I will not watch the movie, but is it supposed to be based on Posnanski's book?
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
I will not watch the movie, but is it supposed to be based on Posnanski's book?
Hadn't heard that, but I doubt it's based on much of anything other than what the producers think will sell best. And we should know what that is.
I don’t think the national media hated Joe
I just think there is nothing they enjoy more than tearing someone down who’s been put on a perceived pedestal with a pristine image
Don't fool yourself. There are tons of fans who subscribe to the "everyone cheats" mentality and they hated everything PSU related, especially Joe.
Last edited:
Not at all, because Jerry wasn't charged with, nor found guilty of child pornography. Whether or not he had porn on his PC has absolutely nothing to do with his case.
You are making assumptions, much like those that use that email to vilify Paterno are doing the same. In a vacuum, that email is completely inconclusive and it requires additional facts and context to determine exactly who decided or advised on what to do (or what not do).
If it was, or for any other reason, this might be another example of The Paterno family getting bad advice. I would think, at some point, they’d have some say over the movie. Apparently, they do not.
I hate to think like this, but it seems that every time this family gets stung, I suspect Scott had an unwitting hand in it.
Agreed. Additional facts are needed to determine the context of that email. The fact that the boy from that incident, Allan Myers, gave a uncoerced statement exonerating Sandusky after his arrest, proves that the incident in question was nothing more than Sandusky showering with a teenage boy and maybe some horseplay occurring.
Almost all serial pedophiles have huge stashes of porn. And if there was a time he would have been the most likely to have porn it would have been between 2009-11, between the start of the investigation and the arrest. He was a free man, but had no access to teenage boys at the time. I found it hard to believe he was such as slave to his sexual urges that he partook in society’s biggest taboo for decades, but then was able to completely control those urges for almost 3 years.
When you consider the entire case against Sandusky is based no absolutely no physical evidence, but only on the testimony of witnesses who were constantly changing thier stories and were paid millions of dollars, I think the lack of porn is very relavant.
It wasn’t brought up at trial. The judge rejected the argument during the appeal because it was largely based on ambiguous language used. It was denied by all the shrinks involved with victims.
Pendergrast talked about how he got involved in the case while doing press for the book. He was emailed by a random person and followed up. It’s certainly noteworthy that Sandusky crafted his story in detail from Pendergrast’s book before he even knew of it.
https://www.nasw.org/member_article/mark-pendergrast-most-hated-man-america
I'm sorry. That one part of that one email is the only thing they had with which to suggest Joe influenced Tim to propose not reporting to DPW.
How's this for an additional fact? In Spanier's reply, he said, "This approach is acceptable to me. It requires you to go a step further and means your conversation will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive."
If Tim was proposing to exclude reporting to DPW, why did Spanier remark that what Tim had proposed would require an additional step? And wouldn't talking with Sandusky about such a delicate matter and revoking his guest privileges qualify as a difficult conversation?
And when Spanier described their actions as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed." Doesn't that fit with trying to save Sandusky from himself. It sure as hell makes no sense if they're dealing with the abuse of some poor child, does it?
And BTW, when Spanier said "this approach is acceptable to me," is he not exercising his role as the final authority. It sure as hell wasn't Paterno's decision. Neither Schultz nor Spanier asked Tim what Joe thought about things?
So not only was the only change in plans proposed by Curley simply to tell Sandusky about what was going on, Joe wasn't even part of the decision.
All PSU had to do was issue a statement calling for due process and the press would have had to back off. And wasn't it reported that Corbett was in downtown State College that night bragging that he got Joe fired? Plus, even if it was just a panic move, PSU had plenty of time to rectify the situation after Joe's passing. Instead, they paid Freeh to crucify him so he would be forever tied to the sanctions. I don't buy it. Joe was very much the target here.
Wow, I guess I just underestimated how stupid Tom Corbett is. It’s almost like in tried to lose re-election in 2014, a year in which Republicans did very well nationwide and in the PA Legislature.
I’m at a loss for words. I’m not sure I’ve run into something as devoid of any real thought or understanding before?
How could I possibly treat the prosecution’s arguments as holy scripture when openly criticize them and don’t subscribe to the parts not supported by fact?
Pointing out how and why the defense came up with an argument to illustrate it’s lack of credibility is far from “being upset they did research”. You created a straw man because you can’t even entertain the notion it might not be true.
The only fallacies are those created by the side that refuses to accept the admins may have made a mistake somewhere along the way. I have no problem criticizing people on both sides based on established fact while you guys have arrived at “it’s all a big lie perpetrated by Corbett, Freeh, and the OG BOT.”
I think you missed the point of my post, but that's OK. Sometimes subtlety is hard to convey in electronic form.
I was trying to be equally as dismissive as you were in your post. You implied that the could not possibly be any merit to the defense, which is just as ridiculous as saying "nothing that the OAG/Freeh/victims say is true." They are both hyperbolically (or possibly hypobolically, if you are another poster on this board) false statements and I was trying to highlight that fact.
Finally, regarding "only fallacies are those created by the side that refuses to accept the admins may have made a mistake somewhere along the way"
I guess it depends on how you define "mistakes." There are mistakes that are felonies. There are mistakes that fall into the realm of "well, that could have been done better, but was totally reasonable at the time."
So, sure, if you want to go with the latter, I'll agree with you that mistakes were made. If you want to go with "mistakes=felony" or "mistakes=moral failing" (whatever that means), then, yes, I refuse, based on the current evidence available, that they made a "mistake."
You're a step further along than indy I guess. He may go after you now for saying any mistakes were made,,,be careful.
I completely understand the data correlation. However the lack or, or presence of, is a complete non-factor in determination over guilt or innocence of a completely different set of crimes. Additionally, it doesn't matter if 100% of convicted child molesters also had child pornography, that means absolutely nothing in terms of Sandusky's case. No prosecutor or defense attorney is going to ever use this data point to prove or disprove unrelated molestation charges.
Well, in this case the lack of, or presence of a VICTIM didn't matter in two instances. Better yet the lack of, or presence of a DATE didn't seem to make a difference in ANY instance.
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. A man is accused of sexually assaulting a minor. There are no witnesses or physical evidence related the that particular act, just the word of the accusers. The police search the home and computer of the accused and find child porn. I’m certain that the prosecution would present that as evidence.
What about 8 minors instead of 1? All testified as adults what the pedophile did and he had access to and managed to get alone over and over again. In terms of the porn, is 2 years not enough time to get rid of it?
FYI - there was a little bit of chatter from the victims and in the schools.
This is from the first police interview of V7 on 2/3/2011:
Worth noting - Ryan Dixon died a few months before V1 first came forward, so there was some chatter among friends before any investigation started.
This is from a 1/2012 article:
So V6's sister had a clue about another boy (this was V5 according to Moulton) who took showers with Sandusky. I'd be surprised if the other kids that heard that outburst weren't guessing some things.
V4 testified about getting teased in school that he was being molested. The following is from 6/11/2011, p.71-72:
I didn't -- I didn't want to lose -- this is something good happening to me, you know, and I don't really have a dad around. I never really had a father figure. And I'm liking everything that I'm getting.
Also, you got to realize, I mean, once I'm -- I'm in high school at this point and people are jealous. I mean, that's the way that I look at it. You know, like, other kids are jealous, things like that. So they want to tease you and, you know, they're making up things like, oh, you know, you're being molested by Jerry and you're his little butt buddy and all these kind of things, you know.
Q. They're kidding?
A. They're jealous, you know what I mean? They're -- I'm sure they'd have switched places with me in a heart beat but they're just jealous. And you know how kids are. They got to pick at each other. So I got to play this off. So it really is happening but I have to pretend like it's really not happening to everybody else because I have to, you know, hold this mentality that I'm the strong person, you know, this -- got to keep my, you know, appearance at school, these kind of things.
If I ever said anything and that would have got out to that, it would just been so much worse. I mean, I denied it forever. Forever.
Q. Kids -- other kids would actually kid you about this?
A. All the time. All the time.
Q. And how did they know that you had this relation -- or that you had some relationship with the defendant? How did they know that?
A. Because, I mean, by this point I have been in Sport Illustrated. I have -- you know, they know that I'm going to the games. Jerry comes to the school. Jerry is always in my town and, you know, a lot of the kids go to town.
So V5 apparently stated that Sandusky forced him to shower with him in Middle School. That is interesting. V5 graduated high school in 2006. At the Spanier trial, he stated he was molested in the fall of 2002, notably after the McQueary incident. The problem is by that time, he would have been a freshman in high school. V6's sister inadvertently ends up refuting V5's testimony.
I'm not denying that Sandusky once showered with V5 and that V5 was likely very uncomfortable showering with an old man he did not know well. However, it is likely it happened around the original year he provided, 1998. It probably happened shortly before the V6 incident since prior to then, Sandusky had no inhibitions about showering with any boys.
And any juror with half a brain would ignore that, assuming it's presented as evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant abused children. Ownership of pictures, no matter how inappropriate, are not evidence of an act of sexual assault unless the photos are of the actual assault in question. These are 2 different crimes. Both are disgusting in their own way, but different.
Back to the original intent of this thread...it's Friday evening, and every day that goes by makes it more likely we are going to see this story on Monday. I'm sure they could pull the plug at the last minute, but JZ (as I have said) seems quiet, confident.
Should be interesting to say the least.
Should be interesting to say the least.
So is this article actually happening or is this vaporware like the alumni trustee review or source material?
If you don't hear JZ's head explode on the interwebs in the next 48 hours, then I'd say it's happening.
To your point, it's technically not illegal to be a pedophile. Acting on it is.
Maybe so. I doubt Newsweek will publish the usual zig 3rd hand interviews with ex girlfriends, etc. The so-called "planted" accuser has no bearing on Jerry or Joe. Pendergrast's Repressed memory theory has been laughed out of courts.Changing the V2 date is extremely minor and wouldn't be worth a paragraph, let alone an article.
Regarding point number one: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regarding point number two: Sounds like he was able to control himself and was a lot smarter than the guys investigating him (porngate). If anything, two years would have given him a false sense of security. All they could find were fully clothed pictures of Second Mile kids, some of whom happened to be his future accusers. Why didn't he get rid of those too if he was so smart? Here we supposedly have a computer genius who is too brain dead stupid to simply throw out his paper trash.
You really think a December date would be minor?????????????
It changes the entire paradigm.
It's minor to people who are for some reason invested in the mainstream media narrative.
That actually is a real point. I am sure that there are some people out there with pedophilic tendencies that deny themselves those tendencies because they know the harm it would cause.
That said, I don’t think showering with kids is a sign of denying your pedophilic tendencies.
Are you madder Jerry fooled you or about Joe’s legacy? It sucks what happened to Joe, but I’m curious as to why you are in such denial over this. Oh well maybe this article is proof of his innocence since there is none thus far.
Yep, it proves two things:
1. Most of Mike McQuearys testimony was manufactured via determining the result the OAG wanted and then reverse engineering the details.
2. The man who has proven to be the most honest regarding what exactly happened in that incident has been Jerry Sandusky.
Both of these are huge
Being vacuous eliminates the impulse to be curious.
It would be minor to Newsweek readers. That's what I am saying.
The article, if published will at best be ignored.
More likely, it will be fuel for people to write about how insane Penn Staters are. And that's what JZ wants, he hates us. And to the average person in America, if they hear someone making huge leaps to defend Jerry, they want to vomit.
And, BTW, there's no evidence supporting the new date.
It's just a reverse engineered fantasy, some 17 years later, the "true" date revealed itself to an anonymous tweeter in their alphabits cereal?
Not proof.
It's just a reverse engineered fantasy, some 17 years later, the "true" date revealed itself to an anonymous tweeter in their alphabits cereal?
Not proof.
Truthfully, I'm so burned out over reading these threads over the past 7.5 years that I rarely bother to read or comment any longer. However, occasionally a question or two pops into my mind and I guess this as good a place as any to ask...
Has Jerry ever taken a polygraph since his arrest? If so, have the results ever been revealed? I would think if he passed one, at some point we would've heard about it at some point.
Has Jerry ever taken a polygraph since his arrest? If so, have the results ever been revealed? I would think if he passed one, at some point we would've heard about it at some point.
Not really much evidence for any date put out there so far. Actually probably LESS evidence for the date that has been on record.
I think its interesting that some think the mainstream narrative is built on rock solid evidence, but anything that challenges it is just fantasy.
Similar threads
