Interesting...so I wonder who told Seasock there was. Or did he just make it up?
PATERNO on HBO. Tonight at 8:00 pm ET (official thread)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
Interesting...so I wonder who told Seasock there was. Or did he just make it up?
I'm not sure, but my best guess is that when Sandusky was interviewed, he stated that sometimes other coaches were present when he showered with other boys in the past and Seasock (or maybe the secretary typing the report) got confused.
I believe Seasock interviewed another boy who had recently showered with Sandusky, initials BK. That is what led Ziegler to mistakenly believe there was another boy in the shower. Perhaps another coach was present when Sandusky showered with BK.
Last edited:
They didn't do that. They informed TSM.
If Chambers doesn’t write up that report, we probably never hear the name Seasock either.
That is a possibility, although Seasock didn’t interview BK as far as we know. I have often thought some of the details we know of were mixed up between the two.
Ganim in the initial GJ article said BK was a witness to V6 (ie Jerry was showering with both of them together) which we learned later was not accurate.
Also note that the first GJ report says V6 met jerry when he was 7. The second presentment (nov 2012) said he had only known him for a month. Was the first one mixing ZK with BK?
Does Mike Mcqueary get a pass? How about his father and family friend Dr Dranov? An actual eye witness didn't know how to respond. An eye witness talked to two others and they didn't think that calling police was the right thing to do. So what exactly were they told that made them think that way? Do you think Mcqueary told Joe and then Schultz/Curley more than what he told his father? As stated they also told the Second Mile.. all behaviors of those involved reflect something vague being conveyed from MM and even MM's behavior show he had some concern but didn't really know what he saw even though he was eye witness. This was an awfully big "in house" handling and that doesn't even take into account law enforcement and Child protective services involvement in 1998. CPS and law enforcement had the reports of hugging in the shower and ended their investigation. This was with an identified kid. If you have questions about things were handled, fine.. but start with the agencies involved.
Calm down. If you ever want to stop the distraction and respond like an adult, let me know.
This is exactly what I was talking about, you can't engage in an adult conversation, so you just resort to personal attacks. Another poor attempt at distraction.
Dance Puppet... I say jump and you say "how high?". I can't wait to check back tomorrow for tonight's late night emotional meltdown.
Oh, right, I forgot. He did continue to rape boys though. And here I thought that behavior was worse the naked showering. My bad.
Last edited:
I hate to point this out, but clild molestation shouldn’t be an in house handling. That part of the problem, and why I blame PSU officialdom. Call the police. By the way, “horsing around” in the shower with a boy, naked, is a pretty good indication something illegal might be going on.
Last edited:
PSU admins couldn't agree more. Thats why they reported outside the university for both events in 1998 and 2001. Unfortunately, your solution would land you in their very same prison.
The original indictment. The Freeh Report. The Sandusky Trial transcripts. Is there anything else anyone needs to read?
Without the benefit of hindsight, if you didn't believe a boy had been victimized in '01 and you were sure one hadn't been abused in '98, would you have done anything differently?
From the spiked Newsweek article:
In their civil claims of abuse, the 36 alleged victims portray Sandusky as a sexually insatiable predator with the virility of a porn star in his 20s. According to the claims, mostly from 1995 to 2009, Sandusky was constantly on the prowl for forced sex with boys, and never had any problems achieving an erection. Sandusky’s medical records, however, from 2006 to 2008, depict a man in his 60s suffering from all kinds of ailments and conditions, as well as a possible genetic disorder characterized by small testes and a low sex drive.
A doctor who reviewed Sandusky’s medical records, but asked to remain anonymous, wrote Newsweek in an email, “This guy couldn’t get an erection no matter how he tried. Even Cialis/Viagra would probably not work.” The doctor added that Sandusky should have sued his lawyers for malpractice.
Doctors described Sandusky as having an “androgen deficient state,” meaning he had levels of male sex hormones so low it was unhealthy. Sandusky’s medical records state that he was undergoing “testosterone replacement therapy for significant low levels of both free and total testosterone.” Doctors wrote that Sandusky was also being treated with antibiotics for chronic prostatitis, an inflammation of the prostate commonly caused by bacterial infection that results in frequent and painful urination. Prostatitis can also cause sexual problems such as low ibido, erectile dysfunction, and painful ejaculations.
Sandusky’s chronic prostatitis began in 2005 and continued through 2008, his medical records state. Doctors described Sandusky as being “light-headed” and suffering “dizziness” from using Flomax, which he began taking in 2006, because he was having trouble urinating.
