Happy Valley, Happy Hoax?

[Geist]

I've driven pretty far for good head too.

[WestTexasCrude]

Do you know that the boy in the shower invited Sandusky to his wedding and his high school graduation? Do you also know that he lived with Sandusky after high school for three months? Or are you aware that the shower boy also drove to North Carolina for Sandusky's mother's funeral? No, Im sure you havent Wikied that yet

The only thing I'm shocked about is not that Sandusky is still sitting in prison, but that someone has not appealed it way up the chain where they can see clear evidence based not on emotions but solid factual proof that the whole trial reeked. That's how it's supposed to work. Somebody's not doing their job.

[JackRabbit_Slim]

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

[AnalHamster]

Do you know that the boy in the shower invited Sandusky to his wedding and his high school graduation? Do you also know that he lived with Sandusky after high school for three months? Or are you aware that the shower boy also drove to North Carolina for Sandusky's mother's funeral? No, Im sure you havent Wikied that yet

Wow, it's almost like abusers who groom children build relationships with them or something isn't it.

Could you explain why you think Jacko is guilty when the children he abused, and in some cases their families, had such close relationships with him that continued even after the abuse?

Fuck you, stick to Sandusky.

Do you also know that shower boy never testified in the trial? The one and only 'victim' that had independent witnesses

There's actually no way of knowing if one of the 8 victims who testified was the one McQueary saw with sandusky's dick up his ass, because McQueary saw them from behind and was testifying a decade later, though he reported it at the time. Could have been a victim who didn't come forward, or didn't testify, or one who did.

I've already explained why the jacko case is relevant, his defenders show the exact same mental deficiency you are displaying and you dodged the question.

Could you explain why you think Jacko is guilty when the children he abused, and in some cases their families, had such close relationships with him that continued even after the abuse?

Simple enough question you dodged there. You are making the exact same argument over the exact same issue. I have an answer that explains both, this is what happens when grown men groom vulnerable children, their aim is to form relationships beyond the abuse, that's literally what grooming means. You are pretending your groomer defense applies in one case and not the other despite reaching opposite conclusions for no reason you can articulate.

[AnalHamster]

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

[VinceBordenIII]

I assumed it was true. Have a penn state friend who’s adamant it’s not.

[JackRabbit_Slim]

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

[AnalHamster]

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

Huh? All the evidence that got him convicted and withstood appeal sounds like a sidestep? Did you even bother to find out what that evidence was?

DNA evidence isn't generally available when it got shot up the ass of a pre teen boy over a decade ago.

[WestTexasCrude]

Repressed memory therapy can be unreliable, but it wasn't the basis of the sandusky prosecution. Where it is used any competent defense lawyer can produce any psychiatrist to give the official APA line that it's unreliable without corroborating evidence as there's no way to distinguish recovered from false memory. The guy just liked fucking kids. Kind of an odd basis for a conspiracy theory, but contrarians do love to feel smart and special. The conspiracy nuts got into it in this case not because of Sandusky but because of the fallout from the wider coverup/inaction hitting Paterno.

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

And there you have the crux of why AH's arguments crumble to dust. We don't put people in prison for life based on emotions of someone remembering something that may have happened decades ago. Or at least we didn't until recently. There lies the slippery slope into chaos.

[AnalHamster]

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

And there you have the crux of why AH's arguments crumble to dust. We don't put people in prison for life based on emotions of someone remembering something that may have happened decades ago. Or at least we didn't until recently. There lies the slippery slope into chaos.

Well you actually do and always did, but less so these days and not in the Sandusky case. This is a man repeatedly accused over decades by victims, parents, and independent witnesses who worked with him. Do you also think Jacko and Cosby are poor innocent victims or is it just the white guy? I'm genuinely trying to see where the disconnect explaining your double standard is. Cases like this necessarily rely on witness evidence, are you saying no case can ever be prosecuted on witness evidence alone, or just that you need to check skin tone before you decide?

Also not quite seeing how my argument crumbles into dust when the guy is going to die in prison having been found guilty and having no ground for appeal. He is in fact a guilty man.

[FreakShowFanatic]

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

And there you have the crux of why AH's arguments crumble to dust. We don't put people in prison for life based on emotions of someone remembering something that may have happened decades ago. Or at least we didn't until recently. There lies the slippery slope into chaos.

Well you actually do and always did, but less so these days and not in the Sandusky case. This is a man repeatedly accused over decades by victims, parents, and independent witnesses who worked with him. Do you also think Jacko and Cosby are poor innocent victims or is it just the white guy? I'm genuinely trying to see where the disconnect explaining your double standard is. Cases like this necessarily rely on witness evidence, are you saying no case can ever be prosecuted on witness evidence alone, or just that you need to check skin tone before you decide?

Wait a second hammy! Now it's a racial thing? TBH that didn't even cross my mind.

[WestTexasCrude]

Umm, Im sure that what your mad Googling skills came up with, but there is no evidence in which their should be tons

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

Huh? All the evidence that got him convicted and withstood appeal sounds like a sidestep? Did you even bother to find out what that evidence was?

DNA evidence isn't generally available when it got shot up the ass of a pre teen boy over a decade ago.

Well, let's take your point of view in another totally different direction. I never really followed up. Can anyone give me the total figure on what this "victim" actually cashed into his bank account from Penn State, and everybody else he sued?

[AnalHamster]

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

And there you have the crux of why AH's arguments crumble to dust. We don't put people in prison for life based on emotions of someone remembering something that may have happened decades ago. Or at least we didn't until recently. There lies the slippery slope into chaos.

Well you actually do and always did, but less so these days and not in the Sandusky case. This is a man repeatedly accused over decades by victims, parents, and independent witnesses who worked with him. Do you also think Jacko and Cosby are poor innocent victims or is it just the white guy? I'm genuinely trying to see where the disconnect explaining your double standard is. Cases like this necessarily rely on witness evidence, are you saying no case can ever be prosecuted on witness evidence alone, or just that you need to check skin tone before you decide?

Wait a second hammy! Now it's a racial thing? TBH that didn't even cross my mind.

I don't think the contrarianism is a racial thing, I think the application of it is for these guys. They'd never be sucked in to a conspiracy theory exonerating a black dude, but it just so happens the closest comparators are in this case. They are literally making the same arguments jacko defenders do, yet are convinced of guilt in one case and innocence in the other. There is a difference between the basic failure in reasoning and the reason why the person displaying the failure takes an interest in one case but not another.

[AnalHamster]

There was plenty of evidence, which is why the man was convicted at trial.

Just out of interest, are you aware that by his own admission he showered naked with young boys and hugged them in the shower? That separate independent adult witnesses saw him abusing kids and reported it at the time, and received no money for doing so? Do you also think Jacko was innocent?

We get your point.. but last i checked he went to jail for life convicted of abusing children in a sexually violently fashion... Not for showering with them. If that's all you got, move along.

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

Huh? All the evidence that got him convicted and withstood appeal sounds like a sidestep? Did you even bother to find out what that evidence was?

DNA evidence isn't generally available when it got shot up the ass of a pre teen boy over a decade ago.

Well, let's take your point of view in another totally different direction. I never really followed up. Can anyone give me the total figure on what this "victim" actually cashed into his bank account from Penn State, and everybody else he sued?

Presumably different for each victim, zero at the time they made accusations and zero for the adults who gave evidence and were not victims. Are you saying that if a criminal case can lead to a civil claim, it can't be brought? That would mean no criminal who isn't broke could ever be prosecuted.

[FreakShowFanatic]

Well no, it's not all I've got, I've got all the publicly available evidence that sent him to prison for life and got his appeals refused. The shower thing though has forced biker to admit he sees no problem with showering naked with young boys then hugging them, because the alternative would be reconsidering his starting conclusion, and naked showering with young boys is preferable to biker.

So? Not much then. Sounds like a sidestep. I don't know. Not claiming to. But i thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. That right relies heavily on proof. Evidence. Credible witnesses. There is no forensic evidence. No dna. No credible witnesses who's stories didn't change 10 times or more..

And there you have the crux of why AH's arguments crumble to dust. We don't put people in prison for life based on emotions of someone remembering something that may have happened decades ago. Or at least we didn't until recently. There lies the slippery slope into chaos.

Well you actually do and always did, but less so these days and not in the Sandusky case. This is a man repeatedly accused over decades by victims, parents, and independent witnesses who worked with him. Do you also think Jacko and Cosby are poor innocent victims or is it just the white guy? I'm genuinely trying to see where the disconnect explaining your double standard is. Cases like this necessarily rely on witness evidence, are you saying no case can ever be prosecuted on witness evidence alone, or just that you need to check skin tone before you decide?

Wait a second hammy! Now it's a racial thing? TBH that didn't even cross my mind.

I don't think the contrarianism is a racial thing, I think the application of it is for these guys. They'd never be sucked in to a conspiracy theory exonerating a black dude, but it just so happens the closest comparators are in this case. They are literally making the same arguments jacko defenders do, yet are convinced of guilt in one case and innocence in the other. There is a difference between the basic failure in reasoning and the reason why the person displaying the failure takes an interest in one case but not another.

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

[FreakShowFanatic]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

What about a woman that commits adultery? You know, a married woman with kids that goes out and fucks other guys with no birth control and then gets pregnant with someone else's kid. The impact that has on innocent children... Maybe they should do a life sentence as well. Lord knows I never and would ever cheat on my wife or touch a kid inappropriately. So let's lock everyone that does this shit up for life. Yeah, that makes sense.

[AnalHamster]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

What about a woman that commits adultery? You know, a married woman with kids that goes out and fucks other guys with no birth control and then gets pregnant with someone else's kid. The impact that has on innocent children... Maybe they should do a life sentence as well. Lord knows I never and would ever cheat on my wife or touch a kid inappropriately. So let's lock everyone that does this shit up for life. Yeah, that makes sense.

Well maybe give trump another year, but adultery isn't currently a crime. Ya fucking moron. Raping an underage boy is. I'd call that a pretty damn clear line in the sand.

[AnalHamster]

Kavanaugh repeatedly lied to congress.

[WestTexasCrude]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

And there is your problem. "Seems" "Seems". That kinda of BS Is not allowed in what is supposed to be a supposedly dispassionate court system. It's why when someone is hauled to jail and brought to court accused of killing 5 fellow police officers, he may be shackled and officers standing nearby, but no "emotions". It's how it works.

[FreakShowFanatic]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

What about a woman that commits adultery? You know, a married woman with kids that goes out and fucks other guys with no birth control and then gets pregnant with someone else's kid. The impact that has on innocent children... Maybe they should do a life sentence as well. Lord knows I never and would ever cheat on my wife or touch a kid inappropriately. So let's lock everyone that does this shit up for life. Yeah, that makes sense.

Well maybe give trump another year, but adultery isn't currently a crime. Ya fucking moron. Raping an underage boy is. I'd call that a pretty damn clear line in the sand.

I know adultery isn't a crime moron. But Trump, the King of adultery will be the last one to make adultery a crime, dumbass. I also know that Sandusky probably never raped an underage boy, you even bigger moron. You are the moron that believes that. What I'm saying is adultery should be a crime based on your logic. Both crimes hugely damage children so why shouldn't they both be crimes and hold adults accountable? You see, just like WTC, I'm too smart for you to figure it out. We are beyond your capabilities.

[Wut]

My recollection is there was plenty of corroborated testimony. I think he's guilty and the appeals were appropriately denied.

[Wut]

Do you know that the boy in the shower invited Sandusky to his wedding and his high school graduation? Do you also know that he lived with Sandusky after high school for three months? Or are you aware that the shower boy also drove to North Carolina for Sandusky's mother's funeral? No, Im sure you havent Wikied that yet

The only thing I'm shocked about is not that Sandusky is still sitting in prison, but that someone has not appealed it way up the chain where they can see clear evidence based not on emotions but solid factual proof that the whole trial reeked. That's how it's supposed to work. Somebody's not doing their job.

It has been appealed. Not a single judge will have the balls to overturn the conviction.

That's just silly.

[WestTexasCrude]

Yeah, but as I said earlier, Jacko had tons of money and gave millions to the accusers to keep them quiet. That's why jacko got off and this dude didn't. Just my opinion. Meanwhile, I'm still not convinced that either one of them were actually banging kids in the ass and ejaculating in their anus. There has never been any strong evidence of that, I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. I still think there's a difference between a guy that likes to be around kids and hug them as opposed to actually having sex with them.

Well Sandusky seems to have preferred blowjobs and I guess it's kinda possible jacko just liked fondling prepubescent genitalia. Where you lose me is the point where you declare those things are not child molestation that deserves a life sentence in a tiny little concrete cell.

What about a woman that commits adultery? You know, a married woman with kids that goes out and fucks other guys with no birth control and then gets pregnant with someone else's kid. The impact that has on innocent children... Maybe they should do a life sentence as well. Lord knows I never and would ever cheat on my wife or touch a kid inappropriately. So let's lock everyone that does this shit up for life. Yeah, that makes sense.

Well maybe give trump another year, but adultery isn't currently a crime. Ya fucking moron. Raping an underage boy is. I'd call that a pretty damn clear line in the sand.

And there is the typical lib mentality. Deflect until it goes away

[WestTexasCrude]

I assumed it was true. Have a penn state friend who’s adamant it’s not.

It’s every bit the media lynching that Kavanaugh and Covington were

Did you notice after the Dems had it down pat for 20 years. the conservatives sent a blast wave of their own across the Lib's wake in the Va Blackface scandal, Lt Gov accused of sexual assault from 20 years ago, etc. MESSAGE- we can play that game, too. l