Sara Ganim no longer at CNN
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
...and there it is, so predicable. This isn't about Sara Ganim, it's just another excuse for you to spew your absurd theories about how Jerry Sandusky is innocent. Sandusky is guilty as sin, and has gotten what he has deserved. The only injustice is that this Ped didn't get what was coming to him years earlier considering the many, many victims. You and the rest of your nest really need to STFU already.
MODS, enough already, these threads are infested by the lowest of the low and should not be allowed. They are an embarrassment to this forum and Penn State University. Take the garbage out already!
Way to virtue signal, well done. People with a working brain (like Malcolm Gladwell) can see what an obvious fraud this case is. The embarrassment to the university is the unbelievable cowardice of the BOT in caving to an ignorant media.
Joined May 27, 2011. Just about the time that the shit show was being unveiled.
You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your own facts. My "theories" are not at all absurd but are based on the facts of the case as I understand them. I have researched this case extensively and that research has led me to the conclusion that there were multiple cases of prosecutorial misconduct and that none of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with have a credible story that they were sexually abused by Sandusky.
If you are not interested in discussing this topic then please ignore it. If you are, please tell me the story of the individual claimant that you are most confident that was abused. In addition, please provide justification for the rampant prosecutorial misconduct such as the knowingly false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, the multiple grand jury leaks, the suggestive interviewing techniques that were used by investigators to get accusers to allege abuse (and then lying about it) and coaxing a defense attorney to violate attorney-client priviledge.
No where in his book does Gladwell defend Sandusky as innocent or claim the victims were lying.
You need to familiarize yourself with the term mutual exclusivity. Even if the BOT dropped the ball and caved, even if Penn State was run over by the media and NCAA, it doesn't mean Sandusky was innocent.
You have researched this case extensively, so what? Who are you to educate anyone on anything? As an Attorney, I am fully capable of analyzing the evidence and coming to my own conclusions. Aside from that, it's clear you are operating from an agenda that Sandusky is innocent and utilizing classic confirmation bias and other unreliable thought processes to come to you conclusions. For example, saying all 36 claimants are lying is patently absurd and Exhibit "A" that your "research" is not credible.
I originally thought Sandusky was guilty as hell until I learned the facts of the case.
I will repeat the question that I asked earlier, please tell me which specific claimants (of the 36 that Penn State made settlements with) you are most confident was abused by Sandusky.
The back and forth is entertaining but statements like the above make me chuckle. I've known a few attorneys who weren't very bright so the "but I'm attorney" argument doesn't fly. As the saying goes - if law school is so hard then why are there so many attorneys??
The caving BOT and media hysteria made it impossible for JS to get anything close to a fair trial. The case is built on Aaron Fisher and Mike McQueary. Their stories have been shredded. PSU let it be known they would pay just about anyone and they did, hence 36. I’m surprised more didn’t collect. Gladwell sure as heck doesn’t say JS is guilty either. But those that have investigated this deeply (Ziegler, Sneddon, Pendergrast) agree JS is innocent and that it’s obvious.
Let’s not forget - Frank Abagnale passed the bar exam without the luxury of attending law school.
So having a law degree and being a member of the bar somehow makes a person less capable of understanding legal issues, civil procedure and evidence vs some self appointed internet experts with no legal background whatsoever. Now that's amusing!
Just remember chuckles, for every not very bright lawyer out there, there a several real sharp ones that can run mental circles around guys like you, stormingnorm and lionville.
Last edited:
She won a Pulitzer and was portrayed on an HBO movie as some kind of feminist hero for the ages...yet she can’t keep a job at CNN....that’s some low level talent there for sure.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Yeah and she had that story handed to her on a platter by the DA’s office and CNN was so impressed by her investigative skills they had her investigating snow storms - I am sure on her first day that had buyers remorse.
How many of those real sharp ones were we lucky to have "running circles" on the BOT when the Sandusky shit happened?
She should have focused more on improving her blowies....she could have slept her way to the top instead of sleeping her way to the lower half. No talent in the bedroom or the job apparently.
LOL!! Not at the legal profession but at you personally. Track me down and sue me. You seem like the type.
LOL!
Q: What’s 16 inches long and dangles in front of an asshole?
A: An attorney’s necktie!
Why is the statement that all 36 accusers are not telling the truth patently absurd? Between his second mile, football camps, football recruits, and adoption/foster care, Sandusky likely came in close contact with thousands of boys over the decades. Most of these now young men were from rough backgrounds and are certain to have money problems.
Keep in mind too that 30 of those 36 came forward after Sandusky was arrested and the whole media was telling everyone he a pedo. Articles were already being written days after the arrest that Penn State may be on the hook for over $100 million. It’s not unreasonable that of those thousands, 30 guys came simply looking for a payday after that.
As for the remaining 6, 5 only claimed abuse after being told by police of the abuse of the first accuser (which there’s audio evidence that it was greatly embellished in the case of Victim 4 and likely embellished in the others as well). At least four of these guys were close friends with Jerry as adults. Victims 3 and 7 attended football games with Jerry in 2010. Victim 4 brought his girlfriend and kid to visit Jerry not long before flipping on him. Victim 6 was sending Happy Fathers Day texts to Jerry only a year before the arrest. But then they switched their stories after being approached by lawyers and undergoing
pseudo-scientific repressed memory therapy.
Victims 3 & 5 also contradicted their trial testimonies in their claims against PSU. It should also be noted that Victim 7 admitted he only came to have a negative view of Jerry through the repressed memory therapy. And Victim 6 (who never claim anything inappropriate beyond being lifted in the shower) told Victim 7 that he was still questioning Sandusky’s guilt even two months AFTER the arrest.
That leaves only the first accuser Aaron Fisher. I will acknowledge his story is the more credible than the others, but it is not without major problems. Many people very close to Aaron and his mother at the time do not believe them. And if you read the book he “authored” with his therapist Mike Gillum, it’s clear Gillum is a complete kook.
In addition, he has posted pictures of himself bathing in cash and also telling rape jokes on a gaming forum. Finally his recent arrest for violating a PFA order against his estranged wife further questions this guys character and credibility. And credibility means everything in this case because there was absolutely no porn discovered on Jerry nor and physical evidence.
Last edited:
I wonder if anyone, specifically @francofan can produce one thing ganim published that was factually inaccurate (given what was known at the time, by her)
FYI. John Ziegler had Malcolm Gladwell on his podcast after the book was published. Ziegler asked Gladwell for a specific example of a conclusion of Ziegler’s which Gladwell disagreed with. Gladwell could not provide an answer.
Thanks. I’ve heard very few people on the other side even address her interview. I believe someone once claimed it could have just been a personal conflict between Judy and Dawn, but that doesn’t make sense. If it was just a personal spat, I could see Judy accusing Dawn of being more concerned about her being on camera than the wellbeing of her son, but not questioning the whole thing.
By volunteering to lead the rally in the first place, it’s clear Judy cares greatly about abused children, or at least wants her community to think she cares about abused children. It would make no sense that she would take the side of John Ziegler, who was really being lambasted by the media as a pedophile defender at the time, unless she sincerely believed his view was correct.
Last edited:
Similar threads
