UJRefugees.net

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:33 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:30 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:17 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:06 pm Allegations.. accusations.. we live in the 21st century. Every 5 year old kid has a cell phone with a camera.. if he's a serial rapist how is there not a single photo, video or text message regarding his crimes?

Courts should require evidence. Credible evidence from credible sources. If the FBI stated repeatedly that there was no evidence, I'm going to figure they're better qualified to determine that than you.

Exactly. And there is no pornography either, which is highly unusual in a case like this. None. Zip. Nada

A fact pulled from your ass. Maybe they never found his porn stash, or maybe he just got his jollies through regular buttsex with little boys.

Nope, there was none presented at trial, nor was there any that was reported found

The pulled from your ass bit was your declaration than not finding a porn stash indicates innocence of being an active paedophile. Though again not finding it doesn't actually mean he didn't look at any.

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:41 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:38 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:33 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:30 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:17 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:06 pm Allegations.. accusations.. we live in the 21st century. Every 5 year old kid has a cell phone with a camera.. if he's a serial rapist how is there not a single photo, video or text message regarding his crimes?

Courts should require evidence. Credible evidence from credible sources. If the FBI stated repeatedly that there was no evidence, I'm going to figure they're better qualified to determine that than you.

Exactly. And there is no pornography either, which is highly unusual in a case like this. None. Zip. Nada

A fact pulled from your ass. Maybe they never found his porn stash, or maybe he just got his jollies through regular buttsex with little boys.

Nope, there was none presented at trial, nor was there any that was reported found

The pulled from your ass bit was your declaration than not finding a porn stash indicates innocence of being an active paedophile. Though again not finding it doesn't actually mean he didn't look at any.

Yeah, because Sandusky was this genius criminal? The guy is a dope

And dopes can't hide stuff? You are still just making a random claim that all paedos are caught with child porn stashes in any case. What are you basing that on?

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:49 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:44 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:41 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:38 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:33 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:30 pm A fact pulled from your ass. Maybe they never found his porn stash, or maybe he just got his jollies through regular buttsex with little boys.

Nope, there was none presented at trial, nor was there any that was reported found

The pulled from your ass bit was your declaration than not finding a porn stash indicates innocence of being an active paedophile. Though again not finding it doesn't actually mean he didn't look at any.

Yeah, because Sandusky was this genius criminal? The guy is a dope

And dopes can't hide stuff? You are still just making a random claim that all paedos are caught with child porn stashes in any case. What are you basing that on?

No, Im the one that has presented the fact that no porn was presented at trial, something that is very unusual when prosecuting a child molester. You are the one pulling nonsense out your ass

Yeah, you don't seem to be comprehending what I'm saying here. Try to really focus on the next sentence and try to think about what the words mean:

What is your basis for declaring as fact that not finding a porn stash indicates innocence in a case of active paedophilia? Do you have any kind of evidence for that declaration or did you simply pull it from your ass?

I've asked a few times now. Can you see the question? Do you think defense lawyers raise this argument at trial if the porn stash isn't found?

Sandusky admitted in an interview that he showers naked with boys and hugs them in the shower, touches them on their legs among other places and sleeps in the same beds as them at his house.

But....no evidence of porn.

Definitely a Witch Hunt.

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

Are you trolling? Or just a huge JoePa fan? I can't tell.

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:12 pm

Burn1dwn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:08 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

Are you trolling? Or just a huge JoePa fan? I can't tell.

I hate PSU. I followed the case closely and believe that Sandusky is innocent

Innocent of what? Of all 45 counts? Do you know that he wasn't convicted of raping the victim in the shower that the employee saw him "bear hugging" from behind?

It was in the rest of my post. Do you think he's innocent of all 45 counts?

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

for me the most compelling evidence is that he was convicted by a jury on over 40 charges along with a judge dismissing 3 charges for lack of enough evidence and no appeals court will hear an appeal based on their review of the case and the evidence. I wasn't in the courtroom. So I just have to go off of that. Thanks.

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Lol.. I love how you've convinced yourself that anyone is concerned about whether or not you'll respond to or address their posts.

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:48 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Lol.. I love how you've convinced yourself that anyone is concerned about whether or not you'll respond to or address their posts.

What does it matter what anyone else cares? It's a simple statement, when you have to run away from a question it means you can't defend your position. You prove yourself in the wrong, and prove you are too childish to admit it. It's pretty pathetic.

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:59 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:48 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Lol.. I love how you've convinced yourself that anyone is concerned about whether or not you'll respond to or address their posts.

