Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
No reason for them to be banned simply beacuse you can't handle things like most adults can. Roxine speaking up for victims in a thread started about a guy who trashes the victims with no real proof is not a reason to ban her. Ban her for openly discussing the real issues with sexual abuse because you can't handle it? That is absurd. Maybe it's time you guys take this to your own site called Jerry's corner since that is the corner you sit in. You can ban everyone no still fighting for poor old Jerry.
Hiding behind the fake BS of crying foul over the trial. It is and has been about PSU with you guys. The victims were just money hungry liars in your eyes. I don't know how or why Tom lets this fantasy exist on aboard with his name on it. He is way more tolerant than myself.
Last edited:
That study notes categorizing victim & abusers ages & refers to sexual abuse in the subheading and not CSA. Can you please cite whether or not part of that 65% & 23% were peer to peer abuse & not adult/child sex abuse? Thanks.
You're exactly right lajolla, and it's ironic that the how many times banned pnnylion wants everyone banned.
I remember seeing his stuff on FOS. Hell he's mild here. These guys really do need their own site. Most stopped paying attention to them a while back so they think they really are on to something good. When you hit them back with some reality, they stick their fingers in their ears.
Last edited:
getmyjive11 said:
I suggest you calm down and re-read my post slowly, then come back and apologize. Words have meaning, and you can't go around screaming like a nut job because you assigned your own meaning to someone else's words.
LaJolla Lion said:
Again, if you are going to respond to one of my posts, please respond to the content of my post, and do not just use it to go off on one of your emotional rants.
Lajolla is burned out by some of the denial and garbage here IMO . Rules of debate go out the window with crazy zealots.
So you agree with the verdict, but it's a gray area because less than 1% think that maybe Jerry got a raw deal? Got it. You're just like me in this presidential election.
I repeat:
What actual evidence or study do you base your '25% is not possible' declarative statement?
Again, any undergrad science student can poke holes in most studies (hint no scientific study is perfect), so that doesn't disprove anything. You have produced exactly ZERO scientific evidence, only your opinion, to contradict any peer-reviewed numbers on abuse.
But you have assured us on your statistical and PhD level intellect so I guess we will just accept it. In fact it was YOU who felt the dire need to argue from authority (Look at me I swear I have a PhD!) rather than ever provide any contradictory peer-reviewed analysis.
Matt is fighting for abused kids everyday through his foundation. He is raising money (all proceeds from his book go directly to abuse causes).
What are YOU doing?
have you traveled some of the mountains of central PA? Not all that much more advanced....
You'll never be able to get an exact number here, it's almost impossible. For rape the FBI has found 8-10% of accusations are straight up bs and can be proved as such. Experienced sex crime investigators will tell you the number is higher. But again there is no accurate number to be exact .
Child sexual abuse is much different overall . It's a bigger problem than many realize , but there aren't good numbers . It's all guesswork . And advocates tend to push bad numbers.
But as I said if it's 1/100 I'd say it's a huge problem . It's probably more. And I'm not downplaying if it's less than that 1/100 figure. Im just playing with a range in my head.
Now if there were three jerry accusers with good stories would you feel better ? I personally wouldn't . One would be bad, it one makes a difficult legal case.
Either way it's a mess.
Thanks to PSUEngineer for this link.
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV73.pdf
1 in 12 is far more believable than Roxine story, which is "1 in 4" but it is obviously much higher than that because no one reports it.
There is a peer reviewed study from the literature that refutes Roxine. Happy Pappy?
Notice he left out the part where Joe said "I don't know what you would call it". When people have to truncate quotes to make a point, they should immediately know they are wrong.
Table 4 shows the associations between disclosure and abuse characteristics, socio-demographic variables, parental bonding and mental health. I will summarize the findings as it relates to
Age difference of their abusers:
<5 years GIRLS: 40% BOYS: 55%
≥5 years GIRLS: 44% BOYS: 34%
Unknown GIRLS: 16% BOYS: 11%
Now, if you would be so kind as to go back and answer the questions I have posed to you.
Thanks,
Roxine
Good post.
