OT/FC: New JZ Audio

[RussianEagle]

Well all he really has is victim shaming and if you've ever seen some of his other theories you kind of realize what he is and what he does. He needs hot button talking points and he doesn't care if he misleads people along the way. There is nothing to debate him about, the courtroom is where the debate occurred already.

Dude, stating FACTS about Sandusky accusers is not “Victim shaming”.

If you think everything was already settled at trial, then you must admit Jason Simirsko (v3) and Mike Kajak (v5) are liars since their claim statements against PSU contradict their trial testimonies.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Dude, stating FACTS about Sandusky accusers is not “Victim shaming”.

If you think everything was already settled at trial, then you must admit Jason Simirsko (v3) and Mike Kajak (v5) are liars since their claim statements against PSU contradict their trial testimonies.

Ok Dude, enjoy the rabbit hole. Get your law degree and fight your legal battle with your conspiracy theorist radio wannabe. Later DUDE. Free Jerry freaks still being freaks....love you dopes. Please send JZ some money, he needs to keep up the fight.

 

[pandaczar12]

Dude, stating FACTS about Sandusky accusers is not “Victim shaming”.

If you think everything was already settled at trial, then you must admit Jason Simirsko (v3) and Mike Kajak (v5) are liars since their claim statements against PSU contradict their trial testimonies.

Don't you know how to use google?!?!?! That's just normal behavior for people who were abused.

 

[lionville]

Dude, stating FACTS about Sandusky accusers is not “Victim shaming”.

If you think everything was already settled at trial, then you must admit Jason Simirsko (v3) and Mike Kajak (v5) are liars since their claim statements against PSU contradict their trial testimonies.

It’s time to remind everyone that LaNotta Lion is actually Iwannabea Lion. He has no connection to PSU and doesn’t even live in PA. He has also admitted to learning of Sandusky’s transgressions while in a Plotit chat with MM years ago, AND HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.

He also has studied fanatics.

 

[RussianEagle]

Cool explanation. Then why is he so hard on other people who had the same conclusion at the time? Or people who have changed their opinion over time?

At best his argument seems to be "I'm rubber you're glue, bounces off me & sticks to you"

I admit that Ziegler can be an ass. He got all pissed at me for doubting his theory that Sandusky is asexual. While I am convinced Sandusky did Iack normal vitality, I do believe he was able to be intimate with Dottie, and I don’t think JZs “asexual” theory helps his case.

But much of his vitriol toward others is deserved. Scott Paterno’s refusal to push the fact that the McQueary “Victim” was the same man who wrote several letters to the editors proclaiming Jerry’s innocence is unacceptable. I am assuming you are talking about Ray Blehar in your statement “people whove changed their opinion over time” I don’t think there’s one other person who has moved further away from the “Jerry could be innocent” position since 2013. Ray refuses to give an answer everytime he is asked about why he seemed on the verge of declaring Sandusky innocent in 2013, but has then moved in the opposite direction.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

It’s time to remind everyone that LaNotta Lion is actually Iwannabea Lion. He has no connection to PSU and doesn’t even live in PA. He has also admitted to learning of Sandusky’s transgressions while in a Plotit chat with MM years ago, AND HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.

He also has studied fanatics.

Sorry, it wasn't plotit and it certainly wasn't out in the open, (MM had his little circle he talked to as yoda and I wasn't given any real info dipshi!t...maybe Mt Nitt was as he was in those chats) but then again you guys aren't too good with facts and stuff. Whatever fantasy makes you happy, keep on keeping on Free Jerry Freaks. I cannot believe he isn't out by now with such a bang up crew of intelligent folks fighting for him....I know..it's the system. Keep on fighting that fight...victim shaming or shooting the messenger. Hey man you may have just freed Jerry with that idiotic post.

 

[pandaczar12]

It’s time to remind everyone that LaNotta Lion is actually Iwannabea Lion. He has no connection to PSU and doesn’t even live in PA. He has also admitted to learning of Sandusky’s transgressions while in a Plotit chat with MM years ago, AND HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.

He also has studied fanatics.

I had forgotten about him. This place is so much nicer with him on ignore. I'm guessing he still hasn't worked out his issues? I've never encountered anyone so close minded, just repeating his opinion, insulting anyone who disagrees... all for a school he has no connection with.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I had forgotten about him. This place is so much nicer with him on ignore. I'm guessing he still hasn't worked out his issues? I've never encountered anyone so close minded, just repeating his opinion, insulting anyone who disagrees... all for a school he has no connection with.

LOL pot calling the kettle black...I don't even bother with your SFB's anymore....just to laugh at you guys. That smoking gun you keep pretending to see...it's cute.

 

[Osprey Lion]

He's actually pretty gracious to people who are willing to say "I didn't know that; that definitely makes me reconsider my opinions on this" which is exactly what happened during this latest debate.

So he is gracious to people who agree with him. What a guy. He reminds me of another snake oil
salesman who is currently in a position of authority.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

He got all pissed at me for doubting his theory that Sandusky is asexual. While I am convinced Sandusky did Iack normal vitality, I do believe he was able to be intimate with Dottie, and I don’t think JZs “asexual” theory helps his case.

If there WAS to be an actual debate, this would be another key point. A cornerstone actually.

If you construct a scenario where Jerry is innocent, it depends quite a bit on he & Dottie telling the whole & complete truth about things, and then picking apart the accusers & their stories. eg, if an accuser lied about one thing in their statements, then their whole story is in question.

The same logic applies to Jerry & Dottie though. If they lie about one thing then THEIR whole story is in question. JZ insists they are lying about this thing, but takes as gospel every other thing they say.

Even you @RussianEagle and @francofan know that JZ is off the rails in some ways.

A "debate" with someone like that would prove nothing. I'd be able to prove to everyone that he is off base, at least in some of his theories. He'd throw a lot of invectives my way, and trash some victims, which I have little to counter with.

But the fact remains that Jerry, legally, is presumed guilty at this point. On multiple charges against multiple victims. It's near impossible to imagine any way out for him.

As for Ray, he can speak for himself. But I notice that JZ's break with Clemente & Scott, and appearance on the Today show & Piers Morgan, his outing of V2 were all virtually simultaneous with his break with Ray. And when JZ breaks away from someone, it's 150%!!!

The sad truth is that Ray & JZ are probably 90% right about everything. And if they had continued to get along & work together the situation would have been better, at least for Joe. It's a cluster f. as it is now, when JZ at every opportunity to defend Joe conflates that with Jerry is innocent.

 

[nits74]

If there WAS to be an actual debate, this would be another key point. A cornerstone actually.

If you construct a scenario where Jerry is innocent, it depends quite a bit on he & Dottie telling the whole & complete truth about things, and then picking apart the accusers & their stories. eg, if an accuser lied about one thing in their statements, then their whole story is in question.

The same logic applies to Jerry & Dottie though. If they lie about one thing then THEIR whole story is in question. JZ insists they are lying about this thing, but takes as gospel every other thing they say.

Even you @RussianEagle and @francofan know that JZ is off the rails in some ways.

A "debate" with someone like that would prove nothing. I'd be able to prove to everyone that he is off base, at least in some of his theories. He'd throw a lot of invectives my way, and trash some victims, which I have little to counter with.

But the fact remains that Jerry, legally, is presumed guilty at this point. On multiple charges against multiple victims. It's near impossible to imagine any way out for him.

As for Ray, he can speak for himself. But I notice that JZ's break with Clemente & Scott, and appearance on the Today show & Piers Morgan, his outing of V2 were all virtually simultaneous with his break with Ray. And when JZ breaks away from someone, it's 150%!!!

The sad truth is that Ray & JZ are probably 90% right about everything. And if they had continued to get along & work together the situation would have been better, at least for Joe. It's a cluster f. as it is now, when JZ at every opportunity to defend Joe conflates that with Jerry is innocent.

Logical synopsis.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Logical synopsis.

Thanks.

Here's how a fair debate between me & JZ would start:

Me: I stipulate that Joe Paterno is clean
JZ: 15 minutes of BS, ending with ok

Me: I further will agree that CSS were overcharged, and ultimately convicted of charges that were ridiculous. But 2 pled guilty, that's on them, and even Spanier offered no real defense. Still, I'll concede that they were all overcharged & wrongly convicted.

JZ: 15 minutes of cursing, shouting BS, ending with ok.

Me: So that leaves us with Jerry. You are 100% convinced he's a liar. You also think Dottie is a liar. You also think all of his accusers are liars. He's been found guilty. How can we possibly unwind this mess if every single person of interest, in your own opinion, is a liar?

JZ 20 minutes of cursing. No rational argument.

Me: So, I win, right?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Thanks.

Here's how a fair debate between me & JZ would start:

Me: I stipulate that Joe Paterno is clean
JZ: 15 minutes of BS, ending with ok

Me: I further will agree that CSS were overcharged, and ultimately convicted of charges that were ridiculous. But 2 pled guilty, that's on them, and even Spanier offered no real defense. Still, I'll concede that they were all overcharged & wrongly convicted.

JZ: 15 minutes of cursing, shouting BS, ending with ok.

Me: So that leaves us with Jerry. You are 100% convinced he's a liar. You also think Dottie is a liar. You also think all of his accusers are liars. He's been found guilty. How can we possibly unwind this mess if every single person of interest, in your own opinion, is a liar?

JZ 20 minutes of cursing. No rational argument.

Me: So, I win, right?

Mic drop there.

 

[LundyPSU]

Well all he really has is victim shaming and if you've ever seen some of his other theories you kind of realize what he is and what he does. He needs hot button talking points and he doesn't care if he misleads people along the way. There is nothing to debate him about, the courtroom is where the debate occurred already.

I actually think JZ has done some good work and certainly has questioned way more than anyone else. No idea how much is accurate, but some is certainly plausible and maybe even more reasonable than the BS that has been spewing from others for years. I have no issue with questioning or scrutinizing the accusers. Although, he comes across as a stalker at times.

Bottom line is that (in his mind) he is correct and anyone who may disagree is in idiot. You can't influence or change minds if you scream at people and call them names. Yes, the media has much of this wrong and a big part of the false narrative. But if he wants the media to change the narrative, he can't be calling them morons and idiots constantly. Instant dismissal.

 

[pandaczar12]

The same logic applies to Jerry & Dottie though. If they lie about one thing then THEIR whole story is in question. JZ insists they are lying about this thing, but takes as gospel every other thing they say.

What does he insist that they lie about?

 

[PSU2UNC]

What does he insist that they lie about?

I'd like clarification on this as well. My guess is that he is referring to JS/Dottie's assertion that they had a normal sex life (which JZ thinks is highly unlikely based on JS's medical records).

Couple of points:

1) "Normal" is highly subjective. Things I think are normal, you might be appalled by (and the reverse is true). I strongly suspect (based on their strong ties to religion) that they have never slept with anyone else, so it's unlikely they know what a normal sex life really is. So perhaps they aren't lying ("it depends what that definition of is is")

2) I know couples who have been married for years who will insist that their sex life is fine, and then the guy confesses to you over beers that they have sex once or twice a year. People fib about how much sex they are having, maybe out of bragging maybe out of embarrassment. Equating that to lying about whether or not you were abused seems...what's the word...disingenuous. But that's part for the course for the Hippo.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

If necessary I would also stipulate that all of the accusers were troubled youths, are now troubled adults, and we can toss aside their testimony if we like. (Including Mike)

But this finally leaves us with Jerry himself. And that's where the debate ends for sure.

Jerry admitted, with respect to touching children, that he was "testing boundaries"

Jerry also said he could not recall if he ever reached his hand under a boys shorts.

I would be comfortable locking up for good anyone who said the above 2 points. I would hate for them to be walking free in Society.

There simply is not anyone who is not a sex offender that would ever say the above.

 

[PSU2UNC]

If necessary I would also stipulate that all of the accusers were troubled youths, are now troubled adults, and we can toss aside their testimony if we like. (Including Mike)

But this finally leaves us with Jerry himself. And that's where the debate ends for sure.

Jerry admitted, with respect to touching children, that he was "testing boundaries"

Jerry also said he could not recall if he ever reached his hand under a boys shorts.

I would be comfortable locking up for good anyone who said the above 2 points. I would hate for them to be walking free in Society.

There simply is not anyone who is not a sex offender that would ever say the above.

I would argue that no sex offender on the planet would ever say those things because they realize what they are doing is wrong. Just as no sex offender when asked on national television if they are attracted to children would pause to think about it and then give an answer that isn't a resounding "no."

Even if Jerry is guilty of "testing boundaries" (e.g. putting his hand on a boy's knee while in the car) and even if you could win a criminal case that this was his sexual gratification (required for it to be sex abuse), that is miles and miles and miles away from "forced sodomy in the shower."

The headline "Former PSU Football Coach Touches Boys Knee in Car" doesn't result in Joe being fired, doesn't result in charges against C/S/S, doesn't result in NCAA sanctions and this whole mess would have been a big nothing burger.

 

[francofan]

I would argue that no sex offender on the planet would ever say those things because they realize what they are doing is wrong. Just as no sex offender when asked on national television if they are attracted to children would pause to think about it and then give an answer that isn't a resounding "no."

Even if Jerry is guilty of "testing boundaries" (e.g. putting his hand on a boy's knee while in the car) and even if you could win a criminal case that this was his sexual gratification (required for it to be sex abuse), that is miles and miles and miles away from "forced sodomy in the shower."

The headline "Former PSU Football Coach Touches Boys Knee in Car" doesn't result in Joe being fired, doesn't result in charges against C/S/S, doesn't result in NCAA sanctions and this whole mess would have been a big nothing burger.

Jerry has admitted to having physical contact with unrelated minors. These contacts include touching their left knee with his right hand while driving, wrestling, bear hugs, back cracks, and kissing them on their foreheads among other things. I believe that a strong case could be made that some or all of these contacts are inappropriate partiularly if they occurred in an unsupervised one-on-one situation. I believe the key question is whether or not these contacts were sexual (i.e. that Jerry's motivation was sexual and/or the actions gave him sexual arousal). It seems like Jerry is the only person who can truly answer that question. Absent convincing evidence of any sexual acts or sexual arousal, I don't believe that the case that these interactions were sexual has been made at all let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that Jerry has consistenly maintained his innocence from day 1, that there were serial instances of prosecutorial misconduct, that his lawyers were totally ineffective, that none of the accusers made contemporaneous reports, and that no pornography has ever been found in Jerry's possession, it is clear to me that Jerry at a minumum deserves a new trial. If he ever is fortunate enough to win a new trial then I believe that he would make an excellent case that there is no doubt that he is innocent let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Jerry has admitted to having physical contact with unrelated minors. These contacts include touching their left knee with his right hand while driving, wrestling, bear hugs, back cracks, and kissing them on their foreheads among other things. I believe that a strong case could be made that some or all of these contacts are inappropriate partiularly if they occurred in an unsupervised one-on-one situation. I believe the key question is whether or not these contacts were sexual (i.e. that Jerry's motivation was sexual and/or the actions gave him sexual arousal). It seems like Jerry is the only person who can truly answer that question. Absent convincing evidence of any sexual acts or sexual arousal, I don't believe that the case that these interactions were sexual has been made at all let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that Jerry has consistenly maintained his innocence from day 1, that there were serial instances of prosecutorial misconduct, that his lawyers were totally ineffective, that none of the accusers made contemporaneous reports, and that no pornography has ever been found in Jerry's possession, it is clear to me that Jerry at a minumum deserves a new trial. If he ever is fortunate enough to win a new trial then I believe that he would make an excellent case that there is no doubt that he is innocent let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Testing boundaries on children. Not someone we want in our society.

 

[roswelllion]

This debate will never end. About the only hope the defenders of JS have is if one of the "vics" recants his story and suggests he knows others who fabricated some facts.
Even then some [LaJolla] will say "it is normal vic behavior to deny what happened, then change their story and admit something did happen then recant it again so we can only believe his testimony not his story before and after the testimony". So i guess that means it will never end.

 

[pandaczar12]

Testing boundaries on children. Not someone we want in our society.

Obviously... but if he was only guilty of testing boundaries on teens, that means there are quite a few people guilty of fraud. I don't really went them in our society either. In that scenario, consider all the attention and resources those frauds took away from victims of actual abuse, in their pursuit of a payday.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

This debate will never end. About the only hope the defenders of JS have is if one of the "vics" recants his story and suggests he knows others who fabricated some facts.
Even then some [LaJolla] will say "it is normal vic behavior to deny what happened, then change their story and admit something did happen then recant it again so we can only believe his testimony not his story before and after the testimony". So i guess that means it will never end.

I'm not saying it's normal, professionals in the field are. If that isn't factual or it is fabricated by them, you're free to debunk it....but there is no trial here anymore. Jerry lied about being the shower with the kid initially, but we'll over look that. It's fine when Jerry lied, he gets a free pass. Jerry was told not to shower alone with young boys again only to be caught doing it 3 years later, but we'll overlook that as he was "confused" somehow. Jerry forgot for years he had a medical condition that apparently prevented any of this from occurring, but we'll believe that. The repressed memory angle was brought up at the trial IIRC and was shot down by the therapists, but it really came forward after Jerry read MP's book...someone himself who was accused of this. It's perfectly ok to question any of Jerry's victims, but none of his character witnesses as they are beyond reproach. AF is a monster to most here, but he was the one Jerry admitted to laying in bed with alone and blowing raspberries on his stomach at 12 years of age. So for all of those around him calling him a liar, Jerry validated there was inappropriate physical contact there with AF. Then IIRC Dottie or Jerry stated they had a normal healthy sex life, but how did they with his condition that he remembered he had in prison years later.

Nobody defending Jerry ever lays a critical thought about any of that. If you dare to, you're just mean, hate PSU....or other BS....but these are all things that are out there.

Let one victim recant their story, at least that would be a starting point...but that hasn't occurred. Let one say it never happened and they were pressured to say it or took the money, then you have something valid for sure. No doubt that would lend people to rethinking this was all a scam somehow.

I get the anger about the witch hunt over the school, Joe, CSS....etc. A lot of innocent people were wrongfully taken down by Jerry's case and it wasn't right. The school mishandled the initial reaction and fumbled everything else along the way. The prosecution did overstep their bounds and put out a false claim initially. People are upset about the victims getting paid as they should be as the geography of a crime doesn't make that person liable IMO. I don't dispute any of that, but I'm not going to say since that stuff wasn't right, Jerry is innocent as there is really nothing than victim assignation and parking lot dates a decade after it happened.

I'll unwatch this thread for you guys so the fantasy can be unchallenged....no need for me to rehash this again.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not saying it's normal, professionals in the field are.
If that isn't factual or it is fabricated by them, you're free to debunk it....but there is no trial here anymore.
This doesn't mean that alleged victims always tell the truth. Sure, it is possible that all accusers (except for Aaron Fisher) either changed their story or originated their accusations *after* being assured a payday and this had nothing to do with the payday. But it is laughable think that it is impossible that having millions of $$ waved in their faces could not have possibly impacted their stories. Saying that everything that every accuser said is true is just as silly as saying that everything that every accuser said is untrue.

Jerry lied about being the shower with the kid initially, but we'll over look that. It's fine when Jerry lied, he gets a free pass.
You mean when they asked him about the wrong date? They didn't even get the year right! So what you call lying, I call answering a bad question truthfully.


I get the anger about the witch hunt over the school, Joe, CSS....etc. A lot of innocent people were wrongfully taken down by Jerry's case and it wasn't right. The school mishandled the initial reaction and fumbled everything else along the way. The prosecution did overstep their bounds and put out a false claim initially. People are upset about the victims getting paid as they should be as the geography of a crime doesn't make that person liable IMO. I don't dispute any of that, but I'm not going to say since that stuff wasn't right, Jerry is innocent as there is really nothing than victim assignation and parking lot dates a decade after it happened.
Given what you've written above, do you agree that if the most serious charges against JS were false (and I realize this is a big "if" for you) that none of the aftermath of this would have happened? In other words, if no sodomy or oral sex was alleged, I believe this is all just a blip on the radar.
To you this is black and white (he's guilty or he's not). I think that if he is innocent of the more serious charges that's a big deal (and further speaks to prosecutorial misconduct) that ruined a bunch of people's lives.

I'll unwatch this thread for you guys so the fantasy can be unchallenged....no need for me to rehash this again.
I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[indynittany]

I think JZ made a tactical error in jumping on the "Jerry is innocent" train when he did. I think he could have gone a long way toward clearing Joe's name and should have focused on that first.

I've held that many of Jerry's crimes were more indiscretions than acts of abuse for a long time. I feel even more strongly that way now. Corbett and his minions were clearly, and understandably, not going to go after Jerry if all they could prove was that he was creepy. Too many political careers hung in the balance for one thing.

Conventional wisdom suggests that it was Jerry who took down Joe. I'm not sure it wasn't the other way around. I think Joe may have been the target all along and they used Jerry to do it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Conventional wisdom suggests that it was Jerry who took down Joe. I'm not sure it wasn't the other way around. I think Joe may have been the target all along and they used Jerry to do it.

Indy, I respect your opinion, but this is a little too "tin foil hatty" for me.

My best guess is that when there was enough "smoke" around JS, law enforcement had to do something. IIRC, Aaron Fisher's mom kept pestering LE about the investigation and they had to do more than they might have otherwise. My experience is that once LE gets someone in their cross hairs as "the guy" they will do practically whatever it takes to get a conviction.

As this is happening, the people who wanted to take down Paterno (Surma) and Spanier (Corbett) saw this as an opportunity to get what they wanted. After all, nothing is hated in our society more than child abuse. If you can link your enemies to child abuse (even indirectly), that's en effective way to bring them down.

I may be wrong, but I have a hard time seeing the anti-Paterno camp having enough LE clout to spin up the case against JS.

 

[Osprey Lion]

Jerry has admitted to having physical contact with unrelated minors. These contacts include touching their left knee with his right hand while driving, wrestling, bear hugs, back cracks, and kissing them on their foreheads among other things. I believe that a strong case could be made that some or all of these contacts are inappropriate partiularly if they occurred in an unsupervised one-on-one situation. I believe the key question is whether or not these contacts were sexual (i.e. that Jerry's motivation was sexual and/or the actions gave him sexual arousal). It seems like Jerry is the only person who can truly answer that question. Absent convincing evidence of any sexual acts or sexual arousal, I don't believe that the case that these interactions were sexual has been made at all let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that Jerry has consistenly maintained his innocence from day 1, that there were serial instances of prosecutorial misconduct, that his lawyers were totally ineffective, that none of the accusers made contemporaneous reports, and that no pornography has ever been found in Jerry's possession, it is clear to me that Jerry at a minumum deserves a new trial. If he ever is fortunate enough to win a new trial then I believe that he would make an excellent case that there is no doubt that he is innocent let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your "thinking" lacks the use of common sense.

 

[Osprey Lion]

I think JZ made a tactical error in jumping on the "Jerry is innocent" train when he did. I think he could have gone a long way toward clearing Joe's name and should have focused on that first.

I've held that many of Jerry's crimes were more indiscretions than acts of abuse for a long time. I feel even more strongly that way now. Corbett and his minions were clearly, and understandably, not going to go after Jerry if all they could prove was that he was creepy. Too many political careers hung in the balance for one thing.

Conventional wisdom suggests that it was Jerry who took down Joe. I'm not sure it wasn't the other way around. I think Joe may have been the target all along and they used Jerry to do it.

Everyone was trying to "take down" an 85 year old guy in failing health. Get a grip.

 

[Legion of Lions]

I think JZ made a tactical error in jumping on the "Jerry is innocent" train when he did. I think he could have gone a long way toward clearing Joe's name and should have focused on that first.

I've held that many of Jerry's crimes were more indiscretions than acts of abuse for a long time. I feel even more strongly that way now. Corbett and his minions were clearly, and understandably, not going to go after Jerry if all they could prove was that he was creepy. Too many political careers hung in the balance for one thing.

Conventional wisdom suggests that it was Jerry who took down Joe. I'm not sure it wasn't the other way around. I think Joe may have been the target all along and they used Jerry to do it.

How about another spin --- something much closer to the truth about all this!

Sandusky's Crimes were the direct result of the "Harrisburg Gang" deciding, over time, that prosecuting Sandusky had both political and financial rewards. Only when a way was formulated to insure rewards would be created did Sandusky become a criminal! Only then did Sandusky become such a "monster".

The key issue here is WHY SO CLOSELY LINK PSU WITH SANDUSKY??? Why create a scandal if you have a strong case against him? Why include PSU administration on a single incident 10 years prior???

REASON....The Harrisburg Gang slow walked an obviously weak legal accusation and case against Sandusky for 3 years! WHY??? Because...the LEGAL evidence was not there to support a LEGAL conviction.

But, within that 3 year period, The Gang started to realize that the Sandusky matter ( a "Back Pocket" case that could be tried at their need and whim) which had been held without any actions for months and months could be morphed into a way to coverup political issues and "finance" future political operations.


So they consulted with some of their Deep State assets - professional spin doctors who "fixed" problem issues for politician - and started to create what was needed for a well engineered "Story" which could be sold to the public. (Not unlike the movie "Wag the Dog"). NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING!!

Over a number of months in 2011, the key "assets" were assembled by multiple strong arm tactics - like MM being reminded about helping out with putting a Pedophile away by tweaking his 10 year old report of a "boy in the shower incident" where he felt uneasy - tweaking this testimony of Slapping sounds --- could they be "sexual sounds"???...(investigators...could what you heard then?? ...it may have been RAPE, right ??? Investigator CONCLUSION and key testimony ...It must have been rape!!!) And for MM....If he cooperated, PA OAG would "forget" any personal "indiscretions" and potentially illegal activities. He wins...PA OAG gets their linchpin for the "Story".

Now if you control the judges and courts, you can offer anyone a guarantee that any testimony given - no matter how obviously the testimony is a lie - would NOT be held against that person. With a court that you own - no LAWS need be of concern because ..."It ain't a law unless I say its a law!!!..." Perjury is OK...illegal processes are OK...flat out lies by the state are OK. Who is going to go against a whole State Government and State courts (and win if the State does not want it)_.

Finally...check into the OGBOT - PSU's BOT has been cozy to Harrisburg influences since before 2000. Politics established its controls on OGBOT actions by 15+ years worth of "favors" given to selected "cooperatives" on the OGBOT. BIG MONEY HAS ALREADY changed hands and those who profited from these questionably legal opportunities are "in the pocket" of the Harrisburg Gang. This is the final piece of the puzzle - controlling PSU's response to the legal accusations that were to be made.

With this "Story" - the slow-walked Sandusky matter goes from a liability to an asset overnight!!! SWEET!!! Now all that is needed is to have a sideshow Presser - as a way to bring PSU in as the MAIN target of the public's attention and validate the trumped up bogus charges on Curley and Shultz - as a means to complete "The Story" of Penn State Football criminality. With all of this what you really have is a smokescreen which covers up for other PA issues (like money laundering done by TSM for political elites - one of the REAL REASONS TSM is so well hidden from legal and public view) that will not only coverup...but will steal MILLIONS from the Bank of PSU.

How...remember the OGBOT who owe the Harrisburg Gang - they are the only ones who vet and pay victims and they SET THE STANDARDS FOR AMOUNTS PAID!!!

The final point needed to insure success for this scam is..."we need a validator...someone who will say the moon is made of green cheese and will deliver this message with public conviction in another sideshow event....

The man - Got to be Louie "the Liar" Freeh. He's the man! The Freeh report then just restates lies found in the GJP and these lies are then validated to the public.GAME - SET - MATCH. Game over, the bad guys win again!

$300M in PSU Case costs were distributed via a network of add-on contractors, special integrity officers and politically "in-tune" lawyers. AND, the Harrisburg Gang gets paid for all its illegal work....It gets its paybacks of millions via ultimate "donations" made by cooperating lawyers, politically beholding operatives and other legal case "assets".

ITS THE PERFECT CRIME!!! And your taxpayer monies paid for it all.

 

[indynittany]

Indy, I respect your opinion, but this is a little too "tin foil hatty" for me.

My best guess is that when there was enough "smoke" around JS, law enforcement had to do something. IIRC, Aaron Fisher's mom kept pestering LE about the investigation and they had to do more than they might have otherwise. My experience is that once LE gets someone in their cross hairs as "the guy" they will do practically whatever it takes to get a conviction.

As this is happening, the people who wanted to take down Paterno (Surma) and Spanier (Corbett) saw this as an opportunity to get what they wanted. After all, nothing is hated in our society more than child abuse. If you can link your enemies to child abuse (even indirectly), that's en effective way to bring them down.

I may be wrong, but I have a hard time seeing the anti-Paterno camp having enough LE clout to spin up the case against JS.

Once Surma and Corbett were gone, the BOT had no reason not to reverse course on Joe. Hell, the Freeh report, as written, could have concluded that Joe had no part in this without back pedaling on C/S/S. Who the F cares what Surma wanted anyway? When I think of how hard the OAG/PSU and the NCAA fought to keep the false narrative alive, it just doesn't make any sense!

 

[indynittany]

How about another spin --- something much closer to the truth about all this!

Sandusky's Crimes were the direct result of the "Harrisburg Gang" deciding, over time, that prosecuting Sandusky had both political and financial rewards. Only when a way was formulated to insure rewards would be created did Sandusky become a criminal! Only then did Sandusky become such a "monster".

The key issue here is WHY SO CLOSELY LINK PSU WITH SANDUSKY??? Why create a scandal if you have a strong case against him? Why include PSU administration on a single incident 10 years prior???

REASON....The Harrisburg Gang slow walked an obviously weak legal accusation and case against Sandusky for 3 years! WHY??? Because...the LEGAL evidence was not there to support a LEGAL conviction.

But, within that 3 year period, The Gang started to realize that the Sandusky matter ( a "Back Pocket" case that could be tried at their need and whim) which had been held without any actions for months and months could be morphed into a way to coverup political issues and "finance" future political operations.


So they consulted with some of their Deep State assets - professional spin doctors who "fixed" problem issues for politician - and started to create what was needed for a well engineered "Story" which could be sold to the public. (Not unlike the movie "Wag the Dog"). NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING!!

Over a number of months in 2011, the key "assets" were assembled by multiple strong arm tactics - like MM being reminded about helping out with putting a Pedophile away by tweaking his 10 year old report of a "boy in the shower incident" where he felt uneasy - tweaking this testimony of Slapping sounds --- could they be "sexual sounds"???...(investigators...could what you heard then?? ...it may have been RAPE, right ??? Investigator CONCLUSION and key testimony ...It must have been rape!!!) And for MM....If he cooperated, PA OAG would "forget" any personal "indiscretions" and potentially illegal activities. He wins...PA OAG gets their linchpin for the "Story".

Now if you control the judges and courts, you can offer anyone a guarantee that any testimony given - no matter how obviously the testimony is a lie - would NOT be held against that person. With a court that you own - no LAWS need be of concern because ..."It ain't a law unless I say its a law!!!..." Perjury is OK...illegal processes are OK...flat out lies by the state are OK. Who is going to go against a whole State Government and State courts (and win if the State does not want it)_.

Finally...check into the OGBOT - PSU's BOT has been cozy to Harrisburg influences since before 2000. Politics established its controls on OGBOT actions by 15+ years worth of "favors" given to selected "cooperatives" on the OGBOT. BIG MONEY HAS ALREADY changed hands and those who profited from these questionably legal opportunities are "in the pocket" of the Harrisburg Gang. This is the final piece of the puzzle - controlling PSU's response to the legal accusations that were to be made.

With this "Story" - the slow-walked Sandusky matter goes from a liability to an asset overnight!!! SWEET!!! Now all that is needed is to have a sideshow Presser - as a way to bring PSU in as the MAIN target of the public's attention and validate the trumped up bogus charges on Curley and Shultz - as a means to complete "The Story" of Penn State Football criminality. With all of this what you really have is a smokescreen which covers up for other PA issues (like money laundering done by TSM for political elites - one of the REAL REASONS TSM is so well hidden from legal and public view) that will not only coverup...but will steal MILLIONS from the Bank of PSU.

How...remember the OGBOT who owe the Harrisburg Gang - they are the only ones who vet and pay victims and they SET THE STANDARDS FOR AMOUNTS PAID!!!

The final point needed to insure success for this scam is..."we need a validator...someone who will say the moon is made of green cheese and will deliver this message with public conviction in another sideshow event....

The man - Got to be Louie "the Liar" Freeh. He's the man! The Freeh report then just restates lies found in the GJP and these lies are then validated to the public.GAME - SET - MATCH. Game over, the bad guys win again!

$300M in PSU Case costs were distributed via a network of add-on contractors, special integrity officers and politically "in-tune" lawyers. AND, the Harrisburg Gang gets paid for all its illegal work....It gets its paybacks of millions via ultimate "donations" made by cooperating lawyers, politically beholding operatives and other legal case "assets".

ITS THE PERFECT CRIME!!! And your taxpayer monies paid for it all.

You make a lot of good points.

Well, we know that Corbett took over $650,000 in campaign contributions from moneyed people and entities with close ties to TSM from 2003 until he ran for governor.

We still don't know why PSU fell on the sword for TSM. And we still don't know why the press didn't pursue this as, first and foremost, a TSM scandal.

 

[bdgan]

Once Surma and Corbett were gone, the BOT had no reason not to reverse course on Joe. Hell, the Freeh report, as written, could have concluded that Joe had no part in this without reversing course on C/S/S. Who the F cares what Surma wanted anyway? When I think of how hard the OAG/PSU and the NCAA fought to keep the false narrative alive, it just doesn't make any sense!

It makes perfect sense. A lot of people at PSU had ties to TSM. Even those who didn't were at risk of being accused of failing in their oversight responsibility. Life became a lot easier for these people if they could dump the blame on a select few.

 

[Osprey Lion]

It makes perfect sense. A lot of people at PSU had ties to TSM. Even those who didn't were at risk of being accused of failing in their oversight responsibility. Life became a lot easier for these people if they could dump the blame on a select few.

If it makes sense to you, it is wrong. Have you learned the difference between offensive and defensive players?

 

[L.T. Young]

I’ve actually heard that argument several times. “Maybe the real victim 2 has died, since CSA victims are prone to suicide and drug overdose”. What’s absurd about that is if a boy who did spend much time with Sandusky did OD or kill himself, the media would have been all over it, and would have tried to blame Joe as causing the boy’s death.

There was a second mile kid close to Sandusky, named Ryan Dixon, who did die young, but it was via a motorcycle crash. Interestingly, the sister of Mr. Dixon actually testified for the defense at Sandusky’s trial, saying the star accuser (Brett Swisher Houtz, aka Victim 4) was a notorious liar.

Did you forget about the shield laws in place? There’s a reason everyone but Ziegler avoids using names.

FTR I’m just pointing out flawed logic not making an argument for it.

 

[RussianEagle]

I think JZ made a tactical error in jumping on the "Jerry is innocent" train when he did. I think he could have gone a long way toward clearing Joe's name and should have focused on that first.

I've held that many of Jerry's crimes were more indiscretions than acts of abuse for a long time. I feel even more strongly that way now. Corbett and his minions were clearly, and understandably, not going to go after Jerry if all they could prove was that he was creepy. Too many political careers hung in the balance for one thing.

Conventional wisdom suggests that it was Jerry who took down Joe. I'm not sure it wasn't the other way around. I think Joe may have been the target all along and they used Jerry to do it.

You do have a point with the first thought. However, the “celebate pedophile” theory pushed by Ziegler and Blehar in 2013 was likewise ridiculed. And if you go back and watch Zigs media appearances on YouTube from that time, even though Ziegler wanted to keep the focus on Joe, he was always inevitably asked about his view of Jerry.

I doubt Joe was ever the target. Remember Ganim and the OAG were actually praising him right after Sandusky’s arrest. I think Corbett just shit his pants after the media firestorm a few days later.

 

[RussianEagle]

Did you forget about the shield laws in place? There’s a reason everyone but Ziegler avoids using names.

FTR I’m just pointing out flawed logic not making an argument for it.

It’s been public information. The trial transcripts revealing the names of the accusers have been available via a simple google search for years, long before Ziegler even started using their names.

 

[RussianEagle]

Testing boundaries on children. Not someone we want in our society.

By not wanting in our society, are you saying people who test boundaries should be not allowed to work in children’s charities? ( which is a valid point) Or are you saying that the deserve solitary confinement prison sentences of over 6 years with no end in sight? There are many cases of men who had actual sex with children plea bargaining (since they almost always confess) then getting released in 2-3 years.

This case was not about testing boundaries or even inappropriate touching.

 

[RussianEagle]

I'd like clarification on this as well. My guess is that he is referring to JS/Dottie's assertion that they had a normal sex life (which JZ thinks is highly unlikely based on JS's medical records).

Couple of points:

1) "Normal" is highly subjective. Things I think are normal, you might be appalled by (and the reverse is true). I strongly suspect (based on their strong ties to religion) that they have never slept with anyone else, so it's unlikely they know what a normal sex life really is. So perhaps they aren't lying ("it depends what that definition of is is")

2) I know couples who have been married for years who will insist that their sex life is fine, and then the guy confesses to you over beers that they have sex once or twice a year. People fib about how much sex they are having, maybe out of bragging maybe out of embarrassment. Equating that to lying about whether or not you were abused seems...what's the word...disingenuous. But that's part for the course for the Hippo.

What does he insist that they lie about?

Ziegler has told me that he’s believes Dottie is clueless, not that she is necessarily lying.

 

[nits74]

Ziegler has told me that he’s believes Dottie is clueless, not that she is necessarily lying.

Trouble with that is, her being clueless can be used against some of JZ's arguments.

 

[pandaczar12]

Trouble with that is, her being clueless can be used against some of JZ's arguments.

Someone can be clueless about some things, and not about others. This is frequently caused by generational differences.