Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"

[jerot]

How well did TSM document the report of their employee and one of their kids?

What tsm doc??
"It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."

He concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up. As far as Snedden was concerned, Mike McQueary, the guy who witnessed a naked Sandusky allegedly abusing a boy in the Penn State showers, was not a credible witness.

Spanier's clearance was renewed as the result of an 110-page report that Snedden wrote back in 2012, a report that was declassified earlier this year.

In the investigation of The Second Mile, the released files include copies of FBI interviews with eight witnesses whose identities are redacted. The interviews are recorded on FBI "302s," the number of the form that interview summaries were typed on by FBI agents.

"I see a lot of interviews with a lot of different people, a wide range of positions in the Second Mile hierarchy," Snedden said. "And I don't see any people admitting to knowing anything concrete about Sandusky."

In the interviews, there are quotes from woman who "had always heard positive things about the organization. She had never heard anything bad about TSM founder Jerry Sandusky."

Another woman interviewed by the FBI described Sandusky's "nondescript entrance and presence" at a March 25, 2011 "Celebration of Excellence" event in Hershey.

"Sandusky was not acknowledged during the event formally by TSM," the woman told the FBI.

"On March 31, 2011, the Patriot News published an article about the grand jury investigation" of Sandusky," the woman told the FBI. "The article was everywhere and everyone was talking about it."

"She didn't recall seeing any evidence of financial improprieties or anything otherwise questionable," the FBI 302 stated. "She did not personally observe any misuse of donations."

"The general mood of the room was that of denial," the woman told the FBI. "Everyone appeared to be in support of Sandusky and TSM."

In another 302, an unidentified witness said, "He did not observe any inappropriate behavior." On the same form, someone, possibly Sandusky himself stated the complainant "was a disgruntled kid, not associated with TSM. He was not aware at the time that the allegation was sexual in nature"

Another 302 notes that one board member was "shocked after reading the indictment." In addition, "four or five board members in particular were upset that they were never notified. The exchange was heated."

In the 302s, there was discussion of an earlier 1998 allegation that Sandusky had abused another youth in the shower, but "the allegations were considered 'unfounded.'"

There is also discussion in the 302s about an alleged allegation involving the Clinton County Children and Youth Services[CYS].

"CYS did have a safety plan in the event a child was a victim of sexual abuse," the 302 stated. "They did not need to enact their safety plan for SANDUSKY's case because the allegation was not founded and all actions taken by CYS were 'by the book.' "

Bagwell said he has filed multiple FOI requests as part of his Penn State Sunshine Fund. Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter who is now a web developer, said he filed his requests because he was seeking primary source documents from the Sandusky investigation.

"What frustrated me about everything since the very beginning was a complete and utter lack of transparency," Bagwell said.

In his court battle with the U.S. Attorney's office, Bagwell said, the feds indicated that there were some 300,000 pages of documents related to The Second Mile investigation. The feds only released 1,000 pages and "withheld tends of thousands more for reasons not apparent at this time," Bagwell said.

Bagwell, himself a former journalist, said the press coverage of the scandal has been "abysmal, reactionary and sensationalistic," as well as "factually incorrect." Bagwell said he hopes the newly released documents will have a calming effect on Penn State Nation.

"Penn Staters are still screaming for an investigation for years of The Second Mile," Bagwell said. "Well, it turns out there was an investigation."

"My overall view is that everything here [in the documents] seems to support the idea that The Second Mile didn't knowingly do anything wrong," Bagwell said. "The Penn Staters who are clamoring for heads at The Second Mile to roll, I don't think that's an outcome that's appropriate at this point in time."

 

[BobPSU92]

Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.

 

[denniskembala]

You like that, don't you?

The narrative has been laser etched in titanium . There’s nothing changing it . Ever.

 

[indynittany]

i respectfully disagree. I believe that there is very little actual evidence that Sandusky is a serial pedophile. Please share the mountain of evidence that you refer to.

