ADVERTISEMENT

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

McChesney's diary is evidence that GJ information was leaked to Freeh......and even so she opined..."no evidence of a coverup." Fina and The Commonwealth are the worst kind of criminals. They betrayed the public trust. To say nothing of the millions of taxpayer dollars they wasted on (and Spanky Shapiro continues to) destroying men THEY KNEW were innocent.
 
It is consistent with all known facts that C/S/S covered nothing up but still massively mishandled this.

At a minimum he was responsible to take notes, the lack therof which proved to be their downfall
Listen to the Schultz interviews again. The notes/files existed. He turned it over to the OAG (knowing he had done nothing wrong) without reviewing it. The documentation of this being handled correct is there. The problem is that the OAG has zero interest in justice. They just wanted Sandusky and Spanier, and anyone who wasn't on board with that plan was going to get attacked too.
 
Listen to the Schultz interviews again. The notes/files existed. He turned it over to the OAG (knowing he had done nothing wrong) without reviewing it. The documentation of this being handled correct is there. The problem is that the OAG has zero interest in justice. They just wanted Sandusky and Spanier, and anyone who wasn't on board with that plan was going to get attacked too.
His assistant took the notes from his old/new office and brought them to Schultz after he was initially arrested. Schultz then turned them in. Unlikely that he and his attorney didn't review them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lion409
His assistant took the notes from his old/new office and brought them to Schultz after he was initially arrested. Schultz then turned them in. Unlikely that he and his attorney didn't review them.
He said in his interview he did not review them. Maybe his attorney did.
 
I thought the most interesting aspect of Part 3 was the phone call with Scott! Does he kiss his mother with that mouth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lion409
Not sure which year, but David Jones had a PennLive reporter email Graham Spanier about a rumor of Jerry Sandusky and sexual abuse of a child. People have used this to kind of corroborate McQueary's story about 2001.

Zig does a good job explaining why DJ's rumor could not have possibly been about 2001 and almost certainly pertained to the unfounded investigation in 1998.

For the record, Spanier responded to the reporter saying that was the first time he'd heard anything about that and asked the reporter to share any additional information. The reporter never responded back.
 
Here is a link to key interviews for the podcast including (in order); 2 interviews with Gary Schultz, Franco Harris, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, Bruce Heim, John Snedden, Mark Pendergrast, A.J. Dillen and Stan Bolton (juror in grand jury that led to Sabdusky indictment).



The interviews are ear opening. The 4 hours of interviews with Gary Schultz is probably the highlight. Gary explains why he has bought into the Dec.29, 2000 date for the v2 incident and why he doesn't believe that Jerry did anything horrendous.

I also thought the interviews with Bruce Heim, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, and Franco Harris are all very good. They may only say that Jerry didn't receive due process and didn't receive a fair trial, but it seems clear to me that they all are of the opinion that Jerry is very likely innocent. I also think it was very interesting that Bruce Heim said that he, like most of us, initially bought into the false narratives contained in the grand jury presentment but soon came around to realize that something wasn't right.

The 4 hours of interviews with purposely fake accuser A.J. Dillen are a little tedious to listen to, but they show the modus operandi of what lawyer Andrew Shubin and psychologist Cynthia MacNab did to assist potential claimants to win as much money from Penn State as possible without regard to what actually happened. It seems very possible that Shubin and MacNab may actually believe what the OAG was selling. Even if it was true, their tactics are very questionable. In the face of very strong evidence that what the OAG was selling bears no resemblance to the truth, Shubin's actions and possibly MacNab's appear to be criminal.

John Snedden and Mark Pendergrast are both very knowledgeable about the case and their interviews are both well worth the listen.

Stan Bolten's interview explains why he was skeptical of McQueary's testimony as well as how the grand jury process can be abused.

These 17 hours of interviews demonstrates that clearly something stinks to high heaven.

I understand that Ziegler is hoping that this material gets picked up by Netflix or another outlet. It seems to me that this story is more compelling that the "Making of a Murderer" while at the same time being more factual.

It it still unclear if the podast will make any dent in public opinion on the story. However, it certainly won't hurt.
 
The podcast also unintentionally re-emphasizes how Mike McQueary (imperfect as he may be) saw/heard something concerning enough to call his dad John from the locker room which prompted him to call their family friend Dr. John Dranov who rushed over to the McQuearys home to deal with this perceived serious situation.

Granted, Dr. Dranov specifically asked Mike three times if he actually saw a sex act, to which Mike never said he did. But it was still enough to prompt a call to Joe Paterno (possibly motivated by the WR job that just opened up), followed by a meeting with Joe who took Mike's report seriously enough to report up the chain of command to AD Tim Cutlet and Head of Police Gary Schultz. John McQ and Dr. Dranov asked Schultz for updates.

IMO, none of this would have happened if Mike McQueary (flawed as he may be) never eye/ear-witnessed and/or suspected something highly concerning in the first place.

Does that mean Mike witnessed anal rape? No, the prosecution sent that lie to the moon and back. But it also likely means that a reasonable jury would suspect something "bad" was happening.
 
The podcast also unintentionally re-emphasizes how Mike McQueary (imperfect as he may be) saw/heard something concerning enough to call his dad John from the locker room which prompted him to call their family friend Dr. John Dranov who rushed over to the McQuearys home to deal with this perceived serious situation.

Granted, Dr. Dranov specifically asked Mike three times if he actually saw a sex act, to which Mike never said he did. But it was still enough to prompt a call to Joe Paterno (possibly motivated by the WR job that just opened up), followed by a meeting with Joe who took Mike's report seriously enough to report up the chain of command to AD Tim Cutlet and Head of Police Gary Schultz. John McQ and Dr. Dranov asked Schultz for updates.

IMO, none of this would have happened if Mike McQueary (flawed as he may be) never eye/ear-witnessed and/or suspected something highly concerning in the first place.

Does that mean Mike witnessed anal rape? No, the prosecution sent that lie to the moon and back. But it also likely means that a reasonable jury would suspect something "bad" was happening.
Did you listen to the whole episode? It states that in all likelihood, Mike didn’t call Paterno the next day, because the event didn’t happen in February like initially believed, but in December the year prior. Mike didn’t mention anything to Paterno until two months later when the job opened up. And he only talked to Curley and Schultz because his dad and Dranov were going to meet with them and he wanted to cover his ass.
 
The podcast also unintentionally re-emphasizes how Mike McQueary (imperfect as he may be) saw/heard something concerning enough to call his dad John from the locker room which prompted him to call their family friend Dr. John Dranov who rushed over to the McQuearys home to deal with this perceived serious situation.

Granted, Dr. Dranov specifically asked Mike three times if he actually saw a sex act, to which Mike never said he did. But it was still enough to prompt a call to Joe Paterno (possibly motivated by the WR job that just opened up), followed by a meeting with Joe who took Mike's report seriously enough to report up the chain of command to AD Tim Cutlet and Head of Police Gary Schultz. John McQ and Dr. Dranov asked Schultz for updates.

IMO, none of this would have happened if Mike McQueary (flawed as he may be) never eye/ear-witnessed and/or suspected something highly concerning in the first place.

Does that mean Mike witnessed anal rape? No, the prosecution sent that lie to the moon and back. But it also likely means that a reasonable jury would suspect something "bad" was happening.
A jury would have a duty never to convict on "suspicion." We know the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of us acknowledge that MM was startled and or concerned. He was correct to seek advice and direction. However, he didn't see child abuse, or anything of that nature or I believe he would have done what any decent human being would have done. Stop it! (see photos of the locker room...hard to see around corners).It was what he didn't see that left him concerned and confused. The fact that he waited 6 weeks to meet with Joe leads reasonable folks to believe he had no clear conviction as to what happened.....he only knew Jerry was there with a younger male. We know now that "little boy" was close to 14 years old.
Getting back to the jury, I find it interesting that they convicted JS and a victim was never identified by the prosecution. Hell, it can be challenging to get a murder conviction without a body.
The problem was that MM knew his GJ testimony was being tampered with (see his email and Eshbach's response) and he not only didn't correct it ...so that it represented the FACTS....but he continued to embellish it and watched it convict 3 men that he knew were innocent.
I don't know if JS is innocent. He certainly at the minimum exercised poor judgement at times. However Tim, Gary and Graham are innocent and Joe's good name was destroyed (to say nothing of the damage done to PSU and the football program)....one man had the power to stop this miscarriage of justice....MM.
 
A jury would have a duty never to convict on "suspicion." We know the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of us acknowledge that MM was startled and or concerned. He was correct to seek advice and direction. However, he didn't see child abuse, or anything of that nature or I believe he would have done what any decent human being would have done. Stop it! (see photos of the locker room...hard to see around corners).It was what he didn't see that left him concerned and confused. The fact that he waited 6 weeks to meet with Joe leads reasonable folks to believe he had no clear conviction as to what happened.....he only knew Jerry was there with a younger male. We know now that "little boy" was close to 14 years old.
Getting back to the jury, I find it interesting that they convicted JS and a victim was never identified by the prosecution. Hell, it can be challenging to get a murder conviction without a body.
The problem was that MM knew his GJ testimony was being tampered with (see his email and Eshbach's response) and he not only didn't correct it ...so that it represented the FACTS....but he continued to embellish it and watched it convict 3 men that he knew were innocent.
I don't know if JS is innocent. He certainly at the minimum exercised poor judgement at times. However Tim, Gary and Graham are innocent and Joe's good name was destroyed (to say nothing of the damage done to PSU and the football program)....one man had the power to stop this miscarriage of justice....MM.
Reasonable doubt is an interesting thing. I remember at one point (was it before the trial? During the trial?) one of Jerry’s lawyers said that Jerry was having showers alone with the boys and having physical contact with them because he was teaching them proper grooming techniques. Is it possible that is the reason? I guess so. I think anything is possible. Is it reasonable to think that was the reason? No, not really. That was a hell of a hurdle to leap to begin with. Doesn’t make him guilty necessarily, but it’s a hell of a thing to try to innocently explain away.
 
Reasonable doubt is an interesting thing. I remember at one point (was it before the trial? During the trial?) one of Jerry’s lawyers said that Jerry was having showers alone with the boys and having physical contact with them because he was teaching them proper grooming techniques. Is it possible that is the reason? I guess so. I think anything is possible. Is it reasonable to think that was the reason? No, not really. That was a hell of a hurdle to leap to begin with. Doesn’t make him guilty necessarily, but it’s a hell of a thing to try to innocently explain away.
"Doesn't make him guilty necessarily..." as a private person, you can correctly have your suspicions or conclusions. I contend that you have no such latitude as a sworn juror. I would hope no one sends a man to jail for the rest of his life on suspicion.
Everyone is well aware of the drum you have been beating for years.....consider this....aren't you equally suspicious of a prosecution that could not present a "victim?" Should that not be a "hurdle" to concluding guilt in that particular incident?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan and Bob78
"Doesn't make him guilty necessarily..." as a private person, you can correctly have your suspicions or conclusions. I contend that you have no such latitude as a sworn juror. I would hope no one sends a man to jail for the rest of his life on suspicion.
Everyone is well aware of the drum you have been beating for years.....consider this....aren't you equally suspicious of a prosecution that could not present a "victim?" Should that not be a "hurdle" to concluding guilt in that particular incident?
I’ve considered it (probably much more than some on here have considered the possibility that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile) and I’ve stated it. I am probably much closer to believing the possibility that Jerry Sandusky is innocent of child sexual abuse than some here are to believing that it is even a possibility that he’s guilty of it. And I don’t think you’re in that camp because I think you have at least acknowledged that it is beyond a reasonable thing for a man in his position to have been doing (if I am remembering correctly). I’m fine with another trial because the trial did not seem to me (not a legal expert by any means) to be adequately run.
As a sworn juror I have Jerry Sandusky showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them in the showers. I have several witnesses testifying that they were sexually abused. I have others testifying that they witnessed or knew about the abuse. The defense team didn’t seem to offer up much of a defense (at least from my memory of ten years or so ago now) to the allegations. It’s certainly not hard to see why he was found guilty. It wasn’t just the showers that got him convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
"Doesn't make him guilty necessarily..." as a private person, you can correctly have your suspicions or conclusions. I contend that you have no such latitude as a sworn juror. I would hope no one sends a man to jail for the rest of his life on suspicion.
Everyone is well aware of the drum you have been beating for years.....consider this....aren't you equally suspicious of a prosecution that could not present a "victim?" Should that not be a "hurdle" to concluding guilt in that particular incident?
I call BS on the OAG claim that v2 was known only to God or that v2 has never been conclusively identified. It is abundantly clear that Allan Myers is v2 and the media has been derelict in their responsibilities in feeding us the OAG lies. Malcolm Gladwell was the first national figure to conclude this fact and he was villified for doing so.

 
The podcast also unintentionally re-emphasizes how Mike McQueary (imperfect as he may be) saw/heard something concerning enough to call his dad John from the locker room which prompted him to call their family friend Dr. John Dranov who rushed over to the McQuearys home to deal with this perceived serious situation.

Granted, Dr. Dranov specifically asked Mike three times if he actually saw a sex act, to which Mike never said he did. But it was still enough to prompt a call to Joe Paterno (possibly motivated by the WR job that just opened up), followed by a meeting with Joe who took Mike's report seriously enough to report up the chain of command to AD Tim Cutlet and Head of Police Gary Schultz. John McQ and Dr. Dranov asked Schultz for updates.

IMO, none of this would have happened if Mike McQueary (flawed as he may be) never eye/ear-witnessed and/or suspected something highly concerning in the first place.

Does that mean Mike witnessed anal rape? No, the prosecution sent that lie to the moon and back. But it also likely means that a reasonable jury would suspect something "bad" was happening.
What you just wrote is not what the podcast is saying happened at all.
 
I don't believe it will either. However, I think it proves JZ's point a little more. Why, you ask? Because nobody is suing JZ. If you are MM and you didn't send a Dick Pic or the pass against Rutgers, you would be suing JZ's ass off.
Actually, MM would have sued Don Van Atta and ESPN News. That was Ziegler's source, I believe.

Unfortunately, I don't think JZ will move the needle either. This expose on MM came out years ago. The narrative didn't budge.

IMO, the only thing that will change the PSU/Paterno narrative is a public repudiation of the Freeh report and an apology to Sue Paterno by the BOT. The press would have to report it.

As for the needle on Jerry, nothing short of a new trial.
 
Last edited:
Actually, MM would have sued Don Van Atta and ESPN News. That was Ziegler's source, I believe.
I think Ziegler had that info about MM independent of Van Atta. If you listen to that phone conversation between them (before the ESPN article got slashed by ESPN) it is pretty clear they arrived at that independently (although possibly from the same primary sources).
 
Spoiler alert: It will not move public opinion in the slightest.

You may be right, but I am not so sure.

Ziegler states that because the podcast has been so popular, they are now moving up to 2 episodes droping each week. Episode 3 dropped on Tuesday and it was excellent and Episode 4 is scheduled to drop today.

Please check out the 5 subtweets in the thread to listen to the highlights of episode 3.

 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
Ziegler has done 5 different interviews to promote the With the Benefit of Hindsight (WTBOH) podcast series and they are all very interesting.

He did an around two hour interview with Thaddeus Russell.



He did an one hour interview with Steve Czaban.



He did a 46 minute interview with former Ohio State WR coach Zach Smith.



He did a 53 minute interview with Tyler Morgan on the Relentless Daring podcast



Finally, he did a 16 minute interview (starts around 17:30 mark) with Stu Burguiere, aka StuDoesAmerica

 
Ziegler has done 5 different interviews to promote the With the Benefit of Hindsight (WTBOH) podcast series and they are all very interesting.

He did an around two hour interview with Thaddeus Russell.



He did an one hour interview with Steve Czaban.



He did a 46 minute interview with former Ohio State WR coach Zach Smith.



He did a 53 minute interview with Tyler Morgan on the Relentless Daring podcast



Finally, he did a 16 minute interview (starts around 17:30 mark) with Stu Burguiere, aka StuDoesAmerica

He needs to approach a non-mainstream media person like Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro. I think Shapiro is trying to get his production company off the ground, so it would make sense to do a documentary about how the mainstream media got it wrong about Paterno. I’m sure Ziegler would want to prove Jerry’s innocence, but maybe they could strike a deal to do a documentary on Paterno and then one on Sandusky if he gets a new trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
He needs to approach a non-mainstream media person like Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro. I think Shapiro is trying to get his production company off the ground, so it would make sense to do a documentary about how the mainstream media got it wrong about Paterno. I’m sure Ziegler would want to prove Jerry’s innocence, but maybe they could strike a deal to do a documentary on Paterno and then one on Sandusky if he gets a new trial.

I agree with Ziegler that at this point in time, the only way to rehabilitate the legacy of Joe Paterno is for Jerry Sandusky to be exonerated and that the WTBOH work shows there is overwhelming evidence that Jerry was railroaded.

 
  • Like
Reactions: WyomingLion
He needs to approach a non-mainstream media person like Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro. I think Shapiro is trying to get his production company off the ground, so it would make sense to do a documentary about how the mainstream media got it wrong about Paterno. I’m sure Ziegler would want to prove Jerry’s innocence, but maybe they could strike a deal to do a documentary on Paterno and then one on Sandusky if he gets a new trial.
its a good point...those guys, love them or hate them, are anti MSM guys and would love the opportunity to expose the media one more time
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Check out Brian Sponsler review of With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast series. Brian is from the SEC conference and bought everything ESPN was selling when scandal broke as he razzed his Penn State friends about the scandal. Now he realizes how different reality is from reporting.

 
I call BS on the OAG claim that v2 was known only to God or that v2 has never been conclusively identified. It is abundantly clear that Allan Myers is v2 and the media has been derelict in their responsibilities in feeding us the OAG lies. Malcolm Gladwell was the first national figure to conclude this fact and he was villified for doing so.

Jerry had the ability to call Mr. Myers to the stand if he thought it would help his defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Jerry had the ability to call Mr. Myers to the stand if he thought it would help his defense.

Jerry had totally ineffective defense counsel for his trial. Amendola was out of his league. Why is the world would he not introduce Myers's statement to his investigator Curtis Everhart. I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that calling Myers and introducing his statement would raise questions about Mike McQueary's testimony and the accuracy of the grand jury presentment.
 
I’ve considered it (probably much more than some on here have considered the possibility that Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile) and I’ve stated it. I am probably much closer to believing the possibility that Jerry Sandusky is innocent of child sexual abuse than some here are to believing that it is even a possibility that he’s guilty of it. And I don’t think you’re in that camp because I think you have at least acknowledged that it is beyond a reasonable thing for a man in his position to have been doing (if I am remembering correctly). I’m fine with another trial because the trial did not seem to me (not a legal expert by any means) to be adequately run.
As a sworn juror I have Jerry Sandusky showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them in the showers. I have several witnesses testifying that they were sexually abused. I have others testifying that they witnessed or knew about the abuse. The defense team didn’t seem to offer up much of a defense (at least from my memory of ten years or so ago now) to the allegations. It’s certainly not hard to see why he was found guilty. It wasn’t just the showers that got him convicted.
I have stated many times....Jerry should have been very careful and he apparently wasn't. I'm not sure he is innocent, I do know that he didn't do some of the things he was convicted of.
I'll once again throw in these facts....so many people who know Jerry best (2 that I know personally) believe he is innocent. So one needs to respect the opinion of those that are closer then we are. Listening to Gary Schultz...even after all he's been thru speaks well of Jerry.
One thing is certain, he didn't get a fair trial. Let's get everything out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.
The Commonwealth OAG framed Tim, Gary and Graham....claimants lied about the nature, frequency and dates of their abuse....how big of a stretch is it from there to begin to question what Fina/Corbett did to Jerry? God only knows....it made a janitor weep. Fina had his license suspended for being unethical ....?????
 
I have stated many times....Jerry should have been very careful and he apparently wasn't. I'm not sure he is innocent, I do know that he didn't do some of the things he was convicted of.
I'll once again throw in these facts....so many people who know Jerry best (2 that I know personally) believe he is innocent. So one needs to respect the opinion of those that are closer then we are. Listening to Gary Schultz...even after all he's been thru speaks well of Jerry.
One thing is certain, he didn't get a fair trial. Let's get everything out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.
The Commonwealth OAG framed Tim, Gary and Graham....claimants lied about the nature, frequency and dates of their abuse....how big of a stretch is it from there to begin to question what Fina/Corbett did to Jerry? God only knows....it made a janitor weep. Fina had his license suspended for being unethical ....?????
Question it all day long. I’m all for that and I’m part of that. But in the process of doing that, don’t ignore the fact that Jerry was acting in a way that isn’t easily explained away innocently, as I feel some in here like to do. Again, I don’t think that applies to you but it does apply to some here.
 
Episode 4 ("The Administrators") has dropped. It is 3 hours 31 minutes long.

Penn State's most senior administrators: President Dr. Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were each highly regarded in Penn State circles and beyond. The State College community was shocked to learn that both Schultz and Curley had been indicted along with Sandusky. In Episode Four: The Administrators, Zig and Liz explore the case against the administrators. Did the state actually believe these men participated in a cover up or were they simply "collateral damage" sidelined in order to protect the case against Sandusky. We also learn that Penn State's Board of Trustees hired former FBI Director, Louis Freeh to conduct an "independent investigation" of the case but no one knew our guest, retired NCIS Investigator, John Snedden was assigned by the Obama Administration to conduct it's own investigation. You won't believe what he has to say!

 
Jerry had the ability to call Mr. Myers to the stand if he thought it would help his defense.
If you read Meyer's testimony from one of Jerry's appeal hearings, it is clear why NEITHER side wanted to call him as a witness. Wildly uncooperative and all over the place. Saying things like he didn't recognize when a photo was taken when it was obviously of his wedding. Useless witness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu7113
Jerry had the ability to call Mr. Myers to the stand if he thought it would help his defense.


Boy In The Shower Says He Can't Remember 34 Times​

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

An excerpt from Cipriano's article speaks for itself. Not only is Mike MCQueary a liar, Mr Allan Myers is an even bigger liar
Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry Sandusky, sure has a lousy memory.

Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, that Mike McQueary was a liar, and that nothing sexual ever happened in the shower. And finally, Myers couldn't remember what he told the state attorney general's office after he flipped, and was claiming that Jerry had abused him.

Myers made all these fuzzy statements during a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where he was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial. A 48-page transcript of that hearing was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a curious reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. Myers' pathetic performance on the witness stand proves what a screwed-up case this is, featuring overreaching prosecutors and a hysterical news media.

The media blew it in part because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Myers, who, going by the transcript, clearly wasn't credible.

Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either he was dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's, or else he was lying about everything.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

So is this a chance you're willing to take, the judge asked. Sandusky told the judge his mind was made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he originally got to know the former Penn State assistant football coach through his Second Mile charity.

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.

"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.

On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."

As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.

On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.

Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.

"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."

"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.

"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."

"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.

"Yes," Myers said.

She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
If you read Meyer's testimony from one of Jerry's appeal hearings, it is clear why NEITHER side wanted to call him as a witness. Wildly uncooperative and all over the place. Saying things like he didn't recognize when a photo was taken when it was obviously of his wedding. Useless witness.

Which is my point. Zig only looks at things about Myers that tend one way and completely ignores all the rest. An objective listener hears that and realizes that Zig is not interested in finding truth but instead in presenting a viewpoint counter to the obvious. That's his brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Which is my point. Zig only looks at things about Myers that tend one way and completely ignores all the rest. An objective listener hears that and realizes that Zig is not interested in finding truth but instead in presenting a viewpoint counter to the obvious. That's his brand.
And please inform us, what is “the obvious”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Mr. Myers had the ability to take a fortune or tell the truth. He took the fortune and told everyone that "he can't recall (remember). When you hide in the wilderness, I guess it impairs your memory.

Yet Jerry 10 years later remembered vividly a night when he said nothing notable happened.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT