ADVERTISEMENT

Seven Years Ago Today

So do we conclude that claimants told the truth in their depositions seeking $$$$, but lied when they originally insisted to PSP that Jerry never abused them?

You can conclude anything you want. I don’t know that they were or were not abused. I do know that Sandusky had a history of getting underage boys into the shower alone, including after promising not to do so. I also know that it is not uncommon for sexual abuse victims to initially deny their abuse. Is it possible that they made stories up for money? Sure it’s possible. Is it possible that they saw the payments as enough incentive to open themselves up to the ridicule they have gotten since doing so and come clean about their abuse? Sure, that’s also possible. To deny the possibility of either is to be disingenuous. Taking both into account, I think you are then forced to look at exactly what we know Sandusky was doing. That leads to believe he was sexually abusing boys.
 
Since you are into semantics, facts and details: Where's the evidence that AM was hidden in a remote cabin during Sandusky's trial? Rumor or Fact?

Either way: what's the root source?
I asked a question. You can answer it if you choose. I doubt that you will. Your employers obviously are not willing to pay the going rate that someone with knowledge of this case would demand. Perhaps since you are paid by the response...you can emulate the star witness and respond, "I don't recall ...." 34 times.
 
You can conclude anything you want. I don’t know that they were or were not abused. I do know that Sandusky had a history of getting underage boys into the shower alone, including after promising not to do so. I also know that it is not uncommon for sexual abuse victims to initially deny their abuse. Is it possible that they made stories up for money? Sure it’s possible. Is it possible that they saw the payments as enough incentive to open themselves up to the ridicule they have gotten since doing so and come clean about their abuse? Sure, that’s also possible. To deny the possibility of either is to be disingenuous. Taking both into account, I think you are then forced to look at exactly what we know Sandusky was doing. That leads to believe he was sexually abusing boys.
Taking both into account as you suggest would also lead one to believe that these claiments are liars. All that is left to determine is ...in which instance, if at all, did they tell the truth
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Taking both into account as you suggest would also lead one to believe that these claiments are liars. All that is left to determine is ...in which instance, if at all, did they tell the truth

Taking both into account, each person can make up their own mind. I have made up my mind that it is more likely that somebody would lie and deny their abuse before admitting it than a grown man would be showering alone with underage boys, having physical contact with them even after being investigated by police for that exact behavior, being accused of being a pedophile and have that person not actually be a pedophile. You can make up your mind that Jerry Sandusky just had an odd, innocent proclivity to shower alone with underage boys. Have at it.
 
By the way ...

The whole reliance of the Free Jerry crowd on discrediting AM, questioning AM, debating AM is proof of their insanity. And franco's continued insistence that if you take one story down, they all fall.

Jerry was found not guilty of most of the V2 accusations. V2 didn't testify. The jury, fairly, judged that they had a reasonable doubt about all of it, except for the most minor of offenses (but they did believe he was in the shower with Jerry alone & naked).

The rest of the accusations stood and still stand. Chipping away at V2 and/or AM doesn't amount to anything. Regardless of AM's (who may or may not be V2) flips and flops, Jerry himself admits to being in the shower with V2 on whatever night it was, naked (after being warned by police not to do that anymore).

Discrediting AM and Mike McQueary is huge. If Sandusky is fortunate to win a new trial, I believe the case would focus on the credibility of v1. I don’t find v1 credible for a number of reasons that I have already articulated. If the 2 pillars of the case, v1 and v2 are deemed to be not credible, the case against Sandusky collapses.

In addition, if it can be established that AM is v2, then McGettigan’s BS take that v2 was known only to God will be shown to be an outright fabrication and another instance of prosecutorial misconduct.
 
believe the case would focus on the credibility of v1. I don’t find v1 credible for a number of reasons that I have already articulated.
Even the victim's advocates didn't find Dawn Daniels credible. Sylvia Kurtz that wrote a book about the trial and sat with Roxanne(yes, that one) had this to say about Dawn:
Screenshot-2019-06-30-at-5-25-46-PM.png

https://www.tobelieveakid.com/
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
If that's the case, you must agree, that Jerry's position as head of a troubled kid's charity and deep ties to a State University would have been the ideal spot for a PoC offender.

You're admitting that someone in such a spot could never be convicted, no matter how egregious, because all the offenders would be paid.

And because they could get paid, and were troubled, no one should believe them.

Exactly what the Paternos and Clemente warned us about.

You just gave the next guy immunity. Way to go.

There was a point in time where Sandusky's work with at risk youth earned him some of the highest praise you could get. TSM was the cool charity. Luminaries, even presidents, wanted to be associated with it and Jerry.

You also had V2, at the time, a 26 year old, married, USMC sergeant, writing letters in support of Jerry to the OAG and regional newspapers. He was poised to be the star defense witness. You have V6 lovingly texting Jerry on father's day, as an adult. You have Matt Sandusky vigorously supporting his father on social media when the indictments were handed down. He sat with Dottie and the other Sandusky children at the beginning of Jerry's trial. He even went to court so that Jerry would have access to his own children. Those three men had Andrew Shubin in common. His role should never be overlooked.

Other than Aaron Fisher, I believe only one "victim" involved in the trial claimed actual sexual abuse initially. Both accusations are suspect. The rest were convinced, IMO, that Jerry really was a sexual predator, had sexually abused others, and that their experiences with him, while not overtly sexual, were still a form of abuse. Memory repression therapy was used as an excuse to justify their changes of heart and maximize their eventual settlements. It certainly helped that PSU was willing to pay any amount of money, virtually no questions asked, to all of Sandusky's victims. PSU even destroyed Joe Paterno in its desperation to put this matter behind it. For all intents and purposes, Jerry was toast no matter what these men said. It's pretty easy to rationalize their taking $ millions under those circumstances.

Sure, Jerry could have been a POC predator. But you'd think after all these years, we'd have found some physical evidence of it. Some hush money. Some porn in Jerry's possession. Something. And if he was diabolical enough to pull this off for so many years, you'd think he'd have been more careful. You'd think he'd have had an answer ready for Bob Costas.

Too many things here don't add up. You say I'm giving the next guy immunity. I say no man in his right mind should volunteer to help at risk youth or foster children ever again.
 
Discrediting AM and Mike McQueary is huge. If Sandusky is fortunate to win a new trial, I believe the case would focus on the credibility of v1. I don’t find v1 credible for a number of reasons that I have already articulated. If the 2 pillars of the case, v1 and v2 are deemed to be not credible, the case against Sandusky collapses.

In addition, if it can be established that AM is v2, then McGettigan’s BS take that v2 was known only to God will be shown to be an outright fabrication and another instance of prosecutorial misconduct.
He will never get another trial and die in prison as he should. As for discrediting McQueary, he’s 3-0 so far in front of juries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
He will never get another trial and die in prison as he should. As for discrediting McQueary, he’s 3-0 so far in front of juries.

This case is a travesty of justice and is not over by a long shot. I believe there is a very good chance that Sandusky will be exonerated in his lifetime.

McQueary may have had good fortune with the Pennsylvania justice system thus far, but I believe that will eventually change. He is not a credible witness and had no idea what was going on in the Lasch locker room on Dec. 29, 2000. None of the 5 people that he told about it contemporaneously (his father, Dr. Dranov, Paterno, Curley, Schultz) said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault. He changed his story 10 years later when the OAG had leverage on him for gambling on college football and inappropriate cell phone photos. He complained to Jonelle Eshbach that she twisted his words in the grand jury presentment when she reported he witnessed an anal rape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
There was a point in time where Sandusky's work with at risk youth earned him some of the highest praise you could get. TSM was the cool charity. Luminaries, even presidents, wanted to be associated with it and Jerry.

You also had V2, at the time, a 26 year old, married, USMC sergeant, writing letters in support of Jerry to the OAG and regional newspapers. He was poised to be the star defense witness. You have V6 lovingly texting Jerry on father's day, as an adult. You have Matt Sandusky vigorously supporting his father on social media when the indictments were handed down. He sat with Dottie and the other Sandusky children at the beginning of Jerry's trial. He even went to court so that Jerry would have access to his own children. Those three men had Andrew Shubin in common. His role should never be overlooked.

Other than Aaron Fisher, I believe only one "victim" involved in the trial claimed actual sexual abuse initially. Both accusations are suspect. The rest were convinced, IMO, that Jerry really was a sexual predator, had sexually abused others, and that their experiences with him, while not overtly sexual, were still a form of abuse. Memory repression therapy was used as an excuse to justify their changes of heart and maximize their eventual settlements. It certainly helped that PSU was willing to pay any amount of money, virtually no questions asked, to all of Sandusky's victims. PSU even destroyed Joe Paterno in its desperation to put this matter behind it. For all intents and purposes, Jerry was toast no matter what these men said. It's pretty easy to rationalize their taking $ millions under those circumstances.

Sure, Jerry could have been a POC predator. But you'd think after all these years, we'd have found some physical evidence of it. Some hush money. Some porn in Jerry's possession. Something. And if he was diabolical enough to pull this off for so many years, you'd think he'd have been more careful. You'd think he'd have had an answer ready for Bob Costas.

Too many things here don't add up. You say I'm giving the next guy immunity. I say no man in his right mind should volunteer to help at risk youth or foster children ever again.

You are clamoring for physical evidence. We know that Jerry Sandusky was, at least two times, alone in a shower with an underage boy, having physical contact with them. We know that he was found alone with another underage boy behind wrestling mats in an empty gym. We know that he blows raspberries on the bellies of unrelated underage boys. We know these things. Yet you are looking for some porn on his computer or some cash payment trail. It’s like trying to figure out who ate the missing piece of chocolate cake when your kid is standing there with chocolate all over their face. Would you say, “Well, I don’t see a fork in his hand so I don’t think it’s him?”.
I know you have a hard time believing an abused child would maintain a relationship with their abuser. I get that. But it’s not uncommon. You think of it as an abuser/abused situation. Think of it more as an actual, confusing relationship. Jerry cared for these children. Provided them with affection, provided them with access to events, took them into his home. He didn’t jump out of the bushes and molest them. He earned their trust to the point that they wouldn’t question what he was doing. You don’t just shake that off because you turn 18 or join the Marines or get married and have kids. It’s confusing as hell.
I’ve told this before but I’ll add it here for you again Indy. I have a friend who was repeatedly raped by her older brother from for about three years when she was a child. I went to her wedding about 15 years ago and guess who she had walk her down the aisle? That same brother. I went to lunch a couple of weeks ago with a close friend. His marriage is falling apart and on the brink of divorce. He tells me that it’s because he’s been using drugs and developed an addiction to porn. Through therapy (not repressed memory therapy) he has realized that this is occurring because he was sexually abused by different men when he was 6-8. He has spent his whole life avoiding it. He talked to his older sister about it and finds out that she had also been sexually abused by the same men during the same time period. She just finished 18 months in a mental health facility. Childhood sexual abuse scrambles the brain. To expect “typical” behavior from one who has been sexually abused as a child is foolish.
So yet again Indy, I cannot prove that Jerry Sandusky sexually abused any children. But, I can look at the actions of the men who claimed childhood abuse and recognize a familiar pattern to those of others who have been sexually abused. I can look at the actions of Jerry Sandusky and recognize a familiar pattern of behavior to those who sexually abuse children. I think you can probably recognize this, but you don’t want to believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey Lion
You are clamoring for physical evidence. We know that Jerry Sandusky was, at least two times, alone in a shower with an underage boy, having physical contact with them. We know that he was found alone with another underage boy behind wrestling mats in an empty gym. We know that he blows raspberries on the bellies of unrelated underage boys. We know these things. Yet you are looking for some porn on his computer or some cash payment trail.....

What I'm looking for is evidence of a crime. None of what you keep repeating over and over qualifies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
What I'm looking for is evidence of a crime. None of what you keep repeating over and over qualifies.

Claims of abusive combined with acknowledged behaviors that a sexually abusive man would engage in is as close as you’re going to get.
Have a nice weekend Indy.
 
Claims of abusive combined with acknowledged behaviors that a sexually abusive man would engage in is as close as you’re going to get.
Have a nice weekend Indy.
It's plausible that you might see those same behaviors from a non sexually abusive man who happens to have boundary issues, and spent his entire life in and around athletics and communal showers. Even if Sandusky had sexual feelings towards these boys, I honestly don't believe he acted upon them. And frankly, as more time passes, the less convinced I am of even that.

Stay cool!
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
It's plausible that you might see those same behaviors from a non sexually abusive man who happens to have boundary issues, and spent his entire life in and around athletics and communal showers. Even if Sandusky had sexual feelings towards these boys, I honestly don't believe he acted upon them. And frankly, as more time passes, the less convinced I am of even that.

Stay cool!

Having a beer on the deck right now in fact. The news says I have to stay hydrated. You stay cool as well Indy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Fantastic. I’ll be 47 the following Monday. I still feel like that is still in drinking prime.
Circumstances can impact your drinking prowess. I've lost my 2 most trusted sidekicks (deceased) from my coaching/ teaching career. My wife was always reliable to mix me a mean martini or Manhattan after a long day...but I lost her to cancer 9years,9months and 11 days ago. Not as much fun drinking alone.
 
Physical conditioning is important to drinking. Walk, strength train, eat properly . Hydrate.
At certain ages you need to take drinking more seriously.
Damn right. I’m continuing to hydrate while firing up the grill. Honestly, at this point nobody in the house pays any attention to me until it’s time to eat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
Damn right. I’m continuing to hydrate while firing up the grill. Honestly, at this point nobody in the house pays any attention to me until it’s time to eat.
I’m upper 50s. It’s wifey and I and an adult child today. I sort have Carte Blanche .
I’ve had a few shandys now I’m trying a heffe Weisen from Miami , Miami Weiss. It’s alright .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
Circumstances can impact your drinking prowess. I've lost my 2 most trusted sidekicks (deceased) from my coaching/ teaching career. My wife was always reliable to mix me a mean martini or Manhattan after a long day...but I lost her to cancer 9years,9months and 11 days ago. Not as much fun drinking alone.
That’s sad to read. Sorry to see that about your wife.
Mine doesn’t drink at all. Has never had an alcoholic drink in her life. I can’t imagine my life without her. Godspeed to you Marshall. That’s a tough road to hoe.
Kids?
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Even the victim's advocates didn't find Dawn Daniels credible. Sylvia Kurtz that wrote a book about the trial and sat with Roxanne(yes, that one) had this to say about Dawn:
Screenshot-2019-06-30-at-5-25-46-PM.png

https://www.tobelieveakid.com/


May I suggest that Attorney Amendola might have gotten more out of line of questioning, in this instance, by being more subtle in the way in which he approached the witness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
I’m upper 50s. It’s wifey and I and an adult child today. I sort have Carte Blanche .
I’ve had a few shandys now I’m trying a heffe Weisen from Miami , Miami Weiss. It’s alright .

I’m about to fire up the grill while my wife and three youngest head to mass. I’ll go in the morning with my oldest. I’m enjoying some Madtree PsyHopothy (from Cinci.) while grilling dinner. Cheers!
 
That’s sad to read. Sorry to see that about your wife.
Mine doesn’t drink at all. Has never had an alcoholic drink in her life. I can’t imagine my life without her. Godspeed to you Marshall. That’s a tough road to hoe.
Kids?
2 adult sons. One in Vegas the other in Charlotte. Happy to say they are successful young men.We go to the PSU bowl together ever since my wife passed. Citrus was #10. No grandkids yet. My advice is to never take one another for granted. Life has a way of putting a wedge between us and we forget the reason we got together to begin with. Met my wife in 7th grade and we had 37 years of marriage. My biggest regret is failing to always assure her she was the most important thing in my life. Cautionary tale...old too soon, smart too late.
 
May I suggest that Attorney Amendola might have gotten more out of line of questioning, in this instance, by being more subtle in the way in which he approached the witness.

Amendola was out of his league, His examination of Josh Fravel was very weak. I don't understand why Amendola didn't use his examination of Fravel to impeach Dawn Daniel (v1's Mom). In the following link, please listen to the second video (Aaron Fisher's neighbor describes ...) to understand what Amendola should have asked Fravel.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/huge-...how-penn-statesandusky-scandal-really-started
 
2 adult sons. One in Vegas the other in Charlotte. Happy to say they are successful young men.We go to the PSU bowl together ever since my wife passed. Citrus was #10. No grandkids yet. My advice is to never take one another for granted. Life has a way of putting a wedge between us and we forget the reason we got together to begin with. Met my wife in 7th grade and we had 37 years of marriage. My biggest regret is failing to always assure her she was the most important thing in my life. Cautionary tale...old too soon, smart too late.

**** me. Life can suck at times.
We are all mostly all in the same boat. Funny thing is, I probably want nothing more than to be taken taken for granted. Leave me alone and live your life. Life is tough to figure.
 
And I believe his mom wrote his statement to everhart. He admitted it.

So he is such a poor writer he may have needed help from his mom. But the idea that the mother blindly defended Jerry while the 24 year old Marine sat there too afraid to speak up is flat out ridiculous. Especially, even you considered that The mothers of Victims 1, 6, 7, and 9 ALL played a major role in getting their sons to turn on Jerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
So he is such a poor writer he may have needed help from his mom. But the idea that the mother blindly defended Jerry while the 24 year old Marine sat there too afraid to speak up is flat out ridiculous. Especially, even you considered that The mothers of Victims 1, 6, 7, and 9 ALL played a major role in getting their sons to turn on Jerry.

It’s really not ridiculous. Take the qualifiers away (24 year old Marine) and just think about it logically. Not many men want to admit they were abused as kids.
 
Amendola was out of his league, His examination of Josh Fravel was very weak. I don't understand why Amendola didn't use his examination of Fravel to impeach Dawn Daniel (v1's Mom). In the following link, please listen to the second video (Aaron Fisher's neighbor describes ...) to understand what Amendola should have asked Fravel.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/huge-...how-penn-statesandusky-scandal-really-started
Are you joking?
Amendola and Rominger had to speed-read through the thousands of pages of discovery material that they did get. For a while, they couldn’t even get the prosecution to give them the names and birthdates of the alleged victims, along with the exact dates on which they were supposed to have been abused by Sandusky. Amendola also wanted the names of anyone who had come forward to claim abuse but who "did not fit the commonwealth's profile and/or the report was deemed to be false,” but that was not forthcoming, either. Neither was information on whatever the prosecution had discovered on Sandusky’s computer, probably because they had found nothing incriminating whatsoever – no child pornography, which was surprising if Sandusky was the compulsive pedophile he was supposed to be.·[5]“We’re really being pushed to kind of decipher this stuff,” Amendola said in February 2012 about the reams of material. “We’ll be prepared to try the case whenever the judge says, but we’re playing a lot of catch-up right now.”[6]Amendola kept complaining.He threatened to file a motion to dismiss the case, since it was very difficult to prepare a defense without exact times and dates of alleged offenses.“All we are asking is [for prosecutors] to go back to these accusers and say, ‘You went to football games — which ones?’ Give us at least something that we could check,” Amendola begged.Prosecuting attorney Joe McGettigan responded that “many of the alleged victims were abused several times a week, or month,” so it wasn’t possible to pin down a particular time.Besides, “They didn’t want to remember what happened and were even encouraged by Sandusky to forget,” he said.Here was another red flag that the alleged victims may have been in therapy searching for repressed memories, but no one picked up on it. When the prosecutors said they wouldn’t provide the information, Judge Cleland commented, "I think the answer is they can't."
He thus declared that it was “futile” to demand such details.According to reporter Sara Ganim, “the state Attorney General's Office countered that Sandusky is accused of abusing boys who are now men, who were pressured into forgetting what happened and many times abused weekly for many years.”[7]Despite Amendola’s strenuous objections and repeated requests for a continuance, Cleland denied the requests and stuck to his promised June 5 trial date, which would take place in Centre County, where State College and Penn State were located.Incredibly, Jerry Sandusky had instructed Amendola to oppose a change in venue, assuming that his local reputation would benefit him.[8]Instead, the last place on earth that he was likely to get a fair trial was in Penn State territory, where the case had received a huge amount of horrendous publicity, and Penn State fans were bitter and angry at the impact on Coach Paterno and their beloved institution.On May 30, in a private unscheduled meeting with the judge and prosecutors, Amendola pled for a delay of the trial to allow him time to prepare for it properly. He wanted to call a psychologist as an expert witness, but the psychologist had been unable to prepare his reports because he hasn't been given access to the grand jury testimony. His jury consultant was in Puerto Rico on vacation. One of Amendola’s investigators was having surgery. Amendola and Rominger didn’t have enough time to review all the evidence. They couldn’t call Gary Schultz or Tim Curley because they had exercised their fifth-amendment rights.Cleland again denied the requested continuance, saying "No trial date is ever perfect, but some days are better than others."[9]Later that same day, in an official pre-trial hearing, Amendola asked Cleland to throw out three of the ten alleged victims before the trial.Victim 2, the unnamed Allan Myers, should be thrown out because Mike McQueary’s version of the shower incident kept changing, including the date on which it was supposed to have occurred.Victim 8, the phantom victim supposedly witnessed by the janitor who now had dementia, should be thrown out because it was pure hearsay.And Victim 6, Zachary Konstas, should be thrown out because the district attorney had decided in 1998 that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, so to try it again amounted to a kind of double jeopardy.Cleland denied all of Amendola’s requests.All ten alleged victims would be presented to the jury.[10]On June 5, just before the process of picking a jury commenced, Amendola tried one more tactic.He filed a motion to withdraw as Sandusky’s lawyer, “based on the lack of preparation of all the things that are going on, most notably the absence of our experts and jury consultant.”A “key witness” was unavailable.“My office is still copying materials which we cannot send out to anybody because they’re all confidential.They’re all grand jury materials.My staff is ready to quit.”He said that “some day when people talk to my staff and get a real flavor for what was going on in my office for the past 30, 60 days, they’ll have a better understanding that this is not lawyering.”The reality was that “we have been so far behind, just keeping up with the discovery materials and trying to do due diligence… but we’re at a loss.”They hadn’t even had time to serve subpoenas to potential witnesses.He concluded that “we’re not prepared to go to trial at this time.”Co-counsel Karl Rominger added that he had called the Pennsylvania Bar Ethics Hotline the day before, and they had called his attention to Rule 17.1, a lawyer’s “duty of competency,” and that Rule 1.16 called upon a judge to ask lawyers to withdraw if the judge could tell that they were completely unprepared.The lawyer who answered the hotline said that they would normally render a formal opinion in such cases, but since they knew it was the Sandusky case, they didn’t want to get involved.Amendola said that he was “fully cognizant of the fact that the Court will deny but at least there will be a record.”[11]And he was right.Cleland refused to allow him to withdraw from the case, and jury selection began.


· Although there was no pornography on Sandusky’s computer, his investigators were sending “graphic and raunchy” pornography by email to one another, though the Office of the Attorney General has refused to make the emails public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
It’s really not ridiculous. Take the qualifiers away (24 year old Marine) and just think about it logically. Not many men want to admit they were abused as kids.

If that was the case, why not just stay home? Why voluntarily approach Sandusky’s lawyer and have your mother help you provide a statement vehemently defending him?
 
If that was the case, why not just stay home? Why voluntarily approach Sandusky’s lawyer and have your mother help you provide a statement vehemently defending him?

More to the point, why would you invite your abuser and his wife to your wedding? Why would you drive 10 hours to attend your abuser’s father funeral? Why would you ask your abuser to stand with you at your final high school football game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT