Jerry Sandusky is a paedophile poster-person. "If it walks like a..." must be -- goes the duck saying, and Jerry looks the Perv. Courts confirmed it. While the likes of Alex Jones and others insist on parading this sick and dark one out to remind.

The tip of an iceberg? Jones claims 'insiders' have it he was running a ring. For local and wider elites to do their predatory damage. In other words, Jerry got off light. He was a pimp and so again, lest we forget, let's flash up an image and go "...look at that face, those eyes..."

Punch the paedo.

What is it that insists and motivates to carry on with this probable farce? Ok -- a possible one and my thoughts. Or, is this all beyond argument? What -- construed and a waste of time explaining? Is there reasonable doubt and reasonable to do this?

Here are four takes:

Haven't seen the counter-claims; don't want to go there etc; seen and feel stupid should repent but... y'know how it is.

With a final one and the place few seem able to manage:

Come to conclusions or leaning toward and face the opposing view. With reason yet as far can, go-graceful/be open.

Else ignorance, avoidance and pride/fear. Not bring on the opposing view with wide-open contemplation. 'Bold as love', as Jimmy H sang.

A comparable analogy would parallel this question:

How come people still say '9/11' happened because of a man in a cave and bunch with box-cutters?

Five minutes unravels this fairy-story. Not the deep and archetypal aspect but tell kiddies something make-believe silly. "But it's not..." the line goes with 9/11 by the all and sundry. "Authorities and 'authoritative' media all insist, Osama did it. Let's raise up the chorus. Pass the hymn sheet".

Because those claiming all-as and mainstream broadcasts never looked further? Is this it? No, it's there are as many who insist on going along and otherwise doth wound. A precious sense of self-worth throbs in reaction. Their act-solid is actually fragile, wobbly, integrity.

Extrapolate out those with an employment-based cost to 'coming out'. That's another take on. To say-nothing -- unless forced -- would be respectable

To suggest so many people's testimony is false and what persuades. It's the nos. 1 argument against false/hoax flags.

As for Jerry? How deep and wide do we go. Which boys? Not the 600 interviewed who said he was decent. Sure over much a touchy type. Old-school eccentric but not an abuser.

What saw nothing? Nor his adopted boys. What only those boys/them shower times? One claimed some crazy number of incidents. Lucky no one barged in on.

To say, Sandusky is guilty or without any certainty otherwise, is fine. IF, the arguments presented for his ongoing defence get acknowledged and refuted. It's not about You-Have-To believe he's 'probably' innocent but the evidence is out there.

Not going to link. Read this and if bothered: Search.

Back to 9/11. No problem if say someone says for example; "this is why jet fuel melts steel". Fair enough. Take at least some of the salient claimed cover-up and explain.

All and any crying it's the scam of our generation is about Consideration. As is propose the reckoned moon landings for the previous lot.

This all about: Re-Consider. Not have-to conclude. Dare ye... is the call.

Final nag in this provoked to slam-out a post:

Why care? Buildings falling or demolished, space flights and or all a movie set?

We come to Jerry, and who gives a hoot. One more among the astonishing high estimate of miscarriages in US (or UK) jails? What's the stats on death row? No less than 10%. So what, Jerry was an idiot. Well-meaning -- if innocence is the case -- but open to this kind of exploitation. Arrogant in thinking he can behave in a way that and not become misconstrued. Go into court trusting US judiciary. Naked in showers and slapping nippers with towels. Nutter with head in cloud cuckoo.

No one cares.

Close family and some lawyers, a writer, an involved and by-standing 'shrink' or two -- that's it. On 'repressed memory' dodgy deeds.

Note, am presenting not a lot of case-for-Jerry. In essence and recall. Suggestion goes; mum of the first claimant put the son up to it. The court case was a shambles and the defence was rubbish. The reported testimonies full of anomalies. Jerry went on TV and was self-incriminating.

Remember -- to repeat, am not looking back/again -- one antidotal fact:

Jerry might be the first child-abuser with computer logs showing no porn.

Heard a prob./not and pretty damning reliable presentation. Know that. Not so grey and conjecture, more, not making sense. Not to say he'll beat this rap but it's about attitude here and of interest. Accept the rife and monstrous paedo-running landscape could do with utmost clarity. Ridiculous levels of transparency. Go this way. When need/repent. Conversely, sometimes when told, someone's 'cleared' -- press on.

The elite-sickos have one main tactic. Fake-up/blow that down/ rubbishes the rest. Obfuscate and "watch the hand".

There's a famous UK serial killer of recent times who is fighting for a re-trial. Not as strong as Jerry's but to mention (although remain unnamed). What will say is this claiming-innocence one, made similar Jerry blunders. The way he handled the proceedings was presuming on truth and lacked preparation. Which in itself doesn't determine the analysis but leaves the whole thing more open than not.

In fairness have read the latest anti-sceptics about Jerry and a quick watch of bits of a similar line on a YT vid. Best of "why he's guilty".

One quote is from here states:

Basically, in order to believe that Sandusky is innocent you have to believe that his showering with underage boys was just “innocent fun” and that over a dozen people are lying for various reasons, but mostly because they want money and don’t care about sending an innocent person to jail.

What's interesting to me is the venom in wanting Sandusky to be guilty. A tone I find troubling.

Jerry Sandusky 'could be' the molester the boys claim. Different opinions are appropriate. Including reasons why it might be a stitch up. A dilemma. The brightest call is we must live with this not foam about some outrage to question.

My issue is the cover-up of so much misery and terror upon children goes on and on and on... The reason multifaceted but one absolute need to oppose and the final line on the blog quoted above:

Comments are closed.