Please provide me with one reasonable (not they had worked out and needed to shower off) excuse for showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Please provide me with one reasonable (not they had worked out and needed to shower off) excuse for showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them.
OK. Would you have ever, under any circumstances while working at a sports camp, have had one on one contact with a boy alone in a shower?
I agree 100% with the notion of innocent before being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Start showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them and reasonable doubt starts to slip away. I have reasonable doubt (not 100% proof, but reasonable doubt) that Jerry Sandusky would be in that situation multiple times without a sexual motivation.
Last edited:
I have a friend who was raped repeatedly by her older brother from the ages of 10-12. She got married at 42 years old. She had that brother walk her down the aisle in lieu of her deceased father.
I already have. You just didn’t like my answer.
Please research the case and learn as much about the accusers and their accusations. I suggest Professor Frederick Crews’s review of Pendergrast’s book. Then tell me the single specific accuser that you find most credible.
The camps I worked at were day camps and did not have showers.
But to answer your question, no I would never have done that. That does not mean that everyone who has been in a group shower with someone underage has committed a sex crime (I'm sure this happens at swimming pool showers with some regularity).
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT the sole arbiter of what is or is not reasonable.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the PSU related cases are BS. They should have never resulted in charges. For example, look at the janitor case! No known victim. No established date of a crime. No physical evidence of a crime. No report of a crime. And no witness to a crime (the witness was deemed medically unfit to testify). How do you defend yourself against that?
Jerry didn't give the opportunity to Corbett. McQueary did when he began sending photos of his junk to college girls. But as others have noted, that window of opportunity should have closed the minute it was learned that Curley informed Jack Raykovitz. Those were his kids. Jerry was his employee.
Last edited:
The kid was excited to be there and was wound up. He started horsing around with Jerry.
In both zk and am’s case, Sandusky was not legally or biologically related to them. They could have very easily said that I never want to see that creep again. They both said how Sandusky had played an important role in their life. Even after Sandusky was found guilty and they sued Penn State there was never any visceral reaction they way Nassar’s victims had shown. In fact, I attended the PCRA hearing were am had his bout of amnesia. He never had a strong reaction when discussing Sandusky, referring to him as your client (Al Lindsay’s client). The one time he showed emotion at the hearing was when discussing when a detective came to his house and he told the detective to get off his expletive deleted property. I thought it was telling that he didn’t show any emotion when discussing Sandusky like he did when discussing the detective.
And absolutely nobody here has said that. Nobody. Jerry Sandusky was not just in a group shower with somebody underage. Jerry Sandusky was in a group shower with an underage boy alone and had physical contact with him while in there. More than once. That is a pretty major distinction.
Last edited:
Jerry provided the opportunity by showering alone and having physical contact with underage boys on multiple occasions.
Fine, if you want to use that as the excuse for the physical contact. Still doesn’t excuse him getting into the shower alone with the boy to begin with.
You are absolutely not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable. Who died and left you king?
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, you just aren’t entitled to everybody else’s opinions.
My friend is one of nine children. She could have had one of her four other brothers walk her down the aisle. She chose the one who raped her. She could have walked away from that brother easily, but she didn’t.
I have another acquaintance who was molested by an adult who was a family friend as a child. Years later, this acquaintance worked directly for the family friend.
Look, a lot of this stuff is illogical. And again, I have no proof that it happened. As I have many times in here, I hope at some time that it is proven that the worst thing that happened was that some guys screwed Penn State out of a fortune and Sandusky spent some time in jail undeservedly. I hope that is proven to be true. I am open to that. It’s really tough to start with the showering and get to that point though.
I get to decide what I find reasonable. I find it unreasonable to believe that a grown man would shower alone with an underage boy, have physical contact with him, have the mother call police because of it, be investigated by the police because of it, agree with the police investigating to never do that again, then be seen in that exact same situation again 2 or 3 years later to be doing so innocently. You find it reasonable. I’m not sure why, but you do. You get to decide what you find reasonable.
Nobody has said that you can’t decide what you find reasonable.
The v6 and the v2 incidents are not exactly the same situation. I believe that the v6 incident in 1998 was the first time that Sandusky and v6 had gotten together. I don’t think it was reasonable for Sandusky to have showered with v6 and I believe that Sandusky exercised poor judgment in doing so.
I believe that am and Sandusky had had a relationship for a considerable time before the December 2000 Lasch building shower incident. As I understand it, am and Sandusky had a father- son relationship and Sandusky was the father am never had. I believe that am had accompanied Sandusky on a book signing event in Washington, Pa and went to Lasch building after a 3+ hour drive back to State College. I also don’t think it was a wise idea to shower with am that night and I think that again that Sandusky showed poor judgment. At the same time, I absolutely don’t believe that either the v6 or the v2 incident were sexual in any way or that Sandusky had any sexual intent.
