Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Sandusky is blaming the victims!

Breaking news on ABC.

by Anonymousreply 4410/10/2012

what victims?

by Anonymousreply 110/08/2012

"I was seduced by horny children!"

by Anonymousreply 210/08/2012

Looks like he's trying out Plan E-232(b)!

by Anonymousreply 310/08/2012

A predictable stage of accepting his own guilt

by Anonymousreply 410/08/2012

[quote]When Jerry Sandusky walks into court on Tuesday, he’ll look different than the last time you probably saw him, handcuffed after his guilty verdict and led away in his starched white shirt and brown sports coat. “You’re gonna see a guy who’s lost some weight," Amendola said. "They may have him dressed in prison garb ... the bright orange. And he’s lost weight. But he’s feisty!”

by Anonymousreply 510/08/2012

Malcolm Gladwell's creepy (but fascinating) piece about predators, with some observations on how Sandusky got away with it for long.

by Anonymousreply 610/08/2012

Saucy little minxes!

by Anonymousreply 710/08/2012

Of course Sandusky is going to blame the victims. He's been doing that from the beginning. I read some of the trial transcipts and I was surprised that the transcripts included the victims names, when we've heard that the community mistreated Victim 1 (later NY Times posted a column which allowed people one easy google click from discovering the kid's name).

The most pathetic was reading Dottie Sandusky's testimony and no joke, she badmouthed the three boys who were her husband's favorites (the one he took to the Alamo was 'stubborn and manipulative', victim who got raped at her basement and begged for help from her was 'a charmer who got his way', and victim 1 was 'clingy' and 'needy' and couldn't 'look anyone in the eye'.)

Sandusky would of course blame the victims and his cuntrag of a wife completely backs him in his assertions so I'm not surprised if he thinks it's a good thing to do it in open court.

by Anonymousreply 810/08/2012

Oh and here's his inane statement. Hearing him blaming poor Victim 1 who has gone through so much grief is pissing the fuck off a me even more than I expected.

by Anonymousreply 910/08/2012

Pedos really believe that what they do is perfectly natural and okay, and, yes, they see the children as the seducers and themselves as innocent victims. This is one of the reasons they can't be cured. They have no insight whatsoever into how destructive their behavior is.

by Anonymousreply 1010/08/2012

Which is why I'd like to see sexual predators classified as criminally insane and confined permanently, as opposed to being put through the criminal justice system, where they have a chance of getting a light sentence, or being let go by an idiot judge.

I'm actually a hard-core, civil rights liberal, but I realize that while prison might be the right place for people who commit property crimes or crimes of passion, or for profit, pedos are people who will always do what they do, and nothing will change that. So I believe that their danger to the community supersedes their rights as citizens.

by Anonymousreply 1110/08/2012

"Malcolm Gladwell's creepy (but fascinating) piece about predators, with some observations on how Sandusky got away with it for long."

Gladwell is one of those idiots who believe that Paterno and everyone at Penn State was in the dark.

"Pedos really believe that what they do is perfectly natural and okay, and, yes, they see the children as the seducers and themselves as innocent victims"

But he isn't portraying them as "seducers." He is pretending that he didn't have any sexual contact with them whatsoever. He isn't saying "Yeah, it happened, but they seduced ME!" - he is pretending that nothing happened at all.

"Hearing him blaming poor Victim 1 who has gone through so much grief is pissing the fuck off a me even more than I expected."

So grief-stricken that he managed to write a tell-all book? I feel the least amount of sympathy for the ones who are trying to make money off of this.

by Anonymousreply 1210/08/2012

Here's what he said in his statement:

"My wife has been my only sex partner that was after marriage. Our love continues"

Maybe he thinks oral and anal don't count as sex.

by Anonymousreply 1310/08/2012

[quote]Gladwell is one of those idiots who believe that Paterno and everyone at Penn State was in the dark.

