OT: More JZ - part 1 of a 2 hour interview (audio link)

[francofan]

I wouldn't be and you think money cures what happened to them? I don't think they were entitled to PSU's money either....but man do some people here love to think money makes everything ok.

Money does not cure the damages that someone has suffered from CSA. However, if someone has been a victim of CSA, I have no problem with the victim going after financial damages from the perpetrator for their pain and suffering. However, I do have a problem when someone goes after money when they were not victimized by the party they are taking action against because either the party was not responsible, they were not victimized in the first place, or both.

Money does not make everything ok. but in this case money could very possibly be a motive for someone to make false accusations of CSA.

 

[WeR0206]

So the 8 victims who actually testified weren't enough? Ok. We'll ignore them and their testimony.

No, because due to the kangaroo court the OAG/judge ran we can't say for sure who is credible or not, in other words the waters were too muddied per sey. That's why certain rules of the court/due process exist because once those waters are muddied then you have to throw everything out the window.

I'm not happy about it either but if the OAG didn't follow the rules then they have only themselves and their own corruption to blame, take your outrage out on them for being corrupt overzealous politically driven idiots not the folks pointing out the corruption/anomalies.

 

[indynittany]

Money does not cure the damages that someone has suffered from CSA. However, if someone has been a victim of CSA, I have no problem with the victim going after financial damages from the perpetrator for their pain and suffering. However, I do have a problem when someone goes after money when they were not victimized by the party they are taking action against because either the party was not responsible, they were not victimized in the first place, or both.

Money does not make everything ok. but in this case money could very possibly be a motive for someone to make false accusations of CSA.

Jerry didn't exactly have deep pockets.

 

[roswelllion]

Devil's advocate: His lawyers probably told him not to say "I said..." unless he explicitly remembered exactly what he said, or had a record of what he said, back in 2001. Given that it was 10 years earlier, he probably didn't remember it exactly, so he phrased it in a manner that was likely suggested to him ("I would have said...") to protect him from any sort of potential legal issues stemming from his testimony in case someone else did somehow have a record of his exact words that may not match McQ's 2011 testimony.

I'm just hypothesizing. It's also possible he was knowingly dishonest. But the phrasing alone doesn't really tell you anything either way.

I agree he was coached to say "I would have said" the OP pointed out he couldn't even remember the year which is only important if it is indicative of his memory.
So if someone says about a conversation "I would have said" it really is a non answer. He can't remember what he said which is completely logical so he says "I would have said"
Tell me what is the difference in these three answers to the questions what did you say to JVP 10 years ago
. "I don't remember"
. "I don't remember but I would have said"
. "I would have said"

When the exact wording is so very important I don't think there is much difference in these three responses.

Let me just add Dranov has testified that his impression from MM, was he did not think the child in the shower was in any distress when MM saw him. Now compare the answers?

 

[francofan]

They were all credible. They only were not credible if you never wanted to believe them.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but you are wrong.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No, because due to the kangaroo court the OAG/judge ran we can't say for sure who is credible or not, in other words the waters were too muddied per sey. That's why certain rules of the court/due process exist because once those waters are muddied then you have to throw everything out the window.

I'm not happy about it either but if the OAG didn't follow the rules then they have only themselves and their own corruption to blame, take your outrage out on them for being corrupt overzealous politically driven idiots not the folks pointing out the corruption/anomalies.

So 8 victims was not enough. I'm not outraged Jerry is in prison at all. Quite the opposite.

 

[francofan]

Other than Aaron Fisher, whose stepfather has something like 100 charges of CSA against him, I believe only the kid who claimed he had lunch with Jerry and Joe said he was sexually abused initially.

V2 never said it. Oh wait, the prosecution hid him in the woods during the trial and failed to disclose their knowledge of his identity because he put in writing that Jerry never abused him.

V6 never claimed sexual abuse. He did, however, text Jerry on Father's Day, 2011 to tell him how blessed he was to have Ole' Jerry in his life.

The janitor case had no victim, no report of a crime, no established date for said crime, no physical evidence of a crime and, after the fact, we've learned that the actual witness said that it was not Jerry Sandusky whom he saw. Sandusky should get a retrial based on this case alone!

Actually, the only other victim who came forward before the November 2011 grand jury presentment and alleged sex was victim 4, the victim who was the subjected to the suggestive interviewing techniques of Corporal Leiter (the Pennsylvania State Policeman who lied under oath and Judge Cleland conveniently did not call him on).

Victim 9 who claimed to have had lunch with Sandusky and Joe Paterno only came forward after the November 2011 gjp when Penn State admitted culcpabily and offered to compensate victims.

 

[francofan]

So 8 victims was not enough. I'm not outraged Jerry is in prison at all. Quite the opposite.

1 victim is too many. The problem IMO is that Jerry's convictions are unreliable because the OAG didn't play by the rules, his attorneys were ineffective, the jury pool was totally tainted, the grand process was peverted, and the trial judge was biased.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

1 victim is too many. The problem IMO is that Jerry's convictions are unreliable because the OAG didn't play by the rules, his attorneys were ineffective, the jury pool was totally tainted, the grand process was peverted, and the trial judge was biased.

LOL. No bias on your part Steve.

 

[WeR0206]

So 8 victims was not enough. I'm not outraged Jerry is in prison at all. Quite the opposite.

This isn't that hard to comprehend so I'm not sure if you are trying to play dumb or what. If the process used to convict someone is corrupted then you can't keep pointing to the results of the tainted process, including victim testimony that was obtained during that process. You have to throw it all out and start from scratch via a re-trial.

Again, this is why the rules of the court exist. They set the standard/rules and for whatever reason the OAG and judge threw those standards/rules out the window for JS (when they should have been following them to the letter to prevent this very situation from ever coming about).

Perjury on the stand? No problem. No victim, date, or evidence, no problem. Not being able to remember giving testimony you gave 6 months in the past, no problem at all, according to the "unbiased" judge cleland. What a complete farce.

Does that sound like an non-corrupted process to you? If it was you who was being prosecuted would you be ok with that? I highly doubt it.

This whole means justifies the ends attitude the state/OAG subscribed to should be terrifying for everyone.

 

[getmyjive11]

Other than Aaron Fisher, whose stepfather has something like 100 charges of CSA against him, I believe only the kid who claimed he had lunch with Jerry and Joe said he was sexually abused initially.

V2 never said it. Oh wait, the prosecution hid him in the woods during the trial and failed to disclose their knowledge of his identity because he put in writing that Jerry never abused him.

V6 never claimed sexual abuse. He did, however, text Jerry on Father's Day, 2011 to tell him how blessed he was to have Ole' Jerry in his life.

The janitor case had no victim, no report of a crime, no established date for said crime, no physical evidence of a crime and, after the fact, we've learned that the actual witness said that it was not Jerry Sandusky whom he saw. Sandusky should get a retrial based on this case alone!

You do know that sexual abuse is not just rape, right?

 

[getmyjive11]

1 victim is too many. The problem IMO is that Jerry's convictions are unreliable because the OAG didn't play by the rules, his attorneys were ineffective, the jury pool was totally tainted, the grand process was peverted, and the trial judge was biased.

"EVERYONE WAS CORRUPT EXCEPT FOR POOR OLD JERRY!"

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yeah, it's terrifying when your hero or school is impacted. Convenient.

 

[wensilver]

What I find interesting is that this thread has
Replies:
215
Views:
2,972
And after years of all the available WITNESS testimony - reasonably intelligent people here can still discuss innocence or guilt, and will go into nuances, dissect context, and the various shades of gray.

And we still don't have solid answers.

Yet Louis Freeh can stand at a microphone in The Westin ballroom here in Philadelphia, look out across the room with his spectacles perched Just.So. on the end of his nose, refer to Mike McQueary as "McQuaide" and in under an hour - tell the world they "covered it up due to bad publicity" based on 3 crummy emails, and torch the place.

And that's okay with the media, and the public at large.

Mkay.

 

[francofan]

You do know that sexual abuse is not just rape, right?

Sexual abuse is not just sex acts but can also include touching or other actions with a sexual intent. If there is not sexual intent, I don't believe you can have sexual abuse.

 

[francofan]

Yeah, it's terrifying when your hero or school is impacted. Convenient.

This is the first case I have taken an active interest in. It has opened my eyes into how corrupt our judicial system can be. I originally became interested in it because of my alma matter as well as a person that I deeply respect, Joe Paterno, were involved in it. I soon came to believe that both Penn State and Joe Paterno were victimized by a travesty of justice and I am pissed off about it. At first, I was pretty sure that Sandusky was guilty and that the jury got it right; but as I learned more about what happened, I have to come to question whether they did. I am now convinced that Sandusky did not get a fair trial and I believe there is a good chance that he didn't sexually molest any victims. I believe that Sandusky is entitled to a new trial and I hope he gets one so that we can honor Joe's dying wish of knowing what exactly happened as I don't believe that we currently know.

 

[wensilver]

Sexual abuse is not just sex acts but can also include touching or other actions with a sexual intent. If there is not sexual intent, I don't believe you can have sexual abuse.

I would venture that the unwanted touching, kissing, rubbing, cuddling, personal phone calls, personal coresspondence, unannounced visits, stalking, etc of these boys constitutes harrassment.

Again, if this was done with young girls by an older male - we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So why is it okay to do that to boys?

Kenneth Lanning answers more on this issue on Pages 22 & 23.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

 

[LaJolla Lion]

This is the first case I have taken an active interest in. It has opened my eyes into how corrupt our judicial system can be. I originally became interested in it because of my alma matter as well as a person that I deeply respect, Joe Paterno, were involved in it. I soon came to believe that both Penn State and Joe Paterno were victimized by a travesty of justice and I am pissed off about it. At first, I was pretty sure that Sandusky was guilty and that the jury got it right; but as I learned more about what happened, I have to come to question whether they did. I am now convinced that Sandusky did not get a fair trial and I believe there is a good chance that he didn't sexually molest any victims. I believe that Sandusky is entitled to a new trial and I hope he gets one so that we can honor Joe's dying wish of knowing what exactly happened as I don't believe that we currently know.

You visited Jerry in jail. Not normal!!!!! You are the FURTHEST thing from an objective opinion.

 

[francofan]

"EVERYONE WAS CORRUPT EXCEPT FOR POOR OLD JERRY!"

I believe that state actors such as Tom Corbett, Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan were corrupt. I am not sure whether Joe Amendola was corrupt, but I am sure that he was ineffective. In this regard, I will refer you to the 34 issues that Sandusky's lawyers have articulated in their PCRA for documentation on prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective counel, the 2 criteria in Pennsylvania that can win you a new trial.

The reasons I believe the trial judge, Judge Cleland was biased include the following:
-he denied all requests for continuances and rushed the case to trial in less than 8 months in a complex case with a lot of developments (by contrast the cases against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz have been going on for over 5 years and there still isn't even a trial date)
- a prosecution witness, Corporal Leiter of the Pennsylvania State Police, committed clear perjury in his courtroom and Judge Cleland ignored it with no consequences
-another prosecution witness, John McQueary conveniently "forgot" what he has testified to 6 months earlier at Curley and Schultz's preliminary hearing and Judge Cleland would not call him on it and directed Sandusky's counsel to move along
-Judge Cleland presided over an unofficial meeting the night before Sandusky's scheduled preliminary hearing at the Hilton Garden Inn were the Judge, the prosecutors, the district magistrate, and Sandusky's attorney (but not Sandusky) worked out an arrangement to deny Sandusky a preliminary hearing

The reasons I believe the grand jury process was peverted are:
-The March 2011 grand jury leaks to Sara Ganim
-The November 2011 grand jury presentment that was supposed to be sealed was leaked to the press
-Grand Jury Judge Barry Fuedale showing his bias in his email to Inquirer reporters by compared Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to the hierarchy in the Catholic Church that covered up for priests that had been involved in CSA. The email also demonstrated ex parte communications with not only the Inquirer reporters but also with Frank Fina
-Judge Fuedale allowing the state to use Cynthia Baldwin testimony against her clients (SCS) and/or allowing her to sit in on their grand jury testimony if she didn't represent them

I believe the jury pool was polluted against Sandusky with the leaked false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch building shower.

In summary, I think the Pennsylvania judicial system has completely failed Sandusky and is entirely corrupted in this case.

 

[francofan]

You visited Jerry in jail. Not normal!!!!! You are the FURTHEST thing from an objective opinion.

I don't believe you are an objective opinion either.

 

[indynittany]

You do know that sexual abuse is not just rape, right?

