He may very well be guilty but the real problem I have with his prosecution is how fast he was convicted (seven months within being charged.) I've said it before, I sued a contractor for failing to complete a HVAC job and it took two years before it was even heard. How in gods green earth did this case get fast tracked so fast? Hell.. even murders take years to go to trial. Does this bother anybody else? Not to mention PSU's attorneys made no efforts to check victims stories of this crime for veracity. To me this does not pass the smell test. Just look at how long it took at MSU for Nassar to go to trial. " The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow "........except in this case. Very convenient for some meanwhile The Second Mile and it's connected BOT members get no scrutiny! Hmmm
NEW! John Ziegler DEBATE on Sandusky!
- Thread starter RussianEagle
- Start date
I can imagine that if I had spent so much time and effort on a subject on which we the public have chosen to close our minds early on, I would be extremely frustrated.
Jerry's lawyers, at his direction, expitidted the trial. They could have had more time. They waived the preliminary hearing. That itself eliminated a lot of opportunities to slow things down.
So he made decisions that didn't work out well. That's unfortunate but I wouldn't use the speedy trial as a defense.
I grew up at a time when it was normal for guys to shower together. Our phys ed teacher showered with us on occasion so I am inclined to defend Sandusky about 1998. That said, the 1998 incident should have scared the crap out of Sandusky. A normal person would have proceeded with an abundance of caution. The fact that he continued to shower with boys tells me that he had a problem. It might not have been anal or oral sex but at a minimum he had boundary issues.
I’d you haven’t read “The Most hated Man in America” and compare these stories versus the Mich State Dr., you aren’t nearly half informed. Eye opening to say the least.
This is so far off base. The defense filed at least three requests for continuance. The preliminary hearing was expected to last one day. How exactly does waiving the prelim the night before speed things up?
How often did your PE teacher shower alone with you and initiate physical contact?
The boundary issue is something of an unlikely safe zone people try to fall in. Calling it a boundary issue is basically calling is grooming. Nobody is grooming a kid to not have sex with them.
OK This whole issue is a joke. No way ANY competent defense attorney or presiding trial judge for that matter allows a defendant to fast track his trial because this is an issue that could be raised on appeal and it also raises the issue as to why the presiding judge knowingly allowed this to occur. The defendant has rights. The right to a speedy trial yes but not at the expense of the defendant. It's my understanding his attorney did ask for a delay as he needed more time and wasn't ready so he could be better prepared for trial which was denied by the judge. It makes no sense and it's extremely rare that you could say almost unheard of today. All defense attorneys delay in a major case such as this so they can amply prepare for whatever the prosecutors bring at them. Again I say... Competent Council which he obviously didn't have and that should be grounds for appeal. But this is Pennsylvania so I won't be holding my breath. I'm not saying he's innocent because I have no clue but I just don't believe that he got a fair trial.
They had a trial. So did the Salem witches. The question is whether or not it was a fair trial. I don’t have enough info to have an opinion, but I’d like to see this go to trial again and see what happens with a much more aggressive defense.
No, my phys ed teacher didn't initiate physical contact. I mention that because of the public outcry about the mere presence of a man in the shower with a boy. That in itself was not uncommon back in the day. My wife recalls her phys ed teacher making girls open their towels as they left the shower to prove they got wet. That would be cause for dismissal today.
You'll notice I said that AT A MINIMUM Jerry had boundary issues. I never suggested that was all he did. We'll never know the extent of what he did for sure.
I’m not trying to argue with you, honestly. My post was not meant to take a shot at you, so I apologize if it came off that way.
I don’t believe there was ever an outcry about a man in a shower with a boy. The outcry was initially about anal rape in the shower which McQueary himself has said he didn’t see. The continuing outcry is about Sandusky being alone in the shower with boys and having physical contact with them. Being alone in the shower with a boy is horrible judgement for somebody in Sandusky’s position in the children’s charity. Having physical contact with the boy would be beyond horrible judgement and I’ve yet to see anybody come up with an innocent reason for him to have been in the position.
Being alone with a boy in the shower was horrible judgement given what happened in 1998.
Officials at TSM and CMHS were phenomenally negligent to allow JS (or anybody) to take at risk kids out unsupervised.
Being alone with a boy and having physical contact with him horrible judgement (at best) in 1998. Being caught doing it again a couple years later is indefensible.
Given the amount of time you spend on this topic, I find it ridiculous that you use these two arguments to make any points. Do you trust the justice system in PA?
Yes, and I'm saying that he had no chance of acquittal from the day Joe was fired.
The OAG played it dirty and got away with it because the press was in on the fix, making money hand over fist, not to mention too chicken to question the narrative Corbett, et al had crafted.
Amendola should have been granted the continuance he requested. He was overwhelmed, especially after Shubin flipped his star witness.
The merits of the case can be debated until we run out of air. The important question is: If you have any young males in your family, would you feel safe leaving them alone with Sandusky?
I think that event alone could cause a mistrial in normal circumstances. Shubin provided a statement to the OAG that "Victim 2" was subject to oral and anal intercourse. When "Victim 2" was later interviewed by postal inspector, he stated he had never discussed his abuse with anyone including his lawyer. Shubin should have been arrested for obstruction of justice right there. We all know the only reason he wasn't arrested was because Frank Fina did not want to arrest the attorney who represented 3 of Sandusky's 8 trial accusers for making a false statement regarding abuse of one his clients just before Sandusky's trial.
Not sure how that's relevant. The answer is that I would not feel safe leaving my young sons alone with anyone I do not know well. However, most of the people who know Sandusky best (i.e. his adopted children) had no issue.
Matt Sandusky had no issue leaving his young boys with Jerry even after Jerry was arrested. He actually fought his ex-wife in court to allow his boys to see their grandfather when Jerry was under house arrest.
Everybody and their brother seems to be making the "But he showered with boys!" argument to prove Sandusky's guilt. I think the only reason people take that argument seriously now is because the false media narrative following Sandusky's arrest somehow put it in American's psyches that communal showers are typical locations in which child sex abuse occurs. That argument would have been laughed at in 2010, let alone 2001.
Was amendola in on the fix? He sure acted like it. Could he truly be so obviously incompetent?
Questions:
1. Does the person answering your question know sandusky personally? How many parents are comfortable leaving their children with total strangers? Some people who know sandusky still defend him. That tells me that some people who know him trust him. Maybe there's a good reason for that.
2. Is it possible for a total stranger of sandusky to completely dismiss the narrative when answering your question? That is a big part of the problem.
This isn't true. There are lots of people who insist that the mere presence of Jerry in the shower with a boy (even given that it is a large group shower) is enough to throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Those people are wrong, but the outcry is there.
That is the point of my post. As a parent, you are responsible for the safety and well being of your children. You have to know and trust who you leave in charge of your children. One mistake can haunt you the rest of your and your children's lives. I believe that ALL of us have some sort of demon inside of us, it's just a matter of how strong we are to control that demon and understand right from wrong. Remember, if you believe some people, society crucified the only perfect person ever born.
The trial was curious at best.
Regardless, he was found guilty by 12 of his peers. Earlier you implied that he was guilty by the public. While that is true, he also had a full trial and was found guilty there as well.
I haven’t seen that. Whether they say that or not is irrelevant though. The fact of the matter is that he showered alone with boys and had physical contact with them.
Yep this still is Pennsylvania. Some judicial decisions defy commonsense such as the decision regarding PSU council Cynthia Baldwin. Both Spanier and Shultz testified that Baldwin was their council when they went before the Grand Jury. It's in the record yet the Commonwealth rejected their argument. Go figure, Justice is blind! .... Joe didn't listen to Baldwin and brought his own council. Wise decision. Can't TRUST Old Main......
Was he in on “The Fix” or was he “convinced” to “play ball or suffer the consequences”?
Not without question. But I also wouldn't assume a sexual component existed. I'm not one of those people that thinks there's a pedophile around every corner. Sometimes a shower is just a shower.
Similar threads
