Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
We don't know that Joe would have spoken openly about the matter in that press conference. And I think it would have been a disaster having him sit there getting grilled by the media, especially at his age and condition. That said, there was nothing stopping Joe from having his own press conference after that.
I think do all but know for certain that JoePa would have spoken freely and openly about what he knew - and more telling, what he didn't know. Joe Witnessed diddly-poop
What I think stopped Joe from having his own press conference afterwards was (1) respect for authority (e.g., PSU admin/BOT, as hard as that is to stomach) and (2) not wanting to jeopardize/influence the initial case one way or the other.
That seems like I'm contradicting myself stating that Joe would have spoken honestly at the Wednesday press conference, yet did not have a follo-on press conference of his own. I'm sure he would have handled the media well enough at the Wednesday sesison. Afterwards, since he had been unceremoniously fired without cause, there was an implication of guilt from the F****** BOT and DHead Corbett.
I believe Joe's pension was on the line and since Sue was considerably younger, he did not want to jeopardize that.
To your point, I think Joe would have spoken freely had his health not failed. OTOH, if Joe hadn't been dying, I imagine he would been indicted too...just to keep him quiet.
Totalitarian states don't just arrest and prosecute criminals. They specifically target the innocent. Meeting out harsh punishments to individuals known to be of impeccable character will foster a sense of fear and remove any possibility of opposition.
People who suggest that others should have spoken out.....in real time are idiots. It was obvious that anyone who didn't comply with the narrative would face punishment. Within the university, why do you think Judas was named AD? Staffers were fearful and felt compelled to be silent.
People who suggest that others should have spoken out.....in real time are idiots. It was obvious that anyone who didn't comply with the narrative would face punishment. Within the university, why do you think Judas was named AD? Staffers were fearful and felt compelled to be silent.
Actually, I believe you are incorrect. Joe didn't need to take any actions that might have given the trustees reason to breach the terms of his contract. Financially there was a lot at stake. Joe had a few months to live. He may not have known the end was that close....but he had notified Spanier and Curley that 11 was his final year. Shithead Surma was aware as well. Joe wanted to be sure that Sue would be taken care of. Remember, he didn't make 5 million a year.
If you haven’t read Pendergrast’s book, you really shouldn’t comment. Not one of the Michigan State victims required repressed memory theory to recall their abuse. I believe all but two of Sandusky’s alleged victims denied any abuse prior to this so called technique. The other two recognized the money train.
doubtful he would be indicted despite everyone screaming for such. He was intended to be corroboration for Mike. At least that is how it was presented at the prelim hearing.
It is certainly possible for people to forget an incident of sexual abuse—or any other unpleasant experience, such as going to the hospital or being in an accident—especially if they never talk about it afterward. They might recall that incident many years later, often when triggered by something familiar, in the same way we start recalling high-school memories we thought long gone when we are at a reunion. Sometimes a shocking early experience can be recalled in or out of therapy.
But in these cases, it's not that the memories were “repressed.” Rather, they were not rehearsed or discussed, and so they faded from recall, only to reappear with a retrieval cue. Such experiences may be forgotten simply because we did not perceive them as traumatic at the time, just confusing or annoying. Once we recall them in adult-hood, we might reassess that memory and decide the early experience was traumatic after all. These instances are simply examples of normal forgetting and remembering, not repression.
I would guess that Joe’s university pension was bound by some boilerplate legal document that applied to anyone eligible for such a pension.
His employment contract? While he was "fired" or removed as HFC.......his contract was "honored." Some trustees even disputed that he was "fired"......
just reassigned. I doubt Joe had much to share anyway. He knew what MM told him......which amounted to sounds and Jerry being alone with a boy in the shower. What more could Joe add?The few words he uttered have been twisted anyway. Especially his testimony read into the record by a prosecutor...."was it of a sexual nature?" LOL
People do not simply forget traumatic events that occur in their lives. I believe that there were many claimants in this case who didn't view their interactions with Sandusky as traumatic until they realized that Sandusky might be a CSA offender and they realized the potential for financial reward so they consulted with psychologists and lawyers. Let me be cyrstal clear, repressed/recovered memory therapy has been thoroughly debunked as a way of obtaining reliable information. In this case v1, v3, v4, v6, v7, and Matt Sandusky have all been shown to have had therapy with psychologists for the purpose of possibly recovering memories of sexual abuse that may have been blocked.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.pdf
V7 freely admits that he was only able to visualize his abuse until he had recovered memory therapy. V1 was only able to remember his horrific abuse after his therapy sessions with Mike Gillum who helped him the peel the onion that was obscuring the details of his abuse. Cindy McNabb was Andrew Shubin's go to psychologist to help clients recover memories. Imho, any claimant who saw Mike Gillum or Cindy McNabb (there were many) probably received some type of recovered memory therapy and their stories are therefore immediately suspicious. Here is a link to what I believe is a therapy session from a purposely fake accuser and Cindy McNabb. In the session, McNabb states that she is suspicious of Matt Sandusky's story who I believe was also her client.
Pendergrast's book is excellent. Based on 76 Amazon customer reviews, it has an average 4.7 out of 5.0 star rating, Let me provide a couple of review.
Here is Bob Costas's review.
"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."
Here is Dr. Fred Berlin's review. Berlin is the Director of the John Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit of The John Hopkins University School of Medicine
"Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society."
If you have time to read a comprehensive review, please read Dr. Frederick Crews, Professor Emeritus at Cal Berkley, review of Pendergrast's book he wrote for Skeptic magazine.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...cxdNHHqzLh3KIkKjQeftGxtLCpWM-Gp1pEBylvQpJAxpg
Don't you think its more than a little suspicious that this was the case with virtually all of the claimants?
I’m probably not going to read the book so I will just ask you. How does the author address Sandusky’s behavior of showering with underage boys and having physical contact with them? Does he provide a reasonable excuse for that?
I would again urge you to read the book. You are obviously interested in the case and you just might learn something. It has been critically acclaimed.
Yes, Pendergrast does address your concern. You will have to be judge of if you find Pendegrast's opinion persuasive or not. I believe he gives a reasonable explanation.
I am not going to type in everything he said, just provide some of the highlights. Please read the section on Final Questions on pages 344-349.
Pendergrast states
-he looked for convincing evidence that Sandusky was sexually attracted to boys
-thought it was weird that he took showers with boys, and sometimes cracked their backs and blew raspberries on their stomachs?
-he was disturbed by the image of him grabbing v6 from behind in the 1998 shower incident while saying "I'll squeeze your guts out"
-he asked "Jerry, why would you a naked adult hug a naked boy in the shower like that?"
-JS said he was just trying to show "enthusiasm", a term he used frequently when he discussed his efforts to help troubled youths or others. He apparently meant he wanted to be upbeat, energetic, and playful.
-JS's approach to coaching "If I expected them to play enthusiastically. I would have enthusiasm. If I expected them to work long hours, I would work long hours."
-JS expressed his love for dogs, "Dogs remind me to be kind, to love, to show appreciation, and to be enthusiastic. Bo's (JS's dog) love is unconditional . . . . He has greeted me with a waggle and runs in circles to our laughter. He did and would do the same was all of the accusers."
-The enthusiasm that he tried to convey was captured in a song he made up for TSM camp "Care for a friend! Stay to the end! Greet with a smile! Go the Second Mile!"
-he asked "But Jerry, most people think that hugging a boy in the shower was really strange." JS just shrugged and repeated once again that this was the way he had grown up in what he called his "Mayberry World" at his parents recreation center, "Males shared the same shower. After practice, the shower was a place for relaxation and horseplay."
-MP pressed JS on why he continued to shower with boys after 1998
-JS stated that 1998 hadn't seemed like a big deal to him. It was v6's mom who was upset, not v6 who wanted to continue to spend time with him. After his interview with Schreffler, he was cleared almost immediately. He didn't recall Schreffler advising him not to shower with all boys, only v6. Despite v6 wanting to work out with him again, Sandusky would not do it.
-JS stated that his meeting with Tim Curley in 2001 did get his attention and that "I didn't shower with kids after that. It was clear to me at that point that it wasn't a good idea."
-MP observed a pattern. Sandusky was an important mentor and father figure to many TSM kids when they were 10-13 or so; as they got into their mid-teens years some would rebel and pull away. JS saw this as dangerous since some became juvenile delinquents, got into drugs, and sought promiscuous sex. Out of concern, he pursued them, having them sign contracts to earn small amounts of money through good study habits and participation on sports teams. But some were too old to want to submit to such blandishments, accompanied by sermonizing letters
-JS also observed the pattern "Even though I recognized this as a stage, it bothered me because so many drifted into problems and trouble. I didn't want it to happen. I never wanted to give up on them reaching their potential (like my Dad). Never quit!"
Thanks for this. I confess to not having read the book as I do not have a copy.
This: "Despite v6 wanting to work out with him again, Sandusky would not do it." is news to me. Have people heard this from other sources? I'm not doubting MP, but this is a pretty interesting nugget.
I would encourage you to get the book. A new version is $20, a kindle version is $8 and a used version is $15.
The text in the book on page 345 is:
The message he (JS) got was not to shower again with v6, and he didn't. Despite v6 wanting to work out together again, Sandusky wouldn't do that, either
Correct. Growing up, probably half of my parents' friends were Holocaust survivors.
To this day, I have never heard survivors say they couldn't remember what happened to them.
So, This is just “fun and games” for you?
Why would you want to become informed on this subject when you can, instead, make wisecracks and erroneous statements? Stay in your swim lane please!
So this shows me that Pendergrast had some serious concerns and issues with Sandusky’s behavior. After speaking with Sandusky, he believed him. That doesn’t help me believe Sandusky was behaving innocently. It does lead me me to believe that Sandusky is a great manipulator.
I read Pendergast's book. It was biased.
Understandably so. He's allegedly estranged from his daughters apparently because they believe he committed CSA on them.
I don't see any unbiased, trained professionals in CSA, particularly PoC CSA that have defended Jerry in the slightest way.
It seems like there are 3 classes of people:
1. People trained in CsA, all think Jerry is guilty
2. Untrained people, a mix ... but most, upon hearing Jerry admitted to showering and hugging boys while naked, think he's an offender. Some, a few, don't.
3. The remainder are biased. Pendergast obviously. Ziegler always argues counter to the mainstream for hits & attention ... it's his brand. Jerry's lawyers have to defend him, its their job. CSS feel better if they can cling to Jerry being innocent - good men all, they'd feel bad if they aided a predator in any way. Snedden - probsbly untrained in PoC CSA & didn't investigate Jerry - wants to drum up biz for his PI gig? Dottie - come on, if she says Jerry is even maybe guilty she's an accomplice. The rest of the Sandusky's? None of them have said Jerry is innocent on the record outside of a group press release penned by Ziglier himself.
Understandably so. He's allegedly estranged from his daughters apparently because they believe he committed CSA on them.
I don't see any unbiased, trained professionals in CSA, particularly PoC CSA that have defended Jerry in the slightest way.
It seems like there are 3 classes of people:
1. People trained in CsA, all think Jerry is guilty
2. Untrained people, a mix ... but most, upon hearing Jerry admitted to showering and hugging boys while naked, think he's an offender. Some, a few, don't.
3. The remainder are biased. Pendergast obviously. Ziegler always argues counter to the mainstream for hits & attention ... it's his brand. Jerry's lawyers have to defend him, its their job. CSS feel better if they can cling to Jerry being innocent - good men all, they'd feel bad if they aided a predator in any way. Snedden - probsbly untrained in PoC CSA & didn't investigate Jerry - wants to drum up biz for his PI gig? Dottie - come on, if she says Jerry is even maybe guilty she's an accomplice. The rest of the Sandusky's? None of them have said Jerry is innocent on the record outside of a group press release penned by Ziglier himself.
You are welcome to your own opinions. I could have guessed that you wouldn't change your opinion. I don't believe that Sandusky is that smart to be a master manipulator. Just look at his performance in the Costas interview. I don't believe that Sandusky was all this time manipulating his wife, his kids, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.
I think you have been manipulated by the OAG with their leaked grand jury testimony, their false grand jury presentment, their suggestive interviewing techniques of potential witnesses, and their trumped up charges of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. I believe you have been manipulated by Louis Freeh with his Freeh Report farce and his BS secret Schultz files as well with the false narrative that blamed the Penn State football culture of winning at any cost.
If I have been manipulated it has been by life experience and common sense. You find me a non-pedophilic grown man that is showering alone with underage boys and having physical contact with them- including “blowing raspberries on their bellies”- and I will consider coming over to your side.
He will just go back to "it was an inherently invalid trial" , "snedden says... " , Which 'accuser' do you think was 100% telling the truth'" , "Pendergast woted ..." , "Dottie said ... " , "I talked to Jerry myself and ..." , and the #1 point he loves to make: " "No porn was found!"
He will completely ignore what you said above and turn to another of the WhatAboutIsms he uses to deflect from reality when trapped.
I agree that many of the claimants probably didn't view their interactions as traumatic at the time.
Whereas you cling to monetary motivations, the ideas behind compliant victimization explain a lot more of the evidence.
From my post to which you replied: "Such experiences may be forgotten simply because we did not perceive them as traumatic at the time."
Let me expand on this: the key is that they weren’t viewed as traumatic at the time. It is not uncommon for victims to enjoy the physical manifestations of the abuse. This is a hard thing to accept. But as Ken Lanning has said, a pubescent boy is the easiest creature in the world to seduce. Years later, once that boy's sexual identity is fully formed, assuming he's heterosexual, it is incredibly unlikely for him to tell people he really enjoyed receiving his first blowjob when it was from an older man.
From my post to which you replied: "It is certainly possible for people to forget an incident of sexual abuse, especially if they never talk about it afterward."
Let me expand on this: And, perhaps, they may tell tell people they don’t want to remember, which isn’t the same as having forgotten. It generally means they don’t want to talk about what it is they do remember.
If that doesn't spell it out sufficiently, I refer you to Ken Lanning's paper on Compliant Victimization:
https://www.abusewatch.net/Compliant Child Victims.pdf
Offender-Victim Bond
The successful investigation and prosecution of sexual exploitation of children cases often hinges on being able to answer two questions:
1. Why didn't the victim disclose (fully or partially) when it happened?
2. Why is the victim disclosing (fully or partially) now?
For objective fact-finders, the answers to these questions should be what the evidence supports not what society prefers. Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a neighbor, teacher, or clergy member molests a boy, why does he "allow" it to continue and not immediately report it? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable, and the offender may be treating them better than anyone else ever has. But, they may come to realize they are victims when the offender ends the relationship. Then they recognize that all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of a plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.
Many of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Victims not only do not disclose, but they often strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case, several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified on his behalf were also among his victims.
In my experience, some of the more common reasons that compliant victims do not disclose are:
- The stigma of homosexuality.
- Lack of societal understanding.
- Failure to tell when they should have.
- Presence of positive feelings for the offender.
- Embarrassment or fear over their victimization.
- The belief they are not really victims.
Because most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims, especially if no threats or force were used prior to the sex. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.
These seduced or compliant child victims obviously do sometimes disclose, often because the sexual activity is discovered (e.g., abduction by offender, recovered child pornography, overheard conversations, computer records located) or suspected (e.g., statements of other victims, association with known sex offender, proactive investigation), after which an intervener confronts them. Others disclose because the offender misjudged them, got too aggressive with them, or is seducing a younger sibling or their close friend. Compliant victims sometimes come forward and report because they are angry with the offender for "dumping" them. They might be jealous that the offender found a new, younger victim. They sometimes disclose because the abuse has ended, not to end the abuse. Some compliant victims eventually disclose due to significant changes later in their lives such as marriage or the birth of a child.
1. Why didn't the victim disclose (fully or partially) when it happened?
2. Why is the victim disclosing (fully or partially) now?
For objective fact-finders, the answers to these questions should be what the evidence supports not what society prefers. Because victims of acquaintance exploitation usually have been carefully seduced and often do not realize or believe they are victims, they repeatedly and voluntarily return to the offender. Society and the criminal-justice system have a difficult time understanding this. If a neighbor, teacher, or clergy member molests a boy, why does he "allow" it to continue and not immediately report it? Most likely he may not initially realize or believe he is a victim. Some victims are simply willing to trade sex for attention, affection, and gifts and do not believe they are victims. The sex itself might even be enjoyable, and the offender may be treating them better than anyone else ever has. But, they may come to realize they are victims when the offender ends the relationship. Then they recognize that all the attention, affection, and gifts were just part of a plan to use and exploit them. This may be the final blow for a troubled child who has had a difficult life.
Many of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something "wrong" or "bad" and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Victims not only do not disclose, but they often strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case, several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified on his behalf were also among his victims.
In my experience, some of the more common reasons that compliant victims do not disclose are:
- The stigma of homosexuality.
- Lack of societal understanding.
- Failure to tell when they should have.
- Presence of positive feelings for the offender.
- Embarrassment or fear over their victimization.
- The belief they are not really victims.
Because most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims, especially if no threats or force were used prior to the sex. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he risks significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.
These seduced or compliant child victims obviously do sometimes disclose, often because the sexual activity is discovered (e.g., abduction by offender, recovered child pornography, overheard conversations, computer records located) or suspected (e.g., statements of other victims, association with known sex offender, proactive investigation), after which an intervener confronts them. Others disclose because the offender misjudged them, got too aggressive with them, or is seducing a younger sibling or their close friend. Compliant victims sometimes come forward and report because they are angry with the offender for "dumping" them. They might be jealous that the offender found a new, younger victim. They sometimes disclose because the abuse has ended, not to end the abuse. Some compliant victims eventually disclose due to significant changes later in their lives such as marriage or the birth of a child.
Lastly, if you disagreed with my post to which you replied, you're going to have to take it up with Pendergrast. He's the one who wrote it. You know, in that book you keep telling everybody to read.
But Jerry hired a bad lawyer!!!!!
But Jerry didn’t have porn on his computer!!!!
But Jerry grew up when it was OK for men to get underage boys alone in a shower and have physical contact with them (which is not true)!!!!!!!!!
I have found him. His name is Jerry Sandusky.
You find me a victim who has a credible story that they were sexually abused by Sandusky and I will come over to your side. I don't believe you can deliver.
Similar threads
