ADVERTISEMENT

NEW! John Ziegler DEBATE on Sandusky!

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.


The turd argument "if it was one of your sons". A PL and TOS turd.
 
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.

Unfortunately, most of America has been conditioned to believe just that. I've come to the point where I won't even touch another person's kid on the shoulder out of fear of being suspected of such nefarious intentions. A world gone mad.
 
Unfortunately, most of America has been conditioned to believe just that. I've come to the point where I won't even touch another person's kid on the shoulder out of fear of being suspected of such nefarious intentions. A world gone mad.

Which is wise on your behalf. But again, this wasn’t a situation of touching another person’s kid on the shoulder. This was having physical contact with another person’s child while both are completely naked. A stark difference from touching a clothed kid’s shoulder.
 
Which victim? I don’t recall. Fill me in, though the father’s feelings on it are not necessarily relevant to what Sandusky’s intentions were.

yawning.jpg
 
So you are saying some of it was legit, right? If much of it was contrived, than some of it was not.


Most. The rest was not provable, and no one attempted to do so.

You would do anything to disparage Paterno and Penn State, wouldn't you?

Go find a hobby or a job.
 
Which victim? I don’t recall. Fill me in, though the father’s feelings on it are not necessarily relevant to what Sandusky’s intentions were.

Uh... you were talking about showering, so obviously the victim from the shower, victim #2. So how do you think he feels about it?
 
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.
To compare and contrast, Graham Spanier was found guilty by a jury of alleged peers. He surely was not guilty of EWOC, yet that is the hat with which you will hang your argument on. That is flimsy ground at best. NO ground more likely.

Amendola was unprepared and incompetent to repersent SAndusky. SMall fish; Big pond. The Prosecution/OAG outright LIED to the public and to the jury. Those scars tainted the ability of Sandusky to have a fair trial. For God's sake, the Sandusky jury also convicted him of abusing an unknown victim without a witness.

If Sandusky were to win a new trial and be re-tried, I think it is all but a certainty that he is found not guilty of every charge against him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
To compare and contrast, Graham Spanier was found guilty by a jury of alleged peers. He surely was not guilty of EWOC, yet that is the hat with which you will hang your argument on. That is flimsy ground at best. NO ground more likely.

Amendola was unprepared and incompetent to repersent SAndusky. SMall fish; Big pond. The Prosecution/OAG outright LIED to the public and to the jury. Those scars tainted the ability of Sandusky to have a fair trial. For God's sake, the Sandusky jury also convicted him of abusing an unknown victim without a witness.

If Sandusky were to win a new trial and be re-tried, I think it is all but a certainty that he is found not guilty of every charge against him.

I am not hanging my hat on Sandusky having been found guilty. That was a response something Indy said.
What I would hang my hat on would be Sandusky having a known and admitted behavior of showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them while doing so. After all these years and all these defenses of Sandusky I have to see a reasonable explanation for it.
 
Unfortunately, most of America has been conditioned to believe just that. I've come to the point where I won't even touch another person's kid on the shoulder out of fear of being suspected of such nefarious intentions. A world gone mad.
You should try coaching 7/8 grade girl's soccer ... especially in August when practices first start.

Girls: "Can we practice without shirts in our sports bras?"
Me: "NOOOOOO!!!!"
Girls: "The field hockey girls are allowed to."
Me: " They have a female head coach!"
Girls: "Can we at least roll up our shirts?" (Typically just pinnie shirts)
Me: "NOOOOO!!!!"

I've been coaching for almost 20 years and was taught early on to pat the top of their head for praise or if you are having trouble getting their attention since that is considered "non sexually threatening". I won't even do that now and have caught myself a few times since it had become such a habit. Now the girls I coached for a long time will give me a hug when I see them (many are still friends with my daughter), but even then I make sure there is at least one other adult around.

You said it ... a world gone mad!
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I honestly don’t know. If true, that would be interesting.

I thought I had read that factoid somewhere on one of the many threads on this subject and filed it away. I was hoping someone could confirm or refute my hazy memory.

I agree, if true that would be
ArteJohnson2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
I thought I had read that factoid somewhere on one of the many threads on this subject and filed it away. I was hoping someone could confirm or refute my hazy memory.

I agree, if true that would be
ArteJohnson2.jpg

I believe you are correct. I have also heard that Heim had recommended Amendola to Sandusky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
We've discussed this before. Seasock's report mentions another coach in the locker room in '98(item 7). So, if another coach was present, were they alone?

http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf

Interesting, but if there was another coach in the locker, why didn’t Sandusky mention it in his Ziegler interview? JZ has previously believed there was boy in the shower but Sandusky corrected him and said it was only ZK.
 
Interesting, but if there was another coach in the locker, why didn’t Sandusky mention it in his Ziegler interview? JZ has previously believed there was boy in the shower but Sandusky corrected him and said it was only ZK.
It reads like JS changed in the coaches locker area and that's presumably where the other coach was. It would also explain why the V thought they were alone.
 
I am not hanging my hat on Sandusky having been found guilty. That was a response something Indy said.
What I would hang my hat on would be Sandusky having a known and admitted behavior of showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them while doing so. After all these years and all these defenses of Sandusky I have to see a reasonable explanation for it.
No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?

I said Sandusky was found guilty in a court of law. That is a fact.
The jury being poisoned is an opinion.
 
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.
Agree, but we don't know for sure about the extent of the physical contact.
Better yet, concerning the Mike McQueary shower “victim”, who did that boy have stand in for his absent father at his Senior night high school football game?
Didn't that victim testify that he wasn't assaulted that night?
 
I like John. His heart is in the right place. Not the greatest of communicators and I don't think Joe would care for him either but it is what it is.

I thought he "quit" the case a long time ago out of disgust? What's the reason for his resurgence?
 
No, you made the assertion that Sandusky was found guilty by a jury of his peers. That is what I particularly debating. The jury was poisoned and lied to by the State. That same jury convicted Sandusky of a crime with no victim and no witness. So, I'm curious... why did you make the point that he was convicted by a jury of his peers as some sort of, 'see I told you so moment'?
Peers? Did you read all the jury stuff?
The breadth of Penn State connections was evident again in the second day of jury selection, an exhaustive process done in phases. Groups of 40 were questioned at a time, and those who weren't excused from that portion were then questioned individually to finally determine if they can be seated.

Of the 40 initially questioned Wednesday, 10 indicated they worked at Penn State. Nineteen indicated either they or a close family member had volunteered or financially contributed to the university.

Fifteen said they knew someone on the prosecution's witness list, while 20 knew someone on Sandusky's defense list. Eighteen indicated they had jobs or other responsibilities in which they were legally required to report instances of alleged child abuse.

Sandusky was quiet in court during this phase, leafing through a binder with plastic-covered pages and pausing at times when Cleland commented from the bench.

More than 600 jury duty summonses were sent out to residents in Centre County, the home of Penn State University's main campus.

Sandusky's lawyer won the right to have jurors chosen from the local community, and prosecutors had concerns that Centre County might prove to be nearly synonymous with Penn State.

All the jurors will have to say under oath they can be impartial.

Besides Sandusky family members, other names on the defense's potential witness list include the widow and son of Joe Paterno, the late Hall of Fame football coach who was dismissed by university trustees in the aftermath of Sandusky's arrest.

Assistant coach Mike McQueary and his father are also on the defense witness list.

Mike McQueary, on leave from the team, has said he saw Sandusky naked in a team shower with a young boy more than a decade ago and reported it to Paterno. Mike McQueary is also on the prosecution's list, along with young men who have accused Sandusky of abusing them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT