LOL! I don’t always use non-sequitors but, when I do, they are so strained that you wouldn’t believe that I have Google Alerts set up to notify me about JS posts on BWI.
Sorry, I just got an alert that someone posted about Jerry on BWI.., GOTTA GO!
OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
LOL! I don’t always use non-sequitors but, when I do, they are so strained that you wouldn’t believe that I have Google Alerts set up to notify me about JS posts on BWI.
Sorry, I just got an alert that someone posted about Jerry on BWI.., GOTTA GO!
Ralph Cipriano has a new post in his big trial blog “It’s a Slimefest in Frank Fina’s Ethics Board Finale.”
www.bigtrial.net
www.bigtrial.net
Jeez, Indy. Not everything is sexual. I can tell you that any time in my life that I have been naked in a shower and initiated physical contact with the only other person in the shower it has always been sexual. So to recap, not everything is sexual. Physical contact by two naked people alone in a shower most likely is.
Because of the physical contact. For the love of god you people cannot just ignore that fact. The physical contact is what makes it entirely different from just two people in a large shower area.
Let me ask you this: Have you and a friend ever taken a shower after working out in a gym and initiated physical contact with them?
They cannot possibly be failing to understand this. It's like the flat earthers or those who believe the moon landing was fake--they simply shut their mind to the truth.
There's a lot more people like that in the USA than there used to be.
I think they are just more willing to show themselves now, for whatever reason.
I agree that it seems almost unrealistic that they really are failing to understand this, but in my line of work I feel obligated to explain it anyway.
AM said he was sliding back and forth across the shower floor and snapping towels. How do you know Jerry initiated the contact? I don't know that he didn't. But you don't know that he did.
How about the first naked bear(bare?)hug in the shower? You can’t deny it Indy, it happened and there is no innocent reason for it to have happened.
You continue to say that it was investigated and he was cleared. But there was also a therapists report that stated the activities between Sandusky and the boy were grooming behaviors. There he is in the same position 3 or 4 years later. You do understand that the grooming behavior the therapist was talking about was for sexual activity, not grooming as in personal hygiene, right?
I'm more than willing to accept his behavior with the kids in the shower as grooming, if you can show me where a sexual relationship ensued from either relationship. All the evidence suggests JS was nothing but a positive influence on both V6 and V2.
Indy I am saying this to you honestly. I like you. I have always liked you as a poster. I think you started off thing while sh!tshow we’ve been enduring for the last 7 years wanting Curley to be cleared of any wrongdoing. Somewhere along the way I feel like you began to convince yourself that Sandusky didn’t do any of these things to these kids so Curley is innocent of any wrongdoing. I could be wrong but that is the way it seems to have gone for you.
So you will accept that he was grooming the ‘98 victim for sex. That’s only thing he would be grooming him for. That is what that term means. He was stopped in ‘98. 3 or 4 years later he is- at the absolute very least- alone again in a shower with another boy at night. Grooming behavior. If a sexual relationship didn’t ensue it wasn’t because it was not his intent. The intent of grooming is to manipulate the kids into having sex with them. The intent is to have sex.
I really feel like you are close to getting this Indy, I really do. You just have to understand what Sandusky did or did not do really has nothing to do with how Curley handled it. They are separate issues.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I have to chime in. What kind of workouts was he having these young kids doing to sweat so much that they needed to shower? Running sprints? Running laps? Does he have OCD and didn't want to get his vehicle dirty? I've driven carloads of kids home from soccer games that were stinky and dirty. They get home and shower. Alone. End of story. No excuses.
Last edited:
Sandusky and those two boys had active and seemingly healthy relationships up until the day Jerry was indicted. We're talking over a decade. The boys had become men. You can't just dismiss that.
And this has nothing to do with Tim. If he got fooled by Sandusky, well join the club. I believe, and have said for a long time, everyone involved did the right thing in '01. Sandusky could be a total monster, but that doesn't mean anything happened in 2001.
This was the flagship case to tie PSU to Sandusky, and keep people from looking at TSM. Preventing Curley and Schultz from testifying for Sandusky was motive enough for indicting them. The case was pure BS! Let's not forget that for all the $ millions the state spent, it failed to convict on every one of the fifteen felony charges.
This narrative should be rewritten, regardless of Sandusky's guilt. And Fina's a big part of it.
I was at a wedding a few years back. The bride was 45ish. She was walked down the aisle by her older brother who sexually abused her from about age 12-16. For the casual onlooker, it looked like a seemingly active and healthy relationship. I could give you many, many more accounts of people who have been sexually abused by somebody and have continued to carry out what would appear to be seemingly healthy relationships with their perpetrator. Part of grooming is normalizing the behavior. Desensitizing the victim.
I’m not sure what else to tell you Indy. You admit he was grooming kids. You just can’t- for some reason- seem to get to the point to believe that he actually took it to it’s only reasonable conclusion.
Do you believe Sandusky actually committed sex acts with either of those two boys? Neither boy has ever claimed so. The 1998 accuser said nothing inappropriate ever occurred after the 1998 shower. The 2000/01 accuser is now claiming abuse after a strong defense of Sandusky, but it’s entirely possible he just came to believe he was being groomed as a teen.
Last edited:
I believe he wouldn’t be grooming boys to have sex with them if he didn’t plan on eventually having sex with them. If he didn’t have sex with the two he was caught with it would most likely be because he was caught with them. There is no question in my mind that the only reason he was showering with them alone was to eventually engage them in sexual activity. It’s the only reasonable conclusion.
You have a great deal of patience. After all these years it just makes me crazy. But yours is the only way.
