If anyone is an expert on having their foolish opinion disregarded, it is GMJ... heed his words!
Federal Investigator states PSU3/Paterno are clearly innocent.
- Thread starter Adlee73
- Start date
If anyone is an expert on having their foolish opinion disregarded, it is GMJ... heed his words!
Who are the real victims and how do you know they are real victims?
The ones Jerry molested, but you deny Jerry is a pedophile. Not You or Jerry, you're not a victim and neither is Jer Bear.
Nice non-responsive reply. You didn't answer my questions. You didn't state who specifically you thought were the real victims and you didn't state how you know they are real victims.
However I know the answer and so does @PSU2UNC. You don't know that anyone is "real" victim. You may have suspicions, but you don't have any hard facts.
Sure I do. They testified at the trial. You're in denial Steve. Honestly get some help. Talk to a therapist. Seriously. Playing this card that there are no victims is pure trash.
Last edited:
Interestingly Jerrys statements in 1998 were all virtually identical. Like he had been tipped off he was part of a sting. Like someone had coached him on what to say.
Your the one who needs help LaJolla. Just because someone testified at the trial, doesn't make them a "real" victim.
Yep, sure Steve. They all lied. Make sure you tell the therapist you visited Jerry in prison. Maybe they'll figure out why you see him as a sympathetic figure. Something in your childhood I assume. Good luck!!!!
These are people who swear OJ is innocent because Nicole & Ron didn't testify against him.
There is no such thing as a "defensive cult", there is logical discussion and there are those who don't acknowledge the nuances and facts, or simply cannot comprehend them. I would prefer you stayed true to the sentence you bolded.
There are currently a bunch of Congressional representatives who are saying that climate change isn't real. Does that make it so?
Sworn testimony is not a fact. I know you want it to be because that's all this case is (sworn testimony), but critical thinkers realize that sworn testimony can be true or false. It is not automatically true because you want it to be (nor automatically false because others wants it to be).
Honest question, have you ever done any research on victims and why their stories changing or contradictory statements aren't automatically a sign of a false claim of abuse?
I mean let's take victim 5 for example, why would he possibly claim it happened the first time he met Jerry if it happened later? Did he forget he was in his book and everyone neglected to bring it up?
Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, it has something to do with dynamics of compliant victimization?
Specifically that would be victims of a certain age when the abuse takes place (13 or 14) assuming responsibility for allowing it happen. They tend to add on to the story make the abuse more socially acceptable.
Starting to sound familiar to anyone?
While the average person, say a wannabe journalist for example, thinks it's impossible for there to be an unwilling victim at that age they are mistaken.
An adolescent male is easily aroused to say the least. Against an experienced adult with plan grooming them it's not really all that hard to see. Especially when you consider the victims are lacking a caring male role model in their lives.
Which brings us back to victim 5. He gave 3 different versions of the story and said it was the first time that he met Jerry.
Why wouldn't his doctor see this and other inconsistencies as clear deception unless they were in it for the money?
The answer is the simple: if details of the abuse stay the same while other things used as an excuse for allowing it to happen change, they are almost certainly recounting actual abuse.
Victim 5 saying it was the first time they met changes absolutely nothing for anyone but him. He doesn't have to justify why Jerry felt he could to do that him after getting to know him. Jerry becomes a perv that would do it to anyone.
Him changing the year to when he was older doesn't mean he was told to say that by the OAG. It just means he wasn't ready to admit how old he was when it happened. He didn't want to be judged by loudmouth jackals like John Ziegler and the likes of you.
But poor Jerry Sandusky, he was just caught showering with kids repeatedly and then accused of sexual abuse by teenager that had no clue about past incidents.
Yeah, it's not like he had any incentive to change his story......
You can't possibly believe this. No one is this gullible.
Yes, I am familiar with the work of Ken Lanning, but am not an expert.
Do you think that it is possible that some of the ~30 accusers that Penn State gave settlements to may have been charlatans and been less than truthful in order to win settlements? Lanning asserts that this sometimes happens.
