ADVERTISEMENT

OT: 2 Hours of JZ (audio link)

They became invested in his guilt because? You are just another conspiracy nut.

Here's an obvious example of the prosecution engaging in unethical conduct because they were indeed invested in Sandusky's guilt. From Ray Blehar's website:

http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2016/06/andrew-shubin-dismissed-by-govt-as-not.html

Evidence from the Sandusky investigation reveals State College lawyer Andrew Shubin, who represented numerous individuals who received settlements from Penn State, was found to be less than credible by government officials.

In February 10, 2012, Shubin had a heated discussion with Office of Attorney General (OAG) Agent Anthony Sassano, demanding that his client (who alleged to be Victim 2) be interviewed as part of the Sandusky investigation. During the discussion, Shubin claimed that there had been "both oral and anal sex" between his client and Sandusky.
Shubin's client was interviewed by Postal Inspection Service Agent, M. J. Coricelli on February 28th, March 8th, and March 16th, 2012. At no time during these interviews did his client corroborate Shubin's allegations. In fact, at the March 16th interview, his client stated that he had never discussed the specific details to anyone -- not even Shubin (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00447).



Shubin arranged for a April 4, 2012 meeting with Coricelli and Sassano to interview his client again.
When they arrived for the meeting, Shubin's client was absent. Coricelli was told that the client was too upset to be interviewed because of a recent death of a friend. Then Shubin attempted to provide Coricelli with three typed pages purported to be the allegations of his client.
Coricelli examined the document and surmised that it was written by Shubin. After consultation with Sassano, the decision was made that there would be no future investigation regarding Shubin's client. (Commonwealth v. Sandusky, PCRA Appendix, page 00448)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now why wasn't Andrew Shubin charged with obstruction of justice for this stunt? He clearly should have been. But the simple reason is this: the last thing the OAG wanted to do in the months leading up to the Sandusky trial was to arrest the attorney who represented nearly half of Sandusky's accusers for providing a false statement alleging abuse of one of his clients. It was much easier for the OAG to absurdly claim Myers was not the "real victim 2" then claim the real victim is "known only to God", even though there were only a couple boys who had one on one time with Sandusky during that time period and all were well known to the OAG.

This is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say that actions were or were not taken because certain people were invested in Sandusky's guilt. And if you think that makes me a "conspiracy nut", I challenge you to put forward your theory to why the OAG could not produce the "real Victim 2" despite many years to do it and having a vast array of resources.
 
Last edited:
I would not say that the BOT were invested in his guilt. But I would say that they became invested in accepting guilt for his actions in an attempt to move on from it as soon as possible and they were willing to sacrifice anything they needed to in order to achieve that goal.

Are you suggesting the BOT should have ignored the Grand Jury findings and defended Sandusky?
 
Are you suggesting the BOT should have ignored the Grand Jury findings and defended Sandusky?

The University should have defended Gary and Tim (Graham tried to and was shouted down).

Sandusky no longer worked at PSU so he was not PSU's to defend.

However, PSU didn't do him any favors when they fired P/C/S/S and agreed to hand out cash settlements like Tic Tacs because they were basically admitting his guilt for him.
 
Such as??
The tidbit that he regretting revealing sounded to me (and perhaps I got this wrong) was that "Gary and Tim served their time together". He didn't elaborate on that,but that sounds to me like they were cell mates which was perhaps a deal they worked out with the prosecutors to make up for the fact that they (the prosecutors reneged on the no jail time part of the plea deal).

Did anyone else interpret that differently?
 
Of all the interviews, this one (which was edited) actually has quite a bit of new information - one tidbit that he immediately regretted revealing.

The other point he made that was interesting that had not occurred to me before is that when comparing the various Nassar hearings, where there were 100s of victims that paraded forward, Sandusky had hearings (one of which that might have let him out of jail while trial was pending) and ZERO victims showed up to make a statement like "this guy is a monster and needs to stay in jail".
 
I think a huge problem was that Joe Amendola
FTFY. I will never understand Sandusky's decision to opt for the townie lawyer for a case such as this. Regardless of your opinions on his guilt or innocence, Amendola was not equipped to handle a case of this magnitude.

The University should have defended Gary and Tim (Graham tried to and was shouted down).
All the university had to do was put everyone on temporary suspension, pending further investigation. No action should have been taken before they had a factual basis for doing so. The knee jerk reaction to burn everyone at the stake before any facts were really known, particularly with someone of Paterno's popularity and reputation, is largely what has caused the divide between the BOT and the alumni which still exists today. They dug their own grave in terms of alumni relations.
 
The other point he made that was interesting that had not occurred to me before is that when comparing the various Nassar hearings, where there were 100s of victims that paraded forward, Sandusky had hearings (one of which that might have let him out of jail while trial was pending) and ZERO victims showed up to make a statement like "this guy is a monster and needs to stay in jail".

The reaction of the alleged victims of Sandusky and Nassar has been night and day. The Nassar victims have shown raw emotion in their contempt for Nassar as demonstrated by one victim’s father asking the judge for 5 minutes alone with Nassar and then charging Nassar when the judge refused. Not so much with Sandusky’s victims. In fact, they have shown their emotions by dressing up their family in Penn State gear. The differences in the Nassar and Sandusky cases have been polar opposites. Nassar was found in possession of hordes of child pornography, has confessed to his crimes, his wife left him immediately, and is a broken man.
 
The other point he made that was interesting that had not occurred to me before is that when comparing the various Nassar hearings, where there were 100s of victims that paraded forward, Sandusky had hearings (one of which that might have let him out of jail while trial was pending) and ZERO victims showed up to make a statement like "this guy is a monster and needs to stay in jail".

Ziegler made a similar point after attending the PCRA hearing in which so-called "Victim 2" Allan Myers testified. He noted that Myers lost his temper several times during his testimony, yet none of his anger appeared to be directed at Jerry Sandusky.
 
Ziegler made a similar point after attending the PCRA hearing in which so-called "Victim 2" Allan Myers testified. He noted that Myers lost his temper several times during his testimony, yet none of his anger appeared to be directed at Jerry Sandusky.
Which proves nothing in terms of Myers and Sandusky, but that doesn't stop JZ from leaping to conclusions.
 
Which proves nothing in terms of Myers and Sandusky, but that doesn't stop JZ from leaping to conclusions.

That doesn't make any sense. Many people, including the judge who rejected Sandusky's PCRA appeal, point to the emotions showed by the accusers during the trial to argue that Sandusky did molest those boys. What's wrong with using the misplaced emotions of Allan Myers to argue that Sandusky did not molest him?
 
I am not completely sure how the janitors were brought into the case. I remember reading somewhere (likely from Ray Blehar's blog) that everyone who worked in the football facilities during the relevant time period was subpoenaed for questioning in Spring/Summer 2011. I do know Petrosky claimed he came forward after "reading about the story of the graduate assistant" in the newspaper. The problem is that Sara Ganim's March 31st article did not mention the McQueary incident at all. Its one of many factors in this whole "janitor episode" they makes no sense at all and leads me to believe 99% of the story was completely made up.

Before that article came out, it was known that the investigation was taking place and what it was about.
 
Before that article came out, it was known that the investigation was taking place and what it was about.
Even if that is true (i.e. I don't believe that everyone knew the investigation was taking place, although some certainly may have) that doesn't explain his statement that he read about it in the newspaper.
 
Even if that is true (i.e. I don't believe that everyone knew the investigation was taking place, although some certainly may have) that doesn't explain his statement that he read about it in the newspaper.
I didnt say everyone knew.

would you happen to have a link to that statement, im trying to find it
 
Blehar references it here (page 76)
http://www.march4truth.com/uploads/3/3/1/5/3315120/report_3_sandusky_investigation_revised.pdf

and here:
http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-case-of-missing-janitor.html

I will see if I can dig up the original testimony, but none of the pdfs I've seen are easily searchable.
Thank you.

What im saying is that Petrosky was well aware of the investigation and what it was about and that the article was the trigger for him to make contact. I know he mentioned McQueary being in the article and he wasn't, i viewed that strictly as a trigger.
 
Thank you.

What im saying is that Petrosky was well aware of the investigation and what it was about and that the article was the trigger for him to make contact. I know he mentioned McQueary being in the article and he wasn't, i viewed that strictly as a trigger.

That's one way to look at it, I guess. I'll respectfully disagree with your interpretation, but admit that it's possible.

For my own edification, how are you so sure that Petrosky knew of the investigation before the newspaper article? I could see some football staff (or folks around town) knowing, but I don't see that extending to the janitorial staff.
 
Thank you.

What im saying is that Petrosky was well aware of the investigation and what it was about and that the article was the trigger for him to make contact. I know he mentioned McQueary being in the article and he wasn't, i viewed that strictly as a trigger.
Did Petrosky by chance have a relative that worked as a counselor for TSM?
 
I'd say osprey is related to one of the pretend victims, but he's been in FL since before the settlements. No relative of the pretend victims in Lock Haven had enough gas money to even make it to FL back then.
 
That's one way to look at it, I guess. I'll respectfully disagree with your interpretation, but admit that it's possible.

For my own edification, how are you so sure that Petrosky knew of the investigation before the newspaper article? I could see some football staff (or folks around town) knowing, but I don't see that extending to the janitorial staff.
Interviews had been going on since November/December of the previous year. There is little doubt that they would have been aware of the ongoing investigation, it wasnt a secret.
 
Interviews had been going on since November/December of the previous year. There is little doubt that they would have been aware of the ongoing investigation, it wasnt a secret.
What are your thoughts about Mike not questioning JS being around Lasch until after he knew about the investigation in 2010?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23
What are your thoughts about Mike not questioning JS being around Lasch until after he knew about the investigation in 2010?
He had complained about JS long before any investigation. Now I'm not saying there were any formal complaints or any records of complaints but if you're talking about whether or not he was uspet with JS before the investigation, absolutely. Knowledge of the investigation did not prompt any action by him, quite the contrary.
 
He had complained about JS long before any investigation. Now I'm not saying there were any formal complaints or any records of complaints but if you're talking about whether or not he was uspet with JS before the investigation, absolutely. Knowledge of the investigation did not prompt any action by him, quite the contrary.

Forgive me if you've shared this before, but did Mike tell you this personally? Or this is what you've heard?
 
Interviews had been going on since November/December of the previous year. There is little doubt that they would have been aware of the ongoing investigation, it wasnt a secret.

I would still be surprised if every employee (down to the cleaning staff) knew about it. But it's possible.
 
He had complained about JS long before any investigation. Now I'm not saying there were any formal complaints or any records of complaints but if you're talking about whether or not he was uspet with JS before the investigation, absolutely. Knowledge of the investigation did not prompt any action by him, quite the contrary.
He didn't complain to Tim or Joe did he? He may have bitched to his workout buddies, since he knew that would net nothing. That pretty much sums up Mike's outrage. He probably slammed his locker.
 
He had complained about JS long before any investigation. Now I'm not saying there were any formal complaints or any records of complaints but if you're talking about whether or not he was uspet with JS before the investigation, absolutely. Knowledge of the investigation did not prompt any action by him, quite the contrary.
That is not what he testified to.
 
By the way, MM knew Jerry most of his life. If he had an issue with Jerry or something he needed to get off his chest......why didn't he man up and go eyeball to eyeball? Either Mike didn't see anything he could testify to or he didn't officially wish to make waves........figure it out. His own testimony is he never expressed dissatisfaction with the actions Gary and Tim took.
 
FTFY. I will never understand Sandusky's decision to opt for the townie lawyer for a case such as this. Regardless of your opinions on his guilt or innocence, Amendola was not equipped to handle a case of this magnitude.

IMO, Sandusky didn't think defending him would be that difficult. The magnitude of the case wasn't obvious until Joe got fired.
 
ADVERTISEMENT