OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
Please provide sourcing for this statement.
You seem to be struggling with acceptance of a cold hard fact. If you refuse to accept such a simple premise I can't imagine debating with you on some of the more vague areas of this scandal.
Allow me to help make it very clear:
(1) A decade is 10 years. Fact.
(2) The term "decades" indicates plurality, or more than one. Fact.
(3) There are accusations claiming the abuse happened as far back as the 70s and there are accusations of abuse taking place in the 2000's such as the McQueary incident. If you disbelieve this, go read the media articles that reported the accusations. Fact.
(4) The time span between the claimed first and last abuse incidents is greater than 20 years. Fact.
From these 4 facts my original statement that the accusations of abuse for Sandusky spanned decades is completely, 100%, undeniably factual. I have made no claims as to the accuracy of any of those accusations, I simply stated a very obvious fact that you seem to refuse to accept is reality for some reason.
Everything you say here is true, but you leave out one very important detail:
Not all accusations are created equal.
I can accuse Ariana Grande of sexually harassing me last night, but that doesn't mean it happened.
If you look at the substance of the accusations from the 1970s (the ones that have become public anyway), it becomes clear pretty quickly that most of them are very, very unlikely to have merit.
There's a very good reason I left that out. I never stated anything about whether the accusations were strong or weak or completely unfounded. I stated that the accusations of abuse spanned decades and RussianEagle has spent numerous posts trying to tell me that's not true, when it's a cold hard fact. If you want to talk about the accuracy of such accusations, that's an entirely different topic. I completely agree that those accusations from the 70s look like total hogwash. I think I even said so in an earlier post. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.
Agreed. It is a different topic entirely.
Perhaps I was assigning some subtext to your posts that weren't there. My apologies.
I know his Mom accompanied him to the Everhart interview, but I am not aware of anything she had said. Do you have any information on her role on what she has said.
It would be very interesting to hear what she has to say now. I believe she had worked for Shubin at some point.
Again, I think you're reading it wrong. I think he was admonished by the police for his own protection. Once it was established that there was no sexual intent, they weren't worried about the kid. They were worried about JS being sued.
"You're taking a huge risk, Mr. Sandusky."
"Thanks officer, I won't do it again."
Jerry, stupidly, did it again because he knew that AM would never accuse him falsely. Of course, "never" becomes a relative term when you don't factor in all the variables. One being that AM's mother once worked for Andrew Shubin, Matt's attorney.
C/S/S faced the exact same situation in '01 that the police faced in '98 and they discussed Jerry's "appropriate future use of the University facilities". It's one thing for Jerry to take that risk. It's another when he does so on PSU property. PSU was a sitting duck.
Schultz wrote: "1. Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg."
"Avoid?" That's hardly laying down the law, is it? That's a far cry from, "Tell that pervert he can never set foot in our facilities again!"
They're not even saying JS can never come back himself or that he can never bring children with him. They're just afraid of what might happen if he brings kids to the facilities alone. "Alone." That one word gets to the heart of this whole affair.
What would he have had to have believed had happened for him to write that? That a child had been endangered? Maybe sexually assaulted? Of course not! He was not worried about the child at all. In fact, the boy is not even referenced once in any of their emails and notes! The only thing he's worried about is some random single mom with a troubled son and money problems lawyering up.
What do you think Spanier meant when he wrote, "The only downside for us if our message is not "heard" and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not reporting this." First of all, he couldn't have been worried about the incident at hand, otherwise he would have never stipulated that some possible future incident was the "only" downside. So what was this "message"? Don't abuse kids in our showers any more? That's ludicrous! No, it was, "Don't put yourself in a he said/he said situation in our facilities. We can't have you putting the university at risk like that."
When Curley told Jack Raykovitz about what happened and that Jerry was no longer permitted to bring TSM kids to Lasch, we all know he counter proposed that Jerry could just wear swim trunks in the shower. When that was rejected, he made arrangements for Jerry to continue working out with kids at the Hilton Garden Inn, which was part owned by TSM trustee, Bruce Heim. Based on their actions, is it reasonable to conclude that Raykovitz and Heim thought JS was a danger to these boys? Absolutely not!
This is only a case because somebody wanted PSU football to take the fall, rather than TSM. Tom Corbett is up to his eyeballs in this scam and you have to believe Fina is too!
My view on that is that since that incident was quite benign, Allan had forgotten much of the details of what exactly happened. He only knew that there was no abuse. Yet ironically, because he wanted to make a strong statement in favor of Jerry’s innocence,he felt a need to “fill in the gaps”
Likely Allan had read about the slapping sounds and wondered what could have been happened that McQueary thought something sexual was going on. His mother then suggested maybe him and Jerry were slapping towels. It made sense to Allan, and he included it in the statement.
The view that Allan’s mother wrote the statement exonerating Jerry all by herself while “poor little Allan” sat by too afraid to speak up is flat out ridiculous. Allan was a 24 year old married Marine at the time, not a little boy. And what incentive would Allan’s mother have to defend Jerry unless Allan was extremely passionate about Jerry’s innocence? Especially considering the behavior of the other mothers in this case. The mothers of V1, V6, and V9 were responsible for their sons turning on Jerry in the first place.
Last edited:
My posts were in response to you stating that the amount of victims spanning decades was an indicator of Sandusky’s potential for deception. If you admit these non-trial accusations were BS, how can any characteristics of Sandusky be gleaned from them?
I think Gary Gray may have drafted the letter and Allan signed it, but what does that prove other than that Allan is a very poor writer. Nobody forged Allan’s signature on the letter. By signing his name to the document and taking the trouble to mail it to the OAG and all those newspapers, Allan is showing that he 100% agrees with the contents of the letter and was very passionate about sharing it.
I agree that Curley, Schultz, Spaniel made their statements without concern that Jerry was a child abuser. Their perceptions are not what I'm getting at though. What I'm getting at is that no normal adult male showers alone at night with a 12 year old. Surrogate father, real father, I don't care what, nobody normal does that. And what absolutely nobody does (who isn't a pedophile) is continue doing that even after they were the subject of a sting operation regarding a previous time they got in a shower with a kid alone.
You're going into contortions to explain how it may have been so innocent. Again, no old adult male showers alone with kids. Not in the modern era, not in the old era, never. That was never ok. Jerry did. Then police questioned him about it and said not to again. He did it again anyway. That evidences a desire to shower with kids that is inexplicable beyond something very terrible.
Oh, and I should point out that police dont EVER engage in sting operations to help warn someone that they might get sued. Never. That has never happened in the history of policedom.
You're assigning a sexual component to this that doesn't match the facts as we know them to be. That event could have been as simple as Jerry calling up AM and saying, "If you get your homework done, I'll take you over to PSU to work out after dinner." It was a Friday, so not a school night. It was after hours, so they wouldn't be in people's way. And it was winter, so it got dark at 5:30. Showering afterwards was just part of the routine.
The argument I was trying to make in my previous post was that nobody thought JS was a pervert. They thought he was putting himself, and PSU, in a precarious position because of a possible he said/he said scenario.
The steps the police took in '98 (telling JS not to shower alone with kids, while not indicating him), C/S/S took in '01 (revoking his guest privileges, while not calling DPW), and Jack Raykovitz took in '01 (first suggesting Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower, then arranging alternate facilities for Jerry to continue his behavior) all have a common theme. They weren't concerned that children might be in danger, they were concerned that Jerry might be putting himself at risk.
And the facts bear this out. DPW, C/S/S, and Jack Raykovitz were all correct. Jerry did put himself at risk to the tune of probably spending the rest of his life in jail without there being any convincing evidence that was not subject to manipulation that he committed CSA.
Have you lobbied with your state representative to change PA's laws to consider your invented "not subject to manipulation" clause.
I say invented because it is.
But it might be a worthy change. Why aren't you doing anything about it?
I didn't invent get. I got it from NCIS Special Agent John Snedden.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html?m=1
And I agree that is what all those people were doing, and why. What I don't agree with, and never will, so we'll just have to disagree and move on, is that Jerry didn't have a sexual motivation. Old men do not shower alone with 12 year old kids. It's that simple. So when one does, it sends up a red flag. But hey, maybe he really was just weird enough he didn't realize why that was wrong. However, when he does it again after police have warned against it? Well then it's not just a red flag any longer, it's a pretty clear indication of why one would do that. There is simply no innocent explanation IMO for why an old man would refuse to follow police instruction on not showering with kids unless he cant help himself.
Police don't set up sting operations to help warn someone of the civil and criminal risks they're inviting. Also, Jerry put himself at risk by constantly molesting kids.
We're just going to have to disagree on that. Men aren't normally wired to be sexually attracted to boys. Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
I believe Jerry showered ALONE with AM because he felt the odds of anything bad coming from it were slim to none. This kid went on to have Jerry stand in for his father on Senior Night. He had Jerry give the commencement address at his HS graduation. He lived with Jerry and Dottie for a semester while he was taking classes at PSU. He invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. He drove ten hours to attend the funeral of Jerry's mother. He played golf with Jerry in the summer of 2011.
C/S/S didn't care about how well Jerry knew the boys with whom he worked out. They thought his behavior was a lawsuit waiting to happen, and one for which PSU would have no defense.
After the sting turned up nothing sexual, you don't think the police might have given Jerry a "for your own good" talking to?
Men aren't normally wired to shower alone with children either. Yet it happened. A shower alone with a 12 year old is never "just a shower." The determination of whether or not to shower with kids isn't evaluated by the "odds of anything bad coming from it." It's honestly shocking to me I actually to make the last two statements. I assumed they were both so obvious.
I think we've both shared all we believe on the subject though, and clearly we won't be changing each other's minds, so I'll leave it at that. I understand your position, I just disagree.
In what court case did Snedden play a role?
I'll answer for you. None. It's an invented test by the free Jerry committee (FJC). It has no relevance to any PA law.
Why is everything sexual? Is this just a generational thing? I don't get it.
So what you are saying is, that we can ignore any alleged victim who did not testify at trial.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that, even today, it is still possible at YMCA's and public pools that a grown man and a 12 year old boy might be alone in a large group shower together, let me ask you this:
If two grown men are alone in a group shower together, is it automatically sexual? If not, why not? Both men are sexually mature (and probably sexually active). Why does this rationale change when one party is 12 years old (and probably not sexually mature/sexually active)?
For the record, I'm not saying it is a good idea to be alone anywhere with children who are not your own, but just because you are doesn't mean it's sexual.
Last edited:
Sure. Fine with me if you ignore the statements of any alleged victim that didn't appear in court.
If one bear hugs the other ... or grabs them from behind and lifts them up so the others but is in their face... it's sexual.
You have a strange grasp of the meaning of the word sexual. I think I feel bad for your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend.
Your spouse is a 12 year old boy? I feel bad for him as well. Or are you going to say you weren't sure what he meant by his post or the topic being discussed.
Last edited:
You have really poor reading skills.
To say my post a way that your 4th grade education can understand "Hippo doesn't understand what the world "sexual" means, which I think makes his/her lover likely to be very unsatisfied."
If physical contact in the showers is automatically sexual, then half of my high school football team must be gay.
LOL, sure that is what he meant. He wasn’t talking about spouses or normal behavior. Carry on with your cute defense of Jer Bear. I can give 2 sh!ts anymore.
Last edited:
Ohhhhh someday you'll get over it poor lil ziggy...someday.But, you’ll be back to post anyway!
Right, right....as you never quote me or call me out....LOL. It's cute though...watching you be butt hurt literally years later.I’m not the one obsessed!
Getting back to the original post, when will we hear about the outcome of Fina’s disciplinary hearing!
Did you cry when I called you a free jerry member? LOL I mean that is why you are still so butt hurt. I like DEM's line of SIP....don't worry, you're not a card carrying member.
