I think that's just how the complaint form breaks down SOLICITATION to commit IDSI and other crimes. The narrative doesn't allege that Sandusky actually had intercourse with either victim, but he certainly solicited it. The differences in the actual crime is relatively minor (solicitation to commit child sexual assault is still a tremendously serious crime), but I think what you're seeing in the first few pages is just how the State Police's complaint form differentiates between solicitation and the underlying offense.
Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son arrested for sexually assaulting a child
- Thread starter NC2017
- Start date
Yep, smh...apparently the judge taking YEARS to rule on simple ex post facto, SOL, and ACP issues with Baldwin is also CSS' fault. Heaven forbid these men point out in motions that their constitutional rights were flagrantly violated by the OAG and their corrupt GJ shenanigans.
It very well could be true that he did it for money and lied, but there is probably a pretty good chance the tickle monster also touched him once or twice in his lifetime. I get those skeptical due to the money, but I wouldn't say that money alone turns you on your father....one that was "so great" that Matt wanted to be adopted by him. There isn't a dollar amount on this planet that could make me say something like that about my father....but hey...everyone here will apparently sell their soul for a couple million and send their mother or father to prison for life? I'm not buying that. Not my mother, father, or siblings. It's a spot to raise an eyebrow for sure, but there is no proof either way.
Not that I much care - because I don't - but I read the report through once, and I don't see any accusations of physical assault.
It appears - from what is included in the Criminal Complaint - to be, at this point anyway, "solicitation" vav whatever the specific acts are (that are redacted)
I'm not going to go spend time researching that statutes, but - again, from the written complaint - it would appear that "solicitation" of such acts (under these circumstances - - - - ages and what not) falls under the "Sexual Assault" and "IDSI" sections of the Code.
You need to learn how to quote posts, then after that your opinion matters... Yeah, I am a JerBot, please go read all my posts about him, I am about the only one who thinks he should be dead, his whole family should be in jail.
I don't think that "trait" is limited to people on this board.
Money makes people do strange and horrible things and the more money
there is the bigger the "temptation".
"98.7% of all "statistics" are complete fabrications - with no basis in fact"
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape
No it makes some people do strange things. I don't know too many people who would say their father molested them just for money, but it doesn't mean it didn't or can't happen. I just think it's low hanging fruit used on this site and pushed down by JZ going back a year or two. The same JZ who has been exposed an attention whore and will do anything to get on any news media. Again..maybe he just tossed him under the bus when he saw the writing on the wall..it's possible...cold and f--king heartless, but possible.
OK Nate, thanks for the language tip. I thought maybe your claim of being a JerBerbot would put you in Ziggler's camp.
Actually I didn't see anyone in this thread tout Matt as a hero, but some did certainly attack his character because they don't like what he said. You have a hard time dealing with reality and maybe that is why you cannot control yourself and get banned over and over again like the little troll you are. Some people have OPINIONS on what happened with Matt or maybe with how much Joe actually knew. NOBODY here...NOBODY...NOBODY knows whether or not if Matt completely lied for cash or simply finally said...enough is enough protecting this monster and flipped on him. There are tons of articles of abused kids sticking by their abusers even as adults so this false NOTION that Matt is the exception to the rule is bogus. Taking the money doesn't automatically make him a liar or mean he was never abused. People can raise an eyebrow to it for sure, but it's not proof of him lying. Most victims don't talk about or deny abuse. That isn't just children, but people who are raped as well. Some can and do come forward right away, but I don't think they are in the majority.
NOBODY here...again NOBODY knows exactly what Joe knew or didn't know. That isn't my OPINION, that is a FACT as nobody here can say what he did or didn't really know. I tend to think after 30 years of grooming that Jerry had put in that Jerry had people conditioned to think he was just odd and simply didn't know better. Joe's actions (not a criminal nor a cheater at all in his life) tend to back that he did NOT comprehend everything that Jerry was doing. That is MY OPINION, but jive and some others tend to have an OPINION that he knew more apparently. How they can make that leap based on the GJ testimony is beyond me when the man clearly said "something in sexual nature and I don't know what you would calll it". How in the hell does anyone say that is emphatic ONE WAY or the OTHER when a GJ presentment only has questions asked by the PROSECUTION. NOBODY has proof as to how much Joe did or didn't know in terms of Jerry's behavior. Just as I have no way to emphatically say without a doubt he didn't have an idea at all what was going on. I don't think he really knew the level of Jerry's craziness, but I cannot PROVE that one way or the other.
It's highly unlikely Joe and C/S/S all just said...let's just toss our careers and "moral compasses" out the door late in life to protect our pedophile Jerry over the school which was what the witch hunt has stated.
C/S/S have NEVER been able to tell their side of the story...NOT ONCE. So you basically have 2 sides here on this site PRETENDING and I MEAN PRETENDING to know exactly what was known by them. People TRY to point to 98, but there were no charges in 98 so if someone is basically cleared or not charged of something it's pretty hard to say they are a SERIAL pedophile based on that. Knowing what Jerry is now, people can say they should have known but that is such a bogus argument. GROOMING isn't fake or made up...it exists and guys like Jerry are master manipulators. They prey on kids and Jerry preyed on the most vulnerable of the bunch. CSS and Joe weren't monitoring Jerry's every move and even more so after he retired in 99.
People really do confuse their opinions for facts so badly here. Maybe someday we'll actually here what C/S/S have to say and a MORE INFORMED opinion can be made. Joe's testimony at best was vague and the actions of those above him didn't scream cover up. So you either have to believe they KNEW MORE and didn't act or maybe they didn't COMPREHEND the levels of how DISGUSTING a human Jerry really is.
Last edited:
I pretty much agree with all of that which is why I (and many others) go after jive for his obvious trolling. He posts repeatedly and ad nauseum state with certainty that Joe "knew" something sexual happened in that shower based on one unintelligible fragment from his extremely vague grand jury interview. Hogwash.
The testimony was riddled with "I don't knows" and never had the chance to be cross examined. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Nobody knows for sure what Joe knew, but I give him (and CSS) the benefit of the doubt given how they conducted their lives and lengthy careers, and I give them the presumption of innocence until more facts come out, if they ever do before every single charge is dropped.
Joe was quoted in his biography as saying something to the effect of "if I knew he was harming children of course I would have stopped it". I believe that 100% until proven otherwise. His vague, uncrossed grand jury interview certainly doesn't prove otherwise.
Calling someone a troll because they disagree with you is bogus in itself. pnny and his 50 handles only chimes in with PL troll, JJ and other BS anytime someone doesn't post something he gets behind. He just made up complete BS saying people here are touting Matt as a hero. I didn't see that one time in this thread. Not to mention he does nothing but spew hate. Yet nobody says boo to him about it and people encourage him to keep up is insane act. Screaming you're an a-hole and making things up about people daily...nobody dares to say...yeah...that isn't true. According to him I'm on pennlive somewhere tormenting him. I've never...not one time in my left commented on an article on Penn live. He does this to numerous people and they tell him it's BS...but simon, bob, and the woe is me crowd cheer him on.
If you cannot prove one way or the other what Joe knew then how can you state his opinion is completely wrong? I think it's now just easier here to say...jive is a troll...he's not waving my flag so he sucks. It's mindless to me. Part of what Joe said without cross examination was "sexual in nature" which is vague when you combine it with I don't know you call it. Nobody can honestly say they know what Joe knew or C/S/S...it's a lie at this point in time to say that. We have yet to see the evidence the prosecution may have on them and we have yet to hear what those 3 have to say in defense.
IMO I think the whole damn thing was a media driven witch hunt due to the gross nature of Jerry's crimes. Our media calls for blood and the people will blindly follow as heads need to roll. Look at how many here are still doing this with the CYS like Jerry was telling them...yeah...I abuse kids, but I'll put a roof over their head so let me adopt them and they said...sounds good to me. MISTAKES were made and by some good people, but the finger pointing is reaching an all time high all over the place here. The only people I really still look to as failures are the BoT because they made some gross crimes about football simply because these high level people didn't want any dirt NEAR their hands. It was a cowardly move IMO and they ran with it and still are to this day.
Last edited:
I never said jive is a troll because he disagrees with me, I said he's a troll because of how he repeatedly states his opinion as a fact and backs it with vague un-crossexamined testimony from which no one being honest could draw anything conclusive. Just look at his posting history. There is nothing "bogus" about that. The other option is dumb, but I view his behavior as trolling on this topic.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said nobody knows for sure what Joe knew? I have never ever said I know for sure what Joe or CSS knew. I have said repeatedly that I give all of them the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence until they get to tell THEIR side of the story, if they ever do. I am not sure what is so complicated about this or why it would be unexpected on a Penn State board by a very informed poster. If your fight is with pnny or another poster have it with them. I'd really prefer not to fight with you as I'm not even sure we disagree that much on actual substance. Maybe I'm wrong.
We don't disagree on the Joe and CSS things, but many here have a hissy fit when I don't fight for Jerry's "fair" trial because I believe the man is guilty. His actions, inability to stop showering with kids after being warned, and 8 victims testifying against him as adults kind of prove that. Their testimony is on the record. His being told to stop showering with kids is on the record. His need to be alone with countless children is on the record. People take me saying...Jerry's guiltly as sh!t to mean Joe covered it up because they think the two are tied to together at the hip.
Francofan thinks the only way to clear Joe's name is if Jerry is found innocent. I don't need Joe's name cleared as I don't think he is guilty of anything currently. I know there is no perfect judicial system and I don't think they got this one wrong. Was the leak wrong...absolutely...is that the only reason JS is in jail...absolutely not. I did read your comments and I do agree with them when it comes to the 3 and Joe. Maybe the prosecution does have something up it's sleeve as they have dropped everything for some reason? Whether or not they are being stubborn or they really have some dirt is yet to be seen. Why I point to pnny is anyone out there complaining about jive don't say a damn thing to pnny and his over the top behavior which truly is trolling and why he is only allowed to really post on this site until he has to get a new handle due to not being able to control himself. Jive certainly handles himself way better and since I agree with him about Jerry's trial....I can see how and why he is the target. I'm not an angel and I certainly don't bit my tongue, but I at least try to be somewhat objective.
So you don't see the problem with your line of reasoning? You don't care that JS didn't get a fair trial because he's a child molestor and he's in jail where he belongs. I really couldn't care less about JS but, I have a real problem with our judicial system not following the letter of the law just because the perp is widely hated. The power of our judicial system is immense and is ripe for abuse. People in law enforcement and the judiciary need to be held to high standards because they wield so much power. This is more important to me than any single case no matter how vile the defendant.
Jerry is in jail. My guess is he will not get a new trial, and if he does I really don't think the verdict will change. That is based on my layman's interpretation of everything as well as my read of the testimony. I do think there were several very strange things about his trial, but for all of those reasons above I tend to gloss over and not engage in that discussion. That's just me. I fully understand that many others here have a strong interest in that part of this mess.
A little something to keep the post rolling ……Zig’s back
I cannot in good conscience give you the link, it's easy enough to find.
"Penn State truther John Ziegler on Kirk & Callahan: Jerry Sandusky’s son may have been set up"
I cannot in good conscience give you the link, it's easy enough to find.
"Penn State truther John Ziegler on Kirk & Callahan: Jerry Sandusky’s son may have been set up"
Try to understand this...you and others saying he didn't get a fair trial doesn't mean I have to think he didn't get one. Jerry was read his rights. Jerry selected his own attorney that he paid for, not a public defender. Jerry then had a trial and couldn't refute any of his victims. The judge not ruling in the favor of the defense 100% of the time doesn't make the trial unfair. People here saying the trial was unfair is an opinion, do you not really understand that. There is no such thing as a perfect trial or judicial system on this planet. People here saying Jerry was the victim of bad justice can have at it...it's an opinion. The leak was wrong, but that alone doesn't mean he gets a do over. One appeal was already denied and this latest request will more than likely get declined. If it doesn't and he gets to go to court to go to prison again...I'll send you a trophy. You guys will be overwhelmed with joy as this one case was done over to get the same result and the judicial system will still not be perfect.
Of course he was. At what point will people realize what he is? 3 days later and JZ is on it...from across the country he already has his theory lined up. Maybe he'll get to talk about this on Slaten too.
But we do know, for a fact, via his testimony multiple times under oath in a court of law, that MM never "saw" or "eyewitnessed" a sex act, let alone the one alleged by the OAG Prosecutors - anal rape, AND MM further elaborated that he NEVER TOLD ANYONE that he had seen or eyewitnessed such a thing! Given that Paterno's statement makes it eminently clear that he didn't know precisely what MM saw in the shower as he never told him definitively AND we have MM's under oath testimony that he NEVER told ANYONE he "saw" or "eyewitnessed" a sex act, let alone the sex act the State was alleging he "saw" and "eyewitnessed" (very odd for the State's alleged "eyewitness" to act as the "star witness" for the defense in UNEQUIVOCALLY REFUTING the State's claims and proving the State INTENTIONALLY lied about possessing DIRECT EVIDENCE of the crime in their Indictment, no?!?!), how precisely can we have MM describing a "criminal sex act" to JVP, who is an "ANYONE" relative to MM's unequivocal under oath testimony???
OAG, OAG, OAG, OAG, OAG!!!!!!!!! MM has sh!t to do with the other 8 victims that testified under oath that Jerry molested them DIRECTLY as minors at Jerry's trial. This is only about PSU to you which is fine, but YOUR CAPS and BS mean nothing to me. If you want to only discuss MM, the GJ presentment, or the OAG...I'm not you're guy. That is irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things....sorry.....but maybe you'll win some imaginary battle with the OAG on this site by the continues posting about it and taking every non related post to that one spot for you. I'm not hung up on MM and I know what he said was vague, but Jerry isn't in jail to that alone. 8 adult victims did testify under oath to more than a shower and his pattern of behavior along with their testimony is why is where he is. If you don't like that or can't handle it...I don't care.
You would do so much more if you wrote your state representatives and possibly Jerry's lawyers with your incredible knowledge of how unfair the GJ presentment was. I can't fix that for you...so maybe you can really utitlize your time on this planet to fix that wrong if it disturbs you that much. I'm not doing a damn thing about it. Not your guy for that, but Steven Masters can get you in touch with Jerry's lawyers. Good luck with that battle.
Last edited:
Ease off the gas, pal. I have no idea if he did or didn't get a fair trial. I thought it was weird how fast the trial happened. Our last AG got convicted for leaking grand jury info yet no one cares that someone did it in the Sandusky case. I know one of two State police committed perjury during the trial and again, no one cares. Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the impression that you don't care whether he got a fair trial because you believe he's guilty. That's the type of thinking I feel is dangerous.
I don't quite understand the hate for Ziegler coming from the Penn St community. Well, I guess I kind of do. He's unnecessarily confrontational at times, can be overly loud and unlikeable in the way he communicates. BUT, no one knows more about this whole "scandal" than Ziegler. In a time where we can't count on the mainstream media to do any sort of real journalism, Ziegler has been one who has tried to get to the bottom of this case and has been digging for the truth. If there ever comes a time where this whole thing has gone away and the truth is actually known, he will be the #1 person to thank for that.
Were there really 8 that claimed "molestation"? It was more like, "Jerry put his hand on my knee. I never thought much about it, but my lawyer and therapist tell me it was wrong. Pay me!"
BS. He clearly testified that he witnessed a sex act and the jury convicted Sandusky on the charge. Just because he didn't witnessed penetration doesn't mean that what he witnessed and testified to wasn't a sex crime. It was and Sandusky was convicted on the indecent assault charge (which is a sex crime despite your attempts to claim it isn't).
This is very much not true. There are now a bunch of posters on this board alone and many outside that know more than Ziegler.
Wrong Pal, he testified that he NEVER saw anybody's genitals let alone seeing a "sex act" being performed with them! Saying you saw two people from behind in a shower and ZERO movement or vocalizations from either of them.....and then SPECULATING as to what you THINK might have been going on based on what you had heard several minutes earlier when you walked in the building and were walking down the hall to the lockerroom.....DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "eyewitness testimony" (DIRECT EVIDENCE in support of an Indictment) as legally defined by the PA Court you frigging always-wrong loudmouth! This is especially so when the party in question under oath in a court of law DENIES ever telling the prosecution that they "saw" such a thing (denies it under oath multiple times including the SWIGJ!) or could act as an "eyewitness" to such a thing and has clearly labelled their statements as to what MIGHT have been going on as SPECULATION on their part!!! And beyond especially so when the same party sends an e-mail to the OAG Prosecutors PRIOR TO THE TRIAL that they have read the OAG Prosecutors' "Presentment" and that the OAG has MISREPRESENTED what the party told them he SAW and that he CANNOT testify as an "eyewitness" (i.e., provide DIRECT EVIDENCE) to what they FALSELY claim he saw and that what they put in the "Presentment" is at diametric odds with what he TESTIFIED to under oath at the 30th SWIGJ!!!
Thank you. They really let him have it. Comparing Tom Brady to Sandusky. It's no surprise it's not on Framing Paterno.
Yeah except for the ones that claimed more than that...but I guess you don't count those ones. Wow, I'm starting to think you are another one of pnny's handles now.
Since you don't seem to remember the trial, here's a synopsis:
Victim 1 testified that Sandusky performed oral sex on him on multiple occasions.
Victim 2 is the McQueary incident.
Victim 3 testified that Sandusky fondled him.
Victim 4 testified to more than 50 instances of oral sex.
Victim 5 testified that Sandusky touched his genitals.
Victim 6 testified to the 1998 shower incident, but also testified that large portions of the shower incident are blocked from his memory.
Victim 7 testified that Sandusky repeatedly put his hand down the boy's underpants.
Victim 8 is the janitor incident.
Victim 9 testified that Sandusky forced him to perform anal and oral sex.
Victim 10 testified that Jerry forced him to perform oral sex.
Yeah...I'm not sure how he even came close to making his initial post of hands on the knee. I'm not sure some here understand what was said and testified to at his actual trial as they are still talking about the GJ presentment. Maybe they'll catch up or the ones that have will stick to they all just got paid to say it and they had their reasons for making Jerry go to jail.
He's correct in stating that Jerry's grooming patterns almost always started with physically touching his victims, usually when they were both in the car and Jerry would put his hand on the victim's knee or thigh.
What he's ignoring or failing to remember is that for the majority of victims, Jerry would continue to escalate that physical contact as long as he sensed that the victim wasn't pushing back - from touching the thigh, to Jerry putting his hands down their pants, to showering, until it ultimately manifested in sex if he felt the victim was compliant and wouldn't say anything. Victims testified to all stages of Jerry's abuse process at the trial.
How many times do I need to tell you. I have never said that the only way to clear Joe's name is if Jerry is found innocent. I believe that Joe's name will eventually be cleared whether or not Jerry is innocent. If Jerry is determined to be innocent, then the is no question that Joe's name will be cleared. Since I don't believe Jerry got a fair trial, I think it is about time to have a new fair trial to determine whether or not he is innocent.
I'm not worried about Joe's name like you are. I'm also not saying his trial was unfair and I'm not going to answer your next post asking me why I feel that way again.
Latest posts
-
-
Football Penn State Football Welcomes four More Enrollees to Campus- Latest: Marty Leap
-
-
