It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jerry Sandusky: Pedophile. Found Guilty.

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I don't know if Sandusky is innocent, but our courts are SUPPOSED to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" and for me, and any logical thinking person - there still should be "reasonable doubt".


With that logic then EVER catholic pedophile priest is innocent too.

I get your point, but it is one thing for a few people to come forward and another thing for MANY from a long period of time, and not connected in anyway other than through Sandusky. The deliberations were very long and so I bet it was looked at very hard as to whether or not a conspiracy of an innocent man could be the case.

The sick part is Sandusky will go to his grave thinking he never did a thing wrong....




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Virtually all crimes do not occur in front of thousands of credible witnesses and with cameras present. In virtually all crimes there is no physical evidence that could have conceivably been tampered with.

Crimes usually happen in the shaddows where nobody is around. Often the only witnesses to crimes may have credibility issues. For example, the only witnesses to a gang killing may be other gangsters. The only witnesses to child rape are the rape victims themselves who are often carefully selected by pedophiles in part because they have issues like coming from a troubled background.

Using your standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" it would be virtually impossible to convict anybody. All witness testimony is suspect because the people who testify are not saints with photographic memories. All physical evidence is suspect because it was not kept in a hermetically sealed environment under constant surveillance from the time the crime occured until the time of trial.

The reasonable doubt standard means a juror's doubt must reasonable. I can doubt Sandusky's guilt because it is possible he has a long lost evil twin brother that commited all these horrible acts, but that doubt is not reasonable. I can doubt Sandusky's guilt because this whole incident is a conspiracy theory hatched by a defensive coordinator at some division II school to get Sandusky fired so the defensive coordinator could get Sandusky's job, but that doubt is not reasonable.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Let the lawsuits begin against Penn State. They deserve every one of them.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
How does this constitute a "thread?"

There is no link. There is no story here except the title.
The thread that included a few paragraphs, the link to the story and excerpts from the news is closed and I am sent here to read about the poor womans husband being too old for Sandusky.

As interesting as that is... I would kind of like to know a little bit more about the story.


I am not the OP, but I put a link in the second post of this thread.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


I believe the kids were allowed to use the Penn State facilities during the summer while the Penn State team was not using them. If that is the case, nobody would think twice about the kids using the Penn State locker room. Even if the kids were not allowed in the locker room, Sandusky was. He would also not take the kids there if he suspected there were people around.

If Sandusky were somehow being "set up" because he knew something, what did he know? Who had anything to gain? This whole scandal led to Penn State's beloved Joe Paterno getting fired and pretty much ended Penn State's status as an elite football program as we know it.

Or we can just accept the simplest explaination. Sandusky is a sick man who did horrible things to children. We as a society were willing to look the other way when things like this happen because we either do not really take child abuse seriously or we take something like football to seriously.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

Originally posted by newcovenant
How does this constitute a "thread?"

There is no link. There is no story here except the title.
The thread that included a few paragraphs, the link to the story and excerpts from the news is closed and I am sent here to read about the poor womans husband being too old for Sandusky.

As interesting as that is... I would kind of like to know a little bit more about the story.


I am not the OP, but I put a link in the second post of this thread.



Thanks for that.

Here is my question...does anyone think Sandusky is gay?
I know he is a pedophile but is he gay? I guess if he had a wife that would make him bisexual, BUT we don't even know if he had a sexual relationship with her so, he might have been gay and this was how he worked it out? With minors.
edit on 23-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Here is my question...does anyone think Sandusky is gay?
I know he is a pedophile but is he gay? I guess if he had a wife that would make him bisexual, BUT we don't even know if he had a sexual relationship with her so, he might have been gay and this was how he worked it out? With minors.
edit on 23-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)


No, I don't think he was gay. I think he was just all kinds of messed up, like all pedophiles are. If he was just gay, he would be attracted to more adult men, not little kids. There are plenty of opportunities for a gay man in hiding to find other gay men.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


No problem.


I am not sure if he was or not. He wouldn't be the first gay man that got married to keep up appearances. But I don't think that would have anything to do with him being a pedophile. One could say he picked kids to keep it more of a secret, but that doesn't explain the attraction.

Gay men or women without mental issues are not attracted to children. Just as straight men and women without mental issues aren't.

It takes a real sicko to look at any child in that way and yet tons of folks do it every day.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
From Penn State to the State Pen.

I hope when Mrs. Sandusky goes to visit him in prison she can hear him over the little phone when viewing him through the glass. Seems she might be hard of hearing.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


I believe the kids were allowed to use the Penn State facilities during the summer while the Penn State team was not using them. If that is the case, nobody would think twice about the kids using the Penn State locker room. Even if the kids were not allowed in the locker room, Sandusky was. He would also not take the kids there if he suspected there were people around.

If Sandusky were somehow being "set up" because he knew something, what did he know? Who had anything to gain? This whole scandal led to Penn State's beloved Joe Paterno getting fired and pretty much ended Penn State's status as an elite football program as we know it.

Or we can just accept the simplest explaination. Sandusky is a sick man who did horrible things to children. We as a society were willing to look the other way when things like this happen because we either do not really take child abuse seriously or we take something like football to seriously.


Ok...so, if kids were allowed to use the Penn State facilities, that would mean there was a 'group of kids'. So, how did he find time to fondle one of them. Some of the testimonies, i READ about....were waaaaaay out there. Let me give some examples:

That witness, now 18, told jurors his abuse began with fondling and forced oral sex and led to several instances of rape in Sandusky's State College home, where he spent more than 100 nights and where his muffled screams went unanswered by Sandusky's wife, Dottie, who was upstairs. He said he figured the basement must be soundproof.

I'm a recording engineer...do you know what it takes to 'soundproof' a room? Also, that statement doesn't sound a little cohersed?

"He got real aggressive, and just forced me into it," he said. "And I just went with it -- there was no fighting against it."

Really? "There was no fighting against IT?" What is IT? You would figure it to be something like: "There was no fighting against "him"; and not "it".

Described as Victim 9 in court records, he became known to investigators after Sandusky was first arrested in November and his mother summoned police to their home. He said he didn't want to talk to them at first. "Who would believe kids?" he said.

Who would believe kids? Haven't i heard that somewhere before? Perhaps, more COACHING?

A third accuser, known as Victim 3, was an Army National Guard sergeant who testified Thursday that despite being fondled by Sandusky, he had viewed him as a father figure and was crushed when he was sent to a group home and Sandusky never contacted him again. "I would pray he would call me and maybe find a way to get me out of there," he said, "but it never happened." He testified that he felt uncomfortable when Sandusky touched his genitals in bed, and that he would roll over to prevent anything else from happening, but that he didn't tell Sandusky not to get into bed with him. "He made me feel like I was a part of something, like a family," the man said. "He gave me things that I hadn't had before." He said that he loved Sandusky, and that Sandusky treated him like he was part of an extended family and feel "unconditionally loved."

Who lays in bed with an old ass MAN? Also, "He testified that he felt uncomfortable when Sandusky touched his genitals in bed, and that he would roll over to prevent anything else from happening, but that he didn't tell Sandusky not to get into bed with him. You felt "uncomfortable when Sandusky touched your genitals in BED, and you rolled over to prevent anything else from happening?" REALLY????????? Oh, and "you didn't tell Sandusky NOT TO GET INTO BED WITH YOU? HUH?

Earlier in the day, an accuser called Victim 6 testified that Sandusky described himself as a "tickle monster" and embraced the then-11-year-old boy in a Penn State shower in 1998, an encounter that prompted an investigation but ended without any charges filed

"TICKLE MONSTER"?
Ok, so NOW i'm starting to see the 'set up', a lot more clearer.

Now 25, he told jurors Sandusky embraced him in a locker room shower, lathered up his back and shoulders then lifted him chest-to-chest to a shower head to rinse out his hair. The man said the shared shower happened after a brief workout at a campus gym, even though he hadn't broken a sweat. His mother went to authorities when she saw her son come home with wet hair, although the inquiry spawned by her report didn't lead to any charges. The witness, who described himself as a big football fan, testified that Sandusky showed him Penn State football facilities and let him try on players' equipment.

???????????? Am i the only DELUSIONAL ONE HERE????
Sourc e
edit on 23-6-2012 by SpittinTruth because: source link



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


Yeah, I cannot believe these kids did not try harder to not get raped. They must have been teasing poor Sandusky and trying to lure him into bed. Hey, you know children and adults get raped all the time, right? Is it because they just decide to let it happen?

