OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"

[Connorpozlee]

But that wasn't the argument that another poster (wbcincy) was making. He said "A shower alone with a 12 year old is never "just a shower." "

That was the point I was making. It can be a "just a shower." And there can be physical contact without it being sexual (that doesn't mean physical contact is appropriate, but inappropriate =/= sexual).

I don’t know the exact point wbcincy was making. If the point was that a shower alone with a 12 year is never just a shower then I would say that I disagree with that. It is inappropriate and suspicious, but it could be just a shower. Not sure why one would do that, but in a large locker room shower area, I see where that might occur. A shower alone with a 12 year old including bear hugs is absolutely being done with sexual intent. It defies logic to think that it isn’t.
Do you think, honestly, that Jerry was just innocently hugging and picking up the kid to show him affection?

 

[Connorpozlee]

That is a reasonable conclusion, but it is not the only reasonable conclusion.

Give me another one. Not just a shower, but a shower as described and admitted to by Jerry. Cleaning up after a workout certainly doesn’t cut it.

 

[PSU_Chicago]

what is up with Fina?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'm not saying that. I'm talking about the PSU related cases, none of which I believe holds water.

Jerry was convicted on about 40 of the 45 counts because the jury believed he abused AF. The jury believed AF because the OAG concocted multiple accusations out of thin air. It's a circular argument using only circumstantial evidence.

Each case has to be examined based on its own merits. When you do that, doubt creeps in. That's all I'm saying.

Do you have doubt creep in at all when he has been accused by men in the double digits of having abused them when they were kids and he has a known and admitted penchant of showering and bear hugging boys?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Give me another one. Not just a shower, but a shower as described and admitted to by Jerry. Cleaning up after a workout certainly doesn’t cut it.

Horsing around in the shower after a workout. Again, not acceptable, but not sexual.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Horsing around in the shower after a workout. Again, not acceptable, but not sexual.

Fair enough, if that’s what you believe. Any sane, functioning accountant or factory worker knows not to do those things. This guy was the head of a charity for children at risk. He surely knew not to do them.

 

[demlion]

With the benefit of hindsight, I’ve decided against that course of action.

Your patience is exceeded by your wisdom.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Fair enough, if that’s what you believe. Any sane, functioning accountant or factory worker knows not to do those things. This guy was the head of a charity for children at risk. He surely knew not to do them.

Even if Sandusky is neither sane nor functioning (which is very possible), that STILL doesn't inherently make horsing around in the shower sexual.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Your patience is exceeded by your wisdom.

My wife would agree with that 100%. And she would be happy to tell you that I have absolutely no patience.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Even if Sandusky is neither sane nor functioning (which is very possible), that STILL doesn't inherently make horsing around in the shower sexual.

Bear hugging in the shower is not horse play.
Have you ever showered alone with another person and had physical contact with them?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Horsing around in the shower after a workout. Again, not acceptable, but not sexual.

Even with 12 year old boys that aren't your own? Even after being told it's inappropriate already one time in your life? Really?

What was the blowing raspberries on the stomach of a 12 year old alone on a bed? Was that innocent as well?

 

[demlion]

Even if Sandusky is neither sane nor functioning (which is very possible), that STILL doesn't inherently make horsing around in the shower sexual.

When I was a boy scout in the early 70s, there was a simple rule followed by the adults in our Troop: 2 Adults at all times, no matter what. If one Scoutmaster called off sick right when we were getting to leave on a weekend campout, it was OVER unless one of the dads could go.

I cannot believe that JS never heard that rule and never knew what it was about: 1)If there is only 1 adult, and he gets hurt or killed, the kids are alone; and 2) if he goes apeshit and starts molesting/killing the kids, there is no adult to stop him. We were only given to understand the first one, but both applied. Did TSM have that rule?

How come Jerry always blew it off?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Bear hugging in the shower is not horse play.
Have you ever showered alone with another person and had physical contact with them?

I have not, but there are a lot of things that I haven't done, as I'm sure there are a lot of things you haven't done. Have you skinny dipped in Antarctica?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Even with 12 year old boys that aren't your own? Even after being told it's inappropriate already one time in your life? Really?

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you.

Your argument seems to be that because they were in a shower alone, it must have been sexual.

I postulate that this is incorrect, because while it COULD have been sexual, the circumstances alone do not mean it MUST have been sexual.

I really feel like this is pretty straightforward and I'm not sure why it gives you so much trouble.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you.

Your argument seems to be that because they were in a shower alone, it must have been sexual.

I postulate that this is incorrect, because while it COULD have been sexual, the circumstances alone do not mean it MUST have been sexual.

I really feel like this is pretty straightforward and I'm not sure why it gives you so much trouble.

LOL, I notice you didn't dare answer the question about him laying in bed with a boy and blowing raspberries on his stomach. Let me guess....it COULD have been innocent as well. It's cute that you hold out hope for Jerry still and somewhat try and defend that behavior.

 

[PSU2UNC]

When I was a boy scout in the early 70s, there was a simple rule followed by the adults in our Troop: 2 Adults at all times, no matter what. If one Scoutmaster called off sick right when we were getting to leave on a weekend campout, it was OVER unless one of the dads could go.

I cannot believe that JS never heard that rule and never knew what it was about: 1)If there is only 1 adult, and he gets hurt or killed, the kids are alone; and 2) if he goes apeshit and starts molesting/killing the kids, there is no adult to stop him. We were only given to understand the first one, but both applied. Did TSM have that rule?

How come Jerry always blew it off?

1) TSM was not the Boy Scouts. We have no idea what their official procedures were, although I agree that the above stated policy is a good one.

2) While we can only speculate as to what Jerry believed, I think with a number of TSM kids, he viewed them as his children (in fact, IIRC, he went on to foster or adopt TSM kids) which would (in his mind) make any TSM policies irrelevant.

For the record, I was a Scout in the 1980s and while we always had multiple adults with us on overnight trips, the adults weren't always together (i.e. one might keep tabs on each patrol), which in retrospect doesn't seem like it would be the best risk management option.

 

[PSU2UNC]

LOL, I notice you didn't dare answer the question about him laying in bed with a boy and blowing raspberries on his stomach. Let me guess....it COULD have been innocent as well. It's cute that you hold out hope for Jerry still and somewhat try and defend that behavior.

I agree that is odd and inappropriate behavior. But it's also not inherently sexual.

Are you familiar with East Asian culture? Have you encounter the Kancho before? This is very odd (to me) and involves intimate touching, but is not inherently sexual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanchō

 

[IANit]

When I was a boy scout in the early 70s, there was a simple rule followed by the adults in our Troop: 2 Adults at all times, no matter what. If one Scoutmaster called off sick right when we were getting to leave on a weekend campout, it was OVER unless one of the dads could go.

I cannot believe that JS never heard that rule and never knew what it was about: 1)If there is only 1 adult, and he gets hurt or killed, the kids are alone; and 2) if he goes apeshit and starts molesting/killing the kids, there is no adult to stop him. We were only given to understand the first one, but both applied. Did TSM have that rule?

How come Jerry always blew it off?

Apparently a lot of boy scout troops didn't follow that rule or in those that did the 2 adults were both sickos.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I have not, but there are a lot of things that I haven't done, as I'm sure there are a lot of things you haven't done. Have you skinny dipped in Antarctica?

What the hell does that question even mean? How is it relevant? Has Sandusky been found guilty of sexually abusing penguins?
I will answer anyway. I have not skinny dipped in Antarctica. However, I have been in a shower with another person before and had close physical contact with her. Every time it has led to sex.
While always consensual, I am assuming with the benefit of hindsight the other person in the shower would wish I had done less.

 

[Connorpozlee]

1) TSM was not the Boy Scouts. We have no idea what their official procedures were, although I agree that the above stated policy is a good one.

2) While we can only speculate as to what Jerry believed, I think with a number of TSM kids, he viewed them as his children (in fact, IIRC, he went on to foster or adopt TSM kids) which would (in his mind) make any TSM policies irrelevant.

For the record, I was a Scout in the 1980s and while we always had multiple adults with us on overnight trips, the adults weren't always together (i.e. one might keep tabs on each patrol), which in retrospect doesn't seem like it would be the best risk management option.

To answer point #2: YOU DO NOT SHOWER WITH YOU OWN CHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE TEN YEARS OLD AND BEAR HUG THEM! JERRY SANDUSKY VIEWING THESE CHILDREN AS HIS OWN DOES NOT EXCUSE HIM SHOWERING WITH AND BEAR HUGGING THEM!

 

[demlion]

Apparently a lot of boy scout troops didn't follow that rule or in those that did the 2 adults were both sickos.

It was the first one of your 2 choices.

 

[PSU2UNC]

What the hell does that question even mean? How is it relevant? Has Sandusky been found guilty of sexually abusing penguins?
I will answer anyway. I have not skinny dipped in Antarctica. However, I have been in a shower with another person before and had close physical contact with her. Every time it has led to sex.
While always consensual, I am assuming with the benefit of hindsight the other person in the shower would wish I had done less.

It's relevant because you make it sound as if you/I/we haven't done something then it is automatically some sort of deviant behavior (and for the record, I have skinny dipped in Antarctica, which is why I used that example).

How many times have you been in a large group shower (not the shower at your house) with another person where it lead to sex? I'm guessing zero, but maybe you have some "Dear Penthouse" stories to share with the group.

 

[demlion]

It's relevant because you make it sound as if you/I/we haven't done something then it is automatically some sort of deviant behavior (and for the record, I have skinny dipped in Antarctica, which is why I used that example).

How many times have you been in a large group shower (not the shower at your house) with another person where it lead to sex? I'm guessing zero, but maybe you have some "Dear Penthouse" stories to share with the group.

We have been over this. In a large group it does not even lead to touching. Of any kind. Until you introduce Mr. Pedophile and take away the large group of people.

 

[PSU2UNC]

We have been over this. In a large group it does not even lead to touching. Of any kind. Until you introduce Mr. Pedophile and take away the large group of people.

We have been over this but you and your clan doesn't seem to understand that just because something could happen, doesn't mean that it will happen.

I've slept in a hotel room with a woman who wasn't my girlfriend. Could we have had sex? Sure, it's possible. Did we? No because that's not why we were in the said hotel room.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It's relevant because you make it sound as if you/I/we haven't done something then it is automatically some sort of deviant behavior (and for the record, I have skinny dipped in Antarctica, which is why I used that example).

How many times have you been in a large group shower (not the shower at your house) with another person where it lead to sex? I'm guessing zero, but maybe you have some "Dear Penthouse" stories to share with the group.

Skinny dipping in the Antarctic sounds painful. Good for you for doing so.

I have never had sex in a large group shower.
But if I was going to, I would probably try to get that individual alone, initiate physical contact with the person, and bear hug the person from behind. If I was not wanting to have sex with the other person in the shower I would absolutely not do any of the things I just stated.

 

[demlion]

We have been over this but you and your clan doesn't seem to understand that just because something could happen, doesn't mean that it will happen.

I've slept in a hotel room with a woman who wasn't my girlfriend. Could we have had sex? Sure, it's possible. Did we? No because that's not why we were in the said hotel room.

So if 8 or 9 kids say it did happen, we should just ignore it because there is no video. Got it.

There are people whose professional life is tied up in stopping CSA. Is it just a coincidence that I have never seen a single one who thinks like you do, and a coincidence that they agree with those who say Jerry's a ped?

 

[PSU2UNC]

So if 8 or 9 kids say it did happen, we should just ignore it because there is no video. Got it.

Where did I say that?

All I'm doing is pointing out the flawed arguments being made (e.g. the only reason for them to be in a shower is sexual).

 

[demlion]

Where did I say that?

All I'm doing is pointing out the flawed arguments being made (e.g. the only reason for them to be in a shower is sexual).

So, did Jerry deny It? Yeah, once, on TV with costas, which made every one conclude he was lying, he did it so very UNconvincingly. And he had a trial where the kids said it and he did not deny it.

 

[francofan]

All that accused abuse were lying though?

What reason was Jerry in a shower alone having physical contact with them?

You have received a number of reasonable answers to your question, so I don't need to answer you again. You just don't want to acknowledge that they are reasonable.

I don't think all of the accusers are "lying", but I have strong suspicions that at least some of them are.

I have said that I don't believe that V6 is lying. He probably honestly believes that what Sandusky did to him was grooming/CSA. I don't believe he is knowingly lying but absent any unimpeachable evidence of sexual activity or arousal by Sandusky, it is not clear that what happened to v6 was CSA.

With respect to the other accusers, my understanding is that at least some of them went to psychologists to get some help to try to remember exactly what happened in their dealings with Jerry. While this therapy may help some survivors in their healing, I believe it is thought to be unreliable by memory experts. Imo, it is likely that any accuser who received memory therapy may not have knowingly lied and at the same time not given 100% accurate testimony.

I also think that it is extremely likely that one or more of the 36 claimants who received settlements from Penn State tailored their testimony so that is was not 100% accurate so that could received as large of a settlement from Penn State as possible.

I think it is also possible that some of the claimants may have given truthful testimony that they were abused by Sandusky.

Unimpeachable evidence of CSA by Sandusky has not been unearthed in 7 years imo. Therefore, I believe that it is more likely that none of the 36 claimants have given 100% accurate testimony. I have asked many times for specific information of CSA that is unimpeachable and all I have ever got was I the naked bear hugs in the shower blowing raspberries, the trial verdicts, and police telling Sandusky in 1998 to never again shower with kids. To me, none of this is unimpeachable evidence.

I am interested in testimony, physical evidence, circumstancial evidence or anything that leaves it no doubt that Sandusky committed CSA.

The general consensus is that accuser testimony is the best evidence in this case. I don't find the witness testimony from McQueary's, or Petrosky;s to be unimpeachable. There is a dearth of physical evidence. I don't believe that the circumstanial evidence that the prosecution has used is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accuser testimony that is probably the best evidence of CSA is that of v1. However I don't find it unimpeachable; especially if you are only looking at the evidence concerning v1.

I am not looking to shame any victims. I am not even looking to shame any claimants. I can't blame anyone for embellishing the truth to maximize a settlement. Getting away with what you can seems to be accepted practice in our society today and most of these claimants have not had easy lives. However, if it can be shown that any of the claimants got their settlements on false pretenses, then I believe they should have to answer for that.

Please tell me (using victim numbers or initials to protecct identity if you wish) what you believe is the specific strongest evidence that Sandusky committed CSA. I have been asking this question for years and I have not gotten any good answers so I am not expecting any now, but please provide me an answer if you can.

 

[PSU2UNC]

So, did Jerry deny It? Yeah, once, on TV with costas, which made every one conclude he was lying, he did it so very UNconvincingly. And he had a trial where the kids said it and he did not deny it.

He also denied it at his PCRA hearing.

 

[francofan]

So, did Jerry deny It? Yeah, once, on TV with costas, which made every one conclude he was lying, he did it so very UNconvincingly. And he had a trial where the kids said it and he did not deny it.

Not everyone has concluded he was lying. For example, Bob Costas has not concluded that he was lying. He recommended that anyone interested in the Penn State case should read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America."

"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendegrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."

 

[francofan]

He also denied it at his PCRA hearing.

Sandusky has maintained his innocence from day 1. He has never confessed to any acts of CSA.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

My wife would agree with that 100%. And she would be happy to tell you that I have absolutely no patience.

Also, the stool might have marred the shower floor. And then you'd have to fix it.

Or was the stool in Jerry's shower at home? I forget. It would be weird for him to have a stool in his basement shower stall.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I agree that is odd and inappropriate behavior. But it's also not inherently sexual.

Are you familiar with East Asian culture? Have you encounter the Kancho before? This is very odd (to me) and involves intimate touching, but is not inherently sexual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanchō

I wasn't aware of Jerry's deep Asian roots. So him blowing on a boys stomach alone in a bed was innocent IYO. Ok, just as long as you are going down that rabbit hole even further. LOL , man how far you have gone off the deep end here is pretty mind boggling.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Sandusky has maintained his innocence from day 1. He has never confessed to any acts of CSA.

No, he just made sure to buy a house with a deck overlooking a playground and stocked his basement with games that would be fun for boys 10-14.

So when there was a boy over, they'd be in the basement and when there wasn't, he'd sit on the deck & watch the neighborhood boys play.

Is that right?

 

[PSU2UNC]

I wasn't aware of Jerry's deep Asian roots. So him blowing on a boys stomach alone in a bed was innocent IYO. Ok, just as long as you are going down that rabbit hole even further. LOL , man how far you have gone off the deep end here is pretty mind boggling.

You cannot be this dense.

Your argument: "Blowing raspberries on someone's stomach must be sexual behavior."

My counter-argument: "Here is an example of something WAY weirder/more intimate (poking another person's anus), which is NOT considered sexual."

That's pretty straightforward.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You have received a number of reasonable answers to your question, so I don't need to answer you again. You just don't want to acknowledge that they are reasonable.

I don't think all of the accusers are "lying", but I have strong suspicions that at least some of them are.

I have said that I don't believe that V6 is lying. He probably honestly believes that what Sandusky did to him was grooming/CSA. I don't believe he is knowingly lying but absent any unimpeachable evidence of sexual activity or arousal by Sandusky, it is not clear that what happened to v6 was CSA.

With respect to the other accusers, my understanding is that at least some of them went to psychologists to get some help to try to remember exactly what happened in their dealings with Jerry. While this therapy may help some survivors in their healing, I believe it is thought to be unreliable by memory experts. Imo, it is likely that any accuser who received memory therapy may not have knowingly lied and at the same time not given 100% accurate testimony.

I also think that it is extremely likely that one or more of the 36 claimants who received settlements from Penn State tailored their testimony so that is was not 100% accurate so that could received as large of a settlement from Penn State as possible.

I think it is also possible that some of the claimants may have given truthful testimony that they were abused by Sandusky.

Unimpeachable evidence of CSA by Sandusky has not been unearthed in 7 years imo. Therefore, I believe that it is more likely that none of the 36 claimants have given 100% accurate testimony. I have asked many times for specific information of CSA that is unimpeachable and all I have ever got was I the naked bear hugs in the shower blowing raspberries, the trial verdicts, and police telling Sandusky in 1998 to never again shower with kids. To me, none of this is unimpeachable evidence.

I am interested in testimony, physical evidence, circumstancial evidence or anything that leaves it no doubt that Sandusky committed CSA.

The general consensus is that accuser testimony is the best evidence in this case. I don't find the witness testimony from McQueary's, or Petrosky;s to be unimpeachable. There is a dearth of physical evidence. I don't believe that the circumstanial evidence that the prosecution has used is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accuser testimony that is probably the best evidence of CSA is that of v1. However I don't find it unimpeachable; especially if you are only looking at the evidence concerning v1.

I am not looking to shame any victims. I am not even looking to shame any claimants. I can't blame anyone for embellishing the truth to maximize a settlement. Getting away with what you can seems to be accepted practice in our society today and most of these claimants have not had easy lives. However, if it can be shown that any of the claimants got their settlements on false pretenses, then I believe they should have to answer for that.

Please tell me (using victim numbers or initials to protecct identity if you wish) what you believe is the specific strongest evidence that Sandusky committed CSA. I have been asking this question for years and I have not gotten any good answers so I am not expecting any now, but please provide me an answer if you can.

Franco, I respect you and your approach. I disagree with you, but I do respect you. You typically approach this in a measured tone.
I still have not seen a reasonable response for why he would be in the position he was caught in. Honestly, there isn’t one that I could imagine.
You are wanting physical evidence that he committed these crimes. What eveidence would that be? Child porn on his computer? I agree with you that him not having that is an outlier. What other physical evidence would there be?
I’m not good at victim numbers or initials or any of that. I have been giving you the same evidence for two days now about him committing CSA. He was investigated after showering and bear hugging a boy in a shower in ‘98. He promised never to do that again. The alleged victim spoke to a therapist who said Sandusky was engaging in grooming behaviors. Again, no reasonable person thinks grooming behavior is the end of this process. Grooming is always done in an attempt to have a sexual relationship. After that incident he was found alone again in a shower in ‘01 (‘02? McQueary!!!!) with a boy. That’s enough for me. I think you are waiting for pictures or video or DNA evidence. I don’t think it exists. If that is your standard then you will be pushing for most criminals to be released from prison.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You cannot be this dense.

Your argument: "Blowing raspberries on someone's stomach must be sexual behavior."

My counter-argument: "Here is an example of something WAY weirder/more intimate (poking another person's anus), which is NOT considered sexual."

That's pretty straightforward.

LOL, you are so far down the hole that you dug with your very own stupidity, that you're getting so damn defensive. You basically cannot admit what Jerry is and that is fine....you want to keep pretending his actions were ok and not grooming. I don't care how you dance around it, but I do find it very odd that you are going to such lengths to dismiss Jerry and his grooming. It's pretty weird...but hey...I'm sure you have your reasons for it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

LOL, you are so far down the hole that you dug with your very own stupidity, that you're getting so damn defensive. You basically cannot admit what Jerry is and that is fine....you want to keep pretending his actions were ok and not grooming. I don't care how you dance around it, but I do find it very odd that you are going to such lengths to dismiss Jerry and his grooming. It's pretty weird...but hey...I'm sure you have your reasons for it.

I'm not getting defensive at all.

I'm providing logic as to why everything is not as obvious and you think it is (e.g. "A shower must be sexual") because you and your buddies are so invested in the narrative that you've lost the ability to think critically (or maybe you never had that ability).

 

[Osprey Lion]

Jerry is where he belongs. Get over it.

How could you possibly know that?

The thing that boggles my mind is how can you not know it.