ADVERTISEMENT

Seven Years Ago Today

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,960
4,805
1
On June 23, 2012 Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 counts of CSA.



There is mounting evident that the jury didn't get it partially wrong, they got it totally wrong. IMO, this story will go down as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the history of American jurisprudence. There is overwhelming evidence that shows that Sandusky was railroaded including the knowingly false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape; the manufactoring of conspiracy/cover-up charges against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier; and OAG investigators using suggestive interviewing techniques including asking leading questions.

There are facts that are currently available that demonstrates that Sandusky is likely innocent of all of the charges that he was convicted of for those willing to take a look. When will the national media report on the mounting evidence that they got in wrong 7 years ago?

Read John Snedden's 110 page redacted federal investigation report (just the facts style) that resulted in Graham Sapnier's top-level security clearances getting renewed.


Read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog that document what has happened at Penn State regarding this story.

http://www.ralphcipriano.com/stories/big-trial/

Read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment." Based on 76 customer reviews in has an average 4.7 out of 5 star rating.

https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-M...show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

Read Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus at Cal Berkley detailed review of Pendergrast's book.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...cxdNHHqzLh3KIkKjQeftGxtLCpWM-Gp1pEBylvQpJAxpg

Read the bombshell story that by Ralph Cipriano and John Ziegler that Newsweek spiked at the last minute.

http://www.framingpaterno.com/sites/default/files/sad_story_of_happy_valley.pdf

Read www.framingpaterno.com

Read the Alumni BOT's critical review of the Freeh Report

ttps://www.scribd.com/document/399416472/Report-to-the-Board-of-Trustees-of-the-Pennsylvania-State-University-on-the-Freeh-Report-s-flawed-methodology-and-conclusions#fullscreen&from_embed
 
And the narrative hasn't changed one bit since.

So many promises of smoking guns, yet, not even a dried out squirt gun has come about

The OAG did a good job of cementing their false narratives and polluting the jury pool. I believe that one day it will be evident for the public at large of the details of what actually happened. Too many people know the facts of the story for the truth to remain buried forever. I hope that real story breaks sooner rather than later.
 
The OAG did a good job of cementing their false narratives and polluting the jury pool. I believe that one day it will be evident for the public at large of the details of what actually happened. Too many people know the facts of the story for the truth to remain buried forever. I hope that real story breaks sooner rather than later.

If this is the case one would think that certainly by now something would have changed, or on the other hand these people are very cowardly.
 
I don’t consider Gary Schultz a coward. I am very anxious to hear what Schultz has to say once he is off probation in around a month. John Ziegler says he has an interview with Schultz on ice that he will be release at that time and that the Schultz interview is one of the best if not the best interview that he has every done. Ziegler states that Schultz explains in detail why he is positive that Sandusky is innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
I don’t consider Gary Schultz a coward. I am very anxious to hear what Schultz has to say once he is off probation in around a month. John Ziegler says he has an interview with Schultz on ice that he will be release at that time and that the Schultz interview is one of the best if not the best interview that he has every done. Ziegler states that Schultz explains in detail why he is positive that Sandusky is innocent.
I will be interested. Serious question: Are terms of probation such that these guys are muzzled from talking about any of this? If so, why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: N&B4PSU
I don’t consider Gary Schultz a coward. I am very anxious to hear what Schultz has to say once he is off probation in around a month. John Ziegler says he has an interview with Schultz on ice that he will be release at that time and that the Schultz interview is one of the best if not the best interview that he has every done. Ziegler states that Schultz explains in detail why he is positive that Sandusky is innocent.


OMG some of you are pathetic. Do think Sandusky is totally innocent of all accusations of child abuse and grooming kids for future abuse?
 
IMO, this story will go down as one of thegreatest miscarriages of justice in the history of American jurisprudence.

I'm not up for the full blown Sandusy Innocence Project in this, but you cannot say this shit with a straight face.

Ever hear of the Central Park 5? They were proved innocent BY DNA EVIDENCE, sparky. Jerry's case, even if he is totally innocent (he is not) is not in the top 5,000 miscarriages of justice in our history. Jebus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
 
I will be interested. Serious question: Are terms of probation such that these guys are muzzled from talking about any of this? If so, why?

