In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 614
Online now 1229 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This story is likely to destroy the last shred of credibility that Mike McQueary had for his Feb 2001 story. MIke already destroyed his own accounts by all the variations in his story. See a fairly complete accounting of his changing story HERE - LINK, The only remaining thing Mike had going for his story was the idea that Victim 2 was actually abused that night even if Mike never saw it.. Now it appears that not only was he not abused but he isn't victim 2.
Shortly after the end of the Jerry Sandusky Trial we were greeted by a plethora of articles stating Victim 2 in JerrySandusky case comes forward, plans to sue Penn State
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/26/3274073/victim-2-in-jerry-sandusky-case.html#storylink=cpy
These articles were accompanied by what was termed "Chilling Phone Calls" that in reality appear to be anything but chilling:
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by aurabass4psu 18 months ago
I am very confused and need some help here. I don't follow this at all. If this guy is not victim #2, then how does it prove anything at all? In that case, we still don't know what happened with the actual victim #2, right? What have we learned here?
Didn't the real victim #2 recently say he wasn't abused that night?
How did Sandusky get convicted of 4 out of 5 charges for crimes against victim #2 if the victim wasn't abused that night?
“We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill
Apparently the jury was on a roll and Amendola took an extended lunch break.
I know you probably wrote that half in jest but I think it's not that far off from the truth. Seems to me that the jury combined the testimony of the victims that did testify with McQueary's "I didn't see anything sexual but I 'know' there was something sexual going on" and decided to convict on the less serious counts related to "victim" two. If the counts related to "victim" two were tried separate from the others I doubt there would have been any convictions.
I use quotes around victim in this case because as horrible as Sandusky was, I think that night he was showering with a kid but not molesting a kid.
Ok this has nothing to do with the stuff mentioned above but it seems every so often I hear a news report about somebody new coming forward and saying JS abused them. I don't want to sound cold hearted but I'm sorry if you didn't come though and testify in the trial or make yourself know before the trial then you should get NOTHING! The victims that went through the trial put themselves though a real hardship to put this guy away and it really pisses me off seeing people coming forward after the fact, even if they really were abused (which I doubt they were).
I'm sure as hell no Sandusky supporter but he would've been convicted of nazi war crimes if he was charged.
It seems to me one of the key things that gets lost in thinking about the way Sandusky operated is this: He started the charity in 1977 and for 20 years he did whatever he did without a single complaint from anyone. - unless Dr. Raykovitz or his wife got complaints they never revealed which I think is likely. Then in 1998 one mother lodges a complaint about the bear hug in the shower and CYS and DPW investigate - but the case is dropped and JS declared to have done nothing criminal or sexually inappropriate.
We know he bear hugged two kids in the showers and the appropriate agencies were notified but they gave him a clean bill of health when they could have taken away his license to deal with kids as founder and agent of the charity.
Then Mike M hears three slapping sounds he tells Joe he thought were of a sexual nature and we are supposed to believe that its Joe and PSU who have been negligent allowing a known molestor to roam freeh? These 2m documents and the testimony of TSM workers could be so valuable to learning what really happened but it seems that Raykovitz and Genovese worked alone failing to be open and inclusive with volunteers - I think it's pretty easy to guess why. They likely knew that JS activities if ever found out would end their 233,000 a year gravy train and who would want that just to save a few disadvantaged kids from abuse?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports