How did the victim’s father feel about it?
Better yet, concerning the Mike McQueary shower “victim”, who did that boy have stand in for his absent father at his Senior night high school football game?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How did the victim’s father feel about it?
Regardless, my point was that it is hard to prove sexual abuse.
Not without question. But I also wouldn't assume a sexual component existed. I'm not one of those people that thinks there's a pedophile around every corner. Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
Not without question. But I also wouldn't assume a sexual component existed. I'm not one of those people that thinks there's a pedophile around every corner. Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
Not without question. But I also wouldn't assume a sexual component existed. I'm not one of those people that thinks there's a pedophile around every corner. Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
How did the victim’s father feel about it?
Unfortunately, most of America has been conditioned to believe just that. I've come to the point where I won't even touch another person's kid on the shoulder out of fear of being suspected of such nefarious intentions. A world gone mad.
Which victim? I don’t recall. Fill me in, though the father’s feelings on it are not necessarily relevant to what Sandusky’s intentions were.
Not in this case it wasn't. Much of it was contrived bullshit.
So you are saying some of it was legit, right? If much of it was contrived, than some of it was not.
Which victim? I don’t recall. Fill me in, though the father’s feelings on it are not necessarily relevant to what Sandusky’s intentions were.
Uh... you were talking about showering, so obviously the victim from the shower, victim #2. So how do you think he feels about it?
Most. The rest was not provable, and no one attempted to do so.
You would do anything to disparage Paterno and Penn State, wouldn't you?
Go find a hobby or a job.
JVP did.The merits of the case can be debated until we run out of air. The important question is: If you have any young males in your family, would you feel safe leaving them alone with Sandusky?
"known only by God"Better yet, concerning the Mike McQueary shower “victim”, who did that boy have stand in for his absent father at his Senior night high school football game?
To compare and contrast, Graham Spanier was found guilty by a jury of alleged peers. He surely was not guilty of EWOC, yet that is the hat with which you will hang your argument on. That is flimsy ground at best. NO ground more likely.The trial was curious at best.
Regardless, he was found guilty by 12 of his peers. Earlier you implied that he was guilty by the public. While that is true, he also had a full trial and was found guilty there as well.
Was he in on “The Fix” or was he “convinced” to “play ball or suffer the consequences”?
To compare and contrast, Graham Spanier was found guilty by a jury of alleged peers. He surely was not guilty of EWOC, yet that is the hat with which you will hang your argument on. That is flimsy ground at best. NO ground more likely.
Amendola was unprepared and incompetent to repersent SAndusky. SMall fish; Big pond. The Prosecution/OAG outright LIED to the public and to the jury. Those scars tainted the ability of Sandusky to have a fair trial. For God's sake, the Sandusky jury also convicted him of abusing an unknown victim without a witness.
If Sandusky were to win a new trial and be re-tried, I think it is all but a certainty that he is found not guilty of every charge against him.
I honestly don’t know. If true, that would be interesting.Wasn't it Heim who recommended Amendola to JS?
You should try coaching 7/8 grade girl's soccer ... especially in August when practices first start.Unfortunately, most of America has been conditioned to believe just that. I've come to the point where I won't even touch another person's kid on the shoulder out of fear of being suspected of such nefarious intentions. A world gone mad.
‘98 was also the same situation.
How has he said he feels about it?
We've discussed this before. Seasock's report mentions another coach in the locker room in '98(item 7). So, if another coach was present, were they alone?What I would hang my hat on would be Sandusky having a known and admitted behavior of showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them while doing so
I honestly don’t know. If true, that would be interesting.
I thought I had read that factoid somewhere on one of the many threads on this subject and filed it away. I was hoping someone could confirm or refute my hazy memory.
I agree, if true that would be
You do realize that you are answering my question by asking me the same question?
In fairness, he was found guilty in a court of law.
We've discussed this before. Seasock's report mentions another coach in the locker room in '98(item 7). So, if another coach was present, were they alone?
http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
We've discussed this before. Seasock's report mentions another coach in the locker room in '98(item 7). So, if another coach was present, were they alone?
http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
Yes. I don’t have the answer at the ready. Do you?
It reads like JS changed in the coaches locker area and that's presumably where the other coach was. It would also explain why the V thought they were alone.Interesting, but if there was another coach in the locker, why didn’t Sandusky mention it in his Ziegler interview? JZ has previously believed there was boy in the shower but Sandusky corrected him and said it was only ZK.
No, because my question was rhetorical.
No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?I am not hanging my hat on Sandusky having been found guilty. That was a response something Indy said.
What I would hang my hat on would be Sandusky having a known and admitted behavior of showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them while doing so. After all these years and all these defenses of Sandusky I have to see a reasonable explanation for it.
No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?
Agree, but we don't know for sure about the extent of the physical contact.Being alone with a boy and having physical contact with him horrible judgement (at best) in 1998. Being caught doing it again a couple years later is indefensible.
Didn't that victim testify that he wasn't assaulted that night?Better yet, concerning the Mike McQueary shower “victim”, who did that boy have stand in for his absent father at his Senior night high school football game?
Unfortunately, it seems everyone who asked for a hand out got 3 million from Uncle Ira.
All you had to do was to say you called the Coach, and that Coach was too preoccupied with football. That would have been a $3,000,000 phone call,I really wish I would have jumped on that bandwagon
Interesting. Thanks.
The point I expected to make was that you wouldn't answer the question. Hence why I called it a rhetorical question.
Peers? Did you read all the jury stuff?No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?