OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

[MtNittany]

FYI - there was a little bit of chatter from the victims and in the schools.

This is from the first police interview of V7 on 2/3/2011:

Worth noting - Ryan Dixon died a few months before V1 first came forward, so there was some chatter among friends before any investigation started.

This is from a 1/2012 article:

So V6's sister had a clue about another boy (this was V5 according to Moulton) who took showers with Sandusky. I'd be surprised if the other kids that heard that outburst weren't guessing some things.


V4 testified about getting teased in school that he was being molested. The following is from 6/11/2011, p.71-72:

I didn't -- I didn't want to lose -- this is something good happening to me, you know, and I don't really have a dad around. I never really had a father figure. And I'm liking everything that I'm getting.
Also, you got to realize, I mean, once I'm -- I'm in high school at this point and people are jealous. I mean, that's the way that I look at it. You know, like, other kids are jealous, things like that. So they want to tease you and, you know, they're making up things like, oh, you know, you're being molested by Jerry and you're his little butt buddy and all these kind of things, you know.
Q. They're kidding?
A. They're jealous, you know what I mean? They're -- I'm sure they'd have switched places with me in a heart beat but they're just jealous. And you know how kids are. They got to pick at each other. So I got to play this off. So it really is happening but I have to pretend like it's really not happening to everybody else because I have to, you know, hold this mentality that I'm the strong person, you know, this -- got to keep my, you know, appearance at school, these kind of things.
If I ever said anything and that would have got out to that, it would just been so much worse. I mean, I denied it forever. Forever.
Q. Kids -- other kids would actually kid you about this?
A. All the time. All the time.
Q. And how did they know that you had this relation -- or that you had some relationship with the defendant? How did they know that?
A. Because, I mean, by this point I have been in Sport Illustrated. I have -- you know, they know that I'm going to the games. Jerry comes to the school. Jerry is always in my town and, you know, a lot of the kids go to town. ​

During lunch hour, kids in North Central PA sat around and talked about JS as a hero? Sure they did.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

There were 10's of girls who complained about Nasser over the years and they were told to be quiet. That was more than enough to be not just alarmed but convinced that there was a major problem. There were hundreds of girls who came out of the wood work when finally someone took them seriously. That is not the case with JS. They had to be dragged into court by a shady attorney and convinced to remember something which may or may not have happened. Those are the facts and they are undeniable by anyone who has kept up with the facts.

10-20 out of 150+ so less than 20%. That isn’t overwhelming by any stretch which is par for the course. If you have evidence that the majority of victims scream help right away, by all means share it. My point was most don’t come forward and many do not until they are adults. That is what I have read at least.

 

[LundyPSU]

Again, you assume there was something worth reporting other than Sandusky and his surrogate son horsing around. And you may also be overlooking the professional and legal obligations of Jack Raykovitz to follow through on what Curley reported to him.

With the benefit of hindsight, one can argue that C/S/S should have thrown Jerry under the bus. But legally and morally, once the Executive Director of TSM was informed, PSU should have been in the clear. Why it wasn't is the real scandal!

So PSU and TSM failed. Happy now?

 

[BobPSU92]

HINDSIGHT. BIAS.

 

[Bob78]

10-20 out of 150+ so less than 20%. That isn’t overwhelming by any stretch which is par for the course. If you have evidence that the majority of victims scream help right away, by all means share it. My point was most don’t come forward and many do not until they are adults. That is what I have read at least.

I agree most don't come forward as youths. That is logical; young kids cannot possibly really understand what is happening to them.

I wonder if the difference here is male-on-male vs. male-on-female victimization? There is a stigma attached to the minds of young boys that maybe is very different than for the minds of young girls, who have possibly been given more in-home advice about what could happen and to be sure to speak up, than boys do. I also agree with people who say that is why the level of outrage is less for the more widespread and devastating Nassar case than the JS case.... sadly, we are at least somewhat used to hearing about (for lack of a better phrase) male-on-female abuse. It's more familiar, and therefore easier to get our minds around, than male-on-male.

Even some parents in the Nassar case didn't believe their girls. That is classic POC predator reaction. Compound that by the male-on-male aspect, and you get a lot of silence from victims. My point is that later in life, as adults, there seemed to be a lack of men speaking up about what JS did, or rumors they heard. That is odd to me. Doesn't exonerate JS, but it is strange, as the odds of that many victims NOT speaking up at some future point just doesn't jive.

But as Jimmy pointed out, there has been documentation of rumors and reactions to them. Still, relatively very little rumor activity has been made known about JS. It was more clear-cut in Nassar's case, as multiple reports were made by girls that went unheeded by parents, by USWG, by the school, by state agencies, etc. With JS, the message was not heard by the responsible state agencies, including TSM. I still think C/S/S/P did more with what they were told than anyone else in either case.

 

[indynittany]

So PSU and TSM failed. Happy now?

No. I believe Spanier's characterization of what they did as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed" was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

 

[LundyPSU]

No. I believe Spanier's characterization of what they did as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed" was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

So you think it was humane and reasonable for PSU but TSM should have reported Jerry

 

[nits74]

No. I believe Spanier's characterization of what they did as "humane and a reasonable way to proceed" was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Yes, given the information they had.

 

[indynittany]

So you think it was humane and reasonable for PSU but TSM should have reported Jerry

Jerry worked for TSM and the boy was a TSM participant known to Jack Raykovitz, a licensed child psychologist. There's no comparison here. I'm not totally sold that the matter warranted a report, though I've read TSM was legally obligated to file one. None the less, once Curley told JR, PSU had done what it should have done. It was up to Raykovitz to follow whatever procedures were in place.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I agree most don't come forward as youths. That is logical; young kids cannot possibly really understand what is happening to them.

I wonder if the difference here is male-on-male vs. male-on-female victimization? There is a stigma attached to the minds of young boys that maybe is very different than for the minds of young girls, who have possibly been given more in-home advice about what could happen and to be sure to speak up, than boys do. I also agree with people who say that is why the level of outrage is less for the more widespread and devastating Nassar case than the JS case.... sadly, we are at least somewhat used to hearing about (for lack of a better phrase) male-on-female abuse. It's more familiar, and therefore easier to get our minds around, than male-on-male.

Even some parents in the Nassar case didn't believe their girls. That is classic POC predator reaction. Compound that by the male-on-male aspect, and you get a lot of silence from victims. My point is that later in life, as adults, there seemed to be a lack of men speaking up about what JS did, or rumors they heard. That is odd to me. Doesn't exonerate JS, but it is strange, as the odds of that many victims NOT speaking up at some future point just doesn't jive.

But as Jimmy pointed out, there has been documentation of rumors and reactions to them. Still, relatively very little rumor activity has been made known about JS. It was more clear-cut in Nassar's case, as multiple reports were made by girls that went unheeded by parents, by USWG, by the school, by state agencies, etc. With JS, the message was not heard by the responsible state agencies, including TSM. I still think C/S/S/P did more with what they were told than anyone else in either case.

I would imagine there are some studies out there on who is more likely to come forward whether it’s a male or female. I honestly don’t know but you would think it has to vary as we are wired differently. Just a guess there though.

 

[L.T. Young]

Actually, a kid would probably be exponentially more at risk alone in an automobile than in an accessible University locker room. Especially one where, if you believe McQueary's reporting date, hundreds of people were watching a hockey game less than 100 yards away. And a rock concert was happening right down the street.

Took numerous showers in the presence of adult males when I was a kid and never once felt threatened. Was common practice back then. But I did have an uncomfortable experience alone in a car with an unrelated male when I was 5 or 6. Freaked my parents out when I told them. My Mom told me when I got older that the incident scared her to death and that my Dad "took care" of the problem. He must have, because I never saw or heard from that guy ever again.

1. Sandusky was told not to shower alone with kids and continued to.

2. This isn’t showering at the gym open to the public. This is alone when you’re not expecting anyone to walk in.

3. It wasn’t merely showering in the presence of Sandusky. Jerry, at best, was always playing grab ass.

The level of intellectual dishonesty on this board has reached new heights.

 

[Osprey Lion]

1. Sandusky was told not to shower alone with kids and continued to.

2. This isn’t showering at the gym open to the public. This is alone when you’re not expecting anyone to walk in.

3. It wasn’t merely showering in the presence of Sandusky. Jerry, at best, was always playing grab ass.

The level of intellectual dishonesty on this board has reached new heights.

Intellectual dishonesty is being kind. I call it hypomoronism.

 

[PeetzPoolBoy]

Intellectual dishonesty is being kind. I call it hypomoronism.

Walter,
You would know, first hand, about being “intellectually dishonest” and “hypermoronism”.

Talk to me about this company you once worked for. My research indicates that you used to sell “industrial goods”.

Don’t lie in your response, because I know far more

 

[step.eng69]

HINDSIGHT. BIAS.

“It is easy to be wise after the event.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes

 

[PSU2UNC]

Intellectual dishonesty is being kind. I call it hypomoronism.

How many times are you going to demonstrate your extremely poor vocabulary by making the same joke that shows you don't know the meaning of the prefix "hypo"?

 

[Osprey Lion]

How many times are you going to demonstrate your extremely poor vocabulary by making the same joke that shows you don't know the meaning of the prefix "hypo"?

Joke? I believe you Jerry apologists are also suffering from hypocrazyism and no one thinks that's funny.

 

[pandaczar12]

I agree most don't come forward as youths. That is logical; young kids cannot possibly really understand what is happening to them.

I wonder if the difference here is male-on-male vs. male-on-female victimization? There is a stigma attached to the minds of young boys that maybe is very different than for the minds of young girls, who have possibly been given more in-home advice about what could happen and to be sure to speak up, than boys do. I also agree with people who say that is why the level of outrage is less for the more widespread and devastating Nassar case than the JS case.... sadly, we are at least somewhat used to hearing about (for lack of a better phrase) male-on-female abuse. It's more familiar, and therefore easier to get our minds around, than male-on-male.

Even some parents in the Nassar case didn't believe their girls. That is classic POC predator reaction. Compound that by the male-on-male aspect, and you get a lot of silence from victims. My point is that later in life, as adults, there seemed to be a lack of men speaking up about what JS did, or rumors they heard. That is odd to me. Doesn't exonerate JS, but it is strange, as the odds of that many victims NOT speaking up at some future point just doesn't jive.

But as Jimmy pointed out, there has been documentation of rumors and reactions to them. Still, relatively very little rumor activity has been made known about JS. It was more clear-cut in Nassar's case, as multiple reports were made by girls that went unheeded by parents, by USWG, by the school, by state agencies, etc. With JS, the message was not heard by the responsible state agencies, including TSM. I still think C/S/S/P did more with what they were told than anyone else in either case.

I agree that many, if not most, victims of abuse don’t come forward as youths. But that behavior is also very hard to distinguish from a fake accuser, who also doesn’t come forward at first for obvious reasons.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Joke? I believe you Jerry apologists are also suffering from hypocrazyism and no one thinks that's funny.

Wow, I'm amazed at how ignorant you are. Nothing like doubling down on your lack of education.

If I am suffering from hypocrazyism (ignoring for a moment that this isn't a real word), that means I have less "crazyism" than a normal human.

So thanks for the compliment, I guess. But I strongly doubt that this is what you meant to say.

Also, do me a favor and next time you go to the doctor for your flu shot, please ask them to use a "hyperdermic needle" and see how that works out for you.

 

[kgilbert78]

Not giving anyone a free pass. Certainly an argument could be made that MM, his dad, Draz and even Joe could have called the police or CYS and the whole mess could have been avoided. However, according to the law, MM and Joe did the right thing, and that is why neither was ever charged with anything. They reported potential abuse to their superiors. It was Curley, Schultz and Spanier that ultimately decided no to report to CYS. Spanier being "humane", ultimately was his downfall.That's why they ended up convicted and they are the reason that the rest of the country outside of Penn State believe their was a conspiracy to cover up child abuse. My personal view is that they simply could not believe Sandusky was capable of such a thing, which guided their actions. Unfortunately, it was not their place to determine guilt or innocence.

I have no idea why Second Mile officials never got into trouble, I agree they should have. They knew about Sandusky in 98 and they were informed about the shower incident MM reported, and they never reported to CYS or investigated who the child was with Sandusky. It certainly smells, and lends support to the scape goating of PSU Theory.

While I fully believe Joe did the right thing, let's be real--the reason he wasn't charged, eventually, is because he was dead.

 

[kgilbert78]

Wow, I'm amazed at how ignorant you are. Nothing like doubling down on your lack of education.

If I am suffering from hypocrazyism (ignoring for a moment that this isn't a real word), that means I have less "crazyism" than a normal human.

So thanks for the compliment, I guess. But I strongly doubt that this is what you meant to say.

Also, do me a favor and next time you go to the doctor for your flu shot, please ask them to use a "hyperdermic needle" and see how that works out for you.

I recall getting hyper and hypo mixed up once in health class at PSU and almost flunked it as a result.

But I seem to recall from that time that they are used differently depending on the field of study, which is what got me in trouble.

 

[BobPSU92]

“It is easy to be wise after the event.”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[BobPSU92]

I recall getting hyper and hypo mixed up once in health class at PSU and almost flunked it as a result.

But I seem to recall from that time that they are used differently depending on the field of study, which is what got me in trouble.

It would have been interesting for the oag to have charged Joe after they publicly lauded him in November 2011 for his actions in 2001 and 2011 and considering that nothing regarding his involvement changed.

 

[marshall23]

If J Paterno had been alive and healthy - many things would have gone down differently.

My crystal ball is no better than the next one (well, maybe a little), but I’d expect that not only would he not have been charged - but I doubt that the Curley Schultz and Spanier situations would have played out anything at all like they did ........
I would give a reasonably healthy J Paterno (of course, he was no where near “reasonably healthy” for some time) one hell of a lot me credit for being smarter, for not being a pussy and a douchebag, and for having some level of ethical conviction - - than I would most of the others involved - before, durIng, and since (especially more so than 99% of the douchebags who’ve tried to cash in on the “JVP Aura”)

Certain Trustees didn't have a penis until Joe got sick.

 

[MtNittany]

While I fully believe Joe did the right thing, let's be real--the reason he wasn't charged, eventually, is because he was dead.

Huh?

 

[joeparules]

While I fully believe Joe did the right thing, let's be real--the reason he wasn't charged, eventually, is because he was dead.

Be real -- the reason he wasn't charged is because he didn't do anything illegal or even immoral. Add to it he is still the only person with the integrity to show any kind of remorse ... with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[gohigh79]

Be real -- the reason he wasn't charged is because he didn't do anything illegal or even immoral. Add to it he is still the only person with the integrity to show any kind of remorse ... with the benefit of hindsight.

The point is that not having done anything illegal or immoral has nothing to do with charges being brought against you in Pennsylvania, as was the pattern in this ordeal.

 

[Bob78]

Certain Trustees didn't have a penis until Joe got sick.

Pearl Necklace Peetz takes exception!

I wonder how long Joe was sick with cancer. I doubt that diagnosis truly came in November 2011. He battled health issues of various levels of seriousness the last couple years, including whatever happened from a dentist visit, iirc. The BOT already knew Joe was going to retire after 2011 anyway, in at least the summer of 2011, I'd guess. But you're right, they could not help themselves in jumping on him when they knew they finally had an advantage (real or not) over him.

The lack of real leadership was apparent throughout the whole saga. Still is, to a large degree. They may have wanted to get rid of Joe, but certainly none of the Nov. 2011 BOT understood or exemplified service leadership as well as he did.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I can’t imagine Joe would have been charged with a crime. They needed his testimony to backup McQueary’s claims. Wouldn’t have done themselves any favor charging the man they were using to support their witness.

 

[marshall23]

Pearl Necklace Peetz takes exception!

I wonder how long Joe was sick with cancer. I doubt that diagnosis truly came in November 2011. He battled health issues of various levels of seriousness the last couple years, including whatever happened from a dentist visit, iirc. The BOT already knew Joe was going to retire after 2011 anyway, in at least the summer of 2011, I'd guess. But you're right, they could not help themselves in jumping on him when they knew they finally had an advantage (real or not) over him.

The lack of real leadership was apparent throughout the whole saga. Still is, to a large degree. They may have wanted to get rid of Joe, but certainly none of the Nov. 2011 BOT understood or exemplified service leadership as well as he did.

A certain trustee was known to be contacting "candidates" in the summer of 2011. So yes, they all knew (the decision makers) that he was done.

 

[marshall23]

Pearl Necklace Peetz takes exception!

I wonder how long Joe was sick with cancer. I doubt that diagnosis truly came in November 2011. He battled health issues of various levels of seriousness the last couple years, including whatever happened from a dentist visit, iirc. The BOT already knew Joe was going to retire after 2011 anyway, in at least the summer of 2011, I'd guess. But you're right, they could not help themselves in jumping on him when they knew they finally had an advantage (real or not) over him.

The lack of real leadership was apparent throughout the whole saga. Still is, to a large degree. They may have wanted to get rid of Joe, but certainly none of the Nov. 2011 BOT understood or exemplified service leadership as well as he did.

Peetz indeed was probably the exception.

 

[indynittany]

Peetz indeed was probably the exception.

I think Paul Suhey gave her his!

 

[todd brewster]

This is funny. I have been gone for a while and pretty much the same people are hear arguing this. I said at the time that we needed a second trial for Jerry. A second trial would have shown that Jerry did not have sex with anyone. It would have given him minimum jail time for molesting. It would let the rest of the country know everyone knew Jerry was a little weird, but nobody knew Jerry was molesting children. The results would have been that Joe did everything he could do. Jerry no longer worked for PSU and PSU is not pedophile U. And I am guessing, but maybe 2nd Mile would have continued helping disadvantaged youths throughout Pennsylvania and beyond.

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

10-20 out of 150+ so less than 20%. That isn’t overwhelming by any stretch which is par for the course. If you have evidence that the majority of victims scream help right away, by all means share it. My point was most don’t come forward and many do not until they are adults. That is what I have read at least.

Many of you argued that the number of boys that Sandusky harmed was somewhere between 40 and 100. at 10% that would be 4 to 10 people. You would think that that ratio would have yielded someone who did not have to be convinced through repressed memory techniques that they were molested. They still had to look under rocks to find victims and then used repressed memory techniques to get 8 victims to be witnesses. 2 of the 10 didn't show up at all at trial.

I think Jerry was guilty of some sort of harm but possibly not all of what he was found guilty of. Isn't it at least troubling to know JS had no porn on his computer? Doesn't that make you think that there is possibly an issue here with at least some of the verdict? If I recall correctly over 90% of sexual abuser have porn on their computers. The fact that some version of repressed memory techniques were used on just about all of the victims doesn't make you think twice about the possibility that the charges were trumped up or exaggerated? Isn't it weird that MM continued to take part in charity events with JS after the shower incident? Everybody's reaction to events back in 2001 seemed muted and unremarkable. Doesn't that make you wonder what the truth was?

When factual evidence comes out that does not add up and then we learn that the prosecution and the police lied during the process doesn't that make you think something may not be on the up and up?

Many people who are adamant that JS is unquestionably guilty do a great job in name calling saying that anybody who questions the facts are crazy loyalist but at the same time don't give any credence to the obvious inconsistencies in the case but still say we are blind. Is that credible?

 

[Legion of Lions]

Many of you argued that the number of boys that Sandusky harmed was somewhere between 40 and 100. at 10% that would be 4 to 10 people. You would think that that ratio would have yielded someone who did not have to be convinced through repressed memory techniques that they were molested. They still had to look under rocks to find victims and then used repressed memory techniques to get 8 victims to be witnesses. 2 of the 10 didn't show up at all at trial.

I think Jerry was guilty of some sort of harm but possibly not all of what he was found guilty of. Isn't it at least troubling to know JS had no porn on his computer? Doesn't that make you think that there is possibly an issue here with at least some of the verdict? If I recall correctly over 90% of sexual abuser have porn on their computers. The fact that some version of repressed memory techniques were used on just about all of the victims doesn't make you think twice about the possibility that the charges were trumped up or exaggerated? Isn't it weird that MM continued to take part in charity events with JS after the shower incident? Everybody's reaction to events back in 2001 seemed muted and unremarkable. Doesn't that make you wonder what the truth was?

When factual evidence comes out that does not add up and then we learn that the prosecution and the police lied during the process doesn't that make you think something may not be on the up and up?

Many people who are adamant that JS is unquestionably guilty do a great job in name calling saying that anybody who questions the facts are crazy loyalist but at the same time don't give any credence to the obvious inconsistencies in the case but still say we are blind. Is that credible?

Time to face the facts...NOT what the OAG and Louie the Liar put out for public consumption...you can not justify what the public believes about what anyone at Penn State did based upon what is factually known today.
(1) MM is a liar and a perjurer ...(sorry to be so direct but facts are facts) - his "testimonies" do not match ANYONE's actions in 2001 (...Actions speak louder than words...). We know that MM had "personal problems" in 2011 when interviewed...that is why he has 5 different versions of testimony. That is what the OAG used to craft this "Story".
(2) Without knowing what was said to anyone at PSU - especially Paterno - how do we know "...they should have done more..." we only have 10 year old speculations to base anything on - the OAG counted on this when the "Story" was constructed.....3rd parties (MM's father and Dranov) saw nothing that required action like what the OAG reported - therefore no action was taken or necessary.
(3) WHY DID THE STATE SO DESPERATELY LINK PSU & PATERNO to a criminal investigation involving Sandusky???? WHY.....That was not necessary for the state to take legal action against Sandusky and arrest him ...IF PROVIDING JUSTICE WAS THEIR INTENT. Arrestcould have been done in 2009. It was not done then because NO LEGAL CASE EXISTED for the charges. CERTAINLY, no case existed for PSU wrongdoing! Why involve PSU...so that the BOT Puppets that Harrisburg controlled could open up the "Bank of PSU" to finance the money needed to buy "victims". Without the money and without hiding key information about all of this via "Grand Jury" powers, there is nothing LEGALLY to work with.
(4) TSM's protection was critical....TSM records contained evidence of CRIMINAL activities which involved high-net worth donors and politicians. The records were destroyed while the public was distracted by the burning of State College and Beaver Stadium" and the destruction of the Paterno Legacy. GREAT SMOKE SCREEN!

Face it....as has been previously stated....it was a POLITICAL HIT JOB with inside help from some "connected" BOT members. The rest is just a "Story". NO OTHER POSSIBLE CASE!!

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Many of you argued that the number of boys that Sandusky harmed was somewhere between 40 and 100. at 10% that would be 4 to 10 people. You would think that that ratio would have yielded someone who did not have to be convinced through repressed memory techniques that they were molested. They still had to look under rocks to find victims and then used repressed memory techniques to get 8 victims to be witnesses. 2 of the 10 didn't show up at all at trial.

I think Jerry was guilty of some sort of harm but possibly not all of what he was found guilty of. Isn't it at least troubling to know JS had no porn on his computer? Doesn't that make you think that there is possibly an issue here with at least some of the verdict? If I recall correctly over 90% of sexual abuser have porn on their computers. The fact that some version of repressed memory techniques were used on just about all of the victims doesn't make you think twice about the possibility that the charges were trumped up or exaggerated? Isn't it weird that MM continued to take part in charity events with JS after the shower incident? Everybody's reaction to events back in 2001 seemed muted and unremarkable. Doesn't that make you wonder what the truth was?

When factual evidence comes out that does not add up and then we learn that the prosecution and the police lied during the process doesn't that make you think something may not be on the up and up?

Many people who are adamant that JS is unquestionably guilty do a great job in name calling saying that anybody who questions the facts are crazy loyalist but at the same time don't give any credence to the obvious inconsistencies in the case but still say we are blind. Is that credible?

I am especially fond of those who acknowledge that the OAG acted in bad faith yet, also, use the number of convictions as their major argument for JS' imprisonment while simultaneously labeling others as the "Free Jerry" herd. The number of convictions usually gets pulled out several pages into a thread after said shitheads begin to lose the actual, intellectual debate. They know who they are...

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Many of you argued that the number of boys that Sandusky harmed was somewhere between 40 and 100. at 10% that would be 4 to 10 people. You would think that that ratio would have yielded someone who did not have to be convinced through repressed memory techniques that they were molested. They still had to look under rocks to find victims and then used repressed memory techniques to get 8 victims to be witnesses. 2 of the 10 didn't show up at all at trial.

I think Jerry was guilty of some sort of harm but possibly not all of what he was found guilty of. Isn't it at least troubling to know JS had no porn on his computer? Doesn't that make you think that there is possibly an issue here with at least some of the verdict? If I recall correctly over 90% of sexual abuser have porn on their computers. The fact that some version of repressed memory techniques were used on just about all of the victims doesn't make you think twice about the possibility that the charges were trumped up or exaggerated? Isn't it weird that MM continued to take part in charity events with JS after the shower incident? Everybody's reaction to events back in 2001 seemed muted and unremarkable. Doesn't that make you wonder what the truth was?

When factual evidence comes out that does not add up and then we learn that the prosecution and the police lied during the process doesn't that make you think something may not be on the up and up?

Many people who are adamant that JS is unquestionably guilty do a great job in name calling saying that anybody who questions the facts are crazy loyalist but at the same time don't give any credence to the obvious inconsistencies in the case but still say we are blind. Is that credible?

So you are saying it’s a one way street with the name calling. I’ll disagree there all night long. People can try and play the victim but that clearly goes both ways. People are being pretty dishonest if they are saying that.

When something new and credible comes out pointing to Jerry’s innocence, maybe that will change some minds. That hasn’t occurred in years though. He probably won’t get a new trial so maybe that is some of the frustration but this literally has no traction outside of this site. Maybe this is the bombshell article that pulls it all together, but I just think it will be another JZ recap. Who knows, but I have seen this so many times and it usually turns out underwhelming. Maybe this has the proof and changes minds???? We’ll see.

 

[indynittany]

This is funny. I have been gone for a while and pretty much the same people are hear arguing this. I said at the time that we needed a second trial for Jerry. A second trial would have shown that Jerry did not have sex with anyone. It would have given him minimum jail time for molesting. It would let the rest of the country know everyone knew Jerry was a little weird, but nobody knew Jerry was molesting children. The results would have been that Joe did everything he could do. Jerry no longer worked for PSU and PSU is not pedophile U. And I am guessing, but maybe 2nd Mile would have continued helping disadvantaged youths throughout Pennsylvania and beyond.

Your assessment is as plausible as anyone's. Certainly more so than the official record suggests.

What I said at the time was that the prosecutors in the OAG...any OAG...are the most politically ambitious people on the planet. They weren't about to take on Jerry Sandusky and lose. The optics would ruin careers.

They had a crummy case, if they had any case at all. This wasn't going to be a case about 'Jerry the inappropriate', it was always going to be about 'Jerry the monster'. Quantity over quality. Trying it in the court of public opinion. Memory repression therapy. Using Sarah Ganim every which way. Lying...flat out lying in....and then leaking the grand jury presentment. They couldn't afford to have Allen Meyers testify so they had him off in the woods somewhere, while telling the jury he was "known only to god".

And they couldn't risk Curley and Schultz testifying. They did everything they could to hose, and then prolong the ordeals of C/S, starting with the Cynthia Baldwin fiasco, moving the date of that incident back a year because of the statute of limitations, etc... They used the Freeh report as a defacto grand jury presentment to indict Spanier. Those three were charged with 15 felonies between them and the state whiffed on all 15!

And the courts, as well as the jury pool were too worried about how it would reflect on them if Jerry got off, so they behaved badly too. Imagine trying to defend yourself in a case in which there was no victim, no report of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime, no established date for said crime and no witness. No self respecting judge would have even entertained an argument, let alone accepted hearsay testimony. Yet, Sandusky was convicted on 5 counts in the janitor case. The odds of a fair trial were nil. And the odds that Jerry might get a second trial have always been next to nil.

And then you have PSU's behavior. Too many acts of cowardice to list! The press was awful! Far more interested in being first than being right. In unison, they allowed Freeh to cement a false narrative without ever reading the report.

Tom Corbett did this! He's the only person tied to TSM, the OAG and the OGBOT.

But by all means, let's discuss the record keeping of C/S/S ad nauseam.

 

[MtNittany]

But by all means, let's discuss the record keeping of C/S/S ad nauseam.

This is the part I don't really get. Like trying to fell a tree w/ a pair of scissors while a chain saw is laying at your feet.

 

[Chris92]

Any updates if this article will be released tomorrow or Friday?

 

[MtNittany]

Any updates if this article will be released tomorrow or Friday?

JZ's awfully quiet. Today's his birthday. Regardless, if it goes south, we'll hear about it.