That wasn’t the point of the sentence, but it sure is one major red flag that you are most likely dealing with a pedophile.
Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
That wasn’t the point of the sentence, but it sure is one major red flag that you are most likely dealing with a pedophile.
Yep make fun of a stain we should be ashamed of. Sounds about right coming from you.
You’re to caught up in legal beagle gotcha moments. No time or energy to relitigate with a bunch of biased legal hacks. I’m not interested in what you are interested in pursuing here. The post was an anniversary post designed as click bait. Let’s just agree to disagree and be secure knowing a child abuser is no longer abusing.
We good?
Last edited:
And now we know that you don't know what the word "factual" means. Cool.
With #2, it doesn’t matter what PSU thought. TSM was legally bound to have it investigated. By telling TSM, that was enough. Once LE learned of that, all attention should have shifted to TSM. I have asked people like yourself to speak to professionals on reporting. It doesn’t even matter if the PSU admins knew that telling TSM forced them to investigate.
And in both instances, the boys said nothing sexual happened. Both also went on to lead seemingly normal heterosexual lives, and both maintained a strong relationship with Jerry into adulthood. What color flag is that?
This is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be said. The OAG went to great lengths to make this a PSU scandal and deflect attention away from TSM.
Just think about how easy it should have been to clear PSU and especially Joe!
Somebody should have pointed out how unprofessional it was for Noonan to say what he said about Joe at the PC. Not only was Joe not a target of the investigation, he was a witness for the prosecution. Corbett should have asked for his resignation. It's more likely that it was Corbett who put him up to it.
Last edited:
None of that is atypical of sexual abuse victims.
I’ll throw up a white flag at you. I’m done with this for the evening. Have a good one.
Don't you think it is quite possible that the boy did not even understand what happened to him nor understood what "sexual" even meant? Certainly his mother was very concerned and so was the therapist working with him who described it as grooming behavior. LE also was concerned since they investigated it.
I assume you are talking about Greg Bucceroni here. I find that guy to be batsh*t crazy and simply not credible at all. He first came forward in September 2012 after Sandusky was already convicted and in jail, and said that he had an incident with Sandusky decades earlier. According to his LinkedIn page, he’s been a “child protection advocate” since 1986. So if he’s telling the truth, he worked as an advocate for 26 years, knowing that the founder of the largest children’s charity in Pennsylvania was a child predator, but didn’t speak up until that predator was already locked up. I don’t buy it. And it’s not like Bucceroni only began to see himself as a victim after undergoing “therapy” in Summer 2011 like the rest of Sandusky’s accusers.
Furthermore, Bucceroni claimed Sandusky’s showed him pornography back in the 1970s, but no porn was ever found on Sandusky and no accusers ever claimed Sandusky showed them porn, despite the fact that child porn was a lot easier to come during the time period the trial accusers were claiming abuse.
The fact is there has never been any link found between Jerry Sandusky and any other sexual predator. I found it very ironic that people accuse those of believe in Sandusky’s innocence as being crazy while at the same time, believing the absurd story of a “Second Mile Pedophile Ring”!
Last edited:
You're dismissing the relationships here. V6 texted Jerry on Father's Day 2011 to tell him how much he appreciated him. His mother approached Jerry for football tickets so that her son might see Jerry's last home game.
V2 lived with the Sandusky's for a semester and invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. He also drove something like 9 hours to attend the funeral of Jerry's mother. His surrogate grandmother, perhaps?
You're also ignoring the Seasock report that contradicted Chambers.
I've never said I thought Jerry was innocent of everything. However, I do believe the PSU related cases were weak to the point of being manufactured with an ulterior motive in mind. Either there was a concerted effort by the AOG to implicate PSU as the epicenter of the Sandusky scandal instead of TSM, or Jerry is innocent of everything.
Horseshit. I’m not ignoring anything. I am pointing out some things that are often left out. There was a report that stated Sandusky was engaging in grooming behaviors (which is pretty hard to deny). Francofan never mentions that. He also likes to repeat that Sandusky doesn’t meet the profile because of A, B, and C, while not mentioning the fact that multiple times he is known to have showered with boys and had physical contact with them. Again, as far as indicators go that trumps the others.
Your last paragraph misses it Indy. Jerry doesn’t have to be innocent for the OAG to have been corrupt. It is possible that they took advantage of an opportunity that Sandusky presented to them to attack Penn State admins.
Carry on.
Who is this "we" that you speak of that should.be ashamed? Penn Staters collectively? If so, then you are a fool. And if you're a Penn State alumnus, then yes, I do feel shame for sharing the same alma mater with such an obviously impaired thinker
You are welcome to you own opinions.
1. Thanks for admitting that he didn't witness sex and yes, Sandusky was found not guilty for the most serious charge for the involuntary deviate sexual intercourse for the McQueary incident so the jury didn't believe he witnessed sex. The jury found Sandusky guilty on the 4 grooming counts for v2 as they bought into Jerry being a child predator. The inclusion in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentment (gjp) of a graduate student (McQueary) witnessing an anal rape was a knowingly false statement which had a direct result of poisoning the jury pool as evidenced by the poll of potential jurrors a majority of who wanted Curley and Schultz to be punished even if they didn't commit a crime.
An email has been found of McQueary sending a message to Eshbach telling her she twisted his words in the gjp, but Jonelle told Mike that he had to keep quiet and suck it up because it was important and she didn't want to damge their case. In turns out now that the OAG and Mike McQueary are 0 for 2 in their timeline for when the v2 incident actually happened. They once again got the day, month, and year wrong again. It was not March 2, 2002 as in the Nov. 2011 gjp. It wasn't Feb. 11, 2001 as stated at trial. I believe it can be established conclusively that the date of the incident was Dec. 29, 2000. This blows the OAG theory that McQueary had information to he urgently wanted to provide Paterno. If the v2 incident didn't happen as McQueary and the OAG have tried to sell it, it is a brand new ballgame.
2. The Freeh Report is a farce. It is opinion based, using the opinions that best sold Freeh's clients (old guard PSU BOT/OAG) false narratives. I will refer you to Snendden's 110 page redacted report (link in post 1) for a fact-based report and the alumni PSU criticism of the Freeh Report (line in post 1).
3. You are the one who is crazy if you believe that Penn State engaged in a conspiracy and a cover-up. Even Spanier's jury didn't buy into that nonsense. Please review Snedden's fact-based report for the clear and convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy and no cover-up. I also refer you to Spanier's statement to AG Shapiro's appeal of Spanier's exoneration:
"We are dismayed that the Pennsylvania Attorney General, the highest law enforcement official in the state, would blatantly and prejudicially misrepresent facts in a public announcement of his intent to appeal the federal court’s ruling that Graham Spanier’s conviction violated the United States Constitution.
Contrary to Attorney General Shapiro’s statement, there is no evidence that Graham Spanier was personally advised that children were being sexually abused. And Attorney General Shapiro knows that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made nothing crystal clear about Dr. Spanier’s conduct, as it did not hear this case on the merits at any time.
We are stunned that Mr. Shapiro accuses Dr. Spanier of engaging in a “cover-up,” when a jury expressly acquitted Dr. Spanier of having engaged in a conspiracy or a continuing course of conduct.
We will continue to defend Dr. Spanier against this overzealous and unlawful prosecution. And we will continue to do so in the courts, where the dispute belongs — and not through hyperbolic statements like that of the Attorney General."
Shapiro's appeal is going nowhere. I look forward to the day that Graham Spanier's legal matters are behind him.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that is was ok to continue showering alone with children. I think it was bad judgment for him to shower with v6(zk) in 1998 and I think in was bad judgment for him to shower with v2(am) in 2000. I am only trying to provide insight into what Sandusky was thinking. I don't believe that either of these incidents where criminal as I don't believe there was any sexual intent. If it was clear that Jerry had engaged in prior sexual incident with children, then yes I would be inclined to believe that these showering incidents were grooming activities. Since there is no credible evidence of Sandusky engaging in sexual activities and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that implied he didn't, I firmly believe that these showering incidents were not grooming and not criminal.
Yes, there was 2 reports on the v6 incident, one from Alycia Chambers that said that Sandusky signs of possible grooming and another from John Seasock who said his behavior was that of a coach and that there was no sexual victimization. I am inclined to believe that Seasock got it more right as there was a contemp oraneous detailed investigation by CYS, State College police, Penn State police, the Centre County DA's office that resulted in Sandusky not being indicated for abuse and no criminal charges filed.
Then what were they? Clean, innocent fun showering naked with uncle Jer? Nobody in their right mind would engage in activities like that Franco and you k ow that. You absolutely have to know that. There is no reasonable excuse for him to have been caught (doesn’t mean they were the only two times it happened) in that position twice.
Of course you think Seasock got it right. It fits your narrative. But if you are going to have these discussions you should also include the Chambers report. It would give you more credibility if you presented the whole picture.
That isn't "caught".
Maybe you should go put on a jockstrap and some trunks too.
And sing the "ee ee song" while you're at it.
You are welcome to your own opinions. The key to me is that Sandusky should be found guilty of CSA if and only if there have been credible claims of CSA beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe in this case there is much more that a preponderance of the evidence doubt (the standard of evidence in civil cases) but there is crystal clear evidence doubt that Sandusky committed CSA. Again, please tell me which specific accuser that you believe provides the best credible evidence of CSA. You haven't in the past and I don't believe you will do it now, because you can't. The facts of the case as they stand today are that there are no credible claims that Sandusky committed CSA.
I don't want to ask you to delve too deeply into your personal life, but on these occasions when you were alone in the shower with another person, was it a single stall shower (e.g. at your home or a hotel) or was it a large group shower with six or more shower heads? Because I feel like that is a pretty important distinction.
V6/ZK maintained a 12+ friendly non-sexual relationship with Jerry.
V2/AM maintained a 10+ friendly non-sexual relationship with Jerry. He even invited him to stand with him on his senior-day high school football game and invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding.
I don’t give you a credible accuser because I have never studied each individual case enough to know them by case number. When you start with a man admitting to showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them, the claims take on a higher degree of credibility.
Similarly, I have asked you many times for a reasonable non-sexual excuse for Jerry Sandusky to have been showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them and you have not provided one. You say it was bad judgement or something to that effect. But that is not bad judgement, that is inexcusable. If he was a banker and was working with an outreach program and it happened one time? Maybe that would be an alright excuse. He was the head of the Second Mile and had to meet with police about the first incident. There is no conceivable way he didn’t know it was wrong to do before the first incident. After being investigated by police there is absolutely no way you can believe he thought it was OK to do again. If he k ew it was wrong to do, I can’t imagine any non-sexual reason for him to have been back in that situation again.
That is an important distinction. It has always been in a single shower stall where there would be no way to avoid physical contact. Jerry Sandusky had physical contact with boys while showering in a large group shower where there would be absolutely no reason to have physical contact and it contact could be avoided if so desired. Likewise, one would have to go out of their way to have physical contact with another in such a situation.
I'm glad we agree there is a distinction.
If someone invites another person into a single shower stall, there is no question about their intent.
If two people are showering in a large "gang shower", there could be "bad intent" or it could be that horseplay broke out.
I’m about to mow the lawn, so let me throw a few questions out to you. It may be a while before I can see the responses.
Are you an adult male? If so, how old?
Do you have children?
Would you ever get into a locker room shower alone with a child with nobody else around?
Are you trained to work with children, specifically at risk youth?
I will take the opportunity to point out that I cannot sit here and tell you with 100% certainty that Jerry Sandusky has sex with these boys. But they have said he did (regardless of when, regardless of how you believe they came to say that he did) and he certainly acted in a way that would make any denial of his tough to believe.
Respectfully I have some friendly advice that you can ignore if you wish, please do a little research and study the case. You like to comment on this board and demonstrate what a scourge that CSA is, but please try to comment based on what is known about what has happened. Yes, I agree that CSA is a scourge and that pedophilia is a sickness. I have studied this case in detail and have done extensive research on it. Please read The Most Hated Man in America or at least read the book reviews (Professor Frederick Crews has one that is detailed and IMO excellent in Skeptic magazine.) Please read John Snedden's 110 page redacted report. Please read some of the blog posts on bigtrial.net. Your posts would be a lot more constructive if you could discuss the case from a position of knowledge. If you have legitimate criticism on any of the reference, I am all ears.
I'm not sure why the details of my life matter, but to demonstrate good faith.
I am a 40 something adult male.
I do not have children and neither my gf nor I want children.
I am not trained to work with children, although I did when I was younger (I taught sports camps for several years).
None of that affects my ability to think critically and understand the legal issues at play here. In fact, I would argue that me not having children removes some of the emotional hysteria from the equation that tends to cloud the logic of people who examine CSA cases.
Our legal system is based on presumption of innocence. Furthermore, if there is a reasonable doubt, then JS cannot be convicted. Unfortunately, with CSA cases both of these two pillars of justice tend to get ignored (IMHO, because of hysteria around CSA, e.g. "think of the children!!!!")
I also cannot tell you definitely what was happening in the shower. But in that the two people that were in the shower have said no sex was occurring, I feel like that (at a minimum) conveys reasonable doubt.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Penn State Football Welcomes four More Enrollees to Campus- Latest: Marty Leap