Do you actually believe v5's testimony at trial? He was first sure that it happened before 9/11 and then at trial sure that it happened after 9/11. He went on to testify that the molestation happened in his first interaction with Sandusky. The only problem is that there is a picture of v5 with Sandusky in Sandusky's book Touched that was published in 2000 before the alleged date of his first interaction with Sandusky.
Do you think that Penn State should have given v5 a $8,000,000 settlement?
I would prefer you comprehend what is said and to whom, but apparently that is too much to ask. "I'll stop with the back and fourth with you". Now I was having a discusssion with Steve....so who do you think the "you" was? Take your time...think about it...and ask yourself why would I bother jumping in there as it has nothing to do with me? Again...take your time and figure out who the you was there.
Don't you find it odd that the same people that crave a fair trial only want to hear their own opinions here and try to shout everyone else down? Everyone else is a troll or somehow hated Joe apparently. It's beyond old at this point in time. Try Bob's route of sticking your fingers in your ears because hearing only what you want to hear is a great way to go through life.
Last edited:
Now this was a 2 second google and you may be on to something. Now I'm sure there are other studies that may counter this, but somehow only on this site with a few people do they treat young children who were molested like they had no trauma at all from this. I love how people here think attacking one of Jerry's victims on the stand will somehow turn a jury. It's as if they don't understand the most basic human emotion and behaviors. Oh well...the whole not remembering all of the details and dates....well there may be more to it. It doesn't mean it's not possible that someone lied, but it does open your eyes to the lack of details possibly.
http://www.istss.org/public-resources/remembering-childhood-trauma.aspx
http://time.com/3625414/rape-trauma-brain-memory/
I can understand a child that has been repeatedly abused being unable to sort details and dates.
I cannot agree that an individual who claims to have been sexually abused once could have 3 different versions and dates 4 or 5 years apart.
I am only seeing part of the show because I have taken the opportunity to use the Ignore feature.
A caramel latte sounds good right about now.
Well as I have stated...I'm not a Doctor and I have no background there so I cannot speak with any authority on the subject, but very few if any here really can. I can however read some things and it does seem plausible that dates or details were boggled. Does that mean that was the case here without a doubt...nope, but it does provide some merit to what @L.T. Young had stated.
People here all the time make things up that it's not possible. Just like it's not possible an abuser will keep in touch with their attacker...well that was debunked as grown women have had their abusive fathers who molested them still walk them down the aisle. It's actually more common than people here would like to believe, because they don't want to believe Jerry is what he is. It's one thing to say the behavior is odd, but it's another to actually maybe do even a quick search to see how "rare" some behavior is. What is normal to most people may not be to a victim of abuse and let's not forget Jerry picked the kids that needed the most help as kids....what a gem of a human that man was. Yet people here will go out of their way to defend him, but never once give the benefit of the doubt to his victims.....pretty funny how that works.
It's an established fact once a person is convicted. When a newspaper calls Jerry a deprived serial pedophile, are you going to disputed that description?
Nobody is defending JS. That doesn't mean we can't question the legitimacy of some of his alleged victims. Especially those who changed their stories when $millions of free money was waved in their face by money grubbing attorneys.Well as I have stated...I'm not a Doctor and I have no background there so I cannot speak with any authority on the subject, but very few if any here really can. I can however read some things and it does seem plausible that dates or details were boggled. Does that mean that was the case here without a doubt...nope, but it does provide some merit to what @L.T. Young had stated.
People here all the time make things up that it's not possible. Just like it's not possible an abuser will keep in touch with their attacker...well that was debunked as grown women have had their abusive fathers who molested them still walk them down the aisle. It's actually more common than people here would like to believe, because they don't want to believe Jerry is what he is. It's one thing to say the behavior is odd, but it's another to actually maybe do even a quick search to see how "rare" some behavior is. What is normal to most people may not be to a victim of abuse and let's not forget Jerry picked the kids that needed the most help as kids....what a gem of a human that man was. Yet people here will go out of their way to defend him, but never once give the benefit of the doubt to his victims.....pretty funny how that works.
Jerry told the investigators and the mom in two separate interviews that he showered with boys but there was nothing sexual about it. He did the same thing in the Costas interview. What's interesting is that when Schreffler told Gricar what he said, Gricar said he couldn't bring charges since Jerry had denied the contact was sexual. Very convenient.
BS, someone just last night stated they would leave their 10 year old son with Jerry, but that isn't defending him? Really? Steve masters constantly defends Jerry so please stop saying nobody is defending him as that is a false statement. If not, why does my saying he is guilty as sin bother some people on this site? Many victims don't come forward initially and the money alone doesn't make them liars. Is it possible someone lied, sure, it's possible. Being possible doesn't make it so when you see the pattern of this man getting little boys alone time and time again. Nobody in their right mind does that...I don't care what you do...you just don't do that and more so at the clip that he was. It's not odd that he got 30+ you males alone and had to be told to stop showering with and could not.
So I guess I'm odd for thinking that is probably where the problem really is. Should have PSU pissed out that money...no, but the leadership up there was atrocious. That isn't on the victims. You don't get to go after past employers money based on one shady incident out of dozens from a retried employee. I can see the anger there and I get that...but not towards those who he abused. That is just me though apparently.
Once a thought enters the dead space between his ears it becomes a fact. The fact is a jury found Sandusky guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 45 counts across multiple victims. That can't be denied.
Juries have been proven to be wrong before, and I am pretty sure they missed on some of the 45 verdicts in this case. But they weren't wrong on all or even most of them in my opinion. The difference is that I admit that is an opinion and not a fact. A distinction jive isn't bright enough to grasp on this and many other topics.
Is it possible the showers meant nothing to Sandusky, other than it was, you know, a shower?
Look, older people are just weird about this stuff. I'll give you an example.
In my office building, we have a gym. Down the hall from it is a locker room with a couple of showers. On occasion I've been in there where there is a guy who comes out of the shower and is just walking around naked. No towel, nothing. I even had the pleasure of pissing in the urinal next to a guy while he brushed his teeth...naked. I've seen guys in there shaving after their shower...naked. ALWAYS older guys. I wouldn't do this in a million years. But these older guys don't see any issue with it. Different generation.
Look, older people are just weird about this stuff. I'll give you an example.
In my office building, we have a gym. Down the hall from it is a locker room with a couple of showers. On occasion I've been in there where there is a guy who comes out of the shower and is just walking around naked. No towel, nothing. I even had the pleasure of pissing in the urinal next to a guy while he brushed his teeth...naked. I've seen guys in there shaving after their shower...naked. ALWAYS older guys. I wouldn't do this in a million years. But these older guys don't see any issue with it. Different generation.
On the witness stand last week (and I'd have to check my notes which one said it) either Harmon or Schreffler - (but it really doesn't matter which) - Gricar stated absent a confession from Jerry, he did not have enough evidence to press charges.
This is why they tried to set up a sting. Lauro and Shreffler discussed how they were going to get Jerry to confess.
But again - this brings me back to Dr. Jack Raykovitz and his failures. Dr. Chambers clearly indicated signs of Grooming. Jack knew Jerry was taking showers with Second Mile kids. Jack, as a PhD child psychologist and one who counsels a population at risk for sexual abuse should be versed in signs of Grooming.
The goal of the offender of having the kid in the shower is to get the kid naked. Whether there's "sexual intent" with this specific activity or not, that's not the point - the goal is to further break down barriers with that child. Jerry could be wearing a full-on pair of Carhartt overalls - it doesn't matter what he's wearing - the kid is the target.
Why Dr. Raykovitz didn't slap Jerry upside the head with this concept - and how it's not a good look for a kid's charity chairman & figurehead to be exhibiting Grooming behavior is beyond me.
Especially when Jack clearly stated on the stand that Jerry provided NO counseling or therapy to Second Mile clients. He had NO business accessing Second Mile kids, providing "sleepovers", giving them gifts, driving over to their homes, placing them in his car and toodling around with Second Mile kids like they were mascots.
He was told to stop and was well aware of what he was doing running a children's charity. Nobody needs to get that many kids alone over and over and over again...shower or not. Funny thing going on here with you...you would let your son hang with Jerry and have no problem with him still showering with kids after being told to stop....so basically short of you catching Jerry with a D*** in his mouth or admitting he molested kids....you won't believe it.
Did they have boys that they were bear hugging in the shower?
Maybe. But NOT if you are the chairman, founder, figurehead and fundraiser for a chidren's charity. Someone in such a position should KNOW what constitutes physical and sexual abuse under CPSL, especially if a parent wanted to escalate a complaint.
It's pretty clear that Second Mile was the perfect Grooming charity. It was incumbent of CEO Dr. Jack Raykovitz to ensure that ANY adult that came in contact with Second Mile kids - which are already at risk of sexual abuse - acted appropriately, lest they get wrongly accused by a youth or his/her parent.
Especially once the police set up a sting and tell his chairman to knock it off with the showering with kids.
So to play devil's advocate... how could any abuse claim ever be disproven when it's one person's word versus another?
Well as I have stated...I'm not a Doctor and I have no background there so I cannot speak with any authority on the subject, but very few if any here really can. I can however read some things and it does seem plausible that dates or details were boggled. Does that mean that was the case here without a doubt...nope, but it does provide some merit to what @L.T. Young had stated.
People here all the time make things up that it's not possible. Just like it's not possible an abuser will keep in touch with their attacker...well that was debunked as grown women have had their abusive fathers who molested them still walk them down the aisle. It's actually more common than people here would like to believe, because they don't want to believe Jerry is what he is. It's one thing to say the behavior is odd, but it's another to actually maybe do even a quick search to see how "rare" some behavior is. What is normal to most people may not be to a victim of abuse and let's not forget Jerry picked the kids that needed the most help as kids....what a gem of a human that man was. Yet people here will go out of their way to defend him, but never once give the benefit of the doubt to his victims.....pretty funny how that works.
Well I'm not a doctor either. Certain claimants and the manipulation of dates and places to garner a bigger settlement IMO is insulting to real victims. I am not sure, but wasn't the 8 M settlement given to the person whose lawyer had been given access to the Freeh Documents and then the BOT caved?
That's a very unusual tack for a DA to take...as if Jerry or any perpetrator would actually confess to that.
It is not unusual at all if Gricar felt he had no case based on the evidence. I guess Gricar could have somehow been compromised, but I have not seen a shred of evidence of that at this point.
Having said that, I have never been able to completely shake the thought that Gricar's disappearance is somehow related to this case. Two of the most bizarre situations to ever occur in that area. Coincidence I guess.
Well, I happen to think the burden of proof for convicting someone of being a pedophile and putting them away for life should be quite high. Much higher than it ended up being in the Sandusky trial.
No, but the facts do.
It's an interesting comparison. You have a false narrative (flawed computer models). You have facts that have been tampered with and manipulated. You have a huge political motive to protect the false narrative (global carbon tax intended to weaken national sovereignty and redistribute wealth). You have a compliant press that goes along with the lie. And you have ad hominem attacks against anyone brazen enough to question that narrative.
Well....we'd have to ask Gricar that.
Oh, wait.
Still begs the question of why DPW/CYS professionals Lauro and Miller didn't explain to Second Mile leaderahips and Penn State admins why the "shower thing" is not a good look for an adult that works with at-risk youth. Even IF it was all innocent "coach" behavior - in my opinion, it was incumbent on these child welfare professionals back in 1998 to EXPLAIN to the Second Mile leadership why this shouldn't happen and INSIST it never happen again. Then Second Mile leadership could have implemented strict guidelines for Jerry and provided proper oversight to Second Mile youth.
Would Jerry have just found a work-around? I dunno. Calling Second Mile kids up at home and setting up individual play dates & sleepovers with a Second Mile kid, bypassing any Second Mile program oversight, takes a certain kind of arrogance and purposeful, willfull conduct.
To blame it on a geriatric football coach, an athletic director, a VP of Finance and a University President - it's utter nonsense.
Which makes me ask yet again - what the hell was going on over at Second Mile?