I’m going to show this to my wife to prove that I have patience. Then, I’m going to ask her to take a non-sexual shower together.
Honestly, I think some people have just gone from thinking about possibilities for how Sandusky could possibility be innocent to believing that he is innocent and defying common sense.
You're gonna prove something about your essential nature to your wife by showing her a message board post? Be sure to report back how that works out for you.
Don't forget he was also blowing raspberries on a kids stomach alone on a bed....not a toddler but a kid 10+ years of age. You are basically talking to flat earthers at this point. In their head, if you pretend Jerry is innocent, it was all a big misunderstanding. It's easier to think that then deal with the reality of what occurred. Wen was going after the other real misconduct and questioning the those there which is legit. A ton of people for the state, school, and TSM sure did act a little bid odd throughout this process. Sadly those legit questions get overwritten by the flat earthers in denial. You won't convince indy, franco, or a few others Jerry is what he is...they cannot accept it. They just want to pretend he was an odd guy that had to keep getting dozens upon dozens of young boys alone over and over again.
You're gonna prove something about your essential nature to your wife by showing her a message board post? Be sure to report back how that works out for you.
With the benefit of hindsight, I’ve decided against that course of action.
Nope, that’s not reasonable. It would be a reasonable conclusion if it was just showering. That is not what happened.
The people who crafted what you believe to be the "only reasonable conclusion" are not credible. They broke laws and violated Jerry's rights. A man is spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of this 'ends justify the means' approach to justice.
I keep saying that none of what I believe to be true makes sense if Jerry is innocent. But if his guilt is so apparent, the authorities should have been able to demonstrate that without pulling all the crap they pulled.
Nobody has crafted what I believe. I believe what I believe based on years of working with these types of situations, taking years of schooling on these issues, attending many PDs on these types of issues.
You have said you believe Sandusky was grooming these boys. He was grooming them to have sex with them. Did he have sex with them? I don’t have proof that he did. You don’t have proof that he didn’t. But if he was grooming them to have sex with them, it absolutely defies common sense to think that he only engaged in grooming activities without taking it further, whether it be with these two specific individuals or others he was accused to have abused.
Like you, I believe the trial was a mess. I believe the whole situation was a mess in the way it was handled from ‘98 straight on through the trial by pretty much everybody involved with it. I would love to see him have another trial from a selfish position because I want all the information about his situation that I can get. But that doesn’t change the that he was grooming boys to engage them in sex.
The onus was on the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not on him to prove his innocence.
Look, the OAG trotted out a janitor and admitted his hearsay testimony, while preventing the real witness from testifying because he said the person he saw was not Sandusky. Jerry was convicted on five counts in this case that has no victim, no report of a crime, no established date for a crime, no physical evidence of a crime, and no witness to a crime.
They completely fabricated the "anal intercourse" BS in the presentment.
They committed perjury. They made it impossible for C/S to testify for the defense. They hid AM in a cabin somewhere so he couldn't testify. They committed perjury. They used memory regression therapy to coerce accusations of sexual abuse from people who never claimed such abuse initially.
If Sandusky is so obviously guilty, the OAG should have been able to prove it honestly.
That's not what I said. I said I am willing to accept Sandusky's behavior in the two PSU shower incidents as grooming if it can be proven that his behavior eventually led to sexual abuse. I remain unconvinced of that.
Oy vey. What proof would you need to be convinced? Because it’s probably late for DNA evidence. I don’t think there are pictures or videos. What evidence would convince you?
Any?
Both boys denied being abused and maintained relationships with Jerry into adulthood. And you want to convict him anyway?
You completely discount all those that testified against him at the trial? Do you believe they all lied at the trial? I’m asking honestly.
Again, there is not going to be physical evidence. There is a therapist’s report stating that he was engaged in grooming behavior in ‘98. There are two times that he is known to have been alone in a shower with boys, having physical contact. It defies logic to think that he was grooming boys and not planning on going further than just naked bear hugs with them.
I'm not discounting anything. Both boys are on record stating they were never victims of CSA by JS. Just because you think he's guilty of abusing some other kids, does not make him guilty of abusing every kid. Not sure what more you want here.
And there is a trial full of others saying they were. They are not to be believed?
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.
I don't believe that v6 lied at trial. I think he honestly may have thought after hearing the accounts of other accusers and others that what Sandusky did in 1998 was in fact grooming. My understand is that he went to a therapist and tried to remember instances where Jerry may have been sexual, but wasn't able to visualize any abuse. To his credit, I don't believe he testified that Sandusky was overtly sexual at trial. As I recall, at trial he said he wasn't sure but perhaps Jerry had been aroused in the 1998 shower incident. However in 1998 he said that he didn't see arousal and in the 14 years from 1998 to 2012, the interactions between v2 and Sandusky were consistent with a friendly, healthy non-sexual relationship. I suspect that his lawyers and maybe v6 himself wish he would have dug a little deeper and remembered something sexual at trial because that would have mean a bigger settlement from Penn State.
With v2, he didn't testify at Sandusky's original trial in 2012, so he didn't lie there. Regarding his 2016 PCRA testimony, I think he was less than 100% forthcoming. He said I couldn't remember 34 times in questions he didn't want to answer because imo his recollection would have been inconsistent with what his lawyers had coached him to say. To me, having to answer I don't remember 34 times is not consistent with providing forthcoming testimony.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-in-shower-says-he-cant-remember-34.html
All that accused abuse were lying though?
What reason was Jerry in a shower alone having physical contact with them?
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).
That is a reasonable conclusion, but it is not the only reasonable conclusion.
