Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

How long will the jury deliberate?


  • Total voters
    166
Status
Not open for further replies.
JJ, you have me riled up this morning. :-)

You cannot possibly believe JS thought his actions were right. If he thought they were right, he wouldn't do them late at night in the shower when nobody else was present. He wouldn't stash the boys down in the basement. He would just tell Dottie, Hey I'm going downstairs to lay with Johnny and **** (add whatever comments here). Of course he knew it wasn't right.

And JP didn't need to know the identity of the shower victim to keep him from further action. But let's say he did need to.....He calls JS in and says, Hey I heard you were in the shower last night. Who was the kid? Simple enough.

And I'm on the boat with many others who feel the legal obligation of these creatures wasn't enough. A child's well-being and welfare trumps legal obligations. The little boy in the shower whom MM saw was victimized again when MM left him alone with that monster. I cannot even imagine being in his shoes. It is so horrendously sad to think that a grown man saw this and walked out. But he slammed the locker door - that was his justification! Needed to make sure we all knew that. Great job.

I'm not a lawyer. Just a law abiding citizen and parent. And to be told they were within the parameters of the law so it's ok, makes me want to vomit.
Do you really think Jerry would have told Paterno the REAL name of the little boy in the shower that night? Paterno wasn't Jerry's boss at that time. Jerry didn't have to answer the phone if Paterno called. Jerry had deceptively accumulated his own power/prestige in that community by being "that wonderful man who established TSM for underprivileged children and who gives so much of his time to help children". (Charities should encourage anonymity to help avoid giving sickos and pedos such privilege and power. Blessed are the meek. Humbleness never hurts anyone.)
 
its based om JJ's belief that sandsuky is going to get a slap on the wrist because other perverts have. his focus ignores the realities of this case.

but ya gotta give JJ a pat on the back for independence, because no commentators agree with him. still he persists.
JJ has repeatedly PROVIDED SOURCES showing that, sadly, those were the short incarceration lengths of pervs with similar criminal convictions.

I predict (as I accurately predicted about Paterno's life expectancy with WS posters shouting me down) that Jerry will be dead way before his term expires. Inmate health care is notoriously pathetic. Jerry is old, overweight and won't have Sarge to order him to eat healthy foods (if any exist in prison), take him to private physicians, purchase him the latest and greatest medications, and order him to exercise. He will die from cardiovascular disease within 10 years if he isn't shanked.

Pensfan
verified grouchy old nurse
 
JJ has repeatedly has PROVIDED SOURCES showing that, sadly, those were the short incarceration lengths of pervs with similar criminal convictions.

I predict (as I accurately predicted about Paterno's life expectancy with WS posters shouting me down) that Jerry will be dead way before his term expires. Inmate health care is notoriously pathetic. Jerry is old, overweight and won't have Sarge to order him to eat healthy foods (if any exist in prison), take him to private physicians, purchase the finest in medications, and order him to exercise. He will die from cardiovascular disease within 10 years if he isn't shanked.

Pensfan
verified grouchy old nurse

Can we make that 5 years with multiple shankings, gang rapes every night and several infections to the urinary tract?
 
The way I see it: the pedophile is in jail. One of the pedophile's enablers is dead --- and I am pretty damn happy about those two facts. Up next, the rest of the Penn State administration and that horrible woman.

Don't forget The Second Mile and public school systems that allow Sandusky to enter without signing in, like they do with parents.
 
Jerry what are you doing in there?

the psycho expert (fran sherman) believes dottie didnt know the anser to that question when she asked it.

why would she shout it out before she entered a sex scene location if she didnt know she needed to.

1. like in the basement

or

2. in the hotel at the alamo bowl.

it is clearly a shout out to stop the abuse because I'm here. its NOT a question and she never expected an answer.

The two shrinks on IS gave Dottie way more benefit of the doubt than I do. The one male doctor who's name I forget said he was concerned about her well being. I'm not. I think she knew. I just don't think she cared about any of them. She didn't care about her son. She didn't care about all the lives that have been ruined by her husband. She's just vile.

I'm sure at some point she'll come out and claim she knew nothing, say she was just as much of a victim as the survivers of her husband's abuse are and she'll try to garner sympathy from the public but I will never believe she didn't know. Of all the horrible people in this case, she's right behind her husband IMO.
 
its based om JJ's belief that sandsuky is going to get a slap on the wrist because other perverts have. his focus ignores the realities of this case.

but ya gotta give JJ a pat on the back for independence, because no commentators agree with him. still he persists.

I think JJ's just trying to be objective, that's all.

I would rather be prepared for the worst, myself.

Do you really think Jerry would have told Paterno the REAL name of the little boy in the shower that night? Paterno wasn't Jerry's boss at that time. Jerry didn't have to answer the phone if Paterno called. Jerry had deceptively accumulated his own power/prestige in that community by being "that wonderful man who established TSM for underprivileged children and who gives so much of his time to help children". (Charities should encourage anonymity to help avoid giving sickos and pedos such privilege and power. Blessed are the meek. Humbleness never hurts anyone.)

Again...if Paterno thought the child might be his grandson, don't you think Paterno would have confronted Sandusky, whether he was still his boss or not? He could have done more. To his credit, Paterno admitted as much himself.

JMO
 
Respectfully snipped by me:

BBM.


I'm probably going to be offending everyone today but describing a pedophile as a just a big kid who is into little kids because that's simply his mental age, his peer group, is what apologists for pedophiles always say.

It is a misconception. Sandusky is NOT a little kid or mentally stunted or emotionally retarded. He is a cunning, sociopathic predator who manipulated his young victims and their families (you better believe he wasn't just a "big, goofy kid" when it came to the parents of these victims), and later used the same techniques to try to manipulate the public and the jury. That failed.

Being able to snow young children with the act of being the kindly father figure or fun "uncle" or big brother, and being able to snow potentially concerned adults around those victims with the facade of the noble man who cares about and wants to rescue the hurt, is part of the game for these sickos. It is a diabolical part of their act and they get off on it.

Sandusky's letters to his young victim did not display, IMO, the mindset of an emotionally immature person who feels on par mentally with his victim. They showed a frightening monster who knew how to push his victim's buttons and who was trying, desperately, to maintain his psychological hold, via techniques that worked before, such as guilt trips and reminders of what were supposed to be innocent, father-son memories that his victim so needed to have and would have treasured had they not been irrevocably destroyed through the reality of child rape.

Pedophile are not adults who never grew up. They are evil monsters who relish catching weaker, defenseless prey and slowly destroying that prey. Make no mistake about that.


This part of your post was so good it made me want to stand up and cheer! When are people going to realize that pedophiles can be extremely cunning and deliberately seek out jobs/roles that put them in trusted contact with children and deliberately portray themselves as good guys, e.g., that guy who would do anything for anyone, give you the shirt off his back, always willing to pitch in, always trying to do things for other people he's just like a big puppy, etc. Their purpose in assuming that persona is to gain the trust and confidence of people who should be looking out for the children, putting themselves beyond suspicion and reproach.

Look at good ol' Jer, that big, over-grown kid: he actually founded a charity that gave him unlimited access to the very type of child who would be most vulnerable, the most needy for positive (ha!) adult attention, and the least protected by family members who could or would take an active role in the child's life. Sandusky had the confidence of social agencies, of judges, and of others whose role it would normally be to guard against inappropriate contact with children. As a consequence, through Second Mile he was able to shop the foster care system like it was his own personal escort service for years and years and YEARS. No, he didn't abuse every child who went through the program, because he had the luxury of picking and choosing those who would be least likely to 'tell,' and those who best fit his type.

I wonder how all those people feel today, knowing that they handed children right into hell, because they trusted good ol' Jerry Sandusky, that big over-grown kid??
 
Dunno ... maybe divorce papers? Can't think of a thing he would need other than what you described as being provided or being able to be bought in the canteen. Probably papers of some sort or possibly medications?
Divorce papers...lol. Good one.

Sarge was his bossy mother, so the bag might also have contained a looooooooooooong list of reminders from Mother Sarge.

1. Write to Mother Sarge eeeeeeeeevery day
2. Be polite to Mr. Correctional Officer.
3. Do not get filthy tattoos of naked young boys!
4. Avoid friendly men with funny shaped crosses tattooed on their foreheads.
5. Do not share your personal belongings including your orifices.
6. "Blood for life" is not someone that donates to the Red Cross. Avoid these.
7. The Hole should be avoided in prison as it was in our bedroom.
8. Hep B is not a football huddle break chant. Avoid this.
9. Only if you are a very good boy will I send you snack money.
9. and etc......
 
Reports also emerged on Sunday that Sandusky — while jailed at the Centre County Correctional Facility in December — was harassed by other inmates who serenaded the disgraced coach with a famous line from Pink Floyd’s "The Wall."

"At night, we were singing 'Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone,'" a 22-year-old inmate told The Daily, adding that everyone knew who Sandusky was because inmates had access to television and newspapers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/2...ness-at-appeal/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ypSc10tq
 
Divorce papers...lol. Good one.

Sarge was his bossy mother, so the bag might also have contained a looooooooooooong list of reminders from Mother Sarge.

1. Write to Mother Sarge eeeeeeeeevery day
2. Be polite to Mr. Correctional Officer.
3. Do not get filthy tattoos of naked young boys!
4. Avoid friendly men with funny shaped crosses tattooed on their foreheads.
5. Do not share your personal belongings including your orifices.
6. "Blood for life" is not someone that donates to the Red Cross. Avoid these.
7. The Hole should be avoided in prison as it was in our bedroom.
8. Hep B is not a football huddle break chant. Avoid this.
9. Only if you are a very good boy will I send you snack money.
9. and etc......

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
Reports also emerged on Sunday that Sandusky — while jailed at the Centre County Correctional Facility in December — was harassed by other inmates who serenaded the disgraced coach with a famous line from Pink Floyd’s "The Wall."

"At night, we were singing 'Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone,'" a 22-year-old inmate told The Daily, adding that everyone knew who Sandusky was because inmates had access to television and newspapers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/2...ness-at-appeal/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ypSc10tq

:rocker::rocker::rocker:
 
Phew! I'm finally caught up! :hot:

If you are talking about this situation, you are talking about the person who actually saw something reporting. That isn't Paterno; that is McQueary. Then it becomes a question of who are they suppose to report it to.

Remember, McQueary did report it under the rules. The problem is, what happened, or didn't happen, once he reported it.

This is a problem that's been worked into our legal system since the days of British rule. Back then it was the standard to need two eye witnesses to a charge of buggery. Okay, problem there was the act was always hidden, so extremely unlikely that there would EVER be TWO people seeing it before it was stopped. ( This case history from 1600's is as seriously heavy on evidence as Sandusky's modern day case... difference is that the defendant back then was homosexual, imo. But, these are sodomy/buggery laws that included both behaviors. Interesting read. http://outhistory.org/wiki/Sodomy_case:_Nicholas_Sension;_Connecticut,_May_22,_1677 )

This country needs to change the laws that were formed to protect MEN who were given a wide berth and leeway, for criminal proclivities, in exchange for their charity and productivity. Pfft. All of it is as outdated as burning a witch. IMO We can throw them all in jail, and not to worry, there's a woman who will step forth and fill in... no problem there. :peace:

And in the 1600's (and before) people thought it was right to burn witches. In the 1800's many people, and a majority in 15 states thought was right to own slaves. In a larger number of states people thought it was right to keep people separated because of skin pigment.

They all thought was right to do these things out of a moral duty. "Witches" were burnt (actually hung or pressed) out of a moral duty to save them from the devil and protect the community, in the eyes of the people doing it.

It was moral duty, in the eyes of some of the people enslaving them, to Christianize, care for them and protect people with lighter pigment in their skin, to the the point that their moral leadership said it was perfectly fine; the Southern Baptist denomination came out, officially, against slavery only in the 1990's. Not segregation, slavery. (The new president of the denomination is black, BTW.)

And in the 1950's-60's many people saw it as their moral duty to keep races separate. Even today, we call Sunday morning the most segregated time in America. People could even cite Bible verses to justify it, morally, just like they could burning witches and holding slaves.

If you want to argue duty, fine. Keep in mind, however, that every example you cited (I'll leave out the Nazis, as that wasn't the US, but it was similar) is one where people followed their "moral duty" as they saw it at the time.

I'm not a big fan of looking at "moral duty" because of that, especially when it does not follow the law.

You outline a perfect illustration of how outdated and Draconian our laws are regarding the rights of children. You failed to include that unfortunate class of our population in your outline-- children were a dime a dozen, were tolerated and used much like slave laborers, and easily lost to disease, accident, and cruelty. No big deal, politically-- the people will just have more. Children have always been our future (why there's even, at this late date, arguments about birth control and abortion), we need to protect the ones that are already present, if you ask me.

Our laws move, improve, and accommodate the enlightenment of our citizens... child sexual abuse laws moment has come, imo. The tide has changed with the sorry revelation that even a respected man like JoePa could drop the ball, intentionally, because it was legally allowed for him to protect a football brand over the safety and well being of a growing child. :tsktsk:

Time to fix that, don't ya think? :banghead:


June 25, 2012

Jerry Sandusky Replaced by Sex Abuse Activist Dora McQuaid on Penn State Mural

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/spor...replaced-sex-abuse-activist-dora-mcquaid-penn

I love this! :luv:
 
Reports also emerged on Sunday that Sandusky — while jailed at the Centre County Correctional Facility in December — was harassed by other inmates who serenaded the disgraced coach with a famous line from Pink Floyd’s "The Wall."

"At night, we were singing 'Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone,'" a 22-year-old inmate told The Daily, adding that everyone knew who Sandusky was because inmates had access to television and newspapers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/2...ness-at-appeal/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ypSc10tq

Good for those Prisoners........Glad he is being heckled...They are just getting started!!! LOL Have Fun Jerry!!!
 
Phew! I'm finally caught up! :hot:



This is a problem that's been worked into our legal system since the days of British rule. Back then it was the standard to need two eye witnesses to a charge of buggery. Okay, problem there was the act was always hidden, so extremely unlikely that there would EVER be TWO people seeing it before it was stopped. ( This case history from 1600's is as seriously heavy on evidence as Sandusky's modern day case... difference is that the defendant back then was homosexual, imo. But, these are sodomy/buggery laws that included both behaviors. Interesting read. http://outhistory.org/wiki/Sodomy_case:_Nicholas_Sension;_Connecticut,_May_22,_1677 )

No, I'm not talking about that. There is no way that Paterno can say that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy, because, he didn't see Sandusky in the shower with the boy. He knows what McQueary said to him, but he can't say, "I saw Sandusky."

You outline a perfect illustration of how outdated and Draconian our laws are regarding the rights of children. You failed to include that unfortunate class of our population in your outline-- children were a dime a dozen, were tolerated and used much like slave laborers, and easily lost to disease, accident, and cruelty. No big deal, politically-- the people will just have more. Children have always been our future (why there's even, at this late date, arguments about birth control and abortion), we need to protect the ones that are already present, if you ask me.

Every example was from another poster; every example was also of what people at the time thought was morally right.

Many people argue the other items you mentioned are morally wrong. There will be questions if they should be legally wrong.

I should also add that even pedophilia was not considered morally wrong at some times in history and in some cultures. Yes, if we were in Athens in 520-500 BC, Sandusky would be a hero, morally, but we're talking about Central Pennsylvania in 1992-2012. Our culture makes what he did legally wrong.

Morally right or wrong ultimately comes down to if you, individually, feel comfortable doing it. Legally right or wrong comes down to what society, presumably after considered judgment, determines it is comfortable in tolerating.
 
Is there anywhere here that discusses Sandusky's weird interview with Bob Costas? I'm kind of late to this topic, so maybe it's already been discussed previously. I'm just wondering what is the theory or the psychology on why JS would answer questions the way he did.

He was sneaky enough to 1) set up a charity that would bring him a never-ending stream of boys to abuse, 2) pick the most vulnerable ones, and 3) present himself as a big old harmless do-gooder. Yet when Bob Costas point-blank asked JS if he was sexually attracted to little boys, he hemmed and hawed for several seconds and could barely seem to make himself finally claim that he wasn't.

An innocent person would most likely say, "Ew! No way!" but I thought even the guilty would know that if they want any chance to get off in the court of public opinion, the correct answer is, "No," not a repetition of the question and a lot of hemming and hawing like JS did. Why didn't he seem to know that even though he's guilty as sin, he's supposed to answer in the negative? Was he trying to seem like he had dementia?
 
Anyone know what the standard amount of time served would be for someone convicted of 45 counts that involved multiple victims? I know that the priest is being used as an example as to why Jerry will not serve a full sentence, but is there a more "apples to apples" type case that can be used instead? I don't think it does any good to compare this particular case with any other case that is not even closely similar at all. So, does anyone know of another case similar to this one? 45 counts that involved multiple vicitms by ONE perp? TIA
 
I think Dotties denial is along the same lines as Cindy Anthony's. Something the bulk of society cannot comprehend. I know i cant. These women are severely lacking something within themselves. Whatever the fall out so be it. It will never measure up to what the Victims suffered. They are the only ones I care about.
 
While we sometimes have trouble agreeing on who else knew what and when, there is no question in my mind that the leadership of the Second Mile needs to be the next group brought up on charges.

With a CEO who was a practicing child psychologist, and his wife, a former school counselor as the 2nd in command, (both mandated reporters), there is no excuse for the fact that the Second Mile was made aware in 1998 and 2002 that Sandusky was accused of improprieties with children, and yet they continued to grant him carte blanche to work with (and violate) these vulnerable boys.

(People are angry that Penn State allowed him to continue using the facilities; how about this organization allowing him to continue selecting his victims?)

Wendell Courtney, who served as PSU General Counsel at the same time as he represented the Second Mile, reviewed the 1998 police report. Sandusky continued to "work with" Second Mile kids.

CEO Jack Raykovitz testified that Tim Curley did share with him details of the 2002 shower incident, and yet Sandusky continued to have complete access to any Second Mile child he wished, unabated until 2008, when he announced to the Second Mile board that he was under investigation for sexual contact with a child.

I don't know if investigators are waiting until Curley and Schultz have their day in court to go after Raykovitz, but to me, he is the one person after Sandusky himself who is most responsible for allowing these rapes to continue. Besides possible criminal charges, I am shocked that his license hasn't been suspended or revoked.

Even if DPW and the DA didn't take action in 98, certainly that report should have put the charity on alert for problems with Ol' Jer. And the 2002 report should have sealed the deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
228
Guests online
262
Total visitors
490

Forum statistics

Threads
608,494
Messages
18,240,346
Members
234,389
Latest member
Roberto859
Back
Top