In addition to his urological problems, Sandusky’s medical records list many ailments that raise the question of whether Sandusky was healthy and energetic enough to be out having rampant, promiscuous sex with all those boys. Sandusky’s ailments include cysts on one of his kidneys, a small aneurysm in his brain, a 2006 hernia operation, bleeding hemorrhoids, chest pains, headaches, drowsiness, elevated blood pressure, and sleep apnea. He was on thyroid medication when he went to the doctors and told them he began “falling apart” in 2005. By 2008, his doctors wrote, Sandusky reported he was falling asleep at the wheel and gotten involved in two car accidents.
The medical records also describe an obvious and distinctive feature of Sandusky’s anatomy never mentioned in the testimony of eight victims at the criminal trial, nor in any of the 36 civil claims filed by alleged victims. On February 2,2006, Dr. Frank B. Mahon at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, who was treating the 62-year-old Sandusky for chronic prostatitis, wrote that Sandusky had “small” testicles of “perhaps 2 cm” or centimeters each, which equals .787 of an inch. The average size of adult testicles are between two and three inches.
On December 18, 2008, another doctor at the Hershey Medical Center wrote that the 6-foot-1 210-pound former coach, nearly 65, had “marked testicular atrophy with very little palpable testicular tissue.”
In stark contrast to the way he is portrayed in the claims against him, people who have observed Sandusky in close quarters describe him as an anomaly in the hyper-macho world of football coaches, saying he comes across as asexual. There may be genetic reasons for that. Sandusky’s medical records state that as a boy, he had “delayed development of secondary sexual characteristics” that required shots, but they don’t say what kind of shots. Sandusky told his doctors he was “unable to have children” because his “sperm counts were low.”
His medical records state that Sandusky suffered from hypothyroidism, (underactive thyroid) as well as hypogonadism, meaning his body didn’t produce enough testosterone to maintain good health. Sandusky was also said to be suffering from “possible Klinefelter’s syndrome,” a genetic disorder where males have an extra X chromosome, resulting in small testicles, infertility, low production of testosterone, a low sperm count or a complete inability to produce sperm, hypogonadism, reduced muscle mass and a prevalence for sexual dysfunction, such as a low sex drive and erectile dysfunction.
The genetic condition affects 1 in 500 males, usually men who are tall at puberty. Sandusky, 74, born in 1944, is listed in his medical records as 6-1. Amazingly, Sandusky has never been tested to see if he has Klinefelter’s syndrome, although his lawyers are now pursuing a DNA test in prison.
The medical records, which date from 2006 to 2008, cover the same time period during which key trial accusers Aaron Fisher and Sabastian Paden claimed they were being raped hundreds of times by Sandusky.
This response is spectacular for reasons that I'm not sure you fully appreciate.
But in all seriousness, ask @JmmyW. And start here: https://t.co/yQuVssPr9m
So your defense is from a story that was never verified or published? Yep, that pretty much defines rationalization.
Yes. I’d think perhaps three separate events I was aware of were probably an indication that something smelled rotten in the state of Denmark. And maybe I made a mistake I. ‘98 and ‘01.
All are not even as reliable as an article never published. All three of those things have major short comings.
Right.. it wasn't in house.. info was shared with Second Mile. Head of University police was made aware. You have a 2018 perspective on things too. And lots of info not available then. Sandusky working out with second mile kids was normal behavior. Him fooling around and being a jokester with kids was normal. There was a huge background to Sandusky that you don't seem to want to understand. You have your mind made up..
You misunderstand. If all you had to go on in '01 was the result of the '98 investigation and a report by a GA who only caught a 2-3 second glimpse through a reflection in a mirror that made him uncomfortable, what would you have done differently? Keep in mind, Mike testified that he did not see fondling. He did not see Sandusky's hands. He did not see arousal. He did not see penetration. And he did not see a look of distress on the boy's face, whom he claims to have seen.
Part of the equation is that there wasn't enough with which to go to the authorities. And also keep in mind that Curley talked with both Raykovitz and Sandusky. Raykovitz thought the alternative solution was for Jerry to wear swim trunks. He told Curley that he was crazy if he thought Jerry might be into boys. Bruce Heim offered up the hotel facilities, of which he was part owner. The boy would go on to state in writing that he was not abused that night or ever....before he lawyered up. He truly was like a son to Jerry.
And here's the link to that statement:
http://www.framingpaterno.com/sites/default/files/Interview_Vic_2_Redacted.pdf
You might find some other things on that site worth your time.
Honest question. Do you believe that medical information is incorrect? Why or why not? Do believe Ziegler, Cipriano, or Dottie forged the documents?
First thing that comes to my mind is you’re an idiot. Sorry gotta just say it. Check back every single day haha. I’ll respond every single day geek.
I get you 1022. Your interpretation of what Joe meant must be 100% exactly what Joe meant. I totally understand when I read your posts. No argument here buddy.
Most professionals and consolers would explain to you why and how that happens sometimes. I won’t waste my time.
Or the man upstairs saved JVP the pain and/or humiliation by having him go quickly.
I thought the exact same thing. The simple fact he posted that tells you his level of knowledge about this.
An actual review of the movie:
I didn't want to watch this movie when it first came out because I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to tune out the noise on social media.
I decided to watch it tonight while nursing a triple shot of very nice rum (obviously Old Grandad or Jack Daniels would have been more appropriate, but due to an "incident" sophomore year at PSU, I cannot drink anything in the whiskey family anymore).
Here are my thoughts:
1) I think what best sums up how little attention they paid to known details of this story is that they misspelled "Center County" on one of the news feeds. How does that happen? Because you don't care about details or facts.
2) Having said that, the movie could have been much, much harsher to Joe and PSU if it wanted to. They didn't get things right, but they could have been even worse in condemning Joe. I thought they treated C/S/S pretty unfairly.
3) The treatment of the the Paterno children (especially Scott and Jay) was interesting. I think Jay has been the voice of reason in all of this and generally seems like the more articulate, smarter son (no offense to Scott, just my impressions) and the movie treated him like he was a moron and Scott was the smart one. I wonder if Jay had some interaction with the producers (or they wanted to talk to him and he refused) that led them down this path.
4) Sarah Ganim, while being wrongly portrayed as a heroine, did get shown as in over her head (and dare I say if you know the true story you would read her portrayal as a bit of a dullard). This is interesting given that she consulted on the movie. Maybe she is even dumber than we think.
5) I thought they played up Joe's obsession with work a bit much. Obviously, he did a lot of other things (his love of literature, opera, plus fundraising etc) and they showed him of being of singular focus (football) as a reason why he didn't pay attention to the abuse allegations.
6) The movie briefly addressed some of the subtleties of the story (TSM, Joe's philanthropy, Joe's knowledge of Greek tragedies, football as a scapegoat), but did not delve into them in a meaningful way. Obviously there is way more to this story than can be adequately told in 1:47 but it was somewhat encouraging that they at least mentioned some of these subtleties.
7) I think C/S/S were treated really, really unfairly. I know it is almost impossible to sue HBO "fictional" portrayals but if I were they (or their families) I would be incensed.
8) The final five minutes of the movie were ridiculous. It's almost like the producers saw the movie and then said "Nope, Paterno still seems like a good person. Let's tack on an extra scene that makes him look bad."
9) Unrelated to my personal feeling about how it relates to the truth, it doesn't really work as a movie. The whole "memories from the MRI/CAT scan" bit would only work if the movie was being told from Joe's perspective. Maybe it would have been a better movie if that was the case (i.e. leave out all the Ganim crap, all the "riot" stuff, all the Schutlz secretary nonsense).
10) It was especially disappointing that even when they had documentary evidence of something happening (e.g. exactly what Joe said outside his house to the crowd) they STILL fictionalized it. Inexcusable.
I didn't want to watch this movie when it first came out because I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to tune out the noise on social media.
I decided to watch it tonight while nursing a triple shot of very nice rum (obviously Old Grandad or Jack Daniels would have been more appropriate, but due to an "incident" sophomore year at PSU, I cannot drink anything in the whiskey family anymore).
Here are my thoughts:
1) I think what best sums up how little attention they paid to known details of this story is that they misspelled "Center County" on one of the news feeds. How does that happen? Because you don't care about details or facts.
2) Having said that, the movie could have been much, much harsher to Joe and PSU if it wanted to. They didn't get things right, but they could have been even worse in condemning Joe. I thought they treated C/S/S pretty unfairly.
3) The treatment of the the Paterno children (especially Scott and Jay) was interesting. I think Jay has been the voice of reason in all of this and generally seems like the more articulate, smarter son (no offense to Scott, just my impressions) and the movie treated him like he was a moron and Scott was the smart one. I wonder if Jay had some interaction with the producers (or they wanted to talk to him and he refused) that led them down this path.
4) Sarah Ganim, while being wrongly portrayed as a heroine, did get shown as in over her head (and dare I say if you know the true story you would read her portrayal as a bit of a dullard). This is interesting given that she consulted on the movie. Maybe she is even dumber than we think.
5) I thought they played up Joe's obsession with work a bit much. Obviously, he did a lot of other things (his love of literature, opera, plus fundraising etc) and they showed him of being of singular focus (football) as a reason why he didn't pay attention to the abuse allegations.
6) The movie briefly addressed some of the subtleties of the story (TSM, Joe's philanthropy, Joe's knowledge of Greek tragedies, football as a scapegoat), but did not delve into them in a meaningful way. Obviously there is way more to this story than can be adequately told in 1:47 but it was somewhat encouraging that they at least mentioned some of these subtleties.
7) I think C/S/S were treated really, really unfairly. I know it is almost impossible to sue HBO "fictional" portrayals but if I were they (or their families) I would be incensed.
8) The final five minutes of the movie were ridiculous. It's almost like the producers saw the movie and then said "Nope, Paterno still seems like a good person. Let's tack on an extra scene that makes him look bad."
9) Unrelated to my personal feeling about how it relates to the truth, it doesn't really work as a movie. The whole "memories from the MRI/CAT scan" bit would only work if the movie was being told from Joe's perspective. Maybe it would have been a better movie if that was the case (i.e. leave out all the Ganim crap, all the "riot" stuff, all the Schutlz secretary nonsense).
10) It was especially disappointing that even when they had documentary evidence of something happening (e.g. exactly what Joe said outside his house to the crowd) they STILL fictionalized it. Inexcusable.
Lol would the original indictment be the one that said a Grad assistant witnessed a boy being anally raped and reported to joe? Would the freeh report be the one that said 3 men conspired to cover up for a pedo to protect the football program? The trial transcripts be the ones that caught state police lying on the stand and the testimony of the boy "only known to god"?
You are out of your league here buddy. Scurry along.
Another post filled with childish insults. You need to keep your emotions in check. Regardless you responded just as I intended. I will keep pulling your strings, it's fun watching you flounder. Pro tip, if you call someone an idiot, your post should not be riddled with punctuation errors. I'll give a pass since you don't get done delivering pizzas until so late.
Which victims specifically were "raped" after PSU reported the 2001 shower incident to TSM. Of those zero incidents, which specifically happened on Penn State's campus?
Second exercise, ignoring the fantasy allegations from the 70s. How many of Jerry's crimes occurred after state professionals failed by allowing Jerry to adopt, giving him clearance to work with kids, and clearing his charges in 1998?
It was "horsing around" and even that wasn't handled in house. The report was sent to a mandatory reporter, Jerry's boss at the second mile. If the cops needed to be called, the failure happened the night of the incident, where MM, his dad and Dranov (a mandatory reporter) failed to call the police. For the record, the victim from that night is on the record saying nothing happened in the PSU showers that night.
Others have taken you to task on the problems with the original indictment.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the Freeh report? It's just been repeatedly torn to shreds by pretty much everyone who's ever examined it. His main "finding" was disproven in a court of law when no one was convicted of a cover up. Obviously you know that even he said it was just his opinion, and that a copy was found with "no evidence to support this" found written on the cover page. Freeh also has a long list of failures under his belt. In fact, I'm not aware of one investigation he has done that hasn't been fatally flawed. So given all of this, why do you cling to it? What other investigations do you think he has really nailed?
It's like you refuse to take in new information. You are stuck in a 2012 mind frame, and refuse to evolve because it helps justify your preconceived opinion.
The ending was a complete crock and destroys any small credibility any part of the film may have had.
Whatever the case, can’t you at least acknowledge that it’s fishy that Allan Myers’ view of Sandusky did a complete 180 after meeting Andrew Shubin, an attorney who has been proven to have engaged in shady activities with Myers and other potential Sandusky accusers in order to win them more money?
Here’s proof of Shubins nefarious activity with Myers from Ray Blehar, who does not believe Sandusky is innocent:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/06/andrew-shubin-dismissed-by-govt-as-not.html?m=1
Shubin also represented the 1971 accuser, a claim that was so absurd that even the makers of the Paterno movie felt the need to take a mention of it out of the film and replace it.
Last edited:
Hey... do some damn internet research! It's normal for some real accusers to act like fake accusers.
Listen Russian you have your opinion and I’m sure you’re comfortable with it. Other than that what else matters to ya? My opinion is 2018 football season looks exciting. 2018 basketball season looks depressing.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting 2025 LB target scheduled for Penn State OV in June
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
