IMO, any accusations that came after the v1 and v2 accusations came to light and the realization of deep pockets (i.e. PSU) possibly being liable are tainted.
The Jerry Sandusky Case: What Really Happened in Penn State’s Locker Room?
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
IMO, any accusations that came after the v1 and v2 accusations came to light and the realization of deep pockets (i.e. PSU) possibly being liable are tainted.
That is certainly your opinion. It doesn't work that way in court though. Each victim is independent of each other.
Then each case should have been tried individually and forced to stand on its own merits.
Nobody but you and those of your ilk care what you believe. You are just making a fool of yourself
at which you seem to be quite adept.
And how do you feel about the real issue at hand?Yep... because if you can disprove one, that makes them all liars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just awful. The guy is a serial child rapist and he gets defended by a select few on here like he is a saint. It literally makes me sick to my stomach.
The issue of REAL PEOPLE in positions of REAL POWER (not just internet turdballs like you - who's impact is tossing out a couple of inane non-sequiturs) ...... protecting/propagating/and benefiting from an indelibly corrupt system?
At the expense of all of us
Any thoughts there?
Mr Deep Thinker?
Now........STFU
It has been well-documented that JVP and Sandusky were not friends, and did not even get along all that well other than for football coaching interactions... well before Sandusky retired. There was even a story in Sports Illustrated back in the 90s or earlier about how Sandusky would get pissed off at Joe and quit mid-meeting and then take a walk and come back, and how many times Joe threatened to fire Sandusky. Sandusky's demeanor on the practice field often got under JVP's skin.
The book "Paterno" talks about their relationship as well, even referencing JVP's luke-warm toast to Sandusky at his retirement dinner. I think the coaches called it the "I hate Sandusky" send-off.
So, friendship was not a factor in any of this. But some reports build it up that way. The key is to read more than headlines and assumptions stated as fact in the stories.
That is some really crazy talk even from you. You are a sick pup.
What are you babbling about? Do you just type the first thing that pops into your tiny head?
This is your hero.
He described the post-workout showers. He said they progressed in a matter of weeks from naked bearhugs and wrestling matches to slow caresses with the mentor guiding the boy’s hand all over his body.
Ultimately, it progressed to Sandusky compelling the boy to perform oral sex on him, he testified.
“It was basically like, whatever happened there, never really happened,” Victim 4 said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"He started getting physical, like having me touch his penis and stuff," he said. "He made me give him a, suck his penis is how you'd put it. He came in my room, pulled his pants down, laid on top of me, and kind of forced it in. What was I going to do? I mean look at him, he's a big guy. He was bigger than me, at the time way bigger than me."
-------------------------------
I could go on, but you're in total denial anyway, but just letting you know what the victims actually said. That is just 2 of them.
And clog up the courts with a serial pedophile? That makes no sense at all. Each charge in the case was given a verdict individually. They were not all the same which shows that each charge was viewed on its own.
The real issue at hand is locking up a serial pedophile so that he will no longer be a menace to society.
Cause we know "victims" don't make up fake stories.... Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but don't act like just because someone says something so horrific that it is true.
You know how these 2 stories ended up..
The alleged victim, a 27-year-old student at a nearby college, told police she and another woman were hired to dance at the party. The woman told police that three men at the party dragged her into a bathroom, choked her, raped her and sodomized her. The woman said her attackers were white, so DNA testing was done on every white member of the team. A doctor and forensic sexual assault nurse examined the woman and found evidence consistent with a rape having occurred, police documents show.
Jackie, who was 18 at the time, says she was asked out by “Drew” (a pseudonym used in the article), an attractive junior she met while they were both working as lifeguards at the university pool. Drew invited her to dinner and a “date function” at his fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. During the party, Drew asks Jackie if she wants to go upstairs. She follows him into a pitch-black room and screams when she suddenly realizes they’re not alone:
“Shut up,” [Jackie] heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to theparty.
“Grab its mother****ing leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.
Jackie says that for the next three hours, seven men took turns raping her as Drew and another man looked on. She says one of the men, whom she recognized from her anthropology discussion group, was encouraged by the others to penetrate her with a beer bottle. “Don’t you want to be a brother?” the others tell him. “We all had to do it, so you do,too.”
Wrong. Of the accusers who testified at trial, at least half of the 8 knew another accuser that also testified at trial. The was a picture in Sandusky's book that contained 3 or 4 accusers who all knew each other and all testified at trial.
Person is questioned if they were ever abused by Sandusky, they answer no, even after serious prodding by the investigators.
Person changes story, saying they indeed WERE abused by Sandusky, which results in receiving a settlement of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
This happened with several of the victims in this case.
Yet people are trying to argue that the "victims" were lying when they said they were NOT abused.
Ok. Some sort of backwards motive theory? .
Person changes story, saying they indeed WERE abused by Sandusky, which results in receiving a settlement of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
This happened with several of the victims in this case.
Yet people are trying to argue that the "victims" were lying when they said they were NOT abused.
Ok. Some sort of backwards motive theory? .
In what Bizarro-World is it required - - - - or even recommended - - - - or even allowed - - - - that in order to "lock up" criminals and predators, a society should look the other way at Officers of the Court who are Incompetent and/or Conflicted and/or Corrupt?
Ah.....forget it.....the answer is rather obvious. Namely:
In the Bizzaro-World of GMJ and his Circle-Jerk Heroes.
You're a real POS, dude.
A weak, pathetic, ignorant, stupid, glob of human scum.
I am not a particularly kind, religious, or temperate human......and, as such, I have ZERO reservations in truly hoping that you - and your comrades - are someday faced with being on the "wrong side" of the devastation wreaked by folks like the Scoundrels who have been overseeing this carnage from Day One.
You - and your ilk - make me sick
Ciao
Last edited:
Just an FYI--you have RU lurkers posting this thread on their boards. Must be at least 3 or 4 Sandusky-related threads. Think they're feeling insecure?
Anyway, PSU football is in the news for their on the field play people, let's celebrate. All of that other stuff will sort itself out one way or the other.
Anyway, PSU football is in the news for their on the field play people, let's celebrate. All of that other stuff will sort itself out one way or the other.
I don't know of 30+ victims, so I will address those that were referenced or that testified in court, and explain why there could be reason to question their claims.
Victim 1
- Denied abuse several times, including under oath in the grand jury
- Sandusky investigation was going nowhere based on his account until McQueary episode was unearthed, due to the shakiness of his stories.
- He wrote letters to the editor and the attorney general defending Sandusky after news of the grand jury investigation broke.
- Though he "couldn't remember" all of his statements he gave denying abuse ever took place, he acknowledged that he made them during his recent PCRA testimony.
- Acknowledged being the kid in the McQueary episode and said nothing happened that night, or ever.
- Story changed once he hired Andrew Shubin.
- He told police nothing inappropriate ever happened with Sandusky.
- His story changed to claim mild abuse after he got a lawyer (Andrew Shubin).
- He originally said nothing inappropriate happened, but lawyered up after news articles disclosed the grand jury investigation.
- There is an audio tape of investigators conspiring to lie to him in order to get him to finally claim a sex act against Sandusky.
- Changed initial story of abuse from occurring in 1998 to occurring in 2002 so that it was after the McQueary episode.
- Kid from the 1998 incident, who never remotely testified to any sexual acts.
- 1998 episode was investigated with no wrongdoing found.
- Maintained a relationship with Jerry (with Mother's knowledge and approval) long after the 1998 incident.
- He testified to the grand jury that no sexual abuse ever took place.
- Changed his story after hiring Andrew Shubin.
- Remembered his abuse through repressed memory therapy.
- Janitor incident. There is no known victim for this incident.
- The only witness had dementia and never testified.
- Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest.
- Claims to have eaten lunch with Sandusky and Paterno, and felt that Paterno knew all about what Sandusky was up to.
- Claimed to be screaming in Sandusky's basement for help with Dottie upstairs, but she never responded.
- Added to the case after Sandusky's arrest by calling a hotline number.
- Friends with Victim 3.
- Twice jailed for burglary and assault.
- Really? Come on. hahahaha
- Attended the early days of the court proceedings and sat with Jerry's supporters.
- Testified at the grand jury that he was never abused and that he didn't believe the accusers.
- Story did a 180 once he hired Andrew Shubin.
- Tried to get another one of Jerry's adopted sons to "flip", but he refused since (surprise) it wasn't true.
Once you put it all down like this, it really makes you wonder how in the hell Jerry was convicted.
Last edited:
Sorry, but you have your head in the sand. Learn about how victims of similar crimes come forward and get back to me.
ever wonder why there is literally only ONE picture of Joe and Jerry smiling together, that every single media outlet uses relentlessly.
who said there were 30+ victims? the OAG who lied about knowing Victim 2?
I will say again, the REAL ISSUE is locking up a sick pedophile so that he no longer can harm society. That is the #1 most important thing.
From this case, I've learned that victims come forward at the behest of a money grubbing lawyer once the promise of a big payday is in the mix. Got it.
They are still victims. I mean, Sandusky still did molest them.... if you are bothered that they got paid, that's your problem. They put the scumbag behind bars, that's the most important thing. Let's not forget that a jury of our peers found their stories credible and brought the hammer down.
A question for LaJolla and getmy
Do you think the trial goes the same way if there is no Vic 2, no testimony from, MM and no Vic 8{?} janitor? I feel JS is a pedophile and is where he belongs, I also feel there was damn near mass hysteria surrounding the JS trial. I have heard the state had other witnesses [vics] who they could have called. I ask this question because why wouldn't they call those other vics rather than have two no victim victims. If your answer is yes i would ask why didn't they proceed without 2 &8 and call the others? JS would be in jail and almost no one would care
.
The discrepancy surrounding 2 & 8 cause much concern for many. For me particularly the janitor story. No vic and no real witness. The fact that JS was convicted on those counts tells me the mass hysteria had reached the jury. If your answer to my question is no then that also says something about the "real victims".
In many ways the fact that the OAG did what it did with MM and the janitor casts shadows on the true victims. [one lawyer, coached answers, etc.]
Let me ask you an honest question:
Assuming that the 8 victims that testified at trial and the 30 (maybe more) victims you allude to above were all believable, why did the OAG choose to include victims 2 and victim 8 (neither of which had victims identified) in the charges they brought? Why not use less controversial (i.e. why bother with the janitor with dementia and the weird story of Mike McQueary (i.e. why did he not call police? Why did his father not tell him to call police) victims?
Do you believe the guy from 1976 [not sure] who came forward after the trial. [before JS was even a full time coach] or the guys from the 80's who said he molested at football camp when he was 16/17 years old. Trust me i am not defending JS but it is my understanding these two have been generally discredited, which would suggest some folks do come forward just for the $. [especially if they are going to get it from PSU w/o much vetting]
Not really sure why you have to attack me personally because I hold an opinion different than yours. I used to be confident in Sandusky's guilt. Heck, until the 2001 emails were released, I thought Spanier and the others (with the exception of Joe) really screwed up.
Now I think Spanier, Curley and Schultz are completely innocent and have acted with great courage throughout this ordeal. I believe Joe and the program were targeted for destruction for reasons I still don't understand. I believe the BOT/Erickson deliberately failed to defend the university and prevented anyone else from defending it....Joe and Spanier.
And the more I learn, the more I've come to question the legitimacy of the manner in which this mess was prosecuted to the point that I'm fearful that they got it 100% wrong. If they got it 50% wrong, I'd still be concerned, but I'd be fine with Jerry being where he is.
It's the OAG's incompetence that has given Sandusky the chance at a new trial. Nothing I post here has or will have any impact on that what so ever.
I don't understand why you are afraid of Sandusky getting a new trial. They're not likely to let him out of prison on a technicality. However, I'm to the point that I don't think prosecutorial misconduct on this level can be incompetence. It has to be deliberate. That's very concerning.
Tom Corbett is the common fixture in the Penn State aspect of this, Sandusky's trial and how the Second Mile has inexplicably stayed completely under the radar. Is that who you're trying to protect? Because we know it isn't the victims. Please!
I've asked legitimate questions of you and those who agree with you on this matter, but I never get any response. Let me try again.
Which case from the trial do you believe is the most air tight? Why?
The REAL ISSUE is that you aren't bright enough to handle more than one issue. Actually you don't even seem bright enough to handle one issue. So do yourself (and me) a favor and STFU. That is the most important thing.
As long as there are true victims (and there are) the big picture view is that disproving one or two victims is irrelavant. Jerry is still a pedophile and needs to be in jail. Putting all this time and effort into it is a waste of time and money, and it forces the victims to once again confront their abuser. It's a terrible situation that I certainly am not going to cheer for.
Why are you so mad at me saying the #1 issue is putting and then keeping a pedophile locked away? That's incredibly odd...
I'm not interested in dissecting the other 20+ alleged victims. This trial is about 10 victims. They were believable before (the 8 who testified) so now Jerry is convicted. Good enough for me.
This has nothing to do with Penn State football and never did. That was manufactured. I want to know why?
I mean, how many do you think they should have had? Eight accusers plus two unidentified victims is a pretty damn high number.
If disproving one or two is irrelevant, how many have to be disproven before it becomes relevant? I mean, since we're throwing numbers out there!
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-