I like how “it’s the media” has become an easy way to identify completely nonsensical arguments with nothing to back them up.
I thought “shit” was “shot” with a typo.
Goddam right. Even if she honestly did not know at the time what was going on her statements supporting her monster of a husband and calling the victims - including her own son - liars makes her a grade A cunt. She should shut the fuck up retroactively.
This is going to make the family holiday dinners really awkward.
On the nearest golf course?
Simpson said he’d do what he can. But he’s locked up in Nevada and it’s going to be tough getting transferred to the Pennsylvania prison where her husband’s at.
Impossible.
Not when I waited for so long to see a thread outside that train-wreck so I could finally post this:
(SFW, fluffy [del]researchers for Starving fartist[/del] bunnies failing to demonstrate that the cardboard tube would block them)
ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.
The reality is that it’s possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.
So it’s possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.
Where she’s going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser’s entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers’ stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn’t do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, “yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time” people might actually buy it. But right now she’s landing square in the ‘blind eye’ camp and it’s not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.
Well, she’s half right - there was a conspiracy, but it was to keep her husband out of prison.
I wouldn’t put too much into the “own son” bit.
Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky’s biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (cite.)
There’s no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.
Jerry sure did.
If Dottie Sandusky didn’t consider Matt to be her son, she shouldn’t have adopted him.
Matt was 8 when Jerry Sandusky started hanging around him. Her relationship with Matt started when he was a child. Dottie watched him grow up. She chose to take on the title of “Mother” to him. She doesn’t get to blow him off, now, as just some random person.
But it would be convenient for her, now, wouldn’t it, to pretend like he’s just a random ungrateful troublemaker.
NYT article detailing Matt Sandusky’s relationship with Jerry Sandusky -
Well, Jerry is out of town.
Dammit, I typed that, and immediately thought, “I need to reword that” and then by the time I got to the end of the sentence I’d forgotten.
Looks like she’s made it as far as ‘anger.’ Give her another coupla years, and she might get to ‘bargaining.’
Dottie Sandusky is very old, at an age where it’s hard to accept change and new things, and has been handed a rather major trauma (potentially atop a number of other traumas) and quite frankly I don’t really think anything she says should be regarded as anything other than the words of a person with very considerable emotional troubles. I’m not making excuses for her statements, but I think maybe she should be ignored more than pilloried.
Yeah. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse for a reason. They’re a single unit in the eyes of the law, as well as emotionally (for many/most couples). And come on, they are both old as fuck. It’s way less upsetting to think that your husband was pilloried unfairly in court than it is to accept that you are married to a child molester–even if that does mean calling dozens of victims liars. It’s easy to talk tough online. But I’m not even married yet, and I can’t say I would likely do anything differently in her position.
Considering the circumstances of the adoption - or even not considering the circumstances of the adoption, frankly - I imagine her intentions in adopting the guy were to help give a troubled kid a parental hand and role model. I don’t think the adoption conveys an implicit promise to back the kid in any future accusations that he may make against your spouse.
I don’t know what relationship she may have had with him when he was one of many kids associated with TSM. I doubt if you do either. As noted, the foster parent relationship began when he was 17, and the adoption at 18.
Yeah - Cause I guess when you’re almost-old, you just decide to adopt random people you’ve never met before. How ridiculous to assume that she had any sort of relationship before signing the adoption papers. Everyone knows that the first step in mentoring strangers is to head to family court and file for adoption. It doesn’t mean that you have any obligations to them or anything.