I'd like to give you a whiskey that has a nutty finish, much like bitter almonds.
Jay's Open Letter to Sally Jenkins
- Thread starter PSU_1991
- Start date
There's always TWO SETS of books whenever there is something shady going on. One set that you present to the public, and one set that helps everybody keep track of their share of the proceeds.
Dukie, will you be in the shop at all tomorrow (Saturday)? I have tentative plans to be in town a and, if I make it up, could have time to stop by the shop and introduce myself and say hello.
I think the thoughts about this case for many locals in SC come down to....what's worse than being duped by a child molester for decades? Being duped by liars and media into thinking they were duped by a child molester for decades.
Dude...if you are suggesting documentation when you are accusing a regional icon of child molestation is overkill I am shocked. But whatevs...I think highly of you and we can agree to disagree.
Yea we have really got to quit or at least tone down the "in-fighting" that is going on.
Many of us agree on the major issues but were not all going to agree on everything and thats ok but some of this stuff has gotten
way out of hand and way too childish.
Its ok to agree to disagree on some things.
This contradicts the tale that Towny has been trying to spin. He claims that he and the rest of the family "knew" that Sandusky had molested a child by the next day in 2001.
So who is lying? McQueary or Towny? Or both?
It doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks that protecting the football program was a valid reason for keeping things quiet is someone with a "football culture" problem. Looking at you Towny.
Mike didn't document anything and he didn't follow up because he was not sure about what he'd seen.
End of story.
never mind that I said that I didn't hear directly from MM and that it was several months after that I even first saw him and never said when I first discussed with him
yo focus needs mo focus..........
try again even you can do better.......
Again you never witnessed such a crime by someone you knew in your mid to late 20's? Did you? This was someone known to him so we really can't pretend to know what was running through his head. People love to tell other people exactly how they would react in every situation, but you can't walk in other peoples shoes. We hope we would react a certain way, but it's a guess.
No desire here to insert myself into the middle of the Aoshiro/Towny debate, but it seems to me that Aoshiro's post, above, neatly encapsulates what the majority of outsiders believe about the entire cast of PSU characters.
They know that Sandusky was running around on the loose (running TSM and grooming victims) for a full decade after the 2001 incident went down, are convinced that a whole lot of people at PSU either knew or should have known about it, and cannot understand why the people who were in the best position to put a stop to it (in their minds, Joe, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier) did not in fact put a stop to it. To top if off, they are blissfully unaware of the role of the BoT cabal in all of this, and ill disposed to credit it when apprised.. Moreover, outsiders tend to view PSU as a monolith when it comes to this ("Screw 'em all.")
Combating that narrative is difficult, indeed. The sanctions being walked back is only marginally helpful. Plenty of people regard that as only a technical victory. ("So the NCAA didn't have jurisdiction. Doesn't change what went down.")
I think it's gonna take some findings in a court of law to move the needle. Even then, consider how remarkable the story of BoT, TSM, and Pennsylvania government (e.g., Corbett, Fina, et al.) connivance must sound to an outsider. Almost too craptastic to believe. .
I have sympathy that he didn't act immediately. However, once he went to Paterno, he was NUTS to not document every single event, in the greatest of detail. In my mind, these are two separate things. One, the shock and PTSD of seeing what "he says" he saw. The second, a day and days later, making that accusation to and about very powerful men.
Perhaps you are conflating the two. But i can tell you, without a shadow of doubt, I'd have documented every single sentence I said about Sandusky from then on. And I am shocked he didn't or get coaching to do that from his father and Dranov (etc.). This is fundamental.
I think its a good point, and you need to read Clemente to understand. (not you you, but you the reader of this post). What JS did, not unlike Priests, is to create a "trust tree". Over time, they call it grooming, he gained their trust. Part of that was getting a little too touch feely. He used "touchy feely" to cover his tracks, successfully, in 1998.
hey, it was all part of the "therapy" for at-risk youths!
So that left any untrained observer saying "is that OK? Is that over the line? when do I call the police, knowing how much damage can be done simply by taking that action?
JS, like the $hitty priests, lived inside that ambiguity. its why he got accused several times and nobody could pin him down until they connected the dots (along with a witness, in MM) to nail him. Hey, its just creepy old Jerry. and besides, these are at-risk boys, who's gonna believe them?
Here is what Mike testified:
"My family
over time came to know what I had witnessed,
but -- again, I'm saying over time. Over
years, especially as this investigation started
and as I began to get questioned.."
How exactly did anyone in the family tell you the next morning that Mike had seen Sandusky molesting a child when Mike says that his family only came to learn that "over years."
The problem with lying is that it's so hard to keep your story story straight.
the problem is you are trying way to hard to try and catch a lie when there isn't one.......
why or how do you assume that mike knew about me stopping by his dad's house. I have no idea if he did or didn't. I can't imagine how or why that would come up when it is was and still is now a several times a week occurrence.
you are just batshit crazy and making assumptions that even a somewhat reasonable person wouldn't try and make.
It is craptastic but it's simple enough: it's easy to understand these things when you consider graft and corruption. $4B flows through PSU and everybody has to get their cut.
Mike's own freaking testimony is that his own family didn't learn until years later that he had seen Sandusky molesting a child. So how do people who DON'T KNOW SOMETHING tell you about it the next morning?
4 years later and everyone is still asking what he said or his actions really were. We know it wasn't right or enough, but not everyone is like you witnessing a crime. It surely would have been nice if he or every witness did, but that isn't what occurred. Victims of crimes don't jot down every detail. It's more common now with smart phones, but flip phones 15 years ago did not lend themselves to doing this.
You are putting yourself in everyone else's shoes and assuming that is what has to happen. I have never witnessed such an act so I cannot pretend to know how I would have reacted. I would hope I did everything right, but I am far from perfect.
Again, the shock of the crime is different than days later when you've decided to report it. Once you've decided to report it, you HAVE TO KNOW you will be asked a ton of questions over the next several months or years. I have sympathy for someone not reporting it pronto or even in the netxt few years. I have no sympathy for someone calm and measured to have several conversations. To not document it is just plain stupid.
oh ffs everyone knows that he wasn't talking about his dad.
I will even give you of all people the benefit of doubt and not think you are as stupid as what you are desperately trying to act like.
1)So, he told his father, that night, that he saw Sandusky sexually molesting a child? Right?
2)Was the question asked this way: "Besides your Dad, did you tell anybody else."? Is that what you are saying?
So your father in law keeps from Mike, since that Sunday, for years I guess that he went and told the rest of the family...sure, keep lying..
someone else trying way to hard.... what sunday are you reffering to.... there is no sunday ever mentioned ..... how do you get "the rest of the family" out of anything I have said.
Technically the jury found Jerry guilty of 4 of 5 felonies from the shower incident so it's inaccurate to say "Not Guilty" on all those counts. Those 4 counts/convictions on their own merit were enough to put Jer away for 25+ years.
I've seen that stated over and over as fact but if we're gonna fight this let's try to be accurate in the response.
Sorry, Saturday. The only one trying too hard is you. So who did Mike tell first, you or Stern...Please give us the details of how/why he filled you in years later. Since Mike now knew a pedo lived near him, why wouldn't he be concerned about family members with kids and warn them right away, and have them stay as far away from him as they could? Instead he waits years... I guess its typical of him to wait years before caring...
No, I'd bring my wife out, I'll pay for her, haha! I do have some ideas I could run by you though.
Last edited:
So towny, you were told at one point by Mike's dad that Mike saw Jerry molesting a boy in the shower that night? And this was shortly after the incident occurred, correct?
Oh sorry. I didn't know that it was John McQueary who told you the following morning in 2001 that Mike had told him that he had seen Sandusky molesting a boy. Well that explains it.
I don't know why, but I am confused on this. So towny (Mike's brother in-law, John's son in-law) was told the next day by John that Mike had witnessed Jerry molesting a kid in the shower. Is that right?
Why is it that Towny87.1 is such a snarky dipsh!t? Like he knows it all. Gimme a break
Well he has claimed that he received that info from SOMEONE the following day, but he's always been cagey about who that was.
But now he is alluding to it being John McQueary.
She was 100% accurate.......the "shower" incident was the ONLY incident that returned a "acquitted" on the top count (Involuntary Deviate Sexual Interourse).....but that is a minor issue.
Whether that charge resulted in a "guilty" or an "acquitted"...
The KEY issue - clearly - is that the "shower" incident was completely and utterly extraneous wrt the ability to convict Sandusky as a CSA.
The "shower" incident had NO IMPACT wrt the Trial and Conviction of Jerry Sandusky. ZERO.
AND YET, until the prosecution procured (or was forced to recognize) the "shower incident" testimony, the investigation - let alone the prosecution - of Sandusky was dying on the vine down in Harrisburg.....
A process and a decision that initiated the long laundry list of catastrophic events that WenSilver listed.
Why?
Answers here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/barry-fenchak/time-for-a-review/1552566431719488
Its time for everyone to wake up and smell the coffee.
(well, most folks, anyway)
