That's not even against the law, let alone worthy of a life sentence!
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not even against the law, let alone worthy of a life sentence!
I think Sandusky is as guilty of molestation as Joe Biden.
The problem is this argument continues to fuel the Sandusky Pedophile story...."...100% innocent...". How many trials have a 100% innocent situation IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. That is BS of the first order.
Ignore your 100% grade for Sandusky Guilt- Look at what REALLY counts - LEGALLY provable Guilt of Pedophilia. RE-READ this key word LEGALLY. Review the details of the "suspicious" actions taken by the state of PA in this case - Not Just Sandusky, but how important it was to assign a "Guilty" verdict to anyone having to do with PSU!! The truth is as a motive for these abnormalities in court processes is right in front of everyone ------, $250M which has been stolen by the REAL criminals in PA Government and their coordinated agents.
If Sandusky was LEGALLY without a shadow of a doubt Guilty, explain to me why the State of PA need to corrupt almost EVERY shred of evidence that was used in his Grand Jury Presentment and Trial. So many details of this case SMELL I am amazed that even the paid SHILLS who support this "Story" of PSU sexual crimes can stand to post.
Reality is this - Forget Sandusky - Start with this FACT......Explain to me how EVERYONE of the key players in the charging and conviction of Sandusky and C/S/S was a "bud" of Tom Corbett's. Is this extreme coincidence possible - NO - it is only possible when the LEGAL case for conviction is so weak that it must be propped up by the illusion of "100% Monster guilt". This "Story" then needs to be sold to the public media and then "confirmed" by those who get paid for their lies!!! Louie "The Liar" Freeh anyone????
The Sandusky PSU criminality has always been an "engineered" public "Story" construction that would permit the public to believe that illegal actions by the state were justified. And we can thank our own B1G/NCAA organizations for playing their part in these crimes so that a POLITICIAN could make good on a personal vendetta IN ADDITION TO ....STEALING $$$$ MILLIONS from PSU. Our own BOT was in the pocket of the Vendetta-Master Corbett and he used this "kissing of his ring" by OGBOT members to INSURE $$100M in payoff money was available to service those who cooperated with this scam!!
Your discussion on Sandusky Guilt or innocence MUST ignore the overwhelming LEGAL evidence of Legal misconduct and Criminally conducted actions by a sitting PA Governor/OAG.
Absolute guilt discussions like yours, are nothing but more smokescreen hiding PA crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good news here is the "Troll Patrol" WILL NEVER ANSWER THIS POST on its content - They will just spew the same old SH*T based upon 2012 OAG/Freeh BS.
And now we know that you don't know what the word "factual" means. Cool.2. Factual? Of course it’s factual , it exists . However accurate it is is up for debate. The report was a mea culpa for PSU to show they’re serious.
so.
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.1. Outside legal counsel advised them to report the incident, they did not. Also, counsel would have no reason to follow up if it was reported or report it themselves.
2. TSM and PSU were basically attached at the hip. Tell TSM about the incident and have them keep an eye on Jerry and not have to worry at TSM reporting it.
Don't forget the shame that have been thrust on Curley, Schultz and Spanier.
If you can provide just one compelling specific instance of a kid that was sexually abused by Sandusky, I am all ears. I have repeatedly asked for this information without anyone ever providing clear credible evidence of CSA. It just isn't there. On the other hand, I can provide 36 examples of claimants who make settlements with Penn State who alleged CSA that are not very compelling or credible.
Read the facts, it’s blatantly obvious by this point. All the experts agree. You’ve been duped.
Who's making fun?Yep make fun of a stain we should be ashamed of. Sounds about right coming from you.
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?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.
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?
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.Don't you think the most important piece of information is that the boy said nothing sexual occurred?
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.
On this I agree with you. Same as why haven't the local and state child welfare agencies been reviewed to determine how they approved adoptions and foster child placements in the Sandusky household. Learn something and improve the current processes and procedures. Did not happen.
I do know this regarding Sandusky and PSU innocence:
1. Schultz and Curley plead guilty, that is they did not have a trial and be convicted by a jury or judge. They voluntarily plead guilty based on the advice of their lawyers who were excellent and paid for by PSU. Often people plead guilty because they cannot afford to pay their lawyers, not the case here. That says something right there.
2. Sandusky was investigated in 1998 from because he was showering with kids. Charges were not filed (Gricar never stated why and was under no obligation to do so). Sandusky was told by LE to stop showering with kids. Sandusky continued
Just a hunch, this is a lot bigger story than just a football coach molesting kids. Sandusky and PSU was used to stop further investigations, nothing to see here. Possibly people should consider the story of the child abuse victim in the Philly area who said TSM was part of a ring.
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.That seems like common sense to me.
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.
Yep make fun of a stain we should be ashamed of. Sounds about right coming from you.
The world according to verdict from a trial .
1. I believe that question was answered by the trial. He could not determine if there was penetration .
However rubbing your adult pelvis against a child’s bottom is still illegal.
2. Factual? Of course it’s factual , it exists . However accurate it is is up for debate. The report was a mea culpa for PSU to show they’re serious.
3. Definitely. They damn well knew what they were doing and lucky Baldwin messed that whole situation up.
4. You’re insane . I believe you are crazy.
Get back to me when this actually becomes newsworthy and some solid legal change happens.
Hey, the Central Park Five got their cash, maybe Jerry will too ? In 2042 or so.
On the contrary, I have seen people on her describe Jerry Sandusky as basically being an adult with special needs, though somehow capable of harnessing all that mental power to shut down the best offenses in the nation year after year. You’re seeing some of that mentality here where people believe Jerry thought it would be OK to continue showering with children alone as long as it was not with the child from the ‘98 incident. No adult in their right mind would have missed that message. None.
Indy, let me tell you from experience that there are many times when a situation is investigated and the investigators believe there is a problem. But without proof they cannot take action. The fact that Sandusky was told to stop showering with kids is not a benign act. It is a sign to me, again from my experience, that they believed something was up but at the moment that was all they could advise. Also, wasn’t there a report from a psychologist that she believed Sandusky was engaging in grooming behaviors with that boy? That seems to get left out when issues with the ‘98 incident are discussed (granted, I think that is francofan more than you).
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.
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.
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.
Who caught him?
I see the Penn Live shit for brains are alive and well.
He admitted to it.
I have edited your quote to focus on these two points.
1. Jerry Sandusky is in jail for life as a result of his showering with children. By definition, that is a serious problem.
2. You often point to the pedophilic profile. Finding yourself alone multiple times naked, with underage boys and having physical contact with them trumps the other points. The only times in my life that I have showered alone with another person and had physical contact with them was with a woman and the purpose was not to help get shampoo out of her hair. I suspect you are the same. I would guess Jerry Sandusky is the same, except with boys instead of a woman.
Hopefully your not a father. If so god bless them.
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.I have edited your quote to focus on these two points.
The only times in my life that I have showered alone with another person and had physical contact with them was with a woman and the purpose was not to help get shampoo out of her hair. I suspect you are the same. I would guess Jerry Sandusky is the same, except with boys instead of a woman.
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?
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.
I'm glad we agree there is a distinction.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 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.
I'm not sure why the details of my life matter, but to demonstrate good faith.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.