But what MM said to his dad, to Joe and to the grand jury has always been the biggest issue (for me). It seems to have a lot of versions to it.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
But what MM said to his dad, to Joe and to the grand jury has always been the biggest issue (for me). It seems to have a lot of versions to it.
No they didn't. Who the eff needs to do "research" on CSA? Courtney's billing line indicates they didn't know what they were dealing with, hence the research on his part.
The "Hindsight" quote from Paterno is the single most abused statement in this Sandusky situation.
The 'sexual in nature' is the second.
You and countless other seem to forget that Paterno's first words were "I don't know what you'd call it?". Paterno had his memory refreshed by McQ prior to his GJ interview after a 10-year lapse. McQ was already doubling down on his story because of his own personal issues. Thirdly, nobody can and has ever defined exactly what sexual in nature actually means. The definition of what sexual is to an 80-year old man is quite different than what might be considered sexual to a 40 year old woman and a 25 year old man.
So, what does "sexual in nature" mean?
Considering that the person in question was found guilty on 45/48 counts I’m going to chose to think they had a good understanding what they were dealing with.
McQueary didn't really have much of a choice, did he?
Five educated, intelligent men who heard directly from McQ in 2001 (or 2000) did not react nor think that they were dealing with CSA at that time.
Ten (10) years later, after a knowingly and critically false statement was intentionally released and broadcast across the national news, and in which the prosecution admitted was a lie, is what you believe is true?
Actions speak louder than words. Five men - and a sixth if we include McQ himself - did nothing because none of them were convinced in any way, shape or form that CSA had occurred.
We can all forget what was said in 2011 because the chances of any of it being accurate is exactly zero point zero.
45/48 , your rationalizations are noted and rejected by actual events.
But what was written in 2001 is critical and grossly misinterpreted.
#1, if their counsel told them to call CYS, PSU's admins got prosecuted for their decision then so be it. The call to TSM should have caused a report, but you are correct in that it relies on a licensed child care organization to do what was legally required. So they got punished with a misdemeanor for that.
#2, TSM is a child care organization. TSM should be able to find out if the child was one of theirs. They should be called immediately whether a call is made anywhere else or not. Who cares if they have a conflict of interest. Knowing that conflict of interest makes the call to them more important not less. So to believe what you do, the PSU admins had to know that TSM officials would break the law and risk themselves to prosecution.
#3, do what the law requires. They don't get to choose. This would be the second time Sandusky showered alone with a child in TSM's care. He was supposedly warned about that in the past. What would TSM report? You can't be serious.
#4, the PSU admins did get what they wanted. Sandusky did not shower with any more children on PSU property. If PSU passed the buck, TSM didn't even try to do that and should have been dealt with by LE. They were not. They were actually used as witnesses for the prosecution.
I will let you have the last word. I am assuming your agenda is anti-PSU and that is fine. If not my apologies. I understand why people believe they failed. I also understand why some people don't believe that PSU should have been covered by telling TSM even though that is incorrect. The question I would like answered is, did TSM know they wouldn't be held accountable if they didn't report even though it was mandatory?
This thread is an amazing study in social something (I'm not sure what to call it). I keep seeing very specific questions being sidestepped. If you want to engage in a proper debate, then answer the damned questions. All of you. Otherwise, end this thread now because it isn't going anywhere. Everyone posting has made up his/her minds and nobody is going to change their minds. Waste of time responding. I'm reading for the shear entertainment value of watching a game of verbal dodgeball.
Yes, my issue is that I don’t believe that there are any credible reports of CSA and I don’t believe that Sandusky received a fair trial.
If this is such a slam dunk case, why did the OAG have to resort to the shenanigans that they did (a knowingly false grand jury presentment, leaking grand jury testimony, Brady violations, MSU factoring cases against CSS, using suggestive interviewing techniques etc. )? In addition, Why can no one identify a specific accuser that cleary was abused?
The Innocence Project usually gets involved in cases that involve DNA evidence and in this case there isn’t any physical evidence let alone DNA evidence.
The OAG has done a good job of cementing their false narratives. The media by and large has bought into the OAG narratives and has done very little independent investigation on their own.
That being said, I believe this story is a long way from over. New revelations will come out that will continue to challenge the prevailing story. Opinions are changing slowly but surely. I believe that critical mass will eventually happen. I hope it happens sooner rather than later.
So if someone gets away with one bank robbery, in your mind he should be exempt from prosecution in future robberies?
Jerry found out it doesn't work that way. How is your buddy Jerry doing these days?
I think you forgot (obviously innocently) that "...I don't know what you call it" came after the Paterno's "sexual in nature" quote.
Regarding "possible child abuse":
"Hey Mr. Attorney, we had a GA report a man in a shower with a boy. He didn't report it to police or provide any details, just that it made him uncomfortable. What are our legal obligations here?" Can you see how that would make into into that file?
You say abused, I say quite compelling. When you need a definition of "sexual in nature", you are grasping at straws.
Probably true = >50% true, which is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
So you'd be good in civil court, but not criminal court.
You cannot define it, so I do need and want a definition from you.
What you think it is versus what I think it is versus what my dad might think it is versus what one of my kids think it is is unequivocally guaranteed to be at least four different versions. At least four!
Joe must have been grasping at straws then. He qualified his comment twice, before and after. First, he said, "I don't know what you'd call it....." Then he said, "I'm not sure exactly what it was."
I'm saying that someone who routinely horseplays with naked boys in the shower and has dozens of rape allegations against him spanning decades is probably exactly where he deserves to be right now.
I’m saying that in a case where there have been serial acts of prosecutorial misconduct, a patently unfair trial, and no clear cut, credible indications of CSA then there is a good chance that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Witnessing how the judicial system works in PA, I am firmly in the camp of the guys from these two videos. Don't ever talk to the police.
If those allegations were credible and had the legal process been conducted fairly, I'd agree with you. Jerry was convicted in the court of public opinion. He never stood a chance.
I don't recall that there were more than the 2 shower incidents (2 is more than enough, of course) as implied by the word "routinely", and that there were any rape allegations spanning decades. I thought one of the head scratchers was the lack of any allegations or confrontations spannign decades of interaction with kids.
But admittedly I'm not up on all the details.
There’s no more obvious case of Freeh manufacturing his evidence than his handling of the so-called janitor episode. The janitor episode was exploited by the media to try to blame PSU football for the Scandal. Ray Blehar (who does not believe in Sandusky’s innocence) documented this treachery here https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2015/01/bad-faith-addendum-1-freehs-mangling-of.html?m=1
Freeh stated his information from his report was from the trial testimonies of the two janitors. The problem was the testimony one of the janitors (Petrosky) did not match Freeh’s report and the other janitor (Witherite) did not testify at all. Seems Freeh drafted his report based on what the janitor testified to at the grand jury, what they told him in personal interviews, and for all we know, information Freeh simply pulled out of his ass. Then he does not bother revising his report when the actual trial revealed much different information. It’s simply inexcusable the people still deem Freeh credible after that stunt.
Last edited:
Yes, they were dealing with a toxic media and crooked judicial system. And most juries are not comprised of individuals accused of being geniuses. This said, that doesn't imply Sandusky's innocence. Only that the trial was patently unfair.
That’s not true. He was convicted in a courtroom. He had several men step up and state under oath that he abused them as kids. To back that up, we had him admittedly showering alone and having physical contact with underage boys. That is what convicted him. I know Franco likes to throw out that there were no credible incidents of CSA. Jerry’s legal team should have proven that.
Freeh’s report is a sham. People using that as any sort of backing as proof of anybody’s guilt is the same as people saying there were legitimate reasons for Sandusky to be in a shower and having physical contact multiple times with underage boys.
Jerry might have had the worst legal team in the history of legal teams. Rominger is in jail. And why would he hire a local guy (Amendola) for a case THAT big? At least find a competent defense attorney in Harrisburg (or Philly, or Pittsburgh).
Victims are also witnesses btw the way. If Jerry was so innocent, why not testify in his own defense? Obviously the result couldn't be worse. And the reason he didn't is obvious, he would not have helped his cause.
Yep, juries never get it wrong and no one ever lies under oath, especially when $$$ are dangled in front of their faces.
Listen, it is very possible (probable?) that JS committed some grooming related crimes. It is also possible (but IMHO not probable) that he did more than that. But the legal against against him was VERY shallow and would have failed if the media hadn't cooperated by convicting him in the court of public opinion by Dec 1, 2011.
Had the guilt been "Jerry put his hand on the knee of a kid while he was driving him to school" (grooming) that's a totally different set of headlines than "Jerry anally raped a kid in the shower."
Education and intelligence are no substitute for common sense. And four of the so called intelligent men feared the fifth.
That is called covering his ass. Too bad you are too blinded by your love for Jerry to think logically.
Why won't you define it?
I believe I have a couple ounces of common sense, but I have no idea what that statement means. If it were sexual in nature, and anyone with common sense would immediately know, then why did five people who were told about it not come to that obvious conclusion in 2001? Hell, even Mikey McQ ran away from the situation...after slamming a locker. It must not have been that obvious, was it?.
Someone above commented that this thread is full of people not answering direct questions. He is correct. You are up there at the top of the list of sidestepping easy/simple questions.
Again, You think it is so easy to define "sexual in nature." You unwillingness to do so indicates that you have no idea either. According to your definition, you must not have any common sense. Well done comrade.
