Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Oddly enough, in my occupation if some kid tells me a grown man has been showering with them I assume the person they are talking about is probably a pedophile and I call the proper authorities. Then again, I’m old school and do not look for outs for a committed pedophile.
And you believe in the "soundproof game room", tooth fairy, and leprechauns.
Do you believe Jerry and Dottie we’re having sex five times a week? Is that really what she said? Somebody in here mentioned that and I seem to recall her saying that somewhere along the way. If that was an actual statement, doesn’t that eliminate the hypogonadism defense?
The fact is that Jerry having a confirmed diagnosis of hypogonadism and a low testosterone level absolutely bolsters the defense. Jerry and Dottie had sex on average 2-4 times per week, according to their estimates, and this does not conflict with a hypogonandism diagnosis. Jerry was able to get an erection and could have sex. He may have had a low sex drive, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have sex a couple of times a week. On the hand, it makes some of the claimants' stories like v1, v4, v9, and v10 that made Sandusky out to be a sexual maniac even more incredible.
Further making the totality of the claimants stories even more incredible, none of the complainants ever mentioned anything irregular concerning Jerry's anatomy as they surely would have noticed something odd if they had had sex with Sandusky as many times as they claimed.
From page 346 of "The Most Hated Man in America," Pendergrast writes:
With some trepidation, I asked both Jerry and Dottie about their sex life, explaining that, under the circumstances, I really had to ask, even though it clearly was not something either one of them was comfortable talking about. "i would like to think that our sex life was normal," Jerry wrote. "Dottie probably wanted more spontaneity, and I tended to plan. It wasn't a source of contention. I think both of us felt loved. The number of instances varied with my schedule. My guess would be 2-3 times per week."
I asked him if they were both happy with their intimate life. "Yes, we felt as though we had been sexually satisfying to one another. It was not a major focus. Love was a focus, not lust. It was based on a normal respect and attraction for two people in love (beyond sex). I didn't fantasize about sex or look at pornography. I noticed attractive women on accasions." In another letter, he added, "Dottie has been my only sex partner, and that was after marriage. I have not had oral or anal sex with anybody, including her."
In a 2013 phone interview, Dottie confirmed much of what her husband said. "We had a really good sexual relationship until about two years ago, around the time when this all happened. He started having trouble with an enlarged prostate and he had a hard time having sex." Before that, she said they had intercourse three or four times a week, a bit higher than her husband's estimate. "Yes, we enjoyed each other sexually, as far as I am concerned. I would be very surprised if he had an affair."
She emphasized that he invariably told the truth, which was part of the problem with his hesitancy during the Costas interview. "That's just how he talks. He thinks through things before he answers. I am positive that he isn't sexually attracted to boys. He would goof around with girls, too, in the pool, and was supportive of them as well." In general, he loved people, dogs and kids. "A mouse came into the house, and he wouldn't kill it. He took it across the street and it came back the next day, and he still doesn't kill it." It was ironic, she said, that her husband was supposed to be a perverted sex offender. "We are both prudes. One Friday night a Second Mile kid came over and wanted to watch TV, and after five minutes, Jerry said, 'That is not appropriate to watch.' That's just us. Did I ever doubt him? No, I knew he took showers with kids. I know who he is."
In a letter to Judge Cleland before the sentencing hearing, she said much the same thing."I have known Jerry for 47 years, and he has always been truthful to me, even if it hurts. He is a very up-front man and a man of very high morals. Jerry always put others before himself and always wanted to make each person feel special, no matter who they were." A Second Miler now in his fourties had recently stopped by, she wrote and said that Sandusky had helped make him a better husband and father. "Our house was a fun house with lots of games, picnics, laughs and caring. There were always lot of people around, whether it was friends of our kids, Second Mile kids, or neighbors. I never saw him doing anything inappropriate to any child. If I had, as a Mother and Grandmother I would have taken action. Jerry is not the monster everyone is making him out to be.
She added that, as Sandusky had told me, he had not bought most of the gifts he gave to troubled kids. "one of the accusers called Jerry and said he could not do his school work because his computer broke, so Jerry found a used computer that someone was not using and gave it to him. Fact is, most of the things he gave to his accusers were used or given to him by people who wanted to help these young men.
I believe Dottie was complicit. She and Jerry had a dont ask dont tell policy.
You are dead wrong. I suspect you don't know Dottie personally. I know Jerry and Dottie pesonally. They are prudes. They don't drink, they don't smoke, they don't use drugs, they don't swear, and they are honest to a fault. They are of a much higher moral standard that myself.
These seems contradictory to me. You often throw hypogonadism out there as a defense that Jerry didn’t have enough of a sex drive to have committed these crimes against children. Now you’re saying it didn’t affect his sex drive.
I never said it didn't affect his sex drive. I said that he could get an erection and have sex. I believe that hypogonadism is the cause of Jerry's low testosterone levels and that is indicative of a low sex drive.
Go consult a physician, preferably a Urologist.
No thanks.
If doesn’t effect his sex drive then why do you mention it at all? Either he had a low sex drive or he didn’t. Either he was capable of having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week or he wasn’t. If he was capable of having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week he was also capable of having sex with boys 2-4 times a week, right?
Again, I didn't say it didn't affect his sex drive. I believe that a low testosterone level is indicative of a lower than normal sex drive. I suppose he may have been capable of having sex with boys 2-4 times a week, but I believe that 2-4 times a week with his wife and 2-4 times a week with boys may have more than he could have handled. In light of the testimony form v1, v4, v9, and v10 of 50-100 instances each, it is streching credibility that Sandusky would have been capable of that sort of prowess with hypogonadism/low testosterone levels.
The other point is that hypogonadism results in an anatomical deformity that any boy who was having sex with him would likely observe. Yet, none of the 36 claimants made that observation.
I don’t understand what you trying to say. Would you please elaborate. Are you saying that you don’t believe that Sandusky has hypogonadism/low testosterone rate or that these conditions don’t have any relevance to the case or something else?
I’m saying that you think he has just enough testosterone to sex with his wife 2-4 times a week but no more than that. I don’t buy it.
Perhaps he had enough testosterone to have sex 4 times a week. Perhaps 2 of those were with Dottie and the other 2 were with the boys.
Where did the 5 times a week come from? That sounded familiar.
Psychology Today:
In the end, what do we make of Dorothy Sandusky? She might be a woman of her time, as some have argued, whose life had meaning and purpose as a wife and mother; to accept the ugly truths about her husband would leave her rootless, anomic, even suicidal because she did nothing—we know of—to stop his predation and deceit. So, her mind closed to all the suspicions and suggestive evidence about the “real” Jerry Sandusky while she stayed married to the fiction.
Or she might be someone who had invested so much in her life with Jerry Sandusky that she saw no alternative but to recommit to her allegiance to the idea of Jerry’s innocence, and hope, against all odds and rationality, that a miracle happens, and he would be acquitted and that their lives would be pulled back from this shadow world they've inhabited for so long.
A third possibility is that Dottie eventually saw it all but hoped that age would quiet Jerry's predatory beast and return the man whose charms still stirred her.
All these possibilities have one dreadful thing in common: the emotional lives of the molested children. Yes, I am saying they were sacrificed for the preservation of the Sandusky marriage.
In the end, what do we make of Dorothy Sandusky? She might be a woman of her time, as some have argued, whose life had meaning and purpose as a wife and mother; to accept the ugly truths about her husband would leave her rootless, anomic, even suicidal because she did nothing—we know of—to stop his predation and deceit. So, her mind closed to all the suspicions and suggestive evidence about the “real” Jerry Sandusky while she stayed married to the fiction.
Or she might be someone who had invested so much in her life with Jerry Sandusky that she saw no alternative but to recommit to her allegiance to the idea of Jerry’s innocence, and hope, against all odds and rationality, that a miracle happens, and he would be acquitted and that their lives would be pulled back from this shadow world they've inhabited for so long.
A third possibility is that Dottie eventually saw it all but hoped that age would quiet Jerry's predatory beast and return the man whose charms still stirred her.
All these possibilities have one dreadful thing in common: the emotional lives of the molested children. Yes, I am saying they were sacrificed for the preservation of the Sandusky marriage.
