Sandusky Granted September 8 Hearing for New Trial | Frank Report
Judge Skerda reverses herself and grants Jerry Sandusky a September 8 evidentiary hearing as "Victim 10" Ryan Rittmeyer recants.
frankreport.com
Sandusky Granted Hearing on New Evidence
- Thread starter Open Mind 1
- Start date
frankreport.com
The following isn't meant to imply anything about Sandusky, simply a story of recovered memory therapy.......
Years ago, a woman I know was having bouts of depression. She sought help from a female psychiatrist who ascribed to the philosophy that almost all behavioral problems resulted from being a victim of childhood sexual abuse. She met with my acquaintance and eventually got around to asking if she had ever been sexually abused as a child. The answer was "no". The psychiatrist told her that a lot of things can be traced back to sexual abuse even if the victim doesn't remember. My acquaintance again said she was never a victim. The psychiatrist replied by saying she felt fairly certain my acquaintance must have been a childhood victim and asked if there was anyone who "could have" sexually abused her. Again, the answer was "no". Psychiatrist kept pushing for an answer and again asked if there was anyone who "could have" abused her. Being put on the spot, my acquaintance named a very close male family friend who was almost like a second father/uncle. Psychiatrist said that must be the guy. Acquaintance said the man never mistreated her and in fact was always very good to her. She was simply responding to the psychiatrist's demand for an answer to who "could have" abused her. Psychiatrist wanted my acquaintance to go to the police. She refused, again saying the family friend never did anything inappropriate. Psychiatrist wasn't happy and my acquaintance never went back.
Recovered memory therapy is at the whim of the shrink who can try to manipulate whatever outcome they want.
Years ago, a woman I know was having bouts of depression. She sought help from a female psychiatrist who ascribed to the philosophy that almost all behavioral problems resulted from being a victim of childhood sexual abuse. She met with my acquaintance and eventually got around to asking if she had ever been sexually abused as a child. The answer was "no". The psychiatrist told her that a lot of things can be traced back to sexual abuse even if the victim doesn't remember. My acquaintance again said she was never a victim. The psychiatrist replied by saying she felt fairly certain my acquaintance must have been a childhood victim and asked if there was anyone who "could have" sexually abused her. Again, the answer was "no". Psychiatrist kept pushing for an answer and again asked if there was anyone who "could have" abused her. Being put on the spot, my acquaintance named a very close male family friend who was almost like a second father/uncle. Psychiatrist said that must be the guy. Acquaintance said the man never mistreated her and in fact was always very good to her. She was simply responding to the psychiatrist's demand for an answer to who "could have" abused her. Psychiatrist wanted my acquaintance to go to the police. She refused, again saying the family friend never did anything inappropriate. Psychiatrist wasn't happy and my acquaintance never went back.
Recovered memory therapy is at the whim of the shrink who can try to manipulate whatever outcome they want.
Jerry deserves a fair trial.
I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent, but he deserves better justice than was administered by a jeopardized judge influenced by bunch of money grubbing attorneys coaching victims for the sole sake of $$ payouts.
Some of those sleazy, artificially enriched attorneys used to post on the former Tom board.
I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent, but he deserves better justice than was administered by a jeopardized judge influenced by bunch of money grubbing attorneys coaching victims for the sole sake of $$ payouts.
Some of those sleazy, artificially enriched attorneys used to post on the former Tom board.
Last edited:
Jerry is relying on Frank Parlato as a witness? He's totally fooked. Well, he's totally fooked anyway, so why not enjoy the circus.Sandusky Granted September 8 Hearing for New Trial | Frank Report
Judge Skerda reverses herself and grants Jerry Sandusky a September 8 evidentiary hearing as "Victim 10" Ryan Rittmeyer recants.
The whole thing was a farce from day one
I love the fact people clicked on this believing he w
It's interesting people think this is giving him a new trial...comical really
He had a fair trial
It's interesting people think this is giving him a new trial...comical really
At this point, I don’t think any of us CAN know, nor ever will. And that is utterly maddening to me
Did you mean to say a “compromised” judge though, rather than a “jeopardized” one?
"Everyone in prison is an innocent man." Red
A fair trial doesn't encompass evidentiary discovery issues, witness tampering/coercion,bribes and an exceedingly expeditious hearing docket. All of which tainted the first trial.
None of it tainted the first trial. People are just desperate to believe he's innocent because they incorrectly believe that would change how Joe is viewed. Sandusky was found guilty on almost every count, this isn't giving him a new trial contrary to what some want to believe. This is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, something very common. I'm not sure why anyone believes this proves he's not guilty. We're long past that point. There's always a people that disagree with the verdict that grasp at straws until the very end. Hell there's people that think Mackenzie Shirilla is innocent. Sandusky will die in prison and we should all be thankful for that.
If we're being honest this is just a waste of money
I believe it’s the mother of Sebastian Paden (I believe he received the largest settlement from psu) who is now claiming her son also lied about his original testimony - is that a correct understanding? If so, is there anything that is expected to come out of that which may legally impact Sandusky’s case?
Sandusky Granted September 8 Hearing for New Trial | Frank Report
Judge Skerda reverses herself and grants Jerry Sandusky a September 8 evidentiary hearing as "Victim 10" Ryan Rittmeyer recants.
Last edited:
"In the face of two or three witnesses a thing shall be established". I'm not suggesting the guy was totally innocent, but imo he was convicted on he said she said.Sandusky Granted September 8 Hearing for New Trial | Frank Report
Judge Skerda reverses herself and grants Jerry Sandusky a September 8 evidentiary hearing as "Victim 10" Ryan Rittmeyer recants.
I’ll let this play out with near-zero expectation of any material impact. Others, feel free to wring the skin from your hands …
IDK about Ray Blehar's reputation around these parts, but IIRC he wrote that the PA OAG had something like 40-50 reports on Sandusky, but conveniently only prosecuted the ones that involved the football program. Even if the current charges didn't stand up, they could re-load with 30-40 more.
I hate the way the case was handled by everyone involved, but Sandusky is overwhelmingly guilty in my book. That part isn't up for debate. The people that actually knew and had power to stop it, needed a way to avoid accountability. That's why things were done in the attrocius way that they were. When you look at it through that lens, things start to make sense.
I hate the way the case was handled by everyone involved, but Sandusky is overwhelmingly guilty in my book. That part isn't up for debate. The people that actually knew and had power to stop it, needed a way to avoid accountability. That's why things were done in the attrocius way that they were. When you look at it through that lens, things start to make sense.
You left out Frightened jurors who didn't want to look bad.
My opinion was that he did not have a fair trial. One aspect stands out. His team asked for more time, and this was not granted. In any similar case the defense team got much longer to prepare for trial. This was a rushed event.
The state had half a case. He's a pedophile but that state didn't have the evidence so they had to 'find it' and this isn't unusual. Both sides come to court with as much as they can and they try to put on record as much as they can. No surprise that the witnesses for the state were coached.
At least we can all trust Frank Fina and Sara Ganim. Also, no PSP would ever lie,
I didn't post on purpose for several weeks and look who showed up....the emoji jackass. What a bozo. Yeah, you aren't stalking.
I’ll be honest. I think there are legit reasons to question the trial. That all seemed to happen very quickly. I’m not a lawyer and am far from a “Sandusky is innocent!!!” guy, but I thought it all moved quicker than I expected. But again, I’m not a lawyer.
Were all of the victims being honest? I have no idea. There is no way to really prove there stories at this point. What we do know for a fact is damning though. He showered alone in an otherwise empty locker room with a boy whose mother was concerned enough about it to call the police. Three years later, he was caught right back in the exact same situation. All this while the head of a charity to help at risk youths. Later he is caught with another boy in an otherwise empty workout room, behind some wrestling mats. Again, I don’t know that all victims were telling the truth. I do know that the actions that are known are actions that would be taken by a child sexual abuser.
Not really a follower of this topic, but do you realize why many have a problem with that first paragraph? As the number of victims grows, the expected number of people (outside the victim group) having suspicions should grow exponentially.
LOL. Anyone who thinks he got a fair trial clearly hasn’t done research on the case. The number of agenda driven shenanigans pulled in this heist was record breaking. Too many to count.
Deal with what is not what you wish
There's no new trial. Read
Defense teams are often denied a request for more time. It wasn't rushed at all.
I disagree with it being rushed but in every trial someone is lying or giving false statements. Any time there's conflicting versions someone is lying which is standard. The attorneys job is to create any reasonable doubt if the crimes were committed. He doesn't have to prove innocence. The decision was overwhelming that he was guilty on most counts and they lost ever appeal.
I'm looking at this solely from the legal prospective. The trial was fair. There's no grounds for a new trial. Jerry will never see life outside prison. And the world is a better place because of that IMO.
Do unbiased research. The trial was fair.
It's cute you think he's getting a new trial
Nope but unlike you I'm an attorney and understand how things work
For those that believe this is a big deal or relevant ask yourself why no one else is reporting this...and no there's no conspiracy
The entire “Penn State Football Cover Up!” hypothesis is the epitome of conspiracy theory, champ.
JS may or may not be rightly convicted. Lots of smoke, too many missteps by him, too many questions that they had to investigate.
That said, why didn't mandated reporter Dr. Jack Raykovitz, CEO of TSM, do just that when the PSU Admins reported it to him as required? Maybe because those closest to him just could not bring themselves to believe that he was capable of this crime. The 1998 report of 'nothing here' per the experts probably clouded their judgement, too. Another bad judgement by JS, but nothing criminal, was probably their thought. And them banning him from the PSU facilities supports that idea.
But, why wasn't TSM investigated, especially in light of their highly suspicious activity of burning files in their offices parking lot immediately after JS was arrested? Imo, the TSM angle is a key part of this, and what might have been found there probably would have hurt JS's case more than helped it. It also would have possibly hurt any number of prominent State College business people and PSU Trustees.
Here's an unpopular thought, and I'm only asking, not advocating....
Let's say he gets a new trial. He is found not guilty of most of the charges, because 'victims' recant, because other evidence and testimony doesn't hold up, etc. (Also, new evidence is presented - the physical condition involving his genitals, the lack of any physical CSA-related evidence, such as on his laptop, etc.) A smaller number of charges and conviction don't change, rightly or wrongly.
Should JS then be released with time served? He has been in jail for 14 years, essentially half the sentence imposed. Other people convicted of such crimes get less time than he has already served. He is 82, and not a threat to anyone anymore. His health is slipping. He could be on probation and tightly monitored, maybe house arrest, for the remainder of his life.
JS aside, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier should have their convictions overturned and apologies issued to them for the jail time they had to serve. That was all for political theater, and jail time was not warranted in any event. They had the misfortune of having a judge who lacked the courage to stick with the agreement of no jail time, and couldn't see himself handling a couple days of criticism by the public.
That said, why didn't mandated reporter Dr. Jack Raykovitz, CEO of TSM, do just that when the PSU Admins reported it to him as required? Maybe because those closest to him just could not bring themselves to believe that he was capable of this crime. The 1998 report of 'nothing here' per the experts probably clouded their judgement, too. Another bad judgement by JS, but nothing criminal, was probably their thought. And them banning him from the PSU facilities supports that idea.
But, why wasn't TSM investigated, especially in light of their highly suspicious activity of burning files in their offices parking lot immediately after JS was arrested? Imo, the TSM angle is a key part of this, and what might have been found there probably would have hurt JS's case more than helped it. It also would have possibly hurt any number of prominent State College business people and PSU Trustees.
Here's an unpopular thought, and I'm only asking, not advocating....
Let's say he gets a new trial. He is found not guilty of most of the charges, because 'victims' recant, because other evidence and testimony doesn't hold up, etc. (Also, new evidence is presented - the physical condition involving his genitals, the lack of any physical CSA-related evidence, such as on his laptop, etc.) A smaller number of charges and conviction don't change, rightly or wrongly.
Should JS then be released with time served? He has been in jail for 14 years, essentially half the sentence imposed. Other people convicted of such crimes get less time than he has already served. He is 82, and not a threat to anyone anymore. His health is slipping. He could be on probation and tightly monitored, maybe house arrest, for the remainder of his life.
JS aside, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier should have their convictions overturned and apologies issued to them for the jail time they had to serve. That was all for political theater, and jail time was not warranted in any event. They had the misfortune of having a judge who lacked the courage to stick with the agreement of no jail time, and couldn't see himself handling a couple days of criticism by the public.
So Joe, Curley, Schultz, and Spaniard, don't have phones? They don't have council to ask about what they should do in the situation to ensure the safety of the kids and protect Penn State.
The Four administrators well Joe was dead by then, should've done hard time. However, the law had changed after they didn't report this. And they all knew that Jerry was a problem Joe knew along with the other three. However, the the judge did not buy that there was an ongoing conspiracy because it was too late after the antiques they pulled the 1998 situation with Gerry. They got the local DA to buy into the report from seashore, who then was an unlicensed counselor. When Dr. Chalmers was shown everything about Jerry, she believed he fit the classic profile for predator
You're building a big bridge so you ask your friend Joe who does some side construction work or a guy who's actually done the work for some advice on how to handle it. When a bridge collapses you say well it's not my fault even though you had some clown due to work for you.
It was by design.
The you're asking about is incredibly deluded. We used to say things like "are you smoking crack?" when someone stated something so silly.