ADVERTISEMENT

With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

There's absolutely no basis to conclude that the only reason they found him guilty for these specific charges for this specific victim is because of their thoughts about other victims and the case as a whole. This comes across as pure conjecture on your part. There's no evidence to support that opinion. By your logic, along with a lack of supporting evidence, couldn't every trial with multiple charges and victims be invalidated? To the contrary, finding him not guilty on one charge but guilty on others for the victim in question is an indication they did exactly what they were supposed to and evaluated each charge and victim individually. If they did what you state then how do you explain why he wasn't found guilty on all charges for all victims?
There absolutely is a basis.

In 1998, there were no other incidents. Charges were not filed because the DA either a) did not believe a crime was committed or b) did not believe a guilty verdict could be obtained. This is proof than in a vacuum (i.e. in the absence of other incidents), the 1998 charges were a Nothing Burger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
If it isn't sexual, why is it wrong?
If I’m sitting next to you on a bus and I decide to stand in front of you and drop my pants and put my penis in your face but do not have any sexual intentions, should that be allowed?
 
There absolutely is a basis.

In 1998, there were no other incidents. Charges were not filed because the DA either a) did not believe a crime was committed or b) did not believe a guilty verdict could be obtained. This is proof than in a vacuum (i.e. in the absence of other incidents), the 1998 charges were a Nothing Burger.
But when the 11-year old boy grows up and realizes what hell was going on, he testifies about it and Jerry is convicted for it.
In the same way that you like to say inappropriate doesn’t equal guilty, not believing you could get a guilty verdict does not mean you don’t believe a crime was committed.
 
Nah, the second part was an exaggeration by me, though not out of the realm of possibility. Here is the shower hugging story from one of the boys though. Tell me what you think of it. From the known ‘98 incident. If anybody on hear can read this and think it was just some good old shower horseplay I don’t know what else to tell them other than to make sure they stay out of public showers themselves because they are probably looking at some trouble:

Then Sandusky began wrestling with Victim 6, who was much smaller than Sandusky. Then Sandusky said they needed to shower, even though Victim 6 was not sweaty. Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred. Looking back on it as an adult, Victim 6 says Sandusky's behavior towards him as an ll year old boy was very inappropriate.
Actually, Victim 5 is where problems begin ---



Because the only alleged victim to testify at the Spanier case was Michal Kajak, a 28-year-old previously identified in the Jerry Sandusky case as "Victim No. 5."

In the Spanier case, Kajak was sworn in as a witness behind closed doors in the chambers of Judge John Boccabella. Then, when the witness came out to testify, the judge introduced Kajak to the jury as "John Doe," and the lawyers in the case proceed to question him as John Doe.

While this circus was proceeding, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no conspiracy bloggers used their cellphone to take photos or videos of the celebrity witness who was getting preferential treatment.

The whole point of John Doe's tissue-soaked trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that Kajak/John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary made his famous visit there.

While extra deputies patrolled the courtroom, the sobbing witness told the jury that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky after the famous Mike McQueary shower incident. But the jury wasn't told what that alleged sex abuse of Kajak/Victim No. 5/John Doe was.

It wasn't rape; Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

The jury also wasn't told that because of the alleged abuse, Kajak collected in a civil settlement $8 million.

Kajak, AKA Victim No. 5 or John Doe, also gave four different dates for his alleged abuse in the shower with Jerry – in 1998, when he was 10 years old; in 2000 when he was 12; in 2001, before 9/11, when he was 13; and finally in 2001 after 9/11, when he would have been 14.
But because Kajak was a sacred cow, as certified by the judge in the secrecy and hoopla that accompanied Kajak's trip to the witness stand, the defense lawyers in the case were too intimidated to even ask one question.



Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.


That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.
In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.


"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."
That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.



"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."


As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.
The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.


As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."



"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."
"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.
"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.
As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.
 
Found the verdicts on the charges related to the ‘98 shower victim:
VICTIM 6
Count 28: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.
Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 30: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
You can postulate all you want to make Jerry innocent in your mind. Fact of the matter is that he was convicted for the showering nonsense. It’s not legal to bear hug boys in the shower, as proven in this case.
He was also found Guilty of assaulting an unidentified victim on an unidentified date. :rolleyes:

Take away the clearly false and intentionally misleading GJ presentment that stated MM walked in to a locker room and witnessed JS having anal sex with a 10-year old boy and the house of cards that UNC speaks about crashes immediately.

What do you make of the fact thatV2 gave a sworn statement to detectives saying (1) MM lied about the shower; and, later stating 30+ times that he couldn't rember diddly squat (because he hired Shubin to get him $3M). As i said earlier, every single victim has gaping holes in their stories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
He was also found Guilty of assaulting an unidentified victim on an unidentified date. :rolleyes:

Take away the clearly false and intentionally misleading GJ presentment that stated MM walked in to a locker room and witnessed JS having anal sex with a 10-year old boy and the house of cards that UNC speaks about crashes immediately.

