I believe the most important factor to consider in deciding if someone is committing an assault is the intent of the potential perpetrator.
With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
I believe the most important factor to consider in deciding if someone is committing an assault is the intent of the potential perpetrator.
I don't think is correct for simple assault. I think the criteria is "unwanted" (by the victim). However, the intent does matter for sexual vs not sexual.
Oh, I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. 100%.
The father figure thing makes no sense though, unless your father showered alone with you and hugged you when you were 11 years old. That’s simply is not something a father does. It’s not something a father figure does. It absolutely is not something a worker with troubled youth does. It absolutely defies all logic, don’t you think?
Was Jerry Sandusky a nudist? I’ve never heard that before. That would at least be the first somewhat reasonable possibility somebody has offered up as an innocent reason for the showering activity.
He doesn't like any answer that doesn't imply Jerry was inflicting harm. The issue has been beaten to death imo.
I claim that JS is not guilty. I believe that he is guilty of poor judgment; however, I am not aware of any credible evidence that demonstrates that JS sexually abused any minors; on the other hand, there is a lot of exculpatory evidence that suggests otherwise.
I agree with you that is was poor judgment on Sandusky's behalf in showering with am on Dec. 29, 2000 in light of the investigation regarding the 1998 incident with zk. I also agree with you that TSM protocols to protect the children under their care were abysmal regarding one on one contact and other areas.
How do you prove intent then? It certainly can’t just be based on the honesty of the alleged perpetrator, can it? Common sense and reason has to play into it, I would think.
Do you agree that it was bad judgement to be showering with the boy in ‘98 and hugging him in the shower?
For simple assault, I believe that both the intent of the potential perp as well as the views of the alleged victim would come into play. If the intent of the potential perp is harmful, I believe that would strongly suggest an assault independent of the views of the victim. However, if the intent of the perp is not harmful and the victim felt they were harmed; I don't believe it is totally clear whether an assault occurred or not.
Fair enough, and Jerry said so himself. Thus the reason it is beyond a reasonable doubt for most person to believe the next episode was just a shower.
I thought I addressed this above and is NOT based on the honesty of the alleged perpetrator. What ancillary data exists contemporaneous with the assault?
For example:
Did the assailant have an erection?
Did the assailant say anything that could be construed as sexual or inappropriate, either before, during or after the assault?
Did the assailant make any guttural/sexual noises before, during or after the assault?
Does the assailant have a history of other instances where a similar assault occurred with one of the above modifiers?
Was the assailant in possession of pornography that would support the idea that this assault was sexually motivated?
Has the assailant ever communicated (perhaps via social media?) their desire to commit such a crime, or that such physical contact is a sexual desire for them?
If yes to any of the above, that points towards that contact being sexual in nature and is up to the jury to decide.
The lack of any of the above does not preclude it from being sexual, but in the absence of evidence, it would be more difficult to prove.
Again, I have no idea if the "shower incident" was sexually motivated or not. I do strongly disagree with your assertion that it must have been because they were naked, alone and in a shower.
I can understand why the jury came to this conclusion in 2012. Today, I believe that most of the people who understand the case the best would come to a different conclusion.
He is not, to my knowledge, a nudist. My point is that you keep saying (paraphrase) "Any time anyone is naked, a hug must be sexual". I provided a point to refute that. I think it is clear that Sandusky did not view nudity the same way you do. I suspect this was a function of growing up around locker rooms in a different era.
I give JS a pass for this but that should have been a wake up call. No excuse the second time even if there was no sexual assault.
MM said the boy came running out of the shower and that he didn't look distressed. I'm pretty sure that a young boy would look distressed if he was forced into anal sex.
Common Sense and the Sandusky trial went the way of the dinosaur from day one. The twists, turns and unbelievable stories that were told on the stand and afterward defies all rationale thinking and logic.
I think I probably view nudity the same way the vast majority of people in the world view it. Group shower after practice, a game, at the gym is reasonable. Alone with an 11-year old and hugging them is not, father figure or not. And Jerry admitted he shouldn’t have done it after the first incident, then continued the behavior.
Fair enough, though I’m guessing if it was your own son you wouldn’t give JS a pass for it.
My father showered with me many times at campsites, at the beach, etc. He didn't help me get clean but I grew up in a functional family and learned that at an early age. My high school coach showered with a couple of us from time to time. He also participated in horsing around. You act like it's outlandish to think two males would go into a communal shower. That was a reasonably common thing at one time.
Again, I'm not saying JS is innocent.
I’ve never said it was unreasonable for two males to share a group shower. Never. But very specifically to Jerry Sandusky, it is not reasonable in any way for a grown man to get into a group shower with one 11-year old boy and hug him. Why people choose the give all these other examples (getting into a group shower with their father who didn’t touch them, sharing a group shower with a coach and other teammates, etc... ) that have nothing to do with what we know Jerry admitted to is baffling to me.
And like you, I am not saying that I know Jerry is guilty. Nobody knows for sure, other than Jerry and the accusers.
I don't remember the hug but that could have been part of horsing around. I recall the 98 incident that he was holding the boy up closer to the shower head to rinse his hair. I have no idea what JS was doing. I'm just saying it might not have been so obvious to everybody that he was sexually assaulting a child.
P.S. I do recall MM saying he saw JS pressed up against a boy to the wall. Of course MM's report seems to have changed over time. I don't believe that JS was raping a boy that night. I think it would be difficult for a 6' tall man to do that to a 4' tall boy from a standing position. Also, MM said the boy wasn't stressed. I guess it's possible that JS was just getting off by rubbing up against the boy and the boy didn't understand anything sexual was occurring. Who knows.
Bottom line is that Dranov, Dad, Joe, Curley, & Shultz all said that MM didn't tell them about sexual assault. That seems pretty exculpatory to me. My guess is that MM heard something that didn't seem right so he reported it. I suspect that he watered it down because he wasn't sure about what was going on. Then later he was pressed for not doing more to stop things on his own that night so he started to embellish his story by saying C&S knew what he was trying to say.
I also think the jury was caught up in the outrage and media hype. I think JS would have had to prove his innocence in order to be found not guilty.
Finally, I think that at least half of the "victims" made up or embellished their stories in order to cash in. No, I don't think JS was raping kids in his home and that Dottie and family stood by and did nothing while they screamed. I think the whole repressed memory therapy thing used by attorneys was a farce.
I do think JS had some boundary issues, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed himself to get caught twice. I have no idea exactly what he did or to how many kids. I just know a lot of things about this case don't pass the smell test.
Taken from a November 9, 2011 CBS News article:
“Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testified to the grand jury Sandusky admitted to him and Schreffler in an interview that he hugged the boy while naked in the shower and that he knew it was wrong.
However, the case was closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decided there would be no criminal charges filed.”
Makes sense to me that at the end of an activity I would want to take a shower just like the kids that participated in whatever the activity was.
What would you want me to do, wait till all the kids get out of the shower before I take a shower. That makes no sense to me.
I played basketball when I was 50 with a bunch of young men at the YMCA. After the game, I took my shower along with them. Doesn’t that make sense.
Based on how this meshes with your opinion, either:
1) Naked hugs in the shower are not necessarily a crime
or
2) Gricar didn't know the law.
or
3) Gricar was corrupt
or
4) Gricar was pressured by someone else to not file charges.
Are there other possibilities to explain no charges files after he admitted doing this that I am missing?
This ^^^^^^^^
The media frenzy and journalistic malpractice over this case, in combination with the illegal actions of the OAG (which were tolerated by the court), meant there was basically zero way Sandusky would get acquitted, short of all the accusers recanting their testimony.
Well, yes. Any reasonable person in that role would wait and take a separate shower or just wait until they get home as it is absolutely inappropriate for a persona working with at-risk youth to shower alone with them. Jerry admitted this according to Lauro in the quote I attached up above.
And your last sentence said it again, and I continue to not get why people can’t grasp the difference between showering with a bunch of people you just played a game with and taking a shower alone with one kid whom you choose to hug during the shower. You showered with ”a bunch of young men” (and I am going to assume you didn’t hug any of them during the shower but you can correct me if I wrong on that assumption) while Jerry showered alone with an 11-year old boy, hugging him in the process.
Last edited:
Because it is very difficult to prove intent? I don’t know, I’m not in the legal or law enforcement field. But if that one singular incident can not result in charges, I would think it provides pretty reasonable intent when a second incident is found to have occurred.
Unfortunately for you and Jerry, a jury is not comprised of "people who understand the case the best". If by astronomical odds he gets a new trial I would be willing to bet the outcome would not significantly change.
Not that it makes a huge difference, but I thought there were 2 boys involved in the case and only one mother raised a stink. I don't blame her, by the way. However, isn't it true that after the case ended in no charges....that not only did Jerry remain close to the young man in question, but the mother often felt comfortable reaching out to Sandusky asking him for favors? Especially tickets for PSU games etc.
Hmmmmmm............. I don’t recall there being two boys but that’s certainly possible.
Jerry remaining close to the boy is a non-factor to me. It’s not uncommon.
Perhaps, but the mother isn't.
Investigation of Sandusky in 1998 Raises Questions (Published 2011)
State prosecutors say a lengthy police report was generated, but questions abound: Who was interviewed? Who received the report?
In that article? I don’t see where it said there was another boy in the shower with them.Perhaps, but the mother isn't.
There was another boy, he was questioned.Investigation of Sandusky in 1998 Raises Questions (Published 2011)
State prosecutors say a lengthy police report was generated, but questions abound: Who was interviewed? Who received the report?www.nytimes.com
It refers to a second boy being interviewed. I can't be one hundred percent sure. I just seem to recall there were 2. Anyway, Lauro says he's seen boundary issues like this before......
How is it a crime 11 years later? LOL
I don’t recall two boys, but who the hell remembers at this point? It would be interesting to see what Lauro would have labeled a second, similar incident 3 or so years later.
Well if it was Alan Myers, he was 14 and living part time with Sandusky. That's why the prosecutors didn't want to name the "little boy in the shower." Like I said earlier.....this isn't about unwanted touching anymore. Sandusky has more than served prison time for that sort of offense. This is about whether people believe he was anally raping kids in his family room. About claimants who changed their stories once money was on the table, manipulated by lawyers who changed the type of sex acts, frequency, locations and dates in order to get the maximum financial settlement.
Its quite a leap from Lauro's boundary issues to life in prison. Too much doesn't add up.
Let's not forget we're talking about a perp who had some health issues in the man junk area as well.
Even if I agree with this statement (not sure I do; if there was no sexual intent the first time why would there be the second time?), doesn't this point to CSS responding correctly? (and I know you haven't been particularly critical of CSS, but others on this thread have).
