Of course Sandusky was guilty , southern... that may be the most ridiculous thing I ever read on a website, suggestion that Sandusky may not be guilty, 10 victims testified, he was found guilty on 40 counts of criminal conduct..
THis was a criminal case in a criminal court of law; 10 victims don't testify under threat of perjuring themselves, with subsequent jail terms..ands the testimony was in graphic, sexual detail, some as long as 4 hours..This wasn't some civil case, there over 30 victims there, who knows maybe some embellished looking for money...But not in a criminal case where they underwent cross examination...WOW is all I can add to that..
Of course Sandusky was guilty , southern... that may be the most ridiculous thing I ever read on a website, suggestion that Sandusky may not be guilty, 10 victims testified, he was found guilty on 40 counts of criminal conduct..
THis was a criminal case in a criminal court of law; 10 victims don't testify under threat of perjuring themselves, with subsequent jail terms..ands the testimony was in graphic, sexual detail, some as long as 4 hours..This wasn't some civil case, there over 30 victims there, who knows maybe some embellished looking for money...But not in a criminal case where they underwent cross examination...WOW is all I can add to that..
As always, follow the money.
"As always, follow the money" That makes no sense, and defies all logic So 10 victims conspired to concoct a vicious perverted scheme to gain a criminal conviction, ( which nets them NOTHING IN DOLLARS by the way) in order to, I guess you're saying to set up a civil case in which they could use the conviction to obtain dollars, did I hear you right?
So they put their reps, shame, lives on the line to undergo tough cross examination, and have to meet the most stringent of standards, the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt standard, always a tough hurdle...when if they are strictly interested in money, they can go direct to suing in a civil suit, meet the less stringent "preponderance of evidence std, and successfully sue for damages....and you can do so WITHOUT a criminal conviction, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case..
Does that make any sense?..Is it any wonder, we in the big city here wonder what is in the water in central, rural, pa..?
"As always, follow the money" That makes no sense, and defies all logic So 10 victims conspired to concoct a vicious perverted scheme to gain a criminal conviction, ( which nets them NOTHING IN DOLLARS by the way) in order to, I guess you're saying to set up a civil case in which they could use the conviction to obtain dollars, did I hear you right?
So they put their reps, shame, lives on the line to undergo tough cross examination, and have to meet the most stringent of standards, the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt standard, always a tough hurdle...when if they are strictly interested in money, they can go direct to suing in a civil suit, meet the less stringent "preponderance of evidence std, and successfully sue for damages....and you can do so WITHOUT a criminal conviction, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case..
Does that make any sense?..Is it any wonder, we in the big city here wonder what is in the water in central, rural, pa..?
Pardon my ignorance. As we all should know, folks from the big city know best.
"As always, follow the money" That makes no sense, and defies all logic So 10 victims conspired to concoct a vicious perverted scheme to gain a criminal conviction, ( which nets them NOTHING IN DOLLARS by the way) in order to, I guess you're saying to set up a civil case in which they could use the conviction to obtain dollars, did I hear you right?
So they put their reps, shame, lives on the line to undergo tough cross examination, and have to meet the most stringent of standards, the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt standard, always a tough hurdle...when if they are strictly interested in money, they can go direct to suing in a civil suit, meet the less stringent "preponderance of evidence std, and successfully sue for damages....and you can do so WITHOUT a criminal conviction, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case..
Does that make any sense?..Is it any wonder, we in the big city here wonder what is in the water in central, rural, pa..?
you must live in a VERY small box chumley. Simple answer is YES. They lawyered up long before being called to the stand. THAT isn't common practice at all for a witness/victim. Oh and btw, many had a very common lawyer....think that happened by luck with the 100s of lawyers in the area? LMAO! They knew what was coming, and had help knowing ...big money buys a lot, including trials.
"As always, follow the money" That makes no sense, and defies all logic So 10 victims conspired to concoct a vicious perverted scheme to gain a criminal conviction, ( which nets them NOTHING IN DOLLARS by the way) in order to, I guess you're saying to set up a civil case in which they could use the conviction to obtain dollars, did I hear you right?
So they put their reps, shame, lives on the line to undergo tough cross examination, and have to meet the most stringent of standards, the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt standard, always a tough hurdle...when if they are strictly interested in money, they can go direct to suing in a civil suit, meet the less stringent "preponderance of evidence std, and successfully sue for damages....and you can do so WITHOUT a criminal conviction, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case..
Does that make any sense?..Is it any wonder, we in the big city here wonder what is in the water in central, rural, pa..?
you must live in a VERY small box chumley. Simple answer is YES. They lawyered up long before being called to the stand. THAT isn't common practice at all for a witness/victim. Oh and btw, many had a very common lawyer....think that happened by luck with the 100s of lawyers in the area? LMAO! They knew what was coming, and had help knowing ...big money buys a lot, including trials.
This is all a bridge too far for me. Multiple victims stepped forward, multiple official reports came to light from the past, his own son Matt accused him of abuse, and his other son Jeffery has himself pled guilty to sexually abusing minors (which is common for those who grew up in an abusive household)
At this point, the sheer amount of people who would have to be lying is just... unbelievable. Believe he is innocent if you want, but I do not.
I agree Roam. Plus a jury found him guilty and I believe the courts get it right most of the time.
We're all entitled to our opinion and as I said earlier in the thread, I merely think Sandusky may not have been guilty, but the trial and rush to convict stinks to high heaven. However, the die has been cast and I don't believe anyone will change their minds at this point. There is nothing wrong with disgreeing as long as we do so respectfully, unlike our big city responder.
Wee aint got no big sities upp hear in Mane butt r wadder is relly cleer so i gess dat stil makes us dum butt inn sayin dat i thinke Sandusty is gilty as de daye is long cuz momma alwayz sed dat wear deres smok deres fire and evin iff he dident moelest the liddle boyz dat sed he did i think he proly molestid sumwon cus two manney peepul sed he did inkludin his owne adoptid sun and i dont think deres enuff peepole dat merember dat and i tink Sandusty isv rite ware he shuld bee tanks fore taken de tyme too reed dis an eyem so grate full dat wee hav a smarte guye lik CC too showe us de arrer of r wayz im knot as smarte as himm but i no dat Sandusty is rite wate he kneeds ta b.
Tsuga, that’s the fastest eyes have read a paragraph in a long time brother. Would’ve been faster but I you spelled eyem wrong, it’s eyes lol
Dear Suddern yore welkome an thank yew fer da speling advise eyes no eyes got uh longe way ta goo til eyes as smarte as kulter clubb. Jery Sandusty is rite whete hee neads ta bee along wit alle da kathlic preets and leeders dat hav bin moelestin chilren all deese yeers aint noter dayme a kathlic skool? Maks ya wunder iff da trail of vickdums leeds to dat worfless skool?
SPF, Courts get it right most of the time. But they are also prone to error if the deck is stacked. The court should have given the attorney more time to establish the alibi defense. Yes, the attorney was not qualified to represent in a case this big, but he should have been allowed more time. The GJ presentment was "leaked" to the press, which had the effect of tainting the jury pool.
The one thing I've seen lately is people starting to take a different view of Paterno. In the past, whenever I would talk about it with someone it didn't matter what I said... He knew, he did it, case closed.
Now when it comes up, people seem to have a more skeptical view. When I say "do you really think Paterno would let his grandchildren play with a man he knew was a pedophile?" they say "that's a good point" instead of "He knew".
As the sheer emotion of it fades, I believe some people now have put their pitchforks down and realized that Paterno wasn't the devil, or someone who would have let this go on.
I actually said this to someone recently when we were talking about it:
Me: "Do you know what the current guidelines from the NCAA say to do if a coach hears about sexual abuse?".
Them: "Well... I hope report it... but what?".
Me: "To do exactly what Paterno did. Report it to the designated rep. at the school, and then back off and have no further contact with them about it... so it doesn't look like you are influencing the investigation."
Them: "Wow... So he followed the rule and they said he did it wrong anyway? There must have been something else?"
Me: "Nope, and they actually wrote the guideline 2 years after what happened"
Them: "Wait... what? They punished him for doing it that way, and then told everyone else that they should do it that way? Wow, that is messed up"
Me: "Yup, it is."
Roam, you are a breath of fresh air 😊 I wish the university powers that be recognize these facts and accord Joe a fitting honor for all he did for PSU and college football down through the years. What do you think Southern? Wasn't Vince Dooley recently honored by naming the field for him?
I have felt that way from the beginning. Had Joe "followed up" with any inquiry as to the status of the investigation, his actions would likely have been construed as tampering or otherwise interfering with the investigation. You could imagine the response had that happened.
Too often used today, but "witch hunt" fits pretty well.
The one thing I've seen lately is people starting to take a different view of Paterno. In the past, whenever I would talk about it with someone it didn't matter what I said... He knew, he did it, case closed.
Now when it comes up, people seem to have a more skeptical view. When I say "do you really think Paterno would let his grandchildren play with a man he knew was a pedophile?" they say "that's a good point" instead of "He knew".
As the sheer emotion of it fades, I believe some people now have put their pitchforks down and realized that Paterno wasn't the devil, or someone who would have let this go on.
I actually said this to someone recently when we were talking about it:
Me: "Do you know what the current guidelines from the NCAA say to do if a coach hears about sexual abuse?".
Them: "Well... I hope report it... but what?".
Me: "To do exactly what Paterno did. Report it to the designated rep. at the school, and then back off and have no further contact with them about it... so it doesn't look like you are influencing the investigation."
Them: "Wow... So he followed the rule and they said he did it wrong anyway? There must have been something else?"
Me: "Nope, and they actually wrote the guideline 2 years after what happened"
Them: "Wait... what? They punished him for doing it that way, and then told everyone else that they should do it that way? Wow, that is messed up"
Me: "Yup, it is."
I think the audience you are speaking to are those capable of rational thought. On various college forums I visit, many still use the term ped State. Of course they are the ones indifferent to the victims and do that to justify their hate on anything Penn State.
The one thing I've seen lately is people starting to take a different view of Paterno. In the past, whenever I would talk about it with someone it didn't matter what I said... He knew, he did it, case closed.
Now when it comes up, people seem to have a more skeptical view. When I say "do you really think Paterno would let his grandchildren play with a man he knew was a pedophile?" they say "that's a good point" instead of "He knew".
As the sheer emotion of it fades, I believe some people now have put their pitchforks down and realized that Paterno wasn't the devil, or someone who would have let this go on.
I actually said this to someone recently when we were talking about it:
Me: "Do you know what the current guidelines from the NCAA say to do if a coach hears about sexual abuse?".
Them: "Well... I hope report it... but what?".
Me: "To do exactly what Paterno did. Report it to the designated rep. at the school, and then back off and have no further contact with them about it... so it doesn't look like you are influencing the investigation."
Them: "Wow... So he followed the rule and they said he did it wrong anyway? There must have been something else?"
Me: "Nope, and they actually wrote the guideline 2 years after what happened"
Them: "Wait... what? They punished him for doing it that way, and then told everyone else that they should do it that way? Wow, that is messed up"
Me: "Yup, it is."
I think the audience you are speaking to are those capable of rational thought. On various college forums I visit, many still use the term ped State. Of course they are the ones indifferent to the victims and do that to justify their hate on anything Penn State.
I see your problem... "forums". In relatively small forums like this one I don't think it devolves in mob hysteria or complete trolling. However, places like Twitter, the comment sections of major sports sites, or even the bigger BB providers attract the "social justice warriors" and "offense brigade". Those people literally manufacture things to be pissed about and never let it go. They live to throw bombs and ignite emotions.
I live in a major college town, right near Oregon State University in Corvallis. The President of the University here (Ed Ray / noteworthy is that he was at Ohio State University for 35 years prior to Oregon State) was one of the major contributors to the NCAA panel that levied the sanctions against us. I believe he was the head of the committee actually. One thing I'm surprised at is how many people know Ed Ray "didn't even read the Freeh report before sanctioning Penn State, that's pretty bad".
So here, they know. Many of them see the rush to judgement, even by their own President. One person even said it was a shameful act by Ray and he can't forgive him for it.
Absolutely, I’d definitely name the stadium after joe and if somebody doesn’t like tough chit odds are they don’t like Penn St anyway so who cares. Joes track record speaks for itself.
