Seven Years Ago Today

[Connorpozlee]

I have found him. His name is Jerry Sandusky.

You find me a victim who has a credible story that they were sexually abused by Sandusky and I will come over to your side. I don't believe you can deliver.

Consider that. The one person just happens to be the one you know personally. Quite a coincidence.

 

[francofan]

I agree that many of the claimants probably didn't view their interactions as traumatic at the time.

Whereas you cling to monetary motivations, the ideas behind compliant victimization explain a lot more of the evidence.

From my post to which you replied: "Such experiences may be forgotten simply because we did not perceive them as traumatic at the time."
Let me expand on this: the key is that they weren’t viewed as traumatic at the time. It is not uncommon for victims to enjoy the physical manifestations of the abuse. This is a hard thing to accept. But as Ken Lanning has said, a pubescent boy is the easiest creature in the world to seduce. Years later, once that boy's sexual identity is fully formed, assuming he's heterosexual, it is incredibly unlikely for him to tell people he really enjoyed receiving his first blowjob when it was from an older man.

From my post to which you replied: "It is certainly possible for people to forget an incident of sexual abuse, especially if they never talk about it afterward."
Let me expand on this: And, perhaps, they may tell tell people they don’t want to remember, which isn’t the same as having forgotten. It generally means they don’t want to talk about what it is they do remember.

If that doesn't spell it out sufficiently, I refer you to Ken Lanning's paper on Compliant Victimization:
https://www.abusewatch.net/Compliant Child Victims.pdf

Offender-Victim Bond ​

The successful investigation and prosecution of sexual exploitation of children cases often hinges on being able to answer two questions:

1. Why didn't the victim disclose (fully or partially) when it happened?
2. Why is the victim disclosing (fully or partially) now?

For objective fact-finders, the answers to these questions should be what the evidence supports not what society prefers. Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a neighbor, teacher, or clergy member molests a boy, why does he "allow" it to continue and not immediately report it? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable, and the offender may be treating them better than anyone else ever has. But, they may come to realize they are victims when the offender ends the relationship. Then they recognize that all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of a plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.

Many of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Victims not only do not disclose, but they often strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case, several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified on his behalf were also among his victims.

In my experience, some of the more common reasons that compliant victims do not disclose are:
- The stigma of homosexuality.
- Lack of societal understanding.
- Failure to tell when they should have.
- Presence of positive feelings for the offender.
- Embarrassment or fear over their victimization.
- The belief they are not really victims.

Because most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims, especially if no threats or force were used prior to the sex. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.

These seduced or compliant child victims obviously do sometimes disclose, often because the sexual activity is discovered (e.g., abduction by offender, recovered child pornography, overheard conversations, computer records located) or suspected (e.g., statements of other victims, association with known sex offender, proactive investigation), after which an intervener confronts them. Others disclose because the offender misjudged them, got too aggressive with them, or is seducing a younger sibling or their close friend. Compliant victims sometimes come forward and report because they are angry with the offender for "dumping" them. They might be jealous that the offender found a new, younger victim. They sometimes disclose because the abuse has ended, not to end the abuse. Some compliant victims eventually disclose due to significant changes later in their lives such as marriage or the birth of a child. ​

Lastly, if you disagreed with my post to which you replied, you're going to have to take it up with Pendergrast. He's the one who wrote it. You know, in that book you keep telling everybody to read.

I believe you are trying to say that some of the claimants may have been sexually abused by Sandusky, but didn't view the events as traumatic at the time.

You are welcome to you own opinions. Imho if Sandusky had forced himself on any of the claimants then they would have considered that a traumatic event at the time that would be etched in their memory forever.

Do you agree that recovered/repressed memory therapy is a debunked science?

 

[BobPSU92]

So, This is just “fun and games” for you?

Why would you want to become informed on this subject when you can, instead, make wisecracks and erroneous statements? Stay in your swim lane please!

Blaming the wrong people for enabling child abuse, thereby ruining their lives and furthering child abuse isn’t fun in your eyes? Really?

 

[francofan]

I agree that many of the claimants probably didn't view their interactions as traumatic at the time.

Whereas you cling to monetary motivations, the ideas behind compliant victimization explain a lot more of the evidence.

From my post to which you replied: "Such experiences may be forgotten simply because we did not perceive them as traumatic at the time."
Let me expand on this: the key is that they weren’t viewed as traumatic at the time. It is not uncommon for victims to enjoy the physical manifestations of the abuse. This is a hard thing to accept. But as Ken Lanning has said, a pubescent boy is the easiest creature in the world to seduce. Years later, once that boy's sexual identity is fully formed, assuming he's heterosexual, it is incredibly unlikely for him to tell people he really enjoyed receiving his first blowjob when it was from an older man.

