OT: 2 Hours of JZ (audio link)

[PSU2UNC]

What was the new information that came out of this? If somebody could just bullet point it I would appreciate it. I haven’t had the time to listen to it and don’t anticipate having time to do so for awhile.

Most of it has been discussed above. See posts 2,48,49,51 for examples. 2 and 48 I would describe as new information. 49 and 51 new/interesting perspectives on details that seem even more out of place today than they did at the time.

 

[fizzyskittles]

so having victim 2 being 'know only to God' and not having any victim 8 doesnt bother you? at all?

My eyebrows and skepticism would be raised if he was only convicted on those counts related to those victims. But he wasn't. And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial. So no, it doesn't bother me.

 

[sluggo72]

My eyebrows and skepticism would be raised if he was only convicted on those counts related to those victims. But he wasn't. And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial. So no, it doesn't bother me.

he was convicted on 5/6 counts relative to victim 2, and 5/5 relative to victim 8. If there were more, then why present these two?

 

[MtNittany]

And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial. So no, it doesn't bother me.

Reportedly the moon is made of green cheese as well.

 

[PSU2UNC]

My eyebrows and skepticism would be raised if he was only convicted on those counts related to those victims. But he wasn't. And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial. So no, it doesn't bother me.

But you do acknowledge that victims 2 and 8 were the only instances that had an independent witness, right? I find it odd that those two instances happen to be the ones for which there is no victim. And to complicate it even more, one of those witnesses couldn't even testify, because when he was interviewed by police he stated that it wasn't Sandusky, so he must have had dementia (but I'm sure if he said it was Sandusky, they would have put him on the stand).

Nope, nothing odd there at all.

 

[fizzyskittles]

But you do acknowledge that victims 2 and 8 were the only instances that had an independent witness, right? I find it odd that those two instances happen to be the ones for which there is no victim. And to complicate it even more, one of those witnesses couldn't even testify, because when he was interviewed by police he stated that it wasn't Sandusky, so he must have had dementia (but I'm sure if he said it was Sandusky, they would have put him on the stand).

Nope, nothing odd there at all.

The judge did allow the testimony for #8. now If he wouldn't allow that victim the state would sub someone else. As for #2, MM testified to seeing that act, so he was the witness and he was believed by three seperate juries I believe. the other victims? They testfiied on their own behalf. I see no way Jerry is innocent here.

 

[ForesterGump]

But, he was only convicted on counts related to those victims. He never went into court on any other charges. Other people claimed to be victims, and were paid by PSU. Reportedly, they were poorly vetted. Why aren't you skeptical of those victims, considering there was no due process on the behalf of Sandusky?

As for other victims testifying, according to Pendergast, the police contacted 600 Second Mile kids, of which 6 agreed to testify. Where is the pool of victims that are to come forward? Of the 6 that testified, I believe that several knew each other, and many were represented by the same lawyer. The pool of victims gets shallower.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The judge did allow the testimony for #8. now If he wouldn't allow that victim the state would sub someone else. As for #2, MM testified to seeing that act, so he was the witness and he was believed by three seperate juries I believe. the other victims? They testfiied on their own behalf. I see no way Jerry is innocent here.

You said "My eyebrows and skepticism would be raised if he was only convicted on those counts related to those victims. But he wasn't. And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial."

If there were more (presumably stronger) charges/victims that could have been brought to trial, why did they use two instances where there was no victim? Why not go to trial with you best witnesses and best charges?

Here are four possible explanations, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1) They (the OAG) felt that their case was weak without a non-victim witness and they stood a chance of losing if all they had was the testimony of victims (even if they added more victims from this supposed pool of others that weren't brought to court) because if each victim is considered individually, none of their testimonies are that strong (especially if they would have been cross examined by someone not named Amendola).

2) There are no other credible victims and these 10 were the best options they had.

3) They needed victims 2 and 8 to "anchor" this story to PSU. Without those two, the story doesn't fly as a "PSU football story." They needed the media fervor over excoriating Paterno/PSU to mask the weaknesses of the case.

4) The OAG aren't very smart and just picked 10 random victims out of the pool of dozens without regard to strength/merits of each one.

 

[roswelllion]

In most states....I would agree!
BUT, if you can explain why the State of PA AVOIDED inditing TSM for any mishandling of Sandusky and how Sandusky's entire "criminal activity" was hung on PSU ALONE, I would appreciate it. That Jack and his wife are untouched by any legal or public condemnation proves that this "case" against PSU was a fabrication. This "Story" originated in Harrisburg and has been continuously promoted IN ITS ENTIRETY since 2012.

