NEW! John Ziegler DEBATE on Sandusky!
- Thread starter RussianEagle
- Start date
John Ziegler certainly knows the facts of the case; however given his demeanor, I am not sure he is the best advocate for Sandusky's innocence given the way he attacks people he disagrees with. I prefer calm, collective advocates like Mark Pendergrast, John Snedden, Ralph Cipriano. Al Lindsay, Dick Anderson, and Jeff Byers.
What is this guys deal? Does he truly believe Sandusky is innocent? I understand the conspiracy notion that Sandusky may have been part of something larger and he was the fall guy, but why this guy feels compelled to continue to advocate for Jerry is beyond me.
Like him or not, Ziggy has been correct about many things.
Now Michael Jackson. He's drawn to these characters.
Did you listen to this podcast? This is the first I've listened to anything of his since way back in the beginning. He actually made some interesting points when he wasn't being a complete a-hole.
Yes, Dick Anderson, the long time assistant coach at Penn State who was head coach at Rutgers for 5 or 6 years. He was one of the speakers at the recent Sandusky press conference and he heads up the Impact Fund that supports Sandusky’s legal expenses. Dick absolutely feels that Sandusky was railroaded and so do I.
Ziegler absolutely believes Sandusky is innocent and is fanatical about it.
The elephant in the room is that there is a lot of compelling evidence that points to the jury getting the verdicts wrong in Sandusky’s trial. The trial was patently unfair with totally ineffective defense counsel and rife with prosecutorial misconduct. Mark Pendergrast has written a critically acclaimed book “The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment” that demonstrates that Sandusky is likely innocent and it has received an average 4.7 out of 5 stars based on 74 customer reviews. NCIS Special Agent John Snedden led a federal investigation to determine if Graham Spanier’s top level security clearances should be renewed and concluded that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather a political hit job. Ralph Cipriano in his big trial blog has written over a dozen excellent blog posts that chronicles the events that have led to the travesty of justice.
Last edited:
Amazon scores always a good indicator of quality, especially when only people predisposed to defend CSA would read it.
Wow, can’t believe I’m saying this but those guys are idiots. I never gave much to John but hearing those idiots circle Fock themselves with ignorant comments is crazy. I’m open to listen more to Johns stuff. Still think there is compelling stuff against what John is saying but I’m willing to look into it.
Why are you open to the notion that Sandusky may have been part of something larger? There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. However, there is much evidence discrediting Sandusky’s accusers and the amount continuously grows larger and larger.
My guess is that you are open to the “pedo ring” but not Sandusky’s innocence because it’s more socially acceptable to believe in the pedo ring, not because you took an actual look at the evidence for each.
The debate, revealed two things. First, Ziegler is an ass. Second, the case against Sandusky’s innocence is horribly weak. These guys actually did do some research but the points they chose to bring up are easily refuted (The news article referencing porn, the plying of the 1971 accuser, the janitor episode, Matt Sandusky). Too bad Ziegler kept screaming “you’re a moron” rather than offering simple factual statements that destroy the other sides argument.
When he stopped getting enough attention for his Joe was railroaded routine he jumped on the Sandusky is innocent routine.
Nobody wants to argue the facts of the case with Ziegler for several reasons. The first reason is that nobody know the facts of the case better than Ziegler. He has done extensive research on the relevant events surrounding the saga and few people, if any, know the details as well as he does.
The second reason is that Ziegler can be a first class jerk when he disagrees with you and feels like your opinion and logic is inferior to his. He will constantly berate you and call you a pussy moron. I do not like his tactics or bedside manner. I have seen him attack friend and foe alike. Recipients of his rancor include the likes of Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, Ray Blehar, Wendy Silverwood, Maribeth Schmidt, Ryan Bagwell, Kevin Horne, Anthony Lubrano, Graham Spanier, Al Lindsay, Ralph Cipriano, Dottie Sandusky, and Jerry Sandusky to name a few.
I wish that Ziegler would change his tune. I believe he would be so much more effective in his advocacy of Sandusky's innocence if he would stop his vicious attacks on people he disagrees with and just use calm, collected reasoning; but it is not going to happen. It is what it is.
I’m not open to any of this. I said I understand why people may get caught up in such a theory. It’s sensational and people love conspiracy theories. I don’t believe any of it, and am sorry I couldn’t resist the urge to respond.
Go back and read Ziegler’s articles on PSU chronologically from late 2012 to early 2014. It is clear he embraced Sandusky’s innocence very reluctantly. He even tried to envision a scenario where Sandusky is still a sex offender despite the evidence piling up that his accusers stories were simply not credible (celebate pedophile theory). The idea that he came out in favor of Sandusky’s innocence as a plea for attention after his fallout with Scott Paterno is simply not supported by evidence,
Last edited:
Honestly, you can come up with a lot to discredit every sexual abuse victim.
I disagree. If he had stuck with exonerating Joe, he might be a household name today. And he could have then progressed to the corruption on the BOT, TSM and the OAG. At some point, he might have had the credibility to focus on Jerry's case.
In the present case, not much effort is really needed. Nothing at all was done to establish any credibility.
I think one of the problems is that most "people on the street" actually believe Sandusky was convicted of anally raping dozens of boys in the Penn State Football Showers. If it's true that the abuse was really that extensive, it would be pretty hard to defend Joe as someone who simply "was not aware". I think a lot of Ziegler's work in early 2013 was simply to set the record straight to the public to what Sandusky was actually convicted of. But any close look at the actual case reveals serious problems with the accusations itself.
You could come up with something to discredit well over 99% of ALL people.
Especially if like Zig, you focus on ex girlfriends, &, people that asked for a handout & didn't get one.
I usually enjoy Ziegler's arguments in favor of Paterno and the fact the situation got out of hand. But listening to this, wow. Not sure why he is gets so fired up so easily and constantly insults the podcast hosts. Surprised they stuck with it so long but his analysis, research, etc. gets lost in the way he communicates for sure.
And yet, virtually impossible to disprove. Unfortunately, in these situations, you are guilty until proven innocent.
There’s a reason why Zig hasn’t been able to successfully parlay his current two-bit grift into one of the larger, more lucrative grifts that exist out there in the political/media sphere that he wants to be in. He’s stuck here doing the pedophile defense stuff because he’s totally unhinged and nobody else wants anything to do with him.
Unfortunately, it seems everyone who asked for a hand out got 3 million from Uncle Ira.
Not so sure about the 'court of law' part. He was found guilty before the trial ever started.
Calling what Fina, McGettgan and Co. threw at JS.....it was a Pennsyltucky Ambush. Only God knows what you should call it. Sandusky may be guilty as sin.....I don't know.....I do know he didn't get a fair trial.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting PENN STATE RECRUITING BATTLES: TE Andrew Olesh- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
