Ziegler WRSC 8/19

[SteveMasters]

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.

I am not sure whether he is guilty or not, but I will say that I don't believe the joke of the first trial proved anything and that there is a good chance if there were to be a new fair trial with an unbiased jury that he would be exonerated.

I believe that Jerry Sandusky engaged in inappropriate that may or may not have sexual. I don't believe that MM witnessed a sexual assault in the shower, and I believe AM is v2 and that he was truthful in the statement that he provided to Amendola investigator Everhart.

I believe the case revolves around the credibility of Aaron Fisher and I am not sure that it will hold water on its own, but I would be very interested in finding out. I believe that it is very possible that one or more of the other 7 victims/accusers that testified at trial may have felt empowered by Fisher's accusations to embellish their own experiences of being on the receiving end of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior. There certainly was no shortage of personal injury attorneys who were more than willing to help them out and collect a share of any financial settlement that Penn State was willing to provide to them.

I would continue to argue for a new fair trial for as long as anyone tries to shut me down. My motivation is for the truth to be known and for justice to be served. I believe that hearings into the issues that Lindsay's identifies in the PCRA advances both of those objectives.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The case hinges on 8 different people saying they were molested by Jerry, not one. The truth is Jerry is a monster, but you're in denial.

 

[pandaczar12]

The case hinges on 8 different people saying they were molested by Jerry, not one. The truth is Jerry is a monster, but you're in denial.

And we've come full circle. 8 people is obviously enough in this case for you to declare him guilty. In your post you give the impression that just 1 is not enough to prove his guilt. So is the magic number 2?

 

[GTACSA]

I am not sure whether he is guilty or not, but I will say that I don't believe the joke of the first trial proved anything and that there is a good chance if there were to be a new fair trial with an unbiased jury that he would be exonerated.

I believe that Jerry Sandusky engaged in inappropriate that may or may not have sexual. I don't believe that MM witnessed a sexual assault in the shower, and I believe AM is v2 and that he was truthful in the statement that he provided to Amendola investigator Everhart.

I believe the case revolves around the credibility of Aaron Fisher and I am not sure that it will hold water on its own, but I would be very interested in finding out. I believe that it is very possible that one or more of the other 7 victims/accusers that testified at trial may have felt empowered by Fisher's accusations to embellish their own experiences of being on the receiving end of Sandusky's inappropriate behavior. There certainly was no shortage of personal injury attorneys who were more than willing to help them out and collect a share of any financial settlement that Penn State was willing to provide to them.

I would continue to argue for a new fair trial for as long as anyone tries to shut me down. My motivation is for the truth to be known and for justice to be served. I believe that hearings into the issues that Lindsay's identifies in the PCRA advances both of those objectives.

Steve, you posted that " I will say that I don't believe the joke of the first trial proved anything."

When did you graduate from Law School and how much of your practice is devoted to criminal law ? How many PCR proceedings have you argued both at the trial and appellate levels?

I think we all know the answers to those questions so what we are left with is the equivalent of you posting your opinion on quantum physics, nuclear physics, neurosurgery techniques or yada yada yada any other subjects in which you have no educational training or experience. I know you think that anyone can understand legal proceedings without being trained in the law, but your posts have proven that isn't the case at all.

 

[CDW3333]

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.

Hey, Simons asks an intelligent question!

The blind squirrel theory in action.

Maybe Simons will ask some other questions such as:

Where is TSM equivalent of MM (low ranking employee/volunteer) who is saying I saw Sandusky doing something inappropriate with a kid and I reported it to Raykovitz but nothing happened?

Where is TSM equivalent of No. 6's (or No. 1's) mother saying my kid was molested and I reported it to Raykovitz but nothing happened?

Where are the all kids (adults now) who were molested and are saying TSM employees/volunteers, etc. knew or should of known but nothing happened?

What about TSM Board members like Paterno (honorary member) who had reports made to them about Sandusky and then never . . .

Whoops, let's not go there.

Apparently you believe that TSM had such voluminous documentation of Sandusky's wrong doing it was necessary to use multiple paper shredders. So, where are the people who would've prepared such documentation?

Also, too, try Googling The Second Mile*Paper shredding and see what comes up. You get an Eileen Morgan blog post that doesn't even mention paper shredding but a comment does ("Still curious why, in November 2011, The Second Mile was shredding documents like a bunch of Enron accountants.") and an Onward State article about THON where the only reference to TSM and shredding is once again in the comments ("HIS foundation and employer (The Second Mile) had the paper shredders working overtime," hmmmm that language sounds familiar) and then nothing. Enough to make you think it's just another McAndrew Board Myth.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

And we've come full circle. 8 people is obviously enough in this case for you to declare him guilty. In your post you give the impression that just 1 is not enough to prove his guilt. So is the magic number 2?

No, 8 testified in this case.

 

[CDW3333]

Hey, Simons asks an intelligent question!

The blind squirrel theory in action.

Maybe Simons will ask some other questions such as:

Where is TSM equivalent of MM (low ranking employee/volunteer) who is saying I saw Sandusky doing something inappropriate with a kid and I reported it to Raykovitz but nothing happened?

Where is TSM equivalent of No. 6's (or No. 1's) mother saying my kid was molested and I reported it to Raykovitz but nothing happened?

Where are the all kids (adults now) who were molested and are saying TSM employees/volunteers, etc. knew or should of known but nothing happened?

What about TSM Board members like Paterno (honorary member) who had reports made to them about Sandusky and then never . . .

Whoops, let's not go there.

Apparently you believe that TSM had such voluminous documentation of Sandusky's wrong doing it was necessary to use multiple paper shredders. So, where are the people who would've prepared such documentation?

Also, too, try Googling The Second Mile*Paper shredding and see what comes up. You get an Eileen Morgan blog post that doesn't even mention paper shredding but a comment does ("Still curious why, in November 2011, The Second Mile was shredding documents like a bunch of Enron accountants.") and an Onward State article about THON where the only reference to TSM and shredding is once again in the comments ("HIS foundation and employer (The Second Mile) had the paper shredders working overtime," hmmmm that language sounds familiar) and then nothing. Enough to make you think it's just another McAndrew Board Myth.

I would also point out that if Raykovitz truly had knowledge of Sandusky's criminal behavior it would've made no sense to wait until after the indictment came down to start shredding. TSM knew there was a criminal investigation all the way back in 2009 and started disassociating itself from Sandusky back then. Would've been smarter to get rid of incriminating documents at the first sign of trouble instead of waiting more than two years.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

The moths have arrived

 

[no1lion99]

You think he is ranting? What ?

Not surprised ScottPa buried his dad JoePa when he claimed Sandusky was guilty. And he thinks he is a good lawyer, and he was helping the old man, Penn State or any of us.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

Re good lawyer part

He did just again receive confirmation that hi suit is allowe access to the Freeh files so....last I check Ziegler doesn't. (Yes I know he isn't trying to necessarily)

 

[no1lion99]

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?

You want an answer? Fine. It's 1. 1 victim makes him guilty.

AF and V6 abuse was both reported BEFORE any money was in play. Game over.

 

[WeR0206]

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.

It doesn't matter what TC told Raykovitz only that TC commincated an incident occurred (and he certainly did). As the director of a state licensed children's charity JR was required to look into any and all incident reports involving one of his HiS TSM employees no matter how benign.

Unlike JR, TC wasn't a child abuse/child care expert and his opinion (horseplay, etc) on the 2001 incident should have been meaninless to JR and his obligation to look into it/inform CC CYS.

If anyone should have been charged with FTR/EWOC it should have been JR not CSS.

 

[pandaczar12]

No, 8 testified in this case.

Sane Person: So why did you buy this house?

LaJolla Lion: It has 8 bedrooms, that is all that matters.

Sane Person: That's a lot of bedrooms, how many did you actually require to fit your needs? For example, if this house only had 7 bedrooms, would you still have come to the same conclusion?

LaJolla Lion: The house I bought has 8 bedrooms, bedrooms aren't going to disappear, so there is no reason to change the facts.

Sane Person: I'm not changing the facts, I'm just trying to understand what the minimum number of bedrooms is that you needed in order to make your decision

LaJolla Lion: Why do you think this is not the appropriate house for me? Blah, Blah, Blah... random insults.

You want an answer? Fine. It's 1. 1 victim makes him guilty.

Agreed that he only has to abuse one person to make him guilty, but that wasn't the question. The question is, if one is assuming his guilt almost entirely on the number of accusers (like LaJolla Lion), how many accusers does it take to make him guilty?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

panda,

He's guilty, but you need a number from me to justify it? Sure sounds like you aren't sure or you're afraid of some people are who think he is. I know how many testified and not one has yet to be proven false. That is the number for Jerry today.

Great Saturdays are coming. Enjoy them. EPL is on, preaseason football, and soon enough college football. I can't wait. I need to join the kids in the pool now and then get ready to head back to LaJolla for a bit of work and some R&R. Here is your number, 10+ as in I hope the boys win 10+ this year.

 

[L.T. Young]

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.



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.



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



I'll take unrelated irrelevant quotes for $2000 Alex

Your question is a transparent attempt to undermine the argument that JS is guilty.

Putting the number of victims that testified in a vacuum isn't looking from all sides. It's actually one very specific side with a very specific goal. That's where the quote comes in.

Everyone agrees that Sandusky and naked kids were like peanut butter and jelly, where you saw one the other wasn't far behind. That's established and goes without saying. Sandusky's behavior is attached to everything.

 

[SteveMasters]

Steve, you posted that " I will say that I don't believe the joke of the first trial proved anything."

When did you graduate from Law School and how much of your practice is devoted to criminal law ? How many PCR proceedings have you argued both at the trial and appellate levels?

I think we all know the answers to those questions so what we are left with is the equivalent of you posting your opinion on quantum physics, nuclear physics, neurosurgery techniques or yada yada yada any other subjects in which you have no educational training or experience. I know you think that anyone can understand legal proceedings without being trained in the law, but your posts have proven that isn't the case at all.

I am not a lawyer, but I know several lawyers who find Sandusky's PCRA compelling. Are you a lawyer GTACSA? I am assuming you don't have any problem with the OAG's conduct in the case and that you think that Sandusky's defense counsel were effective and competent. What do you find lacking in the PCRA? How do you think the Commonwealth will respond?

Just because I am not a lawyer doesn't mean I can't read the PCRA and have an informed opinion on the issues raised.

 

[simons96]

You want an answer? Fine. It's 1. 1 victim makes him guilty.

AF and V6 abuse was both reported BEFORE any money was in play. Game over.

spot on mate. I would say just 1 credible victim.

I was just pointing out the fallacy that because so many victims came forward, someone MUST be guilty. The McMartin and Amirault cases had dozens of victims, just sayin.

 

[marshall23]

So if a certain # of people accuse you.....you are guilty and do no deserve a fair trial?
I suggest money was always in play. Some agency was going to PAY. How many victims lawyer ed up before giving their stories to PSP? Now we didn't have any lawyers chasing "victims" did we?
As far as AF goes.....why do you think his teachers and administrators didn't believe him? Of course they were all part of the coverup? Why didn't the first two grand juries believe AF?
Again, if the case was so rock solid and JS is such an obvious monster, why would the OAG manipulate dates, locations and charge JS in instances were they had no victim? If you want to hang your hat on MM who had a better memory ten years later (even RE had to be stunned....he characterized it as VIVID), why would TC and GS be charged in a case "we have no intention of trying?"To say nothing of the crying janitor.....who faced 1 million pissed off Chinese in Korea, but cried at the site (whatever and wherever this happened) of JS giving some kid a hummer.

 

[pandaczar12]

panda,

He's guilty, but you need a number from me to justify it? Sure sounds like you aren't sure or you're afraid of some people are who think he is. I know how many testified and not one has yet to be proven false. That is the number for Jerry today.

Great Saturdays are coming. Enjoy them. EPL is on, preaseason football, and soon enough college football. I can't wait. I need to join the kids in the pool now and then get ready to head back to LaJolla for a bit of work and some R&R. Here is your number, 10+ as in I hope the boys win 10+ this year.

I accept that you will never answer, enjoy football season.

Your question is a transparent attempt to undermine the argument that JS is guilty.

Putting the number of victims that testified in a vacuum isn't looking from all sides. It's actually one very specific side with a very specific goal. That's where the quote comes in.

Nope. I've stated my goal numerous times, I can't make you understand it.

You've actually made my point for me, one needs to consider more than just the number of accusers. Claiming he is guilty simply due to the number of accusers isn't looking at it from all sides, It's actually one very specific side with a very specific goal. I'd prefer to approach any situation with an open mind, and truly understand why each side thinks what they think.

So if a certain # of people accuse you.....you are guilty and do no deserve a fair trial?

I'm glad you get it. Someone is not guilty strictly because of the number of accusers.

 

[GTACSA]

I am not a lawyer, but I know several lawyers who find Sandusky's PCRA compelling. Are you a lawyer GTACSA? I am assuming you don't have any problem with the OAG's conduct in the case and that you think that Sandusky's defense counsel were effective and competent. What do you find lacking in the PCRA? How do you think the Commonwealth will respond?

Just because I am not a lawyer doesn't mean I can't read the PCRA and have an informed opinion on the issues raised.

I will agree in part with what you said. Just because you are not a lawyer doesn't mean you can't read the PCRA Petition and have an opinion on the issues raised; but the fact that you are not a lawyer does mean that you can't have an informed opinion.

As for the merits of the Petition, I'll just wait for a final ruling from the Court.

 

[L.T. Young]

spot on mate. I would say just 1 credible victim.

I was just pointing out the fallacy that because so many victims came forward, someone MUST be guilty. The McMartin and Amirault cases had dozens of victims, just sayin.

You always bring up the daycare sex abuse cases and you get called on the fact all of them were based on claims of very children.

They all had claims of ridiculous things that couldn't possibly have happened given the evidence.

It's nothing like the Sandusky case.

 

[marshall23]

You always bring up the daycare sex abuse cases and you get called on the fact all of them were based on claims of very children.

They all had claims of ridiculous things that couldn't possibly have happened given the evidence.

It's nothing like the Sandusky case.

I think it is pretty ridiculous to claim that MM witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch Building, called his girlfriend and then spoke to his father and Dr. Dranov (both medical professionals). He then related this to Joe Paterno who alerted Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Schultz consulted Wendell Courtney. After speaking with MM, TC notified Jack Raykovitz. For 10 years MM worked for PSU and never expressed a problem with how the "anal rape" was handled nor did any of the other respected professionals.......until he was approached by PSP Investigators. Come on all this story lacks is "Once upon a time.............."

 

[L.T. Young]

I accept that you will never answer, enjoy football season.



Nope. I've stated my goal numerous times, I can't make you understand it.

You've actually made my point for me, one needs to consider more than just the number of accusers. Claiming he is guilty simply due to the number of accusers isn't looking at it from all sides, It's actually one very specific side with a very specific goal. I'd prefer to approach any situation with an open mind, and truly understand why each side thinks what they think.



I'm glad you get it. Someone is not guilty strictly because of the number of accusers.

No, you don't get it.

When he says "8 victims" he's saying "8 victims Sandusky admitted to doing things with only a pedophile would do."

See, there's a whole lot more behind "8 victims" then just accusations. Sandusky had been in the situations all 8 described. Situations that are enough to question without any claims of abuse.

You want to put the number of accusers in a vacuum. Ignore all that comes with being an accuser in this case. Ignore that Sandusky himself will admit to getting them naked, blowing on their stomachs, and a collection of other assorted behaviors that only a sick twist would do with a kid. But yeah, you're just trying to look at it from all sides by boiling down to a number.

 

[marshall23]

The victims didn't ever communicate their stories to one another, did they?

 

[bjf1984]

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.

Go sit in the corner, dumbass

 

[Adlee73]

It doesn't matter what TC told Raykovitz only that TC commincated an incident occurred (and he certainly did). As the director of a state licensed children's charity JR was required to look into any and all incident reports involving one of his HiS TSM employees no matter how benign.

Unlike JR, TC wasn't a child abuse/child care expert and his opinion (horseplay, etc) on the 2001 incident should have been meaninless to JR and his obligation to look into it/inform CC CYS.

If anyone should have been charged with FTR/EWOC it should have been JR not CSS.

The law states "reasonable cause to suspect", which considering John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Wendell Courtney & Graham Spanier all did not see reasonable cause to report to authorities, would be a tough sell for prosecutors. As far as looking into it goes, Raykovitz fulfilled those duties albeit minimally by speaking to Sandusky & board members Heim & Poole. The good news is the fact John McQueary, Dranov, Courtney & Raykovitz were never charged creates a good argument against FTR charges on the PSU3. I agree TSM standards as a child care org. are appalling but does that mean they knew Jerry to be a pedo? Maybe more evidence gets revealed down the road & TSM leaders finally get charged but to argue based on current evidence that TSM should be charged is to argue OAG have a better case against PSU3 because then all they have to do is show how because PSU engaged in TSM mentor programs, they too would be defined as mandated reporters.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

You always bring up the daycare sex abuse cases and you get called on the fact all of them were based on claims of very children.

They all had claims of ridiculous things that couldn't possibly have happened given the evidence.

It's nothing like the Sandusky case.

Well, you see, that's the thing.

There isn't any evidence...except the testimony of individuals who our society would have classified as children at the time of the crimes that JS has been convicted of.

I think that some of them may be telling the truth, and JS may well be guilty of at least some of what he was convicted of. In my mind you only need to be guilty of so much before you are prison-worthy. So, I figure maybe he is where he belongs.

But, that hat is not hanging on any peg other than that testimony.

Nevertheless, ask me and I will say he is where he belongs, so don't hang me on the Innocence Project peg.

 

[WeR0206]

The law states "reasonable cause to suspect", which considering John McQueary, Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Wendell Courtney & Graham Spanier all did not see reasonable cause to report to authorities, would be a tough sell for prosecutors. As far as looking into it goes, Raykovitz fulfilled those duties albeit minimally by speaking to Sandusky & board members Heim & Poole. The good news is the fact John McQueary, Dranov, Courtney & Raykovitz were never charged creates a good argument against FTR charges on the PSU3. I agree TSM standards as a child care org. are appalling but does that mean they knew Jerry to be a pedo? Maybe more evidence gets revealed down the road & TSM leaders finally get charged but to argue based on current evidence that TSM should be charged is to argue OAG have a better case against PSU3 because then all they have to do is show how because PSU engaged in TSM mentor programs, they too would be defined as mandated reporters.

Well id say that since JR had TC on his doorstep complaining about JS's late night inappropriate showering, which was enough cause for PSU to remove JS's guest privileges (and not be able to participate in TSM friend fitness program) was enough for JR to thoroughly look into the incident and report it to CC Cys if needed. If anyone dropped the ball re: 2001 it was JR not some college football coach/admins.

My whole point was if CSS/Dr D/JM/JR all said they heard the same thing re: 2001 (which they pretty much did) JR was the only one who was a mandatory reporter and who was legally responsible for TSM kids/JS. So why did the OAG throw the book at CSS and not do a thing to JR? It makes no sense unless the OAG wanted to direct attention away from TSM and onto PSU.

 

[L.T. Young]

What's most disturbing about this thread is a radio interview of a ranting fool is what led to 3 pages and counting of defending a pedophile.

Ziegler actually said AF's mother has to be lying because she bought 3 cars and wasn't willing to hear Ziegler out. The idea a mother wouldn't listen to the man defending her son's abuser "doesn't make sense" to him.

 

[L.T. Young]

I think it is pretty ridiculous to claim that MM witnessed an anal rape in the Lasch Building, called his girlfriend and then spoke to his father and Dr. Dranov (both medical professionals). He then related this to Joe Paterno who alerted Tim Curley and Gary Schultz. Schultz consulted Wendell Courtney. After speaking with MM, TC notified Jack Raykovitz. For 10 years MM worked for PSU and never expressed a problem with how the "anal rape" was handled nor did any of the other respected professionals.......until he was approached by PSP Investigators. Come on all this story lacks is "Once upon a time.............."

So you're comparing that to a 3 to 5 yo child claiming he was raped with a knife?

Kids in the same age range claiming to have gone places they couldn't have or that didn't exist?

The point is these cases should never have been prosecuted at all. There's no comparison to be made except by desperate fools.

You know what's even harder to believe? MM was so freaked over what he claimed was horseplay a week later. Or that he would tell people about horseplay on message boards. That night and the next morning, by all accounts, MM was visibly shaken and very upset. But he said it was just horseplay?

 

[L.T. Young]

The victims didn't ever communicate their stories to one another, did they?

Not sure you understand.

I'm not just referring to the abuse itself. They all were in questionable situations (showering, alone during sleep overs, etc.) that Sandusky engineered and admitted to doing.

 

[marshall23]

Not sure you understand.

I'm not just referring to the abuse itself. They all were in questionable situations (showering, alone during sleep overs, etc.) that Sandusky engineered and admitted to doing.

You are the one who does not understand. My points of contention about the case have nothing to do with JZ. Nor do I think JS is entirely innocent. My objections are based on a suspicion that about 5 or 6 people who, up to that point in their lives were respected professionals, did not suddenly conspire to cover up a child rape. Further more, the excited utterance was a complete fabrication. In addition, I reject the argument that numerous "victims" is evidence of guilt. Many of the victims were clients of the same lawyer and they are known to have communicated their stories to one another. It is known that investigators encouraged victims by telling them that there were dozens of others who shared their abuse....this evidence is on tape. To summarize I don't need to rely of JZ or anyone else to have doubts about AF, MS, or the conduct or prosecutors and investigators in this case.

 

[Adlee73]

Well id say that since JR had TC on his doorstep complaining about JS's late night inappropriate showering, which was enough cause for PSU to remove JS's guest privileges (and not be able to participate in TSM friend fitness program) was enough for JR to thoroughly look into the incident and report it to CC Cys if needed. If anyone dropped the ball re: 2001 it was JR not some college football coach/admins.

My whole point was if CSS/Dr D/JM/JR all said they heard the same thing re: 2001 (which they pretty much did) JR was the only one who was a mandatory reporter and who was legally responsible for TSM kids/JS. So why did the OAG throw the book at CSS and not do a thing to JR? It makes no sense unless the OAG wanted to direct attention away from TSM and onto PSU.

I agree. You can't say CSS were guilty & not TSM leaders. While on the other hand if you're to say TSM is guilty & not CSS then you need to establish they knew enough that an average person would have reason to suspect a crime occurred. Considering how many people knew of the incident & didn't deem it worth reporting to authorities it would be a tough sell in court. I also agree it's suspicious the OAG seemed to put little effort into going after TSM.

 

[marshall23]

I agree. You can't say CSS were guilty & not TSM leaders. While on the other hand if you're to say TSM is guilty & not CSS then you need to establish they knew enough that an average person would have reason to suspect a crime occurred. Considering how many people knew of the incident & didn't deem it worth reporting to o authorities it would be a tough sell in court. I also agree it's suspicious the OAG seemed to put little effort into going after TSM.

I think it is "reasonable to conclude" that those who listened to MM's account of the incident (01) didn't get the HD ("more vivid") version that surfaced 2011.

 

[Adlee73]

I think it is "reasonable to conclude" that those who listened to MM's account of the incident (01) didn't get the HD ("more vivid") version that surfaced 2011.

I think Mike told them what he told Dranov which was no confirmed sexual act. He may have speculated further to them but I think he made sure they knew what was actually seen & what was speculation. If he didn't & he told them he actually SAW sodomy then he would've been essentially lying to them. I think Mike may've thought he saw something sexual but the talk with Dranov affected his approach to Joe, Curley & Schultz.

 

[pandaczar12]

No, you don't get it.

When he says "8 victims" he's saying "8 victims Sandusky admitted to doing things with only a pedophile would do."

See, there's a whole lot more behind "8 victims" then just accusations. Sandusky had been in the situations all 8 described. Situations that are enough to question without any claims of abuse.

You want to put the number of accusers in a vacuum. Ignore all that comes with being an accuser in this case. Ignore that Sandusky himself will admit to getting them naked, blowing on their stomachs, and a collection of other assorted behaviors that only a sick twist would do with a kid. But yeah, you're just trying to look at it from all sides by boiling down to a number.

You don't get it. It's like you aren't even reading anything, just posting unnecessary rants that have no relevance to the topic at hand.

Others have already taken you to the woodshed, so I don't need to do it again. I suggest you read what I've already posted, and what others have posted with an open mind. You might learn something.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Not sure you understand.

I'm not just referring to the abuse itself. They all were in questionable situations (showering, alone during sleep overs, etc.) that Sandusky engineered and admitted to doing.

The funny thing is watching people who say he is guilty try to poke holes in his guilt. His actions with these kids is beyond grooming. You have the one of the nations top experts say he is in the top 1% of nice guy predators, but these guys here know more. The compare stories of 5 year old kids talking to the law in other cases versus 10 year olds testifying as adults.

Jerry had no defense at all and JZ can only say one of the victims is shady. The same troubled kid Jerry was molesting and he didn't turn out to be a model citizen and that is somehow proof everyone is lying. If the day comes where they all fess up and say they were lying or it's actually proven they were, I'll eat my serving of crow. I just don't see it happening. Thanks for the sanity over here. It's clear a few here want to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[marshall23]

No need to poke holes in Sandusky's guilt. The OAG's actions in this case are the issue. When you have Erickson refer to MM's story as more vivid 10 years later....that doesn't raise suspicion? I have no investment in Sandusky's guilt or innocence. I am interested in the fact that GS2 and TC were led to believe they had council and stated such on the record. Where was Fina when this happened? Surely you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth. So the star witness for the Commonwealth testifies unchallenged, since those who dispute are indicted. We have a totally bogus crying janitor....who allegedly has dementia and can't testify. Yet he stated that the person in question was NOT Sandusky. You have the "primary" victim who had no credibility with 2 grand juries, nor to those who knew him at his school district. You have the OAG leaking to a newspaper person who is "recruiting" victims and victims communicating with one another. To put a bow on the prosecutions questionable tactics, we hear PSP lie to influence testimony.
Jerry Sandusky at the very least is a strange fellow. He put himself in the position to be prosecuted. He probably is guilty of some of the things he is accused of. I take issue with what
I consider to be grievous misconduct and deception in this case. That is what leads me to ask why?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

No need to poke holes in Sandusky's guilt. The OAG's actions in this case are the issue. When you have Erickson refer to MM's story as more vivid 10 years later....that doesn't raise suspicion? I have no investment in Sandusky's guilt or innocence. I am interested in the fact that GS2 and TC were led to believe they had council and stated such on the record. Where was Fina when this happened? Surely you agree that the primary job of the OAG is not conviction, but truth. So the star witness for the Commonwealth testifies unchallenged, since those who dispute are indicted. We have a totally bogus crying janitor....who allegedly has dementia and can't testify. Yet he stated that the person in question was NOT Sandusky. You have the "primary" victim who had no credibility with 2 grand juries, nor to those who knew him at his school district. You have the OAG leaking to a newspaper person who is "recruiting" victims and victims communicating with one another. To put a bow on the prosecutions questionable tactics, we hear PSP lie to influence testimony.
Jerry Sandusky at the very least is a strange fellow. He put himself in the position to be prosecuted. He probably is guilty of some of the things he is accused of. I take issue with what
I consider to be grievous misconduct and deception in this case. That is what leads me to ask why?

It should scare the hell out of any sane individual that so many miscarriages of justice occurred in this case.

 

[marshall23]

It should scare the hell out of any sane individual that so many miscarriages of justice occurred in this case.

Perhaps I can share an analogy from my life experience. One of the things I did to pay the freight when my family was young, was recreation supervision in the state prison system. The facility was maximum security with the majority of inmates convicted of murder. I organized their sport activities and refereed as needed. Over time I had conflicting sentiments in regard to how the inmates were treated by the corrections officers.
One could rationalize that these were convicts and therefore they deserved to be treated worse than a stray animal.
I see this in posts when some say JS is a pedophile and it doesn't matter that the prosecution was tainted and he is not entitled to a fair trial.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

The funny thing is watching people who say he is guilty try to poke holes in his guilt. His actions with these kids is beyond grooming. You have the one of the nations top experts say he is in the top 1% of nice guy predators, but these guys here know more. The compare stories of 5 year old kids talking to the law in other cases versus 10 year olds testifying as adults.

Jerry had no defense at all and JZ can only say one of the victims is shady. The same troubled kid Jerry was molesting and he didn't turn out to be a model citizen and that is somehow proof everyone is lying. If the day comes where they all fess up and say they were lying or it's actually proven they were, I'll eat my serving of crow. I just don't see it happening. Thanks for the sanity over here. It's clear a few here want to talk out of both sides of their mouth.

It is not funny at all. It is scary as hell because it could happen to me (or you) next.