Lion's of Liberty Felony Friday Podcast - John Odermatt interviews JZ

[francofan]

A very interesting interview of John Ziegler by John Odermatt in today's Lions of Liberty Felony Friday podcast. Odermatt who had been 100% sure that Sandusky was guilty is now beginning to have some doubts. I would encourage anyone who is interested in learning exactly what happened in the Penn State fiasco to listen to the podcast.

The interview is over an hour long and is a follow-up to a Feb.26 podcast that Odermatt did with JZ. Highlights of the podcast include:
-the back story of the Bob Costas interview and why it started JZ to think that JS may not be a pedophile
-why JZ is convinced that Matt Sandusky is lying
-why Scott Paterno is the only person close to the case who doesn't question JS's guilt and how Scott harmed JS's ability to get a fair trial and his father's legacy

I personally am not a big fan of JZ. I think he is arrogant, rude, and egotistical among other things. I believe that his effectiveness in defending Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, Curly, and Schultz has been severely limited by his style and tactics. At the same time, IMHO he has a better command of the facts of the case than anyone else who has reported on and analyzed what has happened in this saga.

http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/04/08/ff14/

 

[Obliviax]

Based on what I know, I am 85% certain JS is guilty of child abuse. However, given the crazy way this has played out, the chicanery incorporated by the prosecution, the farce of a trial, the money thrown at victims and corruptness of PA's judicial system one must give pause.

But hell, I'd give a new trial to Charlie Manson if he was convicted in the state of PA right now.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

But hell, I'd give a new trial to Charlie Manson if he was convicted in the state of PA right now.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that the truth!

 

[francofan]

Based on what I know, I am 85% certain JS is guilty of child abuse. However, given the crazy way this has played out, the chicanery incorporated by the prosecution, the farce of a trial, the money thrown at victims and corruptness of PA's judicial system one must give pause.

But hell, I'd give a new trial to Charlie Manson if he was convicted in the state of PA right now.

It seems like it would be a no brainer that the 2nd amended PCRA would gain some traction given the magnitude and the severity of the irregularities in the case, but this is Pennsylvania and there are powerful forces in play that want to nip this thing in the bud. My guess this time around is that Judge Cleland may do something similar to what he did in October and give the impression that he is trying to play fair by looking into some of the issues; but when push comes to shove, slams every door closed before anything meaningful can be discovered.

I hope I am wrong and that Judge Cleland will be objective and will agree to discovery regarding issues such as the false GJP, the GJ leaks, the identity of v2, the perjury of Leiter/Rossman and unethical questioning, ex-parte communications between Feudale and Fina, the protocols required for Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Service Law (CPSL) etc.

 

[bdgan]

Based on what I know, I am 85% certain JS is guilty of child abuse. However, given the crazy way this has played out, the chicanery incorporated by the prosecution, the farce of a trial, the money thrown at victims and corruptness of PA's judicial system one must give pause.

But hell, I'd give a new trial to Charlie Manson if he was convicted in the state of PA right now.

I am also 85% convinced that JS is guilty of some form of child abuse but I am not convinced that he had anal intercourse with the kids. I certainly don't believe that children screamed while JS raped them in his basement and Dottie just ignored it and allowed it to happen. I also don't believe a lot of what Matt Sandusky says.

 

[francofan]

I am also 85% convinced that JS is guilty of some form of child abuse but I am not convinced that he had anal intercourse with the kids. I certainly don't believe that children screamed while JS raped them in his basement and Dottie just ignored it and allowed it to happen. I also don't believe a lot of what Matt Sandusky says.

The examples you use demonstrate that some of the accusations against JS are not very believable. While horseplay in the shower with a non-relative minor may be inappropriate and possibly construed as abuse, I don't believe it can be considered Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) unless there is a sexual element or intent. IMO, the strongest accusations of CSA against JS come from v1 and I'm not sure they stand on their own.

 

[bdgan]

The examples you use demonstrate that some of the accusations against JS are not very believable. While horseplay in the shower with a non-relative minor may be inappropriate and possibly construed as abuse, I don't believe it can be considered Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) unless there is a sexual element or intent. IMO, the strongest accusations of CSA against JS come from v1 and I'm not sure they stand on their own.

When I was a kid in high school our coach would sometimes come into the shower with us, snap a towel, etc. We didn't think anything of it but times have changed. (we used to play football, wrestle, etc. in gym class). So I could give JS a pass one time but the 1998 incident should have been a huge wake up call. The fact that he didn't stop makes me thing he had a problem.

I doubt that JS is guilty of some things but the sheer volume of complaints tells me that he is guilty of some.

 

[francofan]

When I was a kid in high school our coach would sometimes come into the shower with us, snap a towel, etc. We didn't think anything of it but times have changed. (we used to play football, wrestle, etc. in gym class). So I could give JS a pass one time but the 1998 incident should have been a huge wake up call. The fact that he didn't stop makes me thing he had a problem.

I doubt that JS is guilty of some things but the sheer volume of complaints tells me that he is guilty of some.

The 1998 incident was investigated and JS was cleared. The 2001 incident was investigated and was reported to TSM and JS was told not to bring kids on campus or shower with kids. To the best of my knowledge, JS didn't bring kids on campus or shower with kids after 2001.

I don't believe there has been a lot of complaints. V1 was the lone accuser for 2 years and he didn't accuse Sandusky of having sex with him when he first made his complaint to authorities. By the time of the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment there were only 2 accusers who claimed that Sandusky had sex with them (V1 and V4) and V4 also didn't allege sex initially but that only came after Leiter and Rossman's highly improper suggestive interviewing of him. Joe Paterno was fired soon after the GJP which led to Penn State saying they would accept responsibility for any remotely credible accusations. It is really not that surprising that other accusations came out after that. There have been significant financial incentives for all of the accusations that have taken place.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Please don't waste anymore taxpayer dollars on a new trial. Even in the unlikely event that in a retrial he was acquitted on 44 of the 45 convicted counts, he would still belong in jail.

 

[pandaczar12]

I really wonder what La Jolla Lion's opinion is.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I really wonder what La Jolla Lion's opinion is.

Same Freaks, same opinion.

 

[bdgan]

The 1998 incident was investigated and JS was cleared. The 2001 incident was investigated and was reported to TSM and JS was told not to bring kids on campus or shower with kids. To the best of my knowledge, JS didn't bring kids on campus or shower with kids after 2001.

I don't believe there has been a lot of complaints. V1 was the lone accuser for 2 years and he didn't accuse Sandusky of having sex with him when he first made his complaint to authorities. By the time of the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment there were only 2 accusers who claimed that Sandusky had sex with them (V1 and V4) and V4 also didn't allege sex initially but that only came after Leiter and Rossman's highly improper suggestive interviewing of him. Joe Paterno was fired soon after the GJP which led to Penn State saying they would accept responsibility for any remotely credible accusations. It is really not that surprising that other accusations came out after that. There have been significant financial incentives for all of the accusations that have taken place.

I understand all of that. I'm just saying that even if JS was innocent in 1998 (just too much touchy feely), that should have been a huge wake up call to stop with anything that could remotely be considered inappropriate. Obviously he didn't, which tells me that he had a problem.

 

[simons96]

I really wonder what La Jolla Lion's opinion is.

you are a horrible person for even suggesting that

 

[bhill29]

I feel the same way. While I think the PA AG made a mockery of justice during his trial, Jerry Got a "do over" in '98 and he must have felt a compulsion to repeat his actions in '01. I think this may be more telling than the trial. It hard for me to believe that Jerry didn't understand the potential consequences of his actions.

