What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (2 Viewers)

Don't know if anybody posted this yet.. big thread

chart
I can see how Paterno could eventually be cleared in the public's opinion (somewhat). If you aren't sure McQueary is telling the truth (maybe he and Sandsusky didn't like each other), and you know the PSU + law enforcement know about it you assume everything is alleged and under investigation. Just saying it's possible...
But that leaves you with one of two results, neither of which should be tolerable. Sandusky is a pedophile or McQueary is despicable enough to falsely accuse someone of being a pedophile. Yet both remained.
Agree. Just saying it's possible. Things always change when you hear the other side of the story.His reasons may be wrong, but I doubt we find out that Joe Pa has been fooling us for almost 50 years and is really a dirty old man who doesn't mind a little child abuse or is a completely unscrupulous coward. Doesn't add up. There must be something in there that caused him to justify his inaction.
You mean like the priests and bishops who helped coverup child molestation for decades? Nah, you're right, no way someone could have talked one way and acted another.
If Penn Staters cannot cite the Citadel, you cannot cite the church.
:lmao:
 
I haven't been following this part of it but what are the chances PSU football gets the death penalty?If you can give it to SMU for what they did, why not for this?
I would guess that football make much more money now than it did in the 80s or whenever SMU was. That's the reason they won't get a death penalty. I think the Penn State BOT should self impose it. There was a great post by someone early in the thread saying that.
 
I think the vow of celebacy required of the Penn State coaching staff caused a lot of young men with certain proclivities into coaching at Penn State. It was only a matter of time until Joe Popeterno and his merry band of Cardinal coaches got caught up in this kind of thing.

 
I think the vow of celebacy required of the Penn State coaching staff caused a lot of young men with certain proclivities into coaching at Penn State. It was only a matter of time until Joe Popeterno and his merry band of Cardinal coaches got caught up in this kind of thing.
Don't forget the wine. I'm sure the wine factored in there somehow.
 
'Leeroy Jenkins said:
'CrossEyed said:
'17seconds said:
'Christo said:
Don't know if anybody posted this yet.. big thread

chart
I can see how Paterno could eventually be cleared in the public's opinion (somewhat). If you aren't sure McQueary is telling the truth (maybe he and Sandsusky didn't like each other), and you know the PSU + law enforcement know about it you assume everything is alleged and under investigation. Just saying it's possible...
But that leaves you with one of two results, neither of which should be tolerable. Sandusky is a pedophile or McQueary is despicable enough to falsely accuse someone of being a pedophile. Yet both remained.
Agree. Just saying it's possible. Things always change when you hear the other side of the story.His reasons may be wrong, but I doubt we find out that Joe Pa has been fooling us for almost 50 years and is really a dirty old man who doesn't mind a little child abuse or is a completely unscrupulous coward. Doesn't add up. There must be something in there that caused him to justify his inaction.
You mean like the priests and bishops who helped coverup child molestation for decades? Nah, you're right, no way someone could have talked one way and acted another.
If Penn Staters cannot cite the Citadel, you cannot cite the church.
You mean cite as in use for your arguments that PSU and Paterno are getting a bum rap and did nothing wrong, right?
 
I havent read through this entire thread. Quick question. Is the president(is that the highest level person at that school?) of PSU going the be brought up on any charges? I feel like this is simply another example of an executive abusing their power or breaking the rules to better their( or their company's) bottom line. People like this should be held accountable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will go something like this...Costas - So Jerry are you a pedophile?

Sandusky - No, I am not a pedophile. I loved those kids, and maybe I shouldn't have showered with them, or touched their knees, but at no time did I have sex with those kids.

Costas - Ok, thanks Jerry

 
It will go something like this...Costas - So Jerry are you a pedophile?

Sandusky - No, I am not a pedophile. I loved those kids, and maybe I shouldn't have showered with them, or touched their knees, but at no time did I have sex with those kids.

Costas - Ok, thanks Jerry
OMG ESPN just had breaking news that was almost word for word what I stated. Pedophile and and guilty of plagiarism?
 
I havent read through this entire thread. Quick question. Is the president(is that the highest level person at that school?) of PSU going the be brought up on charges? I feel like this is simply another example of an executive abusing their power or breaking the rules to better their( or their company's) bottom line. People like this should be held accountable.
The former president (Graham Spanier) told the grand jury that he was only told (by Curley and/or Schultz) about some "uncomfortable" behavior by Sandusky.In theory, Curley and Schultz could testify that Spanier knew all about the sexual assault, but those guys have lost their credibility so I doubt the jury would believe them.
 
I havent read through this entire thread. Quick question. Is the president(is that the highest level person at that school?) of PSU going the be brought up on charges? I feel like this is simply another example of an executive abusing their power or breaking the rules to better their( or their company's) bottom line. People like this should be held accountable.
The former president (Graham Spanier) told the grand jury that he was only told (by Curley and/or Schultz) about some "uncomfortable" behavior by Sandusky.In theory, Curley and Schultz could testify that Spanier knew all about the sexual assault, but those guys have lost their credibility so I doubt the jury would believe them.
but couldnt he be charged with negligence? i mean, lets say he didnt know what happened, it seems as if he is responsible for creating a culture in his organization that let to this cover up. With that being the case, couldnt he be held accountable in some way?
 
It will go something like this...Costas - So Jerry are you a pedophile?

Sandusky - No, I am not a pedophile. I loved those kids, and maybe I shouldn't have showered with them, or touched their knees, but at no time did I have sex with those kids.

Costas - Ok, thanks Jerry
OMG ESPN just had breaking news that was almost word for word what I stated. Pedophile and and guilty of plagiarism?
Ha just saw the ticker on ESPN, you pretty much nailed it.
 
He said that he touched their knees???
Yup!"I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without the intent of sexual contact"
Not defending Jerry here but as a father there are perfectly non-sexual ways to put your hand on the knee/ thigh of someone sitting next to you. Still doesn't sound good coming from him though.
he said he should never should have showered with them... So his defense is yes we showered but nothing inappropriate happened
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He said that he touched their knees???
Yup!"I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without the intent of sexual contact"
Not defending Jerry here but as a father there are perfectly non-sexual ways to put your hand on the knee/ thigh of someone sitting next to you. Still doesn't sound good coming from him though.
:confused: he's accused of a hell of a lot more than knee touching by quite a few different witnesses.
 
He said that he touched their knees???
Yup!"I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without the intent of sexual contact"
Not defending Jerry here but as a father there are perfectly non-sexual ways to put your hand on the knee/ thigh of someone sitting next to you. Still doesn't sound good coming from him though.
:confused: he's accused of a hell of a lot more than knee touching by quite a few different witnesses.
Good grief I know that. I was simply responding to shader's surprise that Jerry would admit to touching a child's knees. Trust me I am as disgusted as anyone with this stuff.
 
The same reason this stuff went on in the first place. These guys think they are untouchable. (pun intended)
Still it's really hard to imagine doubling down like this. I guess the problem could be evidence? I don't know how this stuff works in court - can someone be convicted based solely on a single eyewitness? Would be absolutely maddening if the guy somehow gets off easy.
 
"I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.
Not only is he a scumbag ped he has a lousy lawyer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.
Not only is he a scumbag ped he has a lousy lawyer
That's a typical way to handle it when you are guilty. Admit to a gray area and hope your lawyer can establish enough doubt later.
 
'Sarnoff said:
"I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.
Not only is he a scumbag ped he has a lousy lawyer
That's a typical way to handle it when you are guilty. Admit to a gray area and hope your lawyer can establish enough doubt later.
Really need Woz to chime in here. IIRC, his early career was mostly getting pedophiles off the hook, I'm sure he knows what Sandusky's lawyers strategy probably is.
I'm waiting for the "Sandusky was a victim card"
 
Yea, in the history of bad ideas I won't say this was the worst but it has to be up there. Just another example of this ####### still delusionally thinking he has done no wrong. He's surrounded by the good ole boys but his time is running out, the reapers coming Jerry, might want to get right with the Man before time runs out.Had no idea the judge that gave I'm that joke bail amount was a volunteer for Second Mile.

 
I guess the problem could be evidence? I don't know how this stuff works in court - can someone be convicted based solely on a single eyewitness?
There could be several more eyewitnesses if the victims testify.Not being a lawyer, I bet it wouldn't be exceedingly difficult to talk away McReady's testimony -- how close was he, what did he actually see, close enough to confirm ALL the details, etc. The Casey Anthony trial (I know, I know, apples & gyroscopes) taught me one thing about criminal law -- have absolutely no reliance on what "everybody knows." The minutiae of each specific instance will have to convince a jury of what actually happened. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.EDIT: something else learned ... things established at the grand jury phase don't mean a ton.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, in the history of bad ideas I won't say this was the worst but it has to be up there. Just another example of this ####### still delusionally thinking he has done no wrong. He's surrounded by the good ole boys but his time is running out, the reapers coming Jerry, might want to get right with the Man before time runs out.Had no idea the judge that gave I'm that joke bail amount was a volunteer for Second Mile.
:thumbdown: Now THAT is a damn shame. I tell ya, to be a rich white man in America..you can get away with anything. I wouldn't be surprised if he was found guilty of a lesser charge and got some BS sentence like 2 years probation and "counseling." :hot:

 
yeah, I don't get this single eyewitness stuff. this isn't a murder where the victims aren't around to testify.
I wonder if the janitor's supervisor and co-worker can testify about what the janitor reported to them? Or is that hearsay?It would be great if the supervisor made a written record of the report from his subordinate ... but I don't think janitorial operations typically work that formally.
 
Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.

 
It will go something like this...Costas - So Jerry are you a pedophile?

Sandusky - No, I am not a pedophile. I loved those kids, and maybe I shouldn't have showered with them, or touched their knees, but at no time did I have sex with those kids.

Costas - Ok, thanks Jerry
OMG ESPN just had breaking news that was almost word for word what I stated. Pedophile and and guilty of plagiarism?
Congrats you think just like a pedophile.
 
Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.
Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.
 
So if Sandusky recalls the details of the shower incident that McQueary witnessed, why doesn't he give the identity of the boy so that he can give his account of what happened?

ETA: OK, so I guess he's told his lawyer. Or at least they have someone who will say that it didn't happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault.

He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'

He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.

 
Said 'No' when Costas asked if he was a pedophile.

Costas said that if everyone who claimed to have seen him over the years was lying, that he must be the single most persecuted person in the world.

Sandusky didn't really have an answer to that one.

 
All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.
Extremely creepy. I don't think this interview is helping him at all. It seems like he is lying about a lot of things but also saying he doesn't think the fallout was his fault just makes him look worse, if that was even possible.
 
All he feels bad about is showering with them. He doesn't think the fallout at Penn State was his fault. He really stumbled when Costas asked him directly 'Are you sexually attracted to young boys?'He finally said no, but said he was attracted to young people (referring to caring about their lives, futures). Really reminds me of Michael Jacksons statements about how he slept in bed with kids and just loved them. Same kinda creepy vibe.
Of course it wasn't his fault, we know the fall of Penn St was all crosseyed's fault. ;)He stumbled when asked about being "sexually attracted"???? Good lord, just lock up this animal and toss the key in the river.
 
Did anyone notice in that smear job that I think CrossEyed posted that the former buddy from Brown said the Penn State coaches always showered together, talking about plays? That's bizarre and yet seems like it could give the defense some ammo.
Explain to me how you think that fact could sway a jury in this case.
Oh I don't know that it necessarily could but if true it does give some credence to the "showering together, no boundaries, manly men" idea. I'm not saying it would work, but it would be an interesting point. I mean, if his defense is that showering close together is the "real experience" of PSU coaches and he was trying to show those kids what that would be like and it that turns out to be true that the coaches always shower together, sure it might make someone think more about that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top