Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]

[no1lion99]

I did not say that 25% is impossible. I said that 75% is impossible. See what I mean about you not understanding? I guarantee understand statistics at least as well as you do, and this doesn't have anything to do with statistics.

Oh, and congratulations. You are the first poster that I ever put on ignore. Nice work.

You didn't?

I don't see any links to those organizations (nor do I have any clue who Dr Hopper is).

You posted links to three advocacy websites.

You can invent all the statistics you like, but your conclusions do not pass even basic common sense. There is ZERO chance that 25% of children are sexually abused. Just not possible.

EDIT: I just figured out a third reason, you can't remember all the bullshit arguments you have tried. "Show me stats!"..."No those are garbage stats!"...."I don't have access!"....."Oh I have access but not time to look!"....."25% is not possible!"....."I never said 25% is not possible!"....

Now go run away....

Thanks for guaranteeing us though.

 

[elvis63]

If they have so many more credible victims waiting the wings, why did they go with the 8 victims they did? Were those the strongest the had? If so, then I have to imagine "bringing in more victims" would not be the slam dunk you think it is.

It's common to limit the amount of plaintiffs in a criminal suit like this when there is similar testimony . Same story but just a longer trial .

Also the victims in this case might have been discovered at a time when they couldn't be used in the trial . Supposedly there were more that was being considered for another trial but it seemed redundant . Jerry is locked up forever . Also these could be brought in at a new trial if it was granted.

 

[elvis63]

You didn't?



EDIT: I just figured out a third reason, you can't remember all the bullshit arguments you have tried. "Show me stats!"..."No those are garbage stats!"...."I don't have access!"....."Oh I have access but not time to look!"....."25% is not possible!"....."I never said 25% is not possible!"....

Now go run away....

Thanks for guaranteeing us though.

He's showing his colors. If the state has so many more why did they not bring those to trial ? That kind of question raised eyebrows to me.

On numbers I get the argument . Sex crimes tend to happen in private and often there is little evidence other than witness testimony . Add in children? Things are just impossible to quantify . 1%? 20%? Who knows ? I see no accurate way to measure it.

I've seen numbers on false accusations in rape cases run 8-10% according to the FBI . Straight up bs that can be showed to be bs. Accused has an air tight alibi for example .

Investigators say it's higher . Now let's come up with unreported rapes? How do you figure that out? What portion don't press charges but are making it up similarly ? What amount was assaulted but don't want to go through with a report?

One expert said there are no good, accurate numbers you can hang your hat on but he agrees that it's a problem .

 

[mn78psu83]

Lauro, Miller, Raykovitz, Genovese, et. al. are the people the media should have been hounding and crucifying but instead they wanted to have the juicy story of going after a famous football coach (who ironically actually did more to stop JS than any of the above), what a disgrace and wasted opportunity to fix PA's broken child welfare system.

The whole Lauro thing boggles my mind. He had the power to indicate JS. Why didn't he? Was he really as clueless - literally - as he claims?

Raykovitz? I can't add anything that hasn't already been said.

 

[elvis63]

You didn't?



EDIT: I just figured out a third reason, you can't remember all the bullshit arguments you have tried. "Show me stats!"..."No those are garbage stats!"...."I don't have access!"....."Oh I have access but not time to look!"....."25% is not possible!"....."I never said 25% is not possible!"....

Now go run away....

Thanks for guaranteeing us though.

Again it might be unlikely but there's no way to say yes or no. I don't feel good about 1% to tell you the truth , if the number is that high.

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's common to limit the amount of plaintiffs in a criminal suit like this when there is similar testimony . Same story but just a longer trial .

Also the victims in this case might have been discovered at a time when they couldn't be used in the trial . Supposedly there were more that was being considered for another trial but it seemed redundant . Jerry is locked up forever . Also these could be brought in at a new trial if it was granted.

You are correct that the number of victims used in trials like these is often limited in numbers. However, I would hope that the prosecutors would bring their absolute strongest cases to ensure a conviction. If those are their strongest cases (e.g. excited utterance, etc), I'm skeptical of the strength of their other cases.

You may be correct that there are more strong cases that were not discovered until later. But neither you nor I are privy to that information.

 

[Roxine]

I did not say that 25% is impossible. I said that 75% is impossible. See what I mean about you not understanding? I guarantee understand statistics at least as well as you do, and this doesn't have anything to do with statistics.

Oh, and congratulations. You are the first poster that I ever put on ignore. Nice work.

PSU2UNC? I think you may have forgotten which log in you are under right now. Because you DID say 25% is impossible

I don't see any links to those organizations (nor do I have any clue who Dr Hopper is).

You posted links to three advocacy websites.

You can invent all the statistics you like, but your conclusions do not pass even basic common sense. There is ZERO chance that 25% of children are sexually abused. Just not possible.

Page 9 of this thread for your convenience...

And to quote a really smart guy - since you claim to have him on ignore:

EDIT: I just figured out a third reason, you can't remember all the bullshit arguments you have tried. "Show me stats!"..."No those are garbage stats!"...."I don't have access!"....."Oh I have access but not time to look!"....."25% is not possible!"....."I never said 25% is not possible!"....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Cosby and Jerry. Damn Pa justice system hates the good guys!!!! LOL

 

[PSU2UNC]

PSU2UNC? I think you may have forgotten which log in you are under right now. Because you DID say 25% is impossible



Page 9 of this thread for your convenience...

And to quote a really smart guy - since you claim to have him on ignore:

EDIT: I just figured out a third reason, you can't remember all the bullshit arguments you have tried. "Show me stats!"..."No those are garbage stats!"...."I don't have access!"....."Oh I have access but not time to look!"....."25% is not possible!"....."I never said 25% is not possible!"....

I love how you make it personal attacks rather than attacking my actual arguments. What this tells me is that you don't have an answer for my arguments.

The 25% statement was a good catch on your part (congrats?)...I had written it differently in another post, which is what I was remembering. I suspect that 25% is the very high end, if you include very marginal methodologies.

At least I didn't go back and edit my post the way you did when I call you out. So at least we know which of us is more honest.

Regarding the "smart man" I have on ignore...he apparently thinks that all stats are created equal. They are not. Garbage stats are garbage stats. I would rather you say "We don't have good stats but we think that...." Did he honestly read that 400 page report this afternoon? Because I actually have a job that I do pretty well. I'd be willing to bet that even mighty Roxine, Savior of Children, didn't read all 400 pages of that report.

 

[no1lion99]

I love how you make it personal attacks rather than attacking my actual arguments. What this tells me is that you don't have an answer for my arguments.

The 25% statement was a good catch on your part (congrats?)...I had written it differently in another post, which is what I was remembering. I suspect that 25% is the very high end, if you include very marginal methodologies.

At least I didn't go back and edit my post the way you did when I call you out. So at least we know which of us is more honest.

Regarding the "smart man" I have on ignore...he apparently thinks that all stats are created equal. They are not. Garbage stats are garbage stats. I would rather you say "We don't have good stats but we think that...." Did he honestly read that 400 page report this afternoon? Because I actually have a job that I do pretty well. I'd be willing to bet that even mighty Roxine, Savior of Children, didn't read all 400 pages of that report.

LOL just LOL now it's a new excuse, and old message board favorite..."you know I have a job"

Again we will just have to trust you....a man (Edit: sorry, person) who has now conclusively lied about his own position.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

LOL just LOL now it's a new excuse, and old message board favorite..."you know I have a job"

Again we will just have to trust you....a man (Edit: sorry, person) who has now conclusively lied about his own position.

He should follow the others lead. Ignore everyone not putting PSU first, justice second. If you ignore everything out there you don't agree with, it's much easier to believe what you need to. It's kind of a North Korean bunker mentality by the Justice for Jerry mob.

 

[Chris92]

I skimmed it and did not find it persuasive to support granting the requested relief. Unlike you I have general reference points from which to evaluate the petition and would be shocked if Sandusky were to prevail. Having said that, I've been shocked before.

I fully expected it's complete dismissal in the fall. In your opinion, why did Cleland allow a new 2nd Amended PCRA petition? What caused that?

 

[pandaczar12]

Well done right there. Big thumbs up. You showed her. Heading out for the weekend, but thanks for that post. Huge smile on my face knowing that you actually typed that.

My stance has never changed, in fact I've posted nearly this exact wording at least one other time in this thread, if not 2-3 times... I just don't care enough to go back and count

 

[Black Elmo 2]

I fully expected it's complete dismissal in the fall. In your opinion, why did Cleland allow a new 2nd Amended PCRA petition? What caused that?

It gives the appearance of providing the Defendant every benefit of the doubt. It also eliminates another grounds for appeal (ie, Judge disallowed 2nd PCRA).

 

[GTACSA]

I fully expected it's complete dismissal in the fall. In your opinion, why did Cleland allow a new 2nd Amended PCRA petition? What caused that?

Perhaps you should go to law school, graduate, pass the bar and then actually practice law for a few years. I predict you would then look back on your post and cringe.

The practice of law is not like a home improvement hobby where you watch and learn to do it yourself.

 

[BobPSU92]

IGNORE. LIST.

 

[Chris92]

Perhaps you should go to law school, graduate, pass the bar and then actually practice law for a few years. I predict you would then look back on your post and cringe.

The practice of law is not like a home improvement hobby where you watch and learn to do it yourself.

What I mean is I expected Cleland to completely toss out the petition in the fall. I'm amazed it's still alive. I was being 100% serious in asking you why Cleland basically granted a "do-over" on the PCRA.

 

[rmb297]

I fully expected it's complete dismissal in the fall. In your opinion, why did Cleland allow a new 2nd Amended PCRA petition? What caused that?

It's a SUPPLEMENTAL petition -- not a 2nd Amended Petition. And AGREE that it will be tossed out by Cleland eventually.

I've only begun reading it (I'm on page 5) and there are a lot of factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations of the laws...

For example, on page 3:

It states there was nothing that was "remotely illegal behavior" in the 1998 Victim 6 incident. That is absolutely contradicted by the statements of Detective Ronald Schreffler, who believed that Sandusky should have been charged with lesser crimes.

There is no evidence that Lauro told the PSU police that he was assuming control of the investigation pursuant to the CPSL.

On page 4...

It refers to the interview of ZK by John Seasock as a psychological exam even though Seasock was not a psychologist -- or even licensed as a counselor in 1998.

The expungement of records only applies to the Department of Public Welfare and the County agencies. It doesn't apply to police reports.

There is no evidence of any of the victims admitting to taking part in repressed memory therapy or even having repressed memories. Some victims stated that they began recalling more details about abuse after thinking more about what happened. That is not evidence of repressed memories, but instead simply a matter of recalling things from long-term memory. You can read about memory theory here.....
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/psych-intel/art6.html

Here is the most salient part of the chapter:

Imagine memory as a massive, multidimensional spider web. This image captures what is, for the purposes of this book, perhaps the most important property of information stored in memory--its interconnectedness. One thought leads to another. It is possible to start at any one point in memory and follow a perhaps labyrinthine path to reach any other point. Information is retrieved by tracing through the network of interconnections to the place where it is stored.

Retrievability is influenced by the number of locations in which information is stored and the number and strength of pathways from this information to other concepts that might be activated by incoming information. The more frequently a path is followed, the stronger that path becomes and the more readily available the information located along that path. If one has not thought of a subject for some time, it may be difficult to recall details. After thinking our way back into the appropriate context and finding the general location in our memory, the interconnections become more readily available. We begin to remember names, places, and events that had seemed to be forgotten.

Once people have started thinking about a problem one way, the same mental circuits or pathways get activated and strengthened each time they think about it. This facilitates the retrieval of information.

 

[nits74]

What I mean is I expected Cleland to completely toss out the petition in the fall. I'm amazed it's still alive. I was being 100% serious in asking you why Cleland basically granted a "do-over" on the PCRA?

Chris, your mistake was assuming that GTACSA is interested in productive discussion as opposed to condescension and putting his arrogance on display. Fortunately, Ray very thoughtfully addressed your question.

 

[pandaczar12]

How many kids could you have helped today if you weren't trolling this message board? We don't need your stats, we don't need your lectures. We need you to help children by exposing the DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile.

You keep dodging my questions. It's almost as if you don't want to stop abuse. Why would a victim's advocate not be interested in stopping abuse? There really is only logical conclusion... I guess if there were no victims, they wouldn't need an advocate?

Roxine, your silence is deafening.

 

[pandaczar12]

Justice for Chumlee !!

I'm an eyewitness to Black Elmo 2 not responding to requests to reveal his source for the definition he quoted for "eye witness", and in the process destroying what little credibility he had.

Keep up with the random off-topic posts... maybe we will forget?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Perhaps you should go to law school, graduate, pass the bar and then actually practice law for a few years. I predict you would then look back on your post and cringe.

The practice of law is not like a home improvement hobby where you watch and learn to do it yourself.

LOL

The Undefeated World Champion of the Circle-Jerk circuit.......

Have you run out of bandwidth over on TOS asylum?

 

[GTACSA]

What I mean is I expected Cleland to completely toss out the petition in the fall. I'm amazed it's still alive. I was being 100% serious in asking you why Cleland basically granted a "do-over" on the PCRA?

My apologies; I misread the meaning of your post. Now I look back and cringe! I get frustrated by the postings by some posters here on legal matters of which they have no clue. I'm sorry I directed those frustrations against you.

The general rule is that amendments are generally granted in order to facilitate the disposition of all issues. There are exceptions but the courts want to be fair and ensure that parties are given a complete adjudication on all issues.

 

[nits74]

My apologies; I misread the meaning of your post. Now I look back and cringe! I get frustrated by the postings by some posters here on legal matters of which they have no clue. I'm sorry I directed those frustrations against you.

The general rule is that amendments are generally granted in order to facilitate the disposition of all issues. There are exceptions but the courts want to be fair and ensure that parties are given a complete adjudication on all issues.

Nice retraction. In kind, I'll take back my post.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I get frustrated by the postings by some posters here on legal matters of which they have no clue. .

You must experience an UN-GODLY amount of frustration when you proofread your posts.

 

[coveydidnt]

Comparison of Documented timelines:

Freeh Report at P42:

04-MAY-1998:
7:43am - V6 mother calls Chambers - Chambers recommends report to authorities
11:00am - V6 mother calls Univ Pol and reports to Schreffler
11:30am: Schreffler interviews V6
"Later that day" - Chambers meets with V6
"That afternoon" - Schreffler contacted John Miller (CYS)
8:00pm - Police interview V6 friend

05-MAY-1998
DPW takes over case

07-MAY-1998
Chambers provides written copy of report to Schreffler


The Sandusky PCRA implies that in between the 11:30am interview and and the 3:00pm interview by Chambers that the police and Chambers spoke. However there is no record of this in Freeh. There is also no record in Freeh of another 9:10pm interview (page 7).

I am unaware of any other contacts by Chambers in the investigation.

A lot of your "evidence" is found in Freeh report, yet you discredit Freeh report. Isn't it actually more likely that you cherry pick facts from wherever to fit your personal narative?

 

[no1lion99]

A lot of your "evidence" is found in Freeh report, yet you discredit Freeh report. Isn't it actually more likely that you cherry pick facts from wherever to fit your personal narative?

I don't know why you are attacking me here. I took no position on what is true or false in Freeh in that post. I was simply providing the relevant timelines there for comparison to the question of Chambers involvement.

 

[Chris92]

I don't know why you are attacking me here. I took no position on what is true or false in Freeh in that post. I was simply providing the relevant timelines there for comparison to the question of Chambers involvement.

Speaking of Chambers, what must she be thinking? She calls in a report, is interviewed by the police and then nothing happens, except for the children's charity run by the guy you reported wins an award given by the President of the United States of America three years later. For the next 14 years she remains silent OR at some point did she confront TSM? Based on the protection TSM has received to date, I'm thinking it's the latter.

 

[Adlee73]

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson telling you what the lowest form of evidence is:

Let's stop right now pretending that you can't question those who testified at any trial let alone Sandusky's.

 

[francofan]

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson telling you what the lowest form of evidence is:

View embedded media

Let's stop right now pretending that you can't question those who testified at any trial let alone Sandusky's.

I would love to see some people who didn't testify at Sandusky's trial testify under oath like Allan Myers and Matt Sandusky.

 

[no1lion99]

Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson telling you what the lowest form of evidence is:

View embedded media

Let's stop right now pretending that you can't question those who testified at any trial let alone Sandusky's.

Hopefully your day is complete now that you knocked over your strawman....

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Hopefully your day is complete now that you knocked over your strawman....

Hysterical. They all just lied. Poor tickle monster!!!

 

[francofan]

Hysterical. They all just lied. Poor tickle monster!!!

Do you think all of the accusers told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Do you think all of the accusers told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't.

Do I think nut jobs put PSU first, justice second? I really do. Do I think if you are a fan or alum and you visited Jerry in jail you have zero credibility? Yes I do. I think the victims have way more credibility than that guy. Are 10 or so people on this board dis functional fanactics with no real moral compass based on what we know today? Yes. Do I care if I piss these nut jobs off? Not at all.

Fun game.

 

[elvis63]

They deserve far worse treatment than you give them lajolla.

 

[getmyjive11]

Do I think nut jobs put PSU first, justice second? I really do. Do I think if you are a fan or alum and you visited Jerry in jail you have zero credibility? Yes I do. I think the victims have way more credibility than that guy. Are 10 or so people on this board dis functional fanactics with no real moral compass based on what we know today? Yes. Do I care if I piss these nut jobs off? Not at all.

Fun game.

The guy thinks that if one or two victims lied, that invalidates the other ~30. He also thinks that if only one or two of those victims were telling the truth that Sandusky somehow isn't a pedophile. It's disgusting, unbelievable and hilarious all at the same time.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The guy thinks that if one or two victims lied, that invalidates the other ~30. They also think that if only one or two of those victims were telling the truth that Sandusky somehow isn't a pedophile. It's disgusting, unbelievable and hilarious all at the same time.

He visited Jery in jail. Just think about that for a minute. That is the guy who is questioning the victims!!!

 

[mn78psu83]

He visited Jery in jail. Just think about that for a minute. That is the guy who is questioning the victims!!!

Are you referring to JZ, or did someone else in the thread visit JS too?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Someone else did.

 

[mn78psu83]

Someone else did.

Oh. Hmm. Whatever. Creepy.