I think some of you misunderstand my point.
I am not advocating for Jerry's innocence, nor am saying that any of accusers lied.
What infuriates me is that people refuse to have logical discourse about it, because "OMG,child abuse! Think of the children!!" or"OMG, if I don't appear outraged about people will think I too abuse children".
Could some (or all) of Jerry's accusers be lying? Of course they *could*. Are they? I don't know and neither do you. But it is certainly possible and has happened before in other cases where less financial incentive was in play.
Were there some very irregular things that happened at trial that raise red flags that perhaps something unjust was afoot? Almost certainly.
But when anyone brings up salient points to consider, they get shouted down to overzealous preachers like Roxine and LaJolla who refuse to have a logical discourse on the subject.
LaJolla will just shout at you until he is hoarse and tell you how he is 100% sure JS is guilty (the only way he can be sure is if he was one of the 10 accusers that went to trial, which I very but).
Roxine will just throw studies and statistics out you, hoping that you don't have energy or patience to read them (e.g. CSA stats from Haiti have ZERO to do with this case).
A man smarter than me once said "One is entitled to have whatever opinion they like, but if they cannot have intellectual discourse about that opinion, they are fanatics, not rationale thinkers."
Roxine said:
This is the last place that needs your lectures.
If you want to spend your time helping stop abuse, why not put ALL your efforts in to shining a spotlight on the failures by the trained professionals at DPY/CYS/TSM that caused this entire mess. They cleared him in 1998, they approved him to adopt kids over and over, they didn't act in 2001 when reports were received about his odd behavior. Every second you spend here is time wasted, that could be spent actually helping your cause.
Right and you such a great guy that you would feel the same exact way if this were another retired DC at another school. You would be so inclined to spend time debating the rates on sexual abuse with someone who works with vicitims for OSU if this were the situation there. Rational people can actually use their brain and not their hearts. Fanatics will lead with their heart and PSU fanatics who just want to believe that maybe these victims were lying are obviously rational. When asked what physical proof they expect to be there a decade+ later, you get crickets, because they really can't think of a real valid answer.
I get the PSU fanatics on here and that is why they are don't want to come to grips with this reality and this is their way of holding out hope. Hope these victims lied. Hope that Jerry is innocent like the con artist JZ claims. In 4 years you have one victim and his mother aren't model citizens and all of the others got paid. 26 people got paid from this. 26 people that Jerry had access to. We know the ones he testified against he was alone with as he could not even refute that. We know that he took at least one on the road with him and Jerry couldn't refute that.
I get why folks don't like hearing from me because it's like kids hearing there is no Santa Claus. I know the court system is far from perfect. I know that people lie for money. I know the world isn't fair, but there are a TON of people here that would have just had to have it our for Jerry. Jerry was there for these victims as children, but they all felt the need as adults to simply just turn on him. Really? You sure this isn't just a group of PSU diehards wanting this all just walked back? Has one victim really been discredited other than not being a great person?
If there was actual proof more people would be beating this drum instead of the same 10 or so on this site. Charlie Sheen and Jessee Ventura are convinced that the World Trade center buildings weren't brought down by planes so the brain can tell anyone what they need to believe. It's funny like that and maybe everyone is lying so you can hold on to that. I play the lottery when the numbers get high too so we're not all that different. You guys can mock me all you want to when it's proven they all lied and he really never touched a kid. Other than that, you're just critiquing a trial for no really good reason other than this brought down others who were innocent like Joe and PSU. PSU and Joe have nothing to apologize for at all. Jerry did this and the media crucified people, but it doesn't make Jerry a victim.
Last edited:
Its getting tiring continually proving that your anonymous internet PhD seems worthless and you continually fail to accept any other evidence other than what you believe.
1. Please enlighten us with your scientific standard of "believable" so we can evaluate it.
2. That study in no way refutes Roxine, and such a brilliant PhD mind such as your should have an easy time understanding that. Since you don't,let me help you with your continuing education credits:
- Roxine's statistic was: "1:4 girls and 1:6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18"
- Your evidence of "refuting" (from paper you link): "This research is based on data from the Developmental Victimization Survey (DVS), designed to obtain 1-year incidence estimates."
- Apples are not oranges, Roxine cited a lifetime rate up to age 18, that paper only attempted to measure incidents of victimization in the study year. Those are two DIFFERENT STATISTICS (didn't you make a statement about your superior statistical knowledge?)
- In the study they used phone interviews (with no verification via other methods), in the case of kids below 10 it was of the caregivers rather than the child, to determine rates.
None of this is to say the paper is wrong, or bad science, just that you are taking it to mean something it doesn't mean.
I can go on and on. Now if you continue to want to debunk your own claims about statistical and scientific prowess, feel free, but its getting embarrassing.
Just admit that you have some need to ignore and downplay the scourge of child sexual abuse so we can all move on.
Wow, a lot of rambling there, but I will respond to most of your points.
1) I agree that I would care less if this didn't involve PSU. Just like if my department's budget was cut, I would care more about it than if some other department's was cut.
2) " We know the ones he testified against he was alone with as he could not even refute that." This is an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. It is VERY difficult to refute accusations when you don't even have a date when said crime took place. Many of these overlapping timelines make ZERO sense and almost certainly could not have happened as reported. But because the court allowed the prosecutors to allow charges with non-specific dates, it would have been impossible to refute JS's presence at any given event.
3) "Has one victim really been discredited other than not being a great person?" And having tremendous financial incentive to crucify Jerry.
4) Your WTC analogy is a poor one. There are mountains of evidence that prove that the "911 Truthers" are incorrect. There is no physical evidence (one way or another) in the JS case. Unlike some other folks, I would not expect there to be, but then the honesty/character of the witness/victim testimony becomes paramount, because that's all you have. When either the court or the public decides that it is improper to question this honest/character, then that is a HUGE problem, because then you have ZERO chance of EVER getting an acquittal (i.e. if you must believe all witnesses at face value).
Where did you receive your PhD? at PSU or UNC?
I highly recommend you doing more research than one peer reviewed article. The numbers you are reporting are tied to the NCANDS which reflects compiled data of reported cases by state. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo10_13.pdf#page=390
Since, apparently, as a PhD, you have limited or no access to research libraries, I have copied a few of Pennsylvania's numbers here for you:
PENNSYLVANIA
A. Context Statistics1 General Child Population (Census Bureau)2
Total children under 18 years
2010 2,785,316
2011 2,761,343
2012 2,737,905
2013 2,715,645
B. Child Maltreatment Data (NCANDS) Continued
Maltreatment Types of Child Victims (%)
Sexual abuse
2010 65.5
2011 65.2
2012 66.2
2013 67.6
[Edited to provide clarity - table didn't copy over correctly]
Retrospective studies show rates of childhood sexual abuse ranging from 7-36% in females and 3-29% in males.
Last edited:
It's easy to throw stones when you too are anonymous. My PhD is far from worthless, but you can think that if it gives you that special feeling in your tummy.
Roxine has not yet posted a study with convincing data. Yes, they have been published, but all studies (as someone else pointed out) have their limitations (including the papers I have published). I have pointed out these limitations, specifically to show how they are not relevant to this case, and to show what are artificially inflated assault statistics.
Whenever data is presented, especially data that is derived, modeled or estimated, it is always good to do a reality check.
If 1 in 4 girls are abused before the age of 18, and many/most don't report it, then either the 1 in 4 is made up, OR the "real" numbers are 2, 3 or 4 in 4. So let's reality check that for a second. It cannot be 4 in 4, because that would mean that every girl prior to the age of 18 is abused and that is obviously false.
It is unlikely to be 3 in 4 (or even 2 in 4). Think about the number of women you know well. Think about the number of women you know who you have are survivors of abuse. Now double or triple that number (to account for underreporting and the fact that you might not be aware of it). I guarantee your percentage isn't close to 50%.
So where it the disconnect? It's in the methodology! As Roxine point out, being "flashed" even if by another minor is considered abuse. Being touched by another minor is considered abuse. Based on those criteria, I too am the victim of CSA. Except guess what...I'm not and have never identified as such.
