Who are these people who take showers with their clothes on?LOL, A 60 year old man is in a shower with a 12 year old boy naked but Curley and Schultz don't report it because nothing of a sexual nature was mentioned by Mike, you guys are nuts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who are these people who take showers with their clothes on?LOL, A 60 year old man is in a shower with a 12 year old boy naked but Curley and Schultz don't report it because nothing of a sexual nature was mentioned by Mike, you guys are nuts.
We know one who hugs little boys in the shower without the clothes and even after being told not to.Who are these people who take showers with their clothes on?
Why do you ascribe to Mike's version of events?
It's great to take Joe at his word, but if you're going to do that, get the words right.
"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
Do you realize that when Joe said that, the grand jury presentment had just been leaked and Joe had read for the first time that Mike had supposedly witnessed anal intercourse? Do you also realize that Mike denied ever seeing or telling anyone that? Do you realize that Jonelle Eshbach, of the OAG, made that up?
Why do you simply make things up like they are fact? Honest question as you have no clue what would have happened any more so than any other soul walking this planet.
I think I'm gonna be sick.No. 1 fan.
and that little boy was 14 on the nite in question.I know that the boy in the shower strongly supported Sandusky until meeting Andrew Shubin. Maybe now, he really does believe that Sandusky was grooming him, but no chance in hell did he believe he was being assaulted at the time.
Except, of course, you LaJolla. You are omniscient when it comes to Jerry's intentions and, sometimes, his actions.Why do you simply make things up like they are fact? Honest question as you have no clue what would have happened any more so than any other soul walking this planet.
Thanks and sorry for not caring about that POS.Except, of course, you LaJolla. You are omniscient when it comes to Jerry's intentions and, sometimes, his actions.
It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.I played grade school and high school sports, play racquetball still and work out daily at the gym. I've used "community showers" for 40 years and have NEVER seen two men hugging while showering, much less an adult and a child. How much rationalization takes place for anyone to wonder if there was sexual intent?
I guess I'd ask all of you one question; what would you do if your son told you one of his coaches had showered with him and hugged him?
I’d confront the coach aggressively. With no mercy. And hope I didn’t make a life changing mistake.
Except, of course, you LaJolla. You are omniscient when it comes to Jerry's intentions and, sometimes, his actions.
But, do you know there's info from '98 that they weren't alone?You don’t have to be omniscient to figure that a grown man hugging a boy alone in a shower is a pedophile.
But, do you know there's info from '98 that they weren't alone?
I do not. What is that info?
Still, he chose to be alone in a shower (at the least, in very close proximity) three years later after agreeing to never do so again.
Finally, an outsider who wants to see The Second Mile held accountable for their inactions. Welcome to the board, iv.It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.
Seasock's report from '98 mentions, "Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility."
The whole mess is much more complex than the media narrative that's out there.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
Why do you ascribe to Mike's version of events?
It's great to take Joe at his word, but if you're going to do that, get the words right.
"With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
Do you realize that when Joe said that, the grand jury presentment had just been leaked and Joe had read for the first time that Mike had supposedly witnessed anal intercourse? Do you also realize that Mike denied ever seeing or telling anyone that? Do you realize that Jonelle Eshbach, of the OAG, made that up?
I still can’t believe people don’t understand what Joe actually said...in his statement, “with the benefit of hindsight” was equally as important as he should have done more. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would have done more...knowing what I know now I wish I would have shot Sandusky while I was a student, but I wouldn’t have thought to do it then. Do you follow that?
It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.
You don’t have to be omniscient to figure that a grown man hugging a boy alone in a shower is a pedophile.
You can say stuff like "personal attack" and "emotional" all you want... that doesn't make it true. We both know it's just more distraction. You will do anything to avoid responding to my last paragraph:
"Joe did not make a "horible" mistake, Joe did not witness anything. Since Joe followed the law, and you think he made a "horible" mistake.... you must think that the law is inadequate as written, and puts children at risk. What are you doing to fix this situation? Or are you an enabler who is comfortable knowing children are at risk?"
Joe did not say "He should have done more". Why don't you take him at his exact words? "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Your agenda is showing.
You don't irritate me any more than a fly. I don't care about your opinions, or your misinterpretations of my words. I just like to push you into late night emotional rants. I can't wait to check back for tomorrow's meltdown. Dance Puppet!
And if Mike had tried to do that, I am certain the boy would have yelled something like "Get your ****ing hands off me, Jerry is like a father to me"
Because he's a troll.
Let's just hope he doesn't get uber obsessive about it, constantly letting everyone know his/her opinion on the topic, shouting down anyone with a questioning attitude. Throwing around childish insults, or simply calling anyone with even a slightly different point of view a pedophile protector. Take comfort that most of them are not college educated, and no matter how many thousands of worthless posts they have on this site, they will NEVER be Penn State grads.... and it kills them that they will never accomplish something many of us accomplished multiple times, decades ago.
He's ripe for ignore... when I'm done toying with him.
From what I have read, the list is rather long and would include local law enforcement, the Second Mile, Penn State officials and JP. Decisions seemed to be made over fear of loss of prestige and hopes the problem would “go away.” Pedophilia never gets better, and attempts to cover up this type of behavior are far worse for loss of prestige than the crime itself.It seems the only people who made life changing mistakes were those who chose to look the other way.
And those people would be...?
Or maybe the boy would have yelled “get this maniac off my junk and out of my ........... I thought Jerry was like a father to me”.
From what I have read, the list is rather long and would include local law enforcement, the Second Mile, Penn State officials and JP. Decisions seemed to be made over fear of loss of prestige and hopes the problem would “go away.” Pedophilia never gets better, and attempts to cover up this type of behavior are far worse for loss of prestige than the crime itself.
None of the events exist in a vacuum; there was a continuity of behavior that should have been, (and I think in some cases was), recognized. What ever MM saw and then told people he saw, (don’t the multiple narratives seem an indication many people were trying to, excuse the pun, cover their asses), JS behavior was out of the norm - 60 year old men don’t shower and “horse around” with young boys in the shower during after hours.
What is obvious to me is that JP and the officials at Penn State could have ended this behavior by simply reporting it to the police. The biggest mistake made by all was the thought they could handle whatever was going on in house.
I actually interpreted it differently. I think later in the scene or movie, Joe says he didn't even think about the pool, he was focused on football. Almost saying that Joe didn't know the kids were in the pool with Jerry.
#7 on the last page. Nothing new, except no one has answered who that coach was. One would think they could have been a defense witness, at least in regards to that incident.The link doesn’t show that.
Seasock's report from '98 mentions, "Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility."
The whole mess is much more complex than the media narrative that's out there.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160601...ns/news/Seasock_Sandusky_Report_Redacted1.pdf
I think there's just as many questions on '98 as there are answers. It's still hard to believe Seasock never testified at trial.V6 in his interview on May 4, 1998 and also in trial in 2012 stated categorically that there was no one there. So what "previous interviews" is Seasock talking about?
It's interesting to note that Matt Sandusky's book says Seasock interviewed the boy and then interviewed Jerry. If that's true, did Jerry tell him that someone else was there? Did Seasock base his report off what Jerry told him versus what the boy said?
With Church cases sometimes a counselor would be brought in that interviewed the alleged abusing priest and then would exonerate him based on his own account. Did that happen here?
Interesting. What were you reading?From what I have read, the list is rather long and would include local law enforcement, the Second Mile, Penn State officials and JP.
I think there's just as many questions on '98 as there are answers. It's still hard to believe Seasock never testified at trial.
Almost as silly as posting that Joe said he wished he had done more and leaving out the with the benefit of hindsight part.Problem is Joe was much closer to the situation than you were. You just took a leap over the Grand Canyon of interpretation. Plus you don’t shoot people sir. In all seriousness your post is silly.
I think there's just as many questions on '98 as there are answers. It's still hard to believe Seasock never testified at trial.
V6 in his interview on May 4, 1998 and also in trial in 2012 stated categorically that there was no one there. So what "previous interviews" is Seasock talking about?
It's interesting to note that Matt Sandusky's book says Seasock interviewed the boy and then interviewed Jerry. If that's true, did Jerry tell him that someone else was there? Did Seasock base his report off what Jerry told him versus what the boy said?
With Church cases sometimes a counselor would be brought in that interviewed the alleged abusing priest and then would exonerate him based on his own account. Did that happen here?