Jerry Sandusky Trial

UNT90 · June 20, 2012

http://sports.yahoo....olestation.html

A coward to the bitter end.

It would be a smart move if the defense had not promised jurors during open arguments that Sandusky would testify. I don't know about that now.

Acquittal is still VERY possible. This is Happy Valley, and Sandusky was a popular football coach at Pedophile St.

Edited June 20, 2012 by UNT90

MeanGreenTexan · June 20, 2012

http://sports.yahoo....olestation.html

A coward to the bitter end.

It would be a smart move if the defense had not promised jurors during open arguments that Sandusky would testify. I don't know about that now.

Acquittal is still VERY possible. This is Happy Valley, and Sandusky was a popular football coach at Pedophile St.

I agree with you.

I just find it very intriguing how you can formulate this rock-solid opinion based on what the media has fed you. Your comments in the Sandusky threads are divergent on your views in the Zimmerman threads.

UNT90 · June 20, 2012

I agree with you.

I just find it very intriguing how you can formulate this rock-solid opinion based on what the media has fed you. Your comments in the Sandusky threads are divergent on your views in the Zimmerman threads.

That's because they are far different cases with a huge difference in evidence, witnesses, etc...

But you know this.

Intellectual dishonesty is fun, isn't it?

UNT90 · June 21, 2012

^{http://aol.sportingn...nk3&pLid=172115}

^{No big surprise. Too bad he came forward too late for the jury to know anything about it before deciding guilt/innocence. He will be a huge witness in the punishment phase IF the jury comes back guilty.}

Edited June 22, 2012 by UNT90

MeanGreenTexan · June 22, 2012

That's because they are far different cases with a huge difference in evidence, witnesses, etc...

But you know this.

Intellectual dishonesty is fun, isn't it?

Intellectual dishonesty? Is that a roundabout way of calling me a liar?

Are you on the jury of EITHER one of these cases? No.

Then you are getting your information regarding both of the cases via the same means as EVERYONE ELSE. The Media.

Your views in the Sandusky case have been iron-clad since the very beginning. You were presented the case by the media because you're not on the jury. You've never called out the media for enciting a lynch mob in this case, which they have. The evidence presented by the media is certainly there to convict this dude. However, a judge just threw out 3 of the counts due to a key witness' testimony being faulty. Maybe we should wait to see all the facts?

OPPOSITELY, Your views in the Zimmerman case have been open (let's wait and see the facts come out... blah, blah) since the very beginning. This is probably the best road to take. You were presented the case by the media because you're not on the jury. You constantly barrage the media for creating this firestorm for ratings sake. The evidence is certainly there to convict this man of murder. However, key witness' testimonies appear muddled.

I wouldn't expect you to say Zimmerman murdered this kid, or Zimmerman was acting in self defense, rather, I would expect you to say: "Let's wait and see what the facts spell out in the Sandusky trial". But you're not doing that.

yyz28 · June 22, 2012

Intellectual dishonesty? Is that a roundabout way of calling me a liar?

Intellectual dishonesty isn't a lie, but rather using the same logic to draw separate conclusions based on the politics or personal presence on each case, not based on the facts. Someone who is calling you intellectually dishonest isn't calling you a liar. ...but I digress.

Your views in the Sandusky case have been iron-clad since the very beginning. You were presented the case by the media because you're not on the jury. You've never called out the media for enciting a lynch mob in this case, which they have. The evidence presented by the media is certainly there to convict this dude. However, a judge just threw out 3 of the counts due to a key witness' testimony being faulty. Maybe we should wait to see all the facts?

OPPOSITELY, Your views in the Zimmerman case have been open (let's wait and see the facts come out... blah, blah) since the very beginning. This is probably the best road to take. You were presented the case by the media because you're not on the jury. You constantly barrage the media for creating this firestorm for ratings sake. The evidence is certainly there to convict this man of murder. However, key witness' testimonies appear muddled.

The flaw in your argument that I think led him to cite you as having been intellectually dishonest should be pretty clear. In the Sandusky case, the victims are all still alive. There are multiple victims and witnesses all telling the same story. There has also been no evidence of the media modifying any materials they have been presented by either the prosecution, defense or law enforcement to help them bolster a narrative that they plucked from thin air. None of this is the case in the Zimmerman trial.

As more and more undoctored evidence comes out on Zimmerman, the more and more the original narrative that this white guy killed this black kid simply because he was black seems to be less and less likely. ...but as more and more information pours out of the Sandusky trial and more and more witnesses and victims (now including his own son) come out, the more creepy and apparently guilty Sandusky looks.

UNT90 · June 23, 2012

Intellectual dishonesty isn't a lie, but rather using the same logic to draw separate conclusions based on the politics or personal presence on each case, not based on the facts. Someone who is calling you intellectually dishonest isn't calling you a liar. ...but I digress.

The flaw in your argument that I think led him to cite you as having been intellectually dishonest should be pretty clear. In the Sandusky case, the victims are all still alive. There are multiple victims and witnesses all telling the same story. There has also been no evidence of the media modifying any materials they have been presented by either the prosecution, defense or law enforcement to help them bolster a narrative that they plucked from thin air. None of this is the case in the Zimmerman trial.

As more and more undoctored evidence comes out on Zimmerman, the more and more the original narrative that this white guy killed this black kid simply because he was black seems to be less and less likely. ...but as more and more information pours out of the Sandusky trial and more and more witnesses and victims (now including his own son) come out, the more creepy and apparently guilty Sandusky looks.

I appreciate the clarity in my absence, but I fear you are spinning your wheels.

He knows everything you wrote. It's not even worth the argument.

MDH · June 23, 2012

GUILTY

UNT90 · June 23, 2012

GUILTY

Thank God.

Kinda surprised they came back on as many as 45 of the 48 (or whatever it was)., but good for them.

Now, every child he molested should file civil suit against Penn St. for the horrible coverup that allowed thus pedophile to molest kids for an additional 12 years. If I was on the civil jury, Penn St would have to start over on their endowment.

Never has a university deserved to lose EVERYTHIMG than Penn St. does right now.

Really hope it happens.

Edited June 23, 2012 by UNT90

eulessismore · June 23, 2012

Thank God.

Kinda surprised they came back on as many as 45 of the 48 (or whatever it was)., but good for them.

Now, every child he molested should file civil suit against Penn St. for the horrible coverup that allowed thus pedophile to molest kids for an additional 12 years. If I was on the civil jury, Penn St would have to start over on their endowment.

Never has a university deserved to lose EVERYTHIMG than Penn St. does right now.

Really hope it happens.

Yes, they need to pay a price, for sure, and the endowment should be considered fair game in civil actions, but I think we should remember that Sandusky, monster that HE was, was, as the judge said "found guilty by a jury of his peers". And neighbors. I do know I've encountered Penn Staters out in the world of work (some who also attended and earned degrees from North Texas). Some of them were among the finest people I could hope to meet.

But, maybe it's having been with the City of Dallas (City that killed Kennedy-don't know why LA isn't the City that killed Robert Kennedy) most of my working life that makes me leery of collective guilt.

And yes, those who covered up for Sandusky do need to face the fullest sanctions of the law for what they perpetuated by their inactions.

UNT90 · June 23, 2012

Yes, they need to pay a price, for sure, and the endowment should be considered fair game in civil actions, but I think we should remember that Sandusky, monster that HE was, was, as the judge said "found guilty by a jury of his peers". And neighbors. I do know I've encountered Penn Staters out in the world of work (some who also attended and earned degrees from North Texas). Some of them were among the finest people I could hope to meet.

But, maybe it's having been with the City of Dallas (City that killed Kennedy-don't know why LA isn't the City that killed Robert Kennedy) most of my working life that makes me leery of collective guilt.

And yes, those who covered up for Sandusky do need to face the fullest sanctions of the law for what they perpetuated by their inactions.

I feel ya.

But, universities are the people that rum them. When the people that rum them willfully ignore sexual abuse of children, the entity should pay, and pay huge.

If they are not forced to do so, the only lesson learned by the Penn St BOR is that if this happens again, all they have to do is fire everyone and the university won't suffer.

The NCAA damn sure ain't gonna do a flipping thing, so Penn St should lose everything financially.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

Edited June 23, 2012 by UNT90

eulessismore · June 23, 2012

I feel ya.

But, universities are the people that rum them. When the people that rum them willfully ignore sexual abuse of children, the entity should pay, and pay huge.

If they are not forced to do so, the only lesson learned by the Penn St BOR is that if this happens again, all they have to do is fire everyone and the university won't suffer.

The NCAA damn sure ain't gonna do a flipping thing, so Penn St should lose everything financially.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

Well, it's been a good day for the rule of law, although a long time coming. I guess I WAS a bit surprised by the decisiveness of the eventual actions, but honestly, folks, don't forget that there are good citizens in Pennsylvania. I think we should give a lot of credit for the courage of those who took the stand to tell of the assaults against them. Mentally, I don't really want to think of them anymore so much as "victims"; perhaps "survivors" would be a better word. For the way they made their own case when they got their day in court, I have to salute them.

yyz28 · June 23, 2012

Good verdict. The folks involved in cover up and the university to the extent that cover ups happened as an active effort of any faculty should all face agressive civil suits. Sandusky will rot in Jail. Good riddance.

Harry · June 23, 2012

If anyone has concern that Penn State has not been tarnished check out this article from one of their own graduates:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/23/opinion/jones-sandusky/

I also agree that the civil suit is going to be a killer, I believe State has over 1 billion in endowment and with the guilt verdict in the criminal case the victims will come out of the woodwork. This trial was about Sandusky and they will go after Prez and AD next. Once those two go down the foundation for the civil suits will be set.

What gets me is the AD is still on paid leave? Is that correct?

KRAM1 · June 23, 2012

Seems to me that the jury got this one correct...as the vast majority of juries seem to do. Let the justice system run its course folks....may this scum rot in jail.

Harry · July 2, 2012

Looks like the noose is tightening on the administrators: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933404577501133144881686.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

UNT90 · July 2, 2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/30/justice/penn-state-emails/index.html?iref=allsearch

Yep, And Joe pa is proving to be right in the middle of the cover up.

The email from Spanier is particularly disgusting, worrying only about Penn St.'s legal liability if Sandusky doesn't change his behavior (because pedophiles are capable of that, right?) and it comes out later.

Absolutely disgusting. I really hope that university loses ALL of it's endowment.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · July 2, 2012

Penn State needs to be punished severely.

SMU was punished when it knew of player payments and tried to hide them inthe 80s.

Oklahoma was punished when one of Switzer's players and a coach were dealing cocaine in the 80s.

Penn State officials knew Sandusky was abusing young men, and they allowed him to continue to do so on their campus, using their office space and the lure of tickets and things from their athletic departments.

Penn State should absolutely be on the hook for what occurred under their watch. You talk about SMU and OU being hit with "Lack of Institutional Control" penalties. How much more Lack of Institutional Control can you have than the president, athletic director, head coach, and assistant coaches allowed a former assistance to abuse boys on their campus for decades?

adman · July 2, 2012

Penn State needs to be punished severely.

SMU was punished when it knew of player payments and tried to hide them inthe 80s.
Oklahoma was punished when one of Switzer's players and a coach were dealing cocaine in the 80s.

Penn State officials knew Sandusky was abusing young men, and they allowed him to continue to do so on their campus, using their office space and the lure of tickets and things from their athletic departments.

Penn State should absolutely be on the hook for what occurred under their watch. You talk about SMU and OU being hit with "Lack of Institutional Control" penalties. How much more Lack of Institutional Control can you have than the president, athletic director, head coach, and assistant coaches allowed a former assistance to abuse boys on their campus for decades?

I agree.

Has the NCAA ever publicly addressed the situation?

Harry · July 2, 2012

I guess it was the fact that a kid we offered out of Florida ended up Penn St... I had basically put this whole Penn State thing behind me. Jo Pa was dead and Sandusky was getting what he had coming to him.

But when I saw this kid quoted as saying this was "his dream" to go to Penn State after all that had transpired it really bothered me.

Penn State has hired a new coach and is out there moving forward putting this behind them. Should they be allowed to do this when a school like SMU who in my opinion did far less was given the death penalty? I think the NCAA is waiting for the legal process to take place before they "weigh in". Still -- their delay is allowing Penn State to move forward with their program and I have a problem with that as do I with Miami, Oregon and the many other schools who CHEATED and yet are still able to wave their flag proudly to recruits.

My opinion is that these emails will force Penn State to lay the hammer down on the the employees who were involved. For goodness sake the president Spanier is still on fully paid leave! Penn State will try to sidestep and say that it was Jo Pa, Spanier, Curley and the others who were at fault not the Penn State system.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · July 2, 2012

It's baloney. A few guys brought OU down in the late 80s, SMU in the mid-80s. There have been others. Those are just the most porminent ones I remember. I guess recently, USC got probation for just a few guys getting perks in the mid-00s.

This is far worse. Cover up of child abuse is worse. If the NCAA can't see this, with all of their legal teams, I don't really know how they can be taken seriously as an organization.

UNTFan23 · July 2, 2012

Should it be the place of the NCAA to govern over something of this nature? It almost sounds like we're asking the NCAA to police something that really does not have very much to do with college athletics other than a college coach having access to a university's facilities. What if none of the abuses took place on university property and the only link between Sandusky and Penn State was a coach of of the football program during the time the sexual abuse took place -- should the NCAA be involved then?

Punish those responsible for the cover up; they didn't follow the law by not reporting the abuses to the authorities. I don't see how or why the NCAA should ever be involved in something like this unless it directly involves a university's student athletes.

UNT90 · July 2, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/sports/ncaafootball/index.html

As this page shows, the NCAA has far more important issues, like sanctions against Boise St., to consider.

I can't find the link, but I beliieve the NCAA has already made it clear that they will not get involved in the Penn St. "situation."

We all know it, but the NCAA enforcement wing is an absolute joke.

UNT90 · July 2, 2012

Should it be the place of the NCAA to govern over something of this nature? It almost sounds like we're asking the NCAA to police something that really does not have very much to do with college athletics other than a college coach having access to a university's facilities. What if none of the abuses took place on university property and the only link between Sandusky and Penn State was a coach of of the football program during the time the sexual abuse took place -- should the NCAA be involved then?

Punish those responsible for the cover up; they didn't follow the law by not reporting the abuses to the authorities. I don't see how or why the NCAA should ever be involved in something like this unless it directly involves a university's student athletes.

Sandusky used the Penn St. football program to recruit, groom, and molest young boys. The university president, athletic director, and head football coach knew about his behavior and enabled that behavior. If this isn't the most egregious example of lack of institutional control, I dont know what would be.

If Sandusky had just committed these offenses in his private life without the knowledge, use, and, yes, help of the Penn St. athletic department and college president, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The NCAA should be all over Penn St., but they won't be.

Edited July 2, 2012 by UNT90

TheTastyGreek · July 2, 2012

Should it be the place of the NCAA to govern over something of this nature? It almost sounds like we're asking the NCAA to police something that really does not have very much to do with college athletics other than a college coach having access to a university's facilities. What if none of the abuses took place on university property and the only link between Sandusky and Penn State was a coach of of the football program during the time the sexual abuse took place -- should the NCAA be involved then?

Punish those responsible for the cover up; they didn't follow the law by not reporting the abuses to the authorities. I don't see how or why the NCAA should ever be involved in something like this unless it directly involves a university's student athletes.

I keep going back to the Baylor situation with the intra-squad murder. They did a half-death penalty for the basketball team, and that was for one instance in one department (and primarily, one coach- Bliss).

This thing at Penn State is coach, president... all the way through the institution. And it wasn't one instance or one point in time... They sat on this information for years and years.

If the NCAA can blast Dave Bliss (and rightfully so, to be sure), then they ought to be able to hit a target the size of the entire university at Penn State.