I'm sure that's how most people reading this thread take it...Yet without question, you are delusional. Weird.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sure that's how most people reading this thread take it...Yet without question, you are delusional. Weird.
Wow, you just compared a shower between a pedo and a boy to a fancy restaurant or concert. Holy crap...When you take date to a fancy restaurant or a concert, do you touch her sexually there?
I hope that answers your question.
How about when you have your date naked and alone in a shower? Might you touch her sexually then?
Indy, if he was naked with him in the shower, alone at night, he was committing a crime. And for the love of God, he had already been told never to do that again after the first incident. Absolutely no decent reason for him to be in that position. Hopefully it was just grooming, for the kids sake. But he wasn't grooming him to take him home and play checkers. He was grooming him to have sex with him.
Grooming is grooming. Jerry used Penn State. What do you use? Wine in a box?Wow, you just compared a shower between a pedo and a boy to a fancy restaurant or concert. Holy crap...
No, that in itself was not a crime. Not in '98 and not in '01. Inappropriate? Absolutely! Stupid as hell? You bet! A lawsuit waiting to happen? Well now you know what C/S/S were worried about. Which is why he lost those privileges.
If it was so obvious he was grooming them to have sex with them, then why did Jack Raykovitz, a licensed child psychologist responsible for both Jerry and any TSM kid, try to enable that behavior by offering to have Jerry wear swim trunks in the shower? Why would Bruce Heim risk his investment in the Hilton Garden Inn by offering those facilities to him?
Are you saying that I should have invited women to a shower instead of dinner when I was single?? This can't be real....Grooming is grooming. Jerry used Penn State. What do you use? Wine in a box?
Why are we still talking about this? Both boys are on record (when no money was at stake) stating that Jerry did not touch them sexually.
It's time to move past this and shine some light on the relationship between TSM and PSU, between Corbett and TSM, and I still suspect Hershey Foundation $$$ is involved.
Are you saying that I should have invited women to a shower instead of dinner when I was single?? This can't be real....
Because he was a doofus who didn't think he was doing anything wrong, and was either too naive or too arrogant to see the risk.Are you sure it's not a crime?
Your analogy is a very poor one Indy. Very poor.
Indy, why would he put himself in the shower naked, alone at night after being told to never do that again- and agreeing to it?
The "women" you are likely to have dated? Yes. Absolutely a shower.
I can't believe you're making this difficult. Jerry used Penn State and I imagine a lot of other tools to get what he wanted from these kids. And I'm also sure they appeared to the average person as the acts of a saint. He groomed kids in plain sight. Either that, or he's innocent. I'm no longer sure.Are you saying that I should have invited women to a shower instead of dinner when I was single?? This can't be real....
Are you sure it's not a crime?
Your analogy is a very poor one Indy. Very poor.
Indy, why would he put himself in the shower naked, alone at night after being told to never do that again- and agreeing to it?
That's a good point.Do some people around here shower with clothes on? I'm not condoning his behavior, but I see no need for people constantly add "naked" to "in the shower".
Do some people around here shower with clothes on? I'm not condoning his behavior, but I see no need for people constantly add "naked" to "in the shower".
You'd have to check with Jack "Just wear swim trunks" Raykovitz....
my point being that Joe met with Curley when the plan was to report it to DPW. Curley later changed his mind and didn't report it. Freeh and others speculated that Joe told Curley not to report it. But I also think it is reasonable that Joe left that meeting with Tim with the understanding it was being reported. Did he know it ultimately was not reported?I believe it is possible, or even probable, that Joe didn't even know that reporting to the DPW was a thing.
As Joe stated, he had no idea what to do, so he looked up the University procedure. And per procedure, he passed along the matter to those who were better equipped to handle it. Joe literally could not have handled it better.
Seems like the Judge may have already made his decisionDon't want to start a new thread on this but anyone notice that the joint motion for oral argument for Jerry's PCRA was rejected by the judge? Any lawyers know why that would be? OAG and Jerry's lawyers both agreed to it.
my point being that Joe met with Curley when the plan was to report it to DPW. Curley later changed his mind and didn't report it. Freeh and others speculated that Joe told Curley not to report it. But I also think it is reasonable that Joe left that meeting with Tim with the understanding it was being reported. Did he know it ultimately was not reported?
