With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,836
4,579
1
You're right. It has nothing to do with Sandusky's guilt or innocence. My opinion on that is that Jerry deserves a fair trial. However, my focus in this saga has always been more on PSU, C/S/S and specifically Joe. Jerry doesn't have to be innocent for them to have been falsely accused.

I think it's long past time that PSU was held accountable for what "it" consciously did to Joe and the others. While I support Ziegler's efforts WRT Sandusky, I believe clearing Joe's name and correcting the narrative as it applies to PSU is low hanging fruit.
The first step in proving innocence is to get a new trial. Any objective observer can see that Jerry's trial was inherently unfair and he absolutely deserves a new trial.

You are also absolutely correct that independent of Sandusky's guilt or innocence; Tim, Gary, Graham, and Joe were fasely accused. However, if Sandusky is innocent then it becomes cyrstal clear that these four indivduals, who up until then had led exemplary lives, were falsely accused.

This podcast with the detailed and comprehensive 19 episodes makes it cyrstal clear that Jerry, who up until then had led an exemplary life, was also fasely accused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

Texas Lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
1,690
1,933
1
Very good and compelling although if you have followed JZ it is mostly stuff he has said before. I think the in the end it is the same old with JZ....he can't get out of his own way when it comes to interrupting and going from 0 to 60 in about 1 second. JZ in an interview is like the 2nd grader that knows the answer and yet can't sit still and wait to get called on.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,346
6,283
1
The first step in proving innocence is to get a new trial. Any objective observer can see that Jerry's trial was inherently unfair and he absolutely deserves a new trial.

You are also absolutely correct that independent of Sandusky's guilt or innocence; Tim, Gary, Graham, and Joe were fasely accused. However, if Sandusky is innocent then it becomes cyrstal clear that these four indivduals, who up until then had led exemplary lives, were falsely accused.

This podcast with the detailed and comprehensive 19 episodes makes it cyrstal clear that Jerry, who up until then had led an exemplary life, was also fasely accused.
My point, I suppose, is that clearing Joe's and the other's names would be a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around. Exposing the bad actors responsible would, in turn, make it more acceptable to question Jerry's situation. Plus, when you factor in Freeh, the OAG, the NCAA, and of course, Tom Corbett, there's a helluva story for a good investigative journalist.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
Would you mind telling us your age? Attitudes change over the years and I would like to know the era that you grew-up. There are no hidden agendas to this question. Thanks.
48
If this is about showering together in a communal shower, that is not a foreign concept to me. And that is not what this is about. It’s about showering alone with a child and having physical contact with them.
Can I ask you your age and if at any point in your life you encountered this type of behavior?
 
Last edited:

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
My point, I suppose, is that clearing Joe's and the other's names would be a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around. Exposing the bad actors responsible would, in turn, make it more acceptable to question Jerry's situation. Plus, when you factor in Freeh, the OAG, the NCAA, and of course, Tom Corbett, there's a helluva story for a good investigative journalist.
The end of your post is the issue though. Where are the food investigative journalists?
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,967
40,174
1
Baltimore, MD
My point, I suppose, is that clearing Joe's and the other's names would be a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around. Exposing the bad actors responsible would, in turn, make it more acceptable to question Jerry's situation. Plus, when you factor in Freeh, the OAG, the NCAA, and of course, Tom Corbett, there's a helluva story for a good investigative journalist.
Not named Sara Ganim.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,836
4,579
1
My point, I suppose, is that clearing Joe's and the other's names would be a lot easier for people to wrap their heads around. Exposing the bad actors responsible would, in turn, make it more acceptable to question Jerry's situation.
These cases are all interrelated. At this point in time, I believe the only way to fully exonerate Graham, Tim, Gary, and Joe is to fully exonerate Jerry.

Imho, the comprehensive record in the case demonstrates that Jerry was railroaded and does not deserve to be in prison and should be fully exonerated

The record includes the With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast (19 detailed episodes revealing interviews, etc.), Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man n America," Cipriano's big trial blog posts, Snedden's 110 page redacted report of his federal investigation as well as the evidence in plain review of OAG misconduct and corruption (false grand jury presentment, grand jury leaks, lead prosecutor sanctioned for violating attorney-client privledge, colluding withFreeh, juror tampering, etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lion409

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,836
4,579
1
I disagree. IMO, Jerry could be guilty as sin and the others could be exonerated rather easily.
I don't disagree with your statement. My point is that at this point in time with Tim, Gary, and Graham convicted and Joe convicted in the court of public opinion the only realistic way for them to be fully exonerated is for Jerry to be exonerated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lion409

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,346
6,283
1
I don't disagree with your statement. My point is that at this point in time with Tim, Gary, and Graham conivicted and Joe convicted in the court of public opinion the only realistic way for them to be fully exonerated is for Jerry to be exonerated.
IMO, the fact that the commonwealth failed to convict on even one of the 15 felonies for which C/S/S were collectively charged, that the lone misdemeanor charge to which they plead/were found guilty was not a crime in 2001, and that Joe was never charged with a crime, makes it pretty easy to simply reverse engineer the narrative as it relates to PSU. In other words, C/S/S had to have been guilty of numerous felonies for the narrative to hold water.

IMO, there's no good reason to support PSU's "move on" policy. So much good could be done if the BOT would simply repudiate the Freeh report and honor Joe appropriately. And while I understand there would be consequences for some on that board, the skeptic in me has to wonder if part of PSU's reticence is related to an unwillingness to revisit Jerry's guilt.
 

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,252
579
1
I disagree. IMO, Jerry could be guilty as sin and the others could be exonerated rather easily.

You are quite correct ... and it would be far easier to convince the public at large that CSS&Joe were duped but innocent without also needing to carry Jerry's water.

I have always thought that was the case, and this is why I think Zig and the free Jerry crew have done far more harm than good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capkrokus

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,301
11,092
1
What reason do I have to question the police report? Because Jerry said so it not a legitimate reason to question it.

Because there is another version of events from someone that was intimately involved in the situation? Regardless, you just keep confirming my suspicion that you don't want to believe the JS version because you think he is guilty. But you also use the quote as an integral part of why you think he is guilty. If you don't understand why that is circular logic, then I can not help you. Let's move just move on.

Though, I guess if we’re doubting the report was accurate about Jerry to never shower with kids again then we can also doubt that no sexual assault occurred.

Exactly! It goes both ways. Clearly the information in the 1998 police report is questionable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
Because there is another version of events from someone that was intimately involved in the situation? Regardless, you just keep confirming my suspicion that you don't want to believe the JS version because you think he is guilty. But you also use the quote as an integral part of why you think he is guilty. If you don't understand why that is circular logic, then I can not help you. Let's move just move on.



Exactly! It goes both ways. Clearly the information in the 1998 police report is questionable.
I think Sandusky is most likely guilty because the showering activity is a massive red flag. Of all the people on here that have talked about being in communal showers and how normal it was in their day, I’ve yet to hear one say they did it alone and had physical contact between a child and an adult while doing so. I believe he is most likely guilty because somebody working in his position knows more than the general public to not be in that position (and I think you’d have to look far and wide to find somebody even in the general public who would not know to keep themselves out of that position). He is then accused of touching another kid in another isolated location in an empty gym and the puzzle begins to create a picture. That is followed by other accusations. Does it make him 100% surely guilty? Nope, but it undeniably paints a pedophilic picture.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,346
6,283
1
I think Sandusky is most likely guilty because the showering activity is a massive red flag. Of all the people on here that have talked about being in communal showers and how normal it was in their day, I’ve yet to hear one say they did it alone and had physical contact between a child and an adult while doing so. I believe he is most likely guilty because somebody working in his position knows more than the general public to not be in that position (and I think you’d have to look far and wide to find somebody even in the general public who would not know to keep themselves out of that position). He is then accused of touching another kid in another isolated location in an empty gym and the puzzle begins to create a picture. That is followed by other accusations. Does it make him 100% surely guilty? Nope, but it undeniably paints a pedophilic picture.
To my knowledge, Jerry only showered "alone" with V2 and V6. Both were more teen than child at the time, and both remained close to Sandusky and family into adulthood. Would your attitude be changed if the claim that Jerry had sexual dysfunction was substantiated?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

PSUSignore

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,071
3,827
1
Very good and compelling although if you have followed JZ it is mostly stuff he has said before. I think the in the end it is the same old with JZ....he can't get out of his own way when it comes to interrupting and going from 0 to 60 in about 1 second. JZ in an interview is like the 2nd grader that knows the answer and yet can't sit still and wait to get called on.
And because of that, I have no interest in listening to 10's of hours of him talking. His communication style sucks to put it bluntly and his material is waaaaay too lengthy. I'm someone with an interest in the subject matter and I struggle to listen to him for 10 minutes. How much patience do you think the general public, who has far less interest in the matter, is willing to listen to him before they completely tune him out? These interviews and podcast will accomplish nothing.
 

rudedude

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2002
9,446
12,335
1
Fleetville, Pa.
And because of that, I have no interest in listening to 10's of hours of him talking. His communication style sucks to put it bluntly and his material is waaaaay too lengthy. I'm someone with an interest in the subject matter and I struggle to listen to him for 10 minutes. How much patience do you think the general public, who has far less interest in the matter, is willing to listen to him before they completely tune him out? These interviews and podcast will accomplish nothing.
Ah, the symptom of our age, short attention span theater! Complex issues have complex research and descriptions and need time to explain the links and situations. Ziegler didn’t even mention the fact that McQueary attended charity events with Sandusky. That is a huge contradiction. McQueaary’s entire story and timeline is totally bogus from what Ziegler pieced together.
 

Texas Lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
1,690
1,933
1
And because of that, I have no interest in listening to 10's of hours of him talking. His communication style sucks to put it bluntly and his material is waaaaay too lengthy. I'm someone with an interest in the subject matter and I struggle to listen to him for 10 minutes. How much patience do you think the general public, who has far less interest in the matter, is willing to listen to him before they completely tune him out? These interviews and podcast will accomplish nothing.
I agree and kind of my point. Great information and really could get you thinking, but by the third time he yellingly interrupts the hosts, it loses its luster. Ill listen because the information.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,301
11,092
1
I think Sandusky is most likely guilty because the showering activity is a massive red flag. Of all the people on here that have talked about being in communal showers and how normal it was in their day, I’ve yet to hear one say they did it alone and had physical contact between a child and an adult while doing so. I believe he is most likely guilty because somebody working in his position knows more than the general public to not be in that position (and I think you’d have to look far and wide to find somebody even in the general public who would not know to keep themselves out of that position). He is then accused of touching another kid in another isolated location in an empty gym and the puzzle begins to create a picture. That is followed by other accusations. Does it make him 100% surely guilty? Nope, but it undeniably paints a pedophilic picture.
I'm not saying what you think is wrong, and I'm not looking for you to explain the 'forest' to me. I keep trying to focus on one 'tree,' and discuss one very specific point you made days ago, and how it's not logical. I'm not discussing anyone's guilt or innocence, or even claiming that one illogical point should change anyone's mind.

I'm obviously not getting anywhere, and I'm tired of trying. So I think we should end our discussion. Have a great day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,967
40,174
1
Baltimore, MD
And because of that, I have no interest in listening to 10's of hours of him talking. His communication style sucks to put it bluntly and his material is waaaaay too lengthy. I'm someone with an interest in the subject matter and I struggle to listen to him for 10 minutes. How much patience do you think the general public, who has far less interest in the matter, is willing to listen to him before they completely tune him out? These interviews and podcast will accomplish nothing.

Whatever happened to that radio guy and then podcast guy, cant remember his name but I think he was based in St. Louis? He used to have him on his show and was pretty pro Joe and PSU and not so much the rush to judgement media.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
891
315
1
To my knowledge, Jerry only showered "alone" with V2 and V6. Both were more teen than child at the time, and both remained close to Sandusky and family into adulthood. Would your attitude be changed if the claims that Jerry had sexual dysfunction was substantiated?
Alone ok.

The Sandusky Grand Jury "Presentment" of Nov. 5, 2011, a summary of secret grand jury testimony, stated that, on March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant (later identified as Mike McQueary) had gone to the Lasch Football Building at Penn State around 9:30 p.m. As he entered the locker room, he heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds" that sounded sexual to him. "He looked in the shower. He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
Because grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret, there is no available public transcript to show exactly what Mike McQueary said there, but it is clear from everything else he said about this incident, including his subsequent courtroom testimony, that he did not witness sodomy or any other form of sexual abuse that day in the Lasch locker room. His version of events morphed over time, but none of the narratives included witnessing overt sexual abuse.
Here’s what appears to have happened. On a Friday night, February 9, 2001, a full year earlier than the inaccurate date in the Grand Jury Presentment, Jerry Sandusky was indeed taking a shower with a Second Mile boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building.

Sandusky took it for granted that boys and men showered together after exercise. It was part of the way he was raised, an accepted part of the sports world. Though he had retired as a Penn State coach two years before, he could still use the facilities, and he sometimes brought the troubled Second Mile boys there for a workout, followed by a shower.
As he often did, Sandusky, whom everyone considered “a big kid” himself, was goofing around with the boy. They were snapping towels at each other, or perhaps slap boxing, according to both Sandusky and the boy in the shower. Mike McQueary, then 26, who had been a Penn State quarterback as an undergraduate, was halfway through his post-graduate education, while working as an assistant football coach. This Friday evening, he came to the Lasch building to retrieve tapes of possible recruits. On the way, he figured he might as well put his new shoes away in the locker room.
Before he opened the door to the locker room, McQueary heard slapping sounds. He thought they sounded sexual. As McQueary later put it when describing the scene, “Visualizations come to your head.” By the time he got to his locker at the near end of the wall, it had quieted down. Curious, he looked obliquely into the shower room through a mirror across the room and caught a glimpse of a boy in the shower. Then an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse. After closing his locker, he saw Jerry Sandusky walk out of the shower. Was his former coach a pedophile?
McQueary quickly left the building and called his father, John McQueary, and told him his suspicions. His father advised him to come right over to talk about it. Then John McQueary called his employer and friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a nephrologist, asking him to come over and help them sort out Mike’s disturbing experience.
Dranov attempted, using the diagnostic and interviewing skills that he used with patients, to get a clear description of the scene that had so upset his friend’s son. Dranov was unable to get Mike McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?” McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
Upon the advice of his father and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary took his concerns to legendary head coach Joe Paterno at his home the next day. Apparently because McQueary did not actually witness anything sexual, they did not suggest he contact the police, nor did they feel called upon to do so.
This was the only initiative McQueary ever took connected with the shower incident. Paterno subsequently told his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Tim Curley, about it, who told Vice President Gary Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz met with McQueary to hear what he had seen and heard. From that conversation, they concluded that Sandusky had been “horsing around” with a kid and that, while it was not sexual abuse, it wasn’t a good idea, particularly because they remembered that a parent had complained back in 1998 about Sandusky showering with her child (details on that incident shortly).
So Curley told Sandusky that as a result of someone (he didn’t name McQueary) complaining about the shower incident, he should stop working out with Second Mile kids on campus, and there the matter was left, case closed.
McQueary apparently calmed down and accepted that he may have overreacted and that perhaps Sandusky had just been “horsing around.” He remained at least overtly friendly with Jerry Sandusky over the following years. He signed up for the Sandusky Celebrity Golf Event in the fall of 2001, just four months after the shower incident, then took part in other Sandusky charity-related events, such as flag football fund-raisers coached by Sandusky in March 2002 and April 2004 and another golf event in 2003.
By the time the police questioned McQueary about the shower incident in late 2010, he couldn’t remember exactly when it occurred, and he said that it happened during spring break of 2002, more than a year after the actual date. At the time, McQueary was a 6’ 4”, 220-pound 26-year-old. Some critics would later question why, if he had witnessed horrifying child sexual abuse, he would not have rushed in to put a stop to the behavior.
McQueary’s story changed several times after the police told him that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile, as we will see in Chapter 12. In response to the police telling him that Sandusky was a child molester, McQueary searched his decade-old memory and now “remembered” something that he had not reported back in 2001 -- that he had seen Sandusky with his hips moving against a boy’s backside in the shower.
In short, Mike McQueary did not witness Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower, although he later came to believe that he had. At the time of the incident, he overheard slapping sounds and interpreted them as being sexual.
We know a great deal more about this incident because we know the identity of that boy, a Second Miler named Allan Myers, who was nearly 14 years old at the time, not ten, and who remained friends with Sandusky until after the allegations created a public furor in November 2011. Sandusky later recalled that shower with Myers in a 2013 interview with reporter John Ziegler:
“He [Allan] turned on every shower [and] he was like wild, he put soap on himself and was sliding, he was seeing how far he could slide. I remember that. Then we may have been like slapping towels, slap boxing, doing something like that.”
Here Sandusky laughed, remembering that “he [Allan] always, no matter what, he’d always get the last lick in."
Recalling his relationship with Allan Myers, Sandusky said, “He was like family. We did all kinds of things together. We studied. We tutored. We worked out. He went to California with my wife and me twice. He spoke for the Second Mile numerous times.” This all took place after the 2001 shower incident. “He asked me to speak at his high school graduation, and I did. He stayed with us the summer after his high school graduation, worked part-time jobs with classes. He would go home on weekends. We went to his wedding.”
Indeed, Myers, a Marine who had recently received an honorable discharge at the time the allegations broke, came forward to defend Sandusky, telling Sandusky’s lawyer and his investigator, Curtis Everhart, what had actually happened.
Myers, born on Feb. 28, 1987, had endured his parents’ volatile marriage, in which he witnessed his father threatening his mother with a gun. His guidance counselor suggested Myers for the Second Mile program, which he attended as a fourth and fifth grader, getting to know Jerry Sandusky the second year. Myers said that Sandusky was a “father figure” associated with “many positive events” in his life. On “Senior Night” at a West Branch High School football game, Myers asked Sandusky to walk out onto the field with his mother, as the loudspeaker announced, “Father, Jerry Sandusky,” along with his mother’s name.
About the McQueary shower incident, Myers said, "This particular night is very clear in my mind.” In the shower after a workout, he and Sandusky "were slapping towels at each other, trying to sting each other. I would slap the walls and would slide on the shower floor, which I am sure you could have heard from the wooden locker area." Myers said that he recalled hearing a locker slam but he never saw who closed it. Although McQueary would later claim that both Sandusky and Myers saw him, neither of them had any idea he was there that night.
Myers repeatedly and emphatically denied that Jerry Sandusky had ever sexually abused him. “Never, ever, did anything like that occur.” Yes, Sandusky had put his hand on his left knee while he was driving, but that didn’t bother him. “I often would stay at Jerry’s home overnight,” he said. “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else. On many occasions there were numerous people at his home. I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.”
The only thing that made Myers feel uncomfortable and violated was his September 2011 interview with Pennsylvania State Police officers. “They would try to put words in my mouth, take my statement out of context. The PSP investigators were clearly angry and upset when I would not say what they wanted to hear. My final words to the PSP were, ‘I will never have anything bad to say about Jerry.’”
Allan Myers also wrote a letter to the newspaper and the Pennsylvania attorney general and submitted a sworn statement to both the Pennsylvania State Police and a private investigator to the effect that he was not abused that night or any other time by Jerry Sandusky.
“I am one of those many Second Mile kids who became a part of Jerry’s ‘family.’ He has been a best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more,” Myers wrote to the attorney general. “We’ve worked together, competed together, traveled together and laughed together. I lived with Jerry and Dottie for three months. Jerry’s been there for me for 13 years; and stood beside me at my senior parent’s football night. I drove twelve hours to attend his mom’s funeral. I don’t know what I would have done without him.”
Myers wrote that letter on May 1, 2011. But like so many Second Milers, Myers subsequently found a lawyer, Andrew Shubin, and joined the throng of those seeking millions of dollars in compensation for alleged abuse. He did not testify at the trial, however. Both prosecution and defense lawyers knew that Allan Myers was the boy in the 2001 McQueary shower incident, but for their own strategic reasons, neither chose to identify him, so that the jury never learned that Myers was in fact the anonymous “Victim Number 2.”
The McQueary story of the alleged sodomy-in-the-shower became the linchpin of the entire case against Sandusky, lighting a fire under the investigation and creating a media firestorm, and it is what led to the firing of Penn State University President Graham Spanier and football Head Coach Joe Paterno, as well as subsequent lawsuits against Spanier and former Penn State administrators Gary Schultz and Tim Curley.
Ironically, the sodomy charge of “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse” in the McQueary incident was among the few for which the jury found Sandusky not guilty, since the witness did not say that he had literally seen penetration. The jury did find Sandusky guilty of four other McQueary-related charges: “indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors and endangering a child's welfare.”
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
I'm not saying what you think is wrong, and I'm not looking for you to explain the 'forest' to me. I keep trying to focus on one 'tree,' and discuss one very specific point you made days ago, and how it's not logical. I'm not discussing anyone's guilt or innocence, or even claiming that one illogical point should change anyone's mind.

I'm obviously not getting anywhere, and I'm tired of trying. So I think we should end our discussion. Have a great day.
You asked if I believe the police report is accurate. I said that I have no reason not to believe it. You pointed to something that included Jerry saying that’s not what he agreed to. I told you I am not going to take Jerry at his word over the police report, while acknowledging that it is possible that the report could be erroneous. You seem to be trying get me to say I believe Sandusky is guilty because I believe the police report and I believe the police report because I believe Sandusky is guilty. I have detailed for you why I believe Sandusky is most likely guilty, which is not the circular logic you want me to agree to. I’m not sure what else to tell you.
You have a great weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

BUFFALO LION

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2001
11,823
4,896
1
Help me out. What reason have I been given to question it? Honestly, I’m not on some crusade to keep Sandusky in jail and I’m open to changing my mind. Nor am I of the belief that the police are beyond reproach. What I have seen is a statement in a police report stating that he agreed to never shower with children again (which again, should never even have to be said to a man at all, more specifically in his role). What we know is that Jerry Sandusky again showered with at least one other boy. That seems to me to follow some logical steps that it wasn’t some he was able to stop doing (and for anybody that has ever worked in that field, it is absolutely something that should never even have been considered to begin with).
Edit: Just re-read it. Jerry Sandusky saying what the police report says he agreed to is not what he agreed to is not going to cut it for me to question the report. Allow your mind to go to a place where Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. That is exactly what you would expect him to say. And again, nobody working with youths needs to be told by the police not to shower with and have physical contact with them.

Well, if the other "boy" you are talking about is AM, the kid was like a son to Sandusky at the time, lived with the Sanduskys for awhile, and invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Coming from the generation I do, before this 2011 sh!t storm hit, I would have seen nothing wrong with showering with someone you have, and have had, a live-in father/son relationship with.

I haven't read this whole thread, but as far as the 1998 incident goes, Jerry gives a pretty good account of what happens in his interview with Zigler.

Lauro not only sends Jerry an official letter in the mail to tell him the 1998 charges are unfounded, but PERSONALLY CALLS him within two days of the locker room meeting with Sheffler, Lauro, and Sandusky to tell him the 1998 charges were unfounded. After the locker room interview is completed, Lauro tells Sandusky he has seen much, much worse, and from my interpretation, Sandusky's seems to be under the impression they are just focused on showering with Victim 6.

Here is a portion of Zigler's transcript with Sandusky relating to Sandusky's understanding of the conclusion and findings of the 1998 incident :

[John: And how do you know that? Are you confident in that, that he (Joe) knew nothing?

Jerry: Well, he didn’t talk to me about it ever. I mean, he never said a word to me about it in 1998. I was on his staff. I was coaching. I wasn’t led to believe by anyone that I talked to that anybody at Penn State like was talked to, other than the officer, Mr. Sheffler, because he was the only person from Penn State that I talked with. In other words, I never talked to any administrator, coach, or any person. I was led to believe that this was such a, there wasn’t a very significant thing. I mean, It was never made a huge deal to me from anybody at Penn State including Mr. Sheffler. Now. So that’s why I didn;t talk to Tim Curley then and I didn't (talk to Joe) so how would I have thought that Joe knew anything?

John: So after the ’98 investigation, first, how were you informed that the ’98 investigation ended? Do you remember?

Jerry: Oh yeah. The only concerns I ever had was for the young man who was involved in this. And when I met with his mother, it was out of concern. I was told that this young man had cancer. I was told that he really liked Penn State football. He asked me to take him to a Penn State football game, then, ok, his mother talked to me a little bit about this and I do not recall saying some of the things that she said I said or that Sheffler said that I said. But I was upset because this young man, I didn’t want to do anything to hurt him. I didn’t feel that I did anything to hurt him. And I never told anybody that I did anything to hurt him. So out of the clear blue sky Sheffler and a man by the name of Lauro, Mr. Lauro show up at the locker room. I was working out. And then we went into a side room and they talked to me about that incident. I don’t remember Mr. Sheffler saying much at all. Mr. Lauro from CYS did all the talking. Not all, he did the vast majority of talking. He was the one who asked me the questions. He was the one that conducted the interview. At the conclusion of that interview, you know, what I remember was me asking them, they concluded, I remember Mr. Lauro saying well, we’ve investigated things much more worse than this, much worse. That we’ve investigated things much worse than this.

John: That was Lauro?

Jerry: Yes.

John: And so was he giving you the impression that he didn’t think this was a big deal?

Jerry: That they showed up, that was startling to me. That they showed up. So in that sense, it was a big deal. But I was left with comfort, you know. My concern was what do I do with this young man. I didn’t want him to have a bad perception. My concern was he asked me to take him to a football game, should I take him to a football game. They said yes, you can take him to a football game because I didn’t want to hurt him. But they said don’t work out with him and don’t shower and I said well, I won’t do that. So my total focus was on the young man.

John: Who told you don’t take a shower with him?

Jerry: I can’t remember, I thought both of them said don’t work out with him, don’t shower.

John: This was after the surveillance episode where you were under surveillance?

Jerry: What do you mean by surveillance?

John: In other words, the investigators, you were under surveillance during that episode, I mean, not during that episode, but there was an investigation and you, were you not aware that you were under surveillance?

Jerry: what do you mean? you mean with the mother? Yeah, I think that was after the interview, yeah, the interview would have been after they were at her house. The interview happened later than me going to see her.

John: At what time did they tell you, you know what? We’ve done the investigation, it’s over, and you’re in the clear?

Jerry: Ok. At that interview, I don’t have absolute proof, they said we will let you know shortly. It was maybe at the most two days I got a call….or maybe I think I got a call right away from Mr. Lauro. I might have gotten the call the next day or that day from Mr. Lauro saying that this is not going to be founded, and its not going to be on any kind of record or anything like that. And then I received in the mail shortly after that notification that this was an "unfounded."

John: By whom, do you remember?

Jerry: CYS, it came from Mr. Lauro. It came from the Department of Public Welfare. He was a State person, he’s with Children and Youth, but he was from the State.

John: Ok, now, so you were informed there was an investigation going on almost immediately after the episode, is that correct?

Jerry: No.

John: No you were not?

Jerry: No. The only time, I mean, I didn’t know there was an investigation when i went to see his mother.

John: So you did not know there was an investigation when you were under surveillance?

Jerry: No.]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
Well, if the other "boy" you are talking about is AM, the kid was like a son to Sandusky at the time, lived with the Sanduskys for awhile, and invited Jerry and Dottie to his wedding. Coming from the generation I do, I see nothing wrong with showering with someone you have, and have had, a live-in father/son relationship with.

I haven't read this whole thread, but as far as the 1998 incident goes, Jerry gives a pretty good account of what happens in his interview with Zigler.

Lauro not only sends Jerry an official letter in the mail to tell him the 1998 charges are unfounded, but PERSONALLY CALLS him within two days of the locker room meeting with Sheffler, Lauro, and Sandusky to tell him the 1998 charges were unfounded. After the locker room interview is completed, Lauro tells Sandusky he has seen much, much worse, and from my interpretation, Sandusky's seems to be under the impression they are just focused on showering with Victim 6.

Here is a portion of Zigler's transcript with Sandusky relating to Sandusky's understanding of the conclusion and findings of the 1998 incident :

[John: And how do you know that? Are you confident in that, that he (Joe) knew nothing?

Jerry: Well, he didn’t talk to me about it ever. I mean, he never said a word to me about it in 1998. I was on his staff. I was coaching. I wasn’t led to believe by anyone that I talked to that anybody at Penn State like was talked to, other than the officer, Mr. Sheffler, because he was the only person from Penn State that I talked with. In other words, I never talked to any administrator, coach, or any person. I was led to believe that this was such a, there wasn’t a very significant thing. I mean, It was never made a huge deal to me from anybody at Penn State including Mr. Sheffler. Now. So that’s why I didn;t talk to Tim Curley then and I didn't (talk to Joe) so how would I have thought that Joe knew anything?

John: So after the ’98 investigation, first, how were you informed that the ’98 investigation ended? Do you remember?

Jerry: Oh yeah. The only concerns I ever had was for the young man who was involved in this. And when I met with his mother, it was out of concern. I was told that this young man had cancer. I was told that he really liked Penn State football. He asked me to take him to a Penn State football game, then, ok, his mother talked to me a little bit about this and I do not recall saying some of the things that she said I said or that Sheffler said that I said. But I was upset because this young man, I didn’t want to do anything to hurt him. I didn’t feel that I did anything to hurt him. And I never told anybody that I did anything to hurt him. So out of the clear blue sky Sheffler and a man by the name of Lauro, Mr. Lauro show up at the locker room. I was working out. And then we went into a side room and they talked to me about that incident. I don’t remember Mr. Sheffler saying much at all. Mr. Lauro from CYS did all the talking. Not all, he did the vast majority of talking. He was the one who asked me the questions. He was the one that conducted the interview. At the conclusion of that interview, you know, what I remember was me asking them, they concluded, I remember Mr. Lauro saying well, we’ve investigated things much more worse than this, much worse. That we’ve investigated things much worse than this.

John: That was Lauro?

Jerry: Yes.

John: And so was he giving you the impression that he didn’t think this was a big deal?

Jerry: That they showed up, that was startling to me. That they showed up. So in that sense, it was a big deal. But I was left with comfort, you know. My concern was what do I do with this young man. I didn’t want him to have a bad perception. My concern was he asked me to take him to a football game, should I take him to a football game. They said yes, you can take him to a football game because I didn’t want to hurt him. But they said don’t work out with him and don’t shower and I said well, I won’t do that. So my total focus was on the young man.

John: Who told you don’t take a shower with him?

Jerry: I can’t remember, I thought both of them said don’t work out with him, don’t shower.

John: This was after the surveillance episode where you were under surveillance?

Jerry: What do you mean by surveillance?

John: In other words, the investigators, you were under surveillance during that episode, I mean, not during that episode, but there was an investigation and you, were you not aware that you were under surveillance?

Jerry: what do you mean? you mean with the mother? Yeah, I think that was after the interview, yeah, the interview would have been after they were at her house. The interview happened later than me going to see her.

John: At what time did they tell you, you know what? We’ve done the investigation, it’s over, and you’re in the clear?

Jerry: Ok. At that interview, I don’t have absolute proof, they said we will let you know shortly. It was maybe at the most two days I got a call….or maybe I think I got a call right away from Mr. Lauro. I might have gotten the call the next day or that day from Mr. Lauro saying that this is not going to be founded, and its not going to be on any kind of record or anything like that. And then I received in the mail shortly after that notification that this was an "unfounded."

John: By whom, do you remember?

Jerry: CYS, it came from Mr. Lauro. It came from the Department of Public Welfare. He was a State person, he’s with Children and Youth, but he was from the State.

John: Ok, now, so you were informed there was an investigation going on almost immediately after the episode, is that correct?

Jerry: No.

John: No you were not?

Jerry: No. The only time, I mean, I didn’t know there was an investigation when i went to see his mother.

John: So you did not know there was an investigation when you were under surveillance?

Jerry: No.]
This is great defense of Sandusky If he’s telling the truth. Is he? Possibly. Is he lying or intentionally “misremembering” things? Also possible.
 

PSUSignore

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,071
3,827
1
Ah, the symptom of our age, short attention span theater! Complex issues have complex research and descriptions and need time to explain the links and situations. Ziegler didn’t even mention the fact that McQueary attended charity events with Sandusky. That is a huge contradiction. McQueaary’s entire story and timeline is totally bogus from what Ziegler pieced together.
There's a massive difference between a short attention span and a podcast that is going to be somewhere around 30-60 hours long with an abrasive host.
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,214
9,135
1
And because of that, I have no interest in listening to 10's of hours of him talking. His communication style sucks to put it bluntly and his material is waaaaay too lengthy. I'm someone with an interest in the subject matter and I struggle to listen to him for 10 minutes. How much patience do you think the general public, who has far less interest in the matter, is willing to listen to him before they completely tune him out? These interviews and podcast will accomplish nothing.

Fwiw, I listened to the first Schultz interview, from 2018, podcast #1. 90 minutes. I had to take a couple breaks, but Ziegler goes off on only a small number of short rants relative to what we are used to hearing. Gary is calm and very open, really lets his story flow. JZ 'leads' him a couple times, but Gary is fine with saying when he has a different take or doesn't know/can't confirm a JZ hypothesis. Gary is 100% believable in what he says, as anyone who knows him would expect.

Most of the info we have heard, but I will say that I never completely understood the total logic of the Dec. 29, 2000 date until I listened to this interview. Now it makes sense to me.

Looking forward to the 2nd Gary interview, podcast 2, which was done in 2020.
 

BUFFALO LION

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2001
11,823
4,896
1
This is great defense of Sandusky If he’s telling the truth. Is he? Possibly. Is he lying or intentionally “misremembering” things? Also possible.

Well, if he's lying, he's one of the best in the world at it when asked the questions on the spot.

If Dottie still has that "unfounded" letter laying around the house, that might help. I doubt CYS or the State has any record of it anymore.

There's no doubt in my mind that Sandusky was framed by CorButt and his henchmen to destroy Penn State and it worked. The National perspective of Penn State is now 180 degrees opposite of what it was pre-2011.

What's kind of bizarre is that since the Penn State/Joe Paterno "Sucess With Honor" model/ideal was successfully blown apart by CorButt, College Sports in general has had a steady degradation away from the accepted student/athlete model to an accepted paid mercenary model ever since.
 

MacNit07

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2017
3,637
3,314
1
"
Duh.
McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual."


Wow, thats the first I heard that.
And if that is true it makes his action or lack there of even more cowardly.
First I heard it to...he is the alleged perp?
 

MacNit07

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2017
3,637
3,314
1
Well, if he's lying, he's one of the best in the world at it when asked the questions on the spot.

If Dottie still has that "unfounded" letter laying around the house, that might help. I doubt CYS or the State has any record of it anymore.

There's no doubt in my mind that Sandusky was framed by CorButt and his henchmen to destroy Penn State and it worked. The National perspective of Penn State is now 180 degrees opposite of what it was pre-2011.

What's kind of bizarre is that since the Penn State/Joe Paterno "Sucess With Honor" model/ideal was successfully blown apart by CorButt, College Sports in general has had a steady degradation away from the accepted student/athlete model to an accepted paid mercenary model ever since.
Very, very true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BUFFALO LION

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,301
11,092
1
Connorpozlee said:
You seem to be trying get me to say I believe Sandusky is guilty because I believe the police report and I believe the police report because I believe Sandusky is guilty.

You have a great weekend.

I’m not trying to get you to say or agree to anything, I’m simply pointing out what you have already said.

I hope you also have a great weekend.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,755
9,378
1
I’m not trying to get you to say or agree to anything, I’m simply pointing out what you have already said.

I hope you also have a great weekend.
I don’t think you’re making sense. You believe I’m saying Sandusky is guilty because of a police report which I believe because I think he’s guilty. I have told you several times that is not the sole reason. You don’t want to believe it. It’s odd.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,301
11,092
1
Connorpozlee said:
I don’t think you’re making sense. You believe I’m saying Sandusky is guilty because of a police report which I believe because I think he’s guilty. I have told you several times that is not the sole reason. You don’t want to believe it. It’s odd.

Where did I ever say it was the "sole" reason? Please use the quote function.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,301
11,092
1
Connorpozlee said:
OK.
What exactly are you trying to get to?
So I don't have to repeat myself again, I'll refer you back to a post I made a couple of days ago, where our discussion should have ended.