Noonan only employees "character" guys.
OT: Fina cries like a baby, complains about PSU "truthers"
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
I would think someone who was classified in the top 1% of CSA nice guy predators would be pretty adept at hiding his or her tracks. As demonstrated by the Costas interview, Sandusky certainly doesn’t appear that adept at hiding his tracks.
You realize that Franco can only find people credible if they say what he needs to hear.
How many people out of 110,000 if asked that question along with the bag check would not instantly say no?
Unless the person spoke no English, I'd lock up anyone who paused more than 1 second. (Or answered yes)
In Jerry's case he doesn't answer correctly because he might not think he died anything wrong.
Some people just think "if it feels good then it must be ok"
In other words, Franco has it twisted that stammering for 10 seconds is evidence that Jer is innocent. I think that's basically the case he's trying to make.
The Only possible explanation is Jer not knowing what the correct answer was.
People act differently in different situations. Just because Sandusky was a putz when facing a crucial interview question on national television that doesn't allow me to draw conclusions about his deception skills under a completely different set of circumstances. I would argue that victim allegations spanning decades is a far bigger indicator of Sandusky's potential for deception than one interview question ever could be.
Spanning decades? Six of the Eight trial accusers all claimed abuse from 1997-99. The two others claimed abuse from 2005-2008 (who only met each other once despite both claiming they spent nearly every weekend at Sandusky’s house).
Didn’t they (or at least one of them) also testify that he did do something?
Again I will ask the question Indy: Why would he have physical contact alone in a shower with young boys at all, let alone after he had promised to never do so again after being investigated by the police the first time? I just want one legitimate reason. Because they were sweaty and needed to shower off does not cut it. I have been in showers with other men before including when I was a child. Not once did any of them touch me. That includes my own father.
I will also repeat this, as I have many times: I certainly hope he is not guilty of anything he was found guilty of. I would much rather he have spent time undersevedly in jail than any of these guys have been sexually assaulted by him.
If he gets disbarred, it's gonna be a leetle bit tough to act as a lawyer in any way. The definition of the practice of law is a lot broader than most people think. Not sure even Noonan is dumb enough to try that if Frankie's ticket's been punched.
Can you even imagine the emotional trauma of being questioned by police about doing something sexually inappropriate with a child?That isn’t something you’d just forget later on, it would be seared into you. In fact, Jerry was affected by it deeply enough to tell the kid’s mother he wished he were dead. Yet, just a few years later, he’s repeating the same activity that led to that investigation.
If, after that first incident, you not only didn’t become hyper vigilant about all your future actions, but instead showered alone with a 12 year old again and made physical contact while in the shower, then the only rational explanation is that you have an uncontrollable urge to do so, and there’s no innocent explanation for that.
Last edited:
Huh? Shall I run a westlaw search for the terms “truth” and “veracity” tomorrow and tell you how many hundreds of thousands of times it’s cited in the myriad of legal researchable data available?
Why, cincy, I believe the boy is trying to tell us something! Now, I don't know, but it seems to me if he has testified several times, and the truth was nowhere to be found, that maybe he's tryna say HE LIED!
Now don't that just frost ya? There's a man with some Gumpsion! Huh. Lookee there, will ya? I done misspelled it. Dang autocorrect anyways.
What kinda expert do you suppose he is? I sure got no idea. Here's the part that gets ya--if he lies in court, how we gonna believe 'im here on the godforsaken message board? Sure has got me throwed.
Yes there is, if the kid is horsing around. This was a happy event for Alan Meyers. It was fun! Read his statement.
Right. It would be no different than telling an adult they couldn’t do that with whomever they were attracted to. You could say you would deny yourself, but when presented with the opportunity it just might be too much to resist. It just so happens that in Sandusky’s case, it was illegal to do so.
Again, given what he’d been through before, there is no way a rational adult ends up in a shower with a child again absent some other disturbing reason.
Have you read his statement? Sandusky was his surrogate father. And what he went through exonerated him of any wrongdoing.
There's only one reason the '01 incident ever saw the light of day....somebody wanted to throw PSU football under the bus.
His saying he wished he was dead is misinterpreted, IMO. I believe he was saying, "I had no idea I made him uncomfortable. I feel terrible!"
"The I wish I were dead" claim is hearsay. There's no evidence he actually said that. And even if true, it would only show that Sandusky was very quick to confess to wrongdoing. Yet he never made any attempt to seek a plea bargain or confess after the conviction even though it would have made his prison sentence much shorter/more tolerable.
Its very likely Sandusky just saw the 1998 police interview as them simply going through a procedure in response to an overreaction of a overprotective mother. Its also important to note in the case of the 2000-01 incident, the mother of the almost 14-year old clearly had no issue with Jerry horsing around in the shower with her son, so its reasonable to believe Jerry thought he had nothing to worry about in this case.
I reject the serial groomer/voyeur theory for the following reasons:
1) No porn was ever found in Sandusky's possession
2) Sandusky made no effort to plea bargain
3) Sandusky did not confess to any sexual misbehavior after the conviction even though it would have allowed help to get psychological help in prison and maybe some sympathy in some circles. He also did not confess with John Ziegler used the formula Jim Clemente claimed would guarantee confession.
Another problem with Clemente theory is that three of the trial victims (5,9,10) do not fit the pattern of "nice guy predators" which consists of years of grooming leading up to compliant sexual contact. V9 even alleged forcible rape and false imprisonment. I've asked Clemente several times if he believes these accusers are legit and he constantly refuses to answer.
Last edited:
Sandusky has denied making the “i wish I were dead statement.” In a sting operation, you would think there would have been a recording or at least a transcript. If it was as what it was made out to be, how was he not charged? Sandusky has said that he was upset that he may have caused trouble between v6 and his Mom. I believe his words have been misconstrued.
Not that this is news, but this statement confirms that it is a really, really good thing you aren't running the world.
Jesus....
Clemente is a fraud. He draws all these conclusions about Sandusky based on what fits the profile of a "nice guy offender", but completely ignores all the things about the case that don't fit the profile at all (lack of porn, no eventual confession).
Yeah...Clemente is the problem, not Jerry Sandusky and his molesting of children. Dem had this pegged right a couple days back.
Still hasn’t been anybody to give a legitimate, innocent reason for Jerry to have been in the shower having direct physical contact with an underage boy.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Could you explain this sentence?:
And what he went through exonerated him of any wrongdoing.
Let me try this again.
Having physical contact with an unrelated minor whether in a shower or not is what sexual predators do when they are eyeing prey. That does not mean that everyone who has physical contact with an unrelated minor is a sexual predator. As I understand it, the key characteristic that separates sexual predators from others is that their motivation for the physical contact is sexual. By that I mean that they either intend to engage in sexual activity (sexual intercourse or oral sex), some sort of fondling that involves private parts, or is something that causes arousal.
Sandusky is a touchy-feely type. I don't believe there is convincing evidence that Sandusky engaged in sexual activity or that he was aroused in dealings with minors (correct me if you think I am wrong with SPECIFIC incidents that you believe contradicts my premise).V2 and v6 are the only confirmed instances that I am aware of concerning Sandusky have physical contact in a shower. In both instances, I believe that the reason that Sandusky had physical contact in the shower was to bond and establish an extended friendly, but non-sexual relationship. And guess what, in both cases of v2 and v6, Sandusky established a 10+ year bonding, friendly relationship with the young men that both have said was non-sexual.
Sandusky is from an older generation that didn't see anything wrong with this stuff. Believe me, I'd love it if the old guys in public locker rooms would cover up when walking around after a shower, but they don't.
In a legal sense, he was not charged and he was not indicated. The criminal justice system investigated the incident and made no effort to restrict Jerry's access to children. In a system that prides itself on "innocent until proven guilty", that's as close to exoneration as you can get.
And that's why I say that their admonition to Jerry to stop showering with kids was intended to protect him and was not motivated by concern for the child. It was a warning about how bad it would be for him if an accusation occurred in a he said/he said scenario. One angry mom would be all it would take. Had V6's mother decided to file a civil suit, PSU would have had to settle immediately! This interpretation is consistent with the results of the investigation. And preventing those situations in the future was the sole motivation of C/S/S.
And it's worth pointing out that V6's mom would go on to ask Jerry for tickets a year later so her son could be there for Jerry's final game in Beaver Stadium. This young man sent Jerry a text on Father's Day, 2011...13 years later....in which he stated how blessed he felt to have JS in his life.
I don't know about all of the charges, but I feel strongly that the PSU related ones are complete BS!
Last edited:
Yeah, that is not answering the question. I am sure between sports and gym class I must have taken hundreds of showers in those large 10-15 person showers all the schools had back then. Not one time did I ever have any other person touch me, at all, for any reason. Not once was I ever in a shower with an adult male, alone.
The older generation absolutely without any doubt saw something wrong with showering alone with a 12 year old and touching him.
There is no reason to ever "bear hug" a 10-14 year old kid in the shower as an adult. You won't get an answer that is valid. You don't jump into a shower with another persons child that is 10+ years of age and touch them. It was his compulsion as he knew damn well it was wrong...he was told it was wrong and said he would never do it again. This man ran a children's charity for f--ked up kids and he somehow didn't know right from wrong. You need to pretend Jerry himself was a slow adult or mentally challenged goof ball. Yet he was smart enough to graduate college and lead an incredible defense for decades at PSU. Joe just never noticed he was an idiot somehow. The whole thing is insulting to the victims and Joe himself IMO.
Classic cherry picking of data points to meet your own conclusions. It is an irrefutable fact that there are accusations dating way before 1997. Just because those accusers weren't part of the trial doesn't change the fact that they exist. Some of those accusations are questionable in nature. However just because you or I may disagree with them, doesn't change the fact that those accusations exist. I stand by my original statement that there are allegations that span decades. This is a fact.
These bullet points are nice, and do absolutely nothing to confirm or deny Sandusky's innocence. There is no requirement or dependency on any one of these points in order to confirm guilt. Just because history has shown that the majority of child molestors over a large sample size do these things doesn't mean jack squat in terms of what one person did or did not do.
In all fairness Franco, that is a load of horseshit. You think he was “bonding” with kids by having naked physical contact with them? That’s insane. Everybody in the world knows not to do that. A person that is in charge of a major children’s charity should know that better than anybody.
Honestly Franco, it’s a ridiculous notion.
These poor "victims" will have to console themselves with their millions of dollars. They laughed all the way to the bank on this one.
PLEASE....after 6+ Years - get to the heart of the crimes committed here! Sandusky is NOT the core LEGAL issue here! The majority of evidence against him is based on speculations concerning questionable behavior with kids and testimonies that changed over time...funny, they all changed when the PSU $$$$ appeared.
LEGALLY the pedophile case against Sandusky - considering the COURT ROOM EVIDENCE (if it were properly cross examined) was weak - it ONLY gained against him when the State of PA took "liberties" with testimony practices (Known perjury) and withholding up core information via the Grand Jury System and bogus charges against PSU officials.
Unquestionably it would be NICE if Sandusky were proven innocent (at least LEGALLY) because it would prove an obvious fact - THE STATE OF PA via its OAG and its Governor/former OAG head (Tommy Corbett) committed criminal acts to fabricate a case which included Penn State University Football.
Sure....If Sandusky was proven LEGALLY abused, then that would make it much easier for the REAL CRIMES to be publicly exposed.
These real crimes are the indisputable ones, like actually - Penn State Football had NOTHING legally to do with any crimes Jerry Sandusky did/or did not commit. Linking PSU, Paterno and C/S/S with Sandusky is the obvious criminal actions taken by those controlling the OAG and its accomplices in CREATING this false and ILLEGAL story.
You can not support the "Story" that the OAG and the press has created for public consumption (DECEPTION is a better word) unless you ignore the TONS of questionable issues surrounding the need for PSU involvement at all.
It would take a BOOK to list all the certifiable LEGAL abuses taken in involving PSU. I can only say this....from 2011 on I have stated that the political "DNA" in this entire matter is overwhelming. I base this on a personal contact with someone inside the political PA Black ops that ASSURED me that this was a PROFESSIONAL HIT JOB. Now you may understand why it took 3 years for charges to be brought by the OAG ...they needed to assemble (and BUY) the components necessary for their constructed "Story".
Over the past 6 years - NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! You can not LEGALLY explain any of this unless you ignore features of the "Story" that can only be explained using "facts" based on legal corruptions. The reason that the compelling irrational features of the "Penn State" scandal have been sold as "public knowledge" is because of the collusion of the powers of the State, the financially controlled media and the core of individuals who were PAID to promote this absurdity.
If you ONLY follow the key players here - Fina, Noonan, Feathers, Linda Kelly, Freeh, Baldwin, TSM, the OG BOT members, the "judges" used throughout and multitudes more - they are all connected! The are all Corbett "buddies". This connection is not by chance...it is by necessity of design and engineering!
So....Let's stop talking about "Jerry". as all we are doing is arguing over ABSOLUTE guilt vs LEGAL guilt. The contamination of the LEGAL Sandusky case are overwhelming and in any state but PA - Sandusky would NOT be in Jail. Remember... those in the State of PA's legal system ALL had motives for supporting this constructed "Story" to deflect away from several key issues with PA operations - NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WAS TSM (an organization that, without destroyed legal records would have exposed PA money laundering for key "donors")
The REAL criminality STILL remains..... linking PSU with Sandusky in a "cover-up" (establishing the idea that "lack of institutional control" was exhibited in 2001). This has been the basis for the all the bad publicity, Fines of the NCAA, B1G and other bottom feeding organizations. The truth is these organizations were only interested in destroying PSU's football legacy and in stealing all the PSU $$$ they could. And as recent events have exposed, these same people in these same organizations KNEW that this "PSU Scandal Story" also would provide a great way to provide "cover" for their own schools who ACTUALLY covered up criminal issues in the area of officially REPORTED sexual abuse!!
SO Please....Forget all this Sandusky debate - Get the real criminals here. Sandusky is only a pawn in a much bigger set of crimes!
Idiotic. It’s not about covering yourself up. Sandusky is of one generation later than my dad. If somebody had done that to me he would have beaten them to death. It was not OK then, it’s not OK now.
I agree that this is very questionable behavior and would never do it myself or recommend anybody to do it. In today's world it is behavior that is fraught with bad outcomes including CSA and being falsely accused of CSA.
The question is was it criminal. Is it possible for an adult to touch an unrelated minor for a non-sexual reason? I believe it is.
I'm sure it's not fun. I wouldn't know. And neither would Aaron Fisher, Allan Myers, Mike Kajak, Brett Swisher-Houtz, Matt Sandusky, Ryan Rittmeyer, Sebsatian Paden, Jason Simcisko, et al
franco, listen! It is not just questionable behavior in "today's world." In 1968/78/88 that is the kind of behavior which would have gotten your ASS KICKED had you done it once and been warned then did it again. Of course, to kick Jerry's ass would have required a father in the boy's life that gave a sh!t about him, and Jerry had managed his grooming charity to be sure that would never happen.
You sound like a North Korean Patriot talking about the Dear Leader. Jesus. It is creeping me out.
Similar threads
