Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son arrested for sexually assaulting a child

[kevina001]

Since you don't seem to remember the trial, here's a synopsis:

Victim 1 testified that Sandusky performed oral sex on him on multiple occasions.
Victim 2 is the McQueary incident.
Victim 3 testified that Sandusky fondled him.
Victim 4 testified to more than 50 instances of oral sex.
Victim 5 testified that Sandusky touched his genitals.
Victim 6 testified to the 1998 shower incident, but also testified that large portions of the shower incident are blocked from his memory.
Victim 7 testified that Sandusky repeatedly put his hand down the boy's underpants.
Victim 8 is the janitor incident.
Victim 9 testified that Sandusky forced him to perform anal and oral sex.
Victim 10 testified that Jerry forced him to perform oral sex.

And this was their story all along? I'll answer that for you. No.

Victim 1

• Denied abuse several times, including under oath in the grand jury
• Sandusky investigation was going nowhere based on his account until McQueary episode was unearthed, due to the shakiness of his stories.

Victim 2

• He wrote letters to the editor and the attorney general defending Sandusky after news of the grand jury investigation broke.
• Though he "couldn't remember" all of his statements he gave denying abuse ever took place, he acknowledged that he made them during his recent PCRA testimony.
• Acknowledged being the kid in the McQueary episode and said nothing happened that night, or ever.
• Story changed once he hired Andrew Shubin.

Victim 3

• He told police nothing inappropriate ever happened with Sandusky.
• His story changed to claim mild abuse after he got a lawyer (Andrew Shubin).

Victim 4

• He originally said nothing inappropriate happened, but lawyered up after news articles disclosed the grand jury investigation.
• There is an audio tape of investigators conspiring to lie to him in order to get him to finally claim a sex act against Sandusky.

Victim 5

• Changed initial story of abuse from occurring in 1998 to occurring in 2002 so that it was after the McQueary episode.

Victim 6

• Kid from the 1998 incident, who never remotely testified to any sexual acts.
• 1998 episode was investigated with no wrongdoing found.
• Maintained a relationship with Jerry (with Mother's knowledge and approval) long after the 1998 incident.

Victim 7

• He testified to the grand jury that no sexual abuse ever took place.
• Changed his story after hiring Andrew Shubin.
• Remembered his abuse through repressed memory therapy.

Victim 8

• Janitor incident. There is no known victim for this incident.
• The only witness had dementia and never testified.

Victim 9

• Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest.
• Claims to have eaten lunch with Sandusky and Paterno, and felt that Paterno knew all about what Sandusky was up to.
• Claimed to be screaming in Sandusky's basement for help with Dottie upstairs, but she never responded.

Victim 10

• Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest by calling a hotline number.
• Friends with Victim 3.
• Twice jailed for burglary and assault.

 

[Raffycorn]

So what you're actually saying is that you don't believe their testimony, not that they didn't testify that they were molested. Do I have that right?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And this was their story all along? I'll answer that for you. No.

Victim 1

• Denied abuse several times, including under oath in the grand jury
• Sandusky investigation was going nowhere based on his account until McQueary episode was unearthed, due to the shakiness of his stories.

Victim 2

• He wrote letters to the editor and the attorney general defending Sandusky after news of the grand jury investigation broke.
• Though he "couldn't remember" all of his statements he gave denying abuse ever took place, he acknowledged that he made them during his recent PCRA testimony.
• Acknowledged being the kid in the McQueary episode and said nothing happened that night, or ever.
• Story changed once he hired Andrew Shubin.

Victim 3

• He told police nothing inappropriate ever happened with Sandusky.
• His story changed to claim mild abuse after he got a lawyer (Andrew Shubin).

Victim 4

• He originally said nothing inappropriate happened, but lawyered up after news articles disclosed the grand jury investigation.
• There is an audio tape of investigators conspiring to lie to him in order to get him to finally claim a sex act against Sandusky.

Victim 5

• Changed initial story of abuse from occurring in 1998 to occurring in 2002 so that it was after the McQueary episode.

Victim 6

• Kid from the 1998 incident, who never remotely testified to any sexual acts.
• 1998 episode was investigated with no wrongdoing found.
• Maintained a relationship with Jerry (with Mother's knowledge and approval) long after the 1998 incident.

Victim 7

• He testified to the grand jury that no sexual abuse ever took place.
• Changed his story after hiring Andrew Shubin.
• Remembered his abuse through repressed memory therapy.

Victim 8

• Janitor incident. There is no known victim for this incident.
• The only witness had dementia and never testified.

Victim 9

• Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest.
• Claims to have eaten lunch with Sandusky and Paterno, and felt that Paterno knew all about what Sandusky was up to.
• Claimed to be screaming in Sandusky's basement for help with Dottie upstairs, but she never responded.

Victim 10

• Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest by calling a hotline number.
• Friends with Victim 3.
• Twice jailed for burglary and assault.

Victims not coming forward right away or standing up for the accuser isn't rare....you don't know that though I guess. All of these victims all said...let's GET PAID and now poor old Jerry is in jail. Odd thing is you said they all just had their hands on their knees and now you have the full blown JZ story line up there.

 

[BBrown]

No it makes some people do strange things. I don't know too many people who would say their father molested them just for money, but it doesn't mean it didn't or can't happen. I just think it's low hanging fruit used on this site and pushed down by JZ going back a year or two. The same JZ who has been exposed an attention whore and will do anything to get on any news media. Again..maybe he just tossed him under the bus when he saw the writing on the wall..it's possible...cold and f--king heartless, but possible.

Lajool you have a much more positive view of people than I do but then I'm the guy that just wants to live on a mesa top in NM, AZ or CO with a couple of German Shepherds as companions. LOL.

A little something to keep the post rolling ……Zig’s back
I cannot in good conscience give you the link, it's easy enough to find.

"Penn State truther John Ziegler on Kirk & Callahan: Jerry Sandusky’s son may have been set up"

Oh boy.

 

[kevina001]

So what you're actually saying is that you don't believe their testimony, not that they didn't testify that they were molested. Do I have that right?

Which testimony? Their testimony to the grand jury or investigators prior to lawyering up? Or their testimony in court, after lawyering up and having the incentive of a huge payday if they claimed abuse?

There is no question they lied at some point. You choose to believe they lied when there was no incentive to. I choose to believe they lied when there WAS incentive to. I don't know that I'm right, and neither do you. I just know I have logic on my side.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Wrong Pal, he testified that he NEVER saw anybody's genitals let alone seeing a "sex act" being performed with them! Saying you saw two people from behind in a shower and ZERO movement or vocalizations from either of them.....and then SPECULATING as to what you THINK might have been going on based on what you had heard several minutes earlier when you walked in the building and were walking down the hall to the lockerroom.....DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "eyewitness testimony" (DIRECT EVIDENCE in support of an Indictment) as legally defined by the PA Court you frigging always-wrong loudmouth! This is especially so when the party in question under oath in a court of law DENIES ever telling the prosecution that they "saw" such a thing (denies it under oath multiple times including the SWIGJ!) or could act as an "eyewitness" to such a thing and has clearly labelled their statements as to what MIGHT have been going on as SPECULATION on their part!!! And beyond especially so when the same party sends an e-mail to the OAG Prosecutors PRIOR TO THE TRIAL that they have read the OAG Prosecutors' "Presentment" and that the OAG has MISREPRESENTED what the party told them he SAW and that he CANNOT testify as an "eyewitness" (i.e., provide DIRECT EVIDENCE) to what they FALSELY claim he saw and that what they put in the "Presentment" is at diametric odds with what he TESTIFIED to under oath at the 30th SWIGJ!!!

ABSOLUTE KEY POINT!!!! MM's "rape version" was instrumental - NOT for the OAG case against Sandusky, but for providing the Penn State BANK necesaary to (1) FUND this illusion (2) Buy more "victims" (3) target Involve PSU senior level persons on which the Media would feast.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!! Take a look at this scandal these the clear glasses of reality and you will see what I mean. IF I was a corrupt group within the State's governmental operations and I was "grey using" the TSM organization to obtain/cover/hide "questionable" financial transactions by the "plausible denial" excuse of helping a "disadvantaged youth's charity"politically connected . The entire Sandsuky-TSM scandal starts to make sense. Based upon the publicly promoted "Paterno and Penn State Football Criminality".there is NO real support for ONE event in 2001 (even when considering the 1998 fully investigated event).to support anything like what the OAG/Freeh/Media has promoted.

The REAL issue STARTS with the $650K donations to Corbett's election war chest and the $3M "Grant" given to TSM. All this intense investigation and the TONS of unsupported mis-information that has been developed over the past 5 years and no one has the BALLS in our law enforcement and legal system in PA to realistically INVESTIGATE this issue - an issue which "it is reasonable to conclude" is just the tip of the iceberg!

Truth is - the reason for the quick trial and the ETERNITY necessary for the C/S/S trials is that Penn State needs to be linked to this so that the "Penn State Payouts" can be made WITHOUT QUESTION by a "controlled and hidden" BOT payment processing.

HERE IS THE REAL STORY!!!!!! Without the tie in to Penn State and the abuse of the LEGAL AUTHORITIES inherent in the BOT's hidden financial operations, this scandal could have never happened.

Wake up world.....ITS A MONEY GRAB by the very people that are elected to prevent such abuse. Sandusky - guilty or innocent - is NOTHING to the OAG. He is ONLY a method to the money!!!! They (a hidden group within the PA government) have been in the protection racket and we, as a population, are too damn dumb to see it. We - the public - like the bright shiny objects of fighting over "the Paterno Legacy" as the reasons to ignore the obvious!

In short......Penn State is essential only as the Bank for all of this.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Which testimony? Their testimony to the grand jury prior to lawyering up? Or their testimony in court, after lawyering up and having the incentive of a huge payday if they claimed abuse?

There is no question they lied at some point. You choose to believe they lied when there was no incentive to. I choose to believe they lied when there WAS incentive to. I don't know that I'm right, and neither do you. I just know I have logic on my side.

By logic you mean you ignore everything there is to know about victims of abuse and reporting...sure you have a ton of that logic going for you. Basically your logic is if they got paid, they are liars....all of them. That isn't logic, it's kind of like saying a prostitute can't be raped.

 

[francofan]

I'm not worried about Joe's name like you are. I'm also not saying his trial was unfair and I'm not going to answer your next post asking me why I feel that way again.

I didn't say you said his trial was unfair. I said that I never said the only way for Joe to clear his name is for Jerry to be found innocent. I then went on explained my opinion. You have attributed that I am suggesting that Jerry is innocent to clear Joe's name several times and I wish you would stop. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[dshumbero]

Since you don't seem to remember the trial, here's a synopsis:

Victim 1 testified that Sandusky performed oral sex on him on multiple occasions.
Victim 2 is the McQueary incident.
Victim 3 testified that Sandusky fondled him.
Victim 4 testified to more than 50 instances of oral sex.
Victim 5 testified that Sandusky touched his genitals.
Victim 6 testified to the 1998 shower incident, but also testified that large portions of the shower incident are blocked from his memory.
Victim 7 testified that Sandusky repeatedly put his hand down the boy's underpants.
Victim 8 is the janitor incident.
Victim 9 testified that Sandusky forced him to perform anal and oral sex.
Victim 10 testified that Jerry forced him to perform oral sex.

Who corroborated it all?

 

[kevina001]

By logic you mean you ignore everything there is to know about victims of abuse and reporting...sure you have a ton of that logic going for you. Basically your logic is if they got paid, they are liars....all of them. That isn't logic, it's kind of like saying a prostitute can't be raped.

So when you say "everything there is to know about abuse and reporting", what do you mean? I assume you mean that abuse victims rarely report it for fear of...whatever. I get that. But what happened in the weeks between initial questioning by investigators and the actual trial that gave them the bravery they needed to come forward? Isn't it odd that none of the "victims" came forward for all those years, then all of the sudden gathered the courage to do so all at the same time? I wonder what could have triggered such a reversal in course?

 

[Raffycorn]

Which testimony? Their testimony to the grand jury prior to lawyering up? Or their testimony in court, after lawyering up and having the incentive of a huge payday if they claimed abuse?

There is no question they lied at some point. You choose to believe they lied when there was no incentive to. I choose to believe they lied when there WAS incentive to. I don't know that I'm right, and neither do you. I just know I have logic on my side.

You're correct: I place far, far more weight on the sworn trial testimony given by the victims detailing their abuse in open court with their names on the record, facing their abuser, and undergoing vigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel.

In other words: all the factors that so many here have been saying for years is what has so far prevented us from finding the truth about Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So when you say "everything there is to know about abuse and reporting", what do you mean? I assume you mean that abuse victims rarely report it for fear of...whatever. I get that. But what happened in the weeks between initial questioning by investigators and the actual trial that gave them the bravery they needed to come forward? Isn't it odd that none of the "victims" came forward for all those years, then all of the sudden gathered the courage to do so all at the same time? I wonder what could have triggered such a reversal in course?

Victims of abuse have their abuser walk them down the aisle as adults. Victims of abuse sit at family dinners with their abusers as adults. Outing a very influential figure in the community/state and a man that ran a flagship charity for children isn't exactly that easy I would imagine. Prosecutors often have to push people into testifying when they are afraid to or don't want to deal with it. That doesn't make them all liars. I mean if you discount than mans obsession for being alone with young children, ignoring orders to stop showering with kids, and his victims saying he's a monster and he did INDEED molest them....sure you can try and say poor Jerry. I love posts like yours because everyone hear kicks and screams about my posts saying he is guilty, but when I say there are cult like people here who think Jerry is innocent and hiding behind the fair trail card...they act like you don't exist. At least you wear it like a trophy...congrats on that I guess.

 

[kevina001]

Victims of abuse have their abuser walk them down the aisle as adults. Victims of abuse sit at family dinners with their abusers as adults.

Do victims of abuse, once receiving a cash settlement stemming from this abuse, typically post pictures of themselves on the internet bathing in a bed full of their newfound cash "Indecent Proposal" style? Just a hypothetical question.

 

[coveydidnt]

Do victims of abuse, once receiving a cash settlement stemming from this abuse, typically post pictures of themselves on the internet bathing in a bed full of their newfound cash "Indecent Proposal" style? Just a hypothetical question.

At a casino/hotel? Yes lots of people in general do post funny pictures on facebook when they are on vacation.

But I think you know that. Let me ask this. How much money was on that bed? There are a few $20s and the rest are $1s. Maybe $200?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Do victims of abuse, once receiving a cash settlement stemming from this abuse, typically post pictures of themselves on the internet bathing in a bed full of their newfound cash "Indecent Proposal" style? Just a hypothetical question.

JZ has trained you well....AF is the devil and since he grew up f--ked up...FREE JERRY BRUH!!!!! Did all 8 victims do that? Oooooohhhh,,,,that answer is NOPE. One did and since he did...that clearly means JS is innocent and they all lied. Maybe you can get MtNitt to post it again as that there is smoking evidence of Jerry's innocence.

 

[kevina001]

I think the type of "victims" we have here is an overlooked point. The media obviously was going to play them up as these poor, unfortunate souls, etc. But these guys are the dregs of society, to be honest. Aaron Fischer? Matt Sandusky? These guys are scum. Other victims had records as well. I happen to think they may be capable of lying to cash in on this.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I think the type of "victims" we have here is an overlooked point. The media obviously was going to play them up as these poor, unfortunate souls, etc. But these guys are the dregs of society, to be honest. Aaron Fischer? Matt Sandusky? These guys are scum. Other victims had records as well. I happen to think they may be capable of lying to cash in on this.

So every victim now had a record. Jerry's charity was based on helping out kids that came from crap backgrounds and yet the ones he abused didn't all turn out to be model citizens. Another shocking turn of events that the tickle monsters help didn't set them down a straight path. They are all lying money hungry POS and poor Jerry was just a goofy silly guy that these guys all planned to get rich off of. They planned this as kids and it was executed as adults....clearly the prosecution should have had more victims testify. 8 didn't prove a thing.

 

[coveydidnt]

I think the type of "victims" we have here is an overlooked point. The media obviously was going to play them up as these poor, unfortunate souls, etc. But these guys are the dregs of society, to be honest. Aaron Fischer? Matt Sandusky? These guys are scum. Other victims had records as well. I happen to think they may be capable of lying to cash in on this.

If they are criminals, were their crimes committed before or after they were sexually assaulted?

 

[kevina001]

They are all lying money hungry POS and poor Jerry was just a goofy silly guy that these guys all planned to get rich off of.

For the record, I am not proposing that Jerry is totally innocent in all of this. I think that Jerry was a creepy guy who probably did have some sort of physical attraction to young boys. But I'm also pretty confident that he never committed any sort of sexual acts with any boys. I believe that the "victims" who testified that he did commit sexual acts embellished their stories at the direction of lawyers and quack therapists in order to get paid.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

For the record, I am not proposing that Jerry is totally innocent in all of this. I think that Jerry was a creepy guy who probably did have some sort of physical attraction to young boys. But I'm also pretty confident that he never committed any sort of sexual acts with any boys. I believe that the "victims" who testified that he did commit sexual acts embellished their stories at the direction of lawyers and quack therapists in order to get paid.

You think he is creepy and attracted to young boys, but are confident he didn't molest them?

Alrighty then. good talking to you.

 

[kevina001]

You think he is creepy and attracted to young boys, but are confident he didn't molest them?

Alrighty then. good talking to you.

Have you ever been physically attracted to a 17 year old girl?

Or, if you are married, or ever had a girlfriend, have you ever been attracted to someone other than your wife/girlfriend?

Did you act on this attraction?

 

[Raffycorn]

I think the type of "victims" we have here is an overlooked point. The media obviously was going to play them up as these poor, unfortunate souls, etc. But these guys are the dregs of society, to be honest. Aaron Fischer? Matt Sandusky? These guys are scum. Other victims had records as well. I happen to think they may be capable of lying to cash in on this.

Don't worry - people like you always seem to relish in making us remember that some of Jerry's victims might have had criminal records. Even if they did, none of them committed a crime even close to the same level of severity as their abuser did.

The media portrayed the victims the way that they did because they are all sexually abused when they were children and had the courage to testify against their abuser in order to put him in prison. You don't believe that any of them are victims, which is your prerogative however abhorrent that belief is.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Have you ever been physically attracted to a 17 year old girl?

Or, if you are married, or ever had a girlfriend, have you ever been attracted to someone other than your wife/girlfriend?

Did you act on this attraction?

Wow...doubling down now. Well if nobody ever acted on that like you stated...there would be no such thing as pedophiles I guess...so maybe they are just like unicorns. They all are liars and pedophiles aren't real. @Mixolydian Please read this string and then tell me that the cult isn't real?

 

[kevina001]

You don't believe that any of them are victims, which is your prerogative however abhorrent that belief is.

Would it be an abhorrent belief if in fact these "victims" aren't really victims? That line of thinking right there is what caused this whole Penn State "scandal".

People just lose their minds when the topic of child sex abuse comes up. If anyone is ever accused of it, rightly or wrongly, their life is over. And anyone who is even tangentially involved (Paterno et al) must be awful and should burn in hell as well. No amount of logic or reason matters.

 

[kevina001]

Wow...doubling down now. Well if nobody ever acted on that like you stated...there would be no such thing as pedophiles I guess...so maybe they are just like unicorns. They all are liars and pedophiles aren't real. @Mixolydian Please read this string and then tell me that the cult isn't real?

You didn't answer the question. Have you ever been physically attracted to a 17 year old girl? I'm not talking about everyone. I'm talking about you. Or would it be hypothetically possible for you to be physically attracted to a 17 year old girl? Please answer.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You didn't answer the question. Have you ever been physically attracted to a 17 year old girl? I'm not talking about everyone. I'm talking about you. Or would it be hypothetically possible for you to be physically attracted to a 17 year old girl? Please answer.

Justifying for Jerry!!!! You are awesome! These were10 year old boys, so NO in this instance.

 

[kevina001]

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

For the record, I am not proposing that Jerry is totally innocent in all of this. I think that Jerry was a creepy guy who probably did have some sort of physical attraction to young boys. But I'm also pretty confident that he never committed any sort of sexual acts with any boys. I believe that the "victims" who testified that he did commit sexual acts embellished their stories at the direction of lawyers and quack therapists in order to get paid.

I've said "for the record" multiple times that I think it is more likely, than not, that Sandusky is guilty due to his inability to stick to his commitment to Schreffler in the 1998 Incident in the final interview. However, this has zero to do with whether he received a fair trial or whether his Constitutionally-protected due process rights were intentionally violated via prosecutorial misconduct (i.e., the subject-matter of his PCRA). Additionally, my opinion is based on a more-likely, than not, standard which is not standard for a criminal prosecution (which is beyond any reasonable doubt).

In any event, my belief that he is likely guilty of some form of Child Abuse (his personal Charity's hand picked executives are also likely guilty of some type of serious child-endangerment charges for failing repeatedly prevent these situations despite many complaints over the years) is really irrelevant to whether he received a "fair trial" or whether his constitutionally-guaranteed rights were violated or whether the OAG Prosecutors knowingly engaged in prosecutorial misconduct including intentionally conjuring and trumping-up the claim of "Direct Evidence" that supported their Indictment which NEVER existed and the corrupt prosecutors knew NEVER existed (including receiving an e-mail PRIOR TO TRIAL from the supposed "eyewitness" who would provide the only "Direct Evidence" they cited in their Indictment which defacto stated that he had read the prosecution's "Presentment" and Indictments and that the prosecution had badly misrepresented his statements, including his SWIGJ testimony, as to what he saw or could testify to seeing under oath!).

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Game. Set. Match.

Good deal, I didn't know when you would quit as you took an absolute Jerry in the arse type of pounding in this thread. You're sitting there trying to justify the mans attraction to children as a reason why he didn't molest them. Most men don't have 8 women saying they raped or groped them or got them alone, but since some are attractive in your head...Jerry is innocent. I think we found Jeffrey!!!!!

 

[kevina001]

You're sitting there trying to justify the mans attraction to children as a reason why he didn't molest them. Most men don't have 8 women saying they raped or groped them or got them alone, but since some are attractive in your head...Jerry is innocent. I think we found Jeffrey!!!!!

I don't know that Jerry is attracted to children. It's just a hypothesis of mine. I agree that it is odd that he was told to stop showering with kids and he continued to do it. So that is my way of making sense of that. I don't know, and neither do you. But I maintain that there is no evidence...NONE. that he ever sexually assaulted anyone. And no one ever even testified to it....in fact they denied it when asked....until the lawyers and lure of the money were present.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't know that Jerry is attracted to children. It's just a hypothesis of mine. I agree that it is odd that he was told to stop showering with kids and he continued to do it. So that is my way of making sense of that. I don't know, and neither do you. But I maintain that there is no evidence...NONE. that he ever sexually assaulted anyone. And no one ever even testified to it....in fact they denied it when asked....until the lawyers and lure of the money were present.

No you deny the sworn testimony under oath at his trial because you don't want to believe it. That is fine, people love to live in denial. It's like how some kids know Santa is fake, but don't want to admit to it. 8 people testified to it and the jury easily bought it. I think it was Nate Bauer who had to sit through the trial with BWI and he stated the victims testimony was pretty powerful. You can live in your fantasy world because the truth is too much for you to handle, but Jerry did molest children and more than just what testified. If he ever did win a new trial...it would get even uglier.

 

[AWS1022]

Who the F knows, anything is feasible, but half of the written article ensures that the public does not forget the names of the culprits that enabled “Jeffs” actions.

"Jerry Sandusky was at the center of a child sexual abuse scandal that rocked Penn State University in 2011, and is currently in prison.
A grand jury report accused Jerry Sandusky, a retired Penn State defensive coordinator, of sexually abusing eight boys over at least 15 years. A report conducted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh accused Penn State leaders of showing "total and consistent disregard" for the victims of child sex abuse and covering up Sandusky's abuse.
The scandal led to the firing of legendary head coach Joe Paterno and University President Graham Spanier, as well as charges for other administrators.
Sandusky was found guilty in 2012 of 45 charges related to the yearlong sexual abuse, and he was sentenced to no less than 30 years in prison."

Penn State said in 2013 that it had reached settlements totaling $59.7 million with 26 of Sandusky's victims.

