With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
I just finished listening to the interview with Al Lord. Not that I needed much more confirmation, but what he had to say about the BOT further validates my decision some time ago to cut ties with the University.
Bruce Heim had some interesting things to say about Mr. Myers. Starting around the 13 minute mark and going on for 5 minutes, Bruce recounts playing golf with Jerry and Allan Myers a couple of time. He said that Allan had the utmost respect for Jerry. He had Jerry walk him across the football field on senior night, had him speak at his high school graduation, went to Sanduskys mother's funeral. When he was asked if there was any chance Jerry abused Allan he said "God No." He said that Jerry was a surrogate father who got on him for not doing his homework or being late/truant to school. In response to Allan turning his back on Jerry, Bruce said "If they is a hell, he (Myers) is going there." He said he thought Myers would have been to testify against Jerry, but that Shubin didn't want him to testify because of the statement he had made to Amendola investigator Curtis Everhart. Heim is a West Point graduate and questioned whether the character of Myers, who was a sargent in the Marine Corp, was up to the standard of a Navy Seal or an Army Ranger. Heim said that he hired a private investigator (Ken Cummings) to go to Myers's house and ask to talk to him. Myers said he wasn't interested in talking but the statement he said was true and slammed the door in his face. Bruce said his p.i. told him he was an alcoholic who liked to hang out at the bars and had 2 dui arrests. When told he hangs a Marine flag outside his house, he replied "shame on him."
I don’t know if Myers was sexually abused by Sandusky or not. I do know that nothing that you posted that Heim said about Myers would surprise me to hear about a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Which tells me he knows he'd be caught in a lie when he had flipped for the money.
Memory.
Memory is reconstructive. Our brains do not keep individual memories in one place, ready to be called forth by pulling out the proper mental file or hitting the right mental computer key. Instead, our memories are stored all over our brains, and they must be reconstructed. They are subject to contamination, confusion, change, and outright fabrication. With the proper influence, people can come to envision and believe in emotionally stressful events that never occurred.
Usually, our memories serve us relatively well, however. We tend to remember most clearly the best and worst events. We recall the nice things so that we can seek them out again, and we remember the upsetting events so that we can avoid them in the future. Some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which involves being unable to forget severe trauma, but continuing to recall it all too well. So it is not a matter of “repressing” or “dissociating.”
The most dramatic illustration of how destructive false memories can be created occurred during the heyday of the repressed memory epidemic of the late 1980s and 1990s, when many psychotherapists blatantly led their clients to believe that they had suffered years of childhood sexual abuse but had repressed the memories. In many cases, people came to envision being in mythical satanic ritual abuse cults, where they killed and consumed babies and other grotesque fantasies.
Most people think that the repressed memory epidemic is over, but it is not. A majority of Americans and psychotherapists still believe in the myth of repressed memories (or dissociated memories, as they are often called), and, according to a recent survey of a large cross-section of Americans, about 8 percent of those going to therapy in this decade came to believe that they had suffered child abuse that they had completely forgotten, then recalled in the course of therapy.
Thus, it is not surprising that the theory of repressed memory – the idea that people often totally forget abuse though some mental defense mechanism and then remember it later – lies behind some of the Sandusky accusations. I was able to directly interview only one such alleged victim, Dustin Struble, who acknowledged his repressed memories, but there is evidence for memory distortion and/or repressed memories in many others as well. I will go through them here relatively briefly.
Let me emphasize, however, that there were other factors contributing to one of the most amazing and disturbing miscarriages of justice of the 21st century. These factors include a media blitz (and blackout of any dissent or inconvenient facts), police trawling and bias, prosecutorial misconduct, a flawed judicial process, illegal leaks, and greed.
I will summarize each of the ten alleged trial victims, some of whom clearly had recovered “repressed memories” of abuse. I’ll take them in the order in which they were numbered, plus Matt Sandusky, who did not testify, but whose story is central to the case.
Aaron Fisher, Victim 1: As a 15-year-old, Aaron Fisher initially said that Jerry Sandusky had hugged him to crack his back, with their clothes on. Over the next three years, with the urging of psychotherapist Mike Gillum, Fisher eventually came to “remember” multiple instances of oral sex. Gillum apparently believed that memories too painful to recall lie buried in the unconscious, causing mental illness of all kinds—among them, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism. “They (abuse victims) just want to numb themselves and push away the unpleasant memories,” Gillum wrote in the book, Silent No More. He sought to “peel back the layers of the onion” of the brain to get to abuse memories. Nor did Aaron Fisher have to tell him anything. Gillum would guess what happened and Fisher only had to nod his head or say Yes. “I was very blunt with him when I asked questions but gave him the ability to answer with a yes or a no, that relieved him of a lot of burden,” Gillum wrote. In the same book, Aaron Fisher recalled: “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”
Fisher explained that “I was good at pushing it (memories of abuse) all away . . . Once the weekends [with Jerry] were over, I managed to lock it all deep inside my mind somehow. That was how I dealt with it until next time. Mike has explained a lot to me since this all happened. He said that what I was doing is called compartmentalizing. . . . I was in such denial about everything.” Without the three years of therapy with Mike Gillum, it is unlikely that Aaron Fisher would ever have accused Jerry Sandusky of sexual abuse, and the case would never have gone forward.
Allan Myers (“Victim 2”) was the teenager in the shower in February 2001, when Mike McQueary heard slapping sounds that he interpreted as sexual. In fact, they were the sounds of Myers and Sandusky slap boxing or snapping towels at one another. McQueary did not see Sandusky and the boy together in the shower – he only caught a glimpse of the boy in a mirror. He changed his memory nearly ten years later when the police told him that Sandusky was a serial molester. McQueary, like many people, did not require therapy to distort his memory. Influenced by current attitudes, he came to envision that he had witnessed something he had not actually seen. This is one of the well-known hazards of eyewitness testimony, as experimental psychologist Elizabeth Loftus and others have demonstrated.
We do not know whether Allan Myers was ever in therapy to help retrieve abuse memories. He received several million dollars as one of the alleged Sandusky victims, but he did not testify at the trial, and he has never actually accused Sandusky of molesting him in any kind of detail. Initially, he provided a very strong defense of Sandusky, saying that he had never abused him, before becoming a client of civil attorney Andrew Shubin, who sent most of his Sandusky clients to therapy, quite likely to help retrieve repressed abuse memories. As reporter Sara Ganim wrote in November 2011, Shubin “teamed up with psychologists, social workers and a national child sex abuse organization so that these people [alleged victims] can seek mental help along with possible legal recourse.”
Jason Simcisko (“Victim 3”) told the police that nothing inappropriate had happened with Jerry Sandusky, when he was first interviewed. When the policemen asked if Sandusky had helped him rinse off in the shower, perhaps lifting him up to the showerhead, Simcisko replied, according to the police report: “There might have been something like that. I don’t exactly remember, but it sounds familiar.” This was the beginning of the process of manipulating his memory. At the end of the interview, the police report noted that Simcisko “agreed to call if he recalled anything further.”
By the time of the trial. Simcisko had remembered Sandusky touching his penis numerous times. He explained why he hadn’t revealed this earlier: “Everything that’s coming out now is because I thought about it more. I tried to block this out of my brain for years.” We don’t know for sure whether Simcisko was in psychotherapy or not, but Andrew Shubin was his lawyer.
Brett Houtz (“Victim 4”) did not make any abuse allegations to either his lawyer or the police during initial contact, but he did make allegations during a long subsequent interview with police, during which his lawyer was present. The police inadvertently left the tape recorder on, revealing their grossly leading interview methods, which can sway memory as effectively as psychotherapy. Police investigator Joseph Leiter said, “I know there’s been a rape committed somewhere along the line,” and noted that “it just took repetition and repetition” to get Aaron Fisher to say anything. He said that the police would routinely tell prospective victims: “Listen, this is what we found so far. You fit the pattern of all the other ones. This is the way he operates and the other kids we dealt with have told us that this has happened after this happened. Did that happen to you?” This is a classic illustration of “confirmation bias,” in which the police had already predetermined in their own minds what that truth was. And in this case, Leiter was intent on getting Houtz to say that Sandusky had forced him into oral sex. Eventually, Houtz did just that.
Did this really become a Sandusky thread? Come on yinz let's get this back on track
Cliff Harris wanted no part of Lambert. LOLDid this really become a Sandusky thread? Come on yinz let's get this back on track
Let's bet on whether ZIG interviews any of the people that contributed to the Paterno report on this situation.... or whether he even acknowledges its existence.
You would think that in 19 episodes he'd manage to find time to cover the one document that studied the situation and came out clearing Paterno.
Hint, he won't because he doesn't give a crap about truth or Joe or PSU. He only cares about clearing Jerry.
You would think that in 19 episodes he'd manage to find time to cover the one document that studied the situation and came out clearing Paterno.
Hint, he won't because he doesn't give a crap about truth or Joe or PSU. He only cares about clearing Jerry.
I believe that Ziegler's primary motivation is finding the truth. He claims that he would love nothing more than to find evidence that Jerry is a pedophile so that he can get on with his life. He has looked long and hard and has found nothing. He consulted with Jim Clemente before he interviewed Jerry in prision. Clemente advised him on a sure fