Sandusky Granted Hearing on New Evidence

[JoeBagobagels]

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.

Every moron who somehow hopes for a not guilty verdict based on personal interest and how it affects his favorite football team is beyond the moron and probably shouldn't be voting.

I've watched enough breakdown of trials in Jerry got more than a fair trial. It's not an unfair trial because you pick a moron of a defensive attorney for one example .

 

[JoeBagobagels]

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.

This is one of the dumbest things. I've heard every single one of his victims somehow involved the Penn State football program because he was a coach at much of the time. We're not talking about him, abusing football players or recruits. We're talking about active member of the coaching staff abusing kids. Using his own little charity as hook up service.

Many victims did not want to even talk to people. How the state suspected they were victims is they were in Jerry's little list. They started calling an interviewing people that he had marked and ask him if they'd like to talk. Many people said I just don't want to get involved on past it not every victim is going to testify.
A judge will only allow so much in a way of victim testimony. If you suspect there's 100 victims, not everyone is going to testify in court and say the same thing. It sometime it becomes redundant.

 

[KingLando]

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.

He's never getting a new trial--but, no, they wouldn't release him
Whether or not he's guilty has zero impact on the convictions of the others. I'm not sure I understand your logic there. Curley was charged with failure to report "possible" abuse to which he plead guilty. Schultz pleaded guilty to misdemeanor child endangerment for mishandling the abuse report. Spanier was found guilty of misdemeanor child endangerment which has nothing to do with Sandusky's innocence or guilt.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

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.

Joe didn't want the kids using the facilities. He questioned this in a note to Curly

 

[Chumboshifko1]

The you're asking about is incredibly deluded. We used to say things like "are you smoking crack?" when someone stated something so silly.

Are you?

 

[PSU Mike]

This is one of the dumbest things. I've heard every single one of his victims somehow involved the Penn State football program because he was a coach at much of the time. We're not talking about him, abusing football players or recruits. We're talking about active member of the coaching staff abusing kids. Using his own little charity as hook up service.

Many victims did not want to even talk to people. How the state suspected they were victims is they were in Jerry's little list. They started calling an interviewing people that he had marked and ask him if they'd like to talk. Many people said I just don't want to get involved on past it not every victim is going to testify.
A judge will only allow so much in a way of victim testimony. If you suspect there's 100 victims, not everyone is going to testify in court and say the same thing. It sometime it becomes redundant.

Not sure if you’re critiquing my point in the post or not. Here’s my point, and it is only mildly related to the number of alleged victims testifying. Say there were 2 truly abused boys. It’s easy to imagine nobody outside those two and JS knowing. Now raise that to 5. Now to 20. Now to 50. Now to 100. At some point the more true victims there are, the harder it is to imagine the whole thing going unchecked for so long. That’s what some (many?) people think is weird here.

Now repeat the exercise with most of the additional “victims” having a motive to lie later about abuse and keep their motive secret. The same (outside) people contend that’s more consistent with the thing seemingly going unchecked for so long.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Not sure if you’re critiquing my point in the post or not. Here’s my point, and it is only mildly related to the number of alleged victims testifying. Say there were 2 truly abused boys. It’s easy to imagine nobody outside those two and JS knowing. Now raise that to 5. Now to 20. Now to 50. Now to 100. At some point the more true victims there are, the harder it is to imagine the whole thing going unchecked for so long. That’s what some (many?) people think is weird here.

Now repeat the exercise with many of the additional “victims” having a motive to lie later about abuse and keep their motive secret. The same (outside) people contend that’s more consistent with the thing seemingly going unchecked for so long.

You're arguing with a clown.

 

[Connorpozlee]

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.

Man, it’s been a long time without thinking about this stuff. But didn’t they go to outside counsel who said it shouldn’t (or didn’t need to) be reported? Wendell or something like that?
The question to me in this thing regarding the admins is what they were actually told. The actions of everybody (Mike McQueary, his father, Dranov, Joe, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, the attorney, Raykovitz) seem to say there wasn’t abuse reported (or in Mike McQueary’s instance, seen/heard). The most plausible reality of this to me has always been that McQueary’s account became a lot clearer 10+ years later than what he shared at the time.

 

[Alphalion75]

Deal with what is not what you wish
There's no new trial. Read

I don’t wish anything. Simply looking at circumstances. Anytime you have a witness flip their testimony there lies the possibility of a retrial. Besides, didn't you post that you're an attorney?

 

[KingLando]

I don’t wish anything. Simply looking at circumstances. Anytime you have a witness flip their testimony there lies the possibility of a retrial.

That's not true. You couldn't be more incorrect. They will never get a new trial. Ever. You believing that is why I'm saying it's your wish. Looking at circumstances focused on reason you'd never claim there's doing to be a retrial.

 

[nittanyfan333]

every time something JS comes up, it's always the same. 5-10 people questioning pretty much everything (read: NOT believing innocence, rather just questioning), while 1 or 2 stand on tables, throw out ad hominem attacks and believe they're the experts.


every time




clockwork


"Trust me bro"

 

[KingLando]

every time something JS comes up, it's always the same. 5-10 people questioning pretty much everything (read: NOT believing innocence, rather just questioning), while 1 or 2 stand on tables, throw out ad hominem attacks and believe they're the experts.


every time




clockwork


"Trust me bro"

No one has to trust anyone
Just asking people comprehend how the legal system works even if they dislike it.

 

[RolexKong]

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.

Your assuming that you know what McQueary told Paterno. Curley, and Schultz, but you don't. Unless you are McQueary, which would explain some things.

 

[Alphalion75]

That's not true. You couldn't be more incorrect. They will never get a new trial. Ever. You believing that is why I'm saying it's your wish. Looking at circumstances focused on reason you'd never claim there's doing to be a retrial.

I couldn't care less.

 

[LionsAndBears]

I hope there isn't anyone naive enough to think Sandusky is innocent. There are NO circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to be alone in a shower with an unrelated minor. Sandusky is who the world thinks he is and he will spend the rest of his disgusting life in prison, as he should.

 

[Alphalion75]

You left out Frightened jurors who didn't want to look bad.

True....one juror later claimed he received anonymous notes in his mailbox. But maybe he was lying.

 

[Open Mind 1]

I hope there isn't anyone naive enough to think Sandusky is innocent. There are NO circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to be alone in a shower with an unrelated minor. Sandusky is who the world thinks he is and he will spend the rest of his disgusting life in prison, as he should.

Hate to break it to you, but a lot of people think he is innocent and believe you to be the naive one…….. based on my extensive research he is most likely innocent in my opinion

 

[ZouaveLion]

One thing that always struck me after having spent a number of years in law enforcement and in courtrooms was how quickly this case was brought to trial after JS s arrest. He was arrested in November 2011. The trail began in June 2012. High profile cases of this nature usually take anywhere from 1-3 years to see the light of a courtroom. Having said this, l believe that Sandusky is where he should be...

 

[KingLando]

Hate to break it to you, but a lot of people think he is innocent and believe you to be the naive one…….. based on my extensive research he is most likely innocent in my opinion

Hysterical

 

[Chumboshifko1]

True....one juror later claimed he received anonymous notes in his mailbox. But maybe he was lying.

One juror stated to the press that Jerry probably should have been acquitted, but he was afraid to vote that way.

 

[Zenophile]

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.

You seem to have confused your own certainty with proof.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Hate to break it to you, but a lot of people think he is innocent and believe you to be the naive one…….. based on my extensive research he is most likely innocent in my opinion

Well, having naked contact in a shower with two of your underage clients is definitely not innocent.

 

[KingLando]

Well, having naked contact in a shower with two of your underage clients is definitely not innocent.

Extensive research also doesn't count when you provide this link and only look for things that support your argument regardless of the source
There's no one outside this fan base that believes for a second he's innocent because he's not

 

[Zenophile]

Extensive research also doesn't count when you provide this link and only look for things that support your argument regardless of the source
There's no one outside this fan base that believes for a second he's innocent because he's not

Not the flex you think it is. There’s no one outside this fanbase (and apparently even a few within) that can form 2 factually accurate sentences on the subject.

 

[Nittering Nabob]

JoeBagobagels = KingLando

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Joebagofballs and kingloado waste everyone's time with their clownish nonsense.

 

[KingLando]

Not the flex you think it is. There’s no one outside this fanbase (and apparently even a few within) that can form 2 factually accurate sentences on the subject.

Which isn't true at all--you just focus on those that attack Paterno. Countless people that aren't Penn State fans comprehend the case and that Paterno met his legal obligation despite Sandusky's crimes

 

[KingLando]

JoeBagobagels = KingLando

Attacking me because I understand the law is interesting yet typical of someone that generally is witless in an argument. This is your only move.

We're discussing law here--I'm sure some here are as knowledgeable as me and someone may be more so but very few and certainly not you.

 

[Zenophile]

Which isn't true at all--you just focus on those that attack Paterno. Countless people that aren't Penn State fan comprehend the case and that Paterno met his legal obligation despite Sandusky's crimes

He was well over that benchmark.

 

[KingLando]

He was well over that benchmark.

Agreed--Paterno met his legal obligation which is what I stated (you either meet or fail to meet there's no bonus points)
This is issue here--people are so focused on Sandusky because they believe it clears Joe--there's nothing to clear him of--the people that think he did something always will be because they saw him as "holier than thou" preaching "do things the right way". Those aren't the people I'm speaking of. I'm discussing those that understand the case. Sandusky is guilty. He will never get a retrial. Some people think this type of "hearing" will lead to that. It won't. There's zero percent chance. None.

Sandusky being guilty on zero impact on Joe. Hell, earlier someone thought it impacted the cases of Curley & Spanier. I can't even begin to explain how inaccurate that is. Nothing that happened to anyone else was a result of Sandusky's trial.

 

[Chumboshifko1]

Joe was cleared. Only cretins don't understand that.

 

[Alphalion75]

That's not true. You couldn't be more incorrect. They will never get a new trial. Ever. You believing that is why I'm saying it's your wish. Looking at circumstances focused on reason you'd never claim there's doing to be a retrial.

Believing and wishing are NOT the same my friend. I don't wish my wife to be a saint....I believe she most definitely is.

 

[o_PSUALREADYKNOW]

Nope but unlike you I'm an attorney and understand how things work

If you were really an attorney, why is the majority of your writing so weak and why do you struggle to communicate or defend points coherently or with a hint of intellectual capability. Where did you graduate from, the school of hard rocks, I mean hard knocks?

 

[Nittering Nabob]

Attacking me because I understand the law is interesting yet typical of someone that generally is witless in an argument. This is your only move.

We're discussing law here--I'm sure some here are as knowledgeable as me and someone may be more so but very few and certainly not you.

You got me. I'm clearly not an attorney nor do purposely reside in Ohio near Drew Allar.

 

[o_PSUALREADYKNOW]

The you're asking about is incredibly deluded. We used to say things like "are you smoking crack?" when someone stated something so silly.

Every comment you have made in this thread has been formulated with the slimmest amount of cohesion showcasing the epitome of communication reminiscent to a multi-decade crack smoker-do you know what a hypocrite is?

 

[o_PSUALREADYKNOW]

JoeBagobagels = KingLando

That would make sense...

 

[KingLando]

If you were really an attorney, why is the majority of your writing so weak and why do you struggle to communicate or defend points coherently or with a hint of intellectual capability. Where did you graduate from, the school of hard rocks, I mean hard knocks?

Because it's a message board
Your inability to comprehend something isn't my concern

 

[KingLando]

That would make sense...

How would it make sense?
This nonsense is why people think our fanbase is a cult. Apparently accepting Sandusky is guilty and won't get a trial isn't allowed though its reality.

 

[nittanyfan333]

Hate to break it to you, but a lot of people think he is innocent and believe you to be the naive one…….. based on my extensive research he is most likely innocent in my opinion

I’ve been around since well before 2012 and read ALL these threads and can, with absolute certainty, tell you that NO ONE thinks he's 100% innocent. What I can tell you, again, absolutely, is that there are a lot of people that believe the political pressure and court of public opinion adjudicated this and because of that, believe the process wasn’t conducted accurately and without bias. There was no “blind justice”. And if you think that if people don’t just bury their head in the sand and accept what they’re fed, they’re naive, I have no clue what to tell you.

 

[Open Mind 1]

Hysterical

So you think the President of the Penn State Football Letterman’s Club is naive? Listen to this and learn a thing or two……. And don’t be afraid of new evidence as comes forward … it’s ok bub……. lol