I guess that's what $650,000 in Donations (what most people would call protection money) gets you in PA.

This point alone - TSM has no moral or legal culpability for their employee - (in addition to DOZENS of other issues) indicates the courts were NOT valid legal processes - they were EXTERNALLY COORDINATED & CONTROLLED to promote this OAG engineered "Story" of guilt - and that the "judgements" you state are "not crazy" ....well,they are just plain garbage.

This x1000. It is almost impossible that IF JS crimes were so wide spread and went on so long in a small town that only PSU admin were investigated and charged and no one else was. Add to that Baldwin, Fina and the the other guy who said JVP didn’t do his moral responsibility, the 1998 fumbling, Dranov’s ( nothing reportable) and on and on and it becomes very hard not to say WTF is going on.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Most of it has been discussed above. See posts 2,48,49,51 for examples. 2 and 48 I would describe as new information. 49 and 51 new/interesting perspectives on details that seem even more out of place today than they did at the time.

Just read them. I don’t really see anything earth shattering in those posts.
I will say that comparing Sandusky to Nassar is a natural thing to do but not a fair one. Sandusky was convicted of molesting children that he had relationships with. There was much more involved with his victims than Nassar. It seems like the relationships with his victims ran the course of what would be typical for adult relationships. Getting to know each other, go on some outings together, then the physical activity. Nassar’s victims were not “wooed” by Nassar, they were just assaulted.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Just read them. I don’t really see anything earth shattering in those posts.
I will say that comparing Sandusky to Nassar is a natural hint to do but not a fair one. Sandusky was convicted of molesting children that he had relationships with. There was much more involved with his victims than Nassar. It seems like the relationships with his victims ran the course of what would be typical for adult relationships. Getting to know each other, go on some outings together, then the physical activity. Nassar’s victims were not “wooed” by Nassar, they were just assaulted.

To be fair, I don't think anyone called any of this earth shattering; just new.

While I agree that Nassar and Sandusky are different, my opinion is that if JS is guilty of everything he was convicted of, surely there would have been one victim who would have shown up in court to give a victim impact statement and ask the judge for no bail.

 

[Connorpozlee]

To be fair, I don't think anyone called any of this earth shattering; just new.

While I agree that Nassar and Sandusky are different, my opinion is that if JS is guilty of everything he was convicted of, surely there would have been one victim who would have shown up in court to give a victim impact statement and ask the judge for no bail.

I’m not even sure that any of that was new.

It is a good point about the lack of venom from his victims.

 

[indynittany]

It's a free message boar dan various people chime in. Personally I prefer not to live in an echo chamber. Over the years that I've watched this I have seen nothign to convince me that Jerry was railroaded.

That the janitor case was even allowed to go to trial should have been enough to convince anybody that Sandusky's trial was not fair.

- No Victim
- No Report of a Crime
- No Established Date of a Crime
- No Physical Evidence of a Crime
- No Eye Witness of a Crime

 

[PSU2UNC]

I’m not even sure that any of that was new.

It is a good point about the lack of venom from his victims.

The info about Dottie and Jerry independently confirming which victims they knew and which they didn't, as well as Tim and Gary being cell mates, were both "new" news to me. Perhaps I'm not as in the know as others, but I try to follow along closely.

 

[RussianEagle]

My eyebrows and skepticism would be raised if he was only convicted on those counts related to those victims. But he wasn't. And there are reportedly more victims that could have been brought to trial. So no, it doesn't bother me.

What about the counts related to Victims 3 and 5, whose claims against PSU completely contradict their trial testimonies.

Or the counts related to Victims 1 and 4, who never testified to Sandusky's hypogonadism despite claiming to have performed oral sex on him dozens of times (both their testimonies are full of other discrepancies as well).

Or the counts related to Victim 9, who must be lying if the claims of Victim 1 are to be believed, and who still attended football games with Jerry as an 18 year old just weeks before the arrest despite claiming he was subject to forcible rape and imprisonment.

Or the counts related to Victim 10, whom the Sandusky's didn't even know.

Or the counts related to Victim 6, who never alleged a sexual act and was questioning Sandusky's guilt as late as January 2012 (after the arrest).

Or the counts related to Victim 7, who claimed he only was able to remember his abuse through therapy from Cindy MacNab, who was exposed by Ziegler's fake accuser.

Also, most of the non-trial accusers didn't even know the Sandusky's. And the ones who did know him were mostly his defenders until some time after the arrest. The OAG chose Victims 9 and 10 as the cream of the crop to bring to trial and their stories are pathetic.

 

[Connorpozlee]

The info about Dottie and Jerry independently confirming which victims they knew and which they didn't, as well as Tim and Gary being cell mates, were both "new" news to me. Perhaps I'm not as in the know as others, but I try to follow along closely.

Your first point here is interesting. I don’t get the significance of the second point about Curley and Schultz.

 

[lionville]

I’m not even sure that any of that was new.

It is a good point about the lack of venom from his victims.

I also wonder how many victims who received payments from PSU are still undergoing therapy. Did that all stop when the checks cleared, or do they still require sessions with their psychologists to deal with the abuse they suffered? I wonder if any victims pushed for PSU to pay for their therapy as part of their settlements. Just curious.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I also wonder how many victims who received payments from PSU are still undergoing therapy. Did that all stop when the checks cleared, or do they still require sessions with their psychologists to deal with the abuse they suffered. Just curious.

That’s a good question. That said, I hope Ziegler doesn’t show up at their houses trying to get the answer.

 

[Legion of Lions]

That the janitor case was even allowed to go to trial should have been enough to convince anybody that Sandusky's trial was not fair.

- No Victim
- No Report of a Crime
- No Established Date of a Crime
- No Physical Evidence of a Crime
- No Eye Witness of a Crime

I quite certain that Sandusky was CONVICTED on several counts involving this "janitor testimony".
How does a fair and legal court justify the above situation as one which requires a CONVICTION(S)????

Answer....courtroom was rigged to feed to the public a "Story" - a factoid which the media blitz could quote that provided the biggest number of "counts of Sexual Abuse of Children" - REGARDLESS of the facts or legality!

 

[PSU2UNC]

Your first point here is interesting. I don’t get the significance of the second point about Curley and Schultz.

I'm not sure how significant it is, but it is new. Perhaps someone in LE or corrections or an attorney can chime in, but I assume that you do not generally get to choose your cell mate when in prison. So if they were actually cell mates (and it's possible that's not what JZ was saying, but I'm not sure how else to interpret "They served their time together") that would imply some sort of deal or concession with the judge/OAG, which then makes you ask "Why?" So to me that's interesting.

But I'd love to hear from someone in the legal/LE/corrections community about how choosing cell mates work and if it is even possible for a judge to request such a thing. Or if you think I've totally misinterpreted what JZ was trying to say, I'm open to other interpretations as well.

 

[Legion of Lions]

Do you grasp that highlighting things, capitalizing, and underlining things doesn't necessarily convince people?

Do you EVER answer a posted question? Now you know why you have to vary the text presentations of statements - so people like you have every opportunity to provide a real answer.

I'll ask again - CHECK OUT THE RED TEXT -.... BUT, if you can explain why the State of PA AVOIDED inditing TSM for any mishandling of Sandusky and how Sandusky's entire "criminal activity" was hung on PSU ALONE, I would appreciate it - hearing your thoughts on why TSM "skated".

 

[RussianEagle]

I'm not sure how significant it is, but it is new. Perhaps someone in LE or corrections or an attorney can chime in, but I assume that you do not generally get to choose your cell mate when in prison. So if they were actually cell mates (and it's possible that's not what JZ was saying, but I'm not sure how else to interpret "They served their time together") that would imply some sort of deal or concession with the judge/OAG, which then makes you ask "Why?" So to me that's interesting.

But I'd love to hear from someone in the legal/LE/corrections community about how choosing cell mates work and if it is even possible for a judge to request such a thing. Or if you think I've totally misinterpreted what JZ was trying to say, I'm open to other interpretations as well.

The cell mate deal may have occurred due to the fact that the Judge knew the cases against Curley and Schultz were pretty much BS, but felt he needed to sentence them to prison in order to satisfy the "Victim Advocates" who were calling for blood like Roxine Behrens and Jennifer Storm.

 

[lionville]

The cell mate deal may have occurred due to the fact that the Judge knew the cases against Curley and Schultz were pretty much BS, but felt he needed to sentence them to prison in order to satisfy the "Victim Advocates" who were calling for blood like Roxine Behrens and Jennifer Storm.

I believe they served their time in the county jail. If that is the case, then someone in the county jail hierarchy made that decision for C & S to be cell mates. Maybe that person didn't think they were deserving of prison time. Who knows what motivated them to do so.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I believe they served their time in the county jail. If that is the case, then someone in the county jail hierarchy made that decision for C & S to be cell mates. Maybe that person didn't think they were deserving of prison time. Who knows what motivated them to do so.

Could the judge or OAG have made that request or is this something that could only have been done by a county jail employee?

 

[marshall23]

I also wonder how many victims who received payments from PSU are still undergoing therapy. Did that all stop when the checks cleared, or do they still require sessions with their psychologists to deal with the abuse they suffered? I wonder if any victims pushed for PSU to pay for their therapy as part of their settlements. Just curious.

They now can afford to employ others to attend therapy for them.

 

[RussianEagle]

Do you EVER answer a posted question? Now you know why you have to vary the text presentations of statements - so people like you have every opportunity to provide a real answer.

I'll ask again - CHECK OUT THE RED TEXT -.... BUT, if you can explain why the State of PA AVOIDED inditing TSM for any mishandling of Sandusky and how Sandusky's entire "criminal activity" was hung on PSU ALONE, I would appreciate it - hearing your thoughts on why TSM "skated".

I think the only explanation could be that the OAG believes McQueary told Curley about a sex act, Curley told Spanier about a sex act, but Curley only mentioned Sandusky and a boy showering together to Raykowitz. I admit this narrative doesn't make any sense. Either they're all innocent or they're all guilty, and my view is definitely the former.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I think the only explanation could be that the OAG believes McQueary told Curley about a sex act, Curley told Spanier about a sex act, but Curley only mentioned Sandusky and a boy showering together to Raykowitz. I admit this narrative doesn't make any sense. Either they're all innocent or they're all guilty, and my view is definitely the former.

Even if this was true, TSM knew about the 1998 allegations, right? So even looking at TSM in the kindest possible light, they had really, really, really bad protocols in place that a minimum would have been "endangering the welfare of a child", no?

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

The info about Dottie and Jerry independently confirming which victims they knew and which they didn't, as well as Tim and Gary being cell mates, were both "new" news to me. Perhaps I'm not as in the know as others, but I try to follow along closely.

"Independently?????" Sure.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

To be fair, I don't think anyone called any of this earth shattering; just new.

While I agree that Nassar and Sandusky are different, my opinion is that if JS is guilty of everything he was convicted of, surely there would have been one victim who would have shown up in court to give a victim impact statement and ask the judge for no bail.

How many TSM kids that verifiably spent as much time with Jerry as did say V1 or V2 have spoken up to defend him?

Zero.

If he was really innocent, and really working to help young troubled boys, surely loads of them would have come forward to say that he changed their lives, that they weren't molested or even groomed, and that none of their friends were either.

How come these guys (there must be a ton, if Jerry is innocent) haven't come forward and made pleas on his behalf?

 

[PSU2UNC]

How many TSM kids that verifiably spent as much time with Jerry as did say V1 or V2 have spoken up to defend him?

Zero.

If he was really innocent, and really working to help young troubled boys, surely loads of them would have come forward to say that he changed their lives, that they weren't molested or even groomed, and that none of their friends were either.

How come these guys (there must be a ton, if Jerry is innocent) haven't come forward and made pleas on his behalf?

That's not true at all. A number of the accusers originally defended Jerry; until they met Andrew Shubin and then their stories my$teriou$ly changed.

 

[pandaczar12]

How many TSM kids that verifiably spent as much time with Jerry as did say V1 or V2 have spoken up to defend him?

Zero.

If he was really innocent, and really working to help young troubled boys, surely loads of them would have come forward to say that he changed their lives, that they weren't molested or even groomed, and that none of their friends were either.

How come these guys (there must be a ton, if Jerry is innocent) haven't come forward and made pleas on his behalf?

I can think of a few who did, Allen Myers and Matt Sandusky.

Some may not have the platforms to reach the masses, some may have Bob Costas syndrome and not want to let their true feelings known because the subject is so toxic.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

That's not true at all. A number of the accusers originally defended Jerry; until they met Andrew Shubin and then their stories my$teriou$ly changed.

So again, there are currently no TSM kids who spent loads of time with Jerry and yet defend him?

 

[PSU2UNC]

So again, there are currently no TSM kids who spent loads of time with Jerry and yet defend him?

In addition to the ones I already mentioned, at least one of his character witnesses at the criminal trial was a TSM kid.

"Josh Green, 33, met Sandusky through The Second Mile in the early 1990s. He spent nights at Sandusky's house. On cross-examination, Green said he was called by the defense team last week and was asked to testify."

http://www.wgal.com/article/day-6-defense-calls-character-witnesses/6221325

So even if we used your warped logic that no one that initially came to his defense counts, there is still one more person who came to his defense than who showed up at the hearings to give a victim impact statement.

 

[pandaczar12]

In addition to the ones I already mentioned, at least one of his character witnesses at the criminal trial was a TSM kid.

"Josh Green, 33, met Sandusky through The Second Mile in the early 1990s. He spent nights at Sandusky's house. On cross-examination, Green said he was called by the defense team last week and was asked to testify."

http://www.wgal.com/article/day-6-defense-calls-character-witnesses/6221325

So even if we used your warped logic that no one that initially came to his defense counts, there is still one more person who came to his defense than who showed up at the hearings to give a victim impact statement.

I'm sure you noticed, but he is moving the goal posts. He went from "why haven't people come forward" to "why aren't they currently defending him?" Which is odd because we've already explained that to him.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm sure you noticed, but he is moving the goal posts. He went from "why haven't people come forward" to "why aren't they currently defending him?" Which is odd because we've already explained that to him.

I also noticed that it took longer than usual for him to jump into this thread. The Bat Signal must be broken.

 

[marshall23]

How many TSM kids that verifiably spent as much time with Jerry as did say V1 or V2 have spoken up to defend him?

Zero.

If he was really innocent, and really working to help young troubled boys, surely loads of them would have come forward to say that he changed their lives, that they weren't molested or even groomed, and that none of their friends were either.

How come these guys (there must be a ton, if Jerry is innocent) haven't come forward and made pleas on his behalf?

Interesting. Some of the same individuals that are now millionaires did exactly what you suggest. I guess that was before they recovered their collective memories......and before it started raining money in State College.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I'm sure you noticed, but he is moving the goal posts. He went from "why haven't people come forward" to "why aren't they currently defending him?" Which is odd because we've already explained that to him.

I am exactly paralleling the question - "why haven't victims come forward to make victim statements during his PCRA" -- the answer to that is, that it's not at all necessary. All burden is on Jerry to prove innocence now.

As such, it would seem to me that finding those kids would be the question -- why haven't his defenders shown up at PCRA's?

If you look into this (the only one you've pointed out) John Green, talked to his angry neighbors, ex-girlfriends, enemies from high school, do you think you would believe him?

Note, he was a character witness in the sentencing phase of trial. Jerry was already guilty at that point. The prosecution had no need to debunk his claims of spending lots of time with Jerry, and no need to explore whether or not Jerry had ever put his hands down his pants.

The defense had every reason to ask about that, but they didn't. Do you want to know why? Most likely, because they didn't want Mr. Green to answer that question in court.

 

[pandaczar12]

I am exactly paralleling the question - "why haven't victims come forward to make victim statements during his PCRA" -- the answer to that is, that it's not at all necessary. All burden is on Jerry to prove innocence now.

As such, it would seem to me that finding those kids would be the question -- why haven't his defenders shown up at PCRA's?

If you look into this (the only one you've pointed out) John Green, talked to his angry neighbors, ex-girlfriends, enemies from high school, do you think you would believe him?

Note, he was a character witness in the sentencing phase of trial. Jerry was already guilty at that point. The prosecution had no need to debunk his claims of spending lots of time with Jerry, and no need to explore whether or not Jerry had ever put his hands down his pants.

The defense had every reason to ask about that, but they didn't. Do you want to know why? Most likely, because they didn't want Mr. Green to answer that question in court.

Uhh... I didn't point out John Green. You need to learn to read 'gooder'.

 

[marshall23]

Jerry Sandusky was the face of TSM for 30 years. Are you saying that the only children who were impacted by his charity were those who claim to have been abused? Despite "easy money" and "don't ask, don't tell" I believe there were 36 "claimants."

 

[MtNittany]

...until they met Andrew Shubin and then their stories my$teriou$ly changed.

You have it all wrong. Nothing at all wrong w/ throwing an old man in jail based on memory repression therapy. It's settled science. I guess. Or not.