What does it matter what anyone else cares? It's a simple statement, when you have to run away from a question it means you can't defend your position. You prove yourself in the wrong, and prove you are too childish to admit it. It's pretty pathetic.

No one's running away from a question. Truth is, you're here fighting blindly your idea of whatever the fuck happened.. Truth is, I didn't come here to convince you or anyone of anything. I came here to ask the question and get others input about how this all went down. Then you show up on your soap box acting like the world's foremost authority on every detail of the case purporting everything you say as fact then asking stupid leading questions that have no real logical basis.. We could sit here answering your questions until it's time to change your diapers again but what would be the point?

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:06 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:59 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:48 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Lol.. I love how you've convinced yourself that anyone is concerned about whether or not you'll respond to or address their posts.

What does it matter what anyone else cares? It's a simple statement, when you have to run away from a question it means you can't defend your position. You prove yourself in the wrong, and prove you are too childish to admit it. It's pretty pathetic.

No one's running away from a question. Truth is, you're here fighting blindly your idea of whatever the fuck happened.. Truth is, I didn't come here to convince you or anyone of anything. I came here to ask the question and get others input about how this all went down. Then you show up on your soap box acting like the world's foremost authority on every detail of the case purporting everything you say as fact then asking stupid leading questions that have no real logical basis.. We could sit here answering your questions until it's time to change your diapers again but what would be the point?

You are running away from questions. Would you like to again hear the questions you are running away from?

Go ahead

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:46 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:02 pm I get it, youre trying to Google and Wiki your way through this case. I for one remember it and its details.

Based on your Googling, what piece of evidence is the most compelling for you?

I asked you a question, a simple question that I have asked you repeatedly now. Grow the fuck up and answer it if you want me to keep addressing your latest evasions.

If you have to run from a question then you clearly cannot defend your argument and are not capable of discussing things like a grown up. Pretty simple.

Ive answered many of your questions already. I asked you one and you refuse to answer.

Go fuck yourself

I asked you the same question three times and only then refused to answer any more of yours on the basis that you are a cowardly childish pussy who is only seeking to deflect from the simple irrefutable fact that you cannot defend your position. You can deflect all day, I'm not playing along. If you want to continue a discussion pull on you big boy pants and resume from where you ran away.

Okay AH... while I wait for your rusty gears to get moving again I did a little digging and see that Penn State's payouts to Sandusky accusers have now topped $100 million dollars.. $109 million to be exact.. you'll have to forgive me but I'm just not willing to believe the testimony of a bunch of flip floppers who walked away with millions as a result of their "alleged abuses." Again.. I'm talking about kids.. 20 year olds who got checks for 5, 7, 10 and even 20 million dollars. I would hazard a guess that anyone on earth would remember abuse if that put a 10 million dollar check in their bank account.

You talk about events leading up to his recent trail in vague fashion, stating that he had been accused in the past of abuse. In fact he had been and was not found guilty. You talk about the shower incident which was reported by a then assistant coach who has changed his story and lied so many times that no one could genuinely take him at his word. We get back to the first several accusers who only began speaking of abuse after that alleged abuse was coaxed out of them through faulty "repressed memory therapy." The accusers that followed didn't need any memory therapy once they saw the giant pay checks start coming in.

Ya know that thing they say about innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt. Well there's a lot of doubt here that these accusers can be trusted many of whom have rap sheets themselves. Could he have pulled off this David Blane style child abuse for years without ever leaving a shred of tangible evidence? Maybe.. I don't know. But again I'm not here claiming to know. I'm here claiming that the evidence doesn't support an ironclad case.

But none of this matters.. you don't even really care in the end about this or anything else discussed on this board for that matter... you just like arguing and are delusional enough to think that you're actually right.. Fortunately for me, I don't give a shit what you think.

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:28 pm Go ahead

And again what you appear to be suggesting is that no paedophile can ever be convicted unless the offense is reported soon enough to scoop the cum out and get the DNA. Care to address that?

Then, in the process of running away, you made two false claims from whatever conspiracy site your getting this shot from, the impotence running and the FBI thing. I have asked you repeatedly to source your claims.

If you want me to address your new derp answer the questions you ran away from.

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:55 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:28 pm Go ahead

And again what you appear to be suggesting is that no paedophile can ever be convicted unless the offense is reported soon enough to scoop the cum out and get the DNA. Care to address that?

Then, in the process of running away, you made two false claims from whatever conspiracy site your getting this shot from, the impotence running and the FBI thing. I have asked you repeatedly to source your claims.

That's a rather irrelevant question. There are countless examples of possible convictions sans "scooping butt cum." Of course one of the best forms of evidence in this kind of case is going to be DNA, but other forms of tangible evidence could corroborate eye witness or victim's accounts as well. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution and I would think a court would require more than a pointed finger from a victim years after the alleged assault.

Let me ask you a theoretical question. What if some 30 year old guy who you worked with or went to church with or whatever 10 years ago all of sudden accuses your of abuse? He has no proof. No other witnesses no evidence of any kind but he says you plugged his butt. You of course deny it but hey, he says you did it so I guess you must have. Should you go to jail for life?

Before you get all excited and say, "but wait, Sandusky showered with them, he acted weird and inappropriate etc.." So fucking what. He didn't go to jail for showering with them or hugging them. He can't be convicted of one crime, for having committed another. Does that make sense to you? Just because there's a criminal living on your street doesn't necessarily mean he's the one who's been stealing your mail. You can't just connect dots because they're convenient.

and now you've demanded my posts have footnotes and a bibliography? I haven't seen a works cited attached to any of this shit you've purported as fact.

Truth. Telling the half of a story that's true, doesn't make the whole story true.

There's plenty on top of this story but this is perhaps one of the more chilling facts I've come across. It's an excerpt from a recent Philly.com article.. I don't think Philly.com is considered a Conspiracy website, but you might.

"Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. is challenging Penn State's assertion that it should cover the payments. An expert hired by the company raised doubts about the vetting process and the "extremely high" amounts the school chose to pay accusers.

"It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals," Eric N. Anderson, a lawyer who has handled cases of sexual-abuse allegations, said in a report of expert witness testimony released with the documents Tuesday.

https://www.philly.com/philly/news/2016 ... ctims.html

imagine that. an insurance company disputes a claim.

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:10 pm

analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:55 pm

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:28 pm Go ahead

And again what you appear to be suggesting is that no paedophile can ever be convicted unless the offense is reported soon enough to scoop the cum out and get the DNA. Care to address that?

Then, in the process of running away, you made two false claims from whatever conspiracy site your getting this shot from, the impotence running and the FBI thing. I have asked you repeatedly to source your claims.

That's a rather irrelevant question. There are countless examples of possible convictions sans "scooping butt cum." Of course one of the best forms of evidence in this kind of case is going to be DNA, but other forms of tangible evidence could corroborate eye witness or victim's accounts as well. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution and I would think a court would require more than a pointed finger from a victim years after the alleged assault.

Let me ask you a theoretical question. What if some 30 year old guy who you worked with or went to church with or whatever 10 years ago all of sudden accuses your of abuse? He has no proof. No other witnesses no evidence of any kind but he says you plugged his butt. You of course deny it but hey, he says you did it so I guess you must have. Should you go to jail for life?

Before you get all excited and say, "but wait, Sandusky showered with them, he acted weird and inappropriate etc.." So fucking what. He didn't go to jail for showering with them or hugging them. He can't be convicted of one crime, for having committed another. Does that make sense to you? Just because there's a criminal living on your street doesn't necessarily mean he's the one who's been stealing your mail. You can't just connect dots because they're convenient.

No, it's an entirely relevant question since your initial position meant the majority of paedos could not be prosecuted. Most cases of grooming don't have DNA evidence and the children tend not to film themselves being buttfucked. The cases are necessarily made on eyewitness and victim testimony, backed by corroborating evidence just like in this case.

If someone suddenly accuses you of abuse with zero evidence it goes nowhere. Their word against yours does not make a case any prosecutor anywhere would try. A dozen accusers spread over 15 years though with multiple independent witnesses, that's a case.

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:20 pm and now you've demanded my posts have footnotes and a bibliography? I haven't seen a works cited attached to any of this shit you've purported as fact.

Truth. Telling the half of a story that's true, doesn't make the whole story true.

I'm asking you, for about the fifth time now, to back two separate claims you've made that clearly come from whatever conspiracy truther site has got your little mind all confused on this case. Both your claims are made up - if you stop running away from the question and admit you got duped, it might open a tiny little crack of reason and let you think your way out of your conspiracy nut web.


If you'd like to ask me to back any claims I've made on anything, feel free.

Okay Mr. Butt Hamster.. You're right. I don't know why I ever doubted you? You're a genius. We are all so very lucky to be graced with your presence here at UJ. Thank you for illuminating us on yet another topic. Your Godlike wisdom and omniscience in all things is truly wondrous and I count myself lucky to have conversed so amiably with you this afternoon.

Now kindly fuck off.