after learning Jerry Sandusky had been caught showering with a boy after hours in a campus locker-room shower.
The jury acquitted Spanier of the more serious felony conspiracy and endangerment charges, and downgraded what had been a felony endangerment charge to a misdemeanor.
We know he is a serial pedophile. That has been established as a fact and is forever going to be a fact. You simply do not want to believe it. Don't be shocked when people disregard your foolish opinion.
How has it been established as a fact?
A jury verdict does not make something a fact.
Testimony does not make something a fact.
Look, it could be a fact, but you saying it over and over again doesn't make it a fact.
If you said "I am 99% sure Sandusky is guilty, but I guess it is possible that the jury got it wrong", I (and I'm sure many others here) would have some respect for you.
It is your certainty about the matter that demonstrates your ignorance.
You can say that about any criminal in the history of this planet who did not confess to a crime. We call something like this a fact after a person is convicted. I'm convinced that you would never believe it was true unless you witnessed it personally.
We don't call a conviction a fact; we call it a conviction.
Video evidence is a fact. DNA evidence is a fact. Fingerprint evidence is a fact. Electronic files are facts. Written documents are facts. Photographs are facts.
There are some facts related to this case, but a conviction is not a fact, just like an acquittal is not a fact.
Overwhelming sworn testimony from multiple people serve as facts as well. Especially 3rd person eye witness testimony.
With Steve. When the cult stops the attacks on the real victims, so will I. Hell most of the attacks come from the already defensive cult. Some cannot handle what happened so they just deny it.
