Federal Investigator states PSU3/Paterno are clearly innocent.

[LaJolla Lion]

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.

LOL...in your world they don't exist.....if they impact your outlook on life. Only 8 testified against him. He admitted to blowing on 10 year olds stomachs and showering with the young boys. He wasn't grooming kevin...you're looking out for poor old Jerry. What a crusader for justice you are.

 

[PSU2UNC]

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?

What was he deprived of? Justice? (yes, yes, a typo, I know, but that was too easy to pass up).

A conviction does not make something a fact.

Please take a look at this far from exhaustive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

or if you don't like wikipedia, google the innocence project.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

What was he deprived of? Justice? (yes, yes, a typo, I know, but that was too easy to pass up).

A conviction does not make something a fact.

Please take a look at this far from exhaustive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

or if you don't like wikipedia, google the innocence project.

How many in that list had 8 actual victims testify against them? Apparently that list will be pretty long.

 

[PSU2UNC]

How many in that list had 8 actual victims testify against them? Apparently that list will be pretty long.

What is an "actual" victim? Just because someone testifies in court that they were a victim in your mind that makes them unimpeachable?

Forget about this case for a second and answer an honest question: in your opinion, has anyone ever lied on the stand about being sexually abused?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

What is an "actual" victim? Just because someone testifies in court that they were a victim in your mind that makes them unimpeachable?

Forget about this case for a second and answer an honest question: in your opinion, has anyone ever lied on the stand about being sexually abused?

Sure they have. Can you come up with ONE trial anywhere where 8 victims were all proven to be liars? Let's stop dancing...do you think Jerry is a pedophile? It's a simple question and it is either a YES or NO. If you dance around it...I know your answer.

 

[kevina001]

Sure they have. Can you come up with ONE trial anywhere where 8 victims were all proven to be liars?

Yes. This one.

Every one of these 8 guys changed their story from investigation to trial. So by definition, they would HAVE to be liars. Well, except Victim 9, whose story is so out there only a fool would believe it. So I guess only 7 of them have been proven to be liars. So far.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

What is an "actual" victim? Just because someone testifies in court that they were a victim in your mind that makes them unimpeachable?

Forget about this case for a second and answer an honest question: in your opinion, has anyone ever lied on the stand about being sexually abused?

you act like a state trooper was caught on tape conspiring with a "victim's" attorney to get the alleged victim to "enhance" his story

 

[PSU2UNC]

Sure they have. Can you come up with ONE trial anywhere where 8 victims were all proven to be liars? Let's stop dancing...do you think Jerry is a pedophile? It's a simple question and it is either a YES or NO. If you dance around it...I know your answer.

It's actually not a simple question at all. The fact that you make it a simple question demonstrates your bias and lack of critical thinking.

I do not think Jerry is guilty of everything he was convicted of. That doesn't preclude him from being guilty of some things and belonging in prison.

But is scares the hell out of me that someone can be convicted based on a trial that made a mockery of our justice system.

 

[LundyPSU]

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.

Apples and oranges. We are talking about someone who was taking showers with young boys in a non-public place, alone, and touching them while both are naked.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It's actually not a simple question at all. The fact that you make it a simple question demonstrates your bias and lack of critical thinking.

I do not think Jerry is guilty of everything he was convicted of. That doesn't preclude him from being guilty of some things and belonging in prison.

But is scares the hell out of me that someone can be convicted based on a trial that made a mockery of our justice system.

Actually this one isn't tough to call at ALL and it wouldn't be tough it had happened anywhere but the school you attended or root for. The fact your blind allegiance is to a school and convicted pedophile leads me to believe you don't have the will power to even envoke your critical thinking skills. At least you can now stop pretending to walk on the fence...jump on down and join Kevin who would leave his son with Jerry or Steve who visited Jerry in prison. Some real critical thinkers there for you. It wasn't the justice system's fault Jerry like little boys privates...blame anyone and everyone but Jerry UNC.

 

[getmyjive11]

What was he deprived of? Justice? (yes, yes, a typo, I know, but that was too easy to pass up).

A conviction does not make something a fact.

Please take a look at this far from exhaustive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

or if you don't like wikipedia, google the innocence project.