And sometimes a shower is just a shower.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't believe you are an objective opinion either.

Yeah because I believe the 8 victims who testified over the pedophile. The same ones he had to be around. The same ones he couldn't refute. He isn't just a goofy guy, he's a calculated serial pedophile. It wasn't just an accident.

 

[kingfarouk13]

Can you give us your next few screen names so I don't have to take three posts to figure it out? That would be great.

Get a life, turd. How's "SkunkBear"?

 

[kingfarouk13]

Yeah because I believe the 8 victims who testified over the pedophile. The same ones he had to be around. The same ones he couldn't refute. He isn't just a goofy guy, he's a calculated serial pedophile. It wasn't just an accident.

You're a known ass.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're a known ass.

You're a joke pnny. An absolute joke. Praise your pedophile hero.

 

[francofan]

Okay. Then what about Sexual Harassment?
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
Sexual Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

I would venture that the unwanted touching, kissing, rubbing, cuddling, personal phone calls, personal corresspondence, unannounced visits, stalking, etc of these boys constitutes harrassment. Again, if this was done with young girls by an older male - we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So why is it okay to do that to boys?

I am not sure that what Sandusky did was sexual harrassment. I am not sure what his intent was. I wouldn't recommend doing what he did. Even if what he did was not welcomed, I am not sure that it was so frequent or so severe that it created a hostile work environment. I don't believe he had nefarious intent. I believe he was trying to help out kids who didn't have some of the things that most kids take for granted. I believe that Sandusky's problem was that he put himself in a position to be falsely accused.

Absent any proof that he engaaged in any sex acts, I sure don't believe he deserves a 30-60 year sentence.

 

[francofan]

Yeah because I believe the 8 victims who testified over the pedophile. The same ones he had to be around. The same ones he couldn't refute. He isn't just a goofy guy, he's a calculated serial pedophile. It wasn't just an accident.

I don't know that Sandusky is a pedophile. I don't know that he can't refute the 8 accusers who testified at trial. It seems to me that his lawyers have made a good job of refuting them in his 2nd amended PCRA. I don't believe he got a fair trial and I believe the results of an unfair trial are unreliable.

I don't believe your opinion is objective because while you seem to understand the shenaningans that the OAG and the BOT have done, you are unwilling to understand the consequences of what they did and don't care as to the reasons they did what they did. I believe you have bought into some of the false narratives in the case and are unwilling to revisit some of the conclusions that you initially made based on tainted information.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Steve you are so delusional that you met with the man. You're almost like a sick stalker when it comes to this case. Talk about the OAG all you want to. You have nothing of real substance other than the grand conspiracy theory. You only get away with this crap here. Other PSU fans and alums shut down this nonsense on other sites. It's a freak show here with the same lame ass arguments with no real proof Jerry is even a little bit innocent.

 

[elvis63]

You're a joke pnny. An absolute joke. Praise your pedophile hero.

He is a little more calm now before . Less online harassment, guessing because he was outed.
Still a loon though .

 

[wensilver]

FWIW - I believe if folks are going to toss out terms like "pedophile" "molester" "pervert" "sexual intent" or make statements about victims and their testimony, they really should read Lanning's work here: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Not even law enforcement is knowledgeable enough in this area and terminology differs - our professionals can't even agree.

Which brings us back to how can a geriatric football coach and 2 college admins possibly try to identify a crime based on sounds?

 

[elvis63]

FWIW - I believe if folks are going to toss out terms like "pedophile" "molester" "pervert" "sexual intent" or make statements about victims and their testimony, they really should read Lanning's work here: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Not even law enforcement is knowledgeable enough in this area and terminology differs - our professionals can't even agree.

Which brings us back to how can a geriatric football coach and 2 college admins possibly try to identify a crime based on sounds?

You say, this is my thing we better call the cops to make sure this is looked at.
Easy peezy.

 

[francofan]

Steve you are so delusional that you met with the man. You're almost like a sick stalker when it comes to this case. Talk about the OAG all you want to. You have nothing of real substance other than the grand conspiracy theory. You only get away with this crap here. Other PSU fans and alums shut down this nonsense on other sites. It's a freak show here with the same lame ass arguments with no real proof Jerry is even a little bit innocent.