This can't be overemphasized! Tim was uncomfortable going behind Jerry's back. He didn't propose excluding anyone. He simply proposed including JS. To which Spanier acknowledged would involve an additional step. And more importantly, Spanier gave this proposal his approval. Joe was not involved in the decision.well . . . you left out an important step. Curley said he felt uncomfortable reporting Sandusky to DPW without talking to him first. Contacting DPW was ALWAYS on the table.
I think more likely Joe told Curley he needed to make sure he had his ducks in a row before reporting Sandusky.
and as many who actually WORK with children have stated, without question Joe would not and SHOULD NOT be involved with any report once he informed Curley.
Keep lying to yourself. It's pathetic but you won't change.I can't believe you're making this difficult. Jerry used Penn State and I imagine a lot of other tools to get what he wanted from these kids. And I'm also sure they appeared to the average person as the acts of a saint. He groomed kids in plain sight. Either that, or he's innocent. I'm no longer sure.
No matter how you slice it. V2 said he was never sexually abused by JS. V6 told the police that nothing sexual happened. The janitor case is totally bogus, especially since we now know the actual witness said the man he saw was not Sandusky. Then there's the guy who claimed JS tried to get funny with him on their first encounter, the only victim to claim that, who suspiciously agreed the date of his abuse was not in 1998, as he originally claimed, but in the summer of 2001, as was needed to be to keep the PSU checks flowing.
Imagine what would be happening if they couldn't hold PSU accountable for incidents after '01. Without PSU's hush money, those kids would be free to sue TSM directly. The truth might escape from its prison. Getting that date moved without piquing the interest of the media was critical, but with the likes of Sarah Ganim on the case, it was child's play for an operator like Corbett and a compliant BOT.
Not one of those cases should have seen the light of day. Not a single one. Somebody played fast and loose with the law to make this a Penn State scandal. I want to know why the BOT didn't fight back.
Back that up.Keep lying to yourself. It's pathetic but you won't change.
One other thing about this story that's really annoying me.
I have relatives who are staunch supporters of either of the two candidates in last year's election. All of whom are whining about the way their candidate was treated unfairly by the press, especially the way CNN picked on them. Yeah, I have all of them telling me Joe Paterno had to have known what Sandusky was doing, there was a story on CNN that said so.
My answer has been, oh well I guess everything they say about your candidate must be true too.
This can't be overemphasized! Tim was uncomfortable going behind Jerry's back. He didn't propose excluding anyone. He simply proposed including JS. To which Spanier acknowledged would involve an additional step. And more importantly, Spanier gave this proposal his approval. Joe was not involved in the decision.
You're correct that nobody knows 100% for sure what happened. That said, it is not common sense to assume that Joe/C/S/S conspired to cover up for JS. You don't even have circumstantial evidence much less hard evidense.I think it's really funny that you nut jobs make statements that you and those of your ilk accept as facts
even though you have no idea what happened in those meetings among the fab four. Common sense
would indicate otherwise but cult members lack that.
And now Jeffery Sandusky has pled guilty to 14 counts of childhood sexual abuse.
Their written words are good enough for me!I think it's really funny that you nut jobs make statements that you and those of your ilk accept as facts
even though you have no idea what happened in those meetings among the fab four. Common sense
would indicate otherwise but cult members lack that.
What difference does it make. Can you back up your assertion or not?You will change?
Specifically what assertion?What difference does it make. Can you back up your assertion or not?
That I'm lying to myself with respect to the incidents that purportedly occurred on PSU property. Which of the cases I cited do you feel actually hold water?Specifically what assertion?
Not a good way to start the day. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/09/us/penn-state-paterno-sandusky-police-report/index.html
All of them. Every single one.That I'm lying to myself with respect to the incidents that purportedly occurred on PSU property. Which of the cases I cited do you feel actually hold water?
All of them. Every single one.
Their written words are good enough for me!
Some of you are truly fearful that Sandusky might get a new trial. Curious.Jerry's accusers words were good enough for the jury. Get a life and a clue.
Jerry's accusers words were good enough for the jury. Get a life and a clue.
Not even you can argue the merits of the janitor case with a straight face!All of them. Every single one.
Get a wife and some common sense. Jerry did not receive a fair trial. Please provide me any credible evidence that wasn't subject to manipulation that proves that he is a pedophile. I agree with NCIS Special Agent JohnSnedden that there is scant evidence of such and that the narrative of a political hit job is a much more likely occurrence than that of a CSA cover-up conspiracy.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html