There is always an excuse. It’s never really reasonable, but always an excuse.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
There is always an excuse. It’s never really reasonable, but always an excuse.
Good point. I bet the cop was investigating the situation to protect Jerry from these boys that like to jump in the shower with him.
I'd like to hear the excuse from a grown man....who went to court to secure the right for his children to regularly visit Jerry...who he would later claimed sexually abused him.
In case you don't know, Jerry was tried and convicted for these crimes. It's game over, he's guilty as sin as they say.
When do you punch out and Pinknuts in?
You are the one that is thick. I asked for the individual victim that you believe is most most credible and convincing.
Sure, hear from him. I’d like to hear from every person from every angle of this whole ordeal. But I imagine if he said something other than, “Hell, I just made some crap up because they were handing out fistfuls of cash!” you would deny what he was saying.
He got one of the smallest settlements. I think Penn State viewed it as a nuisance.
Last edited:
He certainly raised some great kids especially Jeff.
Funny he never adopted any girls.
He is not only the most honest man in the world, he is the only man who has just enough testosterone to satisfy his wife but not enough to sexually assault underage boys. He’s a freak of nature.
You are welcome to believe anything that you want. I don’t think you know as much as you think you do. Btw, I never said he didn’t have enough testosterone to commit CSA. I just questioned whether he had enough to be as prolific in totality as the claimants have alleged.
You are also welcome to believe what you want as well. As I have said many times, I hope you are right. My experience tells me you are wrong, but I hope the worst thing that happened was a miscarriage of justice. There has to be a perfect storm of coincidences for Jerry Sandusky to not be a pedophile, but I hope that’s the case.
Stay tuned. This story isn’t over by a long shot.
I don’t have all of the answers. Some unsolicited advice for you if you are so inclined - don’t be afraid to eventually let go of your bone — you don’t need to repeat your arguments a million times and if you are truley interested in learning what exactly happened in this case, don’t be afraid to do a little research. There is a lot of solid information available for anyone who is interested.
I don’t need the research. I need explanations. I haven’t heard any believable ones for Sandusky’s behaviors yet.
Honestly, all they have to prove is that V1 was making it up. Everything else falls apart if that's the case.
Start a trial with, “The man showered alone in showers with underage boys and had physical contact repeatedly, even after being told by police- and agreeing to- never to do so again” and you are going to have a hard time moving on from there.
You certainly have a hard time moving on from there; however a good lawyer would tear those arguments to shreds imo. I believe you have fallen for the OAG's false narratives.
Where is the crime in what you stated? Showering with underage boys is not a crime. Neither is having physical contact with them.
Please read/listen to what John Snedden has said. He is a former NCIS Special Agent of the Year. Read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog.
When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.
"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"
At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.
http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/04/federal-agent-no-sex-scandal-at-penn.html
As usual, you skip parts. It’s not just Jerry’s inexcusable showering habits, but the accusations by the victims as well. You like to focus on the victims (lying people I suppose you would say) and ignoring what is slapping you in the face. Non-pedophilic grown men do not shower with underage boys and have physical contact with them. Not your average non-pedophilic grown man, and certainly not a non-pedophilic grown man who works with at-risk youth. You are stuck on the idea that Jerry Sandusky must be the one in the world that fits that bill. It defies all logic. Again, I cannot prove to you that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of sexually abusing any of these children and more than you can prove to me that he has not. But if I could build a profile of a child sexual abuser, it would be Jerry Sandusky and his bizarre showering/raspberry blowing/hiding behind wrestling mats with boys behavior.
As I have said and I believe you have agreed with many times, these behaviors are inappropriate. That must lead you to the question of why would one engage in so many seemingly pedophilic behaviors if one isn’t a pedophile? Most people come up with the answer that, “Well, because he’s a pedophile.” You come up with the answer that, “Jerry couldn’t have abused them because he has hypogonadism.” or, “These boys maintained long relationships with him”, or one of many other options.
Assuming you are not a pedophile, I would be shocked if you would ever purposely put yourself in the position of showering alone with a boy you were working with. Nor would I. Nor would any other rational, non-pedophilic man. There is no reasonable excuse for him to have been in the shower once, certainly not twice after being investigated by police, and certainly no reason for him to be blowing raspberries on an unrelated boy’s belly or to be behind wrestling mats with another underage boy in an otherwise empty gym.
Your problem is you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Jerry is a criminal. That is a fact proven in a court of law. Your wild
conspiracy theories are opinions.
Well by that logic... OJ is innocent. That is a fact proven in a court of law.
You really don't understand much about our US legal system.
OJ was found not guilty. OJ was not found innocent. All it means is that the jury had st least a small doubt.
Jerry was found guilty. Which means the jury had no doubt.
Consider the soucre. I think he goes by the name gozurmanisntttravelling79 on Penn Lice.
Honestly, if Jerry could prove V1 was lying he'd have sued him for slander and libel. If it's such a slam dunk, why hasn't he?
For all your misplaced confidence in Jerry, he hasn't shown any in himself.
Dennis - you are a very smart guy. It's very attractive. Are you on grindr?
Pinkhippo PeanutButter said:
Bravo... I've never seen use the captain obvious distraction technique before. Where you throw out some unrelated fact that everyone knows, in an attempt to avoid providing a relevant response. Considering your obsession, Jerry Sandusky, was not found guilty of every charge... that was not a very intelligent direction for you to go... because all that means is that the jury had "st" least a small doubt. Rather than dazzle us here with your ineptitude, why don't you go petition the innocence project to change their name to the "not-guiltynes project"?
Let me dumb this down for you. The definition of Innocent is "not guilty of a crime or offense". Do I need to go further? I should have put you on ignore the other day after your super creepy comment. I don't really want any sort of record of interaction with someone like you.
Similar threads
