I don’t disagree with this. And I think I’ve pretty much said the same thing in some fashion or another.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
I don’t disagree with this. And I think I’ve pretty much said the same thing in some fashion or another.
Penn State BOT is guilty of severe fiscal irresponsibility for the way they vetted claims in this story. They have squandered over $100 million of other people's money (namely the citizens of Pennsylvania) is dolling out unnecessary claims. It is the heigth of irresponsibility.
The trustees, as Big Trial reported, also failed in their fiduciary duty to vet the stories told by 36 alleged victims, who were paid a total of $118 million, an average of $3.3 million each, without the university asking any questions.
No depositions by lawyers, no personal interviews with psychiatrists or trained investigators, no lie detector tests. Almost all of the alleged victims in the case didn't even have to publicly state their real names. How's that for easy money?
http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/02/penn-state-cover-up-ends-with-leaking.html
If you want to learn more about the easy money that the claimants made because Penn State was not minding the store, checking out this other blog post by Ralph Cipriano:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html
Joe believed Mike and testified that Mike had told him of an incident of a sexual nature.
The core of your opinions specifically depends on Joe being stupid or naive.
Was Joe Paterno duped by a long time assistant coach or a graduate assistant?
As much as I respect Joe, he unfortunately was duped by one of those 2.
Having read Mike's writings, heard him speak, and observed him, he's no devious mastermind. The furthest thing from it, in fact.
So you want everyone to believe that you love & respect Joe, but also claim that a mental midget GA was capable of pulling one over on him?
On the other side, we have the Clemente report, where he profiles Jerry and explains exactly why he, as a classic PoC offender, could have fooled Joe and everyone else.
One of those 2 fooled Joe. You continue to insist it was Mike. That's extremely disrespectful.
I think that Joe was duped by his son Scott and that Scott was duped by David Jones of Pennlive.
I don't believe for a second that Mike McQueary told Joe he witnessed a sexual assault and Joe never said that.
I believe that McQueary told Joe of the v2 incident as something that made him uncomfortable. He didn't tell any of the 5 people who he discussed the incident with in the 2000/2001 timeframe (his Dad, Dr. Dranov, Joe, Tim, Gary) that he witnessed a sexual assault. In the 2011/2012 timeframe with the OAG having leverage (college football gambling, cell phone photos) and MM believing that Sandusky was a likely child molester, he told several different stories but he was clear that he heard noises that made him uncomfortable but didn't witness insertion (or anything else for that matter) and when he told Jonelle Eshbach that she twisted his words in the grand jury presentment and he wanted to correct the record, Eshbach told him to keep quiet. McQueary testimony that the v2 incident was sexual or of a sexual nature are plainly not credible.
You obviously don't believe there was reasonable doubt. I stand by my statement that indy's articulation of why there is tons of reasonable doubt in this case is well stated.
You obviously have not done in-depth research into this case. Do you have a date when you plan to have done that research or are you content with your current lack of knowledge of the details of the case?
Frank Noonan, Mr. Morality..LOL. That's another angle....a judge, a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, all disciplined in this case. Nothing to see here.
Last edited:
How do you know Joe believed Mike? Mike reported to him and he passed on the account. No one asked him if he believed Mike. Joe didn't witness anything. Stop making things up. You are clueless.It was not within Joe's purview to discern if Mike was truthful. Once Daddy, Dr. D and MM decided that nothing criminal happened (because they chose an administrative process) Joe was merely the next step. Good God you are such a numbskull.
So you think Freeh’s report is pertinent to Ssandusky’s guilt or innocence? That’s insanity.
He made a statement about the Freeh report in a discussion that had nothing to do with that report. I could say, “I want world peace!”. It’s a great statement but has as much to do with Sandusky’s guilt or innocence as Freeh’s report.
Of course the Freeh Report is pertinent to Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.
It cemented the OAG’s false narratives. It supported the OAG’s arguments against Sandusky’s appeals and it also reinforced the ridiculous charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz thus silencing key witnesses that would have been very helpful in Sandusky’s defense.
So you just called Joe Paterno a liar. He testified that Mike told him about an incident of a sexual nature.
Joe said
“I don’t know what you’d call it”
I am absolutely not calling Joe Paterno a liar. I don’t believe that Mike MCQueary told Joe Paterno that he witnessed a sexual assault or that Joe stated that Mike had told him of a sexual assault. Please consider the totality of Joe’s entire testimony.
By the way, have you beaten your wife lately?
To Jerry's cult, one plus one equals three. You see the specious argument that neither they nor Joe knows/knew what "of a sexual nature" means. Some of the other gems include Jerry's wife denied he was a perv and the authorities didn't find any kiddie porn at Jerry's house.
You might call it a crime, but I wouldn’t unless there was solid evidence that could establish that a sexual assault took place. After over 10 years of investigations, that solid evidence still isn’t evident.
OK Franco, I believe I am done. I was referring to the actual guilt or innocence of Sandusky. You seem much more concerned these days with his guilt or innocence in the courts. Have at it.
I will leave this with you once more, then move along. Grown men don’t shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with them for innocent reasons. They don’t do it once because they know they shouldn’t do it. You know it, I know it, every man knows it. Every single one. Whether they happen to be running an agency who’s sole intention is to help at risk youth or not. And if for some inconceivable reason a person did not know not to shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with them even one time, they certainly would know it after being investigated for that activity by the police, being requested to never do it again, and agreeing to never do it again. The person that does that is doing it for sexual purposes. Plain and simple.
You can, and will, continue to point to a million other points. Not one, nor all of them together, are as germane to the question of whether or not Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting underage boys as what I have pointed out to you. Continue to bang your head against the wall with your blinders on while ignoring or excusing these facts. Have at it.
Too much weight is put on Joe's words in 2010-2012. His responses should be highly questioned. Not because he was lying. But because of his mental capacity in those years. That could also mean he knew more, less, or something completely different. We will never know for certain.
Please tell me what of a sexual nature means.
Jerry’s wife standing by him and no evidence that Jerry ever possessed pornography as well as maintaining his innocence from day 1 do not prove that he is not a child molestor but are strong indicators that he might not be. On the other hand, they certainly make it less likely that Sandusky was a child molester than if any of the opposite conditions had occurred.
Yes, I am very concerned with Sandusky’s guilt or innocence in the eyes of the court of law. I believe an innocent man is languishing in prison for crimes that he didn’t commit.
I will concede that Sandusky exercised bad judgment with his out of program 1-on-1 unsupervised contacts with at risk youths that involved physical contact. I don’t believe he had any sexual intent and don’t believe he committed any crime. If he did anything wrong, I believe the worst he should get is a slap on the wrist.
He absolutely should not have a virtual life sentence unless there is solid, credible that he committed CSA. To date, there has only been solid credible evidence that he didn’t commit CSA. I hope that Sandusky is exonerated before he dies in prison.
"are strong indicators that he might not be"
No they are not. Earlier in this thread, didn't you
suggest people write to Jerry if they want the true
story? Great advice.
As I am sure you are aware of the question that continually ask concecrning the specific 1 or 2 accusers and their individual allegations that make the best most credible case that Sandusky committed CSA. I don't generally get responses that contain credible individual allegations of CSA. I don't expect that you will provide me with anything response. If anything, you will probably make some stupid response.
If this case were the slam dunk that you make it out to be, there should be tons of evidence, but there is none. Futhermore, the OAG would not have needed to resort to prosecutorial misconduct and the shennaningans that they have. Where is your evidence and how do you defend the OAG's misconduct?
You are welcome to your own opinions. Now, please be a man of your word when you say you are done, and quit discussing the guilt or innocence of Sandusky on this thread.
I am willing to debate you, but only if you agree to do the research and learn at least the basics of the case. If you are willing, your assignment to demonstrate the basics of the case is to identify the specific 1 or 2 individual accusers that make the strongest and most credible evidence that Sandusky committed CSA.
You start the research. Ask every grown man you know if they would ever intentionally get in a shower alone with an underage boy and engage in physical contact with them. If any of them say yes (none of them will) ask them if they would ever even consider doing so again after being investigated by police for doing so and agreeing with them to never do it again. If any of them say yes to that, ask them how long they have been sexually predating upon underage boys. There really is no need to go deeper than that with your research.
So, just to be clear, you aren’t done?
24 posts later and still going strong. And I’m not knocking you. It’s tough to bite your tongue when you have strong opinions. So I completely get it. I got a chuckle out of it so thought I’d share.
Here's a quiz for you guys. Which of the following happened in the Dec 2000 to Feb 9, 2001 time frame?
- QB Kerry Collins played in his 1st and only Super Bowl.
- Wally Richardson played QB for NY/NJ in the inaugural XFL game in Vegas against He Hate Me.
- QB Rashad Casey's scramble vs. Illinois was named the ESPN college play of the year.
- Fran Ganter's son, Chris, signs with PSU to play QB.
- QB Michael Robinson signs with PSU
Last edited:
I guess not. When Franco carries on with the ridiculous posts I feel a need to continue. Plus, I’m on the exercise bike and have nothing else to do.
It is silly of me, I agree. I never should have said I was done. I’ll tell you what, if Franco will agree to mention in every one of his posts on this topic that Jerry was showering alone with underage boys, including after being investigated by police and agreeing to never do so again, I will stop. He always conveniently leaves that fact out.
Let me ask you, assuming you are a man. Would you ever shower alone and have physical contact with an underage boy?
It’s possible I am completely missing something here.
Connor, it's hard to argue with this. I don't know of anybody that would fit in that category. However, you nor anybody else can say what another person's thought process or intentions would be; and given the questionable credibility of most of the so-called victims along with many other issues , a guilty verdict should not have been so cut and dried. Seems to have been based more on conjecture than anything else. So, my question to you is would you object to a new trial? If so, why?
Last edited:
Irrelevant and immaterial.
The seminal question in this case right now is whether oe not there is individual evidence that is clear, credible, and convincing that Sandusky committed CSA. I posit that the answer is no. I have not yet seen anyone post clear, credible, and convincing evidence of CSA by Sandusky and the fact that no one can produce the evidence conforms what I aready knew. Sandusky at the very minimum deserves a new trial.
Last edited:
You start with a man who you know showers alone with underage boys and has physical contact with them while doing so. You follow that up with victim testimony, detailing acts Jerry performed on them. Jerry doesn’t get up on the stand to defend himself. That is a recipe for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Honestly, it’s not hard to see how he could be found guilty by an unbiased jury of 12 of his peers. Want to say they were made up stories? OK, he hired a lawyer to prove that. Want to argue that his lawyer was incompetent? OK, that’s on Sandusky for hiring him.
Of course it’s irrelevant to you because it would slap you in the face with the reality that no man who is not sexually attracted to underage boys would intentionally put themselves in that position. None.
Fair enough, but see the edit made to my post. Curious as to your opinion.
Read it. I have always said I’d like to see another trial. Let it fly. I’ve also always said I’m open to changing my mind if somebody could start with legitimizing his showering activities. I always get, “Well, they were sweaty after working out.” That line always insinuates that one must then have physical contact with the underage boy while engaged in the post-workout shower. The other line is, “l’ll admit is was bad judgement.” At best, it is incomprehensibly bad judgement. More than once and it is a neon sign over your head saying, “Pedophile”.
Francofan could also ask any adult Male he meets, as Bob Costas asked Jerry, "Are you attracted to young boys?"
I guarantee, and will stop posting here forever, if franco asks the next 100 men he sees that question, and even one stumbles on the answer.
And no, I will not pay franco's doctor Bills. If this test were done, he'd probably have to be wearing SWAT gear to ask this to even 2 guys, let alone 100.
Meanwhile, Jerry's answer was, " ummm, kinda ... but I also like old people"
The above response to Costas sealed Jerry's conviction. Has Snedden or anyone explained how the OAG coerced that answer out of him?
Wrong. Jerry's answer was no, he was not sexually attracted to young men.
Yes, he equivocated and it was not a forceful denial. At the time, I instinctively thought it was a sign of clear guilt. I immediately thought that Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola was trying a hail Mary pass because Jerry was desperate and probably guilty.
As I have learned more about the case, I realize my instincts were wrong. I now know that that is the way Jerry answers any question. He repeats the question and thinks about his answer. If Amendola had done any prep work, Jerry should have been able to give a forceful denial whether he was guilty or not. This demonstrates to me how ineffective Amendola was in his defense of Sandusky. Bob Costas now cautions people of reading too much into his interview with Sandusky. He wrote a favorable book review of Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" which shows me that Costas realizes that things just aren't as clear cut as the narratives that the OAG and the main stream media have sold.
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State to welcome regional safety committed elsewhere to town this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
