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

[bplionfan]

Lack of penetration does not mean there was no sexual abuse.

Its about what Mike witnessed and told others. It certainly couldn't be described as seeing something sexual by Mike. Again moments after he witnessed it when his memory was freshest.
Mike “I just saw .... Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,”
John “..asked him if he had seen anal sex ..... sodomy,”
Mike “No, I didn’t actually see that”
John asked again, “...you didn’t witness ....ANYTHING ELSE ...”
Son again said no.

 

[elvis63]

4/5 convictions according to a jury.

Counter that. Mike was believed twice now . Want to bet what happens the third time .

Jerry was convicted with his testimony in regards to V2. According to the law, Jerry molested a kid in that case. Unless you have some sort of evidence that would reverse those convictions , your opinion is worthless .

 

[elvis63]

It's a weak deflection. Let's just say this, how many of these guys would be signing up today to have Jerry watch their kids alone? I just wish these guys had to have Jerry watch their kids or grandkids for 2 days...my oh my would that tune change in a hurry. This is about PSU to a few here...nothing more than that. They want the hail mary thrown and that is why you see...what will it hurt to have a new trial. Screw the people Jerry molested...I need my feelings and opinions validated first. It's pretty damn selfish IMO, but it's become so accepted here that there is no line anymore...just a bunch of gray. It's scary to be honest.

I believe there are lines yet. I see them . I think you do too. They don't .

 

[GTACSA]

And Johns testimony goes to show that Mike did not see anything other than JS in a locker room shower and a kid also in the same locker room shower. So its highly highly unlikely Mike would tell Tim and Gary he saw sexual abuse when moments after he told his dad he did not see sexual abuse.

Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.

John McQueary in his testimony began by recounting the phone call he received from his son moments after witnessing Sandusky and a child in the Lasch building shower room in 2001. His wife answered the phone and immediately handed him the phone, saying “It’s Mike. There’s something wrong.”
“I just saw something, I saw Coach Sandusky in the shower with a young boy,” John recalled his son saying.
“I asked him if he had seen anal sex and I got more descriptive. ‘Did you see anything you could verify’ — penetration or maybe I used the word sodomy,” he said. According to his father, Mike McQueary responded, “No, I didn’t actually see that” John McQueary says he asked again, “So you didn’t witness penetration or anything else you can verify?” His son again said no.

You said that Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.

That's a completely misleading statement. Why would his dad have asked him if he had seen anal sex, or penetration if Mike's description of what he had witnessed was not sexual?

I understand that in your world if someone tells you that they saw 2 friends of yours swimming in a neighbor's pool, the first thing you ask is whether he saw anal sex or penetration. Wow.

The record established by the testimony of Mike, his father and Dranov clearly establishes that Mike observed what he concluded was a sexual contact between Jerry and a young boy.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

You said that Moments after the 2001 incident Mike McQueary called home and told his father Twice he saw nothing more than Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a boy and did not witness anything sexual.

That's a completely misleading statement. Why would his dad have asked him if he had seen anal sex, or penetration if Mike's description of what he had witnessed was not sexual?

I understand that in your world if someone tells you that they saw 2 friends of yours swimming in a neighbor's pool, the first thing you ask is whether he saw anal sex or penetration. Wow.

The record established by the testimony of Mike, his father and Dranov clearly establishes that Mike observed what he concluded was a sexual contact between Jerry and a young boy.

only 81 likes??? what's your deal?

 

[kingfarouk13]

4/5 convictions according to a jury.

Counter that. Mike was believed twice now . Want to bet what happens the third time .

Jerry was convicted with his testimony in regards to V2. According to the law, Jerry molested a kid in that case. Unless you have some sort of evidence that would reverse those convictions , your opinion is worthless .

Go back to PL with your repetitious shit, and the other clowns.

 

[indynittany]

It's post like that that let me know you have lost your GD mind. I lived in NOLA, CA, and Florida the last 20 years and don't have jack crap to do with Pa's government. That must be the dumbest GD thing you could have posted. Anyone that isn't carrying a free Jerry card which is the VAST MAJORITY BTW somehow is paid off by the former Governor. Yeah...he got a hold of me 20 years ago to go on Tom's site as he had this all planned out. You have lost your marbles....sad that Curley has an idiot like you helping his cause.

You're protecting somebody.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You're protecting somebody.

What are you talking about? Jerry is a pedophile and belongs in prison. I guess the children since you are ok with molestation. More like you know I'm right about Jerry and you need to go to BS like this.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

You're protecting somebody.

have to agree with you 100%. no one willfully obfuscates the facts without an agenda

 

[indynittany]

Lack of penetration does not mean there was no sexual abuse.

No, but Mike said he never saw arousal. Now maybe that's because Jerry's back was to him. However, let's not forget that Mike also sent an email to the OAG after the presentment came out complaining that they had misrepresented what he told the grand jury. Then you have the kid saying nothing happened, calling Mike a liar in writing, then hidden away during the trial with their knowledge of his identity withheld (illegally) from the jury, it gives one cause to question the integrity of the whole process.

I said from the beginning that there are no more politically ambitious people than those who work in the OAG. These people all want to move up the government food chain. Defense attorneys want to make partner and get rich. Prosecutors crave power. Corbett and his posse were not about to take on Jerry Sandusky unless they knew they would win.

The case sucked and Corbett was in the pocket of TSM, so he wouldn't touch it. McQueary gave them the angle they needed to try the case in the court of public opinion. Part of the strategy was to deflect attention away from TSM and the state agencies that must have fallen down on the job. Part of the strategy was a quantity over quality approach. And since the victims weren't very credible, an eye witness was a huge get. Mike gave them all three.

The OAG made this a Penn State issue and Corbett convinced the BOT to surrender unconditionally and beg for mercy. And now that's all Penn State knows how to do. I want to know why.

Anybody who watched Linda Kelly's PC, including Frank Noonan's act could tell Joe, Tim and Gary were getting screwed over. And those who watched Louis Freeh's PC and then actually read the body of the Freeh report could see that he was perpetrating a fraud. Why? What's this all about?

 

[indynittany]

What are you talking about? Jerry is a pedophile and belongs in prison. I guess the children since you are ok with molestation. More like you know I'm right about Jerry and you need to go to BS like this.

I don't know if you're right about Jerry or not. If I knew you were right, I wouldn't be posting here or paying more than passing attention to Jerry's plight. I am curious as to why you're so interested and so sure of yourself?

 

[elvis63]

No, but Mike said he never saw arousal. Now maybe that's because Jerry's back was to him. However, let's not forget that Mike also sent an email to the OAG after the presentment came out complaining that they had misrepresented what he told the grand jury. Then you have the kid saying nothing happened, calling Mike a liar in writing, then hidden away during the trial with their knowledge of his identity withheld (illegally) from the jury, it gives one cause to question the integrity of the whole process.

I said from the beginning that there are no more politically ambitious people than those who work in the OAG. These people all want to move up the government food chain. Defense attorneys want to make partner and get rich. Prosecutors crave power. Corbett and his posse were not about to take on Jerry Sandusky unless they knew they would win.

The case sucked and Corbett was in the pocket of TSM, so he wouldn't touch it. McQueary gave them the angle they needed to try the case in the court of public opinion. Part of the strategy was to deflect attention away from TSM and the state agencies that must have fallen down on the job. Part of the strategy was a quantity over quality approach. And since the victims weren't very credible, an eye witness was a huge get. Mike gave them all three.

The OAG made this a Penn State issue and Corbett convinced the BOT to surrender unconditionally and beg for mercy. And now that's all Penn State knows how to do. I want to know why.

Anybody who watched Linda Kelly's PC, including Frank Noonan's act could tell Joe, Tim and Gary were getting screwed over. And those who watched Louis Freeh's PC and then actually read the body of the Freeh report could see that he was perpetrating a fraud. Why? What's this all about?

You're spewing a lot of BS here. you are making your own guesses facts, and it's not that way in the real world. I've also seen you stick your toe in the Jerry is innocent water more than once.

 

[millerjs32]

Can you even make a post about Jerry without including Curley or the others? I don't think you can figure out a way to do it. You only care about your friend and if your holding out hope that Jerry gets a new trial and somehow is let go...I feel sorry for you. I do feel sorry for those 3 as they were buried due to poor leadership, but that doesn't mean Jerry gets a new trial. I don't think they hid Jerry from anyone.

The only people calling for a new trial are Jerry and a VERY SMALL handful of PSU folks. You know why, because the victims on the stand buried him. He's done. If he gets a new trial, PSU isn't getting some magical do over. The money which they should have never handed out isn't coming back. In other words...Santa isn't real.

Interesting- I heard JZ on Glenn Beck today talking about another incident, and at the end, he asked Glenn if he could come back on his show to discuss the Sandusky/Penn State situation. Glenn agreed, and Glenn and other guys on show said it would be great to have JZ back after the first of the year, saying Paterno and PSU got screwed. Anyone else here that part of show today?

 

[francofan]

Interesting- I heard JZ on Glenn Beck today talking about another incident, and at the end, he asked Glenn if he could come back on his show to discuss the Sandusky/Penn State situation. Glenn agreed, and Glenn and other guys on show said it would be great to have JZ back after the first of the year, saying Paterno and PSU got screwed. Anyone else here that part of show today?

Yes, I heard that part of the show. I started a new thread.

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threa...to-talk-about-penn-state-and-sandusky.160683/

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't know if you're right about Jerry or not. If I knew you were right, I wouldn't be posting here or paying more than passing attention to Jerry's plight. I am curious as to why you're so interested and so sure of yourself?

Because I follow PSU and think you guys are FOS. If you really weren't sure of his guilt why not help him out. Start a Gofundme for him. Raise that cash. Take this ton of information showing Jerry's innocent and make it be heard. I know if I had such a real cause like you guys, I would do a lot more than posting on Tom's site. Then again if you know he is guilty in the back of your head, why bother supporting Jerry fully.

The simple fact that you even remotely think I'm being paid by someone is comical. Is anyone who thinks Jerry is a pedophile working for Corbett? Do you believe maybe the BoT who I trashed from day one of all of this is paying me too? Maybe it's the TSM who is funding me, but then again I said they too need to be looked into after closing shop in the middle of the night. That must be it....me saying Jerry is a pedophile based on his real life behavior and real life trial where 8 victims testified against him as adults means I'm working for someone. Do me a favor and get me in touch with those who will pay me for saying Jerry is a serial molester....I want to be paid for that along with my back pay. I hope your imaginary salary for me pays well and let me know how much I should ask for. Is there an application I can fill out or link to this job opportunity?

 

[BUFFALO LION]

I'm starting to think you, Steve, pnny, and Simon are serial pedophiles and are worried this could happen to you. No other reason to go to bat for Jerry for so long. It's really easy to make up some crap Indy since it seems like you guys want to go there.

Only read the first page and the last page (this page) of the thread. But based on the incredibly obvious political targeting of Penn State by an out of control Governor and Judicial system, if your last two posts are what you have fallen back to in your argument, you have cataclysmically lost your case.

Name calling is what people fall back to when they have run out of ammo.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Only read the first page and the last page (this page) of the thread. But based on the incredibly obvious political targeting of Penn State by an out of control Governor and Judicial system, if your last two posts are what you have fallen back to in your argument, you have cataclysmically lost your case.


Name calling is what people fall back to when they have run out of ammo.

So saying I'm a paid shill is ok with you. No problem with others making completely unfounded accusations because I think Jerry is a pedophile. You don't call out pnny who does nothing but hurl insults every single day, just me. Talk about being objective and totally failing. Wow, nobody else was over the line? Crazy how you isolated me there isn't it? It's fine for those that support your opinions to cross the line, but nobody else. At least you not proving how hypocritical you are. Now go ahead an lecture the others who did this. I'll be waiting because apparently you have issues with people crossing a line.

BTW if you actually read the post you quoted you would realize I was making a point on how easy it is just to make crap up like indy did. Why didn't you call him out there for making things up? Why aren't you calling him out? I guess in your world it's ok to lie and make things up if they support your views. Yeah...but you're going to lecture people.

 

[roswelllion]

First of all I said "Anyone that isn't carrying a free Jerry card which is the VAST MAJORITY" meaning most people are not carrying that card.

Why don't we do this for every case or is just the ones that impacted you? Oh wait...that already happens today in our judicial system via the appeal process. I'm all for going after TSM or anyone else who did something wrong. You somehow make this leap that Jerry getting a new trial means TSM is getting investigated or others will. The overall lack of legal logic here is pretty profound to be honest. Let's say Jerry gets his new trial. Where or how do you see PSU getting a free pass or the money back? You think the victims are going to say it never happened...gotcha Jerry...funny one, right?

I'm all for a new trial if real evidence presents itself showing Jerry is innocent. That has not occurred, but some basic talking points here about the OAG get rehashed weekly like someone discovered fire. Nothing has changed and no new real evidence showing Jerry is innocent has come up. You're not a victim so why do you care if they get inconvenienced. Hell you have doubts that they are even victims. Why don't you ask Nate Bauer who sat through the entire trial if he feels the victims were real or not? Let me guess, he's a Corbett shill too or whatever crap people here are trying to run with now.

Careful now as Tommy Corbett and I are watching. You'll call me out for saying Jerry is guilty but don't say boo to the utter BS being thrown about by others. Quit watching porn and pay attention to your taxes...Tommy and I are watching. (I hope you know I'm kidding as the other idiots have lost it)

Very strange sentence structure but sorry for misunderstanding you. I certainly don''t think you are paid by anybody or are shill. But for a usually thoughtful person your responses in this thread are almost irrational. I think I'll tune out of this one.

 

[berklion]

only 81 likes??? what's your deal?

He's quite dull. Even bold letters don't help.