She's a one trick pony. If she wrote an article about Kim Jong Un she would somehow tie it to Sandusky because that's all she knows. No wonder she's a weather girl now.

 

[Mixolydian]

Wow...doubling down now. Well if nobody ever acted on that like you stated...there would be no such thing as pedophiles I guess...so maybe they are just like unicorns. They all are liars and pedophiles aren't real. @Mixolydian Please read this string and then tell me that the cult isn't real?

This is why I stay out of this part of the discussion. As I have said, I too have some doubts about how far he ever went with any individual victim, but unlike some I have almost no doubt that he went too far and something is very wrong with him. His judgement sucks. He caused enormous harm to a University that I (used to?) love. I went there. My daughter goes there now. The place still means a lot to me. Aspects of his trial were very strange. He is behind bars. I truly have no sympathy for his situation. I can't match your outrage on this topic for whatever reason. I guess it's because he is behind bars, and I fully expect him to stay there.

CSS on the other hand haven't had their trials yet. They deserve the benefit of the doubt, a fair hearing of their side and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So far after 5.5 years all they have received is dropped charges.

Like I said earlier, I am not sure our views are that different. We are just outraged by the two different aspects of the scandal.

Thanks for the tag.

 

[greenmanRD]

did this thread seriously turn into, "have you ever been attracted to a 17 year old girl before?" Jesus.

 

[step.eng69]

 

[21Guns]

Since you don't seem to remember the trial, here's a synopsis:

Victim 1 testified that Sandusky performed oral sex on him on multiple occasions.
Victim 2 is the McQueary incident.
Victim 3 testified that Sandusky fondled him.
Victim 4 testified to more than 50 instances of oral sex.
Victim 5 testified that Sandusky touched his genitals.
Victim 6 testified to the 1998 shower incident, but also testified that large portions of the shower incident are blocked from his memory.
Victim 7 testified that Sandusky repeatedly put his hand down the boy's underpants.
Victim 8 is the janitor incident.
Victim 9 testified that Sandusky forced him to perform anal and oral sex.
Victim 10 testified that Jerry forced him to perform oral sex.

Those are the ones we KNOW OF.

 

[PSU2UNC]

BS. He clearly testified that he witnessed a sex act and the jury convicted Sandusky on the charge. Just because he didn't witnessed penetration doesn't mean that what he witnessed and testified to wasn't a sex crime. It was and Sandusky was convicted on the indecent assault charge (which is a sex crime despite your attempts to claim it isn't).

A sex act and a sex crime are two different things. He did not testify that he anything that anyone would define as a sex act (intercourse, sodomy, manual stimulation), but he did testify to things that are a crime.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

A sex act and a sex crime are two different things. He did not testify that he anything that anyone would define as a sex act (intercourse, sodomy, manual stimulation), but he did testify to things that are a crime.

He is also absolutely incorrect regarding the following:

BS. He clearly testified that he witnessed a sex act and the jury convicted Sandusky on the charge.

Sandusky was acquitted of the charge related to the Count alleging the sex act that the State alleged MM "eyewitnessed" and would testify to seeing - and one of the biggest reasons Sandusky was acquited of that count, DSI, was MM's testimony was the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what the State claimed it would be (and apparently was consistent with his SWIGJ testimony that he did not see or eyewitness a sex act, let alone the one alleged by the OAG, and NEVER told anyone he had). The prosecution asking someone to speculate as to what they "think" was going on is not "eyewitness" testimony (i.e., "Direct Evidence" as opposed to circumstantial evidence) and it is laughable to claim it is.

 

[psulion2001]

Gotta love the character attacks on the victims by the Free Jerry creeps. Basically every sociological study EVER comes to the conclusion that those who are molested are exponentially at higher risk for drugs, crime, behavioral issues, etc.

Jackasses.

 

[bjf1991]

How many times do I need to tell you. I have never said that the only way to clear Joe's name is if Jerry is found innocent. I believe that Joe's name will eventually be cleared whether or not Jerry is innocent. If Jerry is determined to be innocent, then the is no question that Joe's name will be cleared. Since I don't believe Jerry got a fair trial, I think it is about time to have a new fair trial to determine whether or not he is innocent.

You might as well talk to a doorknob as LaJolla


Unfortunately