No one said that the basement was soundproofed and it really does not take that much. We soundproofed the studio so the neighbors would not complain and we did it with thrown out egg cartons from a restaurant.

Maybe you can explain all the people that get raped all the time with your amazing ability to read minds.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Let this be a sign to any would-be pedophile/child molester........we will NOT tolerate such things.....you are NOT human, and do NOT deserve to be treated as such......you are SCUM.....vermin.....parasites....may you rot in what some refer to as "hell"..........may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your armpits, and crotch!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


Yeah, I cannot believe these kids did not try harder to not get raped. They must have been teasing poor Sandusky and trying to lure him into bed. Hey, you know children and adults get raped all the time, right? Is it because they just decide to let it happen?

No one said that the basement was soundproofed and it really does not take that much. We soundproofed the studio so the neighbors would not complain and we did it with thrown out egg cartons from a restaurant.

Maybe you can explain all the people that get raped all the time with your amazing ability to read minds.


Perhaps you didn't even BOTHER to read this:

That witness, now 18, told jurors his abuse began with fondling and forced oral sex and led to several instances of rape in Sandusky's State College home, where he spent more than 100 nights and where his muffled screams went unanswered by Sandusky's wife, Dottie, who was upstairs. He said he figured the basement must be soundproof.


Uuuuuh, sorry...it takes a helluva lot more than just egg cartons to SOUND PROOF a room. As a matter of FACT, egg cartons are used to diffuse sound, so that the waves that bounce off the walls, don't PHASE out the sounds coming from the speakers. Learn something about HOW sound travels.

Either way, egg cartons don’t cut it. This traditional method of trying to trap sound is wrong for many reasons, even though the principle is correct -- at least for sound control, says Girardin.

“Small rooms, such as recording studios and home theaters, have a very common issue, because sound reflects quickly, creating sharp echoes, sound pressure and excess bass,” Girardin said. “Diffusion is used to break up flat surfaces and scatter sound waves to help make a room sound larger than it is and also to help maintain some of the sound energy, often preserving a live, natural sound.”

In addition to shape, sound control requires absorbent material. Acoustic foam will absorb certain frequencies and shape the sound that comes back to you. It will not keep the sound from escaping.

How to sound proof a room



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   




I read it.
Can you show me where anyone said the room was soundproofed?
Then you come over here and tell me what you hear outside our studio and then you can argue your nonsense all you want.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   




Why don't you READ the EXTERNAL TEXT section. One of the accusers/victims said the room was sound proofed. Argue what non-sense? That sound proofing a room is not as easy as putting up egg cartons? Please....do you know how SENSITIVE a top of the line mic is? It can pick up a mouse fart. Sound, is like WATER. It can escape the tiniest of cracks.....my friend. Talk to someone, without recording engineering EXPERIENCE.

ETA: How did the accuser/victim KNOW the room was 'sound proof'??? Did Sandusky have egg cartons up on the wall?
Sound proofing has to be done WITHIN the walls...not outside of them. Yes....SOUND TRAVELS THROUGH WALLS!

edit on 23-6-2012 by SpittinTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   




Double ETA: I guess Sandusky had his basement walls sound proofed, in advance, knowing that kids would scream, and people would hear.
Let's go check, shall we? If they're not SOUND PROOFED, as 1 witness testified to.....he should be ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Why don't you READ the EXTERNAL TEXT section. One of the accusers/victims said the room was sound proofed. Argue what non-sense? That sound proofing a room is not as easy as putting up egg cartons? Please....do you know how SENSITIVE a top of the line mic is? It can pick up a mouse fart. Sound, is like WATER. It can escape the tiniest of cracks.....my friend. Talk to someone, without recording engineering EXPERIENCE.

ETA: How did the accuser/victim KNOW the room was 'sound proof'??? Did Sandusky have egg cartons up on the wall?
Sound proofing has to be done WITHIN the walls...not outside of them. Yes....SOUND TRAVELS THROUGH WALLS!

edit on 23-6-2012 by SpittinTruth because: (no reason given)


Dude, I have read it several times now and nowhere does anyone claim the room was soundproofed. All that kid claims to KNOW for a fact is that Mrs. Sandusky did not answer his screams. He GUESSES maybe the room was soundproofed. As you point out, that guess is wrong but how would he know that? He does not claim to. He just claims to know she never came running and that is that. She may have heard the kid. He does not claim to know. So if it is impossible that the room was soundproofed then how does that cast his testimony in poor light?

Nice job steering around the other question btw. I am going to bed. You have fun defending a guy who already admitted as posted in this thread that he did have a sexual use for some of the children.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth


Double ETA: I guess Sandusky had his basement walls sound proofed, in advance, knowing that kids would scream, and people would hear.
Let's go check, shall we? If they're not SOUND PROOFED, as 1 witness testified to.....he should be ACQUITTED ON ALL CHARGES!!!!




Only Three Things Stop Noise

Space. The more space there is, the more noise reduction there is. As an exaggeration, if you are 10 miles away, you will not hear it, except under strange circumstances.

Mass. A six foot thick concrete wall works great!! If it is heavy, it will work well. Remember, if it does not weigh much it will not stop much.

Dampening. This requires a little explanation. Like a wine glass, when you make it ring... but you can keep it quiet by holding it. You have dampened the noise by retarding the vibrations. This can be achieved in several ways. Lead is heavy and soft; the softness makes it also dampen the noise and lead is an excellent noise stopper. Making noise transfer through different layers of material with different densities also helps dampen noise. Improperly done it can make things worse, like string holding chimes help them ring by isolating the vibration instead of dampening it.

Noise Reduction vs. Noise Absorption - Sound Proofing Principle
This is a very important principle to understand about soundproofing. There are two types of noise reduction and they are almost always confused with each other. All noise reduction and soundproofing are not alike. Noise absorption is not noise reduction. Noise Reduction Noise Reduction is achieved by stopping it, killing it, not letting the noise get through the wall or window. Stop the noise before it gets to you, or into the room you are in. For this you use mass and space. You can build heavy walls with large air spaces and you maximize dampening as best you can.

Noise Absorption Noise absorption is achieved by changing the characteristic of the noise. Stop it from echoing. Stop the reverberation. Stop the noise reflections. All this involves handling the noise that is within the room. It seldom involves noise from outside the room. You have likely heard of a room as being a “live” room or a “dead” room. For this type of noise reduction or soundproofing you will use carpets, upholstered furniture, acoustical ceiling tile, soundboard or interior walls. What works for noise absorption does not ever work for noise reduction. Yes, you heard me correctly: soundboard is useless at stopping noise. When put up with the sheet rock it is useless unless it is the outside layer and it is being used for noise absorption sound control.

Soundproofing - Noise Reduction



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Just ask yourself this question: IS IT POSSIBLE that he gave his admitted testimony, with a gun to his head. Is it POSSIBLE that MAYBE he knew too much. It isn't a little bit IRONIC that Joe Pa DIED, shortly after all this began. Sure, he was old...but he was still in shape, and still coaching, until this incident.

I'm not DEFENDING Sandusky, i'm just sayin'.......anything is POSSIBLE. He was GUILTY, before he went to trial...and his lawyers had to prove him INNOCENT, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the other way around....DUDE! That's certainly NOT the judicial system i was taught! I thought we were INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY!

edit on 23-6-2012 by SpittinTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Just ask yourself this question: IS IT POSSIBLE that he gave his admitted testimony, with a gun to his head. Is it POSSIBLE that MAYBE he knew too much. It isn't a little bit IRONIC that Joe Pa DIED, shortly after all this began. Sure, he was old...but he was still in shape, and still coaching, until this incident.

I'm not DEFENDING Sandusky, i'm just sayin'.......anything is POSSIBLE. He was GUILTY, before he went to trial...and his lawyers had to prove him INNOCENT, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the other way around....DUDE! That's certainly NOT the judicial system i was taught! I thought we were INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY!

edit on 23-6-2012 by SpittinTruth because: (no reason given)


No,
Sandusky had his day in court. He was given the best legal counsel possible. Sometimes people ARE guilty. He was convicted by a jury of his peers. Sandusky was given due process. Which is more than his victims got. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there is 100% certainty. The system worked in this case.




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join