There are people who have spent a lot of time looking into this who have concluded that Sandusky is innocent....there never was a crime.
Accuser of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky expected to recant testimony
- Thread starter volsrocks
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
Who, NAMBLA members?
We have seen such miscarriages of justice downstream from moral panic before.
We are only 15 years on from this, look around at all of the injustice we now know takes place.....all of the lying from power.
I dont know if Sandusky is innocent, but it was obvious at the time that something strange was going on....the gratuitous abuse of Penn State being just part of it.
I dont know if Sandusky is innocent, but it was obvious at the time that something strange was going on....the gratuitous abuse of Penn State being just part of it.
cawacko
Well-known member
The dude banged a bunch of boys. Yes I’m sure NAMBLA sees it as a miscarriage of justice that he’ll die in prison.
Where did I say that anything "retired" in 1995?
Walt, you didn’t type “retired in 1995.”
You said the coaching/memory problem was an ’80s thing, cleaned up in the ’90s, and this case was 20 years later. That is the claim I was answering.
The question is still the same: did investigators and prosecutors tell this witness that trauma fragmented his memory and that he could safely affirm details he did not fully recall? That is in the affidavit. “Where did I say retired in 1995?” does not touch it.
The hearing is in September. Argue the document or wait for the hearing.
Don't a lot of leftists take kindly to his kind in society, though?
One person says that is what happened, while dozens of other people say it did not happen for them. Several witnesses were not sexually abused, so it would not have made sense to say the trauma fragmented their memories.
Sandusky is guilty as sin. That is definite. There is one witness who says he was coached. He might be telling the truth, or maybe not. Even if he is telling the truth, who is putting together this challenge? It does appear to be Team Epstein trying to protect a Republican that the press is scared to even name.
When there is such a strong case, why coach just one witness? Just ignore that one witness, and go on with the prosecution. Team Epstein does not seem to have an answer to this.
As for Diogenes' defense of Team Epstein that coaching happened all the time in the 2010's... No it did not. The cases of widespread coaching happened in the 1980's. It is possible it happened in the 2010's, but certainly not something we can assume.
No.
Really? You seem so sure. Are just making up an answer, Walt?
Your latest post does three things at once: inflates the other witnesses, invents a claim I never made, and parks the Epstein slogan on a question the affidavit does not answer.
“One person says that happened, dozens of other people say it did not happen for them.”
Nobody has produced “dozens” of affidavits saying “I was never told trauma fragmented my memory.”
What exists is one sworn recantation from Victim 10 and a large original case with other accusers, McQueary, the 1998 shower complaint, and adult witnesses to boundary-crossing conduct.
Those other people did not file 2025 statements saying “the same script was never used on me.”
Absence of matching recantations is not a poll of interview technique.
Several of those witnesses were alleging sexual abuse. Telling them that trauma fragments memory would have been internally consistent with the prosecution theory.
Your line that “several witnesses were not sexually abused, so it would not have made sense” mixes two groups: third-party observers (McQueary, janitors, etc.) and the boys themselves.
The recovered-memory language only has to be used on the people whose own memories are being built out. Rittmeyer says it was used on him. That is the claim to test on Sept. 8.
“Why coach just one witness? Just ignore that one and go on.”
That assumes the prosecution sat down in 2011, counted votes, and decided Victim 10 was optional. They did not.
They used him.
His account grew from pool horseplay and a thigh-in-the-car story into basement oral sex and a car Sandusky did not own. If the prep process shaped that growth, the question is not “why bother with one extra kid.” It is whether this kid’s testimony was manufactured. A strong overall case can still contain a coached count. Those two facts are not mutually exclusive.
“Diogenes’ defense of Team Epstein that coaching happened all the time in the 2010s… No it did not.”
I did not say coaching happened “all the time” in the 2010s, and did not defend “Team Epstein.”
The point was narrower: the 1980s daycare-panic model was discredited; that did not make leading questions, six-hour prep sessions, and “you can safely affirm details you do not fully recall” disappear by 2011.
Possibility is not assumption. Rittmeyer’s affidavit is an allegation about this case, not a statistical claim about every 2010s prosecution.
The Epstein overlay
“Who is putting together this challenge? It does appear to be Team Epstein trying to protect a Republican the press is scared to even name.”
The petition is Sandusky’s PCRA team plus investigator Frank Parlato.
The “Republican the press won’t name” is a different rumor set (Epstein co-conspirator talk).
It is not a documented link to Rittmeyer’s June 2025 affidavit. Recantation + money + late timing + defense investigator are all legitimate impeachment. “Team Epstein” is still a label looking for a chain of custody.
Walt, you can keep the conviction as “guilty as sin” and still have to answer the only question the hearing is built around: did they tell this witness he could affirm details he did not remember? “Dozens of other people” and “Team Epstein” do not answer it.
What business did Sandusky have being naked in a shower with a young student? He's guilty, period.
"Nine or 10 days later, McQueary said he met with Curley and Shultz and told them he'd seen Sandusky and a boy, both naked, in the shower after hearing skin on skin slapping sounds.
"I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong," McQueary said. "I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."
www.cbsnews.com
"Nine or 10 days later, McQueary said he met with Curley and Shultz and told them he'd seen Sandusky and a boy, both naked, in the shower after hearing skin on skin slapping sounds.
"I told them that I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and that what I had seen was extremely sexual and over the lines and it was wrong," McQueary said. "I would have described that it was extremely sexual and I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."
Mike McQueary Testifies, Describes Alleged Sandusky Shower Encounter
McQueary testified Friday that he believes he saw former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky sexually molesting a boy but said he wasn't 100 percent sure it was intercourse.
www.cbsnews.com
My respect for Paterno tanked after this.
Don't lie. It tanked when you found out he wasn't a Democrat, didn't it?
ANSWER, Christiecrite!
cawacko
Well-known member
Yep.
On one hand he was an absolutely incredible coach, his players graduated at a rate that far exceeded the NCAA average and he donated millions to Penn State’s libraries and liberal arts programs.
On the other hand how he dealt with Sandusky left a big stain on his rep.
I agree, but I would add something.
Paterno definitely did many public things that were very good, and at least one very bad thing he tried to keep quiet. I always got the feeling the bad things ran deeper than we know. He was an arrogant, entitled man who demanded respect. He deserved respect, but his demanding of it would get unhinged. He had a large network of people who he demanded loyalty from, again in sometimes an unhinged way.
Great coaches are often a little unhinged, and it has been many, many years for more bad things to come out, so I am probably wrong about my negative feeling about Paterno.
But, I keep coming back to, when the one thing we catch someone on is so horrible, there is usually a lot of other horrible things out there.
You have to wonder at a MAGAT who is gleeful about the alleged recanting of testimony regarding a convicted pedophile. There doesn't seem to be a single sex-related crime that they can't find an excuse for or drop their support for the convicted perpetrator. Hence the #FatFascistFeloniousFucktard stinking up our White House.