ADVERTISEMENT

Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]

Yeah, that is messed up. I wonder how that conversation went? :eek:

Something like "me and 15 other alum/fans think there is a <1% chance every victim, detective, and prosecutor lied. Are we right?"

The honest victim Jerry is such a sob story. Rapes kids, but the schools rep matters most!!! They'll even back the nuts that visit him in jail as sane! Tight bunch they are. Only on Tom's site thank goodness.
 
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.

Since you get to write the credibility rules how about someone who lives in a different state, not a PSU alum, is certified as a child care specialist who was specifically assigned to these kind of cases & who has reported the rape of a minor? Would that person have credibility?
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Since you get to write the credibility rules how about someone who lives in a different state, not a PSU alum, is certified as a child care specialist who was specifically assigned to these kind of cases & who has reported the rape of a minor? Would that person have credibility?
Does that person think that all 30 of his victims are liars?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
Do you think all of the accusers told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't.

Look another Innocence Project fool with another strawman knocked down.

No one, anywhere tells the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" on any given day. Every human lies, all the time, on many levels, for a variety of reasons. Now back to reality....

The question is does the evidence back up what the victims say, and on that the answer is pretty clearly yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
BTW do you think Alan Myers was a liar when he told cops Sandusky never molested him or when he said Sandusky did?


Who cares? He wasn't involved in any way in convicting Jerry. So what he told the cops is pretty irrelevant when it comes to Jerry being in jail. Strawmen abound in your arguments...
 
Look another Innocence Project fool with another strawman knocked down.

No one, anywhere tells the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" on any given day. Every human lies, all the time, on many levels, for a variety of reasons. Now back to reality....

The question is does the evidence back up what the victims say, and on that the answer is pretty clearly yes.


What "evidence"?

Stick to PL and TOS.
 
Since you get to write the credibility rules how about someone who lives in a different state, not a PSU alum, is certified as a child care specialist who was specifically assigned to these kind of cases & who has reported the rape of a minor? Would that person have credibility?

Amazing that a "certified" child care specialist keeps plastering the internet with victims names against their wishes. Perhaps someone should alert whichever agency certifies you. Care to let us know? State of NC? Some other private accreditation agency?
 
Since you get to write the credibility rules how about someone who lives in a different state, not a PSU alum, is certified as a child care specialist who was specifically assigned to these kind of cases & who has reported the rape of a minor? Would that person have credibility?

Are they a fan of PSU football and fighting for the justice for Jerry team? Do they listen to JZ? If so, I think you know my answer. How many of these victims did that person talk to on this case?
 
Last edited:
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?

Jeez, you're such a crybaby. You can't admit you were wrong. If you are too lazy to look it up its Merriam Webster, under Full Definition of the word "eyewitness.". Now go away and stop cluttering the board with your juvenile tantrums.
 
Still waiting for one good reason why PSU gave Matt Sandusky a settlement... First he testified he was never abused, but then suddenly remembered abuse that took place in 1992. How is Penn State responsible for this suddenly remembered "abuse"? I don't recall Penn State placing Matt in the Sandusky home.

Also, is it considered "victim bashing" if I question why certain victims got settlements substantially larger than the others when the courts ruled they could view the Freeh material?
 
Still waiting for one good reason why PSU gave Matt Sandusky a settlement... First he testified he was never abused, but then suddenly remembered abuse that took place in 1992. How is Penn State responsible for this suddenly remembered "abuse"? I don't recall Penn State placing Matt in the Sandusky home.

Also, is it considered "victim bashing" if I question why certain victims got settlements substantially larger than the others when the courts ruled they could view the Freeh material?


There was no good reason other than to buy him off and his silence regarding TSM.
 
Still waiting for one good reason why PSU gave Matt Sandusky a settlement... First he testified he was never abused, but then suddenly remembered abuse that took place in 1992. How is Penn State responsible for this suddenly remembered "abuse"? I don't recall Penn State placing Matt in the Sandusky home.

Also, is it considered "victim bashing" if I question why certain victims got settlements substantially larger than the others when the courts ruled they could view the Freeh material?
Pointless in questioning settlements. Settlements are not about guilt
 
Who cares? He wasn't involved in any way in convicting Jerry. So what he told the cops is pretty irrelevant when it comes to Jerry being in jail. Strawmen abound in your arguments...
He was supposed to be the star witness for the defense. Then he hired Shubin. You don't think that turned the case? How about the case against PSU?
 
That's right! Nobody came to Jerry's defense, especially if they wanted to address the injustice to Paterno. He never received the presumption of innocence he, and every one of us, is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution.

So the Paterno's are evil and Jerry is the victim. Seems perfectly well thought out. I wonder if Joe was in on it now. Great theories Indy. Your boy Tim thinking Jerry is innocent too? I had no idea Joe was in on this. At least the proof of his innocent has really come through.
 
So the Paterno's are evil and Jerry is the victim. Seems perfectly well thought out. I wonder if Joe was in on it now. Great theories Indy. Your boy Tim thinking Jerry is innocent too? I had no idea Joe was in on this. At least the proof of his innocent has really come through.
Did I say anyone was evil? I'm including myself in that group. I'm just saying that so many people fell all over themselves to gain some distance from Jerry that he never had a chance. Everyone wanted to appear so stridently against pedophilia that nobody considered the veracity of the evidence or the integrity of the legal process. The anal intercourse assertion, which was a total fabrication, was given immediate credibility with the firing of Paterno.

Joe said, and I'm paraphrasing, "If the accusations against Sandusky are true, then he fooled a lot of people." Not only do I believe that Joe's comment was the closest to the truth we've heard, I'm not convinced the question of "if" has been answered satisfactorily. And I find it curious that some PSU supporters seem more comfortable with a demonstrably false and damaging narrative than with those who would seek the truth.
 
Did I say anyone was evil? I'm including myself in that group. I'm just saying that so many people fell all over themselves to gain some distance from Jerry that he never had a chance. Everyone wanted to appear so stridently against pedophilia that nobody considered the veracity of the evidence or the integrity of the legal process. The anal intercourse assertion, which was a total fabrication, was given immediate credibility with the firing of Paterno.

Joe said, and I'm paraphrasing, "If the accusations against Sandusky are true, then he fooled a lot of people." Not only do I believe that Joe's comment was the closest to the truth we've heard, I'm not convinced the question of "if" has been answered satisfactorily. And I find it curious that some PSU supporters seem more comfortable with a demonstrably false and damaging narrative than with those who would seek the truth.

Jerry didn't have a chance because he did it. There is not s shred of evidence yet showing anyone he is innocent. The biggest false narrative on this site is Jerry is a victim somehow. He had his due process and he has no defense for what he did to this kids. Then again, PSU's image is a bigger concern to you than Jerry's victims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RobBliz
Jerry didn't have a chance because he did it. There is not s shred of evidence yet showing anyone he is innocent. The biggest false narrative on this site is Jerry is a victim somehow. He had his due process and he has no defense for what he did to this kids. Then again, PSU's image is a bigger concern to you than Jerry's victims.

PSU's image is not tarnished whether Jerry is guilty or not, aside from the gross negligence and malfeasance of the BOT.

What Jerry did or didn't do is all on him. There are plenty of people to blame before getting down to PSU, if assigning blame is important to you.

I've never claimed he was innocent, only that his trial was a sham. My personal opinion is that he's more perv than monster. At the very least, I think he was too smart to actually assault a child on PSU property. His access to PSU was too important to him and his grooming process.

However, I am no longer sure that he ever raped anyone. There's certainly no verifiable evidence to prove he did and it's a joke to force him to prove he didn't. You can't prove a negative, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason JS got away with it for so long and I really don't think it was because he was so clever.
 
PSU's image is not tarnished whether Jerry is guilty or not, aside from the gross negligence and malfeasance of the BOT.

What Jerry did or didn't do is all on him. There are plenty of people to blame before getting down to PSU, if assigning blame is important to you.

I've never claimed he was innocent, only that his trial was a sham. My personal opinion is that he's more perv than monster. At the very least, I think he was too smart to actually assault a child on PSU property. His access to PSU was too important to him and his grooming process.

However, I am no longer sure that he ever raped anyone. There's certainly no verifiable evidence to prove he did and it's a joke to force him to prove he didn't. You can't prove a negative, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason JS got away with it for so long and I really don't think it was because he was so clever.

Agree it had nothing to do with PSU. Touching a kids private and oral sex repeatedly is not just being a perv. Again Jerry was given due process, had a trial, and was convicted. If this happened anywhere else the holier than thou justice for Jerry crowd wouldn't even be on this site.
 
....and oral sex repeatedly is not just being a perv.....
I don't think that happened. That's my opinion. He may have fantasized about such things, but I don't believe he ever actually engaged in a sexual act with anyone. To be honest, I wonder if he's even capable of it. Which doesn't mean I'm at all convinced he didn't cross the perv line.

What I do know is that Corbett & Co. were not going to put their political futures on the line to take down a perv. Prosecuting Sandusky only helped them if the public could be convinced he was a monster and they went to great lengths to create that narrative. And then they were able to sell it to the victims, only two of whom had originally come forward claiming an overt sexual act.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
He was supposed to be the star witness for the defense. Then he hired Shubin. You don't think that turned the case? How about the case against PSU?

He was never going to be the star witness since Amendola doubted his credibility.

"I wasn't sure he was," Amendola said. "I'm still not sure. I haven't been able to verify it. Jerry's very sure."


I don't think that happened. That's my opinion. He may have fantasized about such things, but I don't believe he ever actually engaged in a sexual act with anyone. To be honest, I wonder if he's even capable of it.

What you just described is defined by PA statute as a sex crime. So regardless of whether he followed through, as multiple victims claim, and as he was convicted of, even your description makes him a child sex offender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coveydidnt
I don't think that happened. That's my opinion. He may have fantasized about such things, but I don't believe he ever actually engaged in a sexual act with anyone. To be honest, I wonder if he's even capable of it. Which doesn't mean I'm at all convinced he didn't cross the perv line.

What I do know is that Corbett & Co. were not going to put their political futures on the line to take down a perv. Prosecuting Sandusky only helped them if the public could be convinced he was a monster and they went to great lengths to create that narrative. And then they were able to sell it to the victims, only two of whom had originally come forward claiming an overt sexual act.

The victims probably don't care what you think because you care about PSU only. You really have nothing to base your opinion on unless you are a young man who spent a ton of alone time with him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: _fugazi_
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT