Some say its a conspiracy that the NCAA, OAG, Freeh worked together.
I say "Of course they did." They were investigating what happened. That's what investigative agencies are supposed to do.
Update on Ziegler’s fake accuser
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Some say its a conspiracy that the NCAA, OAG, Freeh worked together.
I say "Of course they did." They were investigating what happened. That's what investigative agencies are supposed to do.
Perhaps all independent investigations should secretly use the team approach.
Thanks. Fair points.
Maybe I'll cancel my appointment this afternoon to get fitted for a tinfoil hat.
Is am still amazed that those who would like to see another trial are labeled as "free Jerry." Can we instead divide opinions to those who think his trial was a travesty of justice and those who don't believe that or don't care?
If Jerry had sex with 1 child, he should be in prison. Not even debatable in my opinion.
However, If the charges, convictions etc. that the OAG sought and procured involving PSU are exposed as fraudulent ....wouldn't that be the result that would be sought by everyone here? Isn't everyone here at some level seeking justice for PSU, S,S,C and JVP?
Does one have to go to the extreme of declaring Sandusky innocent in order to be skeptical of the payouts (supervised by one of the people who had the most TSM ties), the millions spent by OGBOT to keep Freeh's work product secret?
This does not seem so difficult to me.
If Jerry had sex with 1 child, he should be in prison. Not even debatable in my opinion.
However, If the charges, convictions etc. that the OAG sought and procured involving PSU are exposed as fraudulent ....wouldn't that be the result that would be sought by everyone here? Isn't everyone here at some level seeking justice for PSU, S,S,C and JVP?
Does one have to go to the extreme of declaring Sandusky innocent in order to be skeptical of the payouts (supervised by one of the people who had the most TSM ties), the millions spent by OGBOT to keep Freeh's work product secret?
This does not seem so difficult to me.
I would keep the appointment for the hat. That way, you are ahead of the game for use this fall as part of the "Refs are out to get us!" group.
There are those that want to see a new trial and those that really think Jerry is innocent or in my case...GUILTY as hell. Justice reform has to occur with or without this case and to be honest...this is more important to PSU fans than any other case. There are people in this very thread who are saying Jerry is innocent and the victims are basically a bunch of liars. What is odd how that is widely accepted as the norm here and very few if any that just want a fair trial dare raise an eyebrow there. Seems odd to me.
Many trolls simply don't want Justice for JS or C/S/S so they can attempt to make Penn State and Paterno look stupid and be guilty of something, anything. These losers like JockstrapJacobs and his idiots had some type of bad Penn State experiences on and off the field. Jockstrap was probably tied naked to a tree in a womens quad or hog tied in an womens dorm elevator because they were insufferable asses back then like they demonstrate here and on PennLie. It's hard to believe Jockstrap is a Penn State product, but every barrel has some bad apples and he's one. He has company on the BoT.
60 victims out front already. Not as bad as Jerry? Why would you say that? Because they are female?
FWIW, that's true of the Georgia charges. But, there are contact charges on the PA docket.
If someone lies to make money that's fraud. It doesn't make Jerry any less guilty.
Fair question. But I have answers.
1. Every victim lied. They had to have, because every one of their stories changed. In the end their stories all ended up getting them paid.
2. No physical evidence
3. Jerry had no porn. For those who love pointing out all of the trademarks of a child predator that Jerry had, my question is: how common is it for a child predator the magnitude of Jerry to not have any child porn?
4. Unfair trial--reasons for this have been pointed out time and again
People like to present things as black or white on the interwebs so they can adequately PROJECT. THEIR. OUTRAGE.
.
Good point. The 2017 season isn't far off. Heck, I think the refs are out to get us at the Blue-White Game.
Sorry, I can't agree. I have not seen but one or two posters decry innocence for JS. What I do sense is that you have labeled those who are skeptical of some of the issues with the case and the actions of the prosecution that appear to bend the truth beyond recognition as it applies to the culpability of PSU.......as a Free Jerry Movement. You have done this repeatedly and with increasing ferocity that makes me question who you are protecting?
Murder convictions are difficult without a body. How is it that you would not question convictions without victims?
That is extremely thin. But don't take my word for it--I have only been a lawyer for 30 years, with a dozen or more reported appellate opinions.
Every victim had to have lied? They had to have lied for your agenda to be true. That's about it.
Last edited:
I think the reference is to the fact that most if not all did in fact deny abuse. So if later they testified to abuse, they lied somewhere in the process. Now, I am not an expert in the field......but during the past 5 years or so, we have been told that this is "common" among abused children. Not to mention the tapes of the PSP consorting to lie to a young man they were questioning. I ask you, do we believe the Matt Sandusky who testified that he was never abused and sat with his family at the trial initially.....or should we believe the Matt Sandusky who reversed his story and took millions from PSU?I understand that reasonable people can land on both sides of this issue.
I'll sum up your point with a statement I have made in the past:
I sure as hell wish I knew EXACTLY what crimes Sandusky committed. I blame the corrupt OAG/PSU BOT for clouding the issue.
I think a certain AG/Gov never had any intention to prosecute JS. He had too many tangled roots. Isn't it ironic that in order to bitch slap Spanier he saw his OAG charge Tim and Gary for the exact crimes he and others were actually guilty of within the government of The Commonwealth?
Uh.....
If - in this case - we assume for the moment that "someone" lied about elements of the crime, it sure as hell does
Does it make Jerry completely INNOCENT? No.
Not unless and until EVERY charge were found to be specious.......but THAT issue is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
But all of that - I would think - would be a secondary issue:
Even a guilty person is not supposed to be - in America - convicted of additional crimes he/she didn't commit - especially if, arguably at least, those convictions may be tainted with corrupt actions by the Judiciary and the Prosecution - just because they are guilty of some other crimes - - - - - are they?
I know that kind of stuff happens with regularity - probably happens every day....... but I didn't think it had reached the point were it became accepted practice.
(I'm beginning to wonder what freaking country I live in.... when so many seem to feel it is A-OK to discriminate wrt which citizens are entitled to the "rule of law", and which citizens are subject to an "open season")
Hell, the case I cited yesterday wrt the "2nd Person Consent" stuff (Benyo v PA) - came to my attention initially NOT because of the "2nd Person" stuff - - - but because it was an egregious example of a prosecutor (the local DA) putting forward crap cases- knowingly and willfully - one of them in order to hamstring a potential opponent in the upcoming DA election.
When you "wink and nod" at such tactics - as in the Sandusky case - because we "KNOW HE'S A MONSTER" - we damn well better not bitch when the same tactics are applied to you or those you care about - - - - - - like, for many folks, CSS and JVP.
Interesting, huh?
Last edited:
therein lies the rub of everyone's position on Sandusky's guilt.
You really cannot take a hard line on one particular side (sorry Ray) when the only "proof" is the testimony of witnesses who may have been compromised before testifying at the trial. There is certainly ample evidence of that. Did state troopers have noble intentions in lying to a witness to get him to "enhance" his details? Hard to answer that question.
Were the continual rulings against the defense, combined with the seeming incompetence of Amendola, something to make us pause about the fairness of the trial?
I have mentioned this before, but I have shown a specific excerpt of the trial transcripts to friends and colleagues who work in the DA's office, work in private practice, work as public defenders, etc . . . ALL of them were shocked that Cleland actually cajoled the defense for not objecting to McGettin's clear and (likely) unConstitutional leading of the witness (McQueary). That really is the most bizarre exchange in the entire trial.
Pretty similar to how Corbett and crew went after his political enemies via computergate and bonusgate, all the while Fina and his porn dogs were misusing state computers on state time to swap disgusting porn pics and videos. Yeah, good ol' Tommy was a real peach while he was in power...yikes.
I'd say that exchange is up there with JM, during questioning by Rominger at the JS trial, denying any memory of testifying at the 12/16/11 prelim and the judge siding with JM/the state and told Rominger that JM answered that he didn't remember and to move along....
I wonder if Rominger was drunk?
The point would be that someone who wasn't a victim claimed to be a victim and was paid a settlement of several million dollars. Corollary would be that his attorney also knew he wasn't a victim and lied for his own financial gain.
I'm sure apologists like you have another word for that other than fraud though.
Because Jerry created a charity to recruit victims. He went to great lengths to establish relationships so that his perversion could go even further. The MSU doctor is terrible and what he did was absolutely disgusting (may he rot in hell), but I would argue that the mental aspect of Jerry's abuse was far worse. He made it extremely personal with his victims.
If you have a pedo that abused 9 kids but got convicted of abusing 10, what difference does it really make? His peers heard his case, allowed him a chance to respond (which he really did not do) and then found him guilty. Boo freakin hoo... poor Jerry!Uh.....
If - in this case - we assume for the moment that "someone" lied about elements of the crime, it sure as hell does
Does it make Jerry completely INNOCENT? No.
Not unless and until EVERY charge were found to be specious.......but THAT issue is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
But all of that - I would think - would be a secondary issue:
Even a guilty person is not supposed to be - in America - convicted of additional crimes he/she didn't commit - especially if, arguably at least, those convictions may be tainted with corrupt actions by the Judiciary and the Prosecution - just because they are guilty of some other crimes - - - - - are they?
I know that kind of stuff happens with regularity - probably happens every day....... but I didn't think it had reached the point were it became accepted practice.
(I'm beginning to wonder what freaking country I live in.... when so many seem to feel it is A-OK to discriminate wrt which citizens are entitled to the "rule of law", and which citizens are subject to an "open season")
Hell, the case I cited yesterday wrt the "2nd Person Consent" stuff (Benyo v PA) - came to my attention initially NOT because of the "2nd Person" stuff - - - but because it was an egregious example of a prosecutor (the local DA) putting forward crap cases- knowingly and willfully - one of them in order to hamstring a potential opponent in the upcoming DA election.
When you "wink and nod" at such tactics - as in the Sandusky case - because we "KNOW HE'S A MONSTER" - we damn well better not bitch when the same tactics are applied to you or those you care about - - - - - - like, for many folks, CSS and JVP.
Interesting, huh?
I have GMJ on ignore but this is some bizarre hill he/she is choosing to die on re: Nasser. Both JS and Nasser did the same thing, they set up either a charity or medical practice in order to get access to potential victims, it's what pillar of the community offenders do. They take advantage of the positions of trust (whether that be a founder of a children's charity, physician, boy scout leader, priest, etc.) and the good will they build up in a community over YEARS of time so that people would think they would be the last person who would ever hurt a kid.
Thanks for proving my points as Ray and others have seen in this same thread people talk about Jerry's innocence and not just a fair trial. Using your logic that you projected on to me it must make you a pedophile that is afraid of being caught. Two can play that game. Either that or you really haven't read this thread. Just look at Kevin's post for starters. Pnny blames the victims and calls them all liars every single day. Funny thing is you did exactly what I said about denying people are saying Jerry is innocent. Well done.
My thought also as I read through this thread….Fascinating.
Glad you posted this, I was going to ask your opinion of the extent of abuse Jerry may have engaged. I thought of touching & fondling but not of the anal rape from the GJ presentment.
I mean, are you really that naive?
Let me be the first to introduce you to a thing called google:
But since JS used to work for PSU, saying he is the worst ever let's trolls like jive make PSU look worse. Everything he does is an effort to cast PSU/JVP in a bad light. It's clear as day. The last thing he cares about are the actual victims.
How much money did Victim 2 get, we still don't know who he is. McQueary would have gotten zero but for the Spanier statement and Penn State's treatment of him after the fact.
It is possible that Victim 2 is dead, but not necessarily by a violent crime perpetrated by someone related to the case. He may died from suicide, accident, or natural cases. He also could be alive and just wants to put everything behind him.
The list could be quite long. There were children Sandusky knew that he didn't molest.
