Sorry, but Sandusky picked his own attorneys and chose to listen to their advice. I said before that if I were Sandusky and I were completely innocent, there is no way in hell I wouldn't get up on the stand after so many people testified against me. Sandusky has no one to blame but himself; first for being a disgusting serial pedophile and secondly for being terrible at picking representation. Nobody forced Jerry to do anything, let's remember that.
Franco Harris interview on the FAN "Truth Hasn’t Been Revealed About Paterno’s Role In Sex Scandal"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Sandusky is entitled to due process which includes a fair trial and effective representation. IMO, he didn't receive either a fair trial or effective representation; and he deserves a new, fair trial.
He had a fair trial and the ghost of Daniel Webster couldn't save him.
He was as guilty as sin and got what he deserved .
He was as guilty as sin and got what he deserved .
You are welcome to your opinion. I have a different opinion based on the facts and evidence of the case.
How many times does he have to say to you he thinks Jerry got a fair trial. 100 or 200? If you missed him saying that the first 200 times, write this down now...he said he thinks Jerry's trial was fair and he needs to be where he is at. If you don't know where jive stands by now, you're GD clueless and wasting oxygen on this planet. It's like me asking you if you think your pedophile hero got a fair trial when you state weekly he didn't and think of new ways to bring up the same crap.
Last edited:
I think he's guilty as sin, but he didn't get a fair trial. They could have eliminated all the
BS stuff and still convicted him easily, in my opinion, but for some reason they didn't.
BS stuff and still convicted him easily, in my opinion, but for some reason they didn't.
I was wondering if any facts had come up in the meantime. However, I closely followed the evidence at the time and there is NONE concrete that Jerry did anything except go beyond boundaries. We do have the testimony from the victims and IMO Amendola did not have the time to properly refute it. However, the biggest mistake was Jerry did not get this tried elsewhere. The THOUGHT POLICE convinced everyone that Jerry was a monster AND that if the people in State College did not convict Jerry then they would all be labeled pedophile enablers.
We just went through an election where if we heard a statement, we did not know whether to agree with it or not. Once we knew if it was a Republican or a Democrat said it, we made up our mind. This is so true whether it is made by a 10 year old innocent boy or a 15 year old thug. The jury IMO thought the boys were telling the truth even when their stories did not match up and it would have been different if Matt and Meyers had testified for Jerry.
One of the most compelling reasons for Jerry's innocence is that the other adopted boys and foster kids of Jerry never said something happened to them. Think about it! I would be so tempted to say that when Jerry tucked me in, he ran his hand over my genitals, if it meant getting one million dollars.
So his kids that were adopted didn't run for the money, but every person that testified only did it for the money. I mean Jerry didn't molest every single kid so the rest are lying. I love the no proof of anything other than boundary issues which is basically saying you'll ignore any victims testimony because you don't like hearing it. In terms of facts or proof, nothing has come up that has made Jerry look innocent yet, but I'm sure it will happen any day now.
So you are OK with convicting someone because they were "too stupid to get good legal help".
Look...if the evidence that convicted Sandusky is true, I have no problem with him remaining in prison and supporting his "conviction". However....this is NOT OZ - a place you seem to visit frequently. It is a place where people in power - State officials - can (and DO) abuse the power of the state. The Power of the State can MANUFACTURE evidence, cases and convictions - check recent PA history if you doubt this.
The Trial by any account is nothing but a sham - the evidence - EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE - is suspicious. This includes information which raises questions about the significantly suspicious nature of the "victims's" (benefactors) testimony. Add to this the illegally suspicious nature of the trial proceedings and your "disgusting serial pedophile" certainty falls apart rapidly.
In a fair trial you don't NEED to allow the prosecution to use knowingly false evidence (RAPE - an emotionally charged and politically MANUFACTURED term which 5+years later still taints the public knowledge of both Sandusky's and Penn State's image).
Answer this....If the legal case - based on evidence - was so compelling, why the consistent need for 'tweaking" the public perception of the facts and why when better information is available (like MM's "victim" statement that NOTHING HAPPENED the night of the infamous "shower") do you not see that justice has an incredibly high probability of being abused by this "court conviction".
ANSWER....You have another agenda and JUSTICE is not on that agenda list. You must want to maintain the cool cover of a State Criminal element function in government so that other REAL VICTIMS can be created in the future!!!
Finally, I asked this of you previously....if you want to get rid of "pedophilia" on College campuses AND you want us to believe that "SANDUSKY's Trial was fair", how come you don't ask "who was the boy in the shower that the demented janitor saw"??? He SPECIFICALLY stated it WAS NOT SANDUSKY!!!!
Fun Fact...Sandusky was convicted for that crime - a crime that he was specifically identified as NOT being involved. How do you justify that the entire Sandusky trial was fair.... if this certifiable statement is true???
More importantly, why support a corrupt legal system and court by allowing this critical fact to go unchecked????
Last edited:
So his kids that were adopted didn't run for the money, but every person that testified only did it for the money. I mean Jerry didn't molest every single kid so the rest are lying. I love the no proof of anything other than boundary issues which is basically saying you'll ignore any victims testimony because you don't like hearing it. In terms of facts or proof, nothing has come up that has made Jerry look innocent yet, but I'm sure it will happen any day now.
It is called credibility. I'd hope you would demand it, if someone accused you or a loved one of a rape 10 years ago.
What that guy doesn't understand is that these sick perverts have a pattern that they follow. Jerry's pattern was to find a vulnerable youth in his charity to groom and eventually molest. Him not molesting his foster/adopted kids is not surprising at all as that was not his modus operandi.So his kids that were adopted didn't run for the money, but every person that testified only did it for the money. I mean Jerry didn't molest every single kid so the rest are lying. I love the no proof of anything other than boundary issues which is basically saying you'll ignore any victims testimony because you don't like hearing it. In terms of facts or proof, nothing has come up that has made Jerry look innocent yet, but I'm sure it will happen any day now.
So you are saying that the evidence against him for all 45 counts was false? That all of those people who took the stand against that bum were liars? All of them? Every single one? And all of the other alleged victims who received a settlement were liars as well? Interesting... amazing how quickly all of those victims got together just to conspire against poor ol' Jerry.
That bum is exactly where he should be.
i'm gonna give you 2 indisputable facts.
in 1998, he got busted showering with a boy (maybe they weren't doing anything...but still), admits to it to the kid's mom, says he wishes he were dead, says he'll never do it again. 3 years later.....he did it again....effin showering naked with a boy on a Friday night when the building was deserted.
maybe they're all lying....and maybe he only enjoys showering naked with boys.
dude...stop.
Your "facts" are not indisputable.
1. Jerry was not arrested in1998, in fact the incident was investigated and Sandusky was cleared of any illegal acts.
2. There is no independent proof that Sandusky said he wished he were dead. He denies saying it and his wife Dottie says that isn't something he would say.
3. He said that he wouldn't shower with ZK (V6) again, and he never did.
Last edited:
IMO, Matt Sandusky is the classic case of an accuser being less than truthful for a payday. He would be better off taking the money that Penn State gifted to him and then keeping his mouth shut. I can't believe he has the audacity to tells Whole Food to change the culture of sexual violence.
http://www.cbs58.com/story/33941430...e-foods-change-the-culture-of-sexual-violence
Not at all. I'm just saying that his normal actions were against his charity's youth.
I don't believe Dottie is an enabler. IMO, if she believed her husband was a pedophile; she would have left him high and dry.
Everyone is lying except for poor Jerry, right?
I believe some of the accusers received repressed memory therapy and may actually believe they were abused. In other cases, I believe that the accusers may believe that what JS may have done to them like putting his right hand on their left knee when driving was grooming especially after allegations of abuse were made.
In Matt Sandusky's case he was either lying when he said he was never abused or he was lying when he said he was abused. You can't have it both ways. I think it is far more likely that he was telling the truth to the Grand Jury when he said he was never abused by his adopted father and is more consistent with him asking at age 18 to be adopted by the Sandusky family and going to court against his ex-wife's wished to allow JS access to his own kids after JS was arrested. I believe the other 5 Sandusky children when they say there was no evidence that JS was abusive and they don't believe JS is a pedophile.
That doesn't mean that her word is to be believed. She is biased and delusional.
Do you have any idea how outlandish it is to believe what you do? How incredibly improbable it is to have all these things happen against Jerry, both purposely and not?
I mean, you could make many things "plausible" if you reach far enough for it. This is one hell of a massive reach. Likely? Please stop.
The Moulton Report page 294 states the following: At the conclusion of the second conversation, after Sandusky was told he could not see Victim 6 anymore, Sandusky said, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead". Detective Ralston and the mother of Victim 6 confirm these conversations.
So his kids that were adopted didn't run for the money, but every person that testified only did it for the money. I mean Jerry didn't molest every single kid so the rest are lying. I love the no proof of anything other than boundary issues which is basically saying you'll ignore any victims testimony because you don't like hearing it. In terms of facts or proof, nothing has come up that has made Jerry look innocent yet, but I'm sure it will happen any day now.
LaJolla,
I know you are passionate about this but it seems you want to accept the vic testimony without any serious questioning. i know it sounds harsh to question a victim but the accuser does have rights too.
My feeling on JS is he is guilty of something but don't know exactly what, here are the things that make go hmmmm?
. why did the state OAG need the janitor story? No vic, no direct testimony, a demented witness who allegedly stated it WASN'T JS
. The MM story, again no vic or a vic they wouldn't let testify
. almost all other vics represented by the same lawyer
. tape recordings of investigators "coaching" the correct answer from vics
. to my recollection no vics came forward for many years
. AF and Matt S. are fairly unreliable at best.
. none of the other kids seem to agree with Matt S.
Now none of those taken alone should be enough to question as they can be "explained away", but taken as a whole does make one wonder.
As I have asked before if you were to accept every accuser at face value do you also believe the stories from the 70's and 80's?
Finally, if JS were guilty of rubbing and touching he would be no less guilty except that if that were the case I don't suspect the uproar toward C/S/S and JVP would IMO be almost non existent not because it wouldn't be wrong but because it would be much easier to understand they never knew what was going on.
Again. People as adults testified to more than just snapping towels. If you want to deny it or call them all liars, so be it. Trash their character and do whatever else you need to.
The people from the 70's DID NOT testify against Jerry at his trial. You asked and I have stated I don't buy the accuser from the 70's. You justifying it in your head as rubbing doesn't make it any better. Sorry but the man is a monster. I feel no sympathy for him other than he was born a monster or something triggered his behavior. He knew better and preyed on children. Sorry I can't get behind this little Jerry is a victim crowd.
Why isn't there any tape recordings or transcripts of these conversations? Sandusky continued to see victim 6 for over 10 years, taking him to football games and receiving cards and words of appreciation from him. I don't trust what Detective Ralston or the mother of Victim 6 have confirmed.
I haven't heard a single person on this board call JS a victim. Some question the quality of his defense team.
A lot if us have questioned some of the testimony and allegations. For example, does it make sense that MM never told his dad or Dranov that he had seen anything that should be reported to police? Does it make sense that MM actually witnessed intercourse from a standing position and that the boy didn't appear to be distressed?
I think LaJolla's response non response shows his blind spot. He has decided JS is where he should be REGARDLeSS of the means.
Jerry is their only avenue available to show that PSU had no fault in this thing . The holy grail is Jerry is innocent .
And Matt Sandusky is a Sociopath, pathological liar, and a human turd.
Trust me I get that. Then you also have the varying levels on display here. Some agree he should be in jail, but want to relive his case daily or somehow think a new trial will fix things. Others have convinced themselves every victim is a money sucking grub. Anyone not championing Jerry's cause here is somehow the bad guy or they don't care about justice.
I do agree that PSU was railroaded, but the old guard BoT did that by throwing the program under the bus instead of letting the courts handle this. They gave the ammunition out to the media and kept pouring gas on the fire. The total lack of leadership was atrocious, but they thought they could just point to Joe/football and the 3 admins and this would all go away. They pretty much pushed for sanctions that had nothing to do with what the NCAA is in place for. I'm pissed the school did this to themselves, but I'm not going to say Jerry didn't get his day in court. He did with a lawyer he decided to hire and pay for. How many people sitting in jail could afford to do that? His actions landed him in prison just like the actions of the old administration jacked up everything else. I can easily separate the two things, but as you said a few are holding out hope this was all just a prosecution based witch hunt.
Hundreds of reporters swooped into College Station to find evidence that Jerry was a monster and Joe was an enabler. The BOT spend several million for a report to prove that the BOT were right in firing Joe. Young adults gave testimony and lawyers swooped in to change it to fit timelines and other stories. McQueary changed his story from hearing slapping sounds and the boy in the shower and Jerry in the locker room to see Jerry and the boy in position. The janitor's story was hearsay taken as proof to pin a felony without a victim or date. There was so much conjecture to make the facts fit the story line. My favorite is how he started a tremendous program to help thousands of boys so he could have sex with them, when he had a nice supply through foster kids and adoptions. Professionals trained to spot pedophiles let Jerry do this. Yet he risked this to help others?
However, reading posts from Jive and others is enough to make me sick again. You are so adamant in your beliefs where NO ONE knows the whole story from the reports and these reports are not FACT. However, the bottom line is Joe is forever labeled a pedophile enabler, because the alumni here felt that they know the facts and did not demand a new trial..
