It was just one thing they needed to do. Acting as if that was the end of it was what bit them in the arse.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
My entire point was that it's superfluous that people keep saying he was showering naked. That's like saying it was a "water based" shower. No shit.
I just don't understand why you keep trying to draw me into this discussion. You don't know my stance on the subject. Don't be like the many people I have on ignore that assume anyone with a questioning attitude is part of the "free Jerry" crowd.
I agree with most of what you say but (you knew it was coming).....
Dr. Jack “ are you trying to tell me that Jerry is a pedophile” sounds like a serious conversation and he was getting why the concern
Katherine G. “ We have had to tell him to back off of kids before” sounds like several kids
The shredding of documents was the the right thing to do? What else don’t we know here?
Granted PSU should have handled this better but there are glaring areas of concern that seem to be overlooked by people who should have understood the implications. Yes I believe some may not have known what they were possibly dealing with but some have not been scrutinized enough compared to others, The justice system in Pennsylvania being number ONE and anyone saying different is DEFLECTING for some reason.
Last edited:
Strictly my opinion but where I put fault with CSS is that they probably should have anticipated TSM's reluctance to follow through. They should have taken steps to document and ensure that action was taken. I'm not saying that in hindsight, i'm saying that given the knowledge that was available at the time. Were their actions criminal? i don't think so, but that's just opinion.
it is absolutely ridiculous that TSM has not been held to task for their actions in this.
You’re really riled up about the superfluous “naked”?
I’m not trying to draw you into a discussion. You are engaging in the discussion. Honestly, I have no opinion of you as a poster. I’ve never really made note of you one way or the other, so I am not assuming you to be part of the “free Jerry” crowd. Or any other crowd for that matter.
While we are engaging in the discussion, where do you stand on the whole ordeal?
all due respect, but isn't your argument kind of moot?
the decision by all responsible authorities in 1998 was that showering with a young man, while discouraged, was NOT a crime.
Well, it was not considered a crime until he was charged and concicted for it 14 years later.
Not at all riled up on "naked", I'm riled up because you keep trying to engage me in conversation on a topic I'm not interested in debating. Have a great day.
What does the former Secretary of State have to do with this? ;-)
By chance have you been made privy to the content or tone of the conversation between Curly & Raykovitz? I'm genuinely curious about how that went down.
And Raykovitz's "nothing to see here" testimony was hardly reassuring.
showering is not a crime. showering with sexual intent IS a crime.
what prosecutors basically did was say . . . well it was an isolated incident in 1998. they didn't KNOW he was grooming kids. but now we KNOW he was grooming this kid because . . . see, he groomed other kids.
As I've said on numerous occasions, nothing I believe about this mess makes any sense if Jerry is innocent. That's neither here nor there as it relates to what MM told people at the time, versus what he has since claimed.
I would have been creeped out! I probably would have been creeped out even if we weren't showering and were fully clothed. Inappropriate affection is still inappropriate, regardless of sexual intent. But it's the sexual intent that makes it criminal. I'm not sure you had that in either '98 or '01. More importantly, I'm sure C/S/S were not convinced of it.
It would have been the end of it had Tom Corbett never been elected governor, or didn't have a political vendetta against Spanier, or the boards of PSU and TSM weren't so busy playing their own version of crony capitalism.
I'm with you all the way until the deflecting piece.
I don't see it as people deflecting, as almost everyone here has criticized the justice system in this ordeal.
The scrutiny of the overall PA justice system in this saga would be moot if the state agencies, local DA's office, and LE had done their jobs dating back to '98. C/S/S, for whatever errors they made, have borne the brunt of the mistakes - intentional and unintentional - of those others.
Why would anyone suspect that JS could be innocent of some and perhaps all of the charges? (I am a skeptic when it comes to the anal rape stuff.)
Could it be TC and GS were indicted because they were the only ones who could dispute MMs Commonwealth friendly testimony? We have written proof that the only other reason was so they could be forced to flip on Spanier(Ericksen's notes). I don't think anyone wants to dispute that Graham was Corbett's target. So the McQ family's boasting about MMs testimony never being impeached, isn't worth a bucket of spit. Hell, the Commonwealth Stormtroopers arrest people who don't play along. TC and GS still have to be quiet as they are on probation.
We have written proof that Eshbach lied in the GJP and told MM to keep quiet. Something no one at PSU ever did.
We have audio proof that the crying janitor DID NOT believe JS was the abuser in his tale.
There is also that pesky problem with the size of a 9-10 year old and both he and Jerry standing up in the shower.......but alas, The Commonwealth produced an immaculate foot stool.......LOL
I suppose some could say....yeah so they lied about those things......but......
Could it be TC and GS were indicted because they were the only ones who could dispute MMs Commonwealth friendly testimony? We have written proof that the only other reason was so they could be forced to flip on Spanier(Ericksen's notes). I don't think anyone wants to dispute that Graham was Corbett's target. So the McQ family's boasting about MMs testimony never being impeached, isn't worth a bucket of spit. Hell, the Commonwealth Stormtroopers arrest people who don't play along. TC and GS still have to be quiet as they are on probation.
We have written proof that Eshbach lied in the GJP and told MM to keep quiet. Something no one at PSU ever did.
We have audio proof that the crying janitor DID NOT believe JS was the abuser in his tale.
There is also that pesky problem with the size of a 9-10 year old and both he and Jerry standing up in the shower.......but alas, The Commonwealth produced an immaculate foot stool.......LOL
I suppose some could say....yeah so they lied about those things......but......
But in 1998 there are two boys. And investigators and the DA know that Sandusky is involved with MANY boys. In fact these two boys knew others who alleged to being molested at that time. But there appears to be no attempt in 1998 to look for further victims, which is incredible.
It's one thing if a boy alleges his stepfather showered with him and hugged him. He's the only victim and there's no way to corroborate. In Jerry's case they knew he was around hundreds of boys each year...and they don't continue to pursue other leads.
I think that it is entirely possible that the way the 01 situation was prosecuted was designed to protect the person/persons or agency that put a lid on 98. It would be one reason for the methods, lies and gerrymandering nature of the targets for prosecution.
I believe there is far more knowledge about what happened with the 1998 investigation than has been made public.
Right, but he was eventually convicted of it. So, while the authorities completely dropped the ball at the time, they were eventually proven in a court of law to have been wrong about that.
Your last sentence I tend to agree with. The reactions of everybody involved points me in that direction.
But I will ask you again, without sexual intent why would a grown man be hugging a boy alone in a shower?
ok I am giving you ONE MORE CHANCE to stop being obtuse, then you go into the ignore pile
factually, nothing changed from 1998. NOTHING. all the OAG did was say, oh look, Sandusky did this with other kids and had sexual intent. so clearly when authorities said he didn't commit a crime in 1998, they were wrong because he clearly had sexual intent. clearly.
all that was "proven" in a court of law is that Sandusky did this with other kids with (allegedly) sexual intent. that's it. no material facts of 1998 incident changed.
which doesn't change THE FACT that showering WITHOUT sexual intent is NOT a crime.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. In a vacuum (i.e. without any other allegations), I don't think a prosecutor would get a conviction on 1998 alone. In fact, I think a lot of the charges, in a vacuum, would be very difficult to successfully prosecute. And the OAG knew this which is why they went to great lengths to round up a roster of accusers (and had no issue with PSP manipulating potential victims during interviews).
I don't know. People are different. Some people are huggers and some people aren't. I think it's possible Jerry felt it was part of his job description to provide healthy, male affection to kids deprived of that due to life circumstances. That doesn't excuse his doing so in the shower, but isn't that what boundary issues are all about? It's also possible he was grooming them with sexual intent. I just don't think anybody thought so at the time.
indy, nude hugging and or nude raspberries is not a boundary issue, any way you slice it. It is more than reasonable to conclude that to be with sexual intent, more than reasonable. Is it definitive? No, but it crosses the threshold.
Agree...but is it illegal? The problem with laws is that they have to have sharp edges. Take buying booze: one day it is a crime, the next it isn't. The challenge Schultz and Curley had was "is it illegal?" Can they go to the board and get JS's emeritus status taken away when he didn't (seemingly) break a law? What enforcement and/or power did they have against a guy hugging kids in 2001?
I can't argue with you. My focus has always been on the motive to protect TSM from scrutiny at the expense of PSU and Joe's reputation...with PSU's help! That's the real scandal here as far as I'm concerned.
As for Jerry, I question the methods used by the prosecution. If this was such a lay down case, why did they have to pull all the shit they did to make it? I have said from the beginning that these guys weren't going to try to take down JS if all they could prove was that he was creepy. In the end, I think that's all they had when you consider the questionable credibility of AF. I don't think the guy deserves to die in prison for being creepy, but I'm afraid that's what's going to happen.
Investigators and the DA... and TSM? If so, Jack's denial to Tim's face in '01 is even more egregious. And Heim handing over keys to the hotel is beyond belief anyway, but if TSM already knew more about '98.... yeesh.
Would the PSU Admin have known about more than the 1 incident in '98? I mean really known, briefed by investigators.... not just heard rumors from outside sources.
From another post:
A lot more known about '98 than what has been made known.... any further insight on that from you or Misder?
Thanks.
Last edited:
If that were what was portrayed by MM to CSP, a definitive description of the events in that shower, then yes, that is enough to bring others in, advise the Board and legal authorities and to document those events. If that is not what was portrayed, then you get what we got.
I understand exactly what you’re saying. But I will ask you, as I have to Indy, why else would he be hugging a boy alone in a shower if not for sexual intent? They dropped the ball. Then, with the benefit of hindsight, realized they dropped the ball and charged and convicted him for it.
Hugging a boy alone in a shower is not a boundary issue. It is way, way over the boundary marker. Hugging a boy in a shower is not healthy male affection. Not even close.
Your last line there says it all. For whatever reason, they either didn’t think or couldn’t prove sexual intent at the time. As other information emerged (being caught in another shower with another boy alone, after agreeing to never do so again) that incident was looked at differently.
100% agree. Many folks would like answers to this. Still can’t help but think of the rumors of a much deeper scandal. I don’t follow this thread to argue the guilt or innocence of JS, I want to know why the papers were shredded and stories have been squashed by media outlets around PA in the last decade. Something is being hidden.
Similar threads
