Pnnylion, why don't you just start a new screen name already ? Don't you think it's about time ?
Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
A) Amendola is the one who said Alan Meyer was going to be his star witness.
B) I'm not suggesting that what I described was not a crime. What I am suggesting is that if none of the victims were actually sexually assaulted, it would go a long way towards explaining how Jerry got away with it for so long and why so many people were seemingly fooled.
Last edited:
Isn't it equally plausible that "so many people," like yourself don't understand what the definition of sexual assault is? If so, we could agree that JS assaulted many kids, and many people were fooled, including victims, because they just didn't understand that what was going on was actually assault.
Your position actually makes it clear - many people are still being fooled or are in willful denial.
I don't want to put words in Indy's mouth, but perhaps the point he is trying to make is as follows:
How would events have been different if JS was not convicted (or not charged) with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse? Yes, the other charges are very serious and reprehensible, but do not carry the same shock value as "anal rape". Would the media firestorm have been the same? Would the steamrolling of C/S/S happened the same way? I don't know, but these are relevant questions.
Relevant only to a hypothetical. How would events have been different if V2 was a freshman girl and not a boy? How would events have been different if MMQ didn't buy new shoes and feel a need to put them in his locker? How would events be different if Joe used email? How would events be different if the charges were made after the football season, and Joe had already retired?
There are millions. None are relevant.
I think my example is potentially relevant. Why?
Many of you have argued "it doesn't matter is some of the victims have been untruthful, or if some of the charges get overturned, because Sandusky is clearly guilty of something and belongs in jail."
So I ask again, what if, he did not commit involuntary deviant sexual intercourse? What if his worst crime was a naked bear hug in the shower? How does that change the media firestorm and subsequent fallout?
The problem with that what if is there were multiple victims that testified to groping and oral sex. So his worst crime was not bear hugging kids in the shower. It absolutely does matter if the victims were untruthful, but how about that actually being proven one time? What ifs are awesome, but they don't rewrite history unfortunately. Maybe some of the victims come out and recant their testimonies completely. That would at least be a start or raise some eyebrows with myself included. Other than that we have very small group of PSU alums/fans who simply choose not to acknowledge Jerry is in fact a pedophile. They can blame the judge, Jerry's lawyer, the vicitims.....but not Jerry Sandusky himself who caused all of this with his sick needs.
Yes PSU's leadership at the time was an EPIC failure. I think most can recognize that except of a few of the BoT's friends and family members. They didn't run for those positions thinking they would have to actually make a tough call, but it looked great on the resumes. They sucked and caused a ton of collateral damage, but to not really acknowledge Jerrys' crimes is very odd. Maybe JZ will actually uncover something real one day, but screaming AF is a bad human and taking pics of his car surely doesn't make JS any less guilty.
The firestorm was because of Mike and Joe's testimony. It had nothing to do with what exactly happened.
I would add the author of the GJP to your list, and would agree, what really took place was not relevant to the firestorm.
The lack of foresight by those in charge was remarkable. How they couldn't see that this was going to go nuclear was beyond me.
When should they have seen it? 1998, 2001, or in 2010 when they became aware of the GJ and other allegations?
As soon as Mike stated that he was certain JS was sodomizing the boy and that he told others at PSU, including Joe, there was no way this wasn't going to end badly for Joe, PSU, and the others
Going back to pre 98' or the events of 98' is a tough one. 01' should have been much more proactive considering TSM knowledge and the mixing of chromosomes between TSM and BOT. 09' and 10' inactivity is inexcusable. It was not a matter of IF this was going to blow up, it was a matter of how big this explosion was going to be and who was going to be caught up in it.
When did Mike tell Joe that he was certain JS was sodomizing that boy in the shower? Refresh my memory please. A link would help.
Mike didn't. Mike stated that he reported the incident to Joe and the others. The stories about what Mike saw and reported have varied. I do recall that in Mike's GJ testimony, he indicated that he told details to Joe. Which he later backed off.
So he did not tell Joe and the others. Had he told Joe what you described, do you truly believe Joe, Curley et al would not have responded far more aggressively. There is nothing that I have seen that indicates they knew of anything more than inappropriate behavior. None of the parties told of the incident reacted in a way that would indicate sodomy occurred.
I have no idea what was told to Joe, Tim, or Gary. Or any of the other players in this that we have not heard from yet. But, I will say that no one's actions (including Mike's) are consistent with witnessing or reporting sodomy. However, Mike told investigators and the GJ that he witnessed sodomy and the incident (described in some way) was reported to others.
according to Mike's testimony, and the testimony of others, who can we say credibly knew of the 2001 incident at the time?
Mike
Mike's g/f
Mike's dad
Dr Dranov
Joe
Tim Curley
Gary Schultz
Graham Spanier
Jack Raykovitz
a few TSM board members
Sandusky
the still unknown victim 2
so . . . did ANYONE act like Mike said he witness the sodomy of a child??
At the time ? No
As far as JR and any BOT members are concerned, we know very little of their actions. Did they act like a child had been sodomized ? I don't know.
The statements from Mike that I reference are from 2010-2012. I have no idea what was said and to whom in 2001.
Those statements from Mike, 10 years after, do not hold water for me.
I didn't say it did. However it may be interpreted by some as "incapable" of an overt sexual act like anal sex. Which is all I was addressing.
So it is "pointless" to question why our BOT gave somebody, who stated under oath that he was never abuse by Jerry Sandusky, several $ million of the University's money? Why? I think we deserve to know why the BOT felt compelled to "settle" with Matt Sandusky. Is it "pointless" to question why V6 and V9 were suddenly given settlements shortly after their lawyers were given the right to view the Freeh material? Once again, why is it "pointless" to question why our BOT handed out settlement checks with very little if any vetting done?
According to you settlements are not about guilt. What would have been the harm to wait until C/S/S received their due process?
The harm could have been it costing the University even more money and some cases may have been unrelated to the charges against C/S/S but still University responsibility. Settlements are business decisions, they are not verdicts on guilt or innocence. You are free to question anything you want. But, I think it is waste of time to question why the University settled these cases. The business decision was made a long time ago to put this fiasco in the rear view mirror as quickly as possibly. Protracted litigation, plaintiff attorney press conferences, media attention, heightened emotions, etc all have a cost to the University.
So does guilt of the OG BoT bastards. They settled to cover their asses, their family and friends. Nothing more.
So this is all "in the rear view mirror"? Once again. How was Matt Sandusky's abuse, which he testified never happened, the University's responsibility? The alleged abuse took place six years before the 1998 incident. It allegedly happened in the Sandusky home. Penn State did not place Matt in the home. Suspicious "business decision" if you ask me.
Let me get this straight. So... if MM had said unequivocally he saw JS sodomizing the boy, then C/S/S/P would have responded more assertively.
But if he said simply that he saw a naked JS fondling the boys peanuts, well, that doesn't warrant an assertive response.
Good luck with that argument.
But if he said simply that he saw a naked JS fondling the boys peanuts, well, that doesn't warrant an assertive response.
Good luck with that argument.
Where is one of those 'pounding head against concrete wall' emoticons? Someone?
Correct. Business decision and nothing more. If the settlement costs less than the alternative they will settle every time. Obviously someone at PSU decided it wasn't worth (in monetary terms) fighting dozens of lawsuits that may or may not have demonstrated further culpability.
Similar threads