You are welcome to your own opinions. If you don't see any evidence of the problems with the case, then IMO you aren't looking close enough or your not being objective. It seems to me that you are extremely close minded when it comes to considering opinions different from your own.

I believe you have misjudged the beliefs of other PSU fans and alums. Sure, they are plenty of people that share your opinion. On the other hand, I believe there are a lot more people that you are willing to admit to that believe Sandusky did not get a fair trial and would like to see a new trial. I just want to know the truth of what happened. I want to see the Freeh Report be exposed for the farce that it is. I want to see Spanier, Curley, and Schultz exonerated. I want to see the Paterno family and Graham Spanier win their ciivil cases. In addition, I want Jerry Sandusky to win a new trial.

You seem to be disturbed by my opinions. It doesn't bother me. If you don't want to engage me in a civil manner, then please ignore me. I just want to know the truth. I don't have a deadline. I am not going away.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You are welcome to your own opinions. If you don't see any evidence of the problems with the case, then IMO you aren't looking close enough or your not being objective. It seems to me that you are extremely close minded when it comes to considering opinions different from your own.

I believe you have misjudged the beliefs of other PSU fans and alums. Sure, they are plenty of people that share your opinion. On the other hand, I believe there are a lot more people that you are willing to admit to that believe Sandusky did not get a fair trial and would like to see a new trial. I just want to know the truth of what happened. I want to see the Freeh Report be exposed for the farce that it is. I want to see Spanier, Curley, and Schultz exonerated. I want to see the Paterno family and Graham Spanier win their ciivil cases. In addition, I want Jerry Sandusky to win a new trial.

You seem to be disturbed by my opinions. It doesn't bother me. If you don't want to engage me in a civil manner, then please ignore me. I just want to know the truth. I don't have a deadline. I am not going away.

Not disturbed. Disgusted is more like it. I'll continue to call you and the others out and laugh at you as Jerry rots away. You love for a football program is so warped you deny Jerry likes little boys and molested them. You take him for his words but not the kids he molested. If you think there is some day of reckoning coming, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

FWIW - I believe if folks are going to toss out terms like "pedophile" "molester" "pervert" "sexual intent" or make statements about victims and their testimony, they really should read Lanning's work here: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Not even law enforcement is knowledgeable enough in this area and terminology differs - our professionals can't even agree.

Which brings us back to how can a geriatric football coach and 2 college admins possibly try to identify a crime based on sounds?

they were collateral damage because Jerry's crimes were so heinous. It wasn't right and sadly the media got a Freeh pass from PSU.

 

[getmyjive11]

And sometimes a shower is just a shower.

Bear hugging boys in the shower is just a shower?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Bear hugging boys in the shower is just a shower?

Showering with other parents children.....perfectly normal! You just have to believe that 90's were 50 years ago and nobody thought 50 year old men showering with little boys was wrong. Enter the blue hair with a YMCA story in 3,2,1!!!! It was not acceptable inthe 90's, but some will justify anything for Jerry. Never mind him being told to stop and he couldn't. Just Jerry being Jerry!!!! Silly Jerry!

 

[francofan]

Not disturbed. Disgusted is more like it. I'll continue to call you and the others out and laugh at you as Jerry rots away. You love for a football program is so warped you deny Jerry likes little boys and molested them. You take him for his words but not the kids he molested. If you think there is some day of reckoning coming, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

Which kid(s) do you believe are most likely to have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

Do you think it is possible that any of Sandusky's accuser might not have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

 

[getmyjive11]

Not disturbed. Disgusted is more like it. I'll continue to call you and the others out and laugh at you as Jerry rots away. You love for a football program is so warped you deny Jerry likes little boys and molested them. You take him for his words but not the kids he molested. If you think there is some day of reckoning coming, you're a bigger fool than I thought.

I'm sure we will soon hear how even the jurors were biased because they all thought that child abuse was repugnant. Poor Jerry!!!! How completely unfair!!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Which kid(s) do you believe are most likely to have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

Do you think it is possible that any of Sandusky's accuser might not have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

The human ones that testified against him. Write this down this time.

 

[getmyjive11]

Which kid(s) do you believe are most likely to have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

Do you think it is possible that any of Sandusky's accuser might not have been sexually abused by Sandusky?

All ten of them were abused by Jerry. All ten.