What do you make of the fact thatV2 gave a sworn statement to detectives saying (1) MM lied about the shower; and, later stating 30+ times that he couldn't rember diddly squat (because he hired Shubin to get him $3M). As i said earlier, every single victim has gaping holes in their stories.
I don’t know what to make of it exactly. I do know that victims of sexual abuse often deny the abuse well into adulthood. He could be full of shit. He could have been abused and not want to deal with it until there was money on the table and there were other victims besides himself. Either is possible I suppose. But we do know for sure is that yet again, Jerry was in a shower with a boy and having physical contact with him. This, within 3 years or so of being investigated for the same behavior. It’s unfathomable for a non-pedophilic man to put himself in that position.You surely have a much better grasp of all the stories than I do. You say V2 states that McQueary lies about the shower incident. What exactly did he say was a lie? That he was in the shower at all? That Jerry touched him at all in the shower? That he was sodomized by Jerry in the shower?
 
I don’t know what to make of it exactly. I do know that victims of sexual abuse often deny the abuse well into adulthood. He could be full of shit. He could have been abused and not want to deal with it until there was money on the table and there were other victims besides himself. Either is possible I suppose. But we do know for sure is that yet again, Jerry was in a shower with a boy and having physical contact with him. This, within 3 years or so of being investigated for the same behavior. It’s unfathomable for a non-pedophilic man to put himself in that position.You surely have a much better grasp of all the stories than I do. You say V2 states that McQueary lies about the shower incident. What exactly did he say was a lie? That he was in the shower at all? That Jerry touched him at all in the shower? That he was sodomized by Jerry in the shower?
Are you good with JS taking V2 on overnight trips? He took him to LA, San Fran to the AFCA convention, UVA for his interview and to Florida at least once. <AM Witness Cert.>

You don't think TSM was aware of these trips? Weren't they the ones responsible for him once he retired? Forget the showers you've beaten that to death the past 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Are you good with JS taking V2 on overnight trips? He took him to LA, San Fran to the AFCA convention, UVA for his interview and to Florida at least once. <AM Witness Cert.>

You don't think TSM was aware of these trips? Weren't they the ones responsible for him once he retired? Forget the showers you've beaten that to death the past 5 years.
In what regards are you asking? As a father, I would absolutely not allow it. As a social worker I think it’s a ridiculously bad decision. There is no reason he should have been taking a kid with him on those trips.
Let me be clear about the showers and why I beat that to death. Because they are about the only things we have agreement and witnesses to. All of the other stuff is he said/he said stuff where you can choose to believe whatever you want. They say they were sexually abused, Jerry says they weren’t. Who knows the truth for sure? Only Jerry and the boys (now men). Certainly not me, you, Ziegler, or anybody else. I talk simply on the one thing that we know and Jerry has admitted to. He showered alone with boys and had physical contact with them. That is probably a crime unto itself but even if it’s not, it’s so far beyond the realm of something somebody working specifically with disadvantaged (though their social/economic status doesn’t really matter) youths would think was even remotely acceptable. People try to debate that for some reason, but it’s not at all really debatable. I get it, people are sick of me bringing up the shower stuff. I just don’t want people to forget about it while they’re listening to Ziegler poke holes in their stories because we know that the showers happened and we know it’s a major red flag for pedophelia.
 
Last edited:
He was also found Guilty of assaulting an unidentified victim on an unidentified date. :rolleyes:

Take away the clearly false and intentionally misleading GJ presentment that stated MM walked in to a locker room and witnessed JS having anal sex with a 10-year old boy and the house of cards that UNC speaks about crashes immediately.

What do you make of the fact thatV2 gave a sworn statement to detectives saying (1) MM lied about the shower; and, later stating 30+ times that he couldn't rember diddly squat (because he hired Shubin to get him $3M). As i said earlier, every single victim has gaping holes in their stories.
However -


Zachary Konstas (“Victim 6”) never actually claimed that Sandusky abused him, although under the influence of the investigation and trial, he came to believe that Sandusky had “groomed” him for abuse in a 1998 shower. The day after the shower, Konstas emphatically denied that any abuse had taken place. Over the subsequent years, Konstas expressed his admiration and gratitude to Jerry Sandusky for his role in his life through notes and greeting cards. In 2009, as a twenty-three-year-old, Konstas wrote: “Hey Jerry just want 2 wish u a Happy Fathers Day! Greater things are yet 2 come!” Later that year he wrote: “Happy Thanksgiving bro! I’m glad God has placed U in my life. Ur an awesome friend! Love ya!”

But Zachary Konstas’s perceptions were altered drastically between the fall of 2010 and June 2012. As Allan Myers did, Konstas got a lawyer. Although he never accused Sandusky of sexually abusing him, but he made it sound as though the coach had wanted to, that Sandusky had been “grooming” him for abuse. He also implied that perhaps Sandusky had abused him, but that he, Konstas, had forgotten it. Konstas may have come to believe that he had “repressed” the memories. He had asked his friend, Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) “if [he] remembered anything more, if counseling was helping,” and Konstas himself was clearly undergoing psychotherapy. At Sandusky’s sentencing hearing, he said, “I have been left with deep, painful wounds that you caused and had been buried in the garden of my heart for many years.”
Konstas’s attorney, Howard Janet, explained in an interview how Konstas and the other alleged victims could “create a bit of a Chinese wall in their minds. They bury these events that were so painful to them deep in their subconscious.”
Zachary Konstas may not have recovered specific memories of abuse, but his reinterpretation of his past, along with implications that he may have repressed the memories, were enough for the jury to find Sandusky guilty of planning to abuse him.


Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) admitted to me that he was in repressed memory, and his trial testimony makes that obvious as well. He had no abuse memories until the police contacted him, and he considered Sandusky a friend and mentor until then. State Trooper Joseph Leiter interviewed Struble for the first time on February 3, 2011. By that time Struble had been thinking about the way Sandusky used to put his hand on his knee while driving, and now he thought he remembered Sandusky moving his hand slowly up towards his crotch sometimes. And other times, he thought Sandusky may have been trying to slide his hand down his back under his underwear waistband. Yes, he had taken showers with Sandusky, but nothing sexual had taken place there. He’d given him bear hugs at times, but not in the shower. They had wrestled around, but Sandusky had never touched him inappropriately.

At the end of the interview, Leiter was excited that Struble was open to the idea that Sandusky might have abused him, but that wasn’t enough. In ending the interview he “advised Struble that as he recalls events to please contact me and we can set up another interview. Also, if he begins having difficulties with his memories to contact me so that assistance can be found.” Struble entered psychotherapy less than three weeks later.
By the time of the trial, Struble had changed his story, asserting that Sandusky gave him bear hugs, washed his hair in the shower, and then dried him off. He said that Sandusky had put his hand down his pants and touched his penis in the car, that Sandusky had grabbed him in the shower and pushed the front of his body up against the back of Dustin’s body. On the stand, he explained: “That doorway that I had closed has since been re-opening more. More things have been coming back…. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point.” Struble went on to explain more about how his repressed memories had returned in therapy. He further explained: “The more negative things, I had sort of pushed into the back of my mind, sort of like closing a door, closing—putting stuff in the attic and closing the door to it. That’s what I feel like I did.”

In 2014, I interviewed Struble in his home in State College, PA. In a follow-up email, he wrote: “Actually both of my therapists have suggested that I have repressed memories, and that’s why we have been working on looking back on my life for triggers. My therapist has suggested that I may still have more repressed memories that have yet to be revealed, and this could be a big cause of the depression that I still carry today. We are still currently working on that.”
Phantom Victim (“Victim 8”) is the product of double hearsay testimony that should never have been allowed at the trial. A janitor named Ron Petrosky said that another janitor, Jim Calhoun, had told him in the fall of 2000 that he saw Sandusky giving oral sex to a young boy in a Penn State locker room shower. By the time of the June 2012 trial, Calhoun had Alzheimer’s and could not testify, but the judge allowed Petrosky to do so. Sandusky was found guilty of molesting this unidentified boy.
But in a taped interview on May 15, 2011, Jim Calhoun had told the police that Sandusky was not the man he saw giving oral sex to a young man in the shower. The defense apparently had not listened to the tape and never entered it into evidence in the trial.


Sabastian Paden (“Victim 9”) came forward after the explosive Grand Jury Presentment became public on November 4, 2011, and the Office of the Attorney General publicized a hotline for prospective Sandusky victims. At that point, it was clear to civil lawyers and alleged victims that there was a possible financial windfall to be had.
Paden’s changed attitude towards Sandusky occurred incredibly quickly, after his mother called his school to ask them to contact the police. When the police appeared at his door, Paden denied having been abused. Sometime in October 2011, the high school senior was seated in Beaver Stadium beside Sandusky, enjoying a Penn State football game with a friend. Less than a month later, however, Paden rocked the grand jury with accounts of his former life as a virtual captive in the Sandusky basement, where he claimed to have screamed for help, to no avail, even though the basement was not soundproofed and there was no way to lock him down there. Paden said that he was forced to perform oral sex on numerous occasions, and that Sandusky attempted anal intercourse over sixteen times, with actual penetration at times.
It is unlikely that repressed memory therapy was involved in encouraging Sabastian Paden’s memories, at least at the outset, since his grotesque allegations arose within just a few days of his mother’s initial phone call. It is instead likely that he was either telling the truth or that he was consciously lying, at the urging of his mother and in search of remuneration and sympathetic attention.
Ryan Rittmeyer (“Victim 10”) also responded to the Sandusky hotline after the case exploded in the media. He had been incarcerated twice—for burglary in 2004, at age seventeen, and in September 2007, when he was twenty, for burglary and assault. He and a teenager assaulted an elderly man on the street, punching him in the face and leaving him with permanent injuries. Rittmeyer was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and was released in 2009. At the time of the trial, he was married, with a pregnant wife. After he called the hotline, Rittmeyer was represented by lawyer Andrew Shubin.


