Seven Years Ago Today

[francofan]

no i'm not, and it doesn't matter why but I did graduate from PSU and I believe loons like you make us look bad.

You are welcome to your own opinions. My opinion is that for the most part that the media and the public don't fully understand what exactly happened in the Penn State/Sandusky scandal and have bought into a number of false narratives.

Do you think that McQueaary witnessed an anal rape?

Do you think the Freeh Report is factual?

Do you think that Curley, Schultz, Paterno, and Spanier knowingly enabled the acts of a child molester?

Do you think that there is a culture problem at Penn State and that fans have a winning at any cost mentality?

Do you think that suggestive interviewing techniques are a reliable way of learning what exactly happened in an investigation?

 

[RussianEagle]

no i'm not, and it doesn't matter why but I did graduate from PSU and I believe loons like you make us look bad.

Why does it “make us look bad”? Our criminal justice system gets cases wrong all the time. And with the proven prosecution misconduct and media misinformation in this case, I would say the conditions were very ripe for an injustice.

The problem is the culture of internet virtue signaling. Some people think they are showing how much they care about child abuse by screaming online about they believe all victims. That is BS. You are not showing yourself to care about child abuse by typing on a keyboard.

 

[fizzyskittles]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

Debunking bullshit is so much harder than spreading it. But take this strange world view out there and see how receptive the real world is. It isn’t.

 

[RussianEagle]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

Debunking bullshit is so much harder than spreading it. But take this strange world view out there and see how receptive the real world is. It isn’t.

You just proved our point! It didn’t take very long for the narrative that “Jerry Sandusky raped a bunch of boys in plain sight in the PSU locker room for decades” to spread across the country. Getting the truth out there is much more difficult.

 

[Bob78]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

Debunking bullshit is so much harder than spreading it. But take this strange world view out there and see how receptive the real world is. It isn’t.

In this case - Sandusky's guilt or innocence aside - the narrative involving JVP and the Admins was created and promoted by the media, and our BOT didn't have the ethical character to correct it, for fear of being 'implicated' themselves. So, the BS is what was put out there from Nov. 2011, and many people are interested in correcting that falsehood. (Again, not speaking of JS here).

People believe the false narrative because it was put out there first and trumpeted loudly, not because it is accurate or fair or has any investigative integrity to it.

That's the BS many are trying to debunk. You are right, spreading it was far too easy for the media and the OGBOT (with Freeh's paid help).

 

[Connorpozlee]

If you look objectively at the stories of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with, you will realize that none of them hold water if you scrutinize them closely. Sandusky's trial was patently unfair. If he is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I have no doubt he will be exonerated.

If you look objectively (hard in your case as I believe you have said that you have spoken with Sandusky and are friends with Schultz) you would be led to believe that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Objectively speaking, non-pedophilic grown men do not shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with after being investigated by police and promising not to do so again.
That’s objectively speaking of course.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You just proved our point! It didn’t take very long for the narrative that “Jerry Sandusky raped a bunch of boys in plain sight in the PSU locker room for decades” to spread across the country. Getting the truth out there is much more difficult.

I would focus on getting the truth out there regarding the administrators then. It really is a separate issue from Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.

 

[francofan]

If you look objectively (hard in your case as I believe you have said that you have spoken with Sandusky and are friends with Schultz) you would be led to believe that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Objectively speaking, non-pedophilic grown men do not shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with after being investigated by police and promising not to do so again.
That’s objectively speaking of course.

Where is the crime?

Please tell me the best credible information that Jerry Sandusky committed a crime.

 

[RussianEagle]

I would focus on getting the truth out there regarding the administrators then. It really is a separate issue from Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.

That is true. I am absolutely open to the possibility that Jerry, while having no sexual contact with V2 during that 2000 incident, was grooming the boy for future sexual contact. McQueary did the right thing by telling Joe, Joe did the right thing by telling Curley and Schultz, and Curley and Schultz did the right thing by informing Jack Raykowitz but then the ball was dropped from there, as a purported child protection expert should know better.

My issue is that I see major problems with the stories of every single accuser.

 

[RussianEagle]

If you look objectively (hard in your case as I believe you have said that you have spoken with Sandusky and are friends with Schultz) you would be led to believe that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Objectively speaking, non-pedophilic grown men do not shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with after being investigated by police and promising not to do so again.
That’s objectively speaking of course.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think Sandusky’s actions are better explained by the fact that he grew up in a Recreation Center where horseplay in the communal showers was common. He was then led to believe the hoopla over the 1998 incident was just the authorities needing the cover their asses in response to a crazy mother.

I think if Sandusky was a pedophile who barely avoided getting caught in 1998, he actions following the incident make even less sense. That being rather than seeing that boy as a potential “rat” who needs to be kicked to the curb, he continued an incident-free friendship with that boy and enabled him to form close friendships with the other boys he was supposedly molesting/grooming.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Where is the crime?

Please tell me the best credible information that Jerry Sandusky committed a crime.

Men testified in court that he sexually assaulted them as children. Objectively, that testimony backed up by his known behavior would lead one to believe that he is a pedophile. Objectively.
Is it 100% proof? Nope. Would it make one make a reasonable, objective judgement that he is a pedophile? I certainly think so. You certainly think not.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think Sandusky’s actions are better explained by the fact that he grew up in a Recreation Center where horseplay in the communal showers was common. He was then led to believe the hoopla over the 1998 incident was just the authorities needing the cover their asses in response to a crazy mother.

Think about it though eagle. Horseplay (splashing water at each other? Snapping towels?) in a shower with a room full of peers is entirely different than being an adult alone with an unrelated child and holding them up to the shower head. And that doesn’t explain blowing raspberries on an unrelated child’s belly. And I don’t believe even a little bit that the director of a children’s charity for at risk youth could be investigated by police for showering alone and having physical contact with a boy and not think it is a very serious situation.

 

[francofan]

I would focus on getting the truth out there regarding the administrators then. It really is a separate issue from Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.

Sandusky's guilt or innocence is tied directly to the cases against Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

If Sandusky is innocent then there are no cases against CSS.

If CSS are innocent, then why were they charged? I believe they were charged so that they were unable to be testify at Sandusky's trial and impeach McQueary's testimony that he witnessed a sexual assault. Curley and Schultz would have been able to testify that McQueary told them he witnessed horseplay and said nothing about a sexual assault.

We should hear more from the administrators in the near term as Schultz is off of probation very soon and is likely to speak then. I hope that Spanier speaks up when he is finally exonerated after Shapiro's appeal is denied.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Sandusky's guilt or innocence is tied directly to the cases against Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

If Sandusky is innocent then there are no cases against CSS.

If CSS are innocent, then why were they charged? I believe they were charged so that they were unable to be testify at Sandusky's trial and impeach McQueary's testimony that he witnessed a sexual assault. Curley and Schultz would have been able to testify that McQueary told them he witnessed horseplay and said nothing about a sexual assault.

We should hear more from the administrators in the near term as Schultz is off of probation very soon and is likely to speak then. I hope that Spanier spekas up when he is finally exonerated after Shapiro's a[[eal is denied.

The administrators could have handled the situation 100% correctly and Sandusky could still be a pedophile. If they were told he was raping a child in the shower (I don’t believe they were told that) and they didn’t report it, they screwed up even if Sandusky is not a pedophile. I don’t know the nuances of the law, or what the law was then, but I do know that. That is where they are separate issues.

 

[francofan]

Men testified in court that he sexually assaulted them as children. Objectively, that testimony backed up by his know behavior would lead one to believe that he is a pedophile. Objectively.
Is it 100% proof? Nope. Would it make one make a reasonable, objective judgement that he is a pedophile? I certainly think so. You certainly think not.

If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, we will see just how credible those accusations are. From what I know about the individual claimants, I am very suspicious. On the other hand, I don't think a retrial would be a slam dunk for the defense. Public opinion is still very poisoned againt Sandusky and who knows what shenanigans the OAG would come up with.

I doubt very much that the Pennsylvania Supreme court will order a new trial based on Sandusky's PCRA appeal, but I would love to see that happen. I hope they make their decision sooner rather than later. If they rule against Sandusky, then his federal habeus corpus appeal can begin where the odds are much better for exposing the serious problems in the case.

 

[francofan]

The administrators could have handled the situation 100% correctly and Sandusky could still be a pedophile. If they were told he was raping a child in the shower (I don’t believe they were told that) and they didn’t report it, they screwed up even if Sandusky is not a pedophile. I don’t know the nuances of the law, or what the law was then, but I do know that. That is where they are separate issues.

There is no question that the charges against Curely, Schultz and Spanier are bogus.

Could they have handled the situation better? Perhaps. However, there is no question that they didn't do anything illegal.

 

[Connorpozlee]

If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, we will see just how credible those accusations are. From what I know about the individual claimants, I am very suspicious. On the other hand, I don't think a retrial would be a slam dunk for the defense. Public opinion is still very poisoned againt Sandusky and who knows what shenanigans the OAG would come up with.

I doubt very much that the Pennsylvania Supreme court will order a new trial based on Sandusky's PCRA appeal, but I would love to see that happen. I hope they make their decision sooner rather than later. If they rule against Sandusky, then his federal habeus corpus appeal can begin where the odds are much better for exposing the serious problems in the case.

I have no problem with another trial. Would Sandusky be willing to take the stand?

 

[fizzyskittles]

If you look objectively (hard in your case as I believe you have said that you have spoken with Sandusky and are friends with Schultz) you would be led to believe that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Objectively speaking, non-pedophilic grown men do not shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with after being investigated by police and promising not to do so again.
That’s objectively speaking of course.

As you see the shared delusion is all about Joe. If Jerry never did anything, the whole thing is just a crazy dream.
I predicted this years ago. Now they’re out in the open arguing for Jerry’s innocence.

 

[Connorpozlee]

There is no question that the charges against Curely, Schultz and Spanier are bogus.

Could they have handled the situation better? Perhaps. However, there is no question that they didn't do anything illegal.

So you see why I say they are not mutually exclusive then? Just because Sandusky is guilty doesn’t mean they handled it improperly, depending on what they were actually told.

 

[fizzyskittles]

I have no problem with another trial. Would Sandusky be willing to take the stand?

I do , wasting time and money on another slam dunk with up to twenty more victims would be silly. Kane made a decision not to try Jerry for additional victims who were willing to testify.
Same result , different day.

 

[francofan]

I have no problem with another trial. Would Sandusky be willing to take the stand?

I believe he would. He took the stand a couple of times in his PCRA hearings. I know that he wants to. I don't think there would be any defense strategy to preclude it.

 

[francofan]

I do , wasting time and money on another slam dunk with up to twenty more victims would be silly. Kane made a decision not to try Jerry for additional victims who were willing to testify.
Same result , different day.

You never stated the motivation for your interest in this case. It seems like perhaps you are interested in protecting the interests of the OAG and/or the old guard BOT.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I do , wasting time and money on another slam dunk with up to twenty more victims would be silly. Kane made a decision not to try Jerry for additional victims who were willing to testify.
Same result , different day.

What I mean is that I would still like to get the whole story. I don’t live in PA so it’s not my money.

 

[fizzyskittles]

What I mean is that I would still like to get the whole story. I don’t live in PA so it’s not my money.

We have the whole story. All you would get is the lion king remake. Just different people ( and the same people) saying the same thing.
And I do live in Pa. there are other people who are accused of drones waiting for their days in court.

 

[francofan]

What I mean is that I would still like to get the whole story. I don’t live in PA so it’s not my money.

I live in PA and I am upset that Penn State has pissed away $250 million without knowing what exactly happened and doing virtually no vetting of the claimants.

 

[francofan]

We have the whole story. All you would get is the lion king remake. Just different people ( and the same people) saying the same thing.
And I do live in Pa. there are other people who are accused of drones waiting for their days in court.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The whole story will be evident some day, but that day is absolutely not today.

 

[pandaczar12]

You don’t understand because either you don’t want to understand or because you’re oblivious.
I’ll link this for you. It may help you understand. Again, the sexually abused mind is not logical. It’s damaged. It’s not typical. It has been altered. Try to understand.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-victims-childhood-sexual-abuse-dont-disclose

Wasn’t victim 1 abused by a family member earlier in his life? Or was the family member just convicted of child abuse?

 

[MJG-90]

Objectively speaking, non-pedophilic grown men do not shower alone with underage boys and have physical contact with after being investigated by police and promising not to do so again.
That’s objectively speaking of course.

Objectively speaking, very few grown men are running a charity for under privileged boys either. It seems creepy to most of us, but we don't know what he really intended to do.

Men testified in court that he sexually assaulted them as children. Objectively, that testimony backed up by his known behavior would lead one to believe that he is a pedophile. Objectively.

Objectively speaking, it's also very possible that the known behavior became the pipeline through which tons of cash flowed directly to people who got together (with lawyers) and lied about their true relationships with Jerry.

(That's not what I believe. I'm just playing devil's advocate because honestly, I don't know what to believe.)

Again, I have no clue what Jerry did or didn't do. Can we all agree with that at least? Can we all (other than the fuzzy skittle guy and one or two others) at least agree that the justice system probably cheated Jerry out of a fair trial (along with Jerry choosing a totally in over their head legal team). And can we agree that if Jerry was given a new trial, it is quite possible that he'd be found not guilty? Because Franco doesn't know the truth about Jerry any more than the fuzzy skittles guy. And the Russian Eagle can't say for sure Jerry is innocent any more than CPL can say he's for certain guilty.

There has to be some common stopping point for this discussion. It's now 25 pages of the exact same conversation as page 1, with very little new information.

 

[francofan]

Wasn’t victim 1 abused by a family member earlier in his life? Or was the family member just convicted of child abuse?

V1's step father, Eric Daniels was charged and I believe convicted of 109 counts of CSA.

There is no evidence that Daniels abused v1.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/sites/default/files/DanielsGAcharges.pdf

 

[Connorpozlee]

I live in PA and I am upset that Penn State has pissed away $250 million without knowing what exactly happened and doing virtually no vetting of the claimants.

That’s understandable.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Objectively speaking, very few grown men are running a charity for under privileged boys either. It seems creepy to most of us, but we don't know what he really intended to do.



Objectively speaking, it's also very possible that the known behavior became the pipeline through which tons of cash flowed directly to people who got together (with lawyers) and lied about their true relationships with Jerry.

(That's not what I believe. I'm just playing devil's advocate because honestly, I don't know what to believe.)

Again, I have no clue what Jerry did or didn't do. Can we all agree with that at least? Can we all (other than the fuzzy skittle guy and one or two others) at least agree that the justice system probably cheated Jerry out of a fair trial (along with Jerry choosing a totally in over their head legal team). And can we agree that if Jerry was given a new trial, it is quite possible that he'd be found not guilty? Because Franco doesn't know the truth about Jerry any more than the fuzzy skittles guy. And the Russian Eagle can't say for sure Jerry is innocent any more than CPL can say he's for certain guilty.

There has to be some common stopping point for this discussion. It's now 25 pages of the exact same conversation as page 1, with very little new information.

For the record, I’ve never said he’s for certain guilty. Franco pushes the certain of innocence line, which is where I get roped into this.

 

[francofan]

Again, I have no clue what Jerry did or didn't do. Can we all agree with that at least? Can we all (other than the fuzzy skittle guy and one or two others) at least agree that the justice system probably cheated Jerry out of a fair trial (along with Jerry choosing a totally in over their head legal team). And can we agree that if Jerry was given a new trial, it is quite possible that he'd be found not guilty? Because Franco doesn't know the truth about Jerry any more than the fuzzy skittles guy. And the Russian Eagle can't say for sure Jerry is innocent any more than CPL can say he's for certain guilty.

There has to be some common stopping point for this discussion. It's now 25 pages of the exact same conversation as page 1, with very little new information.

I agree that Jerry did not receive a fair trial and if he was given a new trial, he would probably be found not guilty.

I do disagree that I don't know the truth about Jerry any more than the fuzzy skittles guy. I will be the first to admit that I don't have all of the answers, but I have done extensive research on the case where it doesn't appear that he/she has done anything substantive. In addition, I personally know and have conversed with a number of the key players in the case which I am guessing fuzzy hasn't

 

[francofan]

For the record, I’ve never said he’s for certain guilty. Franco pushes the certain of innocence line, which is where I get roped into this.

I am not 100% certain that Jerry is innocent, but I am at the 99%+ level. I don't have a key to Jerry's mind but it doesn't seem to me like he had any sexual intent in his dealings with TSM boys. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Jerry enganged in sexual activities with any of the claimants other than suspicious testimony that was subject to manipulation that I don't find credible.

 

[Bob78]

Sandusky's guilt or innocence is tied directly to the cases against Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

If Sandusky is innocent then there are no cases against CSS.

If CSS are innocent, then why were they charged? I believe they were charged so that they were unable to be testify at Sandusky's trial and impeach McQueary's testimony that he witnessed a sexual assault. Curley and Schultz would have been able to testify that McQueary told them he witnessed horseplay and said nothing about a sexual assault.

We should hear more from the administrators in the near term as Schultz is off of probation very soon and is likely to speak then. I hope that Spanier spekas up when he is finally exonerated after Shapiro's a[[eal is denied.

Franco - from what I understand and recently had clarified for me by someone who would know, their parole period is over this month, but probation goes on for another 2 years. I did not understand that there was a total of a 4 year period involved; I thought it was a total of 2.

I do not expect that any of them will talk prior to the probationary period being completed. My guess is that they were thrown for a loop by the judge not holding to a tacit agreement of no jail time, and feel as though he could respond negatively to anything he deems worthy of re-instituting jail time, such as speaking freely and frankly about the details of their cases and charges.

I am also more convinced than ever that they absolutely were not told of any crime or sexual activities by McQ when they spoke with him. I believe they felt they acted properly given what they were told at the time. All just my opinion.

 

[MJG-90]

For the record, I’ve never said he’s for certain guilty. Franco pushes the certain of innocence line, which is where I get roped into this.

I realize that. I was just trying to find some mutual ground in this discussion. We are now on page 26 of this thread. Surprisingly, it's been mostly civilized discussion with few exceptions. Because of that, I thought I'd at least attempt to find some areas we can all agree and maybe move the conversation forward.

My guess is that they were thrown for a loop by the judge not holding to a tacit agreement of no jail time, and feel as though he could respond negatively to anything he deems worthy of re-instituting jail time, such as speaking freely and frankly about the details of their cases and charges.

Freedom of speech is not a thing when you are on probation? I didn't know that.

 

[Bob78]

Freedom of speech is not a thing when you are on probation? I didn't know that.[/QUOTE]

I think I explained adequately why I hold that opinion regarding how free they may feel to speak.

No doubt freedoms are viewed/perceived differently when a person feels theirs have been violated unfairly.
Not being in their shoes, I have no issue with whatever they decide to do in their own best interests.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I realize that. I was just trying to find some mutual ground in this discussion. We are now on page 26 of this thread. Surprisingly, it's been mostly civilized discussion with few exceptions. Because of that, I thought I'd at least attempt to find some areas we can all agree and maybe move the conversation forward.



Freedom of speech is not a thing when you are on probation? I didn't know that.

Yeah, I get it. I don’t really start these discussions but when I see posters saying with certainty that Sandusky did not abuse the boys, or that he was just showering off after a workout, or he just didn’t know better I feel a need to respond. I get that the vast majority on here think Sandusky is exactly where he belongs, but when the “Free Jerry” crowd gets going I like to point out the other side of it. Group think is dangerous.

 

[MJG-90]

Group think is dangerous.

Totally agree. Social media (faux rage) is a big player in this problem.

 

[francofan]

Franco - from what I understand and recently had clarified for me by someone who would know, their parole period is over this month, but probation goes on for another 2 years. I did not understand that there was a total of a 4 year period involved; I thought it was a total of 2.

I do not expect that any of them will talk prior to the probationary period being completed. My guess is that they were thrown for a loop by the judge not holding to a tacit agreement of no jail time, and feel as though he could respond negatively to anything he deems worthy of re-instituting jail time, such as speaking freely and frankly about the details of their cases and charges.

I am also more convinced than ever that they absolutely were not told of any crime or sexual activities by McQ when they spoke with him. I believe they felt they acted properly given what they were told at the time. All just my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification Bob.

I didn't know there was a distinction between being on parale and being on probation.

I know that Gary Schultz did an interview with John Ziegler thas was put on ice until Gary was out of legal jeopardy. I hope we don't have to wait another 2 years to be able to listen to it.

I am very interested in hearing it as Ziegler states it is one of the best interviews that he has personally been involved with. My understanding is that Gary explains in the interview why he knows that Jerry is innocent. Gary said in his interview with Snedden that he thought Jerry acted inappropriately in the 2000/2001 shower incident, but he didn't believe it was illegal. I believe that Gary explains the basis for why the shower incident happened on Dec. 29, 2000 and not Feb. 9, 2001 or March 1, 2002.

 

[francofan]

Yeah, I get it. I don’t really start these discussions but when I see posters saying with certainty that Sandusky did not abuse the boys, or that he was just showering off after a workout, or he just didn’t know better I feel a need to respond. I get that the vast majority on here think Sandusky is exactly where he belongs, but when the “Free Jerry” crowd gets going I like to point out the other side of it. Group think is dangerous.

Group think is absolutely dangerous. I think that is a big reason why progress has been so slow in this case. The OAG did a good job with selling their false narratives at the outset of this case. I believe they used prosecutorial misconduct such as grand jury leaks and the false grand presentment to sell their false narratives. Once someone is convinced of something, it is very difficult to get them to change their mind.