Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Because you’re mind is not functioning the same as your not sexually abused peers?
Why does a woman who is being physically abused not leave her husband? Why does she not just leave? Similar circumstances.
Fisher is also suspect. Just so happens that
Fisher was the son of Dawn (Fisher) Daniels, who was impregnated early in 1993 when she was 17 by her boyfriend Michael. Aaron was born on Nov. 9, 1993, and his biological father saw him only a couple of times, then disappeared completely by the time he was one year old. His mother consequently gave him her maiden name, Fisher, as his last name.
Dawn then met Cliff when she was 18 and lived with him, unmarried, until Aaron was nearly five.Then she married Eric Daniels, a relationship that lasted five years."He began to abuse me when Katie was a baby,” she later asserted. “Eric turned out to be very controlling and he was emotionally and physically abusive." Katie, Aaron’s younger sister, was later diagnosed as bipolar.
Clearly, young Aaron Fisher had an unstable childhood. His mother apparently enjoyed frequenting bars, getting drunk, and flirting with strangers. In 2008, when Fisher was 14, the same year that the abuse claims arose, his mother posted photos of herself in a saloon, bragging of her extreme intoxication, on her My Space page.
She had a glazed, happy look on her face, with explanatory captions: “Drunk as hell…lol; me at the saloon…who knows who that guy is…lol,” and a photo of her posterior, showing the top of scanty underwear, explaining “my thong, tha thong, thong, thong…look at that ass."
When Dawn Daniels began to think Jerry Sandusky might have abused her son, she alerted Aaron’s high school. Then, after her son made some extremely vague allegations, Daniels took Aaron Fisher to Children & Youth Services, where intake case worker Jessica Dershem interviewed the teenager. Aaron did not reveal any overt sexual abuse. He only stated that Sandusky had cracked his back by hugging him with both of them fully clothed. Dershem then referred Fisher to Mike Gillum . .
Disappointed with the insufficient details, Dershem called her supervisor, Gerry Rosamilia and complained that she had an uncooperative fifteen-year-old in her office who was not disclosing sex abuse. She later said that she “sensed he was holding back.” Rosamilia told her to send him to Mike Gillum, a psychologist who had a contract with Clinton County, and who conveniently occupied an office upstairs in the same building.
When Gillum came down to the CYS office to get Aaron Fisher, he got this first impression:
“He had on a pair of raggedy jeans and some beat-up sneakers. His blond hair was scruffy and on the longer side, and he just looked disheveled, but it wasn’t the way he was dressed that stunned me. He was so extremely anxious, and moving around a lot, pacing the floor, in a really tight area in the lobby outside Jessica’s office, but looking down at the floor. His agitation was so high that he was wringing his hands.”
That was how Gillum described Aaron Fisher in Silent No More, a 2012 book written by Aaron Fisher, Fisher's mother, and Gillum, although the book is mostly written in Gillum's voice.
Fisher was obviously feeling pressured. He later recalled in Silent No More: “The truth is, I only agreed to go to his office because I wanted Jessica to stop asking me questions, and she said that Mike was the alternative, since I wasn’t answering her.”
Mike Gillum escorted Fisher into his office, where he began to reassure and disarm his young client, building the foundation for a trusting relationship that might enable future disclosure of sex abuse. Gillum rescheduled his other clients and spent the day focusing entirely on Aaron Fisher. Gillum wrote up a report for Jessica Dershem based on this initial confidential counseling session.
Fisher never told his mother exactly what was supposed to have happened to him. "Even now, these years later, he hasn't told me any details,” Daniels wrote in Silent No More. “Knowing what little I know, I can only imagine. And it makes me shudder."
At first, Fisher was equally uncommunicative with Mike Gillum, but Gillum immediately assumed that he really had been sexually abused. "I really think I know what you must be going through even though you won't tell me," he said. "You know...if someone touched you in your private parts, well, that's really embarrassing and hard to talk about because you're probably very scared.... It's my job and purpose to protect you and help you."
Gillum apparently believed that memories too painful to recall lay buried in the unconscious, causing mental illness of all kinds -- among them, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism. His duty as a counselor was to entice clients whom he suspected had been subjected to abuse to reveal this abuse or to raise buried memories to the surface, where healing could begin.
Fisher’s agitated behavior during his first meeting was a red flag and a certain indicator of child sexual abuse in Gillum’s mind. “He looked at me straight in the eye, and you could see the pain in his eyes, you could see how uncomfortable he was, he was physically shaking at times, his voice was cracking.”
Later, in 2014, when I interviewed Mike Gillum in his office, he denied that Fisher had repressed memories, though Gillum admitted that he believed in the Freudian theory and had helped other adult clients recall previously “repressed” abuse memories.
The Courage to Heal, the "bible" of those who believe in repressed memories of sexual abuse,was prominently displayed on his bookshelf. In Fisher’s case, however, he said that it was more a matter of “peeling back the onion,” and that “Aaron did what a lot of people do during abuse. He would dissociate with his body. Aaron would freeze up and stare into space so that he wasn’t even there. Many rape victims report the same thing. They kind of pretend it’s not happening.”
You are welcome to your own opinion. My opinion is that you are the one that is oblivious. I get that family members abuse their relatives. I get that there is a shame that some abuse victims feel and that they don’t always want to confront their abusers and may prefer to remain anonymous . But for the life of me, I don’t understand why an abuse victim would go out their way 10 years later to vouch for their abuser in a letter to the editor, invite their abuser and his spouse to your special day of nuptials, and go out of your way to show sympathy to your abuser at the loss of their parent. If you can, please explain how that might be possible.
A woman’s relationship with an abusive husband and a boy’s relationship with a CSA predator are entirely different circumstances.
You don’t understand because either you don’t want to understand or because you’re oblivious.
I’ll link this for you. It may help you understand. Again, the sexually abused mind is not logical. It’s damaged. It’s not typical. It has been altered. Try to understand.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-victims-childhood-sexual-abuse-dont-disclose
By this time AM was 24 years old, and was married to a woman. Presumably any abuse would have ended years earlier. Unless you think Sandusky had sexual relationships with adult males, which no one has ever claimed.
(Though Matt Sandusky at one point said the abuse lasted until age 20, he now changed his story once again to say it was until 17)
Oy vey. Read the article I linked in my response to Franco. As I have said, the effects of abuse do not end because you become an adult, because you are a Marine, or because you get married and have children. They carry on. You may not understand that which is great for you because it means you have probably not been sexually abused as a child. But for those that have been sexually abused as a child, this is not atypical.
Fascinating. He's asked multiple times to swear the date was march1, 2002.
He's as clear as possible.
AM was reacting to the grand jury presentment as he knew he was the boy in the shower because Sandusky contacted him after the incident and told him that Tim Curley/Penn State may be contacting him regarding the incident.
The March 1, 2002 was the date that McQueary and the OAG came up with for the grand jury presentment. They then changed the date before the trial to Feb. 7, 2001 after they found supporting emails. It can now be established the actual date of the incident was Dec. 29, 2000.
The OAG and McQueary have gotten the month, day, and year of the infamous v2 Lasch locker room incident wrong twice!
Wow. I actually had never read that interview summary. Is there a transcript to the alleged victims court testimony that some has a link to without much trouble.
The compare/contrast has to be equally stunning I guess $$$$ make you crazy
There isn't because the defense would never have introduced this "interview summary"
1) AM swore to the wrong date
2) AM couldn't provide a basic sketch of the locker room
3) AM claimed to Everhart he quit TSM in 6th grade but that's easily proven to be a lie
- The OAG's office had the wrong date and he went with it.
- His sketch was off, but he certainly was the first to mention the slammed wooden locker. MM weeks later sent emails saying he slammed his locker door to break it up.
- TSM summer camps served kids 8-12 years old, so he aged out of the summer camp program.
AM used the wrong date because that was the date the OAG was claiming at the time. If the was simply a benign event, it’s reasonable for him to forget when it happened.
Same with the layout of the shower. He was only there a few times and hadn’t been there in over 10 years.
I’m not sure what to make of the quote about quitting the second mile. Could mean he quit attending camps in 6th grade and instead spent one on one time with Sandusky. It also could’ve been a transcription error and Everhart wrote down 9th or 10th grade sloppily and the secretary mistook it for a 6. What makes absolutely no sense is why he would lie?
And Ray Blehar’s theory that Bruce Heim planted the idea in AMs head that he quit the 2nd mile in 6th grade during their fall 2011 golf outing so the 2nd mile would not be liable for the 2001 incident is flat out ridiculous. Not only would that mean Heim had the psychic power of predicting Jerry’s biggest supporter would turn on him, Ray also believes AM was not the “real V2” so what would it matter anyway?
Last edited:
ON US, hey, whatever $$ the BOT can scrape from the alumi and students...go for it.Yeah, here is some footage taken from a security camera on College Avenue...
The leaders of this
You crossed out university. And you didn't spell "college" correctly. You ok?
Here is AMs testimony from the appeal hearing. Basically he answers “I can’t remember” to everything, even some VERY simple and obvious questions
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY TRANSCRIPT FROM PCRA HEARING ON 11 4 16.pdf
I’m not sure what you mean by that comment, but what is your point? Are you saying you don’t believe AM is the “real V2”? Are you aware PSU paid him as V2 so even if you are right that just proves PSU paid fake victims. Also, what do you say is the significance of the quitting the 2nd mile comment? If he was trying to pretend he was the boy in the shower, it would make no sense to say he quit the second mile BEFORE that alleged incident occurred.
Sorry pink
Thank you, appreciate your guidance.
Last edited:
Almost all women who remain with an abusive man are sexually attracted to that man. Many of these women actually find abusive men more attractive because they confuse his malice with masculinity.
I think there could be a similar situation regarding a gay/bisexual teenage boys relationship to an older man. Just like when a straight teenage boy will refuse to see himself as a victim when sexually abused by an older woman, it makes sense that a gay boy will refuse to see himself as a victim when sexually abused by an older man.
Problem is none of Jerry Sandusky’s accusers are even remotely gay. None would have had any sexual attraction to Sandusky. Many were sexually active during the time period they claimed abuse, and they exclusively slept with girls.
You so consistently wrong and off base that it’s amazing.
I read the article. There are almost no citations or links to actual cases. She just seems to be spitballing possible explanations to why the men who starred in “Leaving Neverland” took so long to come forward and actually defended MJ for years. A better explanation is that Wade Robson and James Safechuck are simply frauds, especially when you consider the factual inaccuracies In their claims. For example, Safechuck claimed he was abused in the train station at the ranch. The problem was he said the abuse ended at age 14 and the station wasn’t even built until James was 16. The director of LN then claimed that James actually was abused until he was 16, but that invalidates the whole premise of the movie, which is that MJ abused little boys and dumped them when they reached puberty.
The fact that some abused children viewed their relationship with their abuser as loving and didn’t realize it was abuse until decades later makes sense for gay teens and teens abused by someone of the opposite sex. But it makes no sense for a very masculine, heterosexual boy like AM. Also, I don’t believe any of Sandusky’s accusers have ever made the claim that they saw Sandusky’s sex acts as acts of love.
The other factors the article cites as possible reasons victims don’t come forward: Payoffs, threats, drugs/alcohol, etc. are notoriously absent in the Sandusky case.
Ok dude. If it’s so common for a man to get masculine heterosexual teenage boys to engage in compliant sexual acts with him without plying them with drugs, alcohol, or money, and then be able to remain close friends with those boys even after they reach adulthood, I need you to cite examples!
Go find them yourself. I don’t need to debunk absolute bullshit, but I will give you one. A good friend was sexually abused by a priest early to mid teens.
None of those cases meet the criteria I laid out:
Keith - no evidence he was friends with his abuser as an adult
Jared-gay
Donald- no evidence he was friends with his abuser as an adult
Danny- no evidence he was friends with his abuser as an adult
Sean-no evidence he was friends with his abuser as an adult
Larry-gay
Mick-abused by female
Brad- plied with booze, money, and cigarettes
Hart-gay
So you send me an article that cites a case involving both members of the opposite sex AND payoffs!
If you look objectively at the stories of the 36 claimants that Penn State made settlements with, you will realize that none of them hold water if you scrutinize them closely. Sandusky's trial was patently unfair. If he is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I have no doubt he will be exonerated.
He was paranoid.
Amendola apparently wanted to be friendly, to be liked, so he agreed not to voice objections during opening or closing statements. Karl Rominger demurred, but because Amendola was in charge and was personal friends with Sandusky, he remained silent. “On many occasions, I disagreed with Mr. Amendola,” he recalled. “However, I did not voice my disagreement because I did not want to undermine Mr. Amendola, who had the relationship with Mr. Sandusky.” Because Amendola had taken few major cases to trial, Rominger said “I felt I would be able to assist with trial objections and evidentiary issues more ably than Mr. Amendola.”[iii]Thus, Rominger belatedly objected to McGettigans photo array of the alleged victims, which were “stylized and cut for maximum emotional impact.” He asked for a mistrial or a limiting instruction to jurors not to consider the images as evidence. Cleland curtly denied his motions. Rominger objected that “the prosecution wrongly kept referring to the complaining witnesses as victims.” Cleland regarded the term as acceptable as a “matter of convenience” and would let the jury know that “we’re using the terms victims as a shorthand, [it] obviously means alleged.” Rominger objected to McGettigan’s use of the words humiliation, shame, and fear. “What they’re doing is essentially explaining why the witnesses said nothing.” This amounted to argument, not a presentation of facts.Similarly, McGettigan should not have argued that there was a huge amount of evidence for guilt. “There is no overwhelming evidence of anything at this point.” Cleland denied these as well as all the rest of his objections.[iv]Then it was defense attorney Joe Amendola’s turn. Early in 2009, upon learning of the Aaron Fisher allegations, Sandusky had first hired Amendola, a local State College practitioner.A former prosecutor, Amendola had switched to defense, taking on drinking-under-the-influence and rape cases. He had a reputation for negotiating favorable plea bargains but had taken relatively few cases to trial. He and McGettigan were the same age, but they were stark contrasts in many ways. McGettigan was abrasive and only recently engaged to be married for the first time. Amendola had a friendly, smiling demeanor that had seen him through several failed marriages, the most recent the result of an affair in which he impregnated his 16-year-old intern in 1997 when he was 48.Many observers, including Amendola himself, were surprised that Sandusky stuck with the home-town lawyer. Before Sandusky’s arrest, Amendola said, “I’m sure some big-name attorney is going to volunteer to represent him.”[v] But Sandusky, who was known for his sometimes naïve loyalty to friends and colleagues, stuck with Amendola, and besides, no big-name attorneys wanted to take on the toxic case.After McGettigan’s masterful performance, Amendola’s opening statement was embarrassingly lame. “This is a daunting task,” he began. “I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure how to approach it. The Commonwealth has overwhelming evidence against Mr. Sandusky.” It’s difficult to imagine a worse defensive posture than talking about the “overwhelming evidence” against his client, particularly when his colleague, Karl Rominger, had just objected to McGettigan’s use of that phrase.Rominger winced, since Amendola had just “cast Mr. Sandusky as guilty in the minds of the jurors,” he thought.“I never had a case like this in my life,” Amendola continued, “and I can assure you I never will again.” But, he said, he had to make an opening statement, even though it seemed hopeless. “We can pack it in now and say, ‘Gee whiz, we don’t have a chance.’”He compared his task as “similar to climbing Mount Everest from the bottom of the hill.” He said that he was David to the government’s Goliath, and he complained about the “boxes and boxes of materials to go through.”Finally, Amendola said that he needed to “figure out how we can present Mr. Sandusky’s case to you so that you will understand that he’s innocent.” If he expected to convince the jury of his client’s innocence, he certainly had a strange way of approaching it. He asserted, without much conviction, that “There are no victims in this case…because victims only come about after you twelve determine they’re victims.” He noted that Sandusky had “always said he’s innocent” and that it had only been seven months since the Grand Jury Presentment had been made public and Sandusky was arrested, whereas “the Commonwealth had over three years to investigate these allegations.”“So how did it start?” It began with Aaron Fisher’s allegations. “Jerry Sandusky fondled him above his clothing one time.” What Amendola undoubtedly meant to say was that Fisher alleged at first that Sandusky had touched him above his clothing, but instead he told the jury that he had indeed fondled him. Then he talked about the 1998 shower incident and said that Zachary Konstas would say that “there was no sexual touching…. They fooled around in the shower and they played.”Amendola admitted that Sandusky “got showers with kids,” and that “Many of us think that that in and of itself proves that he’s guilty of horrendous crimes.” But “Jerry’s culture growing up in his generation where he grew up, he’s going to tell you later it was routine for individuals to get showers together.” In other words, he expected to call Sandusky to the stand to testify.He warned the jury that they would hear graphic descriptions of grotesque sexual abuse. “The testimony you are going to get is going to be awful, but that doesn’t make it true.” He wondered aloud, “How do we get to the end of this case, and how do we try to establish that Jerry Sandusky is not guilty, that there’s a real reasonable doubt here?” He apparently had no idea.He then talked about the McQueary shower incident. “What we think is that he saw something and he made assumptions.” Amendola did not point out that McQueary did not in fact see much of anything. He heard slapping sounds.
You seem a little fuzzy on what is objective and what is credible.
If you don't mind me asking, why are you so interested in this case? Where are you coming from?
no i'm not, and it doesn't matter why but I did graduate from PSU and I believe loons like you make us look bad.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Penn State 2025 Big Board Update: Offense- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
