OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
You are welcome to your opinion Connor. I respectfully disagree. I think that Sandusky was attempting to bond with kids by doing things with them like taking them to the looker room, working out with them, going to football games with them, horsing around with them, playing games with them, swimming with them, and genrally wanting the kids to enjoy themselves. If he was doing it for a sexual reason, then he is sick and should have to face the punishment that society deems appropriate. I don't believe that the motivation for Sandusky's interactions with kids was in any way sexual. If you do, please cite SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrate sexual intent. Imho, the interactions with physical contact in the shower with v2 and v6 do not demonstrate sexual intent beyond a reasonable doubt so please refer to something else if you can. I doubt you will as I have been asking this question for years and have yet to get a clear and convincing answer that demonstrates sexual intent.
These post-arrest accusations are more than just questionable. Jerry Sandusky DID NOT EVEN KNOW more than half of them. John Ziegler provided the full list of accusers and separately asked both Jerry and Dottie to confirm which ones the Sandusky's knew. Both provided the exact same names.
Considering this article was published just after the arrest, it shouldn't surprise anyone who whole bunch of con artists came out of the woodwork
https://www.businessinsider.com/civil-suits-could-cost-penn-state-more-than-100-million-2011-11
Logic would indicate that the two post-arrest accusers that were actually brought to trial would be the most credible. And both their stories are pathetic. Victim 9, Sebastian Paden is the only one who testified to anal rape (conveniently after the GJ report was released that falsely claimed anal rape was witnessed). He also claimed to be locked in the Sandusky's basement for days (though the basement did not lock from the outside) and claimed to be at the Sandusky's house every weekend despite the fact that the time period in which he claimed abuse was the exact same time period that keystone accuser Aaron Fisher also claimed abuse, but the two boys only met each other once. Also, despite supposedly being subjected to such unspeakable horrors, Paden attended a football game with Sandusky as a 19 year old man just weeks before the arrest.
Victim 10, Ryan Rittmeyer is another accuser whom both Jerry and Dottie Sandusky did not even recognize. He also gave a TV Interview after the trial in which he contradicts his trial testimony, something noted by Ray Blehar, who does not believe Sandusky to be innocent.
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/victim-10s-tv-interview-inconsistent.html
Last edited:
Franco, you are losing your way here. Everything you mention there is indeed a way to bond with a kid. But you intentionally leave out having close physical contact with them alone in a shower. That is the issue. The rest of it is irrelevant.
I have pointed out over and over the specific evidence against Sandusky. He admitted once to showering alone with a child and bear hugging him. He agreed to never do it again. He was caught doing it again. Seriously, what evidence do you want? DNA, ten years later? Pictures?
It is unconscionable to think that naked bear hugging is an attempt at “bonding”. There is absolutely not one legitimate reason for him to ever have been in that situation once, let alone a second time.
Please don't conflate my support for someone who I believe has been falsely accused of CSA with support for CSA in any way whatsoever.
I believe that Sandusky got railroaded and is the victim of a zealous OAG prosecution that was motivated by a political hit job by Tom Corbett. I believe that John Snedden was spot on in his recommendation to renew Spanier's TS/SCI clearances. I believe that Ralph Cipriano blog on his bigtrial blog has been the best media/web reporting in the fiasco.
I know you don't like to answer my questions, but please surprise me and humor me with your responses to the following questions:
Do you think Tom Corbett bears any responsibility for his role in the fiasco?
Do you think Snedden got it right in recommending to renew Spanier's clearances?
Who do you think has done the best job of media/web reporting in this saga that have been going on now for around 7 years?
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html?m=1
Isn't the real issue sexual intent?
He admitted to hugging a child, but he was never indicated for that behavior. It's not normal or usual for a man to be sexually attracted to a boy. You can't just assume the contact described in these instances was sexually motivated.
None of what you said disproves my statement that there are allegations that span decades, which you previously claimed is not true.
It’s also important to remember that he knew V6 for less than a month when this incident occurred...and he told him he loved him and kissed him on the head. Less than a month.
You left “naked” out of hugging.
I’ve yet to be given any other legitimate reason for it. Cleaning up after a workout doesn’t cut it. Franco’s bizarre “bonding” theory isn’t even close.
It is not typical for a man to be sexually attracted to a boy. But it is a fact that some are. Are you denying that there are men that are attracted to boys?
I believe the issue is sexual intent.
Having physical contact with someone whether it is in a shower or not may or may not demonstrate sexual intent. I don't believe that a bear hug (whether in a shower or not) conclusively demonstrates sexual intent. I think sexual intent can be judged by behavior by answering the following questions -- Do they go on in the future and attempt to or engaage in sex? Are there any physical signs (e.g. an erection) that demonstrate arousal? I don't believe either of these things occurred with respect to v2 and v6.
Sandusky has stated that in 1998 he agreed to never shower with v6 again and in their 13 year relationship he never again did
Evidence that I am asking for is credible testimony from an accuser that convincingly demonstrates CSA including sexual activity and/or arousal.
I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on this question. Let's agree to disagree.
I'm not defending the behavior and I'm certainly not denying the existence of pedophiles. I'm simply pointing out that he was investigated for that specific incident and nothing came of it.
I’m not sure how you want to define credible. I believe you’ll find anything that says Sandusky sexually assaulted a boy to not be credible.
Last edited:
He then did it again and was charged, tried, and found guilty of it.
Let me ask you this Indy: If you agree that pedophiles do exist, do you agree that a pedophile would do exactly what Sandusky did by showering and having physical contact with boys?
Use the standard dictionary definition of credible. What is the specific evidence that you find credible?
Here is a link to AM/v2's story of his letter to the editor to the Centre Daily Times.
http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclu...ng-sandusky-after-sara-ganim-article-came-out
Here is a link to the interview/statement that AM/v2 gave to Curtis Everhart (Joe Amendola's invstigator).
http://www.framingpaterno.com/sites/default/files/Interview_Vic_2_Redacted.pdf
That’s an interesting read. Pretty concrete statements by him. I will say that from years and years of working with kids who have been/are currently suspected of being sexually abused they almost always deny it is occurring. My hope is always that I can lay the groundwork for them to open up about it down the line. Are you open to that possibility in this case?
He was charged, tried and convicted ten years later for something that didn't even warrant a call to DPW with a boy who would later invite Jerry and Dottie to his wedding and who is on record stating he was not abused that night or ever.
I'll repeat myself. Nothing I believe to be true makes any sense if Jerry is innocent. So, in answer to your question, yes. A pedophile might use that situation to groom and test the waters. However, all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. IOW, that doesn't mean it was happening here.
Of course it's possible. But what happens when you follow the money? Is what he said for $ millions more credible than what he said free and of his own volition?
I heard AM testify at Sandusky’s PCRA hearing. I did not find his testimony that he was abused at all credible.
And if they do exist, and you go by the accepted profile of a pedophile, they would be in possession of pornography, and would admit to their crimes once they were convicted.
OK. Tell me of any instance you know of where an unrelated man twice showered with a boy involving physical contact.
But you do find his statements given to a Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer to be credible, correct?
I mean, it’s the same person. If you believe him to be dishonest in one instance, how can you really believe him to be credible in the other instance?
I will agree with you that the lack of pornography is an oddity in his case. Is there a possible explanation for this? I don’t know. But it definitely does not fit the perpetrator profile. But the naked showering and physical contact with two separate boys after, the second after promising not to do so again trumps that.
As I have said for years now, I continue to be open to anything in this situation. I hope that Jerry was really just “bonding” with these boys in a completely inappropriate way. I hope that he really is just some immature simpleton who never grew up and couldn’t figure out just how completely and unquestionably inappropriate his actions were but was able to mastermind some of the best defenses in college football history. I really do. I just can’t see how it’s possible.
This thread sucks. I want to hear about Fina. I don't want to have to wade through thousands of posts that contain exactly zero information that hasn't already been debated ad nauseam in many other threads. It's the same stuff over and over on both sides. If there is new news on Fina, please post it in another thread since this thread i hijacked beyond revival.
There have been many claimed Elvis sightings over the past few decades as well. That certainly doesn't prove Elvis is alive.
If you are going to argue that Sandusky is a child molester, at least do so on the basis that you find Aaron Fisher or Brett Swisher Houtz credible. There stories are problematic, but they are worthy of some honest debate. The fact that a few dozen men came out of the woodwork AFTER it was announced the PSU would be paying out millions to Sandusky accusers proves nothing.
When an individual gives two contradictory accounts about a certain event, it is very likely the account in which the individual did not have a huge multi-million dollar financial incentive to tell is likely the correct one.
You mean to tell me you question the credibility of a guy who was shown a picture of himself and Sandusky at his own wedding and then saying "I can't remember" when asked when and where the picture was taken!
In cases of child abuse, it is very likely that the denial of the abuse is just a step towards acceptance that the abuse occurred.
He did more than deny abuse. He came forward on his own volition and gave a statement defending Sandusky. I see someone could be too afraid to come forward, but if that was the case, Myers would have just stayed home and been quiet.
Plus, Myers' attorney, Andrew Shubin, has been proven to have given a false statement to the OAG just after Myers flipped on Sandusky. I would think if the guy was really abused, his attorney wouldn't have to lie about what happened. Ray Blehar, who does not believe Sandusky is innocent, writes about it here:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/06/andrew-shubin-dismissed-by-govt-as-not.html
I was involved in numerous prosecutions of child molesters, most of whom were not found to be in possession of porn. I'm not sure it's been decided that proves anything.
There in no question that any good lawyer would be able to impeach AM’s testimony. Are you lying when you said you were abused or when you said your weren’t abused. In either case, you are an admitted liar.
That being said, I believe he was lying when he said he was abused based on his testimony including not being to recall key things that had happened in the past that didn’t fit his narrative concerning his relationship with Sandusky and other things that they did together. I can also give you over 3 million other reasons to help you to understand his motivation.
I don't care what his role was, if the police ever question you about showering with a child and make you agree not to do it again, no normal rational human being EVER puts himself in that position again. Unless, of course, they can't help theirself.
So if you asked me if I was abused, and I say "no", your response would be "Oh, he's just in denial. He must have been abused." Or is it possible that I wasn't abused?
It’s really difficult to understand the abused mind. To say that Jerry’s (for you sake, I’ll call them alleged) victims only came out for money is no more legitimate than to say they were willing to come out once they saw that it was safe to do so. Safety in numbers and all.
Now, are there people that will capitalize on the unfortunate situations of others? Surely. It’s tough to really prove one way or the other. But showering and bear hugging boys in the shower is a pretty big step in the direction of pedophile.
My response to you would be that? Absolutely not.
Honestly, I am pretty open minded in situations like these. I would not pressure you to say anything. Just allow you the opportunity say so and let you know my door is always open if you have anything you want to talk about. If you came to me and said you were taking a shower with a mentor from the community agency and he gave you a big hug in the shower and lifted you up, I would wait until you were done talking and immediately get on the phone with social services.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-