These methodological problems are going to majorly skew the data to make it look like there is far more abuse than there actually is, or if you really want to call those acts abuse, lumping those acts in with real assaults.
Wow, a lot of rambling there, but I will respond to most of your points. You listen to JZ so you certainly know rambling.
1) I agree that I would care less if this didn't involve PSU. Just like if my department's budget was cut, I would care more about it than if some other department's was cut.
2) " We know the ones he testified against he was alone with as he could not even refute that." This is an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. It is VERY difficult to refute accusations when you don't even have a date when said crime took place. Many of these overlapping timelines make ZERO sense and almost certainly could not have happened as reported. But because the court allowed the prosecutors to allow charges with non-specific dates, it would have been impossible to refute JS's presence at any given event.
It's not half as hard if you are truely innocent. You can state I did something to you. I can ask you to prove it. Jerry didn't deny knowing these kids. He didn't deny being alone with them. He could have said Victim X was lying and that never happened. Except for the hotel receipts, parents, and coaches who stated he was alone with the kids. He knew he couldn't refute them. I've coached kids sports before, you know how many kids I was ever alone with...none. It doesn't even cross your guys mind that it is odd, just Jerry being Jerry.
3) "Has one victim really been discredited other than not being a great person?" And having tremendous financial incentive to crucify Jerry.
So money is the only reason 26 people who Jerry helped out as children turned on him? Not all of these 26 victims were living on the streets. Not all of them were criminals. The first ones that came forward knew that there was a huge financial prize at the end of all of this? For people who want proof, you certainly don't provide any proof that is the case.
4) Your WTC analogy is a poor one. There are mountains of evidence that prove that the "911 Truthers" are incorrect. There is no physical evidence (one way or another) in the JS case. Unlike some other folks, I would not expect there to be, but then the honesty/character of the witness/victim testimony becomes paramount, because that's all you have. When either the court or the public decides that it is improper to question this honest/character, then that is a HUGE problem, because then you have ZERO chance of EVER getting an acquittal (i.e. if you must believe all witnesses at face value).
What is the motive for all of these people to lie? Just money? The detectives, prosecutors, judges, and jury were all duped by the 8 that testified. PSU and it's attorneys were all duped by the others who got paid. So basically the whole GD world is stupid since nobody video taped this many committing these crimes. All of these victims just loved Jerry and took the payday.
Again, I'm the bad guy here...I get it. Mean old LaJolla is just a stubborn bully for not allowing the fantasy to continue. You can put me on ignore with the others refusing to accept a bit of reality.
1) I agree that I would care less if this didn't involve PSU. Just like if my department's budget was cut, I would care more about it than if some other department's was cut.
2) " We know the ones he testified against he was alone with as he could not even refute that." This is an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. It is VERY difficult to refute accusations when you don't even have a date when said crime took place. Many of these overlapping timelines make ZERO sense and almost certainly could not have happened as reported. But because the court allowed the prosecutors to allow charges with non-specific dates, it would have been impossible to refute JS's presence at any given event.
It's not half as hard if you are truely innocent. You can state I did something to you. I can ask you to prove it. Jerry didn't deny knowing these kids. He didn't deny being alone with them. He could have said Victim X was lying and that never happened. Except for the hotel receipts, parents, and coaches who stated he was alone with the kids. He knew he couldn't refute them. I've coached kids sports before, you know how many kids I was ever alone with...none. It doesn't even cross your guys mind that it is odd, just Jerry being Jerry.
3) "Has one victim really been discredited other than not being a great person?" And having tremendous financial incentive to crucify Jerry.
So money is the only reason 26 people who Jerry helped out as children turned on him? Not all of these 26 victims were living on the streets. Not all of them were criminals. The first ones that came forward knew that there was a huge financial prize at the end of all of this? For people who want proof, you certainly don't provide any proof that is the case.
4) Your WTC analogy is a poor one. There are mountains of evidence that prove that the "911 Truthers" are incorrect. There is no physical evidence (one way or another) in the JS case. Unlike some other folks, I would not expect there to be, but then the honesty/character of the witness/victim testimony becomes paramount, because that's all you have. When either the court or the public decides that it is improper to question this honest/character, then that is a HUGE problem, because then you have ZERO chance of EVER getting an acquittal (i.e. if you must believe all witnesses at face value).
What is the motive for all of these people to lie? Just money? The detectives, prosecutors, judges, and jury were all duped by the 8 that testified. PSU and it's attorneys were all duped by the others who got paid. So basically the whole GD world is stupid since nobody video taped this many committing these crimes. All of these victims just loved Jerry and took the payday.
Again, I'm the bad guy here...I get it. Mean old LaJolla is just a stubborn bully for not allowing the fantasy to continue. You can put me on ignore with the others refusing to accept a bit of reality.
Could you please provide peer-reviewed research to support your hypothesis that it "has happened before in other cases where less financial incentive was in play"? Thanks
As to your assertion that I am just "throw[ing] studies and statistics out [sic] you" - I was responding SPECIFICALLY to your questions related to the UNIVERSAL statistic of 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys being sexually abused.
I believe, sir, I am holding up my end of the intellectual discourse with facts and research - where's yours?
You are asking for peer reviewed literature on whether witness testimony offered in court has ever been false? Ha. Good one.
I am having an intellectual discussion here. You are just citing studies. There is a difference, especially when you then don't want to discuss those studies.
So based on your theory, because I have been alone with my nephew and cannot deny that I have been, then I must have abused him? Your logic is spread pretty thin there.
I give credit to anyone who pursues their passion to support causes that are near and dear to their heart. One of the few positives that we can take away from this scandal is the awareness and efforts spent on some of the important issues surrounding CSA such as prevention strategies, victim support, and education on topics such as typical offenders, employer best practices, protecting both at risk children and the adults who supervise them, etc.
On the other hand, I am not sure that Matt is helping these issues because I believe that making dubious claims of CSA doesn't help the cause. IMO, the only reason CSA is near and dear to Matt's heart is that it has proven to be a profitable business to him.
Matt's allegations have not be vetted in a serious manner. I don't believe the BOT agreeing to settle his claim, his interview with Oprah, or any of the speeches he has made on behalf on his foundation provides compelling evidence that he was sexually abused by his adoptive father.
There is no way that I can believe his accusations until I get a plausible explanation of why he:
1. Asked to be adopted by the Sandusky family at age 18 if he had been repeatedly abused years earlier by the father of that family
2. Went to court against his ex-wife after his father was arrested to allow his father to have access to his children
3. Lied in his Grand Jury testimony and in his interviews with authorities that he was never abused
I am not buying the Stockholm syndrome or repressed memories rationale. IMO, the rest of the Sandusky family (Dottie, Jon, Kara, EJ, Jeff and Ray) have more credibility than Matt and they all don't believe for an instant that Matt was abused by Jerry.
My cause is injustice. I am a Penn State graduate and I come from a Penn State family. Penn State has gotten a raw deal in this whole fiasco. Regardless of whether or not Sandusky is a pedophile, I don't believe that Penn State did anything wrong. I don't believe anybody who was involved in managing affairs at Penn State knowingly enabled a pedophile's ability to prey on victims. I believe that eventually Spanier, Curley, and Schultz will be exonerated and the Freeh Report will be debunked, hopefully sooner rather than later.
IMO, the guilt of Sandusky has not been proven one way or the other. His trial was patently unfair. His lawyer's latest PCRA court filing lists 34 issues none of which seem specious. He deserves a new trial and I hope that Judge Cleland is objective in handling his PCRA but I am not confident.
Please re-read my response. I specifically said child sexual abuse is determined by an age differential, typically 5 years (varies state to state) - and yes, non-contact sexual abuse when the victim if 5 years younger than the perpetrator is considered sexual abuse.
In Pennsylvania State law, they define child sexual abuse as: http://pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Curriculum/...Handouts/HO 4 PA Legal Definitions of CSA.pdf
Chapter 3490.4: Definitions
Sexual abuse or exploitation—
(i) Any of the following if committed on a child by a perpetrator: [truncated A, B, and C definitions to only address the non-contact portion - can see the full definition at the link above]
(D) Exploitation which includes any of the following:
(1) Looking at the sexual or other intimate parts of a child for the purpose
of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in either person.
(2) Engaging or encouraging a child to look at the sexual or other intimate
parts of another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual
desire in any person involved.
(3) Engaging or encouraging a child to participate in sexually explicit
conversation either in person, by telephone, by computer or by a computer
aided device.
This is a poorly written law (part 2, specifically). The way that is written, if a 15 year old boy is at a rock concert and a 21 year old woman flashes her breasts in his general direction (because the thought of exposing herself turns her on), then she has committed CSA.
Sorry, no...
What's more embarrassing...PSU fans (hopefully not grads, just Centre Country locals) convinced Jerry's not a pedophile?.....or the fact that this disgusting thread is on it's 11th page?
If it were 26 nephews that you took care of and loved and they simply turned on you for a pay day? Who's logic is spread thin? Your sister already told you to stop showering with your nephew, but you couldn't stop. Really, no red flags or bells there?
If it were one kid or one random situation...yeah, the eyebrows could and would be raised. Is this really the case that screams a man is clearly innocent? Is this really a case you want to fight for if not for your allegiance to a school? You bring up logic, but then make absurd comparisons. Normal people are not going out of their away to be with other peoples children naked. Normal people after being asked to stop would be mortified, but not our guy Jerry. He just kept on going.
Last edited:
My bad, but they will literally keep running with this crap. Tom should know anything that starts of with JZ said is not a good idea. It's a bunch of freaks in denial.
I don't work for a charity that deals with troubled youths. I don't have 26 nephews. You act as if it's not possible and that people are crazy for thinking that anyone lied for money, when there was literally nothing the defendant could other than "I didn't do it."
What is embarrassing is that PSU graduates (of which I am one...class of 95, highest distinction) are afraid of talking about this subject...
no issues w/you obviously
that being said, if you didn't reply and simply ignored...the thread probably would've died already. though...I'm just as guilty for reading this crap day after day
grown adults convinced Jerry's not sexually attracted to little boys after all we know is a train-wreck that's difficult to avoid, i suppose......but mostly embarrassing
not afraid to talk about anything.....but to read about PSU grads (apparently) who are convinced Jerry's not pedophile is fairly delusional.
i mean, the BOT railroading Spanier, Curley, Shultz, Paterno, the football program, and the entire fan base for their self-serving interests is one thing ...they're giraffe legs on that story....including the NCAA, Freeh, Corbett, Delaney and countless others.
but to go as far as thinking Jerry's not a pedophile....that ever single victim is lying about every single detail.....is effin insane.
Jerry's a sick individual that, I'm guessing, has no idea that he's a sick individual.......he's where he belongs.
Last edited:
People lie for money every single day. Drugs, bad situations...etc. To think 26 seperate people lied about a man that "HELPED" them out as children is a bit naive and that is being pretty nice about it. From what I understand not all of these people who got money were hooked on heroin or bad people. Some were married and had kids of their own. They just took the easy way out and made up a story about a man that was such a great influence to them when they were growing up. He took them places. He gave them jerseys. He donated his time and attention to them, but they all just decided to burn him for no reason other than money. These 26 people must all be horrible people then I guess. Somehow Jerry was around 26 kids that all would somehow turn on him as adults for money. Surely there are more cases where this many victims lied as ADULTS, not as toddlers, as ADULTS.
One or two people lying is one thing. There are plenty of good people that do charity work without having to be alone with that many children all of the time. Nevermind getting naked with them. If someone like Jerry came around your kids, I doubt you could spot it. Honestly. There are innocent people in jail for sure. I understand that as well, but just not here.
Jim Clemente put Jerry in the top 1% of all nice guy predators. They guy is a leading national expert. So your choice on who to believe...Clemente or JZ.
I know who I'm picking, but you have your faith in JZ or else you really wouldn't keep going on with this years later.
Last edited:
Similar threads
