Jerry Sandusky files a pro se motion for a new trial and asks for evidentiary hearings

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
17,016
26,877
1
If he was reconvicted would you and @francofan go away?
Go away? I don't know if JS is totally innocent. I know he didn't get a fair trial. I also know that the PSU3 were victims of a targeted/political prosecution. I know that Joe had an extremely minor, incidental role in the whole issue. I know that the prosecutor, a judge and PSU counsel were all disciplined for their actions in this matter.
I am confident that many of the claimants are liars.....
But, if JS were retried and convicted, I would accept that he is guilty.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
That's a 3rd Circuit Court of appeals case regarding Spanier's conviction on the supposed 2001 incident (have they ever really figured out the date?). The Supreme Court rarely grants cert. That's not the same as saying the Supreme Court implicitly approved it.
John Ziegler has shown the real date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and not either of the dates that the OAG claimed it happened - March 1, 2002 (in the knowingly false grand jury presentment) or Feb. 9, 2001 (as claimed at trial). Both Gary Schultz and Malcolm Gladwell are convinced that Ziegler is right.

 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
17,016
26,877
1
Three major events I can recall:
  • McQueary's father didn't recall being deposed and openly denied his testimony contradicted his deposition (this to your recollection on the same thing)
  • The prosecution did a "dump" of dozens of boxes of data shortly before trial. JS's attorney asked for an extension which is very, very common. That extension request was denied. This is pretty shocking to be honest.
  • That the janitor stating he saw JS with a kid wrestling was accepted as testimony. The janitor no longer had his marbles and the person that he told this to was allowed to testify since he wasn't cogent any longer. So this could have been nothing more than a couple of guys rumor-mongering with no basis of truth. Again, shocked it was allowed to be used.
That is just off the top of my head.
The janitor is on tape saying it was not JS
Hearsay testimony excepted as an "excited utterance." LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
That's a 3rd Circuit Court of appeals case regarding Spanier's conviction on the supposed 2001 incident (have they ever really figured out the date?). The Supreme Court rarely grants cert. That's not the same as saying the Supreme Court implicitly approved it.
They refused to hear it. The matter is closed legally and the Supreme Court would have taken it for full review if it had merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
John Ziegler has shown the real date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and not either of the dates that the OAG claimed it happened - March 1, 2002 (in the knowingly false grand jury presentment) or Feb. 9, 2001 (as claimed at trial). Both Gary Schultz and Malcolm Gladwell are convinced that Ziegler is right.

This is from @JmmyW who has refuted this crap before.

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
This is from @JmmyW who has refuted this crap before.

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
JmmyW is wrong. I had a back and forth with him and he is totally unconvincing. Feb. 9 was not a quiet night on campus as MM said that the night of the v2 incident was. If you wish to dispute, please refute what Ziegler has stated in the article I linked to or state where Gary Schultz is wrong in his interview with Ziegler. The Dec. 29 date fits the whole of the testimony of Dr. Dranov, Mike’s dad, Gary Schultz as well as MM and JS and Feb. 9 just doesn’t work.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,080
378
1
that whole JS trial really had a lot of issues that were brought up at the time. I remember something really strange happening with McQueary's father where he openly lied on the stand, was called out on it, but the judge just said to move along. I think JS's lawyer was pretty bad as well. And then all the victims coming out after the trial where when some of them did talk or their stories released were easily showed to be false (ie...one of them described the existing locker room which had been renovated after the alleged incident, another that described timing which was shown to be false by just looking at the historical PSU football schedule, etc...). Then you had the second hand information from the janitor story which was really out there not believable admitted as prime evidence.

I am in know way saying JS is innocent, but that trial was a sham and full of inconsistency.


MM father was incoherent, so what?

McQueary had emailed Eshbach earlier that day to tell her that the grand jury report that told the world that McQueary had witnessed a naked Sandusky in the Penn State showers having anal intercourse with a 10-year-old boy was wrong. In that same email, McQueary complained to the A.G.'s office that they had "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" that he had actually seen or heard in the showers.

Now there's a star witness you can have confidence in.

In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"

Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011 Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

During the defamation suit McQueary filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."

There's another angle to the prosecutorial misconduct story line -- this email exchange between McQueary and Eshbach that was reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2 in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Blehar then cites four other witnesses in the case who also testified that McQueary never used sexual terms in describing what he had allegedly seen in the shower.

"Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. [John] Dranov, [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State VP Gary] Schutz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw," Blehar wrote.

In his second email to Eshbach, McQueary stated, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out the night before . . ."

In the email, McQueary doesn't say who the he was who was out the night before. In his blog post, Blehar takes the he as a reference to McQueary's father.

"Wait, what?" Blehar writes. "Paterno was in State College on Friday night. If this statement is true, then Mike did NOT meet with his father (and Dr. Dranov) immediately after the incident(because John Sr. was 'out of town.')"

"Another fabrication?" writes Blehar. "And the AG knew it."

In handwritten notes written in 2010, McQueary doesn't mention any meeting with his father and Dr. Dranov. Instead, he writes that he "drove to my parents' house" and "spoke with my father about the incident and received advice."

He also reiterates, "to be clear: from the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe one minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered."

A hazy one-minute memory that McQueary himself admitted he had no idea "whatever it was" he had actually witnessed.

But it was a hazy, one-minute memory that the AG's office wrote an entire grand jury presentment around. How weak is that?

It was flimsy evidence like this that led Special Agent Snedden to conclude that McQueary was not a credible witness back in 2012 when Snedden was investigating whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have his high-level security clearance with the federal government renewed. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no sex crime to cover up.

Because McQueary gave five different accounts over the years of what he supposedly witnessed during that one minute in the Penn State showers.

"I'd love to see McQueary's cell phone records, absent whatever dick pics he was sending out that day," Snedden cracked, referring to the day McQueary witnessed the shower incident, and then called his father to figure out what to do.

"Did he even call his dad?" Snedden wondered.

Snedden renewed his call for an independent investigation of the entire Penn State scandal, and the attorney general's role in manipulating evidence in the case.

"Anybody who cares about justice needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor in this case," Snedden said.

John Ziegler, a journalist who has covered the Penn State scandal since day one, agreed.

"This seems like blatant OAG misconduct and an indication that they were acutely aware their case had major problems," Ziegler wrote in an email. "Eshbach's response is stunning in that it admits errors in grand jury presentment and tells Mike to shut up about it."

Ziegler said the possibility that Mike McQueary never met with his father and Dr. Dranov, his father's boss, in an emergency meeting, if true, was big news.

"This is HUGE for several reasons," Ziegler wrote. The meeting, which supposedly occurred on the night McQueary witnessed the shower incident was the "ONLY piece of evidence that has EVER been consistent with Mike witnessing something horrible/dramatic" in the Penn State showers. And that's why "Dranov was brought in to meet with him [Mike McQueary] late on a Friday night in February," Ziegler said.

The AG's office, Ziegler speculated, "is desperate for evidence that Mike did something dramatic in reaction to" witnessing the shower incident.

And if the he McQueary was referring to in the email to Eshbach wasn't his father but was really Joe Paterno, Ziegler said, then that's another problem with the official Penn State story line. Because according to his family, Joe Paterno was in town that night and presumably available for an emergency meeting with a distraught assistant who had just witnessed a horrible sex crime in the shower.

If he really did see an anal rape ongoing in the shower, however, does the McQueary story, in any of its versions, make any sense?

McQueary didn't rush into the shower and try to save a helpless, 10-year-old boy.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
JmmyW is wrong. I had a back and forth with him and he is totally unconvincing. Feb. 9 was not a quiet night on campus as MM said that the night of the v2 incident was. If you wish to dispute, please refute what Ziegler has stated in the article I linked to or state where Gary Schultz is wrong in his interview with Ziegler. The Dec. 29 date fits the whole of the testimony of Dr. Dranov, Mike’s dad, Gary Schultz as well as MM and JS and Feb. 9 just doesn’t work.
@JmmyW has already done it and Ziegler refuses to debate him. We both know why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
@JmmyW has already done it and Ziegler refuses to debate him. We both know why.
Whether or not Ziegler agreed to debate, Jmmy is still wrong and you are unable to refute Ziegler and Schultz.

You are just regurgitating OAG propaganda which is what I expect from an OAG troll. Please keep this baloney off this thread. If you must post, please start you own thread or move to the test board.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Whether or not Ziegler agreed to debate, Jmmy is still wrong and you are unable to refute Ziegler and Schultz.

You are just regurgitating OAG propaganda which is what I expect from an OAG troll. Please keep this baloney off this thread. If you must post, please start you own thread or move to the test board.
Why do you think I work for the OAG?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
Why do you think I work for the OAG?
Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.

Do you have any connection, even slight to the OAG or the old guard BOT?
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
No one involved disputes that MMQ saw Jerry in a shower with a child, when Jerry would have good reason to think no one would be around.

There is no innocent reason.

The date does not change that.

Correct.

And from one of the posts above, there's this from McQueary even as he protested that he was being misrepresented:

>>"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."<<

Guy in the shower with a kid not his own, alone, late in the evening, kid's hands up and face against the wall, rhythmic and slapping sounds, a witness testifying it was a "sexual act."

But never mind, there's no doubt an innocent explanation.

Then add in the all the other accusers and the the mountain of evidence, some circumstantial and some direct, going back to 1998-99.

Jerry Sandusky is the lowest piece of scum on the planet earth and is getting off easy spending the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer's expense. In another time and place, his punishment would have been much harsher.

As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
 

Agoodnap

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2015
3,233
4,577
1
As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
Maybe, just maybe, it would piss him off enough to leave! 👏 🙏
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: Jerry and WHCANole

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,047
3,502
1
Correct.

And from one of the posts above, there's this from McQueary even as he protested that he was being misrepresented:

>>"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."<<

Guy in the shower with a kid not his own, alone, late in the evening, kid's hands up and face against the wall, rhythmic and slapping sounds, a witness testifying it was a "sexual act."

But never mind, there's no doubt an innocent explanation.

Then add in the all the other accusers and the the mountain of evidence, some circumstantial and some direct, going back to 1998-99.

Jerry Sandusky is the lowest piece of scum on the planet earth and is getting off easy spending the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer's expense. In another time and place, his punishment would have been much harsher.

As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.
It’s not a Penn state scandal
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
No one involved disputes that MMQ saw Jerry in a shower with a child, when Jerry would have good reason to think no one would be around.

There is no innocent reason.

The date does not change that.
Yes, MM saw Jerry in a shower with Allan Myers, a 13 year old boy who was like a son to Jerry. Allan asked Jerry to stand with him on senior night in his last home high school football game. Allan invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Allan also wrote two letters to the editor in local newspapers supporting Sandusky.

The innocent reason that Allan provided to Curtis Everhart, Joe Amendola’s investigator is that they were showering at the end of a road trip to Washington Pa.

 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
Correct.

And from one of the posts above, there's this from McQueary even as he protested that he was being misrepresented:

>>"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."<<

Guy in the shower with a kid not his own, alone, late in the evening, kid's hands up and face against the wall, rhythmic and slapping sounds, a witness testifying it was a "sexual act."

But never mind, there's no doubt an innocent explanation.

Then add in the all the other accusers and the the mountain of evidence, some circumstantial and some direct, going back to 1998-99.

Jerry Sandusky is the lowest piece of scum on the planet earth and is getting off easy spending the rest of his life in jail at taxpayer's expense. In another time and place, his punishment would have been much harsher.

As for the idea of another trial, my God, just what Penn State needs...to relive this whole catastrophe a decade after the fact. Yeah, just what the doctor ordered for our football program. I'm sure James Franklin would be thrilled.

McQueary is not a credible witness. He told 4 or 5 different versions of what happened. None of the 5 people who he told of the incident contemporaneously in 2001 said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault. He didn't recall any hint of a sexual assault until 10 years later. NCIS special agent John Snedden who did a federal investigation in 2012 as part of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearance renewals did not find MM to be credible. MM complained in an email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach twisted his words in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation.

None of the Sandusky accusers made contemporaneous reports and all of their stories changed and got worse over time. There is not a single accuser story that stands on its own that makes the case that they were molested by Jerry beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disagree, please identify the accuser and state the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence that supports Jerry's innocence among other things includes his excellent reputation and clean record before 2011, no pornography ever found in his possession, and his medical diagnosis of hypogonadism resulting in low testosterone levels and a low sex drive.
 
Last edited:

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,545
7,420
1
arena-lighting-225.jpg

The traffic pattern doesn't matter, the BJC for a big event is visible for miles, let alone from Lasch.

Does anyone recall where the game day entrance to the hockey games was located? Right next to Lasch you say?

zGO6Qiz.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.
These all don't come from the OAG narrative if by that you mean what was put forth and the trials of Jerry and CSS. Lots of it were not relevant to the trial.
Do you have any connection, even slight to the OAG or the old guard BOT?
I'm not on their payroll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
Yes, MM saw Jerry in a shower with Allan Myers, a 13 year old boy who was like a son to Jerry. Allan asked Jerry to stand with him on senior night in his last home high school football game. Allan invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Allan also wrote two letters to the editor in local newspapers supporting Sandusky.
Not proven that AM was Victim 2, plus AM did indicate Jerry for CSA and was paid for it.
The innocent reason that Allan provided to Curtis Everhart, Joe Amendola’s investigator is that they were showering at the end of a road trip to Washington Pa.

Why didn't Amendola call him at trial? We both know that answer don't we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
McQueary is not a credible witness.
Four juries disagreed
He told 4 or 5 different versions of what happened.
No material changes in any of them.
None of the 5 people who he told of the incident contemporaneously in 2001 said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault.
Joe corroborated MM and so did Schultz to the GJ.
He didn't recall any hint of a sexual assault until 10 years later.
How do you know that?
NCIS special agent John Snedden who did a federal investigation in 2012 as part of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearance renewals did not find MM to be credible.
Did Snedden interview MM?
MM complained in an email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach twisted his words in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation.
So? "slightly twisted"
None of the Sandusky accusers made contemporaneous reports
Typical for CSA vics
and all of their stories changed and got worse over time. There is not a single accuser story that stands on its own that makes the case that they were molested by Jerry beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury believed them.
If you disagree, please identify the accuser and state the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury disagreed.
Circumstantial evidence that supports Jerry's innocence among other things includes his excellent reputation and clean record before 2011,
Just like Bill Cosby
no pornography ever found in his possession,
Not relevant
and his medical diagnosis of hypogonadism resulting in low testosterone levels and a low sex drive.
Again, not relevant. Plus he said Dotty and he had sex every week. Wow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,292
281
1
arena-lighting-225.jpg

The traffic pattern doesn't matter, the BJC for a big event is visible for miles, let alone from Lasch.

Does anyone recall where the game day entrance to the hockey games was located? Right next to Lasch you say?

zGO6Qiz.png
So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.

You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that clearly placed the night of the incident, and his meeting at the McQueary household, on 2/9/2001? (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.162)

You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that Schultz told him The Second Mile had already been informed? That places the date of his meeting with Schultz well after mid-March 2001. (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.161)

You talk about Curley's 2 meetings with Sandusky. You mention Sandusky's confusion at the 1st meeting. Why did you ignore Curley's testimony that Sandusky wanted to check his calendar, did so, & confirmed the 2/9/2001 date in their 2nd meeting? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.358, 389-390)

Schultz bought into your date theory in part because he clearly remembers telling Dranov the investigation was ongoing. He said so four times (1x in 1st interview, 3x in 2nd). But Schultz testified in 2017 he had no recollection of this. Why do you think that is? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.470)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
970
673
1
Because you only regurgitate the OAG false narratives of 2011 and you have a totally closed mind toward all of new developments that demonstrate something is very wrong with the conventional wisdom. None of the developments over the last 10 years support your OAG narratives.

Do you have any connection, even slight to the OAG or the old guard BOT?
And you don't regurgitate propaganda do you? You have the most closed mind of anyone posting here. None of your "developments" over the past 10 years have provided the least bit of momentum towards the effort of freeing Jerry.

Yet you are on here regurgitating the same BS crap that you've been spewing for years. Like the boy crying "wolf" in the fable. Zig said this or Sned said that and it is a MONUMENTAL must read!!!! Has less teeth than a fart in a hurricane.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
17,016
26,877
1
And you don't regurgitate propaganda do you? You have the most closed mind of anyone posting here. None of your "developments" over the past 10 years have provided the least bit of momentum towards the effort of freeing Jerry.

Yet you are on here regurgitating the same BS crap that you've been spewing for years. Like the boy crying "wolf" in the fable. Zig said this or Sned said that and it is a MONUMENTAL must read!!!! Has less teeth than a fart in a hurricane.
The boy crying wolf.....LOL talk to staff at Central Mountain Schools......LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,080
378
1
Do you have a case citation to back up this statement?

All is really needed is an exam of Freeh material.

Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.


According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State faculty member who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror at the Sandusky trial.

"At no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.

At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."

Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."



In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."

"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."

Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."

"Coaches are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.

At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeill. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.

According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."

Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.

Sandusky, 76, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.

According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."

But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that Freeh's investigators were hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators; both sets of investigators were also trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.

The records show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers argue that their client's constitutional rights were trampled under the mad rush to save Penn State's storied football program from the NCAA's threat to impose the "death penalty" on the Nittany Lions.

To save Penn State football, the NCAA and Penn State's trustees had worked out a consent decree with voluntary sanctions. The consent decree, which called for the university's unconditional surrender, required that two things happen by the opening of the 2012 college football season to save Penn State football: Jerry Sandusky had to be convicted and the Freeh Report had to be published.

Sandusky was indicted by a grand jury on Nov. 5, 2011, the details of which were leaked to reporter Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

On Nov. 21, 2011, Penn Stated agreed to hire Freeh.

The railroad was running right on schedule. And Judge John Cleland, who presided over Sandusky's trial, demonstrated time and time again that he was willing to sacrifice Sandusky's constitutional rights to keep the trains running on time.

On Dec. 12, 2011, an off-the-record meeting was held at the Hilton Garden Inn at State College, attended by the trial judge, John Cleland, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and a district magistrate judge. At the off-the-record hotel meeting, Sandusky's lawyers agreed to waive a preliminary hearing where they would have had their only pre-trial chance to question the eight alleged victims who would testify at trial against Sandusky.

For any defense lawyer, this unusual conference led to a decision that was akin to slitting your own throat. But Sandusky's defense lawyers were completely overwhelmed by the task of defending their client against ten different accusers -- two of whom were imaginary boys in the shower -- while confined to a blitzkrieg trial schedule.

On Feb. 29, 2012, Amendola sought a two-month delay for the trial that was denied by Judge Cleland.

On the eve of the Sandusky trial, Amendola and his co-counsel, Karl Rominger, made a motion to withdraw as Sandusky's defense lawyers because, as Amendola told the judge, "We are not prepared to go to trial at this time."

The motion was denied.

In an affidavit, Amendola stated that "no attorney could have effectively represented Mr. Sandusky" given the "time constraints" imposed by Judge Cleland. Amendola stated that in the days and weeks before the Sandusky trial, he was hit with "more than 12,000 pages of discovery."

Those time constraints, Amendola stated, kept two expert forensic psychologists from participating in Sandusky's defense, which would have included reviewing the discovery in the case.

But under Judge Cleland, the Pennsylvania Railroad that Jerry Sandusky was riding on had to stay on schedule. And everybody knew it, including the prosecutors in the AG's office, as well as Freeh's investigators.

In the McChesney diary, on May 10, 2012, she noted in a conference call with Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil, two of Freeh's investigators, that Paw is going to talk to Fina, and that the "judge [is] holding firm on date of trial."

In his affidavit, Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, states that McChesney didn't receive this information from him.

"An obvious question arises as to whether or not the trial judge was communicating with a member of the Freeh Group, attorneys for the attorney general's office, or anyone else concerning the trial date," Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers seek to question Judge Cleland at an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether, and to what extent, collusion between the office of the attorney general, the Freeh investigation and the NCAA had an impact on the trial."

And "whether, as a result, defendant's right to a fair trial, and the effective assistance of his counsel, were negatively affected or compromised."

They were. Meanwhile, the trains were running on time.
On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty.

On July 12, 2012, the Freeh report was issued.

On July 23, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert and PSU President Rodney Erickson signed a consent decree that imposed sanctions on PSU football program.

Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 6, 2012, the Penn State football team, under new coach Bill O'Brien, gathered at the practice field at University Park for the official start of training camp.

On Sept. 1, l2012, the Nittany Lions played Ohio University at Beaver Stadium in the season opener, lost 24-14, en route to a 8-4 season.

So Penn State football was saved at the expense of Jerry Sandusky's constitutional rig

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers cite a history of leaks on grand jury investigations that deputy attorney general Frank Fina was the lead prosecutor on.

It began with a partial grand jury transcript in the bonus gate investigation that was leaked to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2009.

Next, the indictment of Sandusky was leaked to Sara Ganim in 2011, who was functioning as the press secretary for the AG's office.

Finally, the names of four state legislators who allegedly took bribes from Tyron Ali during an undercover operation -- and the amount of money and gifts that they took -- was leaked to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2014.

According to Sandusky's lawyers, "this form of prosecutorial misconduct" -- leaking -- had become "entrenched and flagrant" in the AG's office. Especially when Frank Fina was in charge of a grand jury investigation.

Fina has previously been disciplined for his overzealous and unprincipled actions in the Penn State investigation.

In February, the state Supreme Court in a
5-1 decision suspended Fina's law license for a year and a day after the state's office of disciplinary counsel found that Fina had improperly obtained grand jury testimony against three former Penn State officials from their own lawyer.

Fina had threatened to indict former Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, unless she became a cooperator in the grand jury against her own clients. To pull that off, the disciplinary board found, Fina had to deceive a grand jury judge about his true intentions when he interviewed Baldwin before the grand jury. And he had to browbeat Baldwin to the point where she was willing to betray the attorney-client privilege by testifying against her clients.

For her misconduct in the grand jury investigation of Penn State, the state Supreme Court gave Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, a public reprimand.


McChesney's diary is replete with constant, ongoing communication between Freeh's investigators and the AG's office while both investigations were up and running.

For example, in her diary McChesney makes reference to a 1998 police report that the Freeh team should not have had access to. The report was an investigation into the first incident involving Sandusky showering with a child, but the investigation had cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing.

In her diary, McChesney doesn't mention how the Freeh Group obtained that police report, but three lines later, McChesney wrote: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

McChesney's diary portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them."

McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for youths.
In her diary, McChesney speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" from the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

In her diary, McChesney is also extremely knowledgable about what the AG was up to during its supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Penn State. She described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."

On March 7, 2012, McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.

On March 30, 2012, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina. Fina, according to Paw, was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."

She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."

In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.

Freeh's investigators also interviewed Baldwin on several occasions.

Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney in her diary as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts."

And the grand jury transcripts on Baldwin weren't the only documents the AG's office was sharing with Freeh's investigators. On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."

In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.

On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain," where Penn State administrators talked about how to handle Sandusky and his habit of showering with children.
McChesney wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."


On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."

McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.

The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."

The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest.

The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno, and the 1998 shower incident.

"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."

On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."

McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."

Both Coyle and Belcher got immunity to testify against Schultz. Meanwhile, there were several leakers on Schultz's supposedly secret file that he was keeping on Sandusky. As McChesney recorded in her diary, "Fina got papers from two different sources."

The cooperation between the attorney general's office and Freeh's investigators went both ways.
When Freeh's investigators, including McChesney, interviewed Penn State counsel Baldwin and learned somebody else in the attorney general's office was leaking her information, they knew they had to tell Fina.

"Paw: didn't tell Fina that Baldwin heard @ the charges before they happened, but will tell him that," McChesney wrote. Baldwin, McChesney added, told Freeh's investigators that "a colleague in the AG's office leaked that Curly, Schultz and Sandusky would be charged," and that Spanier "was stunned."


From the get-go, the prospect of Freeh's investigators working in tandem with the AG's office was laid out in emails circulated among Freeh's investigators.
"If we haven't, we should make certain that we determine the utility of looking into all the same areas of interest raised by the AG in the subpoenas, to ensure that we do not get 'scooped' [borrowing Louie's term used in connection with the recent federal subpoena]," Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for the Freeh Group, wrote his colleagues on Feb. 8, 2012.

"I think that we are delving into most of the same areas, but I am not sure at all," McNeill wrote.

"I want to make sure that we are comfortable that we have an understanding of all the areas the AG has inquired about in subpoenas [or otherwise if our contacts at the AG have provided us other insights] that we can state when asked -- as we certainly will be -- that we made a conscious, strategic decision as to whether to pursue those same lines of inquiry in some form," McNeill wrote.

Another term for those grand jury "insights" gleaned from our "contacts at the AG" -- leaks.
In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group about the feedback that Fina was getting from the grand jury.

"He [Fina] said that the feedback he received from jurors was that they wanted someone to take a 'fire hose' to Penn State and rinse away the bad that happened there. He [Fina] said that he still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”

The cooperation between the Freeh Group and the AG's office continued to go both ways. On June 26, 2012, Gregory Paw told Fina that the Louie Freeh report would be out by the week of July 13th.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,633
9,843
1
McQueary is not a credible witness. He told 4 or 5 different versions of what happened. None of the 5 people who he told of the incident contemporaneously in 2001 said he told them he witnessed a sexual assault. He didn't recall any hint of a sexual assault until 10 years later. NCIS special agent John Snedden who did a federal investigation in 2012 as part of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearance renewals did not find MM to be credible. MM complained in an email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach twisted his words in the Nov. 2011 grand jury presentation.

None of the Sandusky accusers made contemporaneous reports and all of their stories changed and got worse over time. There is not a single accuser story that stands on its own that makes the case that they were molested by Jerry beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disagree, please identify the accuser and state the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence that supports Jerry's innocence among other things includes his excellent reputation and clean record before 2011, no pornography ever found in his possession, and his medical diagnosis of hypogonadism resulting in low testosterone levels and a low sex drive.

Franco, I'm prepared to believe you're sincere in your crusade, but the psychological syndrome on display in your posts is called Denial. A classic symptom is looking at a mountain of evidence and grabbing a few odd straws because for whatever reason the truth is too painful to deal with.

As a devout Catholic, I saw a very similar dynamic in the case of the Church scandals. It's not uncommon: protecting the powerful at the expense of the weak in order to prevent or limit damage to the institution even as many ordinary, decent people associated with the institution prefer not to know or later deny the reality because the truth challenges their cherished beliefs and concept of who they are as human beings.

Listen, linked below is a handy little article that concisely presents some of the damning facts. The testimony of victims. The accounts of eyewitnesses. The words of Sandusky himself. I don't expect this to convince you because you need your Alternative Reality. But no unbiased person could examine this evidence and come up with any conclusion other than Jerry Sandusky is scum and should spend the rest of his life in jail.

 

NoBareFeet

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2019
478
639
1
Who is more believable and has a better track record for honesty and integrity? Curley, Shultz, and Spanier, or McQueary, Fisher, Matt Sandusky, Kajak, Simcisko, Houtz, Myers, Rittmeyer, and Paden? I know which side I'd go with.

Free Jerry.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
Franco, I'm prepared to believe you're sincere in your crusade, but the psychological syndrome on display in your posts is called Denial. A classic symptom is looking at a mountain of evidence and grabbing a few odd straws because for whatever reason the truth is too painful to deal with.

As a devout Catholic, I saw a very similar dynamic in the case of the Church scandals. It's not uncommon: protecting the powerful at the expense of the weak in order to prevent or limit damage to the institution even as many ordinary, decent people associated with the institution prefer not to know or later deny the reality because the truth challenges their cherished beliefs and concept of who they are as human beings.

Listen, linked below is a handy little article that concisely presents some of the damning facts. The testimony of victims. The accounts of eyewitnesses. The words of Sandusky himself. I don't expect this to convince you because you need your Alternative Reality. But no unbiased person could examine this evidence and come up with any conclusion other than Jerry Sandusky is scum and should spend the rest of his life in jail.

Jerry - thank you for your kind words. For what it is worth, I am sincere in my beliefs and don't believe that I am in denial; but rather am confident in my understanding of what I have learned about what has happened and what hasn't happened in this saga. I also believe I am realistic in that there is a very good chance that Jerry Sandusky and Graham Spanier may die before it becomes apparent and widely accepted that there was a miscarriage of justice in their cases.

I did read the article by Matt Hinton that came out on June 23 right after Sandusky was convicted. At the time, I didn't follow the case very close but thought the jury got it right and probably would have thought that the article presented damning facts. You are correct that at this time as I have learned more and taken a deep dive into the facts and evidence in the case that I now am not convinced that Sandusky posed a threat in any of the 9 situations presented in the article for the following reasons.

1. I am convinced that McQueary did not witness a sexual assault of v2, that the identity of v2 is known, that the date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and that Sandusky never harmed Allan Myers.

2. The v6 incident was thoroughly investigation in a month long investigation by the Centre County DA, the Penn State police, the State College police, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare with no charges filed and Sandusky not indicated for child abuse. V6 maintained a 13+ year non-sexual relationship with Sandusky and only claimed he may have been groomed in 2011 when the story broke.

3. The v8 janitor incident is ridiculous. How did the prosecution get convictions of 5 counts in an incident where there was no victim, no eye witness, no date provided, and the alleged witness is recorded on tape saying the perp was not Jerry Sandusky.

4. V4's allegations only came to light after a highly improper interview with Pennsylvania State Police(PSP) where PSP lied to v4 about the accusers who had come forward and this only took place after v4's lawyer asked the PSP if they were able to bring up other allegations against Sandusky in the interview with v4. This episode was caught on tape and the PSP officers lied about it in court.

5. V9's allegations about being abused in a sound proof basement are demonstrably false.

6. Joe Miller's recounting of wrestling at Central Mountain High School did not include allegations that it included anything sexual.

7/8. V1's allegations don't stand on there own. The OAG declined to charge Sandusky on the v1 allegations after a 2 year investigation (2008-2010) that didn't come up with any additional evidence. The McQueary incident only came to light after the November 2010 election. It took over 6 months before v1 first alleged a sexual act. 2 grand juries didn't believe him. He was only able to testify before the grand jury with his therapist present. 12 people who are all very close to v1 (aunts, girlfriends, best friends, parents of friends, neighbors, etc.) have been willing to state on the record in their own name that they don't believe v1 was ever abused by Sandusky.

9. Matt Sandusky is not credible. He testified to the grand jury that he was never abused by his father. He asked the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18. He asked a judge to give unsupervised access for Jerry Sandusky to his two children. Matt's suicide attempt was the result of Matt and his girlfriend being despondent over Jerry and Dottie not permitting Matt and his girlfriend to share a bedroom in their house and not because he had been abused.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,167
56,027
1
Jerry - thank you for your kind words. For what it is worth, I am sincere in my beliefs and don't believe that I am in denial; but rather am confident in my understanding of what I have learned about what has happened and what hasn't happened in this saga. I also believe I am realistic in that there is a very good chance that Jerry Sandusky and Graham Spanier may die before it becomes apparent and widely accepted that there was a miscarriage of justice in their cases.

I did read the article by Matt Hinton that came out on June 23 right after Sandusky was convicted. At the time, I didn't follow the case very close but thought the jury got it right and probably would have thought that the article presented damning facts. You are correct that at this time as I have learned more and taken a deep dive into the facts and evidence in the case that I now am not convinced that Sandusky posed a threat in any of the 9 situations presented in the article for the following reasons.

1. I am convinced that McQueary did not witness a sexual assault of v2, that the identity of v2 is known, that the date of the v2 incident is Dec. 29, 2000 and that Sandusky never harmed Allan Myers.

2. The v6 incident was thoroughly investigation in a month long investigation by the Centre County DA, the Penn State police, the State College police, and the state Department of Child/Public Welfare with no charges filed and Sandusky not indicated for child abuse. V6 maintained a 13+ year non-sexual relationship with Sandusky and only claimed he may have been groomed in 2011 when the story broke.

3. The v8 janitor incident is ridiculous. How did the prosecution get convictions of 5 counts in an incident where there was no victim, no eye witness, no date provided, and the alleged witness is recorded on tape saying the perp was not Jerry Sandusky.

4. V4's allegations only came to light after a highly improper interview with Pennsylvania State Police(PSP) where PSP lied to v4 about the accusers who had come forward and this only took place after v4's lawyer asked the PSP if they were able to bring up other allegations against Sandusky in the interview with v4. This episode was caught on tape and the PSP officers lied about it in court.

5. V9's allegations about being abused in a sound proof basement are demonstrably false.

6. Joe Miller's recounting of wrestling at Central Mountain High School did not include allegations that it included anything sexual.

7/8. V1's allegations don't stand on there own. The OAG declined to charge Sandusky on the v1 allegations after a 2 year investigation (2008-2010) that didn't come up with any additional evidence. The McQueary incident only came to light after the November 2010 election. It took over 6 months before v1 first alleged a sexual act. 2 grand juries didn't believe him. He was only able to testify before the grand jury with his therapist present. 12 people who are all very close to v1 (aunts, girlfriends, best friends, parents of friends, neighbors, etc.) have been willing to state on the record in their own name that they don't believe v1 was ever abused by Sandusky.

9. Matt Sandusky is not credible. He testified to the grand jury that he was never abused by his father. He asked the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18. He asked a judge to give unsupervised access for Jerry Sandusky to his two children. Matt's suicide attempt was the result of Matt and his girlfriend being despondent over Jerry and Dottie not permitting Matt and his girlfriend to share a bedroom in their house and not because he had been abused.
This is the best concise summary I've ever read. Congrats on that. I don't think Jerry is completely "innocent" but I don't think he was as bad as the prosecution wanted you to believe. I believe he got his rocks off in the grey area between being a creepy father figure for troubled kids and molestation.

Regardless of my opinion, that trial stunk to high heaven. And it was 1% out of line, it should be thrown out and started again. Each of the cases you cite are highly questionable. And, as you can see with many celebrities, they are targets. It is horrible to say but it is true: drag a couple of $20 bills through a trailer park and you can get all kinds of results.

And, as I've said, the same people that think the police "fixed" 1998 think they should have been called in 2001. The logic that there would have been some kind of different outcome is fatally flawed.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,957
4,787
1
These all don't come from the OAG narrative if by that you mean what was put forth and the trials of Jerry and CSS. Lots of it were not relevant to the trial.

I'm not on their payroll.
You sound like Nixon in his I am not a crook speech. It is readily apparent that you are a troll. I don't believe that you have no connection to the OAG. You have no explanation for your motivation in your incessant need to comment on anything that runs counter to the highly suspicious actions of the OAG and their false narratives.

I don't wish to debate you. Please don't reply to any comments that I make that are not directed at you. If you must comment, please start your own thread or take it to test board.