From my post to which you replied: "It is certainly possible for people to forget an incident of sexual abuse, especially if they never talk about it afterward."
Let me expand on this: And, perhaps, they may tell tell people they don’t want to remember, which isn’t the same as having forgotten. It generally means they don’t want to talk about what it is they do remember.

If that doesn't spell it out sufficiently, I refer you to Ken Lanning's paper on Compliant Victimization:
https://www.abusewatch.net/Compliant Child Victims.pdf

Offender-Victim Bond ​

The successful investigation and prosecution of sexual exploitation of children cases often hinges on being able to answer two questions:

1. Why didn't the victim disclose (fully or partially) when it happened?
2. Why is the victim disclosing (fully or partially) now?

For objective fact-finders, the answers to these questions should be what the evidence supports not what society prefers. Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a neighbor, teacher, or clergy member molests a boy, why does he "allow" it to continue and not immediately report it? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable, and the offender may be treating them better than anyone else ever has. But, they may come to realize they are victims when the offender ends the relationship. Then they recognize that all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of a plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.

Many of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Victims not only do not disclose, but they often strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case, several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified on his behalf were also among his victims.

In my experience, some of the more common reasons that compliant victims do not disclose are:
- The stigma of homosexuality.
- Lack of societal understanding.
- Failure to tell when they should have.
- Presence of positive feelings for the offender.
- Embarrassment or fear over their victimization.
- The belief they are not really victims.

Because most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims, especially if no threats or force were used prior to the sex. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.

These seduced or compliant child victims obviously do sometimes disclose, often because the sexual activity is discovered (e.g., abduction by offender, recovered child pornography, overheard conversations, computer records located) or suspected (e.g., statements of other victims, association with known sex offender, proactive investigation), after which an intervener confronts them. Others disclose because the offender misjudged them, got too aggressive with them, or is seducing a younger sibling or their close friend. Compliant victims sometimes come forward and report because they are angry with the offender for "dumping" them. They might be jealous that the offender found a new, younger victim. They sometimes disclose because the abuse has ended, not to end the abuse. Some compliant victims eventually disclose due to significant changes later in their lives such as marriage or the birth of a child. ​

Lastly, if you disagreed with my post to which you replied, you're going to have to take it up with Pendergrast. He's the one who wrote it. You know, in that book you keep telling everybody to read.

What is your opinion of Pendergrast’s book “The Most Hated Man in America?”

I would love to see your review, but I guessing you don’t have the time to consider something that runs counter to your beliefs.

 

[francofan]

I read Pendergast's book. It was biased.

Understandably so. He's allegedly estranged from his daughters apparently because they believe he committed CSA on them.

I don't see any unbiased, trained professionals in CSA, particularly PoC CSA that have defended Jerry in the slightest way.

It seems like there are 3 classes of people:

1. People trained in CsA, all think Jerry is guilty

2. Untrained people, a mix ... but most, upon hearing Jerry admitted to showering and hugging boys while naked, think he's an offender. Some, a few, don't.

3. The remainder are biased. Pendergast obviously. Ziegler always argues counter to the mainstream for hits & attention ... it's his brand. Jerry's lawyers have to defend him, its their job. CSS feel better if they can cling to Jerry being innocent - good men all, they'd feel bad if they aided a predator in any way. Snedden - probsbly untrained in PoC CSA & didn't investigate Jerry - wants to drum up biz for his PI gig? Dottie - come on, if she says Jerry is even maybe guilty she's an accomplice. The rest of the Sandusky's? None of them have said Jerry is innocent on the record outside of a group press release penned by Ziglier himself.

Please elaborate on how you find Pendergrast's book biased.

Dr. Fred Berlin's is an expert in CSA and POC offenders. Berlin is the Director of the John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit of The John Hopkins University School of Medicine. Here is his review of The Most Hated Man in America.

"Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society."

Please tell me the class of people that Dick Anderson, Jeff Byers, John Odermatt, Thaddeus Russell, and Malcolm Gladwell are. I think you are going to be very surprised when Gladwell's new book Talking to Strangers comes out and you read the Penn State chapter.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Please elaborate on how you find Pendergrast's book biased.

Dr. Fred Berlin's is an expert in CSA and POC offenders. Berlin is the Director of the John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit of The John Hopkins University School of Medicine. Here is his review of The Most Hated Man in America.

"Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society."

Please tell me the class of people that Dick Anderson, Jeff Byers, John Odermatt, Thaddeus Russell, and Malcolm Gladwell are. I think you are going to be very surprised when Gladwell's new book Talking to Strangers comes out and you read the Penn State chapter.

Berlin wrote a part of the Peterno report. He also wrote a book review blurb.

Nothing in the blurb contradicts his report. He's not repudiated his section of the Paterno report or any of it.

His blurb asks a hypothetical question. So what? He says it's a provocative book. So what?

The important part of the blurb is ""Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers"

 

[francofan]

Berlin wrote a part of the Peterno report. He also wrote a book review blurb.

Nothing in the blurb contradicts his report. He's not repudiated his section of the Paterno report or any of it.

His blurb asks a hypothetical question. So what? He says it's a provocative book. So what?

The important part of the blurb is ""Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers"

My interpretation is that Berlin is saying that he doesn’t know with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a child molester.

He recommends the book and certainly has a different opinion than Jim Clemente.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

My interpretation is that Berlin is saying that he doesn’t know with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a child molester.

He recommends the book and certainly has a different opinion than Jim Clemente.

Your interpretation is yours to make. It's wrong, but yours. Berlin believes Jerry to be guilty.

 

[francofan]

Your interpretation is yours to make. It's wrong, but yours. Berlin believes Jerry to be guilty.

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be guilty?

Berlin was slated to be a witness for the defense in Sandusky’s trial, but a scheduling conflict precluded him from testifying.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be guilty?

Berlin was slated to be a witness for the defense in Sandusky’s trial, but a scheduling conflict precluded him from testifying.

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be innocent? (Please, a statement that he's put out, not a hypothetical question on a book blurb).

Please help here. Has Berlin gone on record that Jerry showering with boys, both naked, is a ok? Has he gone on records stating that naked wrestling with boys is A OK? Has he gone on record starting that blowing raspberries on boys tummies is AOk?

 

[Connorpozlee]

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be innocent? (Please, a statement that he's put out, not a hypothetical question on a book blurb).

Please help here. Has Berlin gone on record that Jerry showering with boys, both naked, is a ok? Has he gone on records stating that naked wrestling with boys is A OK? Has he gone on record starting that blowing raspberries on boys tummies is AOk?

Nobody in their right mind would say that is OK. Nobody in their right mind would think that those actions are being done for innocent reasons.

 

[francofan]

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be innocent? (Please, a statement that he's put out, not a hypothetical question on a book blurb).

Please help here. Has Berlin gone on record that Jerry showering with boys, both naked, is a ok? Has he gone on records stating that naked wrestling with boys is A OK? Has he gone on record starting that blowing raspberries on boys tummies is AOk?

You answer a question with a question. I am assuming you have no basis for your assertion that Berlin believes Jerry to be guilty.

My basis for my opinion that Berlin does not know with certainty that Sandusky is guilty is his favorable book review of “The Most Hated Man in America” and his willingness to be a defense expert at Sandusky’s trial.

 

[marshall23]

I believe your opinion is incorrect. What is the basis for your opinion that Berlin believes Jerry to be innocent? (Please, a statement that he's put out, not a hypothetical question on a book blurb).

Please help here. Has Berlin gone on record that Jerry showering with boys, both naked, is a ok? Has he gone on records stating that naked wrestling with boys is A OK? Has he gone on record starting that blowing raspberries on boys tummies is AOk?

All those things are suspect and creepy to say the least. Has anyone heard of someone being sentenced to 40 years in prison for this?

 

[Connorpozlee]

All those things are suspect and creepy to say the least. Has anyone heard of someone being sentenced to 40 years in prison for this?

It wasn’t just that. There were victims that testified on the stand about the abuse. Now, you may not believe them. You may believe they were just saying what they said to get a payday from Penn State. But their testimony is what put Jerry in jail.

 

[marshall23]

It wasn’t just that. There were victims that testified in the stand about the abuse. Now, you may not believe them. You may believe they were just saying what they said to get a payday from Penn State. But their testimony is what put Jerry in jail.

I'm not sure Jerry is innocent. But I am convinced he wasn't guilty of the anal rapes etc. Those stories got bigger and more bizarre as time went on.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

All those things are suspect and creepy to say the least. Has anyone heard of someone being sentenced to 40 years in prison for this?

People have gotten long sentences for possession of child porn, with no evidence they took the pictures or any sex acts on their part.

Jerry's admitted deeds amount to live participatory child porn theater. Regardless of whether there was anal sex. It's at least analogous to the above porn posessor, if you think about it.

I dont want to think about it.

 

[marshall23]

People have gotten long sentences for possession of child porn, with no evidence they took the pictures or any sex acts on their part.

Jerry's admitted deeds amount to live participatory child porn theater. Regardless of whether there was anal sex. It's at least analogous to the above porn posessor, if you think about it.

I dont want to think about it.

Yes you do.

 

[francofan]

People have gotten long sentences for possession of child porn, with no evidence they took the pictures or any sex acts on their part.

Jerry's admitted deeds amount to live participatory child porn theater. Regardless of whether there was anal sex. It's at least analogous to the above porn posessor, if you think about it.

I dont want to think about it.

As you are well aware, no pornography of any kind has ever been found in Jerry’s possession, so Jerry is clean in that regard.

Please tell me what Jerry has admitted that amounts to child porn theatre. Jerry has admitted showering and horsing around with minors, but he has always maintained his innocence from day 1 as well as denied that his behavior was in any way sexual.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

As you are well aware, no pornography of any kind has ever been found in Jerry’s possession, so Jerry is clean in that regard.

Please tell me what Jerry has admitted that amounts to child porn theatre. Jerry has admitted showering and horsing around with minors, but he has always maintained his innocence from day 1 as well as denied that his behavior was in any way sexual.

He created situations to get kids to shower naked with him. And he didn't just look, but touched and grabbed (by his own statements).

That's child porn live theater and then some.

 

[francofan]

He created situations to get kids to shower naked with him. And he didn't just look, but touched and grabbed (by his own statements).

That's child porn live theater and then some.

I don’t believe he ever said that he created situations to shower with kids or that he grabbed kids. Do you have a link or any evidence that supports that he did?

Innocently horsing around with kids might get you excited, but it seems like something that surely doesn’t qualify as child porn theatre to me.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I don’t believe he ever said that he created situations to shower with kids or that he grabbed kids. Do you have a link or any evidence that supports that he did?

Innocently horsing around with kids might get you excited, but it seems like something that surely doesn’t qualify as child porn theatre to me.

Most certainly, his shower with AM, was contrived. Per Jerry's own story they were out most of the day on a trip for a book signing.

Late night, he says, hey lets take a naked shower together?

That doesn't seem contrived to you in any way?

 

[francofan]

Most certainly, his shower with AM, was contrived. Per Jerry's own story they were out most of the day on a trip for a book signing.

Late night, he says, hey lets take a naked shower together?

That doesn't seem contrived to you in any way?

No it doesn’t.

At least you acknowledge that AM is v2. That is more than the OAG is willing to acknowledge. Joe McGettigan committed prosecutorial misconduct when he said v2 was known only to God.

AM said in his statement to Curtis Everhart that nothing untoward ever happened between Sandusky and himself which implies to me that the shower was not contrived as a means for Sandusky to go on a sex romp.

 

[marshall23]

Most certainly, his shower with AM, was contrived. Per Jerry's own story they were out most of the day on a trip for a book signing.

Late night, he says, hey lets take a naked shower together?

That doesn't seem contrived to you in any way?

So you were there and you know that they didn't work out? Late at night? Do you go to bed at 8? Thanks for admitting that MM "heard" some one in the shower 12/29. Poor Mike was so shook up it took him 2 months to tell Joe Paterno about it. LOL Alas, the little boy in the shower was 14.....did you straighten out your buddy Tom on this?

 

[Connorpozlee]

It’s hard to argue the innocence of Sandusky when you have to start with, “Yes, he was showering alone with underage boys and having physical contact with them but.....”

 

[francofan]

It’s hard to argue the innocence of Sandusky when you have to start with, “Yes, he was showering alone with underage boys and having physical contact with them but.....”

No it isn’t. Showering with underage boys and having physical contact with them is not illegal unless there is sexual intent. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling argument that included credible evidence that Sandusky had sexual intent.

 

[Connorpozlee]

No it isn’t. Showering with underage boys and having physical contact with them is not illegal unless there is sexual intent. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling argument that included credible evidence that Sandusky had sexual intent.

Sandusky had sexual intent Franco. It’s absolutely the only reason he would find himself in that situation.
I have yet to see anybody provide a compelling reason for him to have been in that situation that is not sexual.

 

[francofan]

Sandusky had sexual intent Franco. It’s absolutely the only reason he would find himself in that situation.
I have yet to see anybody provide a compelling reason for him to have been in that situation that is not sexual.

It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. I don’t know what was going through Sandusky’s mind. Because there is scant evidence that Sandusky sexually molested any boys, I believe that is very strong circumstantial evidence that Sandusky did not have sexual intent.

 

[indynittany]

...Late night, he says, hey lets take a naked shower together?....

As opposed to what? Wearing swim trunks, as Raykovitz suggested?

 

[indynittany]

Sandusky had sexual intent Franco. It’s absolutely the only reason he would find himself in that situation.
I have yet to see anybody provide a compelling reason for him to have been in that situation that is not sexual.

It's easier to believe he has no sex drive at all.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

It's easier to believe he has no sex drive at all.

Well in the Pendergast book, Jerry says up til his arrest he had sex 2-4 times a week and Dottie says she had sex 4-5 times a week. (Approximately).

So Jerry debunks the no sex drive theory himself, backed up by well-trusted Dottie.

 

[Osprey Lion]

It's easier to believe he has no sex drive at all.

It's easy for you to believe. I hope your wife is with you when you go to buy a car. You and francofan can spend all day every day working to defend an obvious pedophile. Crazy stuff.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It's easier to believe he has no sex drive at all.

Well sure, after one rides their unicorn down the rainbow to gumdrop falls who has time for sex?
You’ll have to discuss that one with Franco, Indy. He thinks Jerry had just enough sex drive to satisfy Dottie, but not enough to also have sex with underage boys.

 

[marshall23]

Well in the Pendergast book, Jerry says up til his arrest he had sex 2-4 times a week and Dottie says she had sex 4-5 times a week. (Approximately).

So Jerry debunks the no sex drive theory himself, backed up by well-trusted Dottie.

So if you believe the claimants JS had sex 2 dozen times per week.

 

[francofan]

Well in the Pendergast book, Jerry says up til his arrest he had sex 2-4 times a week and Dottie says she had sex 4-5 times a week. (Approximately).

So Jerry debunks the no sex drive theory himself, backed up by well-trusted Dottie.

I wouldn’t say Jerry had no sex drive, just a low sex drive consistent with hypogonandism and a low testosterone level. It doesn’t mean he couldn’t have sex, but it does mean he wasn’t a sex maniac.

 

[indynittany]

Well sure, after one rides their unicorn down the rainbow to gumdrop falls who has time for sex?
You’ll have to discuss that one with Franco, Indy. He thinks Jerry had just enough sex drive to satisfy Dottie, but not enough to also have sex with underage boys.

There's a reason Jerry and Dottie had to adopt. And there's a reason Dottie has said she knows Jerry is innocent. I don't know that Jerry "likes" anything in that way. And I don't know what he could do about it if he did. I'm not ignoring the creepy behavior. I'm just wondering if that's all it was.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I wouldn’t say Jerry had no sex drive, just a low sex drive consistent with hypogonandism and a low testosterone level. It doesn’t mean he couldn’t have sex, but it does mean he wasn’t a sex maniac.

Right, so just enough sex drive to satisfy his wife but not enough to sexually abuse underage boys. That’s irrational.

 

[indynittany]

It's easy for you to believe. I hope your wife is with you when you go to buy a car. You and francofan can spend all day every day working to defend an obvious pedophile. Crazy stuff.

There's nothing wrong with questioning how Sandusky's case went down. If the OAG had done it's job professionally and honorably, there'd be no point to this discussion.

 

[RussianEagle]

Right, so just enough sex drive to satisfy his wife but not enough to sexually abuse underage boys. That’s irrational.

I don’t think Jerry’s testosterone issues itself prove his innocence. I have heard that it’s actually common for pedophiles to have never matured sexually. (don’t know if that claim is true or not). What I think is absurd is how victims 1,4, and 9, who all claimed dozens of sex acts with Sandusky, never noticed his extremely undersized testicles. None of the post-trial claimants notes anything strange about Sandusky ‘s genitals as well.

 

[RussianEagle]

Well in the Pendergast book, Jerry says up til his arrest he had sex 2-4 times a week and Dottie says she had sex 4-5 times a week. (Approximately).

So Jerry debunks the no sex drive theory himself, backed up by well-trusted Dottie.

Do you have the exact quote from Pendergrasts book? I think there may have been some confusion in communication, not that Dottie was necessarily lying. I don’t think they actually said “up until the arrest”. It’s my understanding that a Pendergrast quoted Dottie as saying they had a normal sex life until “two years ago” when Jerry started having prostate problems. The medical records show the prostate problems began in 2005.

 

[Osprey Lion]

There's nothing wrong with questioning how Sandusky's case went down. If the OAG had done it's job professionally and honorably, there'd be no point to this discussion.

There is when it becomes such an obsession that you go so far as to visit the criminal in prison. It has come to the point that Jerry has his own cult following.