Obviously I meant depraved and was a victim of auto-correct.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Actually this one isn't tough to call at ALL and it wouldn't be tough it had happened anywhere but the school you attended or root for. The fact your blind allegiance is to a school and convicted pedophile leads me to believe you don't have the will power to even envoke your critical thinking skills. At least you can now stop pretending to walk on the fence...jump on down and join Kevin who would leave his son with Jerry or Steve who visited Jerry in prison. Some real critical thinkers there for you. It wasn't the justice system's fault Jerry like little boys privates...blame anyone and everyone but Jerry UNC.

I think you've got it backwards.

Because I care about my school, I've looked into the details of this far more closely than I would have if it happened somewhere else. I've read thousands of pages of court documents because I care. That allowed me to learn more than I would have if I just read the headlines on pennlive or usatoday. But somehow, in your opinion, me knowing more about this case than 99.5% of the population makes my opinion "blind."

And my opinion, based on a pretty intense knowledge of the case, is that we don't really know what happened. Which is FAR, FAR different from saying "Jerry is definitely innocent."

Why is it that the mere statement of uncertainty (which is far more defensible than a statement of certainty on either side of this) upsets you so much? What is your personal stake in this? I'm fine with people who don't agree with me on specific points, but agree that we don't know the truth (and maybe never will).

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I think you've got it backwards.

Because I care about my school, I've looked into the details of this far more closely than I would have if it happened somewhere else. I've read thousands of pages of court documents because I care. That allowed me to learn more than I would have if I just read the headlines on pennlive or usatoday. But somehow, in your opinion, me knowing more about this case than 99.5% of the population makes my opinion "blind."

And my opinion, based on a pretty intense knowledge of the case, is that we don't really know what happened. Which is FAR, FAR different from saying "Jerry is definitely innocent."

Why is it that the mere statement of uncertainty (which is far more defensible than a statement of certainty on either side of this) upsets you so much? What is your personal stake in this? I'm fine with people who don't agree with me on specific points, but agree that we don't know the truth (and maybe never will).

I have no personal stake in this and there is no evidence thus far even slightly suggests Jerry is innocent other than a group of PSU fans screaming they all lied. If you want to pretend that everyone lied and the world was just out to get Jerry and PSU...so be it.

Why does it bother you so much that I state he is guilty when he in fact already had his trial and was convicted? That is the odd thing here...people here get so upset if you dare say Jerry molested kids...well...he did. You saying I have it backwards while thinking what you do only reassures me that I'm ok here.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I have no personal stake in this and there is no evidence thus far even slightly suggests Jerry is innocent other than a group of PSU fans screaming they all lied. If you want to pretend that everyone lied and the world was just out to get Jerry and PSU...so be it.

Why does it bother you so much that I state he is guilty when he in fact already had his trial and was convicted? That is the odd thing here...people here get so upset if you dare say Jerry molested kids...well...he did. You saying I have it backwards while thinking what you do only reassures me that I'm ok here.

Let's set aside the PSU connection for a second (other than that I will acknowledge that the reason I have delved into the details of this case is because of the PSU connection) and let's pretend this wasn't a CSA case (because people tend to lose their ability to reason when children are involved). Let's pretend that this was an aggravated assault case (let's say a guy was accused of stabbing multiple people he met online).

In this hypothetical case, a conviction was reached:

1) On multiple charges involving two victims where the victims not only did not testify, but that their identity is unknown;

2) On charges stemming from a victim for which an audio recording exists of state troopers conspiring to extract a false statement from him, then lying about this in open court (without penalty);

3) There was no physical evidence;

4) The allegations of specific crimes did not include specific dates or times (making an alibi defense impossible);

5) There were only two contemporaneous witnesses:
a) One couldn't testify due to dementia (it later came out that his statements to investigators exonerated the defendant), but second hand testimony was allowed under a questionable excited utterance ruling.
b) One witness says he witnessed an assault, but somehow didn't think to call the police at any time in the 10 years since the event.

6) Prior to the case going to court, it became clear that there was tremendous financial opportunity for anyone who came forward alleging to be a victim.

7) A number of the alleged victims knew each other.

8) Some of the victim testimony was hard to believe (e.g. assaults occurring where other people surely would have heard/seen something).

And yes this serial stabber was convicted on almost all charges against him. Would that concern you purely from a legal perspective? Would you think "Jesus, what the hell just happened there?"

Maybe not. Maybe you want our court system to be broken; for the OAG to be allowed to cheat to get convictions; for cases to be tried in the media; for police to lie on the stand with impunity.

But PSU aside, I'm not OK with that.

 

[Nellie R]

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.

"YOU" collective is the preferred interpretation you should espouse. Please go FORTH from this topic (and don't make me ask for the Fourth time) KThksbBye

 

[getmyjive11]

Let's set aside the PSU connection for a second (other than that I will acknowledge that the reason I have delved into the details of this case is because of the PSU connection) and let's pretend this wasn't a CSA case (because people tend to lose their ability to reason when children are involved). Let's pretend that this was an aggravated assault case (let's say a guy was accused of stabbing multiple people he met online).

In this hypothetical case, a conviction was reached:

1) On multiple charges involving two victims where the victims not only did not testify, but that their identity is unknown;

2) On charges stemming from a victim for which an audio recording exists of state troopers conspiring to extract a false statement from him, then lying about this in open court (without penalty);

3) There was no physical evidence;

4) The allegations of specific crimes did not include specific dates or times (making an alibi defense impossible);

5) There were only two contemporaneous witnesses:
a) One couldn't testify due to dementia (it later came out that his statements to investigators exonerated the defendant), but second hand testimony was allowed under a questionable excited utterance ruling.
b) One witness says he witnessed an assault, but somehow didn't think to call the police at any time in the 10 years since the event.

6) Prior to the case going to court, it became clear that there was tremendous financial opportunity for anyone who came forward alleging to be a victim.

7) A number of the alleged victims knew each other.

8) Some of the victim testimony was hard to believe (e.g. assaults occurring where other people surely would have heard/seen something).

And yes this serial stabber was convicted on almost all charges against him. Would that concern you purely from a legal perspective? Would you think "Jesus, what the hell just happened there?"

Maybe not. Maybe you want our court system to be broken; for the OAG to be allowed to cheat to get convictions; for cases to be tried in the media; for police to lie on the stand with impunity.

But PSU aside, I'm not OK with that.

The fun thing with hypotheticals is that you can perfectly mold the particulars to make a "point". At the end of the day, they are worthless. Dealing in reality is the only thing that matters and in reality, Jerry is in fact a serial pedophile. Deal with it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The fun thing with hypotheticals is that you can perfectly mold the particulars to make a "point". At the end of the day, they are worthless. Dealing in reality is the only thing that matters and in reality, Jerry is in fact a serial pedophile. Deal with it.

Please tell me which of my 8 points is a hypothetical.

I only changed the type of case and made it not PSU to try to get you and your buddies to remove emotion from the case. That doesn't impact the elements of the case AT ALL.

 

[BobPSU92]

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.

Did you report it? If not, you're an enabler.

 

[coveydidnt]

Please tell me which of my 8 points is a hypothetical.

I only changed the type of case and made it not PSU to try to get you and your buddies to remove emotion from the case. That doesn't impact the elements of the case AT ALL.

In your example it would be astonishing, yes, because there would be tons of physiCal evidence. But you've described a completely different hypothetical situation which in every way is different from Sandusky.

Tested bo u ndaries. Showered naked with boys alone at late night. Blew raspberries in the genital area. That's just what he admitted to.

 

[DTP2]

Why is arguably the worst crime one can be accused of also seemingly the one crime where so many people demand very little evidence beyond the accusation even when the accuser constantly changes the YEAR in which abuse occurred?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're only argument is that since a lot of people testified it has to be true. This ignores countless other factors. Like the fact that there is zero actual evidence in the case other than word of mouth. Or that pretty much all of these accusers have mental health concerns. Or just the overall sketchiness of the investigation. These accusers changed there stories after obtaining civil attorneys and in many cases going through repressed memory therapy (which is an illegitimate form of therapy that can allow people to relay false memories). They were caught on tape plotting to manipulate Victim 4 and it was played during the trial. That same accuser had someone testify against him during the trial saying that he had a reputation for lying making up stories. Aaron Fisher also had someone testify against him saying similar things, and there are now a dozen or so people who have publicly spoken out against him since the trial ended.

I could go on all day. Do some research.

Yes you really should so some research when it comes to cases like this. Attacking the victims doesn't make Jerry innocent. A prostitute can get raped believe it or not...but these kids were probably just asking for it.

 

[DTP2]

Just curious.........if V5 was abused but changes the date to help the prosecution convict Spanier, is it still wrong to "attack" V5?

 

[marshall23]

Just curious.........if V5 was abused but changes the date to help the prosecution convict Spanier, is it still wrong to "attack" V5?

You didn't really mean to ask that did you?So lying under oath isn't perjury if you "help" the prosecution? LOL

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Let's set aside the PSU connection for a second (other than that I will acknowledge that the reason I have delved into the details of this case is because of the PSU connection) and let's pretend this wasn't a CSA case (because people tend to lose their ability to reason when children are involved). Let's pretend that this was an aggravated assault case (let's say a guy was accused of stabbing multiple people he met online).

In this hypothetical case, a conviction was reached:

1) On multiple charges involving two victims where the victims not only did not testify, but that their identity is unknown;

2) On charges stemming from a victim for which an audio recording exists of state troopers conspiring to extract a false statement from him, then lying about this in open court (without penalty);

3) There was no physical evidence;

4) The allegations of specific crimes did not include specific dates or times (making an alibi defense impossible);

5) There were only two contemporaneous witnesses:
a) One couldn't testify due to dementia (it later came out that his statements to investigators exonerated the defendant), but second hand testimony was allowed under a questionable excited utterance ruling.
b) One witness says he witnessed an assault, but somehow didn't think to call the police at any time in the 10 years since the event.

6) Prior to the case going to court, it became clear that there was tremendous financial opportunity for anyone who came forward alleging to be a victim.

7) A number of the alleged victims knew each other.

8) Some of the victim testimony was hard to believe (e.g. assaults occurring where other people surely would have heard/seen something).

And yes this serial stabber was convicted on almost all charges against him. Would that concern you purely from a legal perspective? Would you think "Jesus, what the hell just happened there?"

Maybe not. Maybe you want our court system to be broken; for the OAG to be allowed to cheat to get convictions; for cases to be tried in the media; for police to lie on the stand with impunity.

But PSU aside, I'm not OK with that.

It's really easy to say I was never alone with that victim, but Jerry couldn't even do that one time. Not once. He was alone with all of them somehow, someway...just a by chance I guess. What a great guy this Jerry is...always helping these poor kids. The physical evidence line is awesome to say and it sounds great if it were a murder case that happened yesterday, but these were 10-14 year olds that were molested a decade back. So really the only thing you have is they got money. Well who's fault was that...PSU and PSU alone. They made it about football and a coach for some reason and then said the line forms here. Blaming the lawyers and victims for ones own stupidity is just another form of denial. How about some GD accountability with the actual criminal and those that paid his victims? Holding those really accountable means you have to admit Jerry was a monster and PSU f--ked up. Some here would rather bite their tongue off than admit it to it.

 

[coveydidnt]

Why is arguably the worst crime one can be accused of also seemingly the one crime where so many people demand very little evidence beyond the accusation even when the accuser constantly changes the YEAR in which abuse occurred?

What would prove it? Do we need to lock Kevin's kid and Jerry in a shower and see what happens?

Of course not. Unless Kevin's kid is 10-14, has been groomed to think of Jerry as a hero, from a broken family, and raised to think nothing of showering naked with old men.

Actually ... I think Kevin volunteered that all those things are true! He has a plan to settle this once and for all.

 

[coveydidnt]

Let's set aside the PSU connection for a second (other than that I will acknowledge that the reason I have delved into the details of this case is because of the PSU connection) and let's pretend this wasn't a CSA case (because people tend to lose their ability to reason when children are involved). Let's pretend that this was an aggravated assault case (let's say a guy was accused of stabbing multiple people he met online).

In this hypothetical case, a conviction was reached:

1) On multiple charges involving two victims where the victims not only did not testify, but that their identity is unknown;

2) On charges stemming from a victim for which an audio recording exists of state troopers conspiring to extract a false statement from him, then lying about this in open court (without penalty);

3) There was no physical evidence;

4) The allegations of specific crimes did not include specific dates or times (making an alibi defense impossible);

5) There were only two contemporaneous witnesses:
a) One couldn't testify due to dementia (it later came out that his statements to investigators exonerated the defendant), but second hand testimony was allowed under a questionable excited utterance ruling.
b) One witness says he witnessed an assault, but somehow didn't think to call the police at any time in the 10 years since the event.

6) Prior to the case going to court, it became clear that there was tremendous financial opportunity for anyone who came forward alleging to be a victim.

7) A number of the alleged victims knew each other.

8) Some of the victim testimony was hard to believe (e.g. assaults occurring where other people surely would have heard/seen something).

And yes this serial stabber was convicted on almost all charges against him. Would that concern you purely from a legal perspective? Would you think "Jesus, what the hell just happened there?"

Maybe not. Maybe you want our court system to be broken; for the OAG to be allowed to cheat to get convictions; for cases to be tried in the media; for police to lie on the stand with impunity.

But PSU aside, I'm not OK with that.

Your hypothetical is critically flawed in another way.

You said there was no physical evidence. This is a falsehood spread by the free jer crowd.

For one thing there was a list of TSM kids in Jerrys house. Some names had checkmarKS. Now; every name checkmarked is also a victim. No name not checkmarked was a victim.

Jerry says this is a list of kids he bought shoes for.

So why did every kid he bought shoes for also end up accusing him? Must have been some really bad shoes, huh?

 

[getmyjive11]

Please tell me which of my 8 points is a hypothetical.

I only changed the type of case and made it not PSU to try to get you and your buddies to remove emotion from the case. That doesn't impact the elements of the case AT ALL.

Changing the kind of case means everything. Aggravated assault cases have different kind of evidence to seek and there are vastly different indicators that a crime was committed (like a hospital visit and visible wounds from the assault). If one of those victims went back to their family with a stab wound after being with Jerry, I'm very certain that his reign of terror would have ended immediately. It's just a stupid comparison and is worthless to even consider.

 

[LundyPSU]

Just curious.........if V5 was abused but changes the date to help the prosecution convict Spanier, is it still wrong to "attack" V5?

Obviously, yes!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Changing the kind of case means everything. Aggravated assault cases have different kind of evidence to seek and there are vastly different indicators that a crime was committed (like a hospital visit and visible wounds from the assault). If one of those victims went back to their family with a stab wound after being with Jerry, I'm very certain that his reign of terror would have ended immediately. It's just a stupid comparison and is worthless to even consider.

To add to that it goes against everything really known about this particular crime and the reporting of it. Somehow people here simply overlook those things. Kids don't run to the cops or Mom or Dad for various reasons. Fear, threatened, embarrassment....but if you mention that on here people think it means the kids are hiding it. Very few victims of abuse step up initially that I am aware of, but apparently some here must clearly think that is bogus.

Some of things people disregard here can easily be looked into. The moving of dates is actually discussed if people took the time to google it. The staying with or never completely distancing themselves from the abuser is also another hot button topic. So all of these home run slam dunk myths that prove these victims are liars are basically debunked and some of this info pre dates the whole Jerry thing. People here try to equate normal behavior to those of anyone who was abused...they are not apples to apples apparently. Not my words, but again...easily found with a simple search.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's really easy to say I was never alone with that victim, but Jerry couldn't even do that one time. Not once. He was alone with all of them somehow, someway...just a by chance I guess.

I believe that Jerry was alone with all of these kids, so I am not surprised that he didn't deny being alone with them. That is terrible risk management on the part of TSM. That doesn't necessarily mean a crime was necessarily committed.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Your hypothetical is critically flawed in another way.

You said there was no physical evidence. This is a falsehood spread by the free jer crowd.

For one thing there was a list of TSM kids in Jerrys house. Some names had checkmarKS. Now; every name checkmarked is also a victim. No name not checkmarked was a victim.

Jerry says this is a list of kids he bought shoes for.

So why did every kid he bought shoes for also end up accusing him? Must have been some really bad shoes, huh?

First of all, that is the definition of circumstantial evidence. I have lists of many people at my desk and on my computer. Some of the names have check marks by them. I can assure you that I abused none of them.

Second, can you please remind me how this was entered into evidence at the trial (I'm honestly asking. I remember hearing about this, but I can't recall it actually coming up at trial).

 

[PSU2UNC]

So really the only thing you have is they got money. .

No I also have state troopers lying on the stand, a witness who the OAG deems to have dementia because his story doesn't match their narrative, a witness who never called the police despite being sure he saw a rape and two unidentified victims that may or may not actually exist yet he was convicted on those charges.

 

[coveydidnt]

First of all, that is the definition of circumstantial evidence. I have lists of many people at my desk and on my computer. Some of the names have check marks by them. I can assure you that I abused none of them.

Second, can you please remind me how this was entered into evidence at the trial (I'm honestly asking. I remember hearing about this, but I can't recall it actually coming up at trial).

If everyone on your list that had a checkmark accused you of something, and no one without a checkmark did, that would be very strong evidence. The notion that it's circumstantial doesn't make it bad.

I'm not searching through transcipts any more, but someone else can google it for you.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I believe that Jerry was alone with all of these kids, so I am not surprised that he didn't deny being alone with them. That is terrible risk management on the part of TSM. That doesn't necessarily mean a crime was necessarily committed.

Not by itself it doesn't, but that wasn't the whole case. But when you stir in the victims saying...he did it along with some other telling things...it's not very hard to figure out. Then you add in the fact he was told already never to shower with a kid, but yet there he was 9pm at night on a Friday night with another kid. He also said on the stand he blew raspberries on a 10 year old's belly. Do you realize how inappropriate that is at all on any level? This wasn't his child and the child was a 10 year old boy. Not a toddler or even little child, but a 10 year old. That is a 4th grader, not a kid in pre school. TSM did screw up, but he stood the place up and groomed everyone around him with a purpose. These 8 victims who he just happened to have access to alone that he "cared" for all of a sudden as adults saw the money and said...yeah....let's bury this guy that was there for us as kids. All of them and then others that came forward later. They all simply loved the man, but wanted the cash. Good story, but it's fiction.

The only way your story works is if they all lied about everything. Yeah...not buying that as his grooming and absolute need to be alone with little boys in addition to people who were his victims saying he did it is a bit more than fans hoping this isn't true. Sorry, just some fans blindly hoping it was a bad dream. I get that, but at some point you need to accept reality once in a while or at the very least admit that chances are pretty damn high he molested children.

 

[PSU2UNC]

If everyone on your list that had a checkmark accused you of something, and no one without a checkmark did, that would be very strong evidence. The notion that it's circumstantial doesn't make it bad.

I'm not searching through transcipts any more, but someone else can google it for you.

Circumstantial evidence is not as strong as other evidence.

The only reference to the list I can find isn't from a trial transcript; it appears to be from a book which summarizes the testimony of Sassano. And it sounds like he bought them shoes.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4_BsBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT300&lpg=PT300&dq=sandusky+bought+shoes+victims&source=bl&ots=XDlxupRWrI&sig=j7Ssy9pVjNbI_FeDJfHHkIYiByo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizoJmElIHTAhWEQyYKHajJC604ChDoAQgqMAQ#v=onepage&q=sandusky bought shoes victims&f=false

 

[getmyjive11]

No I also have state troopers lying on the stand, a witness who the OAG deems to have dementia because his story doesn't match their narrative, a witness who never called the police despite being sure he saw a rape and two unidentified victims that may or may not actually exist yet he was convicted on those charges.

Have you ever taken a step back and considered the level of conspiracy along with the incredible number of innocent coincidences that would be needed for Jerry to be not guilty? Every time something new comes out, many here have to find an excuse to explain it away. It's amazing to watch people dig in and turn into loons.

 

[no1lion99]

No I also have state troopers lying on the stand, a witness who the OAG deems to have dementia because his story doesn't match their narrative, a witness who never called the police despite being sure he saw a rape and two unidentified victims that may or may not actually exist yet he was convicted on those charges.

We also have Gary lying on the stand too....never mind that though.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Have you ever taken a step back and considered the level of conspiracy along with the incredible number of innocent coincidences that would be needed for Jerry to be not guilty? Every time something new comes out, many here have to find an excuse to explain it away. It's amazing to watch people dig in and turn into loons.

So if he is so clearly guilty why was his trial such a farce? When someone is clearly guilty, the OAG doesn't need to pollute jury pools, have policemen lie on the stand, use hearsay witnesses, lie during their closing arguments, etc.

As I've said above, he may be guilty. But his trial was a sham and we don't really know what he is guilty of (or not).

 

[coveydidnt]

So if he is so clearly guilty why was his trial such a farce? When someone is clearly guilty, the OAG doesn't need to pollute jury pools, have policemen lie on the stand, use hearsay witnesses, lie during their closing arguments, etc.

As I've said above, he may be guilty. But his trial was a sham and we don't really know what he is guilty of (or not).

How many other trials have you researched in depth?

 

[L.T. Young]

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?

And I addressed all that in my post. You ignored it or stopped reading when you figured out what I was talking about.

Why are you so willing to accept Sandusky's explanation for his behavior but have no interest in doing the same for any of the victims?

You seem to think it's perfectly fine to excuse anything that doesn't make sense when it's Jerry that's being discussed, why is that?