No, it's an unreasonable comparison. One is typically done while naked and one is not.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
No, it's an unreasonable comparison. One is typically done while naked and one is not.
Actually, a kid would probably be exponentially more at risk alone in an automobile than in an accessible University locker room. Especially one where, if you believe McQueary's reporting date, hundreds of people were watching a hockey game less than 100 yards away. And a rock concert was happening right down the street.
Took numerous showers in the presence of adult males when I was a kid and never once felt threatened. Was common practice back then. But I did have an uncomfortable experience alone in a car with an unrelated male when I was 5 or 6. Freaked my parents out when I told them. My Mom told me when I got older that the incident scared her to death and that my Dad "took care" of the problem. He must have, because I never saw or heard from that guy ever again.
Can we please stop justifying Jerry's shower when he was told not to shower with kids? This wasn't the YMCA in 1975 at noon with 30 men around. It was an isolated building at night with a man who was told not to shower with kids once already. Any RATIONAL adult male that got investigated once already would have ensure he never put himself in that situation, but not Jerry....he had to get his fix on.
Actually, on the date McQueary said it happened, there were hundreds of people around. Sandusky knew someone could walk into that locker room at any time. A hockey game was going on less than 300 feet away.
Your "isolated building at night" scenario only flies if we are talking the December 2000 date. And if that's the case, what McQueary saw apparently wasn't that big a deal.
Oh so you're going to keep justifying this...I get it. So how many were in the building and better yet how many were in the shower with Jerry and the child? Apparently you're trying to paint the picture of a party going on in there.
Last edited:
He was told not to shower with kids ALONE for his protection, not the kids.
For Corbutt and the Commonwealth, Sandusky had to be about the failings of PSU. Otherwise, the charity that involved so many influential friends and over which he had direct oversight as AG would damage his political position. Certainly, the childish desire to seek revenge against Spanier played a major role as well. In addition, all the child care agencies, the courts and local law enforcement would have taken a major hit for failing children for decades. The masses are asses and swallowed the narrative without a critical thought. The very fact that the current OAG convicted the PSU 3 is IMO proof that the corruption in Pa. is prevalent in all three branches of government.
Can you explain this?
Outside of the date being wrong I never heard anything about a hockey game or a concert.
I don’t believe that the fact that Amendola has the medical records of Sandusky’s diagnosis of hypogonadism prior to trial and didn’t bring it up at trial was part of Lindsay’s pcra filings.
The night that MM and the OAG finally agreed upon as the night at Lasch, there was both a concert (Barenaked Ladies) at BJC and a club hockey game at Greenberg (this pre-dated varsity hockey, so you actually got pretty big crowds for the club games). So there would have been a lot of people/cars/activity around Lasch. This isn't mentioned in any of the testimony and I think MM even suggested that it was "deserted" (but someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
(even if you hate JZ, there are links here to proof of the hockey game and concert)
http://www.framingpaterno.com/new-p...ruary-9th-2001-was-real-date-mcqueary-episode
Sandusky has said that after the v6 incident, he was told not to shower with v6 again not that he was told not to shower with any kids ever again. In the 13 years from the v6 incident in 1998 until 2011 when Sandusky maintained a friendly relationship with v6, they never again took a shower together.
Thanks.
I never knew any of that. I guess I got so confused as to the date and what MM was actually doing (watching Rudy or sexting co-eds) that I missed it.
Thanks.
Geez I disliked MM for being a coward to start with and my dislike to genuine hate for the guy just keeps growing.
The 11-year-old was only identified as the former assistant football coach's sixth alleged victim. In 1998, his mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again, but he wouldn't make that promise, Schreffler testified.
Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testified to the grand jury Sandusky admitted to him and Schreffler in an interview that he hugged the boy while naked in the shower and that he knew it was wrong.
Now, yes. But it is an unfortunate (and common, these days) error to assign modern/current mores to things in the past and to judge the past on the basis of current culture. It wasn't all that long ago that swimming classes in many parts of the country, including Penn State, were held in the nude. This was part of Greek revivalism and an attempt to create, at least in the gym, a classless culture. There were no separate kids showers at the Y and places like that either, and the Y at that time was single-sex. There are other examples from that era.
The point is that, in those days, unlike today, an adult showering with a same sex teen was simply not the red flag that it would be today. So I understand why the admins did what they did. Turned out to be the wrong thing--in hindsight. But at the time?
Thanks.
I never knew any of that. I guess I got so confused as to the date and what MM was actually doing (watching Rudy or sexting co-eds) that I missed it.
Thanks.
Geez I disliked MM for being a coward to start with and my dislike to genuine hate for the guy just keeps growing.
Rumor has it that MM heard there were going to be bare naked ladies at the BJC and he went over there to see. When he found out he had to pay to get in to see these bare naked ladies, he left and went to LASCH to watch porn on his work pc, errrr.... I mean to put a new pair of sneakers in his locker, and...............
Thanks.
I never knew any of that. I guess I got so confused as to the date and what MM was actually doing (watching Rudy or sexting co-eds) that I missed it.
Thanks.
Geez I disliked MM for being a coward to start with and my dislike to genuine hate for the guy just keeps growing.
If this December theory is correct, this also begs the question of whether the OAG knew the date was wrong and helped MM come up with a plausible lie (watching Rudy vs watching a bowl game) so that the timing of when he talked to Dad and Dranov matched up or whether he did that all on his own.
I will say this: I am still open to any and all possibilities in this case. The entire thing seems to be completely filthy dirty on so many levels. It has been handled in such a ridiculously misguided fashion that it is tough to trust much of anything hat has come out of it.
That said, this was not swim class. This was not the Y. This was a shower in an empty locker room at night where Jerry Sandusky and a boy were showering. This was not 1955. It was 2001 (2000? 2002?). As far as I know, naked swimming class was not happening at the time. And Sandusky had already been told not to shower with boys. And he continued to do so. I’m not sure what innocent reasons there are for him to continue to do that.
Remember too that the OAG first stated the incident was in March 2002, over a year after McQueary talked to his Dad and Dranov and then talked to Joe, then finally Curley and Schultz. The claim was that the incident happened on the Friday before spring break, implying that Sandusky had purposely picked a night when he knew campus would be abandoned. A theory is that the OAG knew the year was wrong the whole time, but needed less than 10 years to pass in order to charge Schultz and Curley before the statute of limitations.
I’m not saying it was a smart decison on hindsight, but Jerry and Allan had a long day, spent a long time cramped in a cat returning to State College from Washington, and they were both likely sweaty after a workout. The only other option would be to shower at the Sandusky home. Perhaps Jerry thought it would be more appropriate to than for Allan to shower where Dottie was present.
Aren't there even more questions about the timing and whether Dranov was really there (at the night in question) or that it wasn't the next day when MM called Paterno but a month or so later?
He was specifically told not to shower with boys. He could have allowed the boy to take a shower, then showered himself. But he chose to get in the showers at the same time as the boy. Really, can you think of a reasonable explanation for that after being told not to do it?
Yep, good point to bring up here. So perhaps:
1) When MM told the OAG that he was unsure of the date, the OAG pushed the 2002 date because that solved the pesky statute of limitations problem. They had to back off from this when they realized it didn't fit with anyone else's testimony.
2) The second manufactured date (Feb 2001) was agreed upon so that it would match up with when the conversation with JVP occurred. But this creates some potential issues (concert, hockey game, Rudy) that cast some doubt on this date and suggest that maybe MM didn't talk to JVP until months later. If this is the case, then he either also didn't talk to dad and Dranov until months later which would explain why he didn't want to call the police the night he talked to them, and suggests that he really didn't see a sexual assault. OR he talked to Dad and Dranov the night he saw the "assault" but then they are also lying about the date; I'd postulate that the latter scenario is far less likely.
Whatever the case, the argument could be made that based on Jerry’s actions in that incident, he saw the 1998 incident as simply a benign misunderstanding and not an incident in which he just barely escaped being exposed as a serial pedophile. If Jerry really was guilty, he would have to have been extremely skilled at not getting caught in order to not have one kid make any sort of complaint until 22 years after the second mile was founded.
@wensilver should chime in here.
Not only should he have not showered with anyone ever again, this is the point where the failings of TSM come roaring into play.... once indicated, they were obligated to put a plan in place to ensure that he (JS) did not put himself, or be allowed to put himself, in potentially compromising situations with TSM (or any?) youth.
So, bad on JS, bad on TSM (Jack, Bruce, et. al.). Neither JS nor TSM were the direct responsibility of PSU, who took more action than TSM to prevent further JS 'violations' of the message.
Even if he thought the ‘98 incident was a benign misunderstanding, police involvement and an edict to not repeat the behavior should have been a pretty big eye opener. Again, I can’t think of any reasonable explanation for him to put himself back in that position after being told not to.
Last edited:
The timing of the conversation with JVP was right after Kenny Jackson left the staff to go to the Steelers which was in Feb 2001 (recall that when MM called Joe said "If you are calling about a job, I don't have one for you" thinking that he was calling because Jackson left). So I don't think there is any doubt about when MM spoke with JVP.
In addition to the concert/hockey issues, JZ thinks (and I'm not 100% sure that I buy this) that the timing of watching Rudy wouldn't have worked out (i.e. MM said he was "fired up by watching Rudy and wanted to go into work", but to be at Lasch when he said he was he would have had to leave during the movie, before the climactic scene, when one might ostensibly get fired up) and that it was more likely that he was watching the 2000 Peach Bowl (LSU vs Ga Tech) on December 29th (campus would have been quiet that night; PSU didn't go to a bowl that year) which would have ended at exactly the right time for him to see the end of the game and then go to Lasch.
More interestingly, JZ did an interview with Sandusky's former PSU roommate (and football letterman) who said that Sandusky called him on December 29th to complain about not getting the UVA job and said that he (Sandusky) was driving back from Pittsburgh with the "Lasch victim" that day.
I believe that you are correct and there is also speculation that Dranov wasn't in State College the night he supposedly talked to MM, but I haven't seen compelling proof of that.
If mother of V6 tried to get Sandusky to promise to not shower with boys again and he refused, then why in the hell did she continue to allow her son to spend time with Sandusky?
I question the accuracy of 13 year old conversations, especially with her testimony being encouraged by Sara Ganim, who desperately wanted to break a big story.
I totally agree. The 1998 investigation should have scared JS to death even if he was innocent. The fact that he did it again tells me that he has a problem. Not necessarily rape or oral sex but definitely boundary issues.
Even worse IMO is that TSM allowed anybody to have one on one dealings with troubled children.
But Joe was a better story for the media and PSU had more money for the lawyers.
I don't believe it is clear that Sandusky was told not to shower with boys. Sandusky has said that he remembers that in 1998 he was told specifically not to shower with v6 again, but was not given a blanket order to not shower with boys.
AM is the same TSM kid that he drug to the AFCA convention in San Francisco, a trip to LA, another trip to Orlando(bowl game) and his job interview in Charlottesville. This was all done in the public eye and TSM had no objections to any of this. This just wasn't some random TSM kid he took to Lasch.
Police and DPW confronting Jerry should have been more than enough to cause him to cease this behavior. And we have no idea if any complaints about Jerry were made to TSM.
Of course you question the accuracy, but you never seem to question anything Jerry says. No doubt 13 year old conversations are foggy and that is a big reason for a lot of what if's or why's here, but you have Detective and another adult saying he was told not to....yet he kept on doing it. It's odd how every victim or anyone but Jerry has holes in their story...but not your Saint Jerry.
Franco, I know that you are a believer of Jerry Sandusky’s innocence and I will not try to deter you from that mission. I certainly have questions about the way the whole situation played out.
That said, if you were told not to shower with one boy because some people thought it was inappropriate and the police had to get involved, wouldn’t you avoid that practice altogether?
It makes zero sense to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't what happened.
The incident was brought to the attention of authorities because v6's mother had an issue with Sandusky showering with her son. The authorities investigated the incident with the result being that Sandusky was not indicated for possible CSA and no charges being filed against Sandusky. To address the possibly of a further complaint against Sandusky, by v6's mother, authorities told Sandusky not to shower with v6 again. It seems plausible to me.
Similar threads
