Ziegler WRSC 8/19

[Adlee73]

Way too many unanswered questions with regards to oversight from Dr. Jack Raykovitz and the Second Mile.

Let's put it this way - you're Raykovitz - and the University is on your doorstep complaining about your Founder & charity Figurehead's behavior with a youth on campus. A behavior that, AT THE VERY MINIMUM, could be a charge of Indecent Exposure if it were escalated. Your charity has (let's call it what it is) a parasitic relationship with that University and depends on the good will and volunteer base coming from that institution to survive.

Do you really want your childrens' charity to go down the tubes if it was plastered across the papers that your Founder & Figurehead has a habit of "exposing himself to minors"?

No.

Rather than suggesting Jerry wear "swim trunks" the next time - you haul his ass into that conference room and lay into to him THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S GONNA BE FROM NOW ON BUDDY.

No One on One contact with TSM kids. No little jaunts to campus after hours for "work out" sessions with TSM minors unless it's an approved TSM group outing with another counselor. No toodling off to a TSM minor's home in the next county without approval thru TSM offices and proper paperwork on file. No individual "sleepovers" with TSM kids. No gifts or football tickets to TSM kids, unless they are arranged thru TSM offices. No personal contact with a TSM kid on the phone, email or in person unless it's via approved TSM channels and for approved TSM programming. No TSM youths monkeying around on equipment designed for elite, adult, college athletes.

Most importantly - KEEP YOUR CLOTHES ON and KEEP YOUR HANDS & LIPS TO YOURSELF.

This is just a few of the things that could have easily been implemented by Dr. Jack Raykovitz to ensure all adults and kids were protected.

Now I have to ask - if Jerry was conducting himself around teen girls this way - NO ONE would declare him innocent. I fail to see why, since these are males, that it's somehow OK. It's not. They are someone else's kids.

Anyone that has ever been sexually groomed, manipulated, had the mind games played on them, the gifts & the money, the secrets & "contracts", the flattery & special attention, etc - plyed to them from a person of status, power & position can understand the dynamics that Jerry was using. These people are good - they cruise along the edge of plausible deniability when people start asking questions and easily spin it onto the weaker individual. In this case, it's at-risk youth from dysfunctional families, how much weaker can you get?

Dr. Raykovitz should have recognized this (potentially) felonious behavior and addressed it. He & a few others had a duty of care to those clients and to keep Jerry on a short leash. Simply blows my mind that these people have skated.

Hi Wen. ✋
The thing about Raykovitz is his training had to make him aware that if JS was a pedo it could only end one way. With that in mind if Jack is sure Jerry is a pedo it only seems logical he'd get out of Dodge before it all blew up. But it's clear very few people, even those trained in detecting pedophiles, thought Jerry was a pedo until the Grand Jury investigation. I'm not buying Jack would stay around for $$$ nor do I think fear of being outed as a swinger would do the trick. I still believe it's far more likely Jack did believe Jerry wasn't a pedo whether it was rational or through denial. My biggest problem with TSM is there were far too many people unqualified to run a children's charity calling the shots at the 2nd Mile. So I blame Raykovitz somewhat for not standing up & saying "Hey I'm the expert Bruce/Bob, you need to let me lay down the rules".
Anyway that's my current take on Jack Raykovitz.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Yeah, all 8 testified after Shubin, their lawyer, coerced them for the big Penn State payday.

That doesn't mean they lied and it's a pretty big/bad assumption to make with no proof. They all lied, that was it. They all hated mean JS so much that they made it up to get paid.

 

[simons96]

Hi Wen. ✋
The thing about Raykovitz is his training had to make him aware that if JS was a pedo it could only end one way. With that in mind if Jack is sure Jerry is a pedo it only seems logical he'd get out of Dodge before it all blew up. But it's clear very few people, even those trained in detecting pedophiles, thought Jerry was a pedo until the Grand Jury investigation. I'm not buying Jack would stay around for $$$ nor do I think fear of being outed as a swinger would do the trick. I still believe it's far more likely Jack did believe Jerry wasn't a pedo whether it was rational or through denial. My biggest problem with TSM is there were far too many people unqualified to run a children's charity calling the shots at the 2nd Mile. So I blame Raykovitz somewhat for not standing up & saying "Hey I'm the expert Bruce/Bob, you need to let me lay down the rules".
Anyway that's my current take on Jack Raykovitz.

you may be correct. but what IS clear is Raykovitz ignored state mandated protocol for suspecting Sandusky MIGHT be exhibiting questionable behavior. and that Raykovitz was far more qualified, and far more informed, and far more imbued with legal responsibility from the state . . . to make that assessment as opposed to the fall guys at PSU. yet he has somehow escaped both the criminal justice system AND media scrutiny.

 

[NonJohnchuck]

Well, a young man in their early 20's bought a new house & cars, and even 2 nice cars for Mom after coming into $3M. Obviously this is unusual. No pro athlete or actor ever did that.

Oh and another newly rich young man has a large home & no trespassing signs up. This is clear proof that the money was obtained fraudulently. Because it's absolutely unheard of for legitimately rich people to put up no tresspassing signs.

Awaiting the news of someone "close" to AF who's "flipped". Is it going to be another ex girlfriend? A non-friend who is bitter that they didnt get help with their medical bills? Still waiting for an actual "friend" or relative to "flip"

 

[bjf1984]

Hi Wen. ✋
The thing about Raykovitz is his training had to make him aware that if JS was a pedo it could only end one way. With that in mind if Jack is sure Jerry is a pedo it only seems logical he'd get out of Dodge before it all blew up. But it's clear very few people, even those trained in detecting pedophiles, thought Jerry was a pedo until the Grand Jury investigation. I'm not buying Jack would stay around for $$$ nor do I think fear of being outed as a swinger would do the trick. I still believe it's far more likely Jack did believe Jerry wasn't a pedo whether it was rational or through denial. My biggest problem with TSM is there were far too many people unqualified to run a children's charity calling the shots at the 2nd Mile. So I blame Raykovitz somewhat for not standing up & saying "Hey I'm the expert Bruce/Bob, you need to let me lay down the rules".
Anyway that's my current take on Jack Raykovitz.

The number of things you are unaware of/ignoring in your post would fill a book

 

[pandaczar12]

Wrong, 8 victims testified to what Jerry did. That is 8 eye witnesses and the ones that actually were molested. There is very little doubt JS molested children to anyone not wishing this all was just a bad dream for PSU. His theories can't discount every witness and in fact all he can do is say one of the victims didn't grow up a model citizen which means next to nothing. 8 victims testifying what the man did is not a weak case by and stretch and why he was convicted. I know a few of you would follow JZ off the cliff if it meant this all would be reversed, but it's not going to happen. Focus on taking down the BoT and finding the real truth there as that is where there is some real smoke.

So many people think the sheer number of victims means he is guilty. The question none of them will answer is.... How many victims does it take to make someone guilty? If it was 3, would he still be guilty?

I ask simply as "devil's advocate", not because I think he is innocent.

 

[Adlee73]

The number of things you are unaware of/ignoring in your post would fill a book

Like what exactly? Educate me.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So many people think the sheer number of victims means he is guilty. The question none of them will answer is.... How many victims does it take to make someone guilty? If it was 3, would he still be guilty?

I ask simply as "devil's advocate", not because I think he is innocent.

His actions and the number of victims alone are enough. There is no set number in the criminal just system and each case is different. Why do people think there are blanket rules and that every case is the same?

 

[pandaczar12]

His actions and the number of victims alone are enough. There is no set number in the criminal just system and each case is different. Why do people think there are blanket rules and that every case is the same?

No one every said that there are blanket rules and that every case is the same. For this case, considering his actions, what number of victims is enough to convince you of his guilt? This time a number without the dodging. Would you think he was guilty if it was 2 victims, considering his actions?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

No one every said that there are blanket rules and that every case is the same. For this case, considering his actions, what number of victims is enough to convince you of his guilt? This time a number without the dodging. Would you think he was guilty if it was 2 victims, considering his actions?

No, the number is 8 and you want to dodge that number I guess. That is the number in this case. No need for the hypotheticals. It was 8 young boys, not 1 or 2. Not 4. Why the need to change the number?

 

[JeannieNeedsAShooter]

are we counting the fictitious janitor "victim"? We know that these accusers were prodded to come forward by Sara Ganim and Fisher's mom and told that there were other victims who had already given testimony saying they were molested by Sandusky. Remember the tape left on where the investigator basically tells the accuser what to say? Then the cop lying on the stand. The prosecution's most credible witness was Fisher and McQueary episode, both of which can be picked apart very easily.

 

[pandaczar12]

No, the number is 8. That is the number in this case. No need for the hypotheticals. It was 8 young boys, not 1 or 2. Not 4.

If it was 0, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 1, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 2, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 3, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 4, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 5, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 6, would you still think he is guilty?
If it was 7, would you still think he is guilty?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It is 8!
Not 7.
Not 6.
Not 5.
Not 4.
Not 3.
Not 2.
Not 1.

 

[pandaczar12]

It is 8!
Not 7.
Not 6.
Not 5.
Not 4.
Not 3.
Not 2.
Not 1.

It's very odd that you (and others) so readily cite the number of victims as proof he is guilty, but can't seem to quantify what number of victims it requires to make him guilty. At least give a range... or maybe stop using the number of victims as proof of his guilt. Maybe his actions alone are enough to think he is guilty.

What if one victim changes his story, and the number became 7? Would you still feel the same way?

 

[simons96]

I feel like I am reading a Dr Seuss book . . . panda has a point. The number of victims cannot both be proof that Sandusky is guilty and also irrelevant.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It's very odd that you (and others) so readily cite the number of victims as proof he is guilty, but can't seem to quantify what number of victims it requires to make him guilty. At least give a range... or maybe stop using the number of victims as proof of his guilt. Maybe his actions alone are enough to think he is guilty.

What if one victim changes his story, and the number became 7? Would you still feel the same way?

Not odd at all. Odd is making up what ifs in hope he is somehow innocent. I'm dealing with what happened. Odd how that needs to be changed up. Only an idiot would say the number of victims is meaningless.

 

[pandaczar12]

Not odd at all. Odd is making up what ifs in hope he is somehow innocent. I'm dealing with what happened. Odd how that needs to be changed up. Only an idiot would say the number of victims is meaningless.

I'm surprised it took you this many replies to claim I think he is innocent. Couldn't be further from the truth. That seems to be the fallback tactic for those who can't support their own opinions.

I've never said the number of victims is meaningless, but I see you'd rather call me names than answer a simple question. Since it is obvious that you think the number of victims is not meaningless, then you must be able to answer my question. Waiting for a number. I don't understand why this is so hard.

If you wanted to buy a house, and you constantly cited the number of bedrooms as being an important factor in your decision, I would expect you could tell me the minimum number you required to come to your decision.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I'm surprised it took you this many replies to claim I think he is innocent. Couldn't be further from the truth. That seems to be the fallback tactic for those who can't support their own opinions.

I've never said the number of victims is meaningless, but I see you'd rather call me names than answer a simple question. Since it is obvious that you think the number of victims is not meaningless, then you must be able to answer my question. Waiting for a number. I don't understand why this is so hard.

If you wanted to buy a house, and you constantly cited the number of bedrooms as being an important factor in your decision, I would expect you could tell me the minimum number you required to come to your decision.

If you thought he was truly guilty, you wouln't try to change the facts. I'm talking about what actually occurred, not your meaningless hypothetical. The fact is 8 people testified that they were abused by Jerry.

Now if you followed along in this thread someone tried to say MM was the only eye witness which is a blatant lie. If you can actually prove they all lied, have at it. To date the only thing people have said is AF is shady. So are prostitutes, but it still counts if they get raped.

 

[pandaczar12]

If you thought he was truly guilty, you wouln't try to change the facts. I'm talking about what actually occurred, not your meaningless hypothetical. The fact is 8 people testified that they were abused by Jerry.

Now if you followed along in this thread someone tried to say MM was the only eye witness which is a blatant lie. If you can actually prove they all lied, have at it. To date the only thing people have said is AF is shady. So are prostitutes, but it still counts if they get raped.

I didn't try to change the facts, and I'm talking about what actually occurred. You keep trying to deflect, by insinuating I don't think he is guilty... that says a lot about you. It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer. What are you afraid of? You can put some logic behind you opinion and have it still be valid. Some of us don't want to base our opinions on emotion.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I didn't try to change the facts, and I'm talking about what actually occurred. You keep trying to deflect, by insinuating I don't think he is guilty... that says a lot about you. It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer. What are you afraid of? You can put some logic behind you opinion and have it still be valid. Some of us don't want to base our opinions on emotion.

Some don't want to use the facts is more like it. Their emotions over Joe and the school being hurt by Jerry make them a bit delusional when it comes to Jerry's guilt. It's very odd that you agree he is guilty but have issues with me stating it for some reason. I don't mind usually when others agree with me.

 

[marshall23]

I have read a variety of posts that claim that there were dozens of victims just waiting in the wings to testify. This is usually part of the "they can't all be lying" argument.
I can't help but be just a little skeptical. Jerry allegedly preyed on disadvantaged kids. So it is no stretch to believe these boys, now young men with state police telling them that there are many others and PSU waving fortunes.........Does anyone really think victims are hard to find?
Also, with dozens of sworn victims, doesn't it seem strange that the OAG would use the crying janitor, MM and even Matt Sandusky (as a threat to keep JS from testifying).
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a lot of sympathy for JS. If not a ped, he does seem to have a knack for doing creepy things. There are, at least for me, some things that keep me scratching my head.

 

[aferrelli]

Goo

I have read a variety of posts that claim that there were dozens of victims just waiting in the wings to testify. This is usually part of the "they can't all be lying" argument.
I can't help but be just a little skeptical. Jerry allegedly preyed on disadvantaged kids. So it is no stretch to believe these boys, now young men with state police telling them that there are many others and PSU waving fortunes.........Does anyone really think victims are hard to find?
Also, with dozens of sworn victims, doesn't it seem strange that the OAG would use the crying janitor, MM and even Matt Sandusky (as a threat to keep JS from testifying).
Don't get me wrong. I don't have a lot of sympathy for JS. If not a ped, he does seem to have a knack for doing creepy things. There are, at least for me, some things that keep me scratching my head.

Good point Marshall. I think that I might be a victim too. I believe that I may have stood next to Jerry once, a long, long time ago.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

LaJolla make lots of assertions that he cannot back up. He nominated me as a member of the "Free Jerry Brigade" but still hasn't produced evidence that I ever said JS is innocent. It is his fallback when he cannot argue with logic. The PC crowd has used the general public's disdain for child mole station to silence any discussion regarding ANY or ALL of the malfeasance that has occurred in this fiasco.

 

[L.T. Young]

I didn't try to change the facts, and I'm talking about what actually occurred. You keep trying to deflect, by insinuating I don't think he is guilty... that says a lot about you. It's a simple question, requiring a simple answer. What are you afraid of? You can put some logic behind you opinion and have it still be valid. Some of us don't want to base our opinions on emotion.

If you believe he's guilty what the hell are you arguing about?

You can't post non-stop about the victims being liars, the witnesses not being credible, and the prosecution being unlawful without choosing a side.

To quote The Counselor- If you think you can live in this world and be no part of it, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

 

[Fox Chapel Lion II]

Hi Wen. ✋
The thing about Raykovitz is his training had to make him aware that if JS was a pedo it could only end one way. With that in mind if Jack is sure Jerry is a pedo it only seems logical he'd get out of Dodge before it all blew up. But it's clear very few people, even those trained in detecting pedophiles, thought Jerry was a pedo until the Grand Jury investigation. I'm not buying Jack would stay around for $$$ nor do I think fear of being outed as a swinger would do the trick. I still believe it's far more likely Jack did believe Jerry wasn't a pedo whether it was rational or through denial. My biggest problem with TSM is there were far too many people unqualified to run a children's charity calling the shots at the 2nd Mile. So I blame Raykovitz somewhat for not standing up & saying "Hey I'm the expert Bruce/Bob, you need to let me lay down the rules".
Anyway that's my current take on Jack Raykovitz.

You're giving Rayko way too free of a pass. When it came right down to it, TSM was pretty small potatoes. They were a rinky-dink $10MM charity. Of course they had a very high profile and a lot of star power, but they were still small time.

Out of this, Jack and his wife (Catherine Genovese; a fellow Director and officer of TSM) were pulling down between them somewhere in the neighborhood of $400k/yr. Their salaries had increased very noticeably in the previous two years before TSHTF. Now, 400k is not going to get you the mansion in Boca Raton, but it's hardly inconsiderable. There is absolutely no heavy lifting involved. How eager are YOU going to be to upset that apple cart?

I would not be eager at all. In fact I would move heaven and earth to get the mobile shredding service truck onto South Atherton Street just as fast as it would go. Now why do you think that was?

 

[Adlee73]

You're giving Rayko way too free of a pass. When it came right down to it, TSM was pretty small potatoes. They were a rinky-dink $10MM charity. Of course they had a very high profile and a lot of star power, but they were still small time.

Out of this, Jack and his wife (Catherine Genovese; a fellow Director and officer of TSM) were pulling down between them somewhere in the neighborhood of $400k/yr. Their salaries had increased very noticeably in the previous two years before TSHTF. Now, 400k is not going to get you the mansion in Boca Raton, but it's hardly inconsiderable. There is absolutely no heavy lifting involved. How eager are YOU going to be to upset that apple cart?

I would not be eager at all. In fact I would move heaven and earth to get the mobile shredding service truck onto South Atherton Street just as fast as it would go. Now why do you think that was?

So you saying hypothetically of course that if you knew for sure your employee was a pedophile assaulting kids you were specifically employed to protect, that 400k is worth the risk that any day this guy could be caught red handed & maybe he plea bargains to testify to your involvement. Remember JR couldn't have known how this would all play out (if/when JS was caught). He could've done prison time & his life afterwards would be ruined. Maybe he stays around if he can maintain plausible deniability but some of the theories out there would require a level of evil even ISIS would cringe at.

 

[simons96]

So you saying hypothetically of course that if you knew for sure your employee was a pedophile assaulting kids you were specifically employed to protect, that 400k is worth the risk that any day this guy could be caught red handed & maybe he plea bargains to testify to your involvement. Remember JR couldn't have known how this would all play out (if/when JS was caught). He could've done prison time & his life afterwards would be ruined. Maybe he stays around if he can maintain plausible deniability but some of the theories out there would require a level of evil even ISIS would cringe at.

you're forgetting one thing, and it is something I remind the Paterno haters:

whatever nuance you want to give the crimes of Jerry Sandusky, he was caught doing something very very wrong in 1998 but got away with it. though he was scolded by law enforcement, it did not deter him from showering with young boys, despite the inherent risk. he gets "noticed" again in 2001. by all indications, that ended him showering on campus with boys. but it did not stop him from grooming his victims from TSM.

Raykovitz is certainly in a pickle, but he is also at risk. You're right, a normal guy like you or me in that situation wouldn't feel $400K is worth knowing that the face of your charity continues to do this crap.

but when I hear people act like Joe Paterno was the most powerful man in PA, and willfully protected a child molester, I have to shake my head and say . . . it wasn't Paterno who was protecting Sandusky. I don't think Sandusky would have kept on with his crimes if it HAD BEEN Joe protecting him. and it certainly wasn't Paterno protecting Second Mile or Raykovitz . . .

So who could have possible made these men (Sandusky and Raykovitz) feel like they could act with such impunity?? once you understand the answer to that question, you understand why Raykovitz has been seen about town sharing drinks with the rich and powerful like he doesn't have a care in the world. and hasn't been investigated or charged with a crime.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

LaJolla make lots of assertions that he cannot back up. He nominated me as a member of the "Free Jerry Brigade" but still hasn't produced evidence that I ever said JS is innocent. It is his fallback when he cannot argue with logic. The PC crowd has used the general public's disdain for child mole station to silence any discussion regarding ANY or ALL of the malfeasance that has occurred in this fiasco.

You think Jerry is guilty but call me out weekly for saying that? Ok then. The PC people are afraid to say what they mean. You think he is guilty but are upset by me standing behind what I type. Good grief, grow a set.

If you think he is guilty, my opinions wouldn't bother you. It's pretty clear where I stand, seems like your afraid to take a real stance on Jerry. You must feel Jerry is guilty if you're so worried about that free Jerry label. Either that or you want to play both sides of the fence.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If you believe he's guilty what the hell are you arguing about?

You can't post non-stop about the victims being liars, the witnesses not being credible, and the prosecution being unlawful without choosing a side.

To quote The Counselor- If you think you can live in this world and be no part of it, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

Because a few say they think is guilty but get upset by those who don't talk out of both sides of their mouth. They cry foul about the victims being liars, but say Jerry is innocent. Nothing hypocritical there. Poor Jerry. PC people crying foul about this monster are a joke.

 

[Adlee73]

you're forgetting one thing, and it is something I remind the Paterno haters:

whatever nuance you want to give the crimes of Jerry Sandusky, he was caught doing something very very wrong in 1998 but got away with it. though he was scolded by law enforcement, it did not deter him from showering with young boys, despite the inherent risk. he gets "noticed" again in 2001. by all indications, that ended him showering on campus with boys. but it did not stop him from grooming his victims from TSM.

Raykovitz is certainly in a pickle, but he is also at risk. You're right, a normal guy like you or me in that situation wouldn't feel $400K is worth knowing that the face of your charity continues to do this crap.

but when I hear people act like Joe Paterno was the most powerful man in PA, and willfully protected a child molester, I have to shake my head and say . . . it wasn't Paterno who was protecting Sandusky. I don't think Sandusky would have kept on with his crimes if it HAD BEEN Joe protecting him. and it certainly wasn't Paterno protecting Second Mile or Raykovitz . . .

So who could have possible made these men (Sandusky and Raykovitz) feel like they could act with such impunity?? once you understand the answer to that question, you understand why Raykovitz has been seen about town sharing drinks with the rich and powerful like he doesn't have a care in the world. and hasn't been investigated or charged with a crime.

Don't get me wrong. As a former child care specialist I'm disgusted by the lack of rules & regulations implemented at TSM to protect these sort of things from happening. That said I'm willing to give Raykovitz the same benefit of the doubt I give Joe & others in regards to what he may've known & his intentions. Yes I agree Raykovitz had far more responsibility over Sandusky than Joe in 2001. That said I try to confine my theories within the evidence we have at present time. Introduce new evidence & my views on Raykovitz may indeed change.

 

[simons96]

Don't get me wrong. As a former child care specialist I'm disgusted by the lack of rules & regulations implemented at TSM to protect these sort of things from happening. That said I'm willing to give Raykovitz the same benefit of the doubt I give Joe & others in regards to what he may've known & his intentions. Yes I agree Raykovitz had far more responsibility over Sandusky than Joe in 2001. That said I try to confine my theories within the evidence we have at present time. Introduce new evidence & my views on Raykovitz may indeed change.

would be nice to know if there were other complaints to TSM about Jerry and someone else's child, eh?

back that shredder truck up, meep meep meep meep!!

funny thing is Joe did what he was required to do by law. if you look at the OAG filing for the FTR charges against Curley, Spanier, and Schultz, they even acknowledge none of them had a legal obligation to report what they were told in 2001 (regardless of which version you believe they were told)

Raykovitz didn't just have a responsibility, he had a LEGAL OBLIGATION as the CEO of a state licensed organization that dealt with kids. The fact he clearly did not fulfill it, yet has not been charged with the same vigor as other, less culpable people is all the evidence I need that someone is letting him walk.

 

[Adlee73]

would be nice to know if there were other complaints to TSM about Jerry and someone else's child, eh?

back that shredder truck up, meep meep meep meep!!

funny thing is Joe did what he was required to do by law. if you look at the OAG filing for the FTR charges against Curley, Spanier, and Schultz, they even acknowledge none of them had a legal obligation to report what they were told in 2001 (regardless of which version you believe they were told)

Raykovitz didn't just have a responsibility, he had a LEGAL OBLIGATION as the CEO of a state licensed organization that dealt with kids. The fact he clearly did not fulfill it, yet has not been charged with the same vigor as other, less culpable people is all the evidence I need that someone is letting him walk.

You're 100% spot on about the PSU admins not being MRs. PA law states they must be in a supervisory capacity over the child to be considered MRs. As for Raykovitz it all depends on what exactly Curley told him. If Curley sold it to him as nothing sexual then Jack's off the hook, if not then Jack should be charged.

 

[pandaczar12]

Some don't want to use the facts is more like it. Their emotions over Joe and the school being hurt by Jerry make them a bit delusional when it comes to Jerry's guilt. It's very odd that you agree he is guilty but have issues with me stating it for some reason. I don't mind usually when others agree with me.

Again, you accuse me of thinking Jerry is innocent. I'd ask you on what you base that opinion, but am pretty sure you would just dodge that question too.

If your opinion is allegedly based on facts, and not just your emotions over Jerry's crimes, then it's a simple answer. Please stop dodging and answer the question.... how many? I have no issues with you stating he is guilty, just stating that he is guilty because of the number of victims. There are plenty of other reasons to think he is guilty. That's been made clear many times, apparently you have issues with reading comprehension.

If you believe he's guilty what the hell are you arguing about?

I'm not arguing about anything, I asked a question that he refuses to answer for some strange reason. I try to understand all aspects of an issue with an open mind. If one believes that he is guilty due to the sheer number of victims, one should be able to quantify what number of victims was the "tipping point" between guilt and innocence.

You can't post non-stop about the victims being liars, the witnesses not being credible, and the prosecution being unlawful without choosing a side.

FAIL.... I've literally done none of that. Pay attention before you post next time.

To quote The Counselor- If you think you can live in this world and be no part of it, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

I'll take unrelated irrelevant quotes for $2000 Alex

 

[pandaczar12]

LaJolla make lots of assertions that he cannot back up. He nominated me as a member of the "Free Jerry Brigade" but still hasn't produced evidence that I ever said JS is innocent. It is his fallback when he cannot argue with logic. The PC crowd has used the general public's disdain for child mole station to silence any discussion regarding ANY or ALL of the malfeasance that has occurred in this fiasco.

Nail meet head!

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

You think Jerry is guilty but call me out weekly for saying that? Ok then. The PC people are afraid to say what they mean. You think he is guilty but are upset by me standing behind what I type. Good grief, grow a set.

If you think he is guilty, my opinions wouldn't bother you. It's pretty clear where I stand, seems like your afraid to take a real stance on Jerry. You must feel Jerry is guilty if you're so worried about that free Jerry label. Either that or you want to play both sides of the fence.

I call you out for turning all threads, regardless of the original poster's topic, into an argument over Jerry's innocence or guilt. You also view JS through a black/white prism when there are many nuances involved. How many times has someone pointed out to you that it is possible (even logical) to believe that JS is guilty of some things yet it is very clear that he didn't receive a fair trial? Answer: DOZENS!!!

Your inability to understand this nuance doesn't bother me as much as it leads me to conclude that you are either obtuse or obsessed. The fact that an obtuse/obsessed individual continually hijacks threads on this point is what bothers me. When it comes to this subject with you, I feel like Steve Martin in this clip...

 

[LaJolla Lion]

LOL, fair trial card is so cute. I don't know how you sleep a night knowing a convicted serial pedophile who you feel is guilty didn't get a "fair trial". Oh the horror. You guys hijacked this site for long enough. F Jerry Sandusky!!! The fact that pnny posted pics of the victims cars on this site showing the plates the other day was enough to tell me a few here have lost their head. I hope they did ban that little troll for doing that.

Sorry I don't respect JZ and the way he attacks these people while screaming Jerry is innocent. It is disgusting. Yet you have no problems with those people. Pretty GD transparent. How many times do these threads need to be started about JZ? Nothing new for over a year, but these epic conversations are posted daily.

Have at the BoT, TSM, or CYS. Plenty of legit topics there. His innocence or guilt debate was settled already.

So glad football will be back soon!!!!!

 

[SteveMasters]

LOL, fair trial card is so cute. I don't know how you sleep a night knowing a convicted serial pedophile who you feel is guilty didn't get a "fair trial". Oh the horror. You guys hijacked this site for long enough. F Jerry Sandusky!!!

Have at the BoT, TSM, or CYS. Plenty of legit topics there. His innocence or guilt debate was settled already.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the question of whether or not JS got a fair trial is a legitimate topic. The Commonwealth's response to Sandusky's PCRA is due a week from Monday and I, for one, am very interested in what they have to say. I would suggest you would do you cause of trying to show that JS is the scum of the earth more help if you tried to argue that the PCRA should be dismissed out of hand than trying to say that anyone who says JS's first trial was not fair believes that JS is innocent. BTW, you might want to take a look at Bill Levinson's LTE in the CDT that "Jerry Sandusky deserves new trial." What does Bill have wrong?

http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/21/4885741_letter-to-the-editor-jerry-sandusky.html?rh=1

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

LOL, fair trial card is so cute. I don't know how you sleep a night knowing a convicted serial pedophile who you feel is guilty didn't get a "fair trial". Oh the horror. You guys hijacked this site for long enough. F Jerry Sandusky!!! The fact that pnny posted pics of the victims cars on this site showing the plates the other day was enough to tell me a few here have lost their head. I hope they did ban that little troll for doing that.

Sorry I don't respect JZ and the way he attacks these people while screaming Jerry is innocent. It is disgusting. Yet you have no problems with those people. Pretty GD transparent. How many times do these threads need to be started about JZ? Nothing new for over a year, but these epic conversations are posted daily.

Have at the BoT, TSM, or CYS. Plenty of legit topics there. His innocence or guilt debate was settled already.

So glad football will be back soon!!!!!

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Whether you want to admit it or not, the question of whether or not JS got a fair trial is a legitimate topic. The Commonwealth's response to Sandusky's PCRA is due a week from Monday and I, for one, am very interested in what they have to say. I would suggest you would do you cause of trying to show that JS is the scum of the earth more help if you tried to argue that the PCRA should be dismissed out of hand than trying to say that anyone who says JS's first trial was not fair believes that JS is innocent. BTW, you might want to take a look at Bill Levinson's LTE in the CDT that "Jerry Sandusky deserves new trial." What does Bill have wrong?

http://www.centredaily.com/2015/08/21/4885741_letter-to-the-editor-jerry-sandusky.html?rh=1

Steve, you think he is innocent and have said that much. How many times do you need to ask the fair trial question? 5000? Yes, his trial was fine. He lost because he is guilty. No need to ask again now.

At least you stand behind what your opinion. I'll tip my cap to you there.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

View embedded media