I assume this is what the pink hippo was referring to:
“The diabolical pedophile mastermind, Jerry Sandusky decided to satisfy his deviant sexual appetite on a group of young men from a town nearly 50 miles outside State College.”
With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
“The diabolical pedophile mastermind, Jerry Sandusky decided to satisfy his deviant sexual appetite on a group of young men from a town nearly 50 miles outside State College.”
I'm not sure how old you are, but I feel like either your math is off or you don't understand how sexual ability/desire decreases with age.
Possible scenarios:
1) Dottie and Jerry are both telling the truth about # of times per week. If this is the case, it seems very unlikely that he is also having sex with multiple boys during the same time period.* A sixty year man "performing" six or seven times a week without pills is very, very unlikely, especially if they had low T (which Jerry did).
2) Dottie and Jerry are both lying, but Jerry has low T (I believe medical records confirm this). This makes it unlikely but not impossible that he has multiple sexual partners during the same time period.
3) Dottie and Jerry are both lying AND the medical records have somehow been falsified (i.e. Jerry does not have a medical condition related to sexual performance). This seems very unlikely.
4) Jerry is taking some sort of T supplement. I do not believe this has ever been documented and suspect the prosecution would have examined his medical records.
*Keep in mind: based on the testimonies of the accusers, the timelines overlap significantly. It wasn't as if Jerry would focus on one kid, then move on to another. The timelines require that he was abusing multiple boys in the same week/month. On top of all of his other TSM duties, his involvement with St Paul's Church, and, oh yeah, being a P5 defensive coordinator.
Yeah, I think this statement (from JZ) is sarcastic(?). Why would a "diabolical mastermind" prey on a group of boys who all knew each other? Why Lock Haven? The statement is made to cast doubt on the veracity of their accounts.
How much time did he spend in Lock Haven? How does that compare to his TSM time spent elsewhere? Link to your source?
good post. But you don't need to have sexual intercourse to be breaking the law. I've always thought the JS didn't or wasn't having sexual intercourse. As such, he was using his second mile connections to gain access and walk the line between sex and creepy.
as such, the disparity of second mile boys, the fact this unfolded over decades, the physical locations where these events allegedly occurred, and his access to being able to do "creepy" as part of his "love" therapy all accounted for this level of potential abuse. This is exactly what Clemente said and is also part of the catholic priest problem. its kind of a trojan horse approach to child abuse; gain their confidence, they let you in, then you do your nasty. Hard to catch and people get fooled. Nobody at PSU wanted to believe they had a world class predator. hell, he was on the cover of SI and heralded as a great humanitarian nation wide!
1) Don’t buy this at all. If 4 is the high end of the rate and 2 is the low end, twice with the wife and twice with boys is certainly possibly in a given week. And I don’t buy the belief that 4 is the absolute cap and number of sexual activity in a week. As you suggested earlier, who’s to say Jerry was receiving sexual gratification all these times?
2) Dishonesty does not help his claims of innocence.
3) Agreed, this seems as highly unlikely as the idea that he could only have just enough testosterone to have sex with his wife.
4) No idea about this, nor does it matter to me.
It shouldn’t, but it just stuns me that people aren’t willing to even acknowledge that his lying about his sexual activity or being capable enough to perform 2-4 times a week doesn’t help his case. I get that you think he is innocent. But it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make this anything other than not good for him. Again, it’s not proof of guilt or innocence but it doesn’t help him.
I think you touched on something which is what tells me most if not all of these accusers are completely FOS.
Historically, when you see these serial sex abusers they all have an MO. Even in the Michael Jackson cases which have been debated a ton, many of the accusers had incredibly similar stories and experiences.
There is literally nothing connecting any of these accusers stories. None of them have similar experiences. They vary in age, accusations of sex acts, locations. There isn't a consistent grooming process either.
I absolutely agree with this; however, this is not consistent with the testimony of multiple accusers (both in court and in civil cases).
Either the accusers are lying OR something else doesn't add up WRT Jerry's age, medical condition and sex drive.
This is not to say that Jerry may not have crossed boundaries (it is even possible that Jerry broke laws). But I am pretty convinced that there was no sexual assault, and VERY convinced that there was no anal rape.
I hope you will agree that the headline of "Creepy Foster Dad Places Hand on Kids Knee During Car Ride" isn't quite as devastating as "Former PSU Coach Anally Rapes Boy in PSU Locker Room".
I think they are lying, to be honest. These people are coached up and the game was to maximize income. But that is purely speculation on my part.
Possibly. But this doesn't line up with a "diabolical genius" who was able to get away with this for many decades.
I don't really feel that the "# of times a week" argument is that relevant.
However, my understanding of the medical records is the he had testicular atrophy (maybe that is the wrong term, but shrunken testes). If this was the case, it seems very unlikely that no victims would have noticed this, especially given the nature of their allegations.
Likewise, surely you will agree that “Creepy Head of a Charity that Works With Disadvantaged Youth Witnessed Having Physical Contact with an Underaged Boy in a Shower Two Years After Being Investigated for the Same Activity and Agreeing to Never Do So Again” is pretty alarming.
Less alarming when AM's relationship with Jerry is viewed in context. Have you ever read the statement AM gave to Amendola's investigator?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Amendola had this info at trial, but it was presented at appeal.
I thought he had it, but was overwhelmed. Recall his multiple requests for a continuance were denied by the judge. This case was unfairly rushed to trial.
that's right...and that is why terms like "sodomy" and rape were used ...clicks and politics.
Did Lindsay even really bring it up? The most detailed description of the medical records I can find is from Ziegler. I'm sure he's quoting them accurately and I think it appears very likely Sandusky had significant testicular issues by the mid-2000s.
What is rather incredible to me is that this was not brought into trial. Why not? It would be a significant bolster for the defense.
What is rather incredible to me is that this was not brought into trial. Why not? It would be a significant bolster for the defense.
Yes and this is why the falsehoods in the leaked grand jury presentment were so critical.
The OAG knew their case was weak. This is why they not only sought out McQueary, but embellished his statements in the GJ presentment and then illegally leaked the presentment. The OAG's plan was to try the case in the media -- to create so much (false) outrage in the public eye (led by the media in search of clicks) that the outcome of the trial was ensured before it even started.
This outrage may also possibly explain some of the judge's questionable decisions (no continuances, catering to the OAG at every move), i.e. the judge did not want to be known as "the judge who let Sandusky get away."
Alarming? Maybe. Or perhaps concerning. But certainly nothing to do with PSU, Paterno or C/S/S. Nor is it something that would have made the national news and lead to the vilification of an entire university and its alumni.
I certainly agree with the first statement. I think it would have made national news though.
Yes. it's also a useless conversation in my opinion. Because whether he or she is lying or not, the reality is I would imagine if Jerry was completely impotent he would have used that at trial. I can understand it would be embarrassing but probably not as embarrassing as people believing your raping children.
I very much doubt that it would have, but if it did it would have been a very transient story that would have been gone by the next day.
Even when the GJ presentment leaked, the story did not take off in the media until "journalists" starting linking Paterno with the story.
I don't know the law but it seems to me that people should be disbarred for this. How can knowingly lying in a grand jury presentment be allowed?
What makes it even worse is that McQueary called the OAG out on this (i.e. "that isn't what I said") and he was told to STFU so you don't jeopardize the case. That email exchange is available for anyone to see. Unbelievable.
Very true, no one cared about Ganim's March 31st, 2011 story breaking the news that JS was the subject of a GJ investigation. @osulmb was on here joining the discussion, but opposing fan bases or the media didn't give a crap about this story until JVP got drug into it.
Recall too that in the very early reporting, Paterno was praised for his cooperation with authorities. It wasn't until the narrative (falsely) shifted to "Paterno covers up anal rape" that the story took off.
Let's not forget that Noonan, who never, ever should have said what he said at that press conference, worked at the pleasure of Tom Corbett.
Because this was a professional hit that worked exactly as intended. And it did so because so many people with so much power were, and remain, complicit.
I got that. Still I would expect a good samaritan or political opponent to make an issue out of MM's emails saying he was misrepresented in the presentment and the response to those emails that acknowledged the MM's words were embellished to the point of lies.
Can you explain this? Are you saying that if he is lying about this, he could be lying about other things? Specifically how would people confirm he is being dishonest about this topic?
I guess I have to point out again that the "agreeing to never do so again" part is disputed.
I think one has to consider the most likely context of the police admonition of Jerry regarding showering alone with TSM kids to have been for his protection from a future he said/he said, not because the cop thought JS might be putting boys at risk.
But he didn’t stop himself from doing it, which should be concerning for my reasonable person.
