I am not really wanting to get sucked down this rabbit hole, but where do you keep getting 10+? Because PSU paid them out?
Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET
- Thread starter JeannieNeedsAShooter
- Start date
No, it has nothing to do with who got paid or even testified. If you want to limit to 8 only that the the state presented, doesn't matter to me.
For a supposed perv since 1998, he had a distinct lack of victims. Something stinks and has.
lack of victims? Did you really just say that? What is the standard norm for victims of assault coming forward? I didn't realize that were a set number of victims and duration that proved the lack of guilt for serial pedophiles. Is it 10 for every decade? 1 a month? Great stuff right there. I'll tap out now after that last one. Wow, just wow.
Lack of victims? Considering the subject matter is such that it's hard to get victims to come forward, I think there have been plenty. I suspect there are several other victims that didn't come forward that are thinking "I'm glad the others came forward and put JS away, I want him punished but I can't put myself through re-living the whole ordeal."
If there were no other reasons to think bad stuff was up and there was only some alleged victims saying something happened then this might be a little more mysterious But a guy that is investigated by the police after showering with a kid and says he wishes he was dead and is told not to do it again continues showing with kids? Doesn't that set off two or 50 alarm bells? The words "uncontrollable compulsion" should immediately flash in your mind when you hear that.
How about a guy that takes kids that age to "work out" and then shower afterwards to begin with? Kids that age don't want to work out on the elliptical or life weights, they play, maybe shoot hoops or pass the football. The work out put was pretty obviously a pretext for having to take a shower. Of all the things he does with a troubled kid to try to make the kid's life better, he has to involve showering? Really? Even any potential abuse aside, I think a kid would be uncomfortable about getting naked with an adult. Did any of you shower as a kid alone with an unrelated adult? I doubt it. I sure as heck didn't.
I've seen a couple people on TV that said JS didn't assault them but when they rode in the car with him he'd drive with his hand on their thigh. Who, other than two adults in a relationship, drives around with their hand on the other persons thigh?
Some people seem to think the lack of a lot of direct evidence mitigates towards innocence. But this isn't a crime people do in public.
The other way to look at this is - how many trials end with the accused simply giving up and admitting "you got me"? You're acting like Sandusky professing his innocence or you finding nits to pick is somehow unprecedented. This is true with almost every conviction.
To play devil's advocate again... at what number of victims does it become credible?
I'm tapping of the loony tunes Jerry is innocent thread, you need to ask ralphie that. Apparently it's a big number.
By the standards of our country, this has already been done. Why do you hate America?
I don't think it is that hard to get victims to come forward when there is a potential 2-3 million dollar settlement on the table. AF was the lone accuser for 2.5 years after the initial complaint. The illegal grand jury leak to Sara Ganim in March, 2011 was an obvious attempt to find more victims and it worked. Sara Ganim has admitted doing the OAG's bidding and going to v6's mother to recruit more victims.
After Penn State fired Paterno and Spanier, and admitted responsibility, it is a wonder than more victims didn't come forward. Penn State has shown a desire to make settlements without doing due diligence that the claims are valid or even if Penn State is culpable (if the Freeh Report is the farce that I suspect it is, Penn State is not culpable).
Regarding JS's behavior in the car, my understanding is a little different than yours. My understanding is that this usually happened when there was a young man in the front passenger seat as well as young men in the back seats. JS would sometime put this right hand on the left knee on the front seat passenger and his right hand would not move from the left knee.
I will acknowledge that JS engaged in behavior that seems inappropriate such as showering with young men and making physical contact with them when there is no other adult present. At the same time, I am not at all convinced that in these situations that he was sexually aroused or he molested anyone.
Last edited:
It's been suggested that Jerry is a "chaste" pedophile. I believe that may be closer to the truth than what the narrative is. But the bottom line is he obviously creeped-out several of the kids enough to raise this shitstorm and, chaste or not, he's still a pedophile.
I don't believe Jerry is a chaste pedophile or any type of pedophile. I don't believe he was sexually aroused when he was around kids and I don't believe he molested any kids.
So they're all just making it up?
ETA: And why do you think he would do things like keep showering with kids even after 1998? Or for that matter, why shower with a kid in the first place? And then lo and behold a bunch of kids say he's abusing them. This stuff doesn't strike you as odd?
ETA Again: SteveMasters, let me ask you a question. What kind of evidence would you need to conclude that someone accused of these crimes was actually guilty of them?
Last edited:
no matter how one feels about JZ personally, you have to admit he has a point that AF is more than willing to call the cops on Ziegler, and threaten his friends on FB, over sharing posts he obviously intended people to see . . . but never once called the police on Sandusky despite allegations of hundreds of attacks, abuse, stalking, putting he and his friends in harm's way, etc . . .
Oh please. Ziegler is absolutely disgraceful with his treatment of AF and other victims. And as for if/when/how AF originally went to the cops or whoever, he was a child being abused and I don't think it's fair to critique the reaction of someone in such a situation to determine whether it was 100% efficient or not.
Newsflash, young people all over are famous for doing silly stuff. The real question is why people like Ziegler spend their time focusing on such meaningless stuff. Of course in his case the reason why is so he can find something to sensationalize, which is his entire M.O. through all of this in case you hadn't noticed.
Believe what? That Ziegler's M.O. is to sensationalize? Yes. That young people do silly stuff? Yes.
What are you driving at? That AF made the whole thing up and that in that pic he's gloating over all the money he got as a result? Really? There's maybe a hundred bucks in that picture. A lot of those bills are ones. And yeah, some people like rolling in money and thinking it's cool. I think it's kinda dumb but I think a lot of things are kinda dumb that other people seem to like. So what?
What are you driving at? That AF made the whole thing up and that in that pic he's gloating over all the money he got as a result? Really? There's maybe a hundred bucks in that picture. A lot of those bills are ones. And yeah, some people like rolling in money and thinking it's cool. I think it's kinda dumb but I think a lot of things are kinda dumb that other people seem to like. So what?
If I were advising AF, I would recommend that he stay off social media and keep his nose clean. It is probably too late. He is in deep. His comments on social media have shown his true colors and I wouldn't be surprised if he is exposed in the not so distant future for some not so subtle threats that he has allegedly made.
Last edited:
The thing is he never denied showering with victim 2. If showering is enough to constitute a crime than I don't see where the prosecution was off base.
It'd be different if Sandusky contested being in the shower with victim 2, he didn't.
I honestly don't think the jury pool was tainted to the point he couldn't receive a fair trial. If that was the case he would've been convicted on every count.
Yeah, I think that would be good advice for AF, but the reality is that he is young and young people do dumb stuff and on top of that he had a troubled youth to begin with and then he had to endure JS's stuff. We shouldn't expect perfect behavior from someone, especially not from someone with the kind of life AF has had. He's someone that's had a rough life trying to get along with things, he's not up for sainthood.
That's a good point. If you want to put a microscope on behavior try turning it towards Ziegler. AF has had a short, rough life and yet he's still exhibited more decency than Ziegler.
What's next, claiming the victims liked it? That's literally where you're headed with this asinine logic.
Sandusky using his position and relationships to get kids naked in a shower because it got him off is 100% a crime on it's own.
Please enlighten me to where I'm wrong?
Stop pretending like there's even an ounce of doubt about what Sandusky is.
Give us proof of "what he is". Don't hand me jury crap or bogus convictions.
Evidence. Not BS.
You don't even know the basic facts of this case. The prosecution was "off base" because they couldn't even produce V2 and V8 yet still brought those cases to trial (all the while there were supposedly dozens of other victims the OAG spoke to that they could have used instead of trying V2 and V8). How can he deny showering with someone the state claims doesn't even exist (that's part of the problem with defending oneself against a crime with no known victim, btw)??
Like it or not, the way the laws in PA and elsewhere are set up --showering with a kid isn't illegal. It's only a crime if it can be PROVEN one is doing it for sexual gratification purposes (hence the reason V6 wasn't prosecuted back in 1998). Even regarding V2, MM said he couldn't see JS's hands or anyone's privates, so how could the state say JS was aroused in the shower or prove JS was taking the shower for gratification purposes? V2, V6, and V8 as stand alone cases never would have even gone to trial let alone resulted in convictions b/c it's really hard to prove someone is taking a shower with a kid for sexual gratification purposes.
I noticed you didn't mention the V8 charges that JS was convicted of.... how convenient. With V8 there was no victim, no witness, and no evidence and the one and only witness told the OAG that JS was NOT the guy he saw that night. Yet, the jury still convicted him on those charges. If this happened to you would you be ok with it?? And you STILL are trying to claim the jury wasn't prejudiced based on the fact JS wasn't convicted on 100% of the charges which is a completely illogical and nonsensical argument. Just b/c JS wasn't convicted of ALL the charges against him doesn't mean the jury wasn't prejudiced, he was still convicted on 45 of 48 counts or whatever it was including charges where there was no victim, no witness, and no evidence. If you don't think that shows the jury was prejudiced then I don't know what to tell you. The V8 convictions, as I've pointed out to you REPEATEDLY are a perfect example of how the jury was prejudiced yet you keep ignoring them and only want to talk about V2.
You refuse to have a logical intellectually honest conversation.
Than why was he showering with kids after he was told to stop?
Why was he blowing on AF's stomach? That's in no way normal behavior between a boy that age and a grown man.
You're just too invested to see the truth. When it finally hits you it's going to be embarrassing.
No I am. You keep coming back to the same nonsense. The victim no one saw anything with? 2 times?
Huh? I'm not sure I follow you ralphieE. My post was in response to L.T. Young claiming JS never denied showering with V2 and if he had denied showering with V2 the case would have been different. I was simply pointing out that since the state was claiming they didn't know who V2 was, how could JS deny showering with an unknown person?
You were going on and on about the illegal leak, if she got it from witnesses it was not illegal. That was my point
