Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET

[mdahmus]

It depends on what your definition of "the authorities" is. IMO C/S/PSU viewed TSM as "the authorities" re: child care being that TSM had JR, a phd in psychology and mandatory reporter, in charge. Curley spoke directly to JR about the incident and PSU's new directives and JR essentially laughed him out of his office. That failure is on JR/TSM not PSU admins.

Only if you expect PSU admins to not be aware of the inherent conflict of interest JR and TSM would have if they ever actually reported the Sandusky incident past TSM.

It does fail the third-grader test, but maybe you're right. Maybe CSS are dumber than a third-grader.

 

[pandaczar12]

I don't know and it's not the point anyway. The point is, people don't typically report anything to anyone re. child abuse unless they think it's for real, especially when the person they're reporting is a respected member of the community.

You assume he reported anything related to child abuse. He could have simply saw Jerry with a kid, nothing happening, but wanting to cover his own ass just in case something ever did happen in the future. Don't overcomplicate things.

 

[WeR0206]

Hasn't MM said that he thought GS *was* law enforcement? Dunno if he really thought that but I think he did say he thought it.

Yes, MM did say that. However, IF in 2001 MM really was certain JS was sodomizing a boy and IF he did view Schultz as "the police" then why didn't he ever ask Schultz or Curley why no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement after MM's initial meeting with C/S? Schultz wasn't a uniformed police officer he was a college ADMIN. Why didn't MM EVER actually speak to a uniformed police officer about the incident and make a statement if he was so sure a sex crime against a child was committed?

If MM was certain in 2001 a kid was getting sodomized/molested why didn't MM express ANY dissatisfaction to Curley when TC called MM a few weeks later to follow up (since no one from UPPD had come to get his statement yet at that point)? Why didn't JM make a big stink of things when he had a convo with Schultz a month or so after the incident??

IMO the reason for this is b/c in 2001 MM wasn't really sure what JS and the kid were doing and felt C/S's action plan of confronting JS, revoking his guest privileges, and informing TSM about the incident and PSU's new directives was suffient enough for MM/JM to feel the matter was handled appropriately and they all went on with their lives for the next 9-10 years.

 

[CDW3333]

It depends on what your definition of "the authorities" is. IMO C/S/PSU viewed TSM as "the authorities" re: child care being that TSM had JR, a phd in psychology and mandatory reporter, in charge. Curley spoke directly to JR about the incident and PSU's new directives and JR essentially laughed him out of his office. That failure is on JR/TSM not PSU admins.

When Curely told MM via phone a few weeks later that they informed TSM about the incident and their new directives that was the same thing as him telling MM that they informed "the authorities". However if MM felt that law enforcement needed to be involved then he was the only person that could do so since he was the one and only witness.

That's not what Schultz testified to

The 1 alarm fire was treated seriously. C/S spoke to PSU counsel, spoke to the witness, and spoke to JS and told him his behavior was wrong and needed to stop and if he didn't agree with their directives they were going to get DPW involved to drive home that message. MM's "allegations" were then reported DIRECTLY to JR at TSM, who were mandatory reporters, had direct control over JS's access to kids, and were legally required to look into any and all incident reports re: one of their employees. Stop trying to claim the PSU admins didn't report the 2001 incident or didn't take it seriously. That's complete and utter bull shit and you know it. The people who didn't report the 2001 incident or take it seriously were JR and others at TSM, not PSU admins.

Also, the ONLY person who could have reported the '01 incident to the cops was MM since, you know, he was the one and only witness...... and he never did so you can't transfer that failure onto C/S. MM didn't even feel compelled to make a written statement to UPPD which is step one in getting JS officially looked into for crying out loud! So without MM making a written statement to UPPD or calling ChildLine the only thing C/S could really do from their end is remove JS's guest privileges and inform TSM --JS's employer, mandatory reporters, and folks with direct control over JS's access to kids, which they did.

MM testified that the above action steps C/S came up with were satisfactory to him and he NEVER communicated to them that he felt more needed to be done. So please explain why C/S should have done more when the one and only witness was satisfied.

Your definition of "seriously." is different than my definition of "seriously."

Buck passing and reporting to persons with conflicts of interest is not handling a matter seriously.

And there was nothing to stop P/C/S/S from reporting the matter to the cops. None-eye witnesses report allegations of child abuse to the police all the time. Every day.

And why didn't anybody tell MM he needed to report this to the police (his argument is that he thought Schultz was the police)?

 

[Op2]

You assume he reported anything related to child abuse. He could have simply saw Jerry with a kid, nothing happening, but wanting to cover his own ass just in case something ever did happen in the future. Don't overcomplicate things.

Really? So MM's thinking was as follows? "JS was a longtime prominent coach here and is a respected member of the community. I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything happening. But despite that and despite the fact that reporting it will at a minimum cause a big fuss at PSU internally and put in the middle of a maelstrom and may even become a national story with negative ramification....despite all that, I'm going to report it anyway, although I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything happening. Oh, and by the way, I'm doing all this in the context of trying to move up the coaching ladder at PSU." Think about it, does that make any sense?

 

[CDW3333]

It depends on what your definition of "the authorities" is. IMO C/S/PSU viewed TSM as "the authorities" re: child care being that TSM had JR, a phd in psychology and mandatory reporter, in charge. Curley spoke directly to JR about the incident and PSU's new directives and JR essentially laughed him out of his office. That failure is on JR/TSM not PSU admins.

When Curely told MM via phone a few weeks later that they informed TSM about the incident and their new directives that was the same thing as him telling MM that they informed "the authorities". However if MM felt that law enforcement needed to be involved then he was the only person that could do so since he was the one and only witness.

Schultz testified that MM's allegations were reported to a "child protection agency" "affiliated with the state" the same agency that "conducted the earlier investigation." (Prelim testimony pp 212-214).

None of that describes TSM. And if he meant TSM, why didn't he just say so?

 

[WeR0206]

That's not what Schultz testified to

Your definition of "seriously." is different than my definotion of "seriously."

Buck passing and reporting to persons with conflicts of interest is not handling a matter seriously.

And there was nothing to stop P/C/S/S from reporting the matter to the cops. None-eye witnesses report allegations of child abuse to the police all the time. Every day.

And why didn't anybody tell MM he needed to report this to the police (his argument is that he thought Schultz was the police)?

Since when were we talking about what Schultz testified to? If in your earlier post you were referencing Schultz testifying about CC CYS (the same agency as 1998) being informed in 2001 then you should have clarified that. Maybe Schultz/Curley did tell MM/JM that CC CYS was informed when they had their follow up convos. If CC CYS was told about 2001 (they were definietly told about 1998) and JS STILL had his access to kids maybe that's why Schultz told JM that JS has been looked into before but there was nothing to sink their teeth into.

Please spare me the conflict of interest bull crap. Talk about hindsight bias! You're now saying that C/S should have ASSUMED that JR would break the law and not look into an incident report regarding one of HIS employees that was brought to his attention. You're argument is pathetically weak, you're now grasping at straws to try and find a way to put these failures onto some college admins.

Also.... Who in Centre County didn't have a conflict of interest with JS? CC CYS, TSM, and CC Judges ALL had a COI re: JS. With that in mind who should C/S have turned to? Seriously....I'm all ears....

All that matters from the PSU admins end is that 1998 and 2001 were reported OUTSIDE of PSU. End of story as far as PSU admins and the supposed "cover up" are concerned in my book. If others dropped the ball after it was reported outside of PSU then that's on them NOT the PSU admins who weren't child care experts or child abuse investigators, etc.

In 2001 the PSU admins had ZERO control or influence over JS and his access to kids. JR/TSM had direct control over these things...no matter how hard to try you can't change this FACT.

 

[WeR0206]

Schultz testified that MM's allegations were reported to a "child protection agency" "affiliated with the state" the same agency that "conducted the earlier investigation." (Prelim testimony pp 212-214).

None of that describes TSM. And if he meant TSM, why didn't he just say so?

Well if CC CYS was made aware of 2001 and then didn't do crap about it, that would explain Schultz's comments to JM a few months later when he said JS was looked into but nothing was found to sink their teeth into or whatever it was he said. We really don't know at this point. This would follow CYS's MO though. From the tutko case we now know that when CYS clears someone once (JS was cleared in 1998 after inappropriate showering) when a repeat claim is made against that same person CYS "screens" those complaints. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what happened when/if CC CYS was made aware of 2001 --it's just a repeat of 1998 --aka no big deal, no action taken against JS or his clearance to work with kids.

It's all speculation. It sure would be nice if the state would stop dragging it's feet and get the C/S/S trials started so that we could finally get some answers now wouldn't it? CSS had filed motions YEARS ago that STILL haven't been ruled on......WTF??

 

[bjf1984]

Schultz testified that MM's allegations were reported to a "child protection agency" "affiliated with the state" the same agency that "conducted the earlier investigation." (Prelim testimony pp 212-214).

None of that describes TSM. And if he meant TSM, why didn't he just say so?

LOL.

Nice to see that the Circle-Jerk Siblings are back from vacation.

Hope you boys had a nice time.

 

[pandaczar12]

Really? So MM's thinking was as follows? "JS was a longtime prominent coach here and is a respected member of the community. I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything happening. But despite that and despite the fact that reporting it will at a minimum cause a big fuss at PSU internally and put in the middle of a maelstrom and may even become a national story with negative ramification....despite all that, I'm going to report it anyway, although I'm pretty sure I didn't see anything happening. Oh, and by the way, I'm doing all this in the context of trying to move up the coaching ladder at PSU." Think about it, does that make any sense?

Again, you make it way too complicated... More like "I don't know what I saw, but as long as I tell someone, I won't get in trouble."

 

[mdahmus]

It sure would be nice if the state would stop dragging it's feet and get the C/S/S trials started

Did the state file all those appeals trying to stop Baldwin from testifying? News to me.

 

[L.T. Young]

"Hey, Alan! It's Friday. If you get your homework done after school, I'll take you to work out at PSU after dinner."

Since the "victim" is on record stating nothing happened, the real question is why do you believe in Sandusky's guilt? If it's because of AF and MM, you might want to consider the source.

I'm not convinced of his innocence either, but I'm sure not convinced of his guilt at this point. Thus, I support a new trial.

That in no way answers why Jerry continued to shower with children after 98.

 

[simons96]

Again, you make it way too complicated... More like "I don't know what I saw, but as long as I tell someone, I won't get in trouble."

unless someone can prove otherwise:

Mike never said he definitively saw molestation
Mike did not immediately go to the cops
Neither Mike's Dad nor Dr Dranov told him to go to the cops
Joe Paterno did not tell him to go to the cops
Tim Curley, gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier did not feel it warranted a police report
Jack Raykovitz did not report it to the police
Mike was never told he could NOT EVER report what he saw to the police
Sandusky denied anything sexual happened
The person we assume was the "victim" has never, under oath or otherwise, said he was molested
The person we assume was the "victim" went to Sandusky's attorney and made a statement nothing sexual happened
BTW, should I mention again even the OAG conceded C/S/S did nothing illegal in 2001 by not reporting what they were told??

sounds like a full blown barn fire to me. People can be pretty stupid at times.

 

[indynittany]

That in no way answers why Jerry continued to shower with children after 98.

He didn't see anything wrong with that. And there wasn't. It certainly wasn't illegal.

If you look at Schultz's notes he didn't say JS should never shower with TSM kids. He said:

"1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d"

"Alone" is the key word there. Schultz knew the biggest concern was a 'he said/he said' scenario in which a repeat of '98 occurred, but next time (Not 2001. 2001 was only a wake up call.) an actual accusation of CSA might be made. A lawsuit against JS and TSM would certainly drag PSU into it because the university had the deepest pockets.

The entire focus of what C/S/S were doing in 2001 was prevention. That's why Spanier said, "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."

If/then. If Jerry doesn't get the message, and a subsequent incident occurs, they might then become vulnerable. Spanier wasn't at all concerned about the incident in 2001 itself. He was only concerned should another one occur. Thus, they rescinded Jerry's guest privileges and informed the TSM of the incident as well as their directive. This was the appropriate response to what MM reported.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

It's clear that MM was upset and weirded out by what he saw in the 3 second glimpse through a shower mirror that night, however apparently it wasn't bad enough for him to call UPPD that night or EVER make a written statement to UPPD (or ask C/S why no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement) so a criminal investigation could get started.

Also, when Curley called MM a few weeks later to follow up and communicate PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction, never said the police needed to be involved, and never said MORE needed to be done. To me this speaks VOLUMES. It tells me that MM was weirded out but wasn't CERTAIN that molestation/abuse was taking place and C/S's action plan of removing JS's guest privileges, telling him his inappropriate showering behavior was wrong/needed to stop, and informing TSM about the incident and PSU's new directives was sufficient enough for him, the one and only witness. It also tells me that MM's 2010 version to OAG/PSP where he claims he was CERTAIN JS was abusing a kid that night and reported it as such in 2001 is B.S. revisionist history.

I do agree with you that JS continuing to shower with kids after being explicitly told not to by LE/DPW is troubling and points to his guilt on some of the charges, however C/S were NOT aware of this directive JS received in 1998 (see Harmon's testimony) so there wouldn't be any "alarms going off" in their heads after they were made aware of 2001. Also in 1998 JS didn't even get his ChildLine clearance to work with kids revoked so you have to keep that in mind as well. LE/DPW pretty much told everyone in 1998, including JS himself, that it was all no big deal, nothing to see here, etc....If LE/DPW really did think JS was a potential molester/etc. but just didn't have enough evidence to criminally prosecute you'd think they would have at least revoked his clearance to work with kids right? But nope....never happened.

Since PSU was told by LE/DPW/CYS EXPERTS that 1998 (naked bear hug from behind in the shower) was no big deal you'd have to think that would have influenced how PSU handled 2001.

show me where anybody used the words the 1998 incident was no big deal.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

He didn't see anything wrong with that. And there wasn't. It certainly wasn't illegal.

If you look at Schultz's notes he didn't say JS should never shower with TSM kids. He said:

"1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d"

"Alone" is the key word there. Schultz knew the biggest concern was a 'he said/he said' scenario in which a repeat of '98 occurred, but next time (Not 2001. 2001 was only a wake up call.) an actual accusation of CSA might be made. A lawsuit against JS and TSM would certainly drag PSU into it because the university had the deepest pockets.

The entire focus of what C/S/S were doing in 2001 was prevention. That's why Spanier said, "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."

If/then. If Jerry doesn't get the message, and a subsequent incident occurs, they might then become vulnerable. Spanier wasn't at all concerned about the incident in 2001 itself. He was only concerned should another one occur. Thus, they rescinded Jerry's guest privileges and informed the TSM of the incident as well as their directive. This was the appropriate response to what MM reported.

no it was not the appropriate response. with some of the administrators having knowledge of the 1998 incident that should have sent off the bells and whistles. for them to make a call that should have been made by the authorities was a big mistake. I can't see how anybody can say they did the right thing when the whole reason this thing started was they didn't contact the right people to make that choice. they did not protect the university.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

He didn't have to make anything up. We know that Joe praised him for coming to see him.

he saw something and was upset enough to bring it to Coach Paterno and meet with curly about it. the administrator's blew it. he was convicted on I believe 48 of 51 counts. I might have the number wrong but that is a lot of counts to be convicted of. just think how hard it is to get that many jurists to agree on one thing let alone 48 things.

 

[SEPATOPTEN]

QUOTE="Op2, post: 307896, member: 10296"]Shortly after it became public knowledge that he saw something, he lost his job. If the whole event became public shortly after he reported it he probably wouldn't have lost his job but it would have been a big mess for PSU football and he would have been part of it because of what he saw. In terms of his career the last thing he wanted to get caught up in was a scandal, even if he was involved merely as a witness.[/QUOTE]MM did not want this as you say. I guess everybody was incompetent here huh the judge, prosecutors, the defense attorney. please. I don't buy that this guy is innocent. I know one thing if people accuse me of what he was accused of I certainly wouldn't be this docile guy that Sandusky became. I would be screaming from the rooftops I that I am innocent and I never touched those kids inappropriately.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

no it was not the appropriate response. with some of the administrators having knowledge of the 1998 incident that should have sent off the bells and whistles. for them to make a call that should have been made by the authorities was a big mistake. I can't see how anybody can say they did the right thing when the whole reason this thing started was they didn't contact the right people to make that choice. they did not protect the university.

Everyone played that day after QB for sure, but we do not know exactly what they knew. We don't know how MM presented it. We now know for certain they didn't escalate this the way they should have. No doubt about that, but how was it presented to them? I'm sure to a man similar to Joe with the benefit of hind site they wish they had all acted differently.

The problem is MM didn't call the cops. A doctor who knew the reporting laws and MM's Dad didn't see the need to call the police. Instead they called a football coach. That part has always baffled me and still does to this day. Mistakes were made all along the way and we'll have to see what they have to say when and if they finally get their day in court.

People messed up, but it really was a modern day witch hunt at the time due to the nature of Jerry's crimes which were disgusting. Blaming MM, Joe, and the admin was easy to do at the time and it could turn out to be warranted someday, you never know. The bottom line is a sick individual molested countless children and thankfully that sick SOB will die in jail. I get people love to talk about who knew what and when, but I'm kind of just tired of the poor ole Jerry crowd on here. I just shake my head at them anymore as it's kind of sad since nothing concrete has surfaced at all indicating the wrong man is in jail.

 

[indynittany]

...We now know for certain they didn't escalate this the way they should have....

How do we know that? Why do you even think that? Everybody at the time thought it was handled just fine. So do I.

 

[simons96]

How do we know that? Why do you even think that? Everybody at the time thought it was handled just fine. So do I.

they did not think Sandusky was a child molester because they were not told that.

hey, not to sound like a broken record, but do you realize the OAG which is currently charging C/S/S concedes they did nothing illegal in 2001?? I know I keep saying that, but it seems like all the naysayers and dimwits never respond to that.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

How do we know that? Why do you even think that? Everybody at the time thought it was handled just fine. So do I.

And people were wrong which happens. I also said we don't know how it was presented to them so that may be why it wasn't escalated properly. If you feel no possible mistakes were made, have at it. I'm not saying they were intentional or malicious. They got caught up in the witch hunt.

 

[Misder2]

they did not think Sandusky was a child molester because they were not told that.

hey, not to sound like a broken record, but do you realize the OAG which is currently charging C/S/S concedes they did nothing illegal in 2001?? I know I keep saying that, but it seems like all the naysayers and dimwits never respond to that.

I get the feeling you can see both the forest and the trees

 

[pandaczar12]

with some of the administrators having knowledge of the 1998 incident that should have sent off the bells and whistles

You're using the benefit of hindsight. Logically, if they knew about 1998, they knew it was a false alarm. Having that knowledge in 2001 would lead one to believe that 2001 was also a false alarm.

 

[simons96]

You're using the benefit of hindsight. Logically, if they knew about 1998, they knew it was a false alarm. Having that knowledge in 2001 would lead one to believe that 2001 was also a false alarm.

if they knew WHAT about 98?? I doubt Curley or Paterno even knew any details, considering the law at the time. Schultz may have been given the Reader's Digest version of events. But in all likelihood all they knew was Sandusky had been investigated and cleared, no charges filed. It is funny how people will cite Clemente, but ignore the part of his report that says Sandusky groomed the community to accept seeing him around all these boys. Thousands of them. one or 2 (for all they knew) might not feel 100% comfortable with his goofiness, for all they knew.

I think the WORST I could ever say about the PSU admins inre 2001 is they really were not sure what to do, and were not qualified to investigate or evaluate what they were told. So they did 2 prudent things: spoke with counsel, and informed Sandusky's employer. why is this such a hard thing to fathom for the dimwits who insist they screwed up?

 

[Misder2]

if they knew WHAT about 98?? I doubt Curley or Paterno even knew any details, considering the law at the time. Schultz may have been given the Reader's Digest version of events. But in all likelihood all they knew was Sandusky had been investigated and cleared, no charges filed. It is funny how people will cite Clemente, but ignore the part of his report that says Sandusky groomed the community to accept seeing him around all these boys. Thousands of them. one or 2 (for all they knew) might not feel 100% comfortable with his goofiness, for all they knew.

I think the WORST I could ever say about the PSU admins inre 2001 is they really were not sure what to do, and were not qualified to investigate or evaluate what they were told. So they did 2 prudent things: spoke with counsel, and informed Sandusky's employer. why is this such a hard thing to fathom for the dimwits who insist they screwed up?

Isn't the claim that they obstructed in 2010 not 2001?

 

[simons96]

Isn't the claim that they obstructed in 2010 not 2001?

I mean in regards to the failure to report charge. People overlook what the OAG actually alleges.

 

[Misder2]

I mean in regards to the failure to report charge. People overlook what the OAG actually alleges.

I 100% agree with that. That charge was intended solely to incite emotions, and it worked.

 

[L.T. Young]

He didn't see anything wrong with that. And there wasn't. It certainly wasn't illegal.

If you look at Schultz's notes he didn't say JS should never shower with TSM kids. He said:

"1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d"

"Alone" is the key word there. Schultz knew the biggest concern was a 'he said/he said' scenario in which a repeat of '98 occurred, but next time (Not 2001. 2001 was only a wake up call.) an actual accusation of CSA might be made. A lawsuit against JS and TSM would certainly drag PSU into it because the university had the deepest pockets.

The entire focus of what C/S/S were doing in 2001 was prevention. That's why Spanier said, "The only downside for us is if our message is not “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."

If/then. If Jerry doesn't get the message, and a subsequent incident occurs, they might then become vulnerable. Spanier wasn't at all concerned about the incident in 2001 itself. He was only concerned should another one occur. Thus, they rescinded Jerry's guest privileges and informed the TSM of the incident as well as their directive. This was the appropriate response to what MM reported.

98 made it crystal clear that showering alone with children was wrong regardless of what he thought.

He was confronted by police, child protective services, and a parent all saying the same thing "Don't shower alone with children, it's wrong".

You really think that didn't drive the point home? Of course not, because everyone is out to get saint Jerry.

Ziegler is a moron. That last Facebook picture was taken to taunt him and he's too stupid to realize it.

Let me ask you a question, would you let your 11year old son shower alone with Sandusky?

 

[L.T. Young]

Dp

 

[WeR0206]

Isn't the claim that they obstructed in 2010 not 2001?

The state's claim is that CSS didn't break the FTR law in 2001 but when the law changed in 2007 the admins should have somehow been aware of that and after that date it was an ongoing failure to report.

However for the failure to report charge to have merit CSS would have had to of done something that prevented a report from being made. How exactly did CSS prevent a report from being made by telling the mandatory reporters at TSM in 2001 who were professionally and legally required to look into any and all incident reports? The state has no case and they know it.

One of the other claims by the state is that CSS obstructed in 2010-2011 re: subpoenas but Baldwin was the person who was obstructing and not properly responding to the subpoenas. Hence her proffer letter with the OAG

 

[Misder2]

The state's claim is that CSS didn't break the FTR law in 2001 but when the law changed in 2007 the admins should have somehow been aware of that and after that date it was an ongoing failure to report.

However for the failure to report charge to have merit CSS would have had to of done something that prevented a report from being made. How exactly did CSS prevent a report from being made by telling the mandatory reporters at TSM in 2001 who were professionally and legally required to look into any and all incident reports? The state has no case and they know it.

One of the other claims by the state is that CSS obstructed in 2010-2011 re: subpoenas but Baldwin was the person who was obstructing and not properly responding to the subpoenas. Hence her proffer letter with the OAG

I understand all that and essentially agree.

There really remains only one question left for me, did C/S collude in their story of 01 and did they do so in the presence of or with the blessing of Baldwin? That seems to be where this is all leading. (I still believe Spanier was indicted to shut him up) Or were C/S forthright in their testimony regarding McQueary's report?

My point was that's all 2010/11, no crimes were committed by CSS in 2001, that was all.

 

[pandaczar12]

Let me ask you a question, would you let your 11year old son shower alone with Sandusky?

That question is irrelevant. I wouldn't send my kids off with a stranger, they would never be in that situation to need a shower. If you know where your kids are, they aren't in the shower with a stranger!

Victim #2 was definitely older than 11, I believe he was 14, but don't let that get in the way of making your point.

 

[toddbrewster]

98 made it crystal clear that showering alone with children was wrong regardless of what he thought.
Ziegler is a moron. That last Facebook picture was taken to taunt him and he's too stupid to realize it.

LT, if you think Ziegler is a moron, please tell him that on his FB posting with a specific. I would love to see how long your ignorant posts like everyone made it crystal clear to Jerry lasts against the facts. Please do, you may learn something.

 

[indynittany]

98 made it crystal clear that showering alone with children was wrong regardless of what he thought.

He was confronted by police, child protective services, and a parent all saying the same thing "Don't shower alone with children, it's wrong".

You really think that didn't drive the point home? Of course not, because everyone is out to get saint Jerry.

Ziegler is a moron. That last Facebook picture was taken to taunt him and he's too stupid to realize it.

Let me ask you a question, would you let your 11year old son shower alone with Sandusky?

With the benefit of hindsight, the obvious answer is 'no'. But I still stress it's the 'alone' part that gave C/S/S the most concern. Not because they thought JS was molesting anyone, but because given the sheer number of kids JS dealt with through TSM, his behavior was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

You call JZ a moron, but he's making an important point. If AF falsely accused JS of abuse, and that appears to be a very real possibility, the entire case against JS takes on a whole new look. I understand why the powers that be want to avoid giving JS a new trial at all costs, but I sure think he deserves one.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

With the benefit of hindsight, the obvious answer is 'no'. But I still stress it's the 'alone' part that gave C/S/S the most concern. Not because they thought JS was molesting anyone, but because given the sheer number of kids JS dealt with through TSM, his behavior was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

You call JZ a moron, but he's making an important point. If AF falsely accused JS of abuse, and that appears to be a very real possibility, the entire case against JS takes on a whole new look. I understand why the powers that be want to avoid giving JS a new trial at all costs, but I sure think he deserves one.

No. JZ has a group of ears wishing it weren't true so they want to believe him. Jerry molested kids and JZ can't walk that back by attacking the victims. No matter how hard people wish that it is the case. Nobody wants to give him a new trial because it is a waste of time and money.

Can Brown committed!!!!! Good day ahead for PSU!!!!

 

[indynittany]

No. JZ has a group of ears wishing it weren't true so they want to believe him. Jerry molested kids and JZ can't walk that back by attacking the victims. No matter how hard people wish that it is the case. Nobody wants to give him a new trial because it is a waste of time and money.

Can Brown committed!!!!! Good day ahead for PSU!!!!

We'll just have to disagree. But I think you're being disingenuous by not acknowledging the extent to which those most adamantly against a new trial would be ruined professionally if he was to be found 'not guilty'. If Sandusky walked, heads would roll.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

We'll just have to disagree. But I think you're being disingenuous by not acknowledging the extent to which those most adamantly against a new trial would be ruined professionally if he was to be found 'not guilty'. If Sandusky walked, heads would roll.

He is not disingenuous, he is obtuse!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

He is not disingenuous, he is obtuse!

Oh you poor dear. Santa isn't real and JZ preys on the easy minds. Dope.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

We'll just have to disagree. But I think you're being disingenuous by not acknowledging the extent to which those most adamantly against a new trial would be ruined professionally if he was to be found 'not guilty'. If Sandusky walked, heads would roll.

The problem is he is guilty. That kind of blows up that theory.