I know you have a strong opinion that you believe Sandusky committed CSA which is fine with me. What I find troublesome is that you continually express your opinion without being able to identify a specific victim that you are fairly certain that he abused. Please do some research to at least be able to identify someone you are fairly certain he abused if you want to keep expressing your strong opinion.
Last edited:
OK. I’m moving along once again.
I will leave with this. Nobody in their right mind would think it is reasonable to have shower alone with underage boys while having physical contact with them. Nobody.
Have a good day.
I will leave with this. Nobody in their right mind would think it is reasonable to have shower alone with underage boys while having physical contact with them. Nobody.
Have a good day.
C/S/S didn't think it was reasonable either. That's why they rescinded Jerry's guest privileges. However, Jack Raykovitz thought it was okay for Jerry to continue as long as he wore swim trunks in the shower. And Bruce Heim thought it was reasonable enough to offer up the use of the facilities at the Hilton Garden Inn as an alternative to the PSU facilities. Those are two pretty important nobodies!
Not reasonable and illegal to are two different things.
Are you saying "naked horseplay" warrants a life sentence?
I do get your point that Sandusky’s actions following the 1998 incident are completely unreasonable and make no sense. However, the problem is the alternative is even more absurd.
Let’s just assume Sandusky is guilty. You will have to believe in the first 21 years of the second mile, he engaged in various levels of inappropriate contact ranging from crotch grabbing to oral sex with several teens and preteen boys. He didn’t even need to ply any with drugs, alcohol, or money. And that despite the fact the every one was athletic, masculine, and unlikely to be open to homosexual contact, not a single one ever told anyone. Not just family or friends, but none of the college age second mile volunteers nor any of the police and child protection workers that worked closely with the second mile. Nor did any try to seek revenge on Jerry after growing up, despite the fact that most of Jerrys accusers were not known as guys who’d back down from a fight. Sandusky was apparently a complete master of the grooming process despite him never ever being linked to any other child sexual abuser.
It seems that if he was an abuser, the 1998 incident would cause him to panic and realize the gig may be up. He would at least want to get rid of the boy who snitched to his mom over an act that didn’t even involve sexual contact. What if that boy started asking questions to the others? Instead, he not only continues his friendship with that boy, but he enables him to form close friendships with the other boys he was supposedly grooming/abusing.
Now this scenario is unreasonable!
Last edited:
Ahhhhh....... I accidentally tapped back into this.
Absolutely, not reasonable and illegal are two different things. But I believe you were the one earlier that spoke about reasonable doubt. A man who admits to showering naked alone with underage boys and having physical contact with them, and is then accused by some of having sex with them has certainly provided quite a bit of reasonable doubt of his denial.
OK, I’m out of this thread for good this time. Carry on.
Another important nugget concerning why Jerry felt okay with taking showers with AM after the 1998 incident was that AM’s mother apparently knew her son was taking showers with Jerry and unlike the mother of ZK, had no issue with it. She actually helped AM write the statement defending Jerry after Sandusky was arrested and the whole country turned on him.
That's not how reasonable doubt works. In fact, it's the opposite. Reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
Reasonable doubt in a court of law is different than reasonable doubt in day to day decision making .
The guilty verdict shows there is no reasonable doubt according to the jury . That’s why he’s in jail.
It is not at all clear that he is guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. His trial was patently unfair. The results of an unfair trial are inherently unreliable. Sandusky was railroaded.
The only objective and unbiased investigation that was done was the federal investigation done by former NCIS Special Agent of the Year John Snedden to determine if Graham Spanier’s top-level security clearances should be renewed. His findings were that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather only a political hit job.
It’s a clear as crystal clear. You just refuse to believe it. Get back to me when he wins an appeal and is freed .
Keep quoting Snedden, a man who did not investigate the case. He didn’t interrogate suspects, interview witnesses, go over the evidence such as Jerry’s log with marks by the names of the victims.
Snedden means zero. If so why hasn’t he helped on the appeals and prevailed?
It is clear that he is guilty, a jury said so and to date every appeal has failed. I will considered that Sandusky was railroaded when someone like Gerry Spence or his associates, Sydney Powell or Barry Schek takes up his cause.
One key piece of info regarding Snedden's investigation, it is a sham. He did not interview Sandusky, Curley and Schultz nor did he have access to the state's evidence or other witnesses. His review is merely his opinion, worth no more or less than yours or mine.
Sandusky fits the profile of an abuser than someone falsely accused. Rounding up thirty some who agree to testify if needed and talking to others that didn’t want to testify is much different than two or three people making up a story. If that’s the case , it’s much easier to debunk their claims. Tens of people in isolation? NFW.
The entire region was labeled as pedophile enablers. Do you really think the jury was going to find Jerry 'not guilty'?
Spanier’s appeal to the federal courts won and Shapiro’s appeal was a Hail Mary that is destined to fail.