 

[PSU-Knocker]

I understand all of that. I'm just saying that even if JS was innocent in 1998 (just too much touchy feely), that should have been a huge wake up call to stop with anything that could remotely be considered inappropriate. Obviously he didn't, which tells me that he had a problem.

If you look at it logically, what was done makes perfect sense. The two worked out together, so it is time to shower and go home. Does it make sense for Sandusky to say "you shower and I'll sit out here and wait for you to finish and then you can sit out here and wait for me to finish" Remember the kid was almost 14 at the time so he had to be driven there by Sandusky. Therefore Sandusky had to drive him home. It makes perfect sense for the two of them to shower together rather than have each of them waiting on the other.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

LOL!!

 

[PSU-Knocker]

LOL!!

I can understand. I've already seen from your many other posts how logic escapes you.

 

[wensilver]

If you look at it logically, what was done makes perfect sense. The two worked out together, so it is time to shower and go home. Does it make sense for Sandusky to say "you shower and I'll sit out here and wait for you to finish and then you can sit out here and wait for me to finish" Remember the kid was almost 14 at the time so he had to be driven there by Sandusky. Therefore Sandusky had to drive him home. It makes perfect sense for the two of them to shower together rather than have each of them waiting on the other.

Not really. IIRC the story is : <insert name here> is on a book signing with JS. Upon nearing home after the event JS decides he needs to work out and takes <insert name here> with him to the university facilities. The rest of the story we allegedly know.

What makes better sense is if A: The minor is driven directly home. There is no need to have someone's minor child out at other venues other than what was planned for this book signing. B: The minor has a signed permission slip on file at Second Mile offices from a parent/guardian in order to accompany JS on this book signing gig.

Had "A" happened - there is no "McQueary shower incident". Had "B" happened - we most likely would know the identity of that minor, as it would have been on file with Second Mile.

With regards to Zig's interview - he started losing me on his rationale of State College in the late 90's being more like circa 1950 - Jeezus - the PA public school system had strict guidelines in place with regards to working with minors back in the early 90's. This applied to pre-school programs as well. One would think that a large public school district in the shadow of a flagship public university with a huge research element would be just as sophisticated and up to date as any suburban area outside of Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.

I'm not buying the goober-like, country boy naïveté. Rules already in place to protect both minors and adults were flouted. Why?

 

[francofan]

Not really. IIRC the story is : <insert name here> is on a book signing with JS. Upon nearing home after the event JS decides he needs to work out and takes <insert name here> with him to the university facilities. The rest of the story we allegedly know.

What makes better sense is if A: The minor is driven directly home. There is no need to have someone's minor child out at other venues other than what was planned for this book signing. B: The minor has a signed permission slip on file at Second Mile offices from a parent/guardian in order to accompany JS on this book signing gig.

Had "A" happened - there is no "McQueary shower incident". Had "B" happened - we most likely would know the identity of that minor, as it would have been on file with Second Mile.

With regards to Zig's interview - he started losing me on his rationale of State College in the late 90's being more like circa 1950 - Jeezus - the PA public school system had strict guidelines in place with regards to working with minors back in the early 90's. This applied to pre-school programs as well. One would think that a large public school district in the shadow of a flagship public university with a huge research element would be just as sophisticated and up to date as any suburban area outside of Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.

I'm not buying the goober-like, country boy naïveté. Rules already in place to protect both minors and adults were flouted. Why?

We do know the name of the minor and his name is Allan Myers. The prosecution knew the name of the minor before trial and interviewed him on several occasions. The argument that the prosecution used that v2 was known only to God was unadulterated BS. This was one of several instances of prosecutorial misconduct that the OAG was guilty of in prosecuting Sandusky. Judge Cleland in the PCRA evidentiary hearing should order that Allan Myers be deposed so that we can get closer to knowing the truth of what actually happened.

I agree that The Second Mile's protocols for protecting at risk children in their care and the adults who looked after them was substandard. I am just not sure who the actual victims are in this case.