Absolutely not. To me, it means that is should be adjudicated in a new fair trial since the first trial wasn't anything close to fair.
Eliminating threads
- Thread starter roswelllion
- Start date
Absolutely not. To me, it means that is should be adjudicated in a new fair trial since the first trial wasn't anything close to fair.
Well, let's see. A 57-year-old man (in 2001) who had ALREADY been investigated previously in his career. And now an alleged incident at 9:30 PM on a Friday in a desolate locker room.
Even if there was "no sexual intent" (I don't believe this at all, but I'll play along), he should be thrown in jail simply for his excessive recklessness and stupidity.
Even if he was stupid and reckless, does he deserve to be in jail for the rest of his life?
No problems with the BoT or ongoing cases. They are reasonable discussions. Lunatics saying Jerry is innocent is a bit different. When fans or alum attack molestation victims for no real reason, it's awful. JZ stirred a few followers and they can't even think for themselves anymore. BTW, this crap would be squashed on 247 in a second. They allow decent discussions, not the free Jerry trash.
Please don't misstate my position and please don't insult me. I don't insult you.
I am not saying Jerry is innocent. I think Jerry may be innocent, but don't know whether he is or not based on the first trial. IMO, we need a new trial in order to make that judgment. I do not believe that Jerry got a fair trial. Do you? Do you think that Grand Jury Presentment was accurate? Do you think that the suggestive interviewing techniques that Corporal Leiter used with v4 is an acceptable practice?
You're becoming one of the most annoyingly stupid posters on this site. Sure he's guilty but why are you opposed to a fair trial? You come across as an arrogant, self-righteous a-hole, and your "morally superior" attitude is pathetic.
I'm not opposed to a fair trial for anyone and I don't care if people here don't like it. Jerry had a fair trial that he had no defense for. I'd rather come across wrong to the free Jerry crowd as these people care more about the perception of the school than the victims. You're ok with JZ attacking victims? If the answer is yes, then you're opinion of me is just fine.
Nobody deserves to be in "jail for the rest of his life" merely for being stupid and reckless.
But when they've been found convicted of 45 different charges related to sexual abuse. Yeah, that gets one "jail for the rest of his life."
To hammer home the point, let's list out the 45 convictions:
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of criminal intent to commit indecent assault.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of unlawful contact with minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of corruption of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
Sandusky was convicted of endangering the welfare of minors.
I agree that Sandusky was reckless and stupid (if not actually guilty), noting the number of false allegations (Amiraults, Snowden) that have been made. He used extremely poor judgment merely for being alone in a shower, or alone period, with a child who did not belong to him.
There was a time when somebody like C.S. Lewis could tell stories to children inside a closet (hence the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). If he did this today, he would run a good chance of being accused, and possibly convicted, of molesting the children.
Please tell me where, in this thread or any other, anybody has said Sandusky is innocent. Nobody is attacking the victims either, although one of them posted what looks like a physical threat (to Ziegler) on his Facebook page. (Noting his command of the English language, I sure hope he did not graduate from Penn State.)
"Nope gotten to me im gonna end it one way or another. I am now at the point were i have no ****s given about the lives of these ppl including mr douche. My truck will be waiting for the phone call that someone is following my family. Ill end that chase real quick!"
By the way, the asterisks are mine; he used the four letter word.
As for the victims, it was the prosecutors who stepped up to get justice for them who left an open sore by not doing the job properly the first time. We know for a fact that they lied about McQueary seeing a sexual assault in the shower. If they end up having to testify again, I think their problem is with Linda Kelly, her staff, and the investigators rather than with anybody here.
Frankly, I doubt there will be a new trial. There should be, but there probably won't be.
As I said earlier in this thread, some people can't see the middle ground. It is a serious flaw in their "thinking". To them, if you say sandusky deserves a retrial per his constitutional right of a fair trial, then you believe he is not guilty and not a pedophile. You can explain the middle ground over and over again, and they just don't get it.
Obviously, the real victims in this case are the only ones we should care about. But, since this is a football message board. I'd like to note that Jerry Sandusky took a lot of fun out of being a PSU Football fan. Not sure how any PSU football fan can feel any differently. He was the 2nd or 3rd most important coach in our program's history. Behind JVP of course. And, Rip Engle IMO. Whether he did it to one, two, three or four kids. It means he's guilty. He put a stain on our program that can't be erased. Yes Bushwood, even worse
than our gutless BOT. The link is still there to our program even if you feel JVP had nothing to do with it.
than our gutless BOT. The link is still there to our program even if you feel JVP had nothing to do with it.
I am glad that you do not think that someone should get life for showering with a minor.
The point that you neglected to mention is that in the first trial where there were 45 convictions was a patently unfair trial and resembled a kangaroo court.
WTH does a daycare scandal that depended on the testimony of 4 year olds have to do with Jerry Sandusky? That's right, it's got nothing in common with the case and is just a pathetic attempt to excuse your delusion.
We're not discussing another case or someone sitting in closet telling stories to children. This is about Jerry Sandusky abusing children. You think a normal grown man not only showers with alone with kids, but then he soaps them up and presses his naked body against their's? That's what he's admitted to doing and it's hell of a lot more than boundary issues.
Do you have any idea how stupid, or sick, it sounds to pretend that's as far as it went? You have 8 victims take the stand and detail abuse on top of 2 witnesses that saw Sandusky showering with kids after he said he knew it was wrong. Then you have Sandusky's own statement about laying on top of AF and blowing raspberries on his stomach. What kind of wrestling is that? Sounds like a perv playing CYA.
He got his fair trial and he was found guilty. The fact you can't accept it is really sad. You're waiting for some bombshell that will make everything right, that's not possible. Why? Because Jerry Sandusky is that vile and disgusting. He took people's trust and used it to victimize kids that needed someone in their lives to give a crap. They were desperate for attention and Jerry used it to get off. That kind of evil leaves a stain that doesn't wash off. It's not fair or just, but it's reality.
Last edited:
Now, now. LaJolla isn't all of that sir. Maybe 5 or 6 adjectives yes but not all of them.
Now, now. LaJolla isn't all of that sir. Maybe 5 or 6 adjectives yes but not all of them.
That's why he's on ignore.
Only if he repents as that will be the next time he will be judged. Oh wait, you won't see this pnny dwi.
Exactly. These posts will never, ever, go away. Folks like LaJolla are barking at the moon, all the while accusing folks that want things to go the American way of being the ones barking at the moon. And, he will never, ever, recognize that is true. He just won't. It is a waste of time discussing it with him.
I am not on the Sandusky Innocence Project. Nevertheless, time and time again through our American history, people have been given new trials. Sometimes (at least some of) the results of the original trials are overturned.
Why anybody would protest that this particular individual should be the one and only American never entitled to a new trial is kind of un-American. A real head scratcher.
I am not saying that he has a horse in this race, but he certainly is displaying the kind of behavior that one might expect from somebody who does.
Four things I think:
Sandusky is probably guilty of at least some of the charges and deserves punishment.
It is unlikely that he is guilty of all of the charges for which he was convicted.
The trial was a rush job, a sham, and likely included prosecutorial misconduct.
And, therefore, he can and will get a new trial.....regardless of the whining.
If people think Sandusky received a fair trial they either have an agenda or a mental problem.
I have to agree with your first 3. I just can't see him getting a new trial, although I would love to see it. My feeling is that the result would be him still in prison, but us knowing a lot more about what really transpired here. JMO.
kind of reminds me of the joke about the OJ criminal trial: the LAPD was so incompetent, they couldn't even frame a guilty man.
I'm sorry, but anyone who feels Sandusky's trial served the interests of justice is ignoring one, simple aspect of the trial: if he was so obviously guilty, WHY would the OAG feel the need to engage in so many sketchy and unethical practices to convict him?
would any of them feel comfortable being accused of (and convicted of) a crime for which there was no victim, no police report, no witness, no date, no evidence?? Gawd, that should make anyone to the right of Kafka feel unsettled.
So those like me who think the man is guilty and think a new trial would still keep him locked up are the problem. I love the truth, justice, and American way posts. I mean I actually served for this country, but I hate the freedoms we have? That is a load of crap and pretty weak when people take that route IMO.
I really doubt most here would be so vocal in defense of a convicted serial pedophile if he wasn't affiliated with PSU. There are plenty of people that may need new trials and I do not see Jerry in the front of that line. My main beef in most of this was JZ attacking the victims, but he's gone. It's as if some don't want to hear that he is truly guilty. Thankfully the season will soon be here and their crap will slow down.
LaJolla is certainly entitled to his opinion as is everybody else.
He brings much to this board and yes, I say this, knowing full well I've had differences with him in the past.
I also enjoy the poster who he is sparing with but don't tell him please; his head is big enough already! LOL!!!
JK
kind of reminds me of the joke about the OJ criminal trial: the LAPD was so incompetent, they couldn't even frame a guilty man.
I'm sorry, but anyone who feels Sandusky's trial served the interests of justice is ignoring one, simple aspect of the trial: if he was so obviously guilty, WHY would the OAG feel the need to engage in so many sketchy and unethical practices to convict him?
would any of them feel comfortable being accused of (and convicted of) a crime for which there was no victim, no police report, no witness, no date, no evidence?? Gawd, that should make anyone to the right of Kafka feel unsettled.
Their argument is that it doesn't matter because sandusky is a pedophile. So if you ask them how they can be certain he is a pedophile in light of how the trial proceeded and given the lack of clear evidence, their answer is they know he is a pedophile. But hey, Joe knew because he knew.
Their argument is that it doesn't matter because sandusky is a pedophile. So if you ask them how they can be certain he is a pedophile in light of how the trial proceeded and given the lack of clear evidence, their answer is they know he is a pedophile. But hey, Joe knew because he knew.
It is interesting to me that past concussions never entered into the defense strategy. That seems odd, given all the talk we hear these days about the effects of concussions on athletes.
Sandusky must have taken some good shots to the head over the years.
I think that, or his family upbringing, or something else, lead to a kind of arrested development.
Look. It is pretty clear in our culture that adult men are not to be messing around...touching, etc.
Frankly, I think he might be gay/bi and unable to mentally process the age difference. In other words, when around these kids, he might think of himself as one of them.
I am not in a position to psychoanalyze sandusky, but it has been said that he has a child-like way about him.
Their argument is that it doesn't matter because sandusky is a pedophile. So if you ask them how they can be certain he is a pedophile in light of how the trial proceeded and given the lack of clear evidence, their answer is they know he is a pedophile. But hey, Joe knew because he knew.
he's a pedophile because he was convicted, duh.
Well the conviction isn't doing him any favors. Nor the victims telling the jury how and what he did. Them bastages daring to testify what happened to them. They are the real criminals.
Their argument is that it doesn't matter because sandusky is a pedophile. So if you ask them how they can be certain he is a pedophile in light of how the trial proceeded and given the lack of clear evidence, their answer is they know he is a pedophile. But hey, Joe knew because he knew.
We know he's pedophile because of his behavior and the victims that testified. You know, the people the jury heard firsthand and believed.
But that doesn't count, right? After all, John Ziegler has had some epic Facebook arguments with AF.
[QUOTE="L.T. Young, post: 360243, member: 16281"
We know he's pedophile because of his behavior and the victims that testified. You know, the people the jury heard firsthand and believed.
But that doesn't count, right? After all, John Ziegler has had some epic Facebook arguments with AF.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you know as much as you think you do.
Do you think the first trial was a fair trial?
Do you think the Grand Jury Presentment was accurate?
Do you think that Corporal Leiter's suggestive interviewing techniques are an acceptable practice?
We know he's pedophile because of his behavior and the victims that testified. You know, the people the jury heard firsthand and believed.
But that doesn't count, right? After all, John Ziegler has had some epic Facebook arguments with AF.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you know as much as you think you do.
Do you think the first trial was a fair trial?
Do you think the Grand Jury Presentment was accurate?
Do you think that Corporal Leiter's suggestive interviewing techniques are an acceptable practice?
In the last thread, presumably deleted, the same challenge was made, and within a few hours, two of the most common offenders reiterated statements that made it clear that they think Sandusky is innocent.
I believe that Sandusky is likely innocent, but I don't know. What I do know is that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial. We need a new trial to know if he is innocent or not.
Do you think Sandusky's first trial was fair?
Well, there's one thing for certain.
You are a pathetic human being and a sad representative of Penn State. I hope you don't actually have a degree from Dear Old State.