I think Gladwell presented it more as they didn't WANT to take a closer look at Sandusky, so it was more denial than being in the dark.

by Anonymousreply 1410/08/2012

"I'm actually a hard-core, civil rights liberal, but I realize that while prison might be the right place for people who commit property crimes or crimes of passion, or for profit, pedos are people who will always do what they do, and nothing will change that. So I believe that their danger to the community supersedes their rights as citizens."

Actually, recent research suggests that sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than most other criminals, especially "people who commit property crimes." So maybe it's burglars and robbers who deserve to have their "rights as citizens" taken away. But tell that to Americans who are hysterical over sex offenders (you know, the ones who claim to be liberal but sound a whole lot like conservatives who never made it past 8th grade).

You should spend some time at the Sexual Intelligence blog. It breaks down a lot of the myths around sex offenders and sex crimes.

by Anonymousreply 1510/08/2012

Oh please R12, Victim 1 got involved in speaking out against sexual abuse. Even though we've never seen his face or heard him speak publicly, he participated in anti child sexual abuse campaign.

IF Victim 1 writes a book that would be fantastic since he would actually be putting it out there how stuff like this happens. How communities protect these predators.

Did you also get pissy with RA Dickey who discussed his own sexual abuse in a memoir and made a profit from that too? Are the children who were abused and the abuse covered up by the Catholic Church wrong in seeking compensation?

Victims have the right to sue the pants off of Penn State who stood by and let this shit happen. I sincerely hope ole Jer and his wife get sued and that Penn State lose millions for looking the other way. Hell, if Paterno was alive I'd hope that Victim 2 sue his ass for being more concerned over Jerry and Penn State than in reporting the crime.

Oh and to repeat it again R12, you're a stupid fucking idiot for not understanding why victims DESERVE compensation in cases like this.

by Anonymousreply 1610/08/2012

Sandusky's wife was the only sex partner after marriage. Just like Catholic priests are celibate. Apparently, raping a child doesn't count as "sex."

by Anonymousreply 1710/08/2012

Pedos are some of the smartest criminals out there. What other criminal can commit hundreds of offenses and finally get caught in one. By the time they leave jail they'd be able to commit a couple of dozen more sexual offenses before someone has the guts to report them.

Also, there are differences between a pedo like Jerry and someone who got caught having sex with a 15 year old or who due to mental illness committed a crime like this once. That's why the long term pedos who refuse to acknowledge their crime are the most dangerous ones (and more likely to be denied early parole) since they'll never believe they are guilty of anything beyond 'loving a child'.

by Anonymousreply 1810/08/2012

I can appreciate why one would sue Penn State however, it seems to me Penn State won't suffer financially as the incoming students will be the ones who absorb the financial burden. No?

Same with victims sueing schools and police departments - tax payers end up paying the victims.

The guilty at Penn State should lose their jobs, licenses, and pay out of their own pockets - not Penn States pocket.

Maybe I'm over simplifying here- I'm not a lawyer but I want to understand. it just seems like the guilty ones aren't the ones who end up paying or suffering any consequences. Sure it's messy, inconvenient, and stressful, but at the end of the day, the guilty still have jobs and their rising salaries.

by Anonymousreply 1910/08/2012

I think you're confusing what he is doing. He isn't justifying pedophilia. He is saying he didn't do the things he was convicted of - not that the things were not sexual acts on children. He is saying the kids lied - he is not saying that they seduced him.

That's not the same as what "blaming the vicitms" usually means.

by Anonymousreply 2010/08/2012

R12, Penn State is getting sued because they had a responsibility. Being sued, whether it's the church getting sued or a school getting sued reminds the organization that they have a responsibility. MONEY talks in this country.

The school is the one who's going to pay ultimately, not the tax payers. In addition, whoever goes to Penn State is deciding that they prefer financial aide and student loans to go to a university which supported a rapist. Simple as that. IF you're a catholic and you want to give money to your church then you know that your money is supporting an institution that looked the other way when a kid was being raped.

People are responsible for their actions and if they choose to go to these places and pay that means they know what they are doing with their own money.

I bet you that next time another school won't be as stupid as Penn State and not report kiddie rape happening in their campus if they know they will get sued and get sanctioned (meaning lose state/federal, sports moneies).

You also don't seem to understand that victims are not only getting compensation but when they speak out, whether it be in court or in a book, they are speaking for hundreds of others and maybe stopping this from happening.

Once again, are you angry at JayCee Lee Dugard for getting millions from California for them not protecting her and letting that kidnapping rapist keep her in his home when parole went to visit him AND for writing a moving book detailing her survival? Seriously, think before you write stupid shit. BTW, read about all the crap that Victim 1 suffered from (counselor and principal telling him to keep quiet, being bullied out of school, having his coach tell the other kids so he got harrassed, having to leave a school and his track career in that school during his senior year, being raped by an old guy repeatedly and that's only a couple of things that kid went through). So YEAH, I hope he outs all those motherfuckers who made his life miserable for years when he had the balls to report Jerry Sandusky.

by Anonymousreply 2110/08/2012

BTW to reiterate my point, Penn State has already said that taxpayers ain't paying for their stupidity.

Patriot News

The $60 million fine the NCAA has imposed on Penn State is just a fraction of the cash that the university will have to pay as a result of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. ttt The university has promised not to use tuition money, donations or tax dollars to pay for scandal-related costs.

A spokesman said the university will tap into an athletics reserve fund, capital maintenance budget and possibly an internal bond issue to pay the NCAA fine.

Here’s a working breakdown of what the school owes, and what additional fines or costs it might eventually have to pay:

•Crisis management and legal fees: As of February, $7.6 million had been spent. If payments continue at that rate for five years, it would add up to more than $100 million.

•NCAA: $60 million, plus a $13 million loss in shared bowl revenue, and potential loss of sales from football tickets, parking fees and donations to the Nittany Lion Club.

•Lawsuits: About $20 million, based on the number of victims — from the trial and those alleging abuse in lawsuits — and the average payout in civil suits in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal of $2 million.

•Clery Act: If found to be noncompliant with the act, Penn State could face a $27,000 for each individual violation. The university could potentially lose federal financial aid for students. The Clery Act requires colleges to compile and report crime statistics related to offenses on or near campus, including sexual offenses.

by Anonymousreply 2210/08/2012

R15, you lose your credibility when you begin your point with the condescending "Actually...." Give evidence and stop sounding like a teenager.

by Anonymousreply 2410/09/2012

R15 lost his credibility when he posted in R12 his negative comment regarding a victim.

Recidivism rates for child sex offenders depend on study variables. Including, are the researchers counting the offenders arrested which would be a lower number than the one's who've had reports against them? Are they counting the one's who've had treatment versus those who didn't? Are we talking older, long term sexual offenders versus teenage sex offenders?

Sadly, CSA is one of the least reported crimes. Most people will call the cops on their house getting broken into but fewer will want to talk to cops about their father, cousin or coach sexually abusing them. The reason why even a recidivism rate of 5 or 10 percent upsets people is b/c a number of the victims are going to carry the harm done to them for many years. That's more upsetting to civilians than the thought of a coke addict getting re-arrested.

In this case and in others, sexual offenders are evaluated to see if they are the kind that would re-offend if allowed on parole. Some will never get better no matter how long they spend getting treatment. That's just reality.

I think it's obvious that Sandusky is going to get life in prison (30 years minimum, meaning he'll die there).

by Anonymousreply 2510/09/2012

"The most pathetic was reading Dottie Sandusky's testimony and no joke, she badmouthed the three boys who were her husband's favorites (the one he took to the Alamo was 'stubborn and manipulative', victim who got raped at her basement and begged for help from her was 'a charmer who got his way', and victim 1 was 'clingy' and 'needy' and couldn't 'look anyone in the eye'.)"

But Dataloungers LOVE attacking children. Just read the thread about Teresa Giudice having "ugly" children. Some people here are so hypocritical. They attack kids, then criticize others for doing the same thing. They attack Dottie Sandusky for defending her husband but praise all the celebrities who defended Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski. Are you guys going to call Natalie Portman a "cuntrag" for signing the Roman Polanski petition? Are you going to call Liz Taylor a "cuntrag" because she knew all about Michael Jackson's sleepovers and still defended Michael? And funny how people attack the Michael Jackson victims but not the Sandusky victims. Every time there is a Michael Jackson thread the fangurls come out of the woodwork to say his victims were lying and that he was a saintly, falsely persecuted soul. People here also accused George Zimmerman's victim of lying. Why the hypocrisy?

"Some will never get better no matter how long they spend getting treatment. That's just reality."

That applies to all criminals, really. Some people are just bad. But sex crimes make Americans hysterical because Americans are prudes who are hysterical about sex. The mere mention of the word sex makes American froth at the mouth. Notice people here are saying child molesters should be locked away for life but not people who physically abuse children or neglect children (studies show those things hurt kids more than sexual abuse). What some people are too blind to realize is that rates of child molestation have been going down for years.

by Anonymousreply 2610/09/2012

[quote]But Dataloungers LOVE attacking children. Just read the thread about Teresa Giudice having "ugly" children. Some people here are so hypocritical. They attack kids, then criticize others for doing the same thing.

Yes, dear. Having no desire whatsoever to be around someone's children is exactly equal to defending child molestation.

[quote]Notice people here are saying child molesters should be locked away for life but not people who physically abuse children or neglect children (studies show those things hurt kids more than sexual abuse).

Child molestation IS physical abuse. I'm fine with prosecuting, to the extreme, those who hurt children. Rather than a creep like Sandusky, It's usually their parents.

[quote]What some people are too blind to realize is that rates of child molestation have been going down for years.

Whaaat? Which ass did you pull that out of? I'd love to see that stat: "In 1977, 34% of adults were child molesters; in 2008, it was down to 23%."

by Anonymousreply 2710/09/2012

Is Mitt Romney posting on r26? Haven't heard such blatant lies and false equivalency since the debates.

by Anonymousreply 2810/09/2012

Sandusky is going for broke. At this point, he will do or say anything to save himself from going to jail for the rest of his life. This isn't about what happened or not; it is siimply to get a more lenient sentence. He has nothing to lose. He's trying to save himself be it a little or a lot.

I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that he's making a statement now while maybe someone is listening, notably the sentencing judge. Sandusky's efforts will likely fall on deaf ears and fail.

by Anonymousreply 2910/09/2012

"Actually, recent research suggests that sex offenders have lower recidivism rates than most other criminals, especially "people who commit property crimes.""

Link, please. I'm not buying that.

by Anonymousreply 3010/09/2012

There are various issues to take into account when considering recidivism rates. Criminologists often cite stats that indicate sexual offenders do have low levels of recidivism. It varies, however, depending on the type of offender. In this case, Sandusky is an offender who targets non-related males and they are a subset with a higher level of recidivism than other, more opportunistic offenders who may target children in their own familial context. Sex offenders are not cut from the same cloth and so blanket statements are pointless. Not all child-sex offenders are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are child-sex offenders. Western society has such a hasty, knee-jerk reaction to the sexual abuse of children that reasonable, rational discussion can often be very difficult.

by Anonymousreply 3110/09/2012

R15 = filthy pedo apologist.

by Anonymousreply 3210/09/2012

As expected, Sandusky got 30-60 years. A life in prison.

His release of his statement was the dumbest thing he could have done. That's not going for broke, that's cutting his nose. No judge wants to hear someone that unrepentant and accusatory toward his victims. He could have gone contrite. When offenders blame victims and everyone else like Sandusky did on his tape, he makes himself look even worse in front of the court. If anything he should have kept his big mouth shut and then made a statement AFTER the judge gave the sentence. Then he could go public and spew whatever.

by Anonymousreply 3310/09/2012

A convicted defendant continuing to claim innocence is not blaming the victims. Blaming the victims is the opposite, admitting the behavior but saying he was seduced. In the context of statutory rape where the element, rather than being force, is the legal inability of the complainants to accept, to say it was their instigation is blaming the victims. Sandusky is doing the opposite. He is not blaming the victims. He is saying that there were no victims.

He is certainly full of shit, but he is not blaming the victims. It is absolute bullshit to accuse him of that.

He is a sunk man facing appeal and presenting him as innocent.

That is all.

The fact that it is being presented as the exact opposite of what it is is emblematic of the insane journalistic standards of the 2012 U.S.A..

Prove me wrong.

by Anonymousreply 3410/09/2012

For r34:

"A young man who was dramatic, a veteran accuser, and always sought attention, started everything. He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers. They won."

by Anonymousreply 3510/09/2012

I know Sandusky was trying to attack the credibility of his accusers in his statement (duh!) but once again his words unintentionally reveal his self-justifying thought processes (like his infamous NBC interview).

From the transcript of Sandusky's pre-sentence statement:

"The accusers were products of many more people and experiences than me."

Yes, Jerry, we know you targeted kids from broken homes. This seems to imply that you still think your sexual abuse was trivial.

"I never labeled or put down them or their families. I tried and I cared, then asked for the same."

Yes - why weren't those kids chuffed to be groomed by such a powerful, important man who showered them with attention (pun intended)?

by Anonymousreply 3610/09/2012

OP = MARY!!!

by Anonymousreply 3710/09/2012

R34, you're describing blaming the victim in one particular manner (i.e. acknowledging the act but stating that the victim instigated it). For others, Sandusky's statement that the case began because the first accuser was 'dramatic, attention seeking, lying' is another form of blaming the victim.

It's not 'insane journalistic standards' when two people can look at the same statement and for many, it's 'blaming the victim'. It's just blaming the victim in a different way than admitting guilt and claiming the victim was the one who started it.

Sandusky utilizes three common techniques by a pedophile:

Blaming the victim-"This was started by an attention seeking, lying, overly dramatic veteran accuser".

Rationalization-"I only showered with them. These were boys from dysfunctional homes who needed me to show them the way."

Blaming third parties-"There was conspiracy involving the legal system, the media, Penn State and others to bring me down."

by Anonymousreply 3810/09/2012

Of course it's their fault. They were born as penised persons!

Boy-whores on the land!

by Anonymousreply 3910/09/2012

Oh for god's sake. This is not an example of blaming the victim. You completely fail to understand the meaning of that idea. I suppose if you twist anything around enough you can make it seem like it is but it's not.

He is denying it happened. Pure and simple. Different concept. Different defense.

by Anonymousreply 4010/10/2012

[quote]But Dataloungers LOVE attacking children

Yes, because we all share a brain and act in tandem. I remember the meeting when we took a vote and it was unanimously decided that we "Dataloungers" would practice a policy of "attacking children".

Please keep posting. Your stupidity is quite entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 4110/10/2012

Does anyone care about this guy anymore?

Let him fade into prison obscurity now as he so richly deserves.

by Anonymousreply 4210/10/2012

Sandusky denied it happened. He states that the victim was the one who started the rumor and got the ball rolling.

No one gives a shit. This guy is out to blame everyone for the cicumstances of his downfall except himself. Can't wait until Sandusky blames Dottie for not standing up enough for him during the trial.

Dude is such a sociopath. Pretending to be a victim of a conspiracy is so a desperate move on his part but he got want he wanted, attention. He also got to spew shit for 15 minutes about how he'll always remember playing with the kids from Second Mile (reminding us all that he'll be wanking in his jail cell to the memories of raping 10 year olds).

Now in THIS situation, it's too bad tax payer dollars will pay for him getting a home, three square meals and medical care tax for the rest of his pathetic existence.

BTW, reporters say that Dottie was chewing her gum and acting disinterested during the whole thing. Well duh, the old dog is probably happy that hubby is in jail instead of making her feel 'unwanted' by raping little boys in their basement. Such true love between those two.

by Anonymousreply 4410/10/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.