Sandusky prison interview article

[NoBareFeet]

Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky gives new prison interview

More than a decade after his conviction for sexual assault and grooming, disgraced Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence in an interview with DailyMail.com.

www.google.com

 

[indynittany]

The guy deserves a fair trial. I never felt he received that the first time around. Hope a new trial is granted, but I don't think the system will allow it.

 

[Obliviax]

The guy deserves a fair trial. I never felt he received that the first time around. Hope a new trial is granted, but I don't think the system will allow it.

Yep. No Judge wants to be the one that defended the rights of a serial child rapist (even if just the media are the ones stating it). there were so many odd occurrences in that trial and his representation was, IMHO, inept. The fix was in. Was he guilty? I have no idea but he certainly didn't get a fair trial.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Yep. No Judge wants to be the one that defended the rights of a serial child rapist (even if just the media are the ones stating it). there were so many odd occurrences in that trial and his representation was, IMHO, inept. The fix was in. Was he guilty? I have no idea but he certainly didn't get a fair trial.

His representation had no guarantee of payment and had almost no prep time.

They stood no chance.

They needed a lot more time to defend this case. And more money.

LdN

 

[Jerry]

The guy deserves a fair trial. I never felt he received that the first time around. Hope a new trial is granted, but I don't think the system will allow it.

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

 

[WeR0206]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

I tend to believe he's guilty as well but his trial was an absolute joke/shit show. The state themselves were conflicted b/c CPS gave their good housekeeping stamp of approval to his 1998 naked bear hugs from behind while showering behavior with at least 2 different kids. I think there were some other people involved especially at TSM (ie Jack Raykovitz which the state use das a prosecution witness against Spanier). Some of the accusers had very little credibility when you looked into them and their stories and the Judge hardly allowed any examination of their credibility.

This should have been an easy win/open and shut case for the state but their behavior and joke of a trial they put on is what has caused all these theories and doubt, which is a shame.

Once PSU claimed they had an open checkbook and was hardly scrutinizing any claims all kinds of claims came out of the woodwork and the state used many of them even though most of them were financially motived and stories were ridiculous.

 

[Obliviax]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

I respect your opinion.

First, almost NOBODY testifies in his own defense. I think you are totally and completely wrong in that paragraph.

Secondly, he was one weird dude. We actually have a high-ranking political figures who's niece said that he showered with her, as an adult while she was a child, frequently. Nobody seems to care. MM never saw any abuse, whatsoever. But it is clear he was one weird dude.

Lastly, if a prominent person is accused, you'll be shocked how many people pile on because they think there will be a payday at the end. If you run for a national political office, you will undoubtedly be accused of some kind of sexual accusation.

So, in my mind, I think he is 80% guilty and am OK with the verdict had he had a fair trial. But he didn't get a fair trial. The political class simply wanted to get him out of the way. And the cases against every other PSU official were complete shams.

 

[Yanks49]

Once PSU claimed they had an open checkbook and was hardly scrutinizing any claims all kinds of claims came out of the woodwork and the state used many of them even though most of them were financially motived and stories were ridiculous.

Bingo - especially a certain adopted child.

 

[wcg207]

The fix was in then like it is now for no new trial.

 

[saturdaysarebetter2]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

There was no physical evidence whatsoever and if you look at each accusers claims, they fall apart like a house of cards. That's why the prosecution and Sara Ganim called for more accusers to come forth to collect on ca-ching, ca-ching, Penn State paying without vetting anyone. The more accusers = assumed guilt.

 

[PSUSignore]

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

Because the one and only way the Paterno name ever gets restored in the eyes of the public is if Sandusky is somehow found innocent. That's the motivation for many that support him, but I doubt they would admit it. They care about Paterno more than Sandusky, but unfortunately for them it's never going to happen and the university is never going to ever name the field or stadium after Paterno, nor will they ever put the statue back.

 

[LionDeNittany]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

So he shouldn't have a fair trial because of how he reacted to the accusations?

Whether or not you believe his innocence, which I think no one does, his receiving a fair trial should still occur.

 

[knickslions]

When I was there in early to mid 80s it was noted throughout all of athletics don’t drop the soap in shower if Sandusky was around. Something was known back then for sure.

 

[Jerry]

I tend to believe he's guilty as well but his trial was an absolute joke/shit show. The state themselves were conflicted b/c CPS gave their good housekeeping stamp of approval to his 1998 naked bear hugs from behind while showering behavior with at least 2 different kids. I think there were some other people involved especially at TSM (ie Jack Raykovitz which the state use das a prosecution witness against Spanier). Some of the accusers had very little credibility when you looked into them and their stories and the Judge hardly allowed any examination of their credibility.

This should have been an easy win/open and shut case for the state but their behavior and joke of a trial they put on is what has caused all these theories and doubt, which is a shame.

Once PSU claimed they had an open checkbook and was hardly scrutinizing any claims all kinds of claims came out of the woodwork and the state used many of them even though most of them were financially motived and stories were ridiculous.

I respect your opinion.

First, almost NOBODY testifies in his own defense. I think you are totally and completely wrong in that paragraph.

Secondly, he was one weird dude. We actually have a high-ranking political figures who's niece said that he showered with her, as an adult while she was a child, frequently. Nobody seems to care. MM never saw any abuse, whatsoever. But it is clear he was one weird dude.

Lastly, if a prominent person is accused, you'll be shocked how many people pile on because they think there will be a payday at the end. If you run for a national political office, you will undoubtedly be accused of some kind of sexual accusation.

So, in my mind, I think he is 80% guilty and am OK with the verdict had he had a fair trial. But he didn't get a fair trial. The political class simply wanted to get him out of the way. And the cases against every other PSU official were complete shams.

So he shouldn't have a fair trial because of how he reacted to the accusations?

Whether or not you believe his innocence, which I think no one does, his receiving a fair trial should still occur.

Two things can be true: A) the trial was flawed; and B) Sandusky was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know enough about the trial to have a strong opinion on (A) but based on all the facts and evidence, I'm comfortable with (B)...and if I'd been on the jury, I'd have been voting to convict his ass.

Obli, I totally get your point, but I also stand by mine. Appealing to the example of...uh, you know who...only strengthens my argument.

Plus, I don't care what the "rules" say. If you're truly innocent of heinous charges, you look the jury in the eye and say so. Screw the lawyers.

I mean, their advice didn't help him a whole lot in the end. As I recall, more than one juror said his unwillingness to testify influenced their thinking in favor of guilty. No surprise. As a juror, I'd have felt the same way in the same circumstances.

LdN, I totally think Sandusky should have a fair trial. But beyond that, I totally think guilty people should be convicted. And I totally think Sandusky is guilty.

 

[AvgUser]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m on the other side.

Every accusers story had gaping holes in it
The claims were sometimes so outrageous and incredulous its laughable (100x being butt-F’ed; Being locked in a so-called sound-proof basement and sexually abused, etc)
Many, many of the claimants changed stories when dollars were being paid.


That alone causes sufficient reasonable doubt.

 

[saturdaysarebetter2]

I’m on the other side.

Every accusers story had gaping holes in it
The claims were sometimes so outrageous and incredulous its laughable (100x being butt-F’ed; Being locked in a so-called sound-proof basement and sexually abused, etc)
Many, many of the claimants changed stories when dollars were being paid.


That alone causes sufficient reasonable doubt.

Locked in a basement that has a door to the outside and locks from the INSIDE no less. The accused could leave any time they wanted, and yet they returned to Jerry's house more than 100 times to endure sexual molestation. Uh huh.

 

[bdroc]

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prprosecutors.

I don’t have an impulse to defend JS. I think he had some issues. Otherwise he would have been frightened to death of showering alone with a young boy again after 1998. I don't know the extent of his crimes.

That said there are a number of things I don't believe:

1. That C/S/S and Joe knew JS was sexually assaulting young boys and conspired to cover it up but Dranov, dad, PSU BOT, coaches, players, and TSM personnel had no idea.
2. That ~ 30 people suddenly realized they were sexually assaulted after being encouraged by lawyers promising huge cash payouts.
3. That Dottie and others in the house ignored screams from the basement.

I think MM was legitimately concerned by what he "experienced" but he couldn't be sure what it was and he didn't want to make false accusations. That's why his report wasn't explicit and administrators didn't handle things more aggressively. I think PSU administrators handled MM's report "quietly" because it was Jerry. NO EXCUSE for not thoroughly documenting everything!

I DO believe that BOT members and Corbett had involvement with TSM and didn't want this coming back at them. So they took the easy way out and threw 4 people under the bus hoping things would all go away. MSU & OSU administrators defended their universities. Our BOT acted cowardly.

 

[bdroc]

When I was there in early to mid 80s it was noted throughout all of athletics don’t drop the soap in shower if Sandusky was around. Something was known back then for sure.

So everybody knew and lied about it except anybody at TSM and anybody on the BOT?

 

[Jerry]

I don’t have an impulse to defend JS. I think he had some issues. Otherwise he would have been frightened to death of showering alone with a young boy again after 1998. I don't know the extent of his crimes.

That said there are a number of things I don't believe:

1. That C/S/S and Joe knew JS was sexually assaulting young boys and conspired to cover it up but Dranov, dad, PSU BOT, coaches, players, and TSM personnel had no idea.
2. That ~ 30 people suddenly realized they were sexually assaulted after being encouraged by lawyers promising huge cash payouts.
3. That Dottie and others in the house ignored screams from the basement.

I think MM was legitimately concerned by what he "experienced" but he couldn't be sure what it was and he didn't want to make false accusations. That's why his report wasn't explicit and administrators didn't handle things more aggressively. I think PSU administrators handled MM's report "quietly" because it was Jerry. NO EXCUSE for not thoroughly documenting everything!

I DO believe that BOT members and Corbett had involvement with TSM and didn't want this coming back at them. So they took the easy way out and threw 4 people under the bus hoping things would all go away. MSU & OSU administrators defended their universities. Our BOT acted cowardly.

Well you raise a number of issues, but the topic of the thread is Sandusky's guilt (or not), so I'll mostly stick to that.

First off, I'm far from an authority on the particulars of every accusation against the man, but I followed the media reporting pretty closely, statements of jurors, language of the related indictments, that kind of thing...and there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that he engaged in a pattern of criminal sexual behavior toward minors over the course of a number of years. There was certainly no doubt in the minds of the jurors. At trial, Sandusky himself did not even deny this.

In one incident in 1998, Sandusky, when confronted by a victim's mother with detectives listening in a nearby room, admitted showering with the woman's son, said he couldn't be sure whether he had touched the boy's genitals, agonized that he could not be forgiven for his behavior, and wished he were dead.

As for the infamous 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary, based on the documentary evidence of what Mike saw, what he reported, and what he testified...and against the backdrop of multiple other reported incidents and charges...I think a person would have to suspend their powers of reason to conclude anything other than that a minor was sexually assaulted in the shower that night by Sandusky.

Is it possible that there are discrepancies or holes in the stories of one or more victims? Maybe. But when you look at the preponderance of the evidence and connect all the dots, the screamingly obvious conclusion to me is that Sandusky was a serial abuser. Alternatively, a person could deny or rationalize the evidence in favor of the theory that Sandusky is the innocent victim of a vast conspiracy. Personally, I can't think of a reason to go down that rabbit hole.

Looking at the case from the viewpoint of a devout Catholic, I see some depressing similarities in the psychology of some decent and intelligent people who, when confronted with a reality too painful to process because it challenged comfortable beliefs about their religion...even about their own identity as human beings...fell back on denial and far-fetched alternative theories. This is a familiar and very human emotional response. I didn't buy into it with regard to the Church and I'm not buying into it with regard to Jerry Sandusky.

 

[Obliviax]

Well you raise a number of issues, but the topic of the thread is Sandusky's guilt (or not), so I'll mostly stick to that.

First off, I'm far from an authority on the particulars of every accusation against the man, but I followed the media reporting pretty closely, statements of jurors, language of the related indictments, that kind of thing...and there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that he engaged in a pattern of criminal sexual behavior toward minors over the course of a number of years. There was certainly no doubt in the minds of the jurors. At trial, Sandusky himself did not even deny this.

In one incident in 1998, Sandusky, when confronted by a victim's mother with detectives listening in a nearby room, admitted showering with the woman's son, said he couldn't be sure whether he had touched the boy's genitals, agonized that he could not be forgiven for his behavior, and wished he were dead.

As for the infamous 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary, based on the documentary evidence of what Mike saw, what he reported, and what he testified...and against the backdrop of multiple other reported incidents and charges...I think a person would have to suspend their powers of reason to conclude anything other than that a minor was sexually assaulted in the shower that night by Sandusky.

Is it possible that there are discrepancies or holes in the stories of one or more victims? Maybe. But when you look at the preponderance of the evidence and connect all the dots, the screamingly obvious conclusion to me is that Sandusky was a serial abuser. Alternatively, a person could deny or rationalize the evidence in favor of the theory that Sandusky is the innocent victim of a vast conspiracy. Personally, I can't think of a reason to go down that rabbit hole.

Looking at the case from the viewpoint of a devout Catholic, I see some depressing similarities in the psychology of some decent and intelligent people who, when confronted with a reality too painful to process because it challenged comfortable beliefs about their religion...even about their own identity as human beings...fell back on denial and far-fetched alternative theories. This is a familiar and very human emotional response. I didn't buy into it with regard to the Church and I'm not buying into it with regard to Jerry Sandusky.

First, the media got it wrong. This is hardly unusual. They report to get clicks, not for some higher purpose to clarify the record. What would get more clicks than to vilify Joe Paterno.

In the 1998 incident, a woman reported that her son was acting strangely but the son denied anything happened. The detectives didn't know if this was true or the kid was embarrassed. So they set up TWO sting operations trying to get JS to incriminate himself. What they learned was that JS showered with the child. I'll remind you the current President of the United States showered with his daughter, Ashley, according to her diary. Showering with a child is not illegal and was acceptable several decades ago. After expending considerable resources there was no actionable information gained in the original concern nor the two sting operations.

In 2001, MM saw nothing. He suspected but saw nothing. His testimony was that when he was looking through a mirror it looked like JS was standing behind the child and they were very close. He slammed his locker and then moved so he could look indirectly. When he looked in, just a second or two later, they were a yard apart and there was no distress perceptible by the child. You also have to consider that the date, and I don't mean day, I mean YEAR was inaccurate until after the trial and was identified by Freeh. So we are told that MM knew the date because he watched the movie "Rudy" and went to the locker room. He had all of this detail, yet they had the freaking year wrong the entire time.

All of the other accusers were promised a payday. If their testimony was true or not true, who knows? We do know that several of their stories didn't add up. One, who did get paid and was considered credible, recounted his first creepy encounter with JS in the pool or jacuzin in the lasch building. The problem was, that didn't exist at the time the kid claimed the encounter took place.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Yep. No Judge wants to be the one that defended the rights of a serial child rapist (even if just the media are the ones stating it). there were so many odd occurrences in that trial and his representation was, IMHO, inept. The fix was in. Was he guilty? I have no idea but he certainly didn't get a fair trial.

Well put.

 

[NoBareFeet]

As for the infamous 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary, based on the documentary evidence of what Mike saw, what he reported, and what he testified...and against the backdrop of multiple other reported incidents and charges...I think a person would have to suspend their powers of reason to conclude anything other than that a minor was sexually assaulted in the shower that night by Sandusky.

I don't think you have to suspend reason to conclude that the McQueary shower incident wasn't a sexual assault.

• The "victim" there came forward on his own accord and in an interview with Amendola's investigators denied anything inappropriate went on. And he did so vehemently.
• After listening to Mike's account of what he saw Dr. Dranov testified that there was absolutely nothing in Mike's account that justified a report to police.
• Mike reached out to Jonelle Eshbach and complained that his account was misrepresented in the Grand Jury presentment. She told him to he had to remain quiet about it.
• Spanier, Curley, and Schultz have always maintained that Mike did not report a sexual assault to them. Prior to this fiasco, these men had impeccable reputations.
• John Zeigler's investigation concludes that Mike did not report this incident to Joe the day after it happened, but instead reported it 5-6 weeks after. Say what you will about Zeigler, but this is a reasonable conclusion based on all of the evidence he uncovered.

So I think there are many reasons that it is possible that there was no sexual assault in the McQueary incident.

 

[NC2017]

Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky gives new prison interview

More than a decade after his conviction for sexual assault and grooming, disgraced Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky maintains his innocence in an interview with DailyMail.com.

www.google.com

It still feels like a railroad job to me.

 

[ryoder1]

This whole discussion is futile. The guy ain't getting another trial, no how, no way. Lock him up and throw away the key as they say.

He is guilty, bottom line. Did he do every single act that all the accusers said? Probably not but he clearly did things that made him guilty so he is in the right place and should die in prison which I am sure he will.

He is in denial along with his wife.

 

[WeR0206]

This whole discussion is futile. The guy ain't getting another trial, no how, no way. Lock him up and throw away the key as they say.

He is guilty, bottom line. Did he do every single act that all the accusers said? Probably not but he clearly did things that made him guilty so he is in the right place and should die in prison which I am sure he will.

He is in denial along with his wife.

What if he was guilty but also used as a fall guy to protect people higher in the food chain? The corrupt AG’s illogical focus on PSU admins allowed those higher ups to slink away.

TSM was allowed to just pack up shop and move to Texas and do God knows what over there with their “friend fitness program”

 

[Still in State College]

The most interesting thing about this whole case is that it started at Central Mountain High School and they get a complete pass. Jerry was allowed to take kids out of school/class and no one questioned it and nothing happened to anyone at Keystone Central School District. It was made a Penn State story and they slinked away unscathed.

 

[saturdaysarebetter2]

The most interesting thing about this whole case is that it started at Central Mountain High School and they get a complete pass. Jerry was allowed to take kids out of school/class and no one questioned it and nothing happened to anyone at Keystone Central School District. It was made a Penn State story and they slinked away unscathed.

as did The Second Mile.

 

[indynittany]

.....First off, I'm far from an authority on the particulars of every accusation against the man, but I followed the media reporting pretty closely,...

Jerry, what's the definition of insanity?

How many "narratives" have been proven to be completely bogus in the past 13 years? And not just bogus, but crafted by the deep state to serve its masters. You see what's happening to this country. You see the censorship. I know you do. But to listen to the "media reporting", you'd think everything is just fine.

Back then, anyone suggesting that Joe was being screwed, or that the trial was moving too fast, or any number of other things related to this mess was not just shut down, but labeled as a pedophile enabler. Kinda like anti-vaxers are treated today. It's the very same playbook being employed by essentially the very same people.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

The photograph of Aaron Fischer and his sisters repeated outing of Aarons admissions and plan to extort and fleece the University (sheep) are all I need to know that Jerry should be granted a new trail.

This whole discussion is futile. The guy ain't getting another trial, no how, no way. Lock him up and throw away the key as they say.

He is guilty, bottom line. Did he do every single act that all the accusers said? Probably not but he clearly did things that made him guilty so he is in the right place and should die in prison which I am sure he will.

He is in denial along with his wife.

... And all of his kids, I suppose...and Aaron Fischers sister is in denial, as well, I suppose. I don't think he is innocent but that doesn't mean the trial was anything but a fake show orchestrated by a politician. A stupid politician at that.

 

[indynittany]

Because the one and only way the Paterno name ever gets restored in the eyes of the public is if Sandusky is somehow found innocent. That's the motivation for many that support him, but I doubt they would admit it. They care about Paterno more than Sandusky, but unfortunately for them it's never going to happen and the university is never going to ever name the field or stadium after Paterno, nor will they ever put the statue back.

I think this is largely BS. Joe did exactly what he was supposed to do in that situation. No more. No less. And it should be obvious that doing too much is just as wrong as doing too little.

If Jerry fooled Joe, and the others, it's because he was very good at doing so. Don't forget that Tim rescinded Jerry's guest privileges and reported the incident to Jerry's employer. TSM had a direct responsibility for the actions of its employee, and also for the well being of that child.

Jack Raykovitz was a mandatory reporter. The boy was a TSM kid. But rather than do his job, he argued that telling Jerry to wear swim trunks in the shower would solve the problem and preserve one of Jerry's best grooming spots. If Jerry is guilty, wouldn't that make Jack the pedophile enabler of the year? Why wasn't he charged?

The story that Joe and the others were involved in some nefarious cover up was crafted and rubber stamped long before Jerry's trial. To say that they and Sandusky were convicted in the court of public opinion is a gross understatement.

You're arguing, in a backhanded way, that if Joe's reputation is restored, Sandusky must be innocent. I don't see it that way at all. Curley, Schultz and Spanier were never convicted of even one of the fifteen felonies with which they were charged. That means there was no cover up, no perjury, no conspiracy, etc. IOW, the narrative did not stand up. It doesn't mean Sandusky is innocent. It does mean the shower incident has to be viewed differently than how it was sold.

The focus of this story should have never been about PSU. It should have always been focused on TSM. That the narrative was crafted the way it was is indicative of just how corrupt our media and justice system have become.

The question that should be asked and answered is why? And I believe those answers can be found within the PSU board of trustees and the AG's office.

 

[PSUSignore]

You're arguing, in a backhanded way, that if Joe's reputation is restored, Sandusky must be innocent.

That's not at all what I said, nor do I believe that somehow first restoring Joe's reputation improves Jerry's argument that he's innocent in any way. I simply answered OP's question as to why people seem so motivated to try to defend Jerry. Tons of Penn State people desire for Joe to get his reputation back. IMO, they see that the most likely way for that to happen is to first prove Jerry is innocent, hence the motivation of many to defend him. It's less about Jerry and more about Joe. If Jerry is innocent then everyone else must be because there was nothing to act on in the first place.

I personally do not agree that Jerry is innocent. I also don't believe that Joe's reputation will ever be restored, regardless of what happens with Jerry going forward. The court of public opinion is cemented, Joe's reputation is gone forever. Even an overturned verdict for Jerry will not be believed by the public at large at this point, meaning that everyone implicated at PSU (Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno) will forevermore be considered guilty by association, fairly or not. I came to terms with that a long time ago.

Before anyone tries to twist my words... you should note that I didn't say anything about my thoughts about the guilt or innocence of anyone not named Sandusky.

 

[bdroc]

Well you raise a number of issues, but the topic of the thread is Sandusky's guilt (or not), so I'll mostly stick to that.

First off, I'm far from an authority on the particulars of every accusation against the man, but I followed the media reporting pretty closely, statements of jurors, language of the related indictments, that kind of thing...and there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that he engaged in a pattern of criminal sexual behavior toward minors over the course of a number of years. There was certainly no doubt in the minds of the jurors. At trial, Sandusky himself did not even deny this.

In one incident in 1998, Sandusky, when confronted by a victim's mother with detectives listening in a nearby room, admitted showering with the woman's son, said he couldn't be sure whether he had touched the boy's genitals, agonized that he could not be forgiven for his behavior, and wished he were dead.

As for the infamous 2001 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary, based on the documentary evidence of what Mike saw, what he reported, and what he testified...and against the backdrop of multiple other reported incidents and charges...I think a person would have to suspend their powers of reason to conclude anything other than that a minor was sexually assaulted in the shower that night by Sandusky.

Is it possible that there are discrepancies or holes in the stories of one or more victims? Maybe. But when you look at the preponderance of the evidence and connect all the dots, the screamingly obvious conclusion to me is that Sandusky was a serial abuser. Alternatively, a person could deny or rationalize the evidence in favor of the theory that Sandusky is the innocent victim of a vast conspiracy. Personally, I can't think of a reason to go down that rabbit hole.

Looking at the case from the viewpoint of a devout Catholic, I see some depressing similarities in the psychology of some decent and intelligent people who, when confronted with a reality too painful to process because it challenged comfortable beliefs about their religion...even about their own identity as human beings...fell back on denial and far-fetched alternative theories. This is a familiar and very human emotional response. I didn't buy into it with regard to the Church and I'm not buying into it with regard to Jerry Sandusky.

I disagree with your analysis.

The 1998 incident was reported to be Sandusky holding the kid up in the shower to rinse his hair. You act like he was fondling the kid's junk. I'm pretty sure there was no testimony to that effect.

McQueary testified that the boy ran out of the shower but did not appear to be in distress. If JS was engaged in sodomy that kid would have been in major distress. Furthermore the jury found JS not guilty on that charge.

You claim that JS didn't deny the charges. That's a ridiculous statement because he didn't testify. He plead not guilty so that means he denied guilt.

We also have emails from MM telling the AG that he never witnessed things she wrote in the GJ presentment.

I'm not trying to defend JS. I've said that I believe he had boundary problems and that his actions could have gone further than that. I'm not letting him off the hook but I do try to analyze things logically. Occam's razor.

I don't believe that JS assaulted screaming kids in the basement while Dottie and other adopted kids ignored them. I also question those who testified that nothing bad happened but later changed their story for $millions.

 

[bdroc]

The focus of this story should have never been about PSU. It should have always been focused on TSM.

The story was focused on Joe Paterno, one of the most revered sports figures in America.

The media needs sensationalism to sell papers, get clicks, etc.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I honestly don't know if he got a fair trial, but based on the many accounts of incidents with children starting from 1998 when he told a victim's mother that he wished he were dead...to the infamous shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary...to the array of accusations against him by multiple victims as recounted at trial...to a slew of circumstantial evidence...I fully believe he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind also that he chose not to testify in his own defense at the trial. Any normal innocent person would have demanded the opportunity to state his innocence of the heinous crimes charged by the state. In a situation like this, I don't buy the-lawyers-told-me-not-to line. If you're wrongly accused of a terrible crime, the normal reaction is anger and indignation...not hemming, hawing, and silence.

I honestly don't understand the impulse that some people have to defend this guy or to insist he was an innocent victim of some fantastic conspiracy on the part of an array of devious accusers, investigators, and prosecutors.

There is tons of evidence out there (much of it came to light after the trial) that points to his innocence.

It wasn't a conspiracy. It was a lot of indepedent actors either acting in their own best interest or wrongly thinking they were doing the right thing.

 

[PSU2UNC]

When I was there in early to mid 80s it was noted throughout all of athletics don’t drop the soap in shower if Sandusky was around. Something was known back then for sure.

That's odd because I was there in the 90s and didn't hear any of that.
Moreover, all of the former players I've talked to (including those recruited by Sandusky) said that he was a big goofball but was in no way a sexual person and never saw anything unusual.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Locked in a basement that has a door to the outside and locks from the INSIDE no less. The accused could leave any time they wanted, and yet they returned to Jerry's house more than 100 times to endure sexual molestation. Uh huh.

And wasn't soundproofed at all.

There were also two accusers whose time frames overlapped (i.e. they were at the Sandusky house every weekend for the same time period) yet they never met each other.

 

[PSU2UNC]

First off, I'm far from an authority on the particulars of every accusation against the man,

If you are not an authority, perhaps you should defer to the people who are authorities on the expansive and specific details of the case.

Uniformly, those people have concluded that Sandusky was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of.

 

[PSU2UNC]

This whole discussion is futile. The guy ain't getting another trial, no how, no way. Lock him up and throw away the key as they say.

He is guilty, bottom line. Did he do every single act that all the accusers said? Probably not but he clearly did things that made him guilty so he is in the right place and should die in prison which I am sure he will.

He is in denial along with his wife.

You saying his is guilty does not make it so.

The evidence is pretty clear that he is not guilty.

And it is VERY clear that he did not get a fair trial.

 

[Jerry]

I pretty much agree with the above analysis of ryoder and signore on this.

And I'll agree to disagree...strongly...with those in the thread who question Sandusky's felony convictions. To me, the case against him is open and shut. I think the overwhelming majority of neutral observers -- and no, I'm not talking about bloviating, virtue-signaling "journalists" -- share my view of the issue.

That said, I also appreciate that the discussion took place without name-calling and further note that many of those on the opposite side from me in the thread are people whose intelligence and integrity I respect and whose opinions on most other things I agree with more often than not.

Focusing back from Sandusky, a man I consider a total scumbag, I think this whole terrible saga is the most tragic story in the history of sports: how a good man, great coach, and legend of the game became a disgraced pariah overnight...all the great things he'd done and values he stood for instantly tossed into the trash...his legacy erased and his memory smeared.

I think the hows and whys of this are not a black or white thing as most seek to make it...Joe's attackers using black paint and his defenders white. Personally, I've always colored it gray. Most things in life are...because reality is complicated and human motivations are complex.

As for the BOT and administration, yes, cowardly bureaucrats buffaloed by the mob. In another newsflash: water is wet. In my view, arguably the most craven thing they did was roll over for the NCAA's outrageous kangaroo-court sanctions aimed at driving the football program into the ground.

At the end of the day, it's unfortunate...even depressing...that we're still arguing this shit ten years later. The debate will achieve nothing...prove nothing...change nothing. Waaay past time to let it all go, in my always humble opinion. Only two months to go until the start of the 2024 season!

 

[bdroc]

You saying his is guilty does not make it so.

The evidence is pretty clear that he is not guilty.

And it is VERY clear that he did not get a fair trial.

There's no clear evidence that JS is innocent.

I happen to think JS is guilty of inappropriate contact with minors. How much more I'm not sure. I think TSM is guilty of allowing their ambassador to have one on one contact with troubled youth. I think PSU administrators are guilty of failing to property document MM's report and the reasoning behind their response. I think the PSU BOT is guilty of breaching their fiduciary responsibility by failing to defend the university.

I DO NOT think Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno are guilty of knowingly allowing a pedophile to sodomize boys as the media would have you believe.