At his first police interview with officer Michael Cranga on November 29, 2011, Rittmeyer said that Jerry Sandusky had groped him in a swimming pool. Then, while driving a silver convertible, Sandusky had allegedly opened his pants to expose his penis and told Rittmeyer to put it in his mouth. When he refused, Sandusky became angry and told him that if didn’t do it, Rittmeyer would never see his family again. “His life went downhill” subsequently, Cranga wrote in his report, which Rittmeyer apparently blamed on this traumatic event.
During his grand jury testimony on December 5, 2011, Rittmeyer changed and amplified his story. Now he said that something sexual occurred almost every time he saw Sandusky throughout 1997, 1998, and part of 1999, once or twice a month. Finally, Rittmeyer said that he eventually complied and gave Sandusky oral sex, and vice versa.
Jerry Sandusky never owned any kind of convertible, nor was it likely that he borrowed or rented one, which would have been quite out of character for him. The Ryan Rittmeyer testimony, filled with inconsistencies as well as a mythical silver convertible, appears even more questionable because the Sanduskys said that they couldn’t even remember him, whereas they readily admitted knowing the other Second Mile accusers. He may have been one of the Second Mile kids who came to their home, but Dottie Sandusky didn’t know his name, and Jerry Sandusky said that if he met him on the street, he would not recognize him.
There was apparently no repressed memory therapy necessary in Rittmeyer’s case, though it is likely that Shubin sent him for subsequent counseling.


Matt Sandusky didn’t testify at trial, so he never received a victim number. The last of the six children to be adopted by Dottie and Jerry Sandusky, at the age of 18, Matt had supported his accused parent during the investigation. In 2011 he had testified in front of the grand jury that his adoptive father had never abused him. But in the middle of the June 2012 trial, apparently after entering psychotherapy, he “flipped,” going to the police to say that Jerry Sandusky had abused him.
Matt told the police that he was working with a therapist and that “memories of his abuse are just now coming back,” according to the NBC announcer who played portions of the leaked interview tape. When the police asked whether Sandusky had sodomized him or forced him into oral sex, Matt answered: “As of this time, I don’t recall that.”
But by the time Matt appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s television show in 2014, he had remembered oral sex. He made it clear to Winfrey that he had not recalled sexual abuse until he was in repressed memory therapy, but this apparently did not make her skeptical in the least. “So based upon what you’re telling me,” Winfrey said to him, “you actually repressed a lot of it.” And Matt replied, “Uh-huh, absolutely. The physical part is the part that, you know, you can erase.”
When she asked him about first coming forward to talk to the police during the trial, he said, “It was a confusing time.” It wasn’t as if he heard Brett Houtz and all his own abuse memories came rushing back. “My child self had protected my adult self,” he explained. “My child self was holding onto what had happened to me—and taken that from me—so I, I didn’t have the memory of—I didn’t have these memories of the sexual abuse—or with him doing all of the things that he did.”
As he listened to the testimony of Brett Houtz and other alleged victims, he felt somehow that “they were telling my story,” but he apparently didn’t remember abuse right away. “They were telling—you know, all of these things start coming back to you, yes, [and] it starts to become very confusing for me and you try and figure out what is real and what you’re making up.”


In summary, then, repressed memories were key to many of the Sandusky accusations, including the first case which was also the only case for the first two years of the investigation. Then, when Mike McQueary’s memory of the 2001 shower morphed into actually seeing abuse, the police began a frantic search for more alleged victims, who were “developed,” as prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach put it, through suggestive, leading interview tactics and civil lawyer and therapist involvement. The jurors did not have the information they needed to evaluate the spoken testimony in its proper context. If they had known how the testimony was nurtured and created, their opinions about the authenticity of the event might have been altered.
Instead, as we know, they found Sandusky guilty. After the verdict, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly held a triumphant press conference outside the courthouse, during which she referred directly to the importance of repressed memories in the Sandusky case: “It was incredibly difficult for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”
 
If I’m sitting next to you on a bus and I decide to stand in front of you and drop my pants and put my penis in your face but do not have any sexual intentions, should that be allowed?
Pretty extreme there, Connor. So much so, that I might have to call my father and ask him what I should do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Pretty extreme there, Connor. So much so, that I might have to call my father and ask him what I should do.
Extreme for sure. Not really more extreme than making a boy shower up with you when he’s not even sweaty and hugging him in the shower, but extreme nonetheless.
 
If I’m sitting next to you on a bus and I decide to stand in front of you and drop my pants and put my penis in your face but do not have any sexual intentions, should that be allowed?
Nudity is expected in showers. Nudity is not allowed on buses. You are really bad at examples.
 
Let me be clear about the showers and why I beat that to death. Because they are about the only things we have agreement and witnesses to. All of the other stuff is he said/he said stuff where you can choose to believe whatever you want. They say they were sexually abused, Jerry says they weren’t. Who knows the truth for sure?
Let me ask a question that approaches this in a different way.

Jerry has denied any sexual abuse. Unlike most convicted pedophiles, he has never expressed remorse, admitted/reveled in his wrongdoing or plead guilty to try to get a lighter sentence.

If the horseplay in the shower had any sexual intent, why would he admit to that but deny everything else?