I believe that there is a lot of evidence that Sandusky was railroaded and not guilty of the crimes he was convicted of. I would urge you to do some in-depth research in the case. Please read Mark Pendergrast’s critically acclaimed book “The Most Hated Man in America,” John Snedden’s redacted report on his federal investigation he did to renew Graham Spanier’s high level security clearances, Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog posts on the scandal, Malcolm Gladwell’s Penn State chapter in his new book “Talking to Strangers,” Professor Frederick Crews’s reviews of Pendergrast’s and Gladwell’s book, and John Ziegler’s framingpaterno web pages.

it seems like you have bought into the office of attorney general’s false narratives in the case. If it was such a slam dunk case, why did they have to resort to a knowingly false grand jury presentment, leaking grand jury testimony, suggestive questioning of accusers and then lying about it, and compelling defense attorneys to testify against their clients. Sandusky’s trial was patently unfair. If Sandusky is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I believe a new fair trial will end up with much different results.

I'm not averse to the idea that Jerry is generally guilty as charged. However, none of the PSU related cases holds water and the whole trial was a travesty. The janitor case, for example, had no victim, no report of a crime, no date established of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime and no witness of a crime, yet Jerry was convicted on all five counts. Plus, the OAG knew the actual witness said the man he saw was not Jerry. There's simply no basis for saying the burden of proof was met in that case. Those charges should have been thrown out. How is this not grounds for a mistrial? I have no idea why the OAG would include a case like this, unless its ulterior motive was to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities and to divert attention away from TSM.

It is possible that Jerry is a serial pedophile and orchestrating this as a PSU, rather than a TSM scandal was purely Corbett taking advantage of an opportunity to defeat a political enemy, while protecting his cronies at TSM. However, the manner in which this was done leaves me questioning the entire process.

I'm glad to see people outside of the PSU community finally taking a serious look at this. I would hope that somebody with some media clout would go after the low hanging fruit, which is the restoration of Paterno's good name. I don't think the narrative for Jerry will change without a new trial in federal court, but there's no reason the narrative, as it relates to JVP, should not be rewritten immediately. Why PSU isn't doing that is a story unto itself.

 

[Mixolydian]

I'm not averse to the idea that Jerry is generally guilty as charged. However, none of the PSU related cases holds water and the whole trial was a travesty. The janitor case, for example, had no victim, no report of a crime, no date established of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime and no witness of a crime, yet Jerry was convicted on all five counts. Plus, the OAG knew the actual witness said the man he saw was not Jerry. There's simply no basis for saying the burden of proof was met in that case. Those charges should have been thrown out. How is this not grounds for a mistrial? I have no idea why the OAG would include a case like this, unless its ulterior motive was to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities and to divert attention away from TSM.

It is possible that Jerry is a serial pedophile and orchestrating this as a PSU, rather than a TSM scandal was purely Corbett taking advantage of an opportunity to defeat a political enemy, while protecting his cronies at TSM. However, the manner in which this was done leaves me questioning the entire process.

I'm glad to see people outside of the PSU community finally taking a serious look at this. I would hope that somebody with some media clout would go after the low hanging fruit, which is the restoration of Paterno's good name. I don't think the narrative for Jerry will change without a new trial in federal court, but there's no reason the narrative, as it relates to JVP, should not be rewritten immediately. Why PSU isn't doing that is a story unto itself.

Great post. Captures my sentiments.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Denial is a powerful defense mechanism. There is a mountain of evidence that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. He also fit the psychological profile to a tee. Posters that defend this low life are an embarrassment to Penn State.

If you read this thread, it's apparent that perhaps just 4 posters believe Jerry is innocent, or to be more precise, post that he is innocent.

One is just a troll, one has an accused offender in his family, and yet another just has a personal beef with the Paterno family.

None have actually read the Clemente report or other writings regarding the profiling of CSA offenders.

 

[RussianEagle]

Denial is a powerful defense mechanism. There is a mountain of evidence that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. He also fit the psychological profile to a tee. Posters that defend this low life are an embarrassment to Penn State.

Please explain how Sandusky “fit the psychological profile to a tee”, especially when almost all pedophiles are porn addicts and often have to resort to drugs, money, or threats. None of this was associated with Sandusky. Also, the definition of a pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. The men who claim Sandusky performed sexual acts on them were 14-17 at the time. The “10 year old boy in the shower” was a myth on many different levels.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Odd time to make that post. If it is in response to my post, you are seriously struggling to follow the discussion.

Are you kidding, do you really think I would read 26 pages of garbage that doesn't belong on this site. I saw the first page back when it came out and hoped it would go away quickly which it has not. My post was directed to the OP and any other poster that thinks that sick F Sandusky doesn't belong in prison.

 

[francofan]

I'm not averse to the idea that Jerry is generally guilty as charged. However, none of the PSU related cases holds water and the whole trial was a travesty. The janitor case, for example, had no victim, no report of a crime, no date established of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime and no witness of a crime, yet Jerry was convicted on all five counts. Plus, the OAG knew the actual witness said the man he saw was not Jerry. There's simply no basis for saying the burden of proof was met in that case. Those charges should have been thrown out. How is this not grounds for a mistrial? I have no idea why the OAG would include a case like this, unless its ulterior motive was to implicate PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities and to divert attention away from TSM.

It is possible that Jerry is a serial pedophile and orchestrating this as a PSU, rather than a TSM scandal was purely Corbett taking advantage of an opportunity to defeat a political enemy, while protecting his cronies at TSM. However, the manner in which this was done leaves me questioning the entire process.

I'm glad to see people outside of the PSU community finally taking a serious look at this. I would hope that somebody with some media clout would go after the low hanging fruit, which is the restoration of Paterno's good name. I don't think the narrative for Jerry will change without a new trial in federal court, but there's no reason the narrative, as it relates to JVP, should not be rewritten immediately. Why PSU isn't doing that is a story unto itself.

I am adverse to the idea that Jerry is guilty as charged on any of the counts, The just isn't any credible evidence. Please cite any credible evidence that you are aware of that demonstrates that Sandusky is guilty on any specific count. I agree with Professor Federick Crews that all of the Sandusky victims are not credible.
---------

“I grant you all this,” some readers will say, “but what about the eight accusers who swore that Sandusky had molested them on multiple occasions? Their testimony, after all, is what put him in prison, and no amount of horseplay in the shower can gainsay it.”

Agreed. But that testimony would have looked unbelievable without the poison cloud of revulsion that enveloped it. Not one of Sandusky’s accusers, to begin with, had ever told anyone about misconduct on his part. More tellingly, most of them had remained on cordial terms with him, and some had even volunteered expressions of gratitude for his help in steering them away from trouble. They could hardly have said that about their serial rapist. And even after alleging subjection to brutal assaults, no former Second Miler could bring himself to claim that Sandusky’s many exhortations to clean living had been hypocritical. It was as if, absurdly, the young men needed to charge him with awful crimes but persisted even now in remembering him as their kindly protector.

The testimony that sealed Sandusky’s fate had been carefully shaped by attorneys who wished to remove anomalies and contradictions from their clients’ initial reports. Courtroom embarrassment was further minimized by having each young man concisely assent to propositions that would be read aloud to him. Even so, jurors who hadn’t already made up their minds (but there weren’t any!) would have been taken aback by stark implausibilities among the charges.

One accuser, Aaron Fisher, affirmed the claim that Sandusky had forced oral copulation on him more than twenty-five times. Another, Brett Houtz, attested to over forty violent assaults, occurring two or three times weekly. A third, Sabastian Paden, was supposedly molested in Sandusky’s home about 150 times. On one occasion Sandusky was said to have locked Paden in the basement for three days, starving him and raping him anally and orally while Dottie Sandusky, one floor above, ignored his screams. But all of those contentions were ludicrous on their face. What could have motivated rape victims to keep rejoining their tormentor and undergoing more of the same?

Even the most gullible jurors, one might think, would have wanted to know why several hostile witnesses had at first denied that Sandusky had done anything improper with them. Shouldn’t the timely denials, proffered without external pressure, count more heavily than later avowals scripted for judicial victory? To this objection, however, the prosecutors and their witnesses had a ready answer. The boys, it was said, had repressed their memories of abuse, and just recently they had retrieved those same memories.

It is this aspect of the case that drew the interest of the psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Leo, who understand that the theory of repression lacks any scientific credit. To them, belated “recollections” such as Sabastian Paden’s tale of a three-day sadistic kidnapping bore every mark of the dreamlike pseudomemories typically conjured by patients of recovered memory therapists. Paden may simply have been lying, of course. But the authorities who targeted Sandusky were indeed working in tandem with memory enhancers. One of them subjected his patient, Aaron Fisher, to months of daily brainwashing until Fisher more or less “recalled,” or pretended to recall, scenes of violation. “It wasn’t until I was fifteen and started seeing [therapist] Mike [Gillum],” wrote Fisher, “that I realized the horror.”

Other memories were refreshed as it became apparent that any new claims against Sandusky were likely to be believed. “I tried to block this out of my brain for years,” one turncoat declared. Another reflected, “That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more.” A third stated, ”I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my head forever.” And after Sandusky was remanded to prison, Pennsylvania’s attorney general at the time, Linda Kelly, congratulated the ex-Second Milers for having dredged their damning scenes from the unconscious. “It was incredibly difficult,” she pronounced, “for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”

The one major question that remains is what induced beneficiaries of Sandusky’s kindness to betray him so cruelly. Ziegler and Pendergrast know the answer — but so does Gladwell. “According to Ziegler’s reporting,” he remarks in the middle of a long endnote, where it will escape most readers’ attention, “at least some of Sandusky’s victims are not credible. They appear to have been attracted by the large cash settlements that Penn State was offering and the relatively lax criteria the university used for deciding who would get paid.”

“Some of Sandusky’s victims”? No, all of them. In a paroxysm of needless remorse,the Penn State trustees had broadcast the availability of a vast compensation fund that would eventually approach $140 million. An incentive was thus created for any young man who had once been helped by Sandusky, and even for some who had never met him, to spin a preposterous yarn and become an overnight multi-millionaire. And that is exactly what happened — for example, with the lawyered-up shower boy, Allan Myers. At last count, some thirty-five applicants, feigning PTSD at Sandusky’s hands, had availed themselves of Penn State’s princely largesse.

Ironically, the hounding of Jerry Sandusky could have perfectly illustrated the second half of Gladwell’s argument: once someone has been demonized, his whole record will be held against him. Sandusky had titled his autobiography Touched — surely a mark of pedophilia. What devilish impudence he had shown, furthermore, in publishing photographs of himself surrounded by happy eleven-year-olds! All of his assistance to at-risk children, such as adopting six of them (of both sexes) and raising them to be studious, self-disciplined, and drug free, was now reconfigured as grooming.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Please explain how Sandusky “fit the psychological profile to a tee”, especially when almost all pedophiles are porn addicts and often have to resort to drugs, money, or threats. None of this was associated with Sandusky. Also, the definition of a pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. The men who claim Sandusky performed sexual acts on them were 14-17 at the time. The “10 year old boy in the shower” was a myth on many different levels.

I am not going to debate this with you or Franco, just like I wouldn't waste my time debating the Holocaust was a hoax with a white supremacist or that the earth is flat with a flat earth member. People such as yourself and Franco are incapable of rational discussion and continually utilize confirmation bias, half-truths and fake news to prop up your bogus opinions. Why don't you guys do everyone a favor and go to a NAMBLA forum and post your Sandusky was innocent nonsense.

 

[RussianEagle]

I am not going to debate this with you or Franco, just like I wouldn't waste my time debating the Holocaust was a hoax with a white supremacist or that the earth is flat with a flat earth member. People such as yourself and Franco are incapable of rational discussion and continually utilize confirmation bias, half-truths and fake news to prop up your bogus opinions. Why don't you guys do everyone a favor and go to a NAMBLA forum and post your Sandusky was innocent nonsense.

Why even waste your time on this board if you aren’t interested in rational debate.

As for NAMBLA, I would predict the argument that Sandusky should be defended because he did NOT commit sexual acts with boys would not a popular argument with that crowd.

 

[francofan]

Are you kidding, do you really think I would read 26 pages of garbage that doesn't belong on this site. I saw the first page back when it came out and hoped it would go away quickly which it has not. My post was directed to the OP and any other poster that thinks that sick F Sandusky doesn't belong in prison.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this story is a long way from over and I believe we will be hearing about it for a while to come. If you are not interested in the topic, then please ignore it. Contrary to your opinion, the case against Sandusky is very weak. By the way, I am still interseted in hearing details about the mountain of evidence against Sandusky, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[bdgan]

You change the subject and resort to non-responsive BS like that when you have no answer. Typical for a dummy like you. You lose.

I have no problem that Osprey has a different opinion. My problem is that he can't intellectually support his opinions and instead resorts to insults. Sad.

 

[francofan]

I am not going to debate this with you or Franco, just like I wouldn't waste my time debating the Holocaust was a hoax with a white supremacist or that the earth is flat with a flat earth member. People such as yourself and Franco are incapable of rational discussion and continually utilize confirmation bias, half-truths and fake news to prop up your bogus opinions. Why don't you guys do everyone a favor and go to a NAMBLA forum and post your Sandusky was innocent nonsense.

Please don't conflate support for a defendant that I believe to be a victim of a travesty of justice with support of CSA, the crimes that he is accused of committing.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

Why even waste your time on this board if you aren’t interested in rational debate.

As for NAMBLA, I would predict the argument that Sandusky should be defended because he did NOT commit sexual acts with boys would not a popular argument with that crowd.

I'm here to discuss football, not a convicted child predatore. In case you haven't noticed that's what this forum is for so perhaps you are the one that should refrain from posting here.

 

[indynittany]

I am adverse to the idea that Jerry is guilty as charged on any of the counts, The just isn't any credible evidence. Please cite any credible evidence that you are aware of that demonstrates that Sandusky is guilty on any specific count. I agree with Professor Federick Crews that all of the Sandusky victims are not credible.
---------

“I grant you all this,” some readers will say, “but what about the eight accusers who swore that Sandusky had molested them on multiple occasions? Their testimony, after all, is what put him in prison, and no amount of horseplay in the shower can gainsay it.”

Agreed. But that testimony would have looked unbelievable without the poison cloud of revulsion that enveloped it. Not one of Sandusky’s accusers, to begin with, had ever told anyone about misconduct on his part. More tellingly, most of them had remained on cordial terms with him, and some had even volunteered expressions of gratitude for his help in steering them away from trouble. They could hardly have said that about their serial rapist. And even after alleging subjection to brutal assaults, no former Second Miler could bring himself to claim that Sandusky’s many exhortations to clean living had been hypocritical. It was as if, absurdly, the young men needed to charge him with awful crimes but persisted even now in remembering him as their kindly protector.

The testimony that sealed Sandusky’s fate had been carefully shaped by attorneys who wished to remove anomalies and contradictions from their clients’ initial reports. Courtroom embarrassment was further minimized by having each young man concisely assent to propositions that would be read aloud to him. Even so, jurors who hadn’t already made up their minds (but there weren’t any!) would have been taken aback by stark implausibilities among the charges.

One accuser, Aaron Fisher, affirmed the claim that Sandusky had forced oral copulation on him more than twenty-five times. Another, Brett Houtz, attested to over forty violent assaults, occurring two or three times weekly. A third, Sabastian Paden, was supposedly molested in Sandusky’s home about 150 times. On one occasion Sandusky was said to have locked Paden in the basement for three days, starving him and raping him anally and orally while Dottie Sandusky, one floor above, ignored his screams. But all of those contentions were ludicrous on their face. What could have motivated rape victims to keep rejoining their tormentor and undergoing more of the same?

Even the most gullible jurors, one might think, would have wanted to know why several hostile witnesses had at first denied that Sandusky had done anything improper with them. Shouldn’t the timely denials, proffered without external pressure, count more heavily than later avowals scripted for judicial victory? To this objection, however, the prosecutors and their witnesses had a ready answer. The boys, it was said, had repressed their memories of abuse, and just recently they had retrieved those same memories.

It is this aspect of the case that drew the interest of the psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Leo, who understand that the theory of repression lacks any scientific credit. To them, belated “recollections” such as Sabastian Paden’s tale of a three-day sadistic kidnapping bore every mark of the dreamlike pseudomemories typically conjured by patients of recovered memory therapists. Paden may simply have been lying, of course. But the authorities who targeted Sandusky were indeed working in tandem with memory enhancers. One of them subjected his patient, Aaron Fisher, to months of daily brainwashing until Fisher more or less “recalled,” or pretended to recall, scenes of violation. “It wasn’t until I was fifteen and started seeing [therapist] Mike [Gillum],” wrote Fisher, “that I realized the horror.”

Other memories were refreshed as it became apparent that any new claims against Sandusky were likely to be believed. “I tried to block this out of my brain for years,” one turncoat declared. Another reflected, “That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more.” A third stated, ”I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my head forever.” And after Sandusky was remanded to prison, Pennsylvania’s attorney general at the time, Linda Kelly, congratulated the ex-Second Milers for having dredged their damning scenes from the unconscious. “It was incredibly difficult,” she pronounced, “for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”

The one major question that remains is what induced beneficiaries of Sandusky’s kindness to betray him so cruelly. Ziegler and Pendergrast know the answer — but so does Gladwell. “According to Ziegler’s reporting,” he remarks in the middle of a long endnote, where it will escape most readers’ attention, “at least some of Sandusky’s victims are not credible. They appear to have been attracted by the large cash settlements that Penn State was offering and the relatively lax criteria the university used for deciding who would get paid.”

“Some of Sandusky’s victims”? No, all of them. In a paroxysm of needless remorse,the Penn State trustees had broadcast the availability of a vast compensation fund that would eventually approach $140 million. An incentive was thus created for any young man who had once been helped by Sandusky, and even for some who had never met him, to spin a preposterous yarn and become an overnight multi-millionaire. And that is exactly what happened — for example, with the lawyered-up shower boy, Allan Myers. At last count, some thirty-five applicants, feigning PTSD at Sandusky’s hands, had availed themselves of Penn State’s princely largesse.

Ironically, the hounding of Jerry Sandusky could have perfectly illustrated the second half of Gladwell’s argument: once someone has been demonized, his whole record will be held against him. Sandusky had titled his autobiography Touched — surely a mark of pedophilia. What devilish impudence he had shown, furthermore, in publishing photographs of himself surrounded by happy eleven-year-olds! All of his assistance to at-risk children, such as adopting six of them (of both sexes) and raising them to be studious, self-disciplined, and drug free, was now reconfigured as grooming.

View embedded media

I'm not discounting Sandusky's innocence either. The trial was a farce. I'm just less familiar with the non PSU cases. That said, I haven't seen anyone cite one case as cut and dried.

There was definitely a quantity over quality strategy employed by the OAG. It overwhelmed Amendola and engulfed PSU.

In my mind, the PSU story is entirely separate from Sandusky's guilt or innocence. I think its possible that Aaron Fisher is a fraud and without him, Jerry would still be a free man. However, my main interest lies with why PSU assumed guilt when it arguably had none, whether Jerry is guilty or not. I wish the handful of people who could put those pieces together would shelve their differences and focus on that.

 

[PSU2UNC]

If you read this thread, it's apparent that perhaps just 4 posters believe Jerry is innocent, or to be more precise, post that he is innocent.

One is just a troll, one has an accused offender in his family, and yet another just has a personal beef with the Paterno family.

None have actually read the Clemente report or other writings regarding the profiling of CSA offenders.

I'm not sure which of those four you've determined I am (I don't think any of those fit the bill) but I assure you I have read the Clemente report. While there is some good info in there, he went into his report with the presupposition that Sandusky was guilty (which is understandable, but also skews everything he wrote).

 

[bdgan]

I'm here to discuss football, not a convicted child predatore. In case you haven't noticed that's what this forum is for so perhaps you are the one that should refrain from posting here.

This particular thread isn't about football. Stay off this thread if your only interest is football.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm here to discuss football, not a convicted child predatore. In case you haven't noticed that's what this forum is for so perhaps you are the one that should refrain from posting here.

Then don't click on the thread.

Also, I'm not a wildlife biologist, but your avatar pic is a flying lion, not a flying tiger.

 

[denniskembala]

I'm here to discuss football, not a convicted child predatore. In case you haven't noticed that's what this forum is for so perhaps you are the one that should refrain from posting here.

You're here to troll nothing more.

 

[MJG-90]

Also, the definition of a pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. The men who claim Sandusky performed sexual acts on them were 14-17 at the time. The “10 year old boy in the shower” was a myth on many different levels.

That would still be illegal though so doesn’t change anything except the name.

 

[RussianEagle]

That would still be illegal though so doesn’t change anything except the name.

True, but I do think the distinction is relevant. If Sandusky was a true pedophile who was into little boys and then dumped them when they began to enter puberty, it may be believable that he displayed absolutely no other signs of homosexuality beyond the accusations. However, if he really was into boys up to age 16/17, I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t also be into 18-year-olds. That would be legal and Sandusky was around 18-year-olds all the time (Football players, camp leaders). Yet there was not one incident of him seeking a legal consensual relationship with one of them.

Also, people who claim to be experts on Sandusky’s psychological condition should at least be aware of the nature of the crimes he supposedly committed.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

True, but I do think the distinction is relevant. If Sandusky was a true pedophile who was into little boys and then dumped them when they began to enter puberty, it may be believable that he displayed absolutely no other signs of homosexuality beyond the accusations. However, if he really was into boys up to age 16/17, I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t also be into 18-year-olds. That would be legal and Sandusky was around 18-year-olds all the time (Football players, camp leaders). Yet there was not one incident of him seeking a legal consensual relationship with one of them.

Also, people who claim to be experts on Sandusky’s psychological condition should at least be aware of the nature of the crimes he supposedly committed.

You actually posted that? That should be enough to get you on a watchlist.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

This thread really is disturbing because there are some sick F's posting. How the mods allow this nest to post here is beyond me.

 

[RussianEagle]

This thread really is disturbing because there are some sick F's posting. How the mods allow this nest to post here is beyond me.

This kind of reaction is a perfect illustration of why Sandusky did not receive a fair trial!

 

[RussianEagle]

I'm not sure which of those four you've determined I am (I don't think any of those fit the bill) but I assure you I have read the Clemente report. While there is some good info in there, he went into his report with the presupposition that Sandusky was guilty (which is understandable, but also skews everything he wrote).

There is nothing more ironic than Pinkhippo calling someone else a troll.

We need to remember to that Jim Clemente and John Ziegler were once allies, and Ziegler began questioning Sandusky’s guilt specifically because after actually interviewing him, he realized the Clemente’s characterization of Sandusky was inaccurate.

 

[NewEra 2014]

I have no problem that Osprey has a different opinion. My problem is that he can't intellectually support his opinions and instead resorts to insults. Sad.

Osprey has been that way for many years, unfortunately. Although it is interesting that he came out of the woodwork to post on this thread.

 

[Mixolydian]

This thread really is disturbing because there are some sick F's posting. How the mods allow this nest to post here is beyond me.

My advice should you choose to accept it is a simple 2 step process: 1) Get off this thread, and 2) Stick your head back up your ass. It won’t smell good, but you will be much happier there.

 

[denniskembala]

You actually posted that? That should be enough to get you on a watchlist.

Or you.

 

[denniskembala]

Flying Cudacz needs to go back to the Lair with the rest of the assholes.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

What an incredibly stupid comment. All you have to do is look at my posting history to know I'm far from a Pitt troll. Typical from this crowd, make something up and believe it as a fact.

My advice should you choose to accept it is a simple 2 step process: 1) Get off this thread, and 2) Stick your head back up your ass. It won’t smell good, but you will be much happier there.

Why would I ever take the advise from someone that expends so much energy in wanting to see a convicted ped back on the streets. Not to mention the desire to see things up the rectum that don't belong. Like I said before, you guys are some sick Fs

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Denial is a powerful defense mechanism. There is a mountain of evidence that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. He also fit the psychological profile to a tee. Posters that defend this low life are an embarrassment to Penn State.

More like there's a mountain of physical evidence (including MM's own email to the OAG) that the OAG intentionally lied in their Presentment and accompanying Indictments. Not only did the corrupt, scumbag, immoral PA Govt in the form of the OAG intentionally fabricate a crime and Indictments, but then also coordinated a National Media-Circus Lynch-mob ensuring that the jury-pool would be polluted from the get-go and prejudiced against the defendants which included far more people than just JS contrary to your incessant bullshit. According to douchebag, asshats such as yourself, it's okay for the prosecution to act in a tyrannous manner and trample all of the defendants Constitutionally-guaranteed Civil & Due Process Rights....lie, fabricate charges, etc..., because you're convinced JS was guilty (who cares if 3 innocent people's were grossly and immorally mistreated....blah, blah, blah). What an asshole.

 

[Mixolydian]

What an incredibly stupid comment. All you have to do is look at my posting history to know I'm far from a Pitt troll. Typical from this crowd, make something up and believe it as a fact.



Why would I ever take the advise from someone that expends so much energy in wanting to see a convicted ped back on the streets. Not to mention the desire to see things up the rectum that don't belong. Like I said before, you guys are some sick Fs

First, I never said anything about a Pitt troll. Second, I have never expended any energy wanting to see Sandusky or any “convicted ped” back on the street. Other than that I agree with everything in your post.

You aren’t smart enough to follow the discussion or even keep track of who you are arguing with. Follow my advice instead. It’ll be good for you. Trust me.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

I'm not smart enough from the guy that can't understand that I was referring to the poster right above me regarding the Lair comment. It didn't occur to you that that comment was above your quote, not below??

Lets be real clear fellas, I've been an attorney for 20 years and owned operated a very successful law firm in that time frame. So don't presume to lecture me about anything regarding this case.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not smart enough from the guy that can't understand that I was referring to the poster right above me regarding the Lair comment. It didn't occur to you that that comment was above your quote, not below??

Lets be real clear fellas, I've been an attorney for 20 years and owned operated a very successful law firm in that time frame. So don't presume to lecture me about anything regarding this case.

That doesn't mean you know shit about the facts of this case. I'll lecture you all I want.

 

[RussianEagle]

I'm not smart enough from the guy that can't understand that I was referring to the poster right above me regarding the Lair comment. It didn't occur to you that that comment was above your quote, not below??

Lets be real clear fellas, I've been an attorney for 20 years and owned operated a very successful law firm in that time frame. So don't presume to lecture me about anything regarding this case.

Is this Andrew Shubin! Or Slade McLaughlin! Or Ben Andreozzi?

how much $$$ did you make off of these so called “victims”?

 

[Flying_Tiger]

More like there's a mountain of physical evidence (including MM's own email to the OAG) that the OAG intentionally lied in their Presentment and accompanying Indictments. Not only did the corrupt, scumbag, immoral PA Govt in the form of the OAG intentionally fabricate a crime and Indictments, but then also coordinated a National Media-Circus Lynch-mob ensuring that the jury-pool would be polluted from the get-go and prejudiced against the defendants which included far more people than just JS contrary to your incessant bullshit. According to douchebag, asshats such as yourself, it's okay for the prosecution to act in a tyrannous manner and trample all of the defendants Constitutionally-guaranteed Civil & Due Process Rights....lie, fabricate charges, etc..., because you're convinced JS was guilty (who cares if 3 innocent people's were grossly and immorally mistreated....blah, blah, blah). What an asshole.

Great post, you really are an excellent representative for your movement! The way you make points with name calling, cursing and incoherent ramblings, you must of been president of your redneck debate team, lol.

 

[Flying_Tiger]

That doesn't mean you know shit about the facts of this case. I'll lecture you all I want.

Ok tough guy, go ahead and lecture me, lol. I'm sure you read something on the internet and know much more than a 20 year practicing attorney. Opinion over Knowledge !!

 

[indynittany]

Great post, you really are an excellent representative for your movement! The way you make points with name calling, cursing and incoherent ramblings, you must of been president of your redneck debate team, lol.

Did the OAG lie in the GJ presentment or not?

 

[didier]

Why does this song come to mind reading this thread?