I interpret your response as saying that you believe that Sandusky may have had hypogonadism and low testosterone, but that you don't believe it has any relevance to the case.
If that is the case, you are welcome to your opinions. However, I stand by my responses that with a confirmed hypogonadism/low testosterone diagnosis that a relatively normal sex life with his wife would be possible but that a life as a oversexed child molester to the extent that 4 of the 8 trial accusers have each alleged of 50-100 individual sex acts and that none of the 36 claimants identified the anatomical deformity associated with hypogonadism would be improbable.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I sincerely believe that it soon will be evident of exactly happened in this case and it will be consistent with former NCIS Special Agent of the Year John Snedden's 110 page redacted report resulting from his federal investigation that concluded that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather just a political hit job.
In the end Dottie and Jerry will be shown to being truthful and the victims of a miscarriage of justice.
The last chapter has yet to be written. I am hopeful that Jerry will be exonerated sooner rather than later. In the short run, it would be nice for Spanier's legal jeopardy to be over and for Frank Fina to be disciplined for his prosecutorial misconduct.
You interpret things however you wish. I am saying that if Jerry had enough testosterone to have sex with his wife, he also had enough testosterone to have sex with boys. Pretty simple. You seems to think that he was able to conveniently produce just enough testosterone to have sex with his wife. It’s kind of preposterous, but if that’s what you need to believe to keep your dream alive stick with it.
Have a nice weekend Franco.
Just so others don’t forget, it is completely possible for Frank Fina to belong in jail, Jerry Sandusky to belong in jail, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz to not belong in jail.
Yes. But with proven prosecutorial misconduct as well as Schultz, Spanier, and Curley exonerated and saying they believe Sandusky is innocent, it makes the case for a new trial and for Sandusky's innocence a lot stronger
I don't you believe you understand what I am saying.
I am saying that a relatively normal sex life with your wife is possible for someone with a low testosterone level.
I am also saying that I find it improbable that someone with Sandusky's condition could perform with the prowess that has been alleged when you consider the totality of all 36 claimants and that none of them were able to identify the anatomical deformity that Sandusky has.
Why is it so hard for some to accept Sandusky is a convicted child rapist? As in he raped some kids. 36? Who knows. At least 1? Absolutely yes. And why is it hard for some to accept Joe knew and felt like he should have done more to prevent further child abuse. And why is it so hard for some to move on?
Because that's simply not true.
So what’s your opinion about Sandusky? You left that out. My opinion is that after all the evidence was presented a jury of Sandusky’s peers clearly came to the conclusion that the man was a child rapist that destroyed lives. In my opinion Joe would have know some things. How much? No one in this ridiculous will never know. I believe Joe when he stated that that he “should have done more”. You and the others that conveniently get lost in the details to create narratives are pathetic.
Jerry raped kids. Joe probably knew some things. Jerry was convicted. Seems fairly obvious to unbiased people.
Which accuser do you believe is the most credible and why?
Joe stated he would have done more “WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT”!!!!!
Please explain to me how Joe could have “stopped Sandusky from assaulting kids” at any point without resorting to illegal activity.
Why is it so hard to believe claimants lied? Why is it so hard to believe that Jerry didn't rape kids in his "sound proof " family room? Why is it so hard to understand why a judge, a prosecutor and a so called general counsel all face discipline for their actions in this case. Why is it so hard for you to use the correct, entire quote when you reference Joe? Why is it so hard to believe that MM actually saw nothing? Look at the layout of the Lasch Locker Room and tell me how he saw around corners? Why is it so hard to believe that Dr. Dranov listened to MM and heard nothing occurred that moved him to report the incident?
Why is it so hard to understand that the "crying janitor" incident was debunked by the only witness (on tape)? Why is it so easy for you to ignore perjury by PSP in the Sandusky Trial. If Jerry had a prolific sex life with his victims and a "normal" sex life with Dottie.....its likely someone is lying. Please explain why Dottie, would have more motivation to lie than the claimants? God only knows why some people want to "move on," yet keep jumping into this thread.
When have Gary, Tim, and Graham ever stated that they believe Jerry is innocent?
Its unfortunate that we may never know what they really think. It is very possible they were indicted to keep us from hearing what they had to say. Don't you agree? Clearly, empirical evidence would indicate they didn't think he did anything criminal when MM and JS crossed paths.......whenever that actually occurred.
In 2012, the State of PA OAG released to the public via a media storm of "biblical proportion" that Jerry Sandusky was a MONSTER - He was ...the man (who) was a child rapist that destroyed lives...". This image (created by the "Monster" negative label use in the Media curcus called a Presser - one with three photos - Sandusky flanked by PSU's Curley & Shultz) was ENGINEERED to pre-convict Sandusky and to silence the most credible persons who could refute the nonsense that the State used in its "Story".of criminality with PSU's leaders and its "best Friend of Paterno's" - Jerry Sandusky!
This is what PROVES that this is a political hit job - one only possible by the State's criminal justice system being corrupted and the State controlling key members of PSU's OGBOT!!!
Also, at a very basic level, the OAG corrupted the case by both "silencing" key evidence - by accusations involving the only "witnesses" to the 2001 description of the MM "shower event" - AND by (mis)using the power of the Grand Jury (a method of "hiding" evidence that existed which would destroy the fairy tale that the state LEGALLY had imagined).
MM's testimony is and has always been a fraud, perjury and a lie. In 2001 when this all happened, there is NO CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence that validates what the state of PA through MM's testimony used to label Sandusky as a "MONSTER". In fact, what is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (by actual taped evidence) is the PSP investigators worked outside the law to "coerce" from interviewees testimonies that were pre-written as essential for their "Story".
With the shadow of State Sponsored PERJURY - KNOWN to exist in testimonies obtained, the State of PA pushed on to its controlled "Retired Judge" ruled trial. Within this trial NO requests by Sandusky's legal "team???" was granted and the case went to trial in record time. Contrast this with the 6 years time required of the C/S/S trials. 6 YEARS of muted testimony that could expose all of this for what it is - A CORRUPTED POLITICAL HIT JOB!!!
After all this time we still have statements made which totally ignore the corruptions the State of PA utilized to get "convictions" - ALL convictions. The public also has been diverted from the key issue here - THAT OF LETTING SANDUSKY's employer at the time - TSM - not only "skate on any form of reasonable investigation, but, with the full knowledge of the OAG, let TSM DESTROY ALL RECORDS.
If you want a REAL crime - one that can be supported by FACTS - not "stories" without any substance - HERE is where you should start.
What Jerry is or is not is engineered to be (at best) ambiguous -what is still 7 year later being quoted like in this past post as "public fact" - is in actuality a "Story" based on pure speculation. The legal case can not be supported by facts and the activities of the State are so polluted LEGALLY that any thinking person would laugh at what the State "Sold" to the American public.
Finally - how do you arrive at this statement
".Jerry raped kids (MULTIPLE KIDS - not even the Jury believed this was the case based on MM's testimony - the only one where "Rape" was alleged). Joe probably knew some things. Jerry was convicted (in a "fixed court setting). Seems fairly obvious to unbiased people - when you become unbiased - let us all know... After all....you bought the ranch provide by the OAG based SOLEY on the SPECULATION contained in a manufactured "Story".
Your speculations as constructed by the State only work when you ignore anything outside the OAG "Story"!!
Plus Joe would have to have been clairvoyant. Wait. He must have been. He was, of course, all-powerful. Then again, if he was clairvoyant, why did he run up the middle four times in a row against bama? Never mind. Let's just say he was clairvoyant and it's all his fault.
Because 23-7-1. Because 409. Because Success With Honor. Because raising money for the library. Because endowment for academic scholarships. Because being a teacher first and a football coach second. Because 90%+ graduation rate. Because no ncaa investigations.
We know what fuels holding onto the false narrative all these years. Jealousy.
Joe generally populated his coaching staff with good people. I think its highly unlikely that not only JVP but all others "knew something," and went about their business. I don't know anything about Graham or Gary......but there is no way Tim Curley "knew something" and didn't do the right thing. If others don't understand why I just can't "move on" they can kiss my ass.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Huhn and Mickens: already committed for 2026! Nice start- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
Will this be the year we start bringing in offensive 5 stars again?- Latest: Sportfan2017