Unsure about the Sandusky ruling

Post Reply New Topic

So...he was framed by the Illuminati?

If the catholic church can cover up this sort of thing why cant a university cover up for a lionized legendary coach?

Which is more believeable?

That the whole world conspired to frame him?

Or that the whole world looked the other way and performed a conspiracy of silence for years to cover up for him?

Many people would have alot to gain in the latter.

What does ANY one have to gain by framing him?

The witnesses and the jury were both sure.

As I recall, Sandusky's bosses had met in order to discuss "Jerry's problem" in the previous years, with the minutes recorded. This alone implies they had had knowledge of his predilections, and had purposely covered it up. This isn't done when you have an innocent man.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Your sarcasm does not bode well for serious discussion.

You mean there is an organization that is as corrupt as the Catholic Church?

I know that my theory on this seems to be a longshot, but I have strong doubts as to whether the ruling is actually warranted. My reasons are largely my subjective interpretation of Sandusky's body language and tone of voice.

I don't think that it is as simple as Sandusky being "framed." His behavior was extremely eccentric and inappropriate enough right there on the surface, out in the open. His colleagues probably genuinely believe that he was doing something beyond just inappropriate. I just have doubts as to whether Sandusky actually did anything illegal.

Or, if he did, what actually happened was a lot different than what the prosecution portrayed it as.

But I'm not, and I don't invest much faith in the American justice system.

So I understand.

I am not trying to say that Jerry Sandusky's colleagues don't actually believe that he is a child molester. They are probably thoroughly sincere. However, I think they are wrong. I don't think they are lying. I just disagree with their assessment of what Sandusky was doing when they weren't looking.

What I think actually happened in the shower that day on which McQueary testified was exactly what Sandusky said. He had gotten into a locker room towel fight with one of the kids from his Second Mile program, and that was the "slap-slap" sound McQueary was hearing. He caught Sandusky and the child in a strange-looking position, and his imagination went wild.

The woman Sandusky had apologized to might have been outraged over some of Sandusky's antics with her son. For example, he might have been caught doing his "back cracking" maneuver, and it was taken the wrong way. Perhaps the child was actually gay and was old enough to have a reaction to an older man holding him in an intimate way. Look, if I were to catch someone doing the things that Sandusky openly admits to with any young blood kin of mine, in my own house, my state has the castle law. The jerk would be dead, so I think the mother's behavior makes perfect sense in Sandusky's version of the story. Although Sandusky's behavior, according to his own version of the story, was offensive and inappropriate to do with a kid who has budding and confusing sexual impulses, it's still not rape.

Furthermore, I think that the case for acquittal is still credible if Matt Sandusky is being entirely, 100% truthful. You would just have to take into account that he had suddenly been given a fairly credible case that his adoptive father had actually been molesting children, and Sandusky clearly had a tendency to bestow an inappropriate level of affection on children by even his own admission. The case for acquittal or mitigation of the charges does not require Matt Sandusky to be a liar. It only requires Jerry Sandusky to have consistently stopped short of actual sexual acts. Petting is not rape, and it's actually socially appropriate and health-promoting if you are doing it with a toddler, particularly one you are blood kin to.

The fact of the matter is that, even by his own account, Sandusky's behavior had been extremely weird. You didn't have to catch him molesting children to think he was a freak. You just had to observe the behavior he did right there out in the open, and he came across as Chester the Molester. He wasn't exactly secretive about it. I bet he actually is ignorant enough that he didn't realize how inappropriate it was. Football coaches are not exactly known for being the sharpest tools in the shed. I could have told him that a teenager he had adopted was likely to feel uncomfortable with his adoptive father rubbing on him. I just don't think that he understood this because I think he is really that much of a dummy.

I think that my doubt is reasonable enough.

I see. So you value your faith in the matter more than several witnesses and an entire jury. Thank you, William Sandusky. This great insight into your mentality on the situation has saved me a lot of time. I think this conversation is over.
*leaves*

The testimony of the six were thoroughly cross examined in court. The jury believed them. That is as close to sure as one gets in cases like these.

Sandusky had a lawyer who cross examined the witnesses. If there were any flaw or irregularity in their testimony it would have been uncovered by Sandusky's lawyer.

If evidence such as this does not convince you, why bother to have trials at all. Acquit everyone. What would convince you to convict anyone?

ruveyn

Since much of the guilt lies with Jerry Sandusky, I feel the NCAA acted too harshly on JoePa's legacy, even though Paterno tried to cover it up.

I will always recognize Joe Paterno as the winningest coach in college football.

Good riddance.

I think the jury was wrong, though. I don't think that Sandusky's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have explained here why I have reasonable doubt. My argument here is a good one. If you would like to discuss my arguments, please feel free to address them.

Looking into a man's eyes and seeing a remorseless serial rapist looking back at me. Listening to a man's voice and hearing a remorseless serial rapist talking to me. Although I think that my arguments here are fairly strong objectively, my personal reason for questioning the verdict is very much a subjective reaction to Sandusky, himself.

And McQueary. McQueary puts my hackles up for some reason.

In regard to your initial point, I think where there's smoke, there's fire. I have serious doubts that the Penn State Athletic department would've instigated a cover up without a crime to conceal.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm seeing a different kind of smoke, though.

Not beyond YOUR reasonable doubt. However it was the jury deciding the case, not you, so YOUR reasonable doubt is totally irrelevant and may be ignored. If you want absolute assurance, then you will not get it --- ever. According you your way of thinking (if one can call it thinking) we should not even bother with trials.

ruveyn

so you're pleading the Micheal Jackson defence.
There was just the appearance of impropriety. Not the reality of it.

But even if that is indeed the case- wouldnt you want to reserve more than a little horsewhipping for Sandusky himself for being stupid enough ( and for being unprofessional enough to have the bad judgment) to allow even the appearance of so much impropriety?

Close, but I think that I've provided a much more sophisticated argument here than just that.

His actions were ill-advised, and I could have explained to him in fine detail why they were ill-advised. It's something that is not discussed very often because people are afraid to discuss it out of fear of being suspected of pedophilia, but it's an important aspect of how our behavior toward children ought to change as they develop.

The way we typically handle very young children is borderline erotic, and that is just a fact. The reason we don't think anything of it is that the children are not old enough to have a sexual reaction to it, so it is taken as pure affection rather than something that could send confusing signals. Nevertheless, when we are handling very young children, particularly 6 and under, we frequently do stuff like pat them on the ass, gather up their legs and stroke their thigh, and several other behaviors that would be tantamount to foreplay with an older person.

However, if Sandusky's story is to be believed, he was trying to pull this on much older children than this would be appropriate with. At that age, they are old enough that they are going to react to it as sexual touching, even if you don't mean it that way. That's what I think got Sandusky in trouble with the mother he was apologizing to. It might have been that the child was one of those naturally gay ones. The child was a pre-teen with budding sexuality, and he found himself being held or touched in an intimate way by an attractive and charismatic older man. There are a thousand and one ways this could go terribly horribly wrong, as any reasoning, educated person would have told Mr. Sandusky. Someone might think it's harmless to cuddle a 12 year old boy. However, if he's not related to the person holding him and he is also likely to develop eventually as a gay guy, he will have a reaction in that situation. He wouldn't be able to help it. So yeah, even if Sandusky actually is innocent of actual molestation, he was being a dick, even according to his own story.

Nevertheless, I do not look at him and see a child molester. It's not something that is easy for me to communicate, but the tone he used in his voicemail to victim 2 followed the meandering, casual path of someone who is doing something perfectly normal and everyday. The "I love you" at the end of the message came across as an ordinary valediction. If you only looked at the words, you could color it as creepy, but I don't think that you could color it as creepy if you were paying attention to Sandusky's intonation.

I think I'm making a much better case than you seem to think, here.