When you are on probation, the authorities have leverage that can result in additional jail time if you violate terms of probation. I don’t know if Schultz was muzzled, but I am guessing he doesn’t want to do anything remotely close to running afoul of his terms of probation.
 
OMG some of you are pathetic. Do think Sandusky is totally innocent of all accusations of child abuse and grooming kids for future abuse?

Of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with, none of the accusers made contemporaneous reports/conversations to friends, families, teachers, clergy, police, psychologists, or anyone else. All of the claimant stories have problems. No pornography (a hallmark of a pedophile) has ever been found in Sandusky’s possession. No physical evidence of CSA has ever been tied to Sandusky. Some of Sandusky’s behaviors could potentially be seen as grooming behaviors, but with no credible evidence that he ever acted on sexual urges, I don’t believe his interactions with any of the claimants were sexual and constituted grooming.

Serious question, which specific claimant (or 2) do you think makes the most convincing case that they were sexually abused?

I doubt you will answer the question. I have asked this question many times and to date nobody has given a good answer. Given that Sandusky’s trial was patently unfair with massive prosecutorial misconduct and a grossly ineffective defense counsel, I believe there is much more than reasonable doubt that Sandusky is guilty of the crimes he was charged with. In fact, I believe there is very serious doubt when you consider that the pillars of the case (v1 and v2) have gaping holes in their stories.
 
IMO, this story will go down as one of thegreatest miscarriages of justice in the history of American jurisprudence.

I'm not up for the full blown Sandusy Innocence Project in this, but you cannot say this shit with a straight face.

Ever hear of the Central Park 5? They were proved innocent BY DNA EVIDENCE, sparky. Jerry's case, even if he is totally innocent (he is not) is not in the top 5,000 miscarriages of justice in our history. Jebus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
They were not proven innocent by DNA. They were correctly found guilty for a crime committed in 1989. Dna collection was in its infancy then. And the young criminals did not claim penetrate her. One did, others held her down, beat her, and dry humped her.
Semen was found inside some of their pants for example.

https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/ways-csi-effect-is-altering-our-courtrooms/


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823

These men were violent criminals . Sandusky is a disgusting child molester . Many folk here are deluded.
 
They were not proven innocent by DNA. They were correctly found guilty for a crime committed in 1989. Dna collection was in its infancy then. And the young criminals did not claim penetrate her. One did, others held her down, beat her, and dry humped her.
Semen was found inside some of their pants for example.

https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/ways-csi-effect-is-altering-our-courtrooms/


https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823

These men were violent criminals . Sandusky is a disgusting child molester . Many folk here are deluded.
A serial rapist left his DNA on one of the victims socks. It is simply ridiculous for you to suggest that evidence did not exist but even if you did suggest that, he also confessed to the crime. They may been violent criminals, but they did not do that crime.
 
A serial rapist left his DNA on one of the victims socks. It is simply ridiculous for you to suggest that evidence did not exist but even if you did suggest that, he also confessed to the crime. They may been violent criminals, but they did not do that crime.
Yes they did. I know he confessed to that, it doesn’t mean they didn’t participate in a gang rape. Hitting her, holding her down, and dry humping her are things they admitted to doing.
No dna things, meaning they wouldn’t have collected dna for those actions. This was also 1989, dna technology was in its infancy . So a shitbag murderer confessed to a rape ( past the statute of limitations), who cares? He’s in for life already.
I’m sure this was part of a plan by their Atty’s to try to foster confusion with this case . I mean they’re getting part of their awards, right? 30% give or take?
Their criminals . They violently attacked multiple people and admitted to attacking her.
 
Perhaps, one of the accuser breaks his silence after the money runs out. I believe Sandusky is innocent based on the evidence. By the way, I read everything available except books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I don't think Jerry is innocent, but I do think the way things were handled creates some level of doubt that should definitely be explored. The sheer number of victims is what got Sandusky convicted. That number was created by the leaked grand jury report. I believe the leak was intentional and the motive was to get more victims to come forward and generate a public outcry due to the names involved because what they had wasn't enough to convict Jerry of anything. It worked. They found more victims and created public outrage. I know most don't care how he was convicted if he's guilty but I do. The legal standards are put in place to protect the innocent, so if they're not following them in this instance, the innocent aren't as protected anymore.
 
IMO, this story will go down as one of thegreatest miscarriages of justice in the history of American jurisprudence.

I'm not up for the full blown Sandusy Innocence Project in this, but you cannot say this shit with a straight face.

Ever hear of the Central Park 5? They were proved innocent BY DNA EVIDENCE, sparky. Jerry's case, even if he is totally innocent (he is not) is not in the top 5,000 miscarriages of justice in our history. Jebus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys
Yet by the time Sandusky went on trial on June 11, 2012, Swisher-Houtz was the prosecution’s leadoff witness. He testified that for years Sandusky had inserted his penis into the boy’s mouth two or three times a week while they showered, sometimes with Sandusky ejaculating. It happened “40 times at least,” Swisher-Houtz told the jury.
Sandusky also attempted to anally rape him in the shower, the witness claimed, but that he pushed Sandusky off “with all my might” and got away.

When asked by Sandusky’s attorney why he hadn’t initially said he was abused, the witness testified, “I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my mind forever.”
Author Mark Pendergrast wrote a book about the Sandusky case. He's skeptical about Swisher-Houtz’s claims of repressed memories of abuse, as well as similar claims from three of the eight other alleged victims who testified against Sandusky at trial.
“All of the recovered memories in the Sandusky case are most certainly false,” said Pendergrast, who wrote The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, a book that's been excerpted on Big Trial.
“They shouldn’t even be called memories," Pendergrast said about so-called repressed memories of abuse; "they’re confabulations.”
“This entire case started because therapist Mike Gillum saw Aaron Fisher as a patient,” Pendergrast said. Gillum “used incredibly leading methodology and got over-involved” with his patient, Pendergrast said, to the point where “Aaron Fisher became convinced that he remembered traumatic abuse that probably didn’t happen.”
In the Aaron Fisher case, Fisher, then 15, told school officials about his physical contact with Sandusky, but didn’t describe it as overtly sexual. A youth services counselor advised Fisher's mother to bring her son to psychotherapist Gillum.

Starting at the first session, and continuing during weekly and sometimes daily sessions, Gillum asked leading questions, and Fisher began to recall multiple instances of Sandusky fondling him and forcing him to participate in oral sex.
In Silent No More, a 2012 book Gillum co-authored with Fisher and his mother, Gillum wrote that he saw his job as “peeling back the layers of the onion” in Fisher’s mind to uncover hidden memories of abuse.
“Look, I know that something terrible happened to you,” Gillum told Fisher at the first session. And then Gillum would guess how Sandusky had abused Fisher. The patient simply had to say “yes,” or just nod his head to confirm the allegation that Sandusky had committed a sex crime.

After three years of such therapy, Fisher, became convinced that Sandusky had abused him more than 100 times between 2005 and 2008. Those crimes allegedly included oral sex and touching the boy’s genitals. The abuse allegedly took place at various locations, including Sandusky’s home and car, in hotel rooms, at Fisher’s school and on the Penn State campus.
“Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator,” Fisher wrote in Silent No More. “When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”

The psychotherapist accompanied Fisher to police interviews, and when he testified before two grand juries. During those two years, Fisher, then the only alleged victim the authorities had in the case, repeatedly broke down crying in front of the first grand jury, and could not elaborate on details of his alleged abuse.
When asked if Sandusky had forced him to engage in oral sex, Fisher denied it. Gillum then volunteered to testify on his client’s behalf, on the grounds that the teenager was too emotionally fragile to continue. But that didn't happen. When a second grand jury convened to investigate Sandusky, Fisher testified by reading a written statement about his alleged abuse.
In 2013, the university paid Fisher, whose lawyer, Andrew Shubin, did not respond to requests for comment, a confidential settlement of $7.5 million.
In 2016, Gillum also began counseling Glenn Neff, another alleged victim, who, according to Neff's claim of abuse, "will be seen in psychotherapy with Michael Gillum, M.A., for the foreseeable future."

Pendergrast says there’s nothing scientific about the claim that people can repress memories of traumatic events.
“Everything we know about the science of memory shows that the things that we remember the best are the most traumatic events that happen to us." The problem people have with traumatic memories, Pendergrast said, is they can’t forget them.
“That’s what PTSD is,” Pendergrast said, referring to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. “There’s no convincing evidence whatsoever that people can forget years of traumatic events.”
But at the Sandusky trial, the prosecution presented repressed memory theory as fact. Before calling his witnesses, the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, told the jury that he would have to “press these young men for the details of their victimization,” because “they don’t want to remember.” That’s why the investigation was slow,” McGettigan said, because “the doors of people’s minds” were closed.

After a jury found Sandusky guilty, then Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference outside the courthouse.
About the alleged victims, Kelly said, “It was incredibly difficult for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”
No Credible Scientific Support
Another critic of recovered memory therapy is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the world’s foremost experts on the malleability of human memory. Loftus, who testified at a hearing on behalf of Sandusky’s unsuccessful bid for a new trial, has given lectures to the Secret Service and FBI; she also has a contract to work for the CIA
On May 11, 2017, testifying by phone, Loftus told Judge John Foradora, “There is no credible scientific support for this idea of massive repression." Nor is there any credible support, she added, for the idea that “you need psychotherapy to dig it out, and you can reliably recover these memories . . . in order to heal yourself.” In many jurisdictions, she told the judge, cases involving repressed memories have been thrown out of court.

She wasn’t alone in her critique; another expert witness cited in Sandusky’s appeal, Harvard psychologist Richard McNally, described repressed memory theory as “psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support.”
Human memory “doesn’t work like a recording device” that can simply be played back at a later date, Loftus told the judge. Memories evolve over time and can be distorted or contaminated with suggestive and leading questioning. Her experiments have also shown that people can be talked into believing things that aren’t true.
“You can plant entirely false memories in the minds of people for events that never happened,” she explained. And once those false memories are planted, she told the judge, people will relate those memories as if they were true, “complete with high levels of detail and emotion.”

In her experiments, Loftus said, “We have successfully convinced ordinary, otherwise healthy people, that they were lost in the shopping mall” when they were five- or six-years-old, “that they were frightened, cried and had to be rescued by an elderly person and reunited with the family.” Other researchers have planted false memories about being “nearly drowned” as a child, and “rescued by a lifeguard,” she testified. People have been convinced that they were “attacked by a vicious animal,” Loftus added, or that they committed a serious crime as a teenager.

During the appeal hearing, Loftus said, “It seems pretty evident that there were drastic changes in the testimony of some of the [Sandusky] accusers.” One reason for those changes, she testified, was the “highly suggestive” way police and psychotherapists interviewed them.
 
Yes they did. I know he confessed to that, it doesn’t mean they didn’t participate in a gang rape. Hitting her, holding her down, and dry humping her are things they admitted to doing.
No dna things, meaning they wouldn’t have collected dna for those actions. This was also 1989, dna technology was in its infancy . So a shitbag murderer confessed to a rape ( past the statute of limitations), who cares? He’s in for life already.
I’m sure this was part of a plan by their Atty’s to try to foster confusion with this case . I mean they’re getting part of their awards, right? 30% give or take?
Their criminals . They violently attacked multiple people and admitted to attacking her.
After he confessed the found his DNA on her sock. JFC on a flatcar. It was unassailable proof of his guilt, found AFTER he confessed. Convictions had already occurred, but the DNA test did not get run and compared the nail 2001, 12 years later

Next you will tell me the Scottsboro boys deserved to be killed.

After all, racism was in its infancy, right?
 
After he confessed the found his DNA on her sock. JFC on a flatcar. It was unassailable proof of his guilt, found AFTER he confessed. Convictions had already occurred, but the DNA test did not get run and compared the nail 2001, 12 years later

Next you will tell me the Scottsboro boys deserved to be killed.

After all, racism was in its infancy, right?
Are you still that stupid? They admitted to participating in a rape. They beat her, held her down, dry jumped her, and a convicted murderer made a convenient jailhouse confession after the statute of limitations ran out.
Yes, you are that stupid.
 
Below is a Facebook post from author and private detective , John Curley. A little ways down in his post he quotes the prosecutor for the Central Park Five. They were as guilty as sin.

I submit it is worth the read, try to understand the point:

I have done criminal defense investigations for 32 years, plus. Been around the system about 3 years longer. I have lost count of the mistakes the system has made. I have seen people wrongfully arrested and in the system. It is by no means the majority. Most of the people in jail belong there.

We need reform, many people deserve a second chance.

What you are not going to get, is the right perspective from a social justice warrior who learns about the system within the hallowed halls of "higher education" or politicians.

I know the criminal class of this country. The amusing thing to me is how many of the SJW's, defense lawyers that think every ****ing client they have was wronged, the politicians, think they have some kind of immunity from predators. They would be terrified absolutely shitless if the cops stopped working.

The people making the Central Park 5 the poster boys, of the movement are making the activist mistake. "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!"

Ahab and the whale. Hatred and righteousness to such a degree they will go down into the depths and in the meantime when how wrong they were becomes apparent, they end up damaging their cause far more than they ever helped it and we that see what needs to be changed just shake our heads and try to grow more fingers to plug up the holes in the dike.

If you are going to look into the central park 5, LEARN. Do not start with a preconceived notion, read *both* sides. Read the below article from the prosecutor and I will post some links to other accounts than the net flix version in the comments. I am giving you the tools to learn about this, because if you are going to learn, your narrative has to go out the window, your preconceived notions as well, and you have to look at ALL sides with an open mind.

The below is from an article in the WSJ written by Linda Fairstein the supervising prosecutor in the Central Park 5 case.
Please do not waste your time watching the Netflix bogus documentary.....

Linda's own words.......

At about 9 p.m. April 19, 1989, a large group of young men gathered on the corner of 110th Street and Fifth Avenue for the purpose of robbing and beating innocent people in Central Park. There were more than 30 rioters, and the woman known as the “Central Park jogger,” Trisha Meili, was not their only victim. Eight others were attacked, including two men who were beaten so savagely that they required hospitalization for head injuries.

Reporters and filmmakers have explored this story countless times from numerous perspectives, almost always focusing on five attackers and one female jogger. But each has missed the larger picture of that terrible night: a riot in the dark that resulted in the apprehension of more than 15 teenagers who set upon multiple victims. That a sociopath named Matias Reyes confessed in 2002 to the rape of Ms. Meili, and that the district attorney consequently vacated the charges against the five after they had served their sentences, has led some of these reporters and filmmakers to assume the prosecution had no basis on which to charge the five suspects in 1989. So it is with filmmaker Ava DuVernay in the Netflix miniseries “When They See Us,” a series so full of distortions and falsehoods as to be an outright fabrication.

It shouldn’t have been hard for Ms. DuVernay to discover the truth. The facts of the original case are documented in a 117-page decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Galligan, in sworn testimony given in two trials and affirmed by two appellate courts, and in sworn depositions of more than 95 witnesses—including the five themselves. Instead she has written an utterly false narrative involving an evil mastermind (me) and the falsely accused (the five).

I was one of the supervisors who oversaw the team that prosecuted the teenagers apprehended after that horrific night of violence. Ms. DuVernay’s film attempts to portray me as an overzealous prosecutor and a bigot, the police as incompetent or worse, and the five suspects as innocent of all charges against them. None of this is true.

Consider the film’s most egregious falsehoods. “When They See Us” repeatedly portrays the suspects as being held without food, deprived of their parents’ company and advice, and not even allowed to use the bathroom. If that had been true, surely they would have brought those issues up and prevailed in pretrial hearings on the voluntariness of their statements, as well as in their lawsuit against the city. They didn’t, because it never happened.

In the first episode, the film portrays me at the precinct station house before dawn on April 20, the day after the attacks, unethically engineering the police investigation and making racist remarks. In reality, I didn’t arrive until 8 p.m., 22 hours after the police investigation began, did not run the investigation, and never made any of the comments the screenwriter attributes to me.

Ms. DuVernay depicts suspects Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise being arrested on the street. In fact, two detectives went to the door of the Salaam apartment on the night of the 20th because both had been named by other rioters as attackers in multiple assaults.

The film claims that when Mr. Salaam’s mother arrived and told police her son was only 15—meaning they could not question him without a parent in the room—I tried to stop her, demanding to see a birth certificate. The truth is that Mr. Salaam himself claimed to be 16 and even had a forged bus pass to “prove” it. When I heard his mother say he was 15, I immediately halted his questioning. This is all supported by sworn testimony.

Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.

Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili. Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught. The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions.

Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.

It is a wonderful thing that these five men have taken themselves to responsible positions and community respect. That Ms. DuVernay ignored so much of the truth about the gang of 30 and about the suffering of their victims—and that her film includes so many falsehoods—is nonetheless an outrage.

Ms. DuVernay does not define me, and her film does not speak the truth.
 
with 36 settlements it is difficult to believe Sandusky is innocent.

Anyone watch the TV coverage outside the court building that night ... the crowd was large and they roared with approval after the decision was announced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maize80
Yeah, they got it right. Sandusky was solely a PSU problem and PSU enabled him for years

Pedophilia is a societal problem and not a PSU problem. PSU did not enable pedophilia. You have obviously bought into the OAG false narratives. There was no conspiracy and there was no cover-up at PSU. I agree with former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, only a political hit job.
 
S Ess
Pedophilia is a societal problem and not a PSU problem. PSU did not enable pedophilia. You have obviously bought into the OAG false narratives. There was no conspiracy and there was no cover-up at PSU. I agree with former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, only a political hit job.[/QUOT.

Snedden did nothing to disprove his guilt. Maybe for you, but not for normal people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
with 36 settlements it is difficult to believe Sandusky is innocent.

Anyone watch the TV coverage outside the court building that night ... the crowd was large and they roared with approval after the decision was announced.


Two questions:
1. Thirty-six (36) settlements. How many were truly vetted and truly credible situations?
2. People roared for the OJ verdict too. In fact, there is always some faction of people roaring for every verdict. Whats the point?
 
with 36 settlements it is difficult to believe Sandusky is innocent.

Anyone watch the TV coverage outside the court building that night ... the crowd was large and they roared with approval after the decision was announced.

36 settlements and Penn State did virtually no vetting.

The trustees, as Big Trial reported, also failed in their fiduciary duty to vet the stories told by 36 alleged victims, who were paid a total of $118 million, an average of $3.3 million each, without the university asking any questions.

No depositions by lawyers, no personal interviews with psychiatrists or trained investigators, no lie detector tests. Almost all of the alleged victims in the case didn't even have to publicly state their real names. How's that for easy money?

http://www.bigtrial.net/2019/02/penn-state-cover-up-ends-with-leaking.html

If you want to learn more about the easy money that the claimants made because Penn State was not minding the store, checking out this other blog post by Ralph Cipriano:

http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html

Yes, the OAG did a good job of selling their false narratives. They poisoned public opinion in the case right from the beggining by their prosecutorial misconduct including the leaked grand jury testimony and the false grand jury presentment. They convinced me 7 years ago that Sandusky was guilty as charged before I started learning the facts of the case:

Mike McQueary did NOT witness an anal rape in the Lasch building shower.

The Freeh Report is not factual, but rather an opinion piece by Louis Freeh based on the wishes of his clients (PSU BOT, OAG, Tom Corbett).

Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier is no way enabled the acts of a pedophile and did NOT participate in a conspiracy or a cover-up.

Please learn more about the case and read Mark Pendergrast's critically acclaimed book "The Most Hated Man in America." Please read former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden's just-the-facts 110 page report on his federal investigation that renewed Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances. I agree with Snedden's conclusions that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather just a political hit job.

I have asked it before and I will ask it again, if you are so sure that Sandusky is a dyed-in-the-wool pedophile, please state the specific 1 or 2 accusers that you are virtually certain that he victimized.
 
Of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with, none of the accusers made contemporaneous reports/conversations to friends, families, teachers, clergy, police, psychologists, or anyone else. All of the claimant stories have problems. No pornography (a hallmark of a pedophile) has ever been found in Sandusky’s possession. No physical evidence of CSA has ever been tied to Sandusky. Some of Sandusky’s behaviors could potentially be seen as grooming behaviors, but with no credible evidence that he ever acted on sexual urges, I don’t believe his interactions with any of the claimants were sexual and constituted grooming.

Serious question, which specific claimant (or 2) do you think makes the most convincing case that they were sexually abused?

I doubt you will answer the question. I have asked this question many times and to date nobody has given a good answer. Given that Sandusky’s trial was patently unfair with massive prosecutorial misconduct and a grossly ineffective defense counsel, I believe there is much more than reasonable doubt that Sandusky is guilty of the crimes he was charged with. In fact, I believe there is very serious doubt when you consider that the pillars of the case (v1 and v2) have gaping holes in their stories.
Sandusky was convicted, not on facts, but on what "could have beens". If a standard of our legal system was maintained - innocent until proven guilt" - I believe that the Sandusky "crimes" would have never made it to court.

Of course this ignores the fact that the Sitting Governor and former head of the OAG had a personal vendetta against PSU and Spainer. Since when is it proper to charge a citizen with crimes and then MANUFACTURE through the "Power of the State" a document supporting SERIOUS LEGAL crimes when the content of the document has as many KNOWINGLY fictitious mis-statements and accusations as what the State of PA's OAG presented to the public in 2012.

How can this be LEGALLY justified?? Is the Governor and his henchmen the core administrator of the US & PA Legal system?

This is and will forever be a set of crimes - not LEGALLY involving Sandusky and PSU - but crimes permitted by a State who's basic oaths of office were ignored and abused by elected and appointed officials.

There is no other point which applies to this situation - a load of PA officials and those who supported the LEGALLY flawed "Story" which the OAG created (Freeh & NCAA) are the ones who's criminal actions demand jail time!!

Answer me this.....What other $250M+ theft has gotten away so legally unpunished???.
 
with 36 settlements it is difficult to believe Sandusky is innocent.

Anyone watch the TV coverage outside the court building that night ... the crowd was large and they roared with approval after the decision was announced.

How many of those 36 settlements were made by Penn State with no vetting to the point that the university wasn't backed by insurance?

EDIT: I see that francofan already addressed this in first-rate fashion, as he always does. :)
 
Pedophilia is a societal problem and not a PSU problem. PSU did not enable pedophilia. You have obviously bought into the OAG false narratives. There was no conspiracy and there was no cover-up at PSU. I agree with former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, only a political hit job.

Clearly my comment was a sarcastic response to the poster that claimed "they got it right"
 
S Ess
Snedden did nothing to disprove his guilt. Maybe for you, but not for normal people.

Snedden may not have proved Sandusky is innocent, but he said that he was unaware of any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile and he would have been aware of any such evidence in his federal investigation if there was any. He also states why Sandusky's trial was patently unfair.

Did you read his 110 page redacted report? It lays out precisely what he learned in the 15 interviews that became the basis for his conclusion that Spanier's top-level clearances be renewed.

Ralph Cipriano interviewed him for his blog post titled "Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal at Penn State , Just a "Political Hit Job."

Snedden states:

Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?

"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.

Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?

"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.

"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."

It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.

.http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
 
As a masochist, I opened this thread expecting to encounter a collection of cringe-worthy takes. I did not expect to encounter the worst take of the bunch to be “the Central Park Five actually did it.” Yikes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole and BBrown
Snedden may not have proved Sandusky is innocent, but he said that he was unaware of any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile and he would have been aware of any such evidence in his federal investigation if there was any. He also states why Sandusky's trial was patently unfair.

Did you read his 110 page redacted report? It lays out precisely what he learned in the 15 interviews that became the basis for his conclusion that Spanier's top-level clearances be renewed.

Ralph Cipriano interviewed him for his blog post titled "Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal at Penn State , Just a "Political Hit Job."

Snedden states:

Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?

"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.

Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?

"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.

"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."

It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.

.http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
Eye witness testimony is evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Eye witness testimony is evidence.

Yes, and Snedden didn’t find McQueary to be a credible witness regarding the charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz. He explains that in detail in the big trial blog post and it is reinforced in his interview notes with the 14 witnesses he interviewed in his 110 page redacted report.

Regarding the eyewitness testimony against Sandusky by the claimants. Snedden didn’t find them credible either as he said that no credible information that Sandusky was a pedophile has come to light that wasn’t subject to manipulation.

You seem like you find some of the claimant testimony credible. If that is the case, would you please identify the specific 1 or 2 claimants that you find the most credible and make the strongest case that Sandusky is a pedophile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
Snedden may not have proved Sandusky is innocent, but he said that he was unaware of any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile and he would have been aware of any such evidence in his federal investigation if there was any. He also states why Sandusky's trial was patently unfair.

Did you read his 110 page redacted report? It lays out precisely what he learned in the 15 interviews that became the basis for his conclusion that Spanier's top-level clearances be renewed.

Ralph Cipriano interviewed him for his blog post titled "Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal at Penn State , Just a "Political Hit Job."

Snedden states:

Does he believe there's any credible evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile?

"Certainly none that's come to light that wasn't susceptible to manipulation," he said.

Does Sandusky deserve a new trial?

"Without a doubt," Snedden said. Because the first time around, when he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail, Sandusky didn't have a real trial, Snedden said.

"To have a real trial, you should actually have real credible witnesses and credible victims," Snedden said. "And no leaks from the grand jury."

It also would have been a fair trial, Snedden said, if the people who Sandusky would have called as defense witnesses hadn't already been indicted by the state attorney general's office.

.http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html

What about the 60 million dollar fine? Where did that money go? .... Did Michigan State have to pay a 60 million dollar fine to the state of Michigan ensuring registered physicians who work with student athletes are monitored ensuring this kind of thing never happens again?

332 Victims have testified against Nasser. His wife has since filed for divorce. Turned her back on him as soon as the allegations broke. Nasser admits to his crimes.

Because of the Sandusky scandal, I will say i'm much more likely to click the link or read the article in the paper whenever I see a story break about child abuse or child porn. Not one time, since Sandusky was sentenced have I read about a story where the pedophile has maintained his innocence. These trials are heart wrenching, and when the victims tell their accounts it always breaks down the scumbag who's guilty and you see their whole life unravel throughout the course of the trial. In cases where someone is being accused, especially where there is more than 1 victim, in most the cases I've seen there are other things that come to fruition that prove guilt.

It's just more questions with Sandusky.

Dotty Sandusky has supported her husband through this entire thing, visits him regularly. I'm sure there's many cases out there that I haven't seen, but give me an example where you see a convicted pedophile at the same scope as Sandusky, who still has the support of his family. The reason Sandusky was so easily fingered, for a lack of a better term, was simply because his entire life was devoted to 2 things. Coaching Penn State Football, and growing his charity that was put in place to help children who are coming out of horrific situations, broken homes, physical and sexual abuse, you name it. There were no victims in this case until it was known that if Jerry Sandusky was found guilty, financial compensation would be awarded to those who testified. Of those who testified, how many of them had their memory of the incident brought back to them through psychological evaluation?

Was Sandusky child molester? It's possible.... but the facts are the facts and in this case we have very few of them. I haven't seen enough of them to prove he's guilty. At minimum he deserves a retrial.

In most cases, the victims are driven by justice. They want to see the person who abused them remain in a cell for the rest of their life. The Sandusky scandal on the other hand has been driven by dollars from the start. Just follow the money.

The corruption within the state government is the culprit here. Pennsylvania gets an F. (link)
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT