Unsure about the Sandusky ruling

Post Reply New Topic

I am not going on much besides gut feelings, here, but I am skeptical of the authenticity of the charges against Jerry Sandusky. If nothing else, I think that the media has greatly exaggerated the level of certainty in the case.

One major red flag for me is the McQueary testimony. I found his story to be inconsistent. First, he seemed to imply that Sandusky was anally raping a child, and then he went back on that to say that he never claimed he actually saw this happening. While it might be technically accurate that he never claimed to see an actual criminal act, he seemed to imply a greater level of certainty than he actually had. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me that he didn't report the act to the police immediately.

Furthermore, with the supposed mountain of eye witness accounts and accounts of extreme cases of sexual abuse being given by the supposed victims, something isn't matching up. It seems very strange to me that all of these people would, having seen what they say they saw, go for so long without taking more action than they did. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Unfortunately, most of what I'm going on is gut feeling. Something just smells wrong.

A lot of the accounts were given well before the trial on various small media websites, and not the main stream media conveniently. However, Sandusky upset a few folks or outlived his use in some circles and so it all comes out in the wash.

There is a mountain of evidence against Sandusky and really little question of his guilt. He essentially admitted to it in his bizarre interview with Bob Costas.

It doesn't make sense but it happened and was covered up, that's why the NCAA acted so harshly with their sanctions against Penn State. The criminal and civil cases will be extensive as well. Football became more important than life in Happy Valley.

I heard it. His behavior sounds wildly inappropriate, but it doesn't amount to rape.

Again, I am highly skeptical. I get a strong sense, having listened to the interview, that Sandusky is telling the truth, here.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/06/13/s ... n-to-boys/

Look, it may look like an open-and-shut case to you, but I simply smell something weird about the whole case. The truth doesn't seem that cut-and-dried...usually isn't.

Okay, here is an interesting development. Not a surprising one, though. His wife, here, is coming out in his defense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sandusky ... BKJhWGe7QB

What most annoys me is that we have a psychologist here trying to psychoanalyze her based on the assumption of Sandusky's guilt, not really taking into account the seemingly remote possibility that Jerry Sandusky could actually have been innocent. It isn't even being discussed!

The whole case strikes me as weird. It seems to work too conveniently into some people's fantasies about pedophiles, other people's prejudices about corruption in athletics and the nature of it. The case does not come across to me as solid as the prosecution had made it out to be, and it seems to be based on exploiting people's passions and prejudices.

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/us/pennsy ... index.html

Here, I'm following the tone of Sandusky's voice on the tape. He doesn't have the measured, controlled tone of someone who is manipulating somebody. The "I love you" at the end of the messenge comes across as a social nicety, almost as a formality, not as a statement that had any particular emotion in it.

Also, I think it's very strange that Victim #2 first came and said that nothing happened between him and Sandusky in the shower, but then his story changed. Sorry, but I see that as very weird.

Wasn't Sandusky convicted on the un-impeached testimony of six victims? How much evidence is required to conclude that Sandusky is a dirty filthy pervert and child molester?

ruveyn

If they are lying, though, their crime is significantly worse than the one Sandusky has been convicted of.

The story doesn't add up for me at all, and I certainly don't trust McQueary. I get a creepy vibe off of him. Not something I can pinpoint, just a scent on the wind.

I know that a lot of people are going to have trouble with the idea of giving a convicted child molester the benefit of the doubt, but I see a little too much money moving around, here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 06944.html

A civil lawsuit? All of a sudden, huh? Weird. Sorry, I don't trust him. And, again, McQueary puts my hackles right up, let me tell you.

Let's put it this way, they covered it up in the past for the very same reasons. I read accounts, listened to radio casts of accounts from adults that knew Sandusky. It's not like this came out of nowhere, this has been building up for some time but because of how much backing he had then there was nothing that could be done.

Doesn't make him guilty. You are trying to make a case here out of the fact that Sandusky had the ability to fend off these accusations, and it's not legit. A man who has not committed any crime is right to use whatever resources he has to defend himself from people who are trying to get him accused of a felony. You are trying to portray this as an example of how evil he is based on the assumption that he is a child molester, which is circular reasoning on your part.

I think what's really going on is that a lot of people found his unusually intimate relationships with young people to be inappropriate and creepy, and they exaggerated it in their minds into this extreme level of perversity. I think that this counts strongly against the prosecution. For me, it creates an argument that the entire case emerged from nothing more than prejudice against Sandusky over his peculiarities in his relationships with children.

The people who are really in the wrong here might actually be the people who formed a lot of judgments based on irrational prejudice, and they ought to be horse whipped, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm with you on this one. I think obviously Sandusky has done something wrong for this to blow up this way.

But quite honestly, people tend to be greedy and lazy. They'll say, "oh, my boy went to camp there, so he must have been abused." And that, of course, is where all the civil suits come in.

As a rule, I'm opposed to civil lawsuits when people are convicted of a serious crime. It's just a way of inflicting undue penalties when justice is already served. If you're unhappy with the courts' decisions, then pass tougher laws with stricter penalties. Desiring justice is one thing; reaching for money because you think you have a case is something else.

I can more understand civil lawsuits when someone is found guilty than I can being found not guilty. The court of public opinion has O.J. Simpson guilty as hell. The media ruined his life bad enough, but then he gets hit with massive civil lawsuits. This looks to me like a loophole around double-jeopardy. I wish is was legally recognized as such and ended.

Don't get me wrong...I think OJ was probably guilty. But our justice system works the way it does for a reason, and I think we venture into dangerous territory when we start circumventing it.

Yes, I'm sure all the young guys wishing to prosecute him just found all that touching and sex stuff a little creepy and exaggerated it in their heads.

I appreciate your right to believe and protest his innocence. And he has every right to defend himself in court with what he has. But may I ask why you feel he is innocent, and what his innocence exactly would do for you?

Okay, let me help you, here. I have actually made a few posts in this thread trying to explain where I am coming from on this. If you were to read those, that might answer your question. If not, then I could refer you to an organization where you could get some remedial courses in reading comprehension if that would help.

Ah.... the old "you don't agree with me and still don't see why I think this way so you didn't read my posts" routine. It's grand, isn't it.
I just don't think how you feel about something stands as a very solid case for someone else's innocence. I for one felt Michael Jackson was a very deranged, misunderstood person but I'm no judge and it could have easily gone the other way for him.

Do you know how hard it is to hit out at a person which has gained such a huge amount of admiration from fans that will defend them no matter what and ostracise you, even endanger your life? If you do know how that feels, then the flipflopping on the dids and did nots of this case wouldn't seem so odd.

So fair enough, let's say he is innocent, what good is that to you as an individual, and why does it matter so much?

Personally, I think that one of the things that put up red flags with me was how the media has exploited this one. In fact, I think that the role of the media in this virtually made a fair trial by jury all but impossible. I think that Sandusky might actually have a better chance in the court of appeals. There, interference by the media is less of a factor.

Personally, I think that reporting on criminal cases in a way that could lead to influencing a verdict ought to be a felony. I really do think it ought to be a felony because it takes justice out of the hands of the law and creates a system that essentially enables the media to convict anyone they want, simply based on how they do their reporting. I see a lot wrong with that.

No, you just ignored my posts, and I resent that.

I went on to explain why I felt this way, in less subjective terms. My argument about the tone and meter of his voice is relatively objective.

And that doesn't make Sandusky guilty of anything. In fact, if Sandusky is innocent, he was in the right to use that power in his defense.

Because reporters don't look right in robes.