Hope no one's head splodes on such a nice Friday afternoon.
Scroll down a little for an embedded player
Scroll down a little for an embedded player
Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
What we talked about:
- John Ziegler explains why he has spent so much of his time researching and covering a story where he has no personal ties and no opportunity for monetary gain. John did not attend Penn State, although he grew up in Pennsylvania he was never a Penn State football fan.
- Ziegler also shares how he was able to record an interview with Jerry Sandusky while in prison. It was Sandusky’s first interview since his trial.
- Ziegler discusses evidence he has uncovered surrounding victim 2 in the case and he talks about how ESPN censured a key part of Mike McQueary profile. Mike McQueary was the coach you testified that he saw Sandusky in the shower raping a boy. The audio of this bombshell can be found here.
- Ziegler also discusses interviews he has conducted with neighbors and friends of victim number 1 in the Sandusky case. He discussed specifically interviews with a neighbor and with a friend of the victim, both of which do not believe that victim 1 is telling the truth.
- John Ziegler explains why he has spent so much of his time researching and covering a story where he has no personal ties and no opportunity for monetary gain. John did not attend Penn State, although he grew up in Pennsylvania he was never a Penn State football fan.
- Ziegler also shares how he was able to record an interview with Jerry Sandusky while in prison. It was Sandusky’s first interview since his trial.
- Ziegler discusses evidence he has uncovered surrounding victim 2 in the case and he talks about how ESPN censured a key part of Mike McQueary profile. Mike McQueary was the coach you testified that he saw Sandusky in the shower raping a boy. The audio of this bombshell can be found here.
- Ziegler also discusses interviews he has conducted with neighbors and friends of victim number 1 in the Sandusky case. He discussed specifically interviews with a neighbor and with a friend of the victim, both of which do not believe that victim 1 is telling the truth.
got through about half so far. good summary of events leading up to Joe's firing and Sandusky's expedited trial.
It appears that it was John Surma leaking to the New York Times during those crazy days in November 2011. I remember reading a post on FOS indicating at the time it was Spanier and everybody thought Spanier was a villain. It's seems like Surma was leaking to the nyt and also spreading lies to keep people off his trail and further dump on Spanier. Surma is vile.
Last edited:
Here is a link to the Lions of Liberty write up of the podcast. John Odermatt, a PSU grad, does the felony friday podcast and it seems like he does a reasonable job. He originally thought Sandusky was guilty, but now he is not sure. In the write up, there are a number of links to points that were discussed in podcast.
http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/02/26/ff8/
http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/02/26/ff8/
it is kind of ironic that this country is experiencing "Steven Avery" fever after binge watching the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer . . . I'm watching it again for the second time, picking up more and more little tidbits and weird coincidences.
So much creditability is given to the documentary, and rightfully so. It makes JZ's work seem less "out there". Not sure if I buy in to his whole narrative 100%, but of THIS I am certain . . . the least credible narrative is the one the press/OAG/BoT ran with . . .
I just listened to it twice. He's still got it wrong. The pieces are there, they're just not assembled the right way. Far too much speculation, presumption and guesswork. I have had my fill of JZ and am done with him.
Feel free to fill in the blanks with your research conclusions. I'm all about information and different opinions - as long as they are expressed and discussed rationally.
For me right now, it comes down to Aaron and Dawn. I simply don't believe them.
What exactly changed your mind to be "done with him" during your SECOND time listening to JZ?
Thought you were done with him before this post ! Can't make up your mind?
After spending another 2 hours and 8 minutes listening to him, now he's REALLY done with him.
It's interesting to me that a number of people who I really respect and have had a pretty good handle on this whole mess from the start give credence to JZ and to Sandusky at least needing a new trial to hear evidence and testimony that was not presented before, if not being outright innocent. They maintain that this evidence would go a long way to exonerating C/S/S/JVP. I don't necessarily agree with them about this evidence being needed for C/S/S/JVP, or about Sandusky, but they know more about this case and situation than I do.
While I agree his trial was a sham, I have always believed him to be guilty of at least most of the charges and believe he truly masked his misdeeds exceptionally well to where reasonably-minded people had no suspicions or inklings about who he was. I'd like him to get a new trial, but would expect a similar outcome.
I don't listen to much of JZ anymore, but I follow these recaps. I'm not sure I know what to believe wrt Sandusky anymore.
Misder, I'm looking forward to the time when you and Tom are ok with telling us what you know!
Is Misder a man or woman? I was thinking Ms. Der, but I may be wrong.
Thanks for posting. I haven't listened to it yet, so I don't know if JZ mentioned Cleland recently ordered Lindsay has until March 7 to file his second amended PCRA petition. The original PCRA petition seemed dead in the water in November. Does that mean new information has come out?
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 19 2016.pdf
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 19 2016.pdf
He did not mention that. He contends that no judge in PA will ever allow a new trial. Only possibility is a Federal Court.
I think the new information that has come out is that in spite of Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale ordering an investigation by James Reeder into the March 2011 Grand Jury leaks to Sara Ganim, that none was apparently done. In Lindsay's Nov. 25, 2015 filing, he asks for the report that Reeder filed, or if there was no report filed that a new special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the leaks. Lindsay claims that the grand jury leaks entitles Sandusky to have all charges pertaining to victims who were identified after the grand jury leak dismissed.
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/med...TITION FOR RELEASE OF REEDER BROWN REPORT.pdf
JZ's theories and explanations make more sense (common sense) than anything else out there imo. JS' innocence (or relative innocence) is really the only key I've seen that unlocks ALL the locks and answers all the questions.
I appreciate the work of others on everything from the b.o.t. to cws, tsm, oag, etc. (some post here), but (again, imo) they're trying to fell a 60' tree with pruning shears while there is a chainsaw laying at their feet. Problem is it's a politically and socially incorrect chainsaw, so it just sits there. Unused.
I also believe that a lot of people who have a good handle on the details of the saga don't believe that Sandusky received a fair trial and that are legitimate questions of whether or not Sandusky was/is a pedophile who sexually molested boys or someone who acted inappropriately and put himself in a vulnerable position to be falsely accused. Whether or not Sandusky is guilty, there is no case against CSS or P and there never was. Tom Corbett wanted payback against Spanier for his criticizing Corbett's education cuts and for supporting Dan Onorato. I believe that Curley and Schultz were charged so that one of them would flip and that Spanier's fate would be sealed.
Anthony Lubrano has said that there is a lot of truth in what JZ and Kevin Slaten say. I interpret this to say that he believes there are serious questions about whether or not JS is guilty. I have spoken personally to 2 other members of the current BOT and they both believe similarly. My guess is that at least half of the elected BOT members feel the same way.
The contentions of Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz is that in 2001 and up until 2011 that they did not believe that JS was a pedophile. It is my understanding that they still don't believe JS was/is a pedophile. When they are exonerated (they will eventually be exonerated and it won't be because of a technicality), I believe that they all will be anxious to talk. It will be very interesting to hear what they have to say about whether or not that they currently believe that JS is a pedophile.
Last edited:
So he's the "self-proclaimed pastor of The First Church of Tiger Woods". This is the guy you're pinning your hopes on? Good luck.
Well, here's his first documentary on a very serious subject that was done very well. Feel free to post links to all the documentaries you've done.
Blocking the Path to 911
No, and why do you think they are "hope"ing? Many have listened to JZ and find that what he has uncovered is, at the very least, room for doubt that the trial was botched big time. I don't see how anyone who has followed what JZ has uncovered, could be certain that Sandusky received a fair trial.
If you're not open to what JZ has uncovered and at least become a little concerned that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial, then you are one who is hoping (there's that word "hope" again) that Sandusky is where he belongs.
I have followed numerous cases where the justice system has gotten it wrong and where many innocents have spent a decade and sometimes two decades in jail, sometimes even on death row only to be found innocent beyond any doubt. Innocents most often been convicted by jury where the emotions of the implied crime come into play and especially where children are perceived the victim(s).
Bottom line, a new trial is needed in the name of proper justice.
JZ has done excellent research so far. More work is needed to uncover the TRUTH.
JZ has done excellent research so far. More work is needed to uncover the TRUTH.
I agree that Sandusky's trial was a quite irregular. The standout issues for me were denying the requests for a continuance, the allowance of hearsay (janitor episode), and the apparent ineffectiveness of counsel. So please don't put me in the camp that says the trial was not "botched" (your word).
Having said that, there was plenty of evidence introduced to suggest he is guilty of child molestation. You can't just focus on the irregularities and ignore the harmful evidence. Even the Paternos think he's guilty if you believe their attorney, Wick Sollers.
I also got the strong feeling from Amendolas interviews that even he felt JS was guilty. Its usually not a good sign if your own attorney thinks you're a criminal.
Legally speaking, is he entitled to a new trial? From what little I know I'd have to say yes.
Would I like to see it? No, because I don't think it would be helpful to anyone..
I very much doubt that it would result in an acquittal, but it certainly would reprise the entire disgusting episode. The media would have a field day. The public would be incensed. The talks shows would renew the controversy. The University reputation would be further damaged.
Does anybody really want to go through that again?
Having said that, there was plenty of evidence introduced to suggest he is guilty of child molestation. You can't just focus on the irregularities and ignore the harmful evidence. Even the Paternos think he's guilty if you believe their attorney, Wick Sollers.
I also got the strong feeling from Amendolas interviews that even he felt JS was guilty. Its usually not a good sign if your own attorney thinks you're a criminal.
Legally speaking, is he entitled to a new trial? From what little I know I'd have to say yes.
Would I like to see it? No, because I don't think it would be helpful to anyone..
I very much doubt that it would result in an acquittal, but it certainly would reprise the entire disgusting episode. The media would have a field day. The public would be incensed. The talks shows would renew the controversy. The University reputation would be further damaged.
Does anybody really want to go through that again?
Well, I listened to the whole thing, and I will say this - JZ is relentless, not only in his pursuit of the issues, but also in his delivery of his message.
I have had some doubts about some things re: Sandusky, pretty much from the get go. Whether any of them come to light remains to be seen. However, as someone else mentioned, the key to why the dominos fell the way they did is going to be based, in part on a retrial.
I have had some doubts about some things re: Sandusky, pretty much from the get go. Whether any of them come to light remains to be seen. However, as someone else mentioned, the key to why the dominos fell the way they did is going to be based, in part on a retrial.
Sure- I would. If the goal is to have a fair trial for Sandusky, and for the outcome to be based on fact, not speculation and the proper procedures could be followed-sure, let's do it.
Honestly, what more could the University lose? They are not party to the criminal act, so it's not like there is double jeopardy or anything for them. More victims come forward? Doubt it. The only thing the University - and by that I mean the old guard BoT- could lose is exposure to their acts of either omission, involvement or cover up. And I don't think that is enough to keep the courts from agreeing to a new criminal trial.
"I very much doubt that it would result in an acquittal, but it certainly would reprise the entire disgusting episode. The media would have a field day. The public would be incensed. The talks shows would renew the controversy. The University reputation would be further damaged."
While you do acknowledge the irregularities of the trial, you believe Sandusky is guilty and "hope" (and that's you word from the your previous post) that the injustice of an irregular trial be allowed to go uncorrected because of what you stated in the highlighted quote above.
Justice be damned because of your fear of peripheral events. I believe that contradicts the intent of the justice system.
Fair point and I acknowledge the inconsistency in my post. I am swayed by the fact that JS was convicted on 45 of 48 counts. The likelihood of acquittal on all those seems impossible. I would not like to see it all dredged up again.
If he were to be acquitted, do you think it would help anything? Heck no, it would make things worse. Most people would be outraged. They'd portray it as more of the Penn State coverup culture that a Centre County jury would acquit him.
If he were to be acquitted, do you think it would help anything? Heck no, it would make things worse. Most people would be outraged. They'd portray it as more of the Penn State coverup culture that a Centre County jury would acquit him.
Do you realize what happens in a jury room once an individual is believed to be guilty of the primary crime. The jurors don't want to be stuck in that room, they want to get on with their lives. So how are these, believed to be inconsequential accounts, dealt with? They are usually given little attention unless some juror brings up the impossibility that one or more could have occurred and those that fall into that category are dismissed while all the others are given little attention and breezed over.
Last edited:
It seems like the primary crime revolves around victim 1 (AF's) accusations. It would be very interesting to see a retrial based solely on his accusations. I am not sure that they would stand on their own.
The primary crime, at least to many posters on this board, was the alleged rape of a boy in the Lasch Building that MM witnessed. Verdict: Not Guilty.
Probably because of the massive amount of victims that testified against him and the massive amount of other victims that were not part of the trial. This whole new trial idea is an absolute joke and totally ignores the sheer volume of destruction Sandusky left behind. It's disgusting how hard some people on here are fighting for JS.
Latest posts
-
-
Football Former Penn State WR KeAndre Lambert-Smith commits to Auburn- Latest: Sportfan2017
-