Even if he is guilty of everything he is accused of, why would he deny everything else (even to this day), but admit horseplay in the shower? The only thing that makes sense is that it was not sexually motivated.

Again, I agree it is inappropriate (although he obviously did not view it that way) but without sexual intent, it is not illegal (or immoral).
 
Nudity is expected in showers. Nudity is not allowed on buses. You are really bad at examples.
Disingenuous response. Hugging in the shower is as expected as nudity on a bus. You’re really bad at realizing that issue was not only the showering but the hugging and other physical contact in the shower.
Do you really think showering and initiating physical contact with a boy in the shower are the same thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Let me ask a question that approaches this in a different way.

Jerry has denied any sexual abuse. Unlike most convicted pedophiles, he has never expressed remorse, admitted/reveled in his wrongdoing or plead guilty to try to get a lighter sentence.

If the horseplay in the shower had any sexual intent, why would he admit to that but deny everything else?

Even if he is guilty of everything he is accused of, why would he deny everything else (even to this day), but admit horseplay in the shower? The only thing that makes sense is that it was not sexually motivated.

Again, I agree it is inappropriate (although he obviously did not view it that way) but without sexual intent, it is not illegal (or immoral).
Really easy question to answer. He admitted to the shower “horseplay” because he was caught. Twice. No choice there. If he wasn’t caught, I imagine he would have denied the one on one showers as well. Also, if you’re trying to make sense of him bringing kids he is working with into a shower and initiating hugs with them you are going to waste a lot of time because there is no sense to make of it.
Again, I disagree that it is up to the assailant to decide whether or not there was sexual intent. If that was the case nobody would ever be charged with assault. They would just say what they did was not intended to be sexual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Really easy question to answer. He admitted to the shower “horseplay” because he was caught. Twice. No choice there. If he wasn’t caught, I imagine he would have denied the one on one showers as well. Also, if you’re trying to make sense of him bringing kids he is working with into a shower and initiating hugs with them you are going to waste a lot of time because there is no sense to make of it.
Again, I disagree that it is up to the assailant to decide whether or not there was sexual intent. If that was the case nobody would ever be charged with assault. They would just say what they did was not intended to be sexual.
How was he caught in 1998 in a way he wasn't caught in 2001?

All he had to do was deny that horseplay occurred. He could have said "Yes, we worked out together, and both used the large group shower at the football facility. Nothing unusual happened." Just the same way he denied everything else.

Your explanation doesn't hold water.
 
Disingenuous response. Hugging in the shower is as expected as nudity on a bus. You’re really bad at realizing that issue was not only the showering but the hugging and other physical contact in the shower.
Do you really think showering and initiating physical contact with a boy in the shower are the same thing?
They are not the same thing. I was mostly just pointing out how truly horrible your analogy is.

But again, horseplay is not illegal. Inappropriate is not illegal. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to admit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
How was he caught in 1998 in a way he wasn't caught in 2001?

All he had to do was deny that horseplay occurred. He could have said "Yes, we worked out together, and both used the large group shower at the football facility. Nothing unusual happened." Just the same way he denied everything else.

Your explanation doesn't hold water.
The kid said what happened, if I’m not mistaken. He was confronted and not expecting it and wasn’t quick enough on his feet to have an explanation ready.
Man, you seem really dedicated to the practice of grown men hugging boys in the shower to keep trying to find a way to make it OK. It’s not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
They are not the same thing. I was mostly just pointing out how truly horrible your analogy is.

But again, horseplay is not illegal. Inappropriate is not illegal. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to admit.
It was a purposefully bad analogy to illustrate how absurd the idea of a grown man creating a situation where a kid will have to shower with him and initiate physical contact with him is. The idea of somebody pulling their pants down in a bus and shoving their penis in your face is something nobody in their right mind would do. Hugging a boy in a shower that he didn’t want to take to begin with (which fits nobody that isn’t a pedophile’s definition of horseplay) is also something nobody in their right mind would do.
Your ignorant insistence upon trying to say that I disagree with you about horseplay not being illegal and inappropriate not being illegal is admirable. No matter how many times I’ve said that I agree with that basic premise, you continue to push it. While inappropriate in and of itself is not illegal, some inappropriate things are illegal. Farting in somebody’s face is inappropriate but not illegal. Rape is inappropriate and illegal. Hugging boys in a shower is absolutely inappropriate and in Sandusky’s case was proven to also be illegal in a court of law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
It was a purposefully bad analogy to illustrate how absurd the idea of a grown man creating a situation where a kid will have to shower with him and initiate physical contact with him is. The idea of somebody pulling their pants down in a bus and shoving their penis in your face is something nobody in their right mind would do. Hugging a boy in a shower that he didn’t want to take to begin with (which fits nobody that isn’t a pedophile’s definition of horseplay) is also something nobody in their right mind would do.
Your ignorant insistence upon trying to say that I disagree with you about horseplay not being illegal and inappropriate not being illegal is admirable. No matter how many times I’ve said that I agree with that basic premise, you continue to push it. While inappropriate in and of itself is not illegal, some inappropriate things are illegal. Farting in somebody’s face is inappropriate but not illegal. Rape is inappropriate and illegal. Hugging boys in a shower is absolutely inappropriate and in Sandusky’s case was proven to also be illegal in a court of law.
The court of law got it wrong. When you run out of logical arguments you revert to "the is guilty because he was found guilty" line of reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
The kid said what happened, if I’m not mistaken. He was confronted and not expecting it and wasn’t quick enough on his feet to have an explanation ready.
Man, you seem really dedicated to the practice of grown men hugging boys in the shower to keep trying to find a way to make it OK. It’s not.
You didn't answer my question at all.

Why deny all instances of abuse, even when pleading guilty could get you a lighter sentence, but admit to this incident?

Two possibilities:

1) He is an evil genius pedophile, who is such a sociopath that he can keep us this lie, perfectly, for decades, never once slipping up. Except for that one time where a simple lie could have saved him a lot of problems.

OR

2) He is consistently telling the truth and this episode had no sexual intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
The court of law got it wrong. When you run out of logical arguments you revert to "the is guilty because he was found guilty" line of reasoning.
You revert to “I know he was convicted. I think they were wrong”. Fact: Sandusky was convicted on three counts pertaining to the ‘98 shower victim. Opinion: I think the jury got it wrong. Facts can be hard to accept, I get it, but they remain facts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
You didn't answer my question at all.

Why deny all instances of abuse, even when pleading guilty could get you a lighter sentence, but admit to this incident?

Two possibilities:

1) He is an evil genius pedophile, who is such a sociopath that he can keep us this lie, perfectly, for decades, never once slipping up. Except for that one time where a simple lie could have saved him a lot of problems.

OR

2) He is consistently telling the truth and this episode had no sexual intent.
I did answer it. It’s logical but you don’t like it. He admitted it because he couldn’t deny it. He’s too committed to the lie to admit any more than he absolutely had to.
OK, I’m heading to the beach for a week so the Jerry apologists can enjoy your echo chamber free for a week without any logical pushback from me. Do society a favor though until I pop back in: Do not take any of the one-on-one hugging showers with young boys you think is OK. It’s not and I don’t want you to end up in jail like St. Jerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
You revert to “I know he was convicted. I think they were wrong”. Fact: Sandusky was convicted on three counts pertaining to the ‘98 shower victim. Opinion: I think the jury got it wrong. Facts can be hard to accept, I get it, but they remain facts.
This is semantics, but you are correct that it is a fact that a conviction was obtained. However, this fact is based on the opinion of the jury. So I would argue there opinion is no more valid (from a logical/factual basis) than anyone else's.

It is not clear to me how anyone who actually understands the fact of the case could not, at a minimum, think that Sandusky was railroaded and deserves a new trial. The only way for someone to actually think justice was served is that they either don't know the facts, or have their judgment so clouded by "outrage" (real or manufactured) that they refuse to admit that the court might have gotten it wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I did answer it. It’s logical but you don’t like it. He admitted it because he couldn’t deny it. He’s too committed to the lie to admit any more than he absolutely had to.
OK, I’m heading to the beach for a week so the Jerry apologists can enjoy your echo chamber free for a week without any logical pushback from me. Do society a favor though until I pop back in: Do not take any of the one-on-one hugging showers with young boys you think is OK. It’s not and I don’t want you to end up in jail like St. Jerry.
You have a very poor understand of the word "logical" but enjoy your time at the beach.
 
Disingenuous response. Hugging in the shower is as expected as nudity on a bus.
I mostly agree with you on these discussions but not necessarily this time. We hear that Jerry saw himself as a father figure to these kids. I don't recall my father ever holding me up in the shower to rinse my hair but I wouldn't rule that out as a possibility. I definitely remember showering with my father at places like campgrounds and public pools.

That said, we agree that there are two problems even if Jerry was completely innocent.
  1. TSM should never have allowed any of their employees or agents to have private one on one contact with troubled children.
  2. JS should have been scared to death after what happened in 1998. A "normal" person would have avoided this type of situation going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
I appreciate the discussion on the legal/appropriate/guilty/not guilty back and forth, but I think you all ought to call it a day.

You’re not going to change each other’s minds.

So, please, see if you can find a way to wrap this up without someone thinking he made his point and convinced the other. It’s not convincing to have the last word.
 
I mostly agree with you on these discussions but not necessarily this time. We hear that Jerry saw himself as a father figure to these kids. I don't recall my father ever holding me up in the shower to rinse my hair but I wouldn't rule that out as a possibility. I definitely remember showering with my father at places like campgrounds and public pools.

That said, we agree that there are two problems even if Jerry was completely innocent.
  1. TSM should never have allowed any of their employees or agents to have private one on one contact with troubled children.
  2. JS should have been scared to death after what happened in 1998. A "normal" person would have avoided this type of situation going forward.
Don’t parse it down though bdgan. A “father figure” is not a father. Don’t go down that line of thinking to rationalize it. He was working in a charity for disadvantaged youth. His role should not be confused in any way with being the actual father of any of the kids (except eventually for Matt Sandusky I suppose, and even that wasn’t until he was an adult if I recall correctly). It’s inexcusable.
You bring up a great point here that, if you’re willing to answer, I would love to hear an answer to. You showered with your father. You don’t recall your own father holding you up to a shower head to rinse your hair out but it might have happened. That tells me that if it did happen it likely happened before you were 4 or 5, when memory typically begins. The boy from ‘98 was 11-years old. 11, right in the wheelhouse for the onset of male puberty. And of showers you do recall taking with your own father (blood father?) do you ever recall him initiating a hug or calling you over to share his shower head? Thanks (not leaving for the beach until my daughters get off of work this afternoon, before anybody says I was not going to comment!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Don’t parse it down though bdgan. A “father figure” is not a father. Don’t go down that line of thinking to rationalize it. He was working in a charity for disadvantaged youth. His role should not be confused in any way with being the actual father of any of the kids (except eventually for Matt Sandusky I suppose, and even that wasn’t until he was an adult if I recall correctly). It’s inexcusable.
You bring up a great point here that, if you’re willing to answer, I would love to hear an answer to. You showered with your father. You don’t recall your own father holding you up to a shower head to rinse your hair out but it might have happened. That tells me that if it did happen it likely happened before you were 4 or 5, when memory typically begins. The boy from ‘98 was 11-years old. 11, right in the wheelhouse for the onset of male puberty. And of showers you do recall taking with your own father (blood father?) do you ever recall him initiating a hug or calling you over to share his shower head? Thanks (not leaving for the beach until my daughters get off of work this afternoon, before anybody says I was not going to comment!).
I recall showering with my father. Nothing traumatic happened so I don't remember much more than that.

I don't excuse Sandusky's (and TSM's) behavior. None of us know what was going on in his mind. We do know that he was a touchy feely guy even with adults. We also know that he adopted 6 kids and fostered even more. So I think it's possible that he treated these kids like they were his own. I think it's possible that he would hold a kid up in the shower with no sexual intention. I think that would be a little creepy just like I think it's a little creepy that he would privately wrestle with a young kid. I'm just saying that I think it's possible he sometimes did these things without sexual intent.
 
I recall showering with my father. Nothing traumatic happened so I don't remember much more than that.

I don't excuse Sandusky's (and TSM's) behavior. None of us know what was going on in his mind. We do know that he was a touchy feely guy even with adults. We also know that he adopted 6 kids and fostered even more. So I think it's possible that he treated these kids like they were his own. I think it's possible that he would hold a kid up in the shower with no sexual intention. I think that would be a little creepy just like I think it's a little creepy that he would privately wrestle with a young kid. I'm just saying that I think it's possible he sometimes did these things without sexual intent.
You didn’t mention hugging kids while naked while in the shower, which you certainly wouldn’t do if you weren’t weren’t in a shower. Almost like he created a situation where he could make a (weakly) plausible case for being naked with a kid and hugging them. It’s inexcusable bullshit bgdan, don’t fall for it or excuse it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
You didn’t mention hugging kids while naked while in the shower, which you certainly wouldn’t do if you weren’t weren’t in a shower. Almost like he created a situation where he could make a (weakly) plausible case for being naked with a kid and hugging them. It’s inexcusable bullshit bgdan, don’t fall for it or excuse it.
I don't know how to make myself any more clear. TSM should never have allowed private one on one contact. JS shouldn't have had one on one contact, especially in a PSU facility. Even if there was nothing sexual, JS should have seen scared straight after 1998.

I'm just saying that showering and even hugging a kid in a shower is not 100% proof that he was doing something sexual. It could have been but not necessarily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74 and PSU2UNC
I don't know how to make myself any more clear. TSM should never have allowed private one on one contact. JS shouldn't have had one on one contact, especially in a PSU facility. Even if there was nothing sexual, JS should have seen scared straight after 1998.

I'm just saying that showering and even hugging a kid in a shower is not 100% proof that he was doing something sexual. It could have been but not necessarily.
Right, not 100% proof I agree. But it is far and away the most likely reason for him to be in that situation which is why later claims of sexual abuse by the boys are supported by the behavior.
 
I recall showering with my father. Nothing traumatic happened so I don't remember much more than that.

I don't excuse Sandusky's (and TSM's) behavior. None of us know what was going on in his mind. We do know that he was a touchy feely guy even with adults. We also know that he adopted 6 kids and fostered even more. So I think it's possible that he treated these kids like they were his own. I think it's possible that he would hold a kid up in the shower with no sexual intention. I think that would be a little creepy just like I think it's a little creepy that he would privately wrestle with a young kid. I'm just saying that I think it's possible he sometimes did these things without sexual intent.
TSM history should be a TV series.

It gets good.

In response to FOI requests filed by Ryan Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter and unsuccessful candidate for Penn State trustee, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. released some 1,000 pages of documents from the closed files of The Second Mile probe.

What's the bottom line?

"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."

Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.

"Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said. Two people claim to know about "missing donor money," but nothing else is said about that subject in the rest of the released files.

The documents released by the feds are heavily redacted, but there are many references to Second Mile board members circling the wagons. References were made in the documents to false allegations being made by a "disgruntled mother" and a "disgruntled kid."

The documents are more noticeable for what they don't say. Such as in the issue of jurisdiction involving the Sandusky investigation. If, for example, in their investigation of The Second Mile, if the feds any found any evidence of a federal crime, such as Sandusky crossing state lines with sex abuse victims, "They would have taken it [the investigation] away from the state for prosecution," Snedden said.

"But they [the feds] didn't do any of that," Snedden said after reviewing the documents. "There's no indication they did that."

Instead, the attorney general pursued the Sandusky investigation, and the feds pursued The Second File.

"Sadly, neither focused on political vindictiveness and corruption, which is exactly what happened here," Snedden said.

Snedden has his own experience with a previous secret federal investigation into the Penn State scandal. In 2012, working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, Snedden did a background investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier, to see if Spanier's high level security clearance should be renewed by the government.

As part of that investigation, Snedden investigated whether Spanier had orchestrated a coverup of Sandusky's crimes. Snedden's investigation 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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Right, not 100% proof I agree. But it is far and away the most likely reason for him to be in that situation which is why later claims of sexual abuse by the boys are supported by the behavior.
Especially since, as the kid testified, he wasn't even sweaty, and the "workout" that preceded the shower consisted largely of rolling a ball of athletic tape back and forth. It's almost as if the "workouts" were merely an excuse to get the kid naked and into the shower, while retaining some bare measure of plausible deniability. It worked for him once!
 
Don’t parse it down though bdgan. A “father figure” is not a father. Don’t go down that line of thinking to rationalize it. He was working in a charity for disadvantaged youth. His role should not be confused in any way with being the actual father of any of the kids (except eventually for Matt Sandusky I suppose, and even that wasn’t until he was an adult if I recall correctly). It’s inexcusable.
You bring up a great point here that, if you’re willing to answer, I would love to hear an answer to. You showered with your father. You don’t recall your own father holding you up to a shower head to rinse your hair out but it might have happened. That tells me that if it did happen it likely happened before you were 4 or 5, when memory typically begins. The boy from ‘98 was 11-years old. 11, right in the wheelhouse for the onset of male puberty. And of showers you do recall taking with your own father (blood father?) do you ever recall him initiating a hug or calling you over to share his shower head? Thanks (not leaving for the beach until my daughters get off of work this afternoon, before anybody says I was not going to comment!).
Don't forget that Sandusky turned the showers on before they exercised....to "warm them up". And he suggested they shower after about 10 minutes. So he takes a kid he doesn't know into the gym, they play around for 10 minutes and then he suggests they shower. Definitely innocent.

Oh and he tells him he "loves" him and kisses him on the head. This is only the second time they've ever hung out together one on one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Don't forget that Sandusky turned the showers on before they exercised....to "warm them up". And he suggested they shower after about 10 minutes. So he takes a kid he doesn't know into the gym, they play around for 10 minutes and then he suggests they shower. Definitely innocent.

Oh and he tells him he "loves" him and kisses him on the head. This is only the second time they've ever hung out together one on one.
That’s not mentioning the multiple kids who testified that they saw him get an erection while showering with them. Again, perfectly normal, very above-board stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
That’s not mentioning the multiple kids who testified that they saw him get an erection while showering with them. Again, perfectly normal, very above-board stuff.
Only V4 testified to anything close to that. He's the one who testified about being abused on the shower floor. In addition, he gave information pre-trial about being subject to horrible abuse, including at the Sandusky residence<Amended Bill of Particulars>. At trial<p. 82>, when McGettigan was anxious to ask the what, if anything happened question when he slept over, there was no mention this time of any abuse at the JS residence, only a weird tuck-in ritual. As a reminder, V4 is the V with the police tape recorder being left on and the 16 year old Alamo Bowl kid with same therapist as V1.

I'm all ears if you have any contradictory info @Raffycorn.
 
Don't forget that Sandusky turned the showers on before they exercised....to "warm them up". And he suggested they shower after about 10 minutes. So he takes a kid he doesn't know into the gym, they play around for 10 minutes and then he suggests they shower. Definitely innocent.

Oh and he tells him he "loves" him and kisses him on the head. This is only the second time they've ever hung out together one on one.

This is according to whom? If JS admitted to this, it is pretty damning. Otherwise it’s potentially just another ‘silver convertible’.
 
Only V4 testified to anything close to that. He's the one who testified about being abused on the shower floor. In addition, he gave information pre-trial about being subject to horrible abuse, including at the Sandusky residence<Amended Bill of Particulars>. At trial<p. 82>, when McGettigan was anxious to ask the what, if anything happened question when he slept over, there was no mention this time of any abuse at the JS residence, only a weird tuck-in ritual. As a reminder, V4 is the V with the police tape recorder being left on and the 16 year old Alamo Bowl kid with same therapist as V1.

I'm all ears if you have any contradictory info @Raffycorn.
Victim 5 also specifically testified to Jerry having an erection in the shower. Victim 7 might have, as well, but I’d need to refresh myself on his testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT