Probably because she was told it was a misunderstanding...and that Jerry was from a culture of athletic coaches that shower with boys/men all the time. She was also likely told he would never do it again.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
Probably because she was told it was a misunderstanding...and that Jerry was from a culture of athletic coaches that shower with boys/men all the time. She was also likely told he would never do it again.
I personally would avoid that practice altogther; in fact I would advise against showering with an unrelated minor in the first place. To me, it makes no sense for an unrelated adult to have one-on-one unsupervised contact with an at-risk minor. The Second Mile charity should have had protocols in place to protect the at-risk minors as well as the adults who supervise them.
Plausible perhaps, but not a “get-in-the-shower-with-any-boy-you-want-free” card. Having gone through that once makes it hard to believe he would do it again for strictly innocent purposes.
According to the 1998 police report, Jerry acknowledged that he showered with other boys. He also acknowledged that he used poor judgment in doing so. Police also advised Jerry not to shower with any child, to which Jerry agreed.
I don't believe Allan Myers was an any boy you want to Sandusky. It seems to me that Myers and Sandusky had a 10+ year father-son type relationship with zero incidents of CSA.
I agree with that 100%. I think anybody that has worked with kids would avoid that practice. I think anybody that innocently was caught in that situation would absolutely avoid that situation again.
My father and I had an actual father-son relationship and we never showered alone together.
I am only stating what Sandusky remembers from the incident. He could have misunderstood the authorities, he could be lying, or could be remembering correctly. The fact of the matter is that showering with a child is not CSA unless there is sexual intent. I am totally unconvinced that there was sexual intent involved with any of the alleged victims. If you are willing, please tell me which of the alleged victims do you think has the strongest case that they were a victim of CSA by Sandusky.
Its central to The Commonwealth Case to have us believe MM witnessed JS sexually abusing a "child" in the Lasch building (whenever he stumbled upon the incident). An "upset" MM called his father (a medical professional), who knew the proper reporting procedure for child abuse. JM, did NOT tell MM to make a call to LE or CYS, but rather told him to come home. Whenever Dr. Dranov heard MM's story, he heard nothing, in his opinion, required touching base with LE or CYS. Rather, they told MM to speak to JVP.
So we are to believe that the story MM told GS and TC required reporting to LE or CYS?So it wasn't just MM who was satisfied for 10 years with the actions of the PSU administration......it was also JM and Dr.D.
By the way, if you believe that Jack Raykovitz didn't (doesn't) know that the young man in question was Allan Myers, I have some bridges for sale.
If you don't have questions regarding The Commonwealth's case.......well, I often wonder if anyone has ever spoken to staff at Central Mountain? I would be very curious.
So we are to believe that the story MM told GS and TC required reporting to LE or CYS?So it wasn't just MM who was satisfied for 10 years with the actions of the PSU administration......it was also JM and Dr.D.
By the way, if you believe that Jack Raykovitz didn't (doesn't) know that the young man in question was Allan Myers, I have some bridges for sale.
If you don't have questions regarding The Commonwealth's case.......well, I often wonder if anyone has ever spoken to staff at Central Mountain? I would be very curious.
I'm not taking Sandusky's side here at all. At best he was stupid--at worst criminal. I'm just noting why it wasn't as much a red flag for the admins (or Joe for that matter) as it would be today. I think PSU was still doing same sex (at least male) swim classes in the nude as late as the 1970s. But we're talking about perceptions of folks (admins) who did grow up in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. It's hard to realize how much our culture has changed. I mean, All in the Family was ground-breaking in the 1970s. Why? Because you could hear a toilet flushing.
What were they supposed to do after working out? Not shower? The problem wasn't the shower. The problem was that they were alone while showering.
People like to point out that Jerry was told not to shower with boys any more in '98. What we don't know is if those instructions were out of concern for the well being of the boy, or out of concern for Sandusky's vulnerability in such a scenario.
What would have happened if V6's mother wasn't satisfied with the results of the investigation and filed a civil suit against Jerry, TSM and PSU? How do you defend yourself in a he said/he said scenario when the other 'he' is a young man? Fortunately, the boy never felt sexually threatened by Sandusky and, with the mother's permission, the two continued to have a decade long, seemingly healthy relationship from that point forward.
Last edited:
Now, yes. But it wasn't a red flag to anyone then. Maybe a yellow. Maybe.
I know I'm a lot more careful around kids now and in the last 7 years since this all broke. A good buddy of mine has encouraged me to get involved with Big Brothers. I've been resistant to that (even though I did the equivalent with a kid I was coaching in youth soccer before this broke--he's now a college junior), largely because of the potential for an unfounded accusation to ruin one's life.
For one thing it begs the question, who was responsible for Jerry's out of program contact with TSM kids?
Of course it wasn't just one child, but the tin foil folks here want to pretend Jerry is the victim. Jerry saying it holds more water than this document as you stated 2 days after the actual conversation.....alrighty then.
Written two days after this conversation occurred.
This doesn't phase the Jerry is innocent crowd....he must have just forgot that showering and touch little boys is wrong.......Ooooops.
Last edited:
This board has taught me that the problem is not that they were showering, or showering alone... it's that they were showing naked!
“Did Sandusky act stupidly by showering with boys?” and “Is Sandusky a serial child molestor?” are two very different questions
And the answer to both is....Yes apparently. He did shower with boys after being told not to and he was convicted on 45 or so counts.
Last edited:
What makes less sense than Jerry continue to shower with boys after the 1998 incident is that Jerry continued a 13 year relationship with that particular boy, with his mother’s blessing. You would think that Jerry would want to drop the first kid to make a complaint in the 22 year history of the second mile like a hot potato. If this boy was willing to cry to mom when he was made uncomfortable in a shower, this boy would definitely be likely to go tell someone if he ever got word of Jerrys actual sex acts with boys. Instead Jerry actually enables this boy to form close friendships with the other boys he was supposedly molesting/grooming.
If Sandusky was that guilty and also so careless about avoiding getting caught, how did he not have one kid ever complain about a sex act until 33 years after the second mile was founded? And even then, it took years of controversial therapy for this kids complaint to evolve into a sex act.
Ummmm he was found guilty and a ton of kids that he had access to basically confirmed this and he had no defense for it. As far as abuse victims not coming forward, this is not uncommon at all, do you realize that and can you actually comprehend that? Some victims has had their predator walk them down the aisle. Some get together every week at family events....not sure why you think this is uncommon when there is a TON of literature out there stating that this is fairly common. Nasser's victims actually went back to see him again....do you realize that? Again...this is all common knowledge. I get you want this to be a bad dream and are in denial like a few others, but it really happened. If you want to keep pretending it didn't happen, by all means. Wear a shirt and promote your faith in Jerry...not my problem.
I never played sports in a gym with my dad but I do recall being in a few public showers with him. At a campsite, swimming pool, etc.
We've had to tell him to back off kids before........
You just gloss over this statement like it’s nothing:
The problem wasn't the shower. The problem was that they were alone while showering.
That is indeed the problem. He was not in a locker room full of guys showering after practice or a workout. He was alone in a shower with a boy.
I can.
1.) The kid wasn't just any kid. Both Sandusky and an adult AM (until he was paid $ 7 million dollars to change his story) considered themselves to be father and son. Should Sandusky not have been allowed to shower with one of his adopted sons? Are you ashamed to shower with your own blood son?
2.) Having possible hypogonadism, in HIS mind, it was nothing more than your typical shower after a workout.
3.) Sandusky wasn't the brightest lightbulb in the world when it came to common sense and how the world was changing. I took lots of showers at Rec Hall and the new (for me) IM Building near the Stadium late into the night (after 9 or 10 o'clock). So did lots of other guys. But none since the Sandusky incident exploded in 2011. For the life of me, I seriously can't remember if a kid was ever in the shower with another guy during all those years or not, because if he was, prior to November 2011, it wouldn't have meant a thing to me.
4.) When I was growing up, you were considered to be weird NOT to want to shower in front of other guys. You'd be considered "queer". Maybe Sandusky still carried that mentality in 2000/2001.
5.) The way Lauro consoled Sandusky and assured him by phone and mail that the 1998 charges were "unfounded", it may have given Sandusky some form of redemption. Remember. He was never even aware an investigation was going on until Lauro and Scheffler questioned him in the locker room. Lauro did most of the talking and pretty much downplayed the whole incident.
You asked for some reasons. I gave you some. Sometimes it takes time for us to accept change. Maybe 2000/2001 was that "change" for Sandusky. After the 2001 "swim suit" talk with Raykovitz and the talk with Curley, as far as I know, Sandusky never showered with a kid in a Penn State locker room again. ("Victim" 5's original claim was 1996-1998).
