Seven Years Ago Today

[RussianEagle]

What does Paterno saying it was sexual in nature mean? Keep in mind when JoePa said that is son Scott who was an attorney was present. Then there is a file in Courtney's office that was labeled "possible child abuse".

It was a weekend, they got all the big chiefs together on a Sunday to discuss. They don't do that if it was Indy's theory that they were concerned about liability. They knew they were possibly dealing with a sexual assault by Sandusky on PSU property.

However, after actually talking with the actual witness Mike McQueary, they decided it was no big deal and McQueary was alright with how it was handled.

McQueary met with Paterno for only about 3 minutes and Paterno did not like Sandusky. It’s entirely possible that when Paterno first talked to Curley and Schultz, he made the incident sound much more severe than it actually was.

 

[RussianEagle]

Snedden is a former NCIS Special Agent of the Year.

Clemente is also dead wrong about the Jon Bonet Ramsey case.

Clemente is also a bit of a public figure who likes to brand himself as a “victim advocate”. He has a career incentive to not be completely honest with the facts of the case.

One of the other child sexual abuse experts whom Scott Paterno has hired, Dr. Fred Berlin, has endorsed the book by Mark Pendergrast in which he argues that Sandusky is completely innocent.

 

[Connorpozlee]

However, after actually talking with the actual witness Mike McQueary, they decided it was no big deal and McQueary was alright with how it was handled.

McQueary met with Paterno for only about 3 minutes and Paterno did not like Sandusky. It’s entirely possible that when Paterno first talked to Curley and Schultz, he made the incident sound much more severe than it actually was.

The whole “Paterno didn’t like Sandusky” stuff seems silly to me. From what we knew of him for the entirety of his career, Paterno did what he thought was right. I don’t believe he would have overplayed or underplayed anything specifically because it involved Sandusky.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Just when one might - naively - think Hippo had hit bottom.

Nope. Not yet.

Yo

The whole “Paterno didn’t like Sandusky” stuff seems silly to me. From what we knew of him for the entirety of his career, Paterno did what he thought was right. I don’t believe he would have overplayed or underplayed anything specifically because it involved Sandusky.

Franco & the other free Jerry crowd think nothing of throwing Joe & the Paternos under the bus to make their case.

Blinders on, they ignore entirely the Paterno report and it's contents.

 

[RussianEagle]

The whole “Paterno didn’t like Sandusky” stuff seems silly to me. From what we knew of him for the entirety of his career, Paterno did what he thought was right. I don’t believe he would have overplayed or underplayed anything specifically because it involved Sandusky.

I don’t think it was intentional. I’m just saying the tone of voice Paterno used when relaying the info to Curley and Schultz was probably quite different than had it been one of Sandusky’s buddies who received the report from McQueary.

 

[RussianEagle]

Yo


Franco & the other free Jerry crowd think nothing of throwing Joe & the Paternos under the bus to make their case.

Blinders on, they ignore entirely the Paterno report and it's contents.

Dude, it was actually after hearing Clemente’s views that Ziegler was inspired to interview Sandusky in prison in the first place. Ziegler started to doubt Sandusky’s guilt when the nan he encountered did not seem to match Clemente’s characterization of him.

And as I mentioned before, another author of the Paterno report, Dr. Fred Berlin, has now endorsed a book that argues that Sandusky is completely innocent.

 

[indynittany]

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.

Several men didn't say shit until there were millions of dollars right there for the taking.

Jerry's legal team wasn't even allowed one continuance!

 

[indynittany]

That is called covering his ass. Too bad you are too blinded by your love for Jerry to think logically.

That's called trying to be a good witness for the prosecution without compromising his integrity. Too bad the world ****ed him for it!

 

[indynittany]

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.

True. And yet that's exactly what the OAG used as a de facto grand jury presentment to justify charging Spanier. Go figure!

 

[Connorpozlee]

Several men didn't say shit until there were millions of dollars right there for the taking.

Jerry's legal team wasn't even allowed one continuance!

Them not saying anything until there were millions of dollars for the taking does not make it untrue.

 

[Osprey Lion]

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.

You don't know it means because you choose not to. That shows a total lack of common sense.

 

[Nit16]

I am a father and my son doesn't need any blessings from you.

Yes he really does.

 

[francofan]

Yes he really does.

Who died and made you king?

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

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.

Geez a few years before the guy was showering with a kid and had to explain to the cops why. Now he is showering again with another kid and according to MM raping the kid. So why would he be showering with a kid again after the previous incident? This is not hard to figure out.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

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!

My goodness how many priests go years before being detected. It happens quite frequently.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

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.

MM was so convinced he went to Joe. Joe was so convinced he hooked MM up with Curly.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The free Jerry crowd sure love to stomp on Paterno's memory and record of being a good man.

 

[marshall23]

MM was so convinced he went to Joe. Joe was so convinced he hooked MM up with Curly.

MM was so upset and convinced that he waited months to see Joe. Jerry may be guilty, but using what MM "heard" is a laugh riot. Check the layout of the locker room. Next you will entertain us with the crying janitor story. God only knows!

 

[marshall23]

The free Jerry crowd sure love to stomp on Paterno's memory and record of being a good man.

I never knew that you were such a Joe Paterno admirer. Please tell us what Joe and his legacy mean to you.

 

[marshall23]

Geez a few years before the guy was showering with a kid and had to explain to the cops why. Now he is showering again with another kid and according to MM raping the kid. So why would he be showering with a kid again after the previous incident? This is not hard to figure out.

Please check the testimony of MM.....even after asking the OAG if he could tell the truth......I don't recall him using the term rape. But, perhaps I missed that .............
So just so I'm clear....MM witnesses Sandusky raping a "little boy in the shower," he is so stunned that he calls his daddy....a medical professional, who tells him to come home. MM then relates his story once again to Dr. Dranov (a widely respected local physician and mandatory reporter) who testifies that he heard NOTHING that required a call to police or CYS.
I'll await your retraction.....or you can just call yourself an idiot.

 

[marshall23]

The whole “Paterno didn’t like Sandusky” stuff seems silly to me. From what we knew of him for the entirety of his career, Paterno did what he thought was right. I don’t believe he would have overplayed or underplayed anything specifically because it involved Sandusky.

If you recall, Joe was against giving TSM access to facilities. I believe we have written proof that Joe objected when surveyed as Sandusky's retirement package was being prepared (emeritus). It would have been a natural reaction to have some level of "I told you so...." in the back of your mind. Bringing children to work out at a college facility is a no brainer to reject. Let's all remember that the "push" to give JS emeritus status came from the board of trustees. Obviously, the most powerful man at PSU, was over ruled again.

 

[marshall23]

Them not saying anything until there were millions of dollars for the taking does not make it untrue.

I understand where you are coming from. However, when people tell at least 2 different stories, which one do you believe?
The one that is given first? Or the one that appears after there is life changing cash to be had?
Even my hero, Ira Lubert, who threw money around like candy canes on Christmas, admits that there are liars among the claimants.
So who are they? How many are they? Of the real "victims" how many overstated their "abuse" or changed dates to enhance their settlement?
I guess my point is, when do you believe a liar?
I don't know if Jerry is completely innocent. I tend to doubt that. I also know that he alone is responsible for putting himself in jeopardy with reckless behavior (showering with kids).
However, given the prosecutorial misconduct, the perjury of the PSP, the proven manipulation of the GJP to name a few....I'd like to see Sandusky get a new trial, in the light of day, and see what we can learn.
For those who want to believe Sandusky was anally raping kids in his family room and they were "screaming" for help (with Dottie at home) and yet they kept stopping by for visits.....well, I have many bridges for sale.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I understand where you are coming from. However, when people tell at least 2 different stories, which one do you believe?
The one that is given first? Or the one that appears after there is life changing cash to be had?
Even my hero, Ira Lubert, who threw money around like candy canes on Christmas, admits that there are liars among the claimants.
So who are they? How many are they? Of the real "victims" how many overstated their "abuse" or changed dates to enhance their settlement?
I guess my point is, when do you believe a liar?
I don't know if Jerry is completely innocent. I tend to doubt that. I also know that he alone is responsible for putting himself in jeopardy with reckless behavior (showering with kids).
However, given the prosecutorial misconduct, the perjury of the PSP, the proven manipulation of the GJP to name a few....I'd like to see Sandusky get a new trial, in the light of day, and see what we can learn.
For those who want to believe Sandusky was anally raping kids in his family room and they were "screaming" for help (with Dottie at home) and yet they kept stopping by for visits.....well, I have many bridges for sale.

I believe the vast majority of people who are sexually abused as children do not say anything about it. Many of them deny it. We’re they incentivized to say they were sexually abused? Money can do that. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[marshall23]

I believe the vast majority of people who are sexually abused as children do not say anything about it. Many of them deny it. We’re they incentivized to say they were sexually abused? Money can do that. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in child abuse. I did experience two of my colleagues suffer accusations (both were ultimately exonerated) in different circumstances during my career. I believed everything that was written and said about Sandusky when the initial charges etc. were presented. As I said....I'm reluctant to believe he is entirely innocent.....however, when you mix lies and fact, its hard to separate the truth.
I had very good friends (since deceased) that were very close to Jerry and Dottie and both never believed Jerry was guilty. It's hard for me to totally discount this.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Admittedly, I'm not an expert in child abuse. I did experience two of my colleagues suffer accusations (both were ultimately exonerated) in different circumstances during my career. I believed everything that was written and said about Sandusky when the initial charges etc. were presented. As I said....I'm reluctant to believe he is entirely innocent.....however, when you mix lies and fact, its hard to separate the truth.
I had very good friends (since deceased) that were very close to Jerry and Dottie and both never believed Jerry was guilty. It's hard for me to totally discount this.

It’s understandable. It is also understandable why someone would deny being abused. Who wants to deal with the ridicule and doubt? Many feel it’s just not worth it. That’s what makes the whole thing so difficult. People don’t want to talk about it. That’s what makes people using Jerry not being charged in ‘98 pretty irrelevant in regards to his guilt/innocence to me. People deny until they are ready to deal with it.

 

[francofan]

I believe the vast majority of people who are sexually abused as children do not say anything about it. Many of them deny it. We’re they incentivized to say they were sexually abused? Money can do that. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue.

I do not discount that many CSA survivors do not make contemporaneous reports; however, on the other hand, many do. What I can't reconcile is that in this case that 0 of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports. None of them told family members, friends, teachers, psychologists, clerymen, or police. They didn't tell anyone when it allegedly happened.

 

[francofan]

The free Jerry crowd sure love to stomp on Paterno's memory and record of being a good man.

I don't know who you are referring to, but I have never stomped on Paterno's memory and record of being a good man. In fact, I have spoken several times in the public comments forum of the PSU BOT meeting on Joe's virtues.

The people I think that are most responsible for damaging the legacy of Paterno are Tom Corbett and the OAG, John Surma and the old guard BOT, Louis Freeh, and Mark Emmert and the NCAA.

 

[nits74]

I don't know who you are referring to, but I have never stomped on Paterno's memory and record of being a good man. In fact, I have spoken several times in the public comments forum of the PSU BOT meeting on Joe's virtues.

The people I think that are most responsible for damaging the legacy of Paterno are Tom Corbett and the OAG, John Surma and the old guard BOT, Louis Freeh, and Mark Emmert and the NCAA.

Please, let us not forget Ed Ray.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I do not discount that many CSA survivors do not make contemporaneous reports; however, on the other hand, many do. What I can't reconcile is that in this case that 0 of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports. None of them told family members, friends, teachers, psychologists, clerymen, or police. They didn't tell anyone when it allegedly happened.

Is it possible some of the 36 claimants made stuff up? Sure. Is it possible all 36 claimants made stuff up? Sure? Is it likely all 36 claimants made up all of their claims? Doubtful.
Is it possible Jerry Sandusky innocently showered and had physical contact with underage boys? Maybe. Is it likely? Absolutely not.

 

[indynittany]

Them not saying anything until there were millions of dollars for the taking does not make it untrue.

No, it doesn't. However, this is where the concept of "reasonable doubt" does come into play.

You have V2 and V6 who are both on record as having said they were never sexually abused by Jerry and maintained close relationships with him into adulthood.

You have the janitor case in which there is no victim, no physical evidence, no established date of a crime, no report of a crime and no witness testimony. Making matters worse, the actual witness stated Jerry was not the man he saw, but he was ruled medically unfit to testify.

You have the lead prosecutor, in an email to Mike McQueary, saying that if she truthfully presented the evidence, it would hurt her case. Duh!

You have the memory regression therapy, which is highly suspect.

You had PSU publicly promising to settle all the cases, with the provision that the victims would not be permitted to sue TSM.

You have a taped conversation between a prosecutor and an attorney for one of the victims in which they were colluding to lie to that victim about what other "victims" had claimed happened to them.

You have the blatantly bogus assertions made in the Freeh report.

I could go on. Like I said, if this was an open and shut case, the prosecution would not have had to resort to the BS tactics it did. Sandusky may well be guilty, but from what we know, he may well be innocent. He certainly did not receive a fair trial.

 

[indynittany]

Please, let us not forget Ed Ray.

Or Frank Noonan!

 

[Connorpozlee]

No, it doesn't. However, this is where the concept of "reasonable doubt" does come into play.

You have V2 and V6 who are both on record as having said they were never sexually abused by Jerry and maintained close relationships with him into adulthood.

You have the janitor case in which there is no victim, no physical evidence, no established date of a crime, no report of a crime and no witness testimony. Making matters worse, the actual witness stated Jerry was not the man he saw, but he was ruled medically unfit to testify.

You have the lead prosecutor, in an email to Mike McQueary, saying that if she truthfully presented the evidence, it would hurt her case. Duh!

You have the memory regression therapy, which is highly suspect.

You had PSU publicly promising to settle all the cases, with the provision that the victims would not be permitted to sue TSM.

You have a taped conversation between a prosecutor and an attorney for one of the victims in which they were colluding to lie to that victim about what other "victims" had claimed happened to them.

You have the blatantly bogus assertions made in the Freeh report.

I could go on. Like I said, if this was an open and shut case, the prosecution would not have had to resort to the BS tactics it did. Sandusky may well be guilty, but from what we know, he may well be innocent. He certainly did not receive a fair trial.

The Freeh report has nothing to do with it. He was not investigating Jerry Sandusky.

 

[RussianEagle]

My goodness how many priests go years before being detected. It happens quite frequently.

In most of these cases, kids DID complain about the priest, the complaints just got ignored. Nothing like that happened here. Also many priests either used money, alcohol, or drugs to keep the boys quiet, or specifically sought out effeminate teens who would be open to homosexual relationships. Sandusky never paid his accusers or gave them drugs/alcohol and all his accusers were masculine and heterosexual.

 

[RussianEagle]

MM was so convinced he went to Joe. Joe was so convinced he hooked MM up with Curly.

MM went to Joe six weeks after the incident happened.

 

[indynittany]

The Freeh report has nothing to do with it. He was not investigating Jerry Sandusky.

Sure it does. It shouldn't, but it does.

There was collusion between Freeh, the OAG and the NCAA. The BS charges against C/S prevented them from testifying on Jerry's behalf. The firing of JVP made Sandusky automatically guilty in the court of public opinion. While the Freeh report wasn't released until after Jerry's trial, all of the nonsense surrounding PSU cemented Jerry's guilt in the eyes of the public.

 

[RussianEagle]

No, it doesn't. However, this is where the concept of "reasonable doubt" does come into play.

You have V2 and V6 who are both on record as having said they were never sexually abused by Jerry and maintained close relationships with him into adulthood.

You have the janitor case in which there is no victim, no physical evidence, no established date of a crime, no report of a crime and no witness testimony. Making matters worse, the actual witness stated Jerry was not the man he saw, but he was ruled medically unfit to testify.

You have the lead prosecutor, in an email to Mike McQueary, saying that if she truthfully presented the evidence, it would hurt her case. Duh!

You have the memory regression therapy, which is highly suspect.

You had PSU publicly promising to settle all the cases, with the provision that the victims would not be permitted to sue TSM.

You have a taped conversation between a prosecutor and an attorney for one of the victims in which they were colluding to lie to that victim about what other "victims" had claimed happened to them.

You have the blatantly bogus assertions made in the Freeh report.

I could go on. Like I said, if this was an open and shut case, the prosecution would not have had to resort to the BS tactics it did. Sandusky may well be guilty, but from what we know, he may well be innocent. He certainly did not receive a fair trial.

Some additional factors concerning the credibility of V2.

V2s attorney provided a statement to the OAG in early 2012 saying V2 was subject to “oral and anal intercourse”. When V2 was later interviewed, he stated he never told the details of his abuse to anyone, including his attorney, proving that attorney to be a liar. The attorney then prevented the authorities from speaking with V2.

When V2 was put on the stand in Sandusky’s PCRA hearing, he answered “I can’t remember” to many simple and obvious questions, including where a picture of him and Jerry was taken. Said picture was from V2s wedding.

 

[francofan]

Is it possible some of the 36 claimants made stuff up? Sure. Is it possible all 36 claimants made stuff up? Sure? Is it likely all 36 claimants made up all of their claims? Doubtful.
Is it possible Jerry Sandusky innocently showered and had physical contact with underage boys? Maybe. Is it likely? Absolutely not.

Let's agree to disagree Connor.

Given that each claimant received a $3+ million settlement, in the absence of credible testimony from specific accusers that make the case that Sandusky committed CSA, I would say it was probable that all 36 claimants were not victims of CSA and that it was likely that any physical contact that Sandusky had with underage boys was innocent and not sexual.

If you disagree please name the specific claimant(s) and their specific testimony that individually make the strongest and most credible evidence that Sandusky committed CSA.

 

[Bob78]

I believe the vast majority of people who are sexually abused as children do not say anything about it. Many of them deny it. We’re they incentivized to say they were sexually abused? Money can do that. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue.

I agree with this in general. My caveat is that the onslaught of claims after the vault was opened to dole out significant money makes it far more suspect than it would be otherwise. That adds at least some doubt regarding the truthfulness of the claims, or at least the extent of truthfulness of them.
The first few claimants were coached by the prosecution, and then Matt Sandusky switched sides after declaring his goal of quick riches (apparently). That, and the 2 primary attorneys representing the claimants had/have less than stellar reps for integrity themselves.
Adding all that up lends more suspicion and reasonable doubt to the claims than would otherwise be there. Again, it did not ensure that the claims are untrue, but it certainly cried out loudly for a prudent vetting in each case, which did not happen.
Just imo.

 

[francofan]

No, it doesn't. However, this is where the concept of "reasonable doubt" does come into play.

You have V2 and V6 who are both on record as having said they were never sexually abused by Jerry and maintained close relationships with him into adulthood.

You have the janitor case in which there is no victim, no physical evidence, no established date of a crime, no report of a crime and no witness testimony. Making matters worse, the actual witness stated Jerry was not the man he saw, but he was ruled medically unfit to testify.

You have the lead prosecutor, in an email to Mike McQueary, saying that if she truthfully presented the evidence, it would hurt her case. Duh!

You have the memory regression therapy, which is highly suspect.

You had PSU publicly promising to settle all the cases, with the provision that the victims would not be permitted to sue TSM.

You have a taped conversation between a prosecutor and an attorney for one of the victims in which they were colluding to lie to that victim about what other "victims" had claimed happened to them.

You have the blatantly bogus assertions made in the Freeh report.

I could go on. Like I said, if this was an open and shut case, the prosecution would not have had to resort to the BS tactics it did. Sandusky may well be guilty, but from what we know, he may well be innocent. He certainly did not receive a fair trial.

Very nicely stated @indynittany

 

[Connorpozlee]

Sure it does. It shouldn't, but it does.

There was collusion between Freeh, the OAG and the NCAA. The BS charges against C/S prevented them from testifying on Jerry's behalf. The firing of JVP made Sandusky automatically guilty in the court of public opinion. While the Freeh report wasn't released until after Jerry's trial, all of the nonsense surrounding PSU cemented Jerry's guilt in the eyes of the public.

You’re off track. We are (I think) discussing whether Sandusky did it did not sexually abuse children. What Louis Freeh and his band of “investigators” has nothing to do with that at all.