Sorry man. I know that's what the shrinks say, but if you are a healthy, fit, adult male like most of Sandusky's "Victims" are, would you actually "walk down the aisle" with someone who sexually molested you??? Would you send them Father's Day Cards and invite them to your wedding???? Really????
Sorry. I don't buy that for a minute. All those healthy adult males except Fisher thought Sandusky was a saint until they had $ 3 million dollars and up waved in front of their faces.
He was told NOT to shower with kids. Now you're saying the man that stood up and created a multi million dollar charity and had defense that led PSU to a couple of MNC's was too stupid to know better. He wasn't just come dope and part of his image was grooming people to thinking he's just sweet old Jerry so he could go ahead and get to the kids.
I totally agree with you that it was dumb/irresponsible/short sighted for him to shower with kids.
I also agree that TSM should have had procedures in place to prevent this from happening.
However, showering with kids is still not illegal.
Had the headline been "Former coach seen in team showers with teenage foster son" that is a world of difference from "Former coach anally rapes young boy in shower".
It seems that the truth is far closer to the first headline than the second. Unfortunately, it second (fictional) headline is the one that go published.
Oh so if you don't like hearing stuff you just put it in denial mode. It's not always just males that get molested, you do understand that. Holy crap. It's not people jumping out of Vans...it's people just like Jerry, friends of the family, or even family members that do this. Yes, what you stated does in fact happen. I don't care if you don't want to buy it because it ruins your pretty little picture of Jerry, this is what actually happens in the real world.
Do you realize Nasser had kids return to his room? Parents much like yourself said...not that guy, no way he could do it. They didn't believe their own children and you don't think people stay in touch with their abusers. Honestly, it's as if some people here didn't learn a thing about this stuff in 7 years. Normal rules do not apply.
https://www.pcar.org/blog/common-victim-behaviors-survivors-sexual-abuse
https://www.marieclaire.com/the-mix/a15753/i-kept-in-touch-with-the-person-who-assaulted-me/
Many victims continue to have a relationship with their abuser.
Though it may be difficult for the public to understand, it is common for survivors of sexual abuse to continue relationships with their abusers after the abuse has stopped. Individuals react to trauma in different ways. For example, it is common for victims to maintain contact with their abusers because they may still feel affection for them even though they hate the abuse. This is especially normal when the abuser is a member of the family or a close family friend. It is also common for some victims to maintain contact in an attempt to regain control over their assault. Others may maintain contact in an attempt to regain a feeling of normalcy.
Many survivors wait until well into their adult hood to share their secret. For many male victims, the shame and secrecy is compounded by the fear that their own sexuality may have something to do with it, or at least that others will think so. We must look at the stories of children with the eyes of children and recognize that a 10-year-old or 14-year-old boy has little language or understanding of human sexuality, and may have a very difficult time understanding that manipulation, abuse, exploitation and violence are not related to their own sexuality.
Last edited:
"Get to the kids" for what? It's pretty telling to me that Sandusky wants the blood test and the warden won't allow it.
Odd you skipped the other post. I don't care what the warden does for that POS. It won't matter and only here do people think it will. Write the warden or your congressman and tell since your idol got tarnished as well as the school so Jerry gets his own set of rules for molesting kids. Let me know how that works out for you. I'm not stopping him or you from doing a thing. I just won't pretend Jerry is a victim here because I'm in some sort of crazy denial.
Now all of a sudden Jerry couldn't get it up....isn't that conveniet. I thought he and Dottie had a great sex life...maybe not...but how could he get it up for her if he liked little boys....kind of odd there. Hmmmm, oh I forgot, he's Forrest Sandusky and was too stupid to bring that up at his trial.
Well then, you just paid them a compliment. You may want to learn the definitions of hypo and hyper. You may also find that hyper in this context applies to you.
Last edited:
A ton of kid
If the naive doofus Sandusky is all an act, why does he continue to play that role even after he’s been convicted and sentenced? He probably would have got a more favorable sentence and better treatment in prison if he’d admit he had a psycho-sexual disorder but was always too afraid or embarrassed to get help.
It’s still very relevant if only first occurred in 2008. That would refute the story of Aaron Fisher, which was used to convince all other accusers that Jerry was a pedo. Also, V9, the only accuser claim anal rape, said it happened in 2008 or 2009.
Ask Steve to pass that along to him I guess. It was a bit too late to play that card or maybe he didn't realize that card was there....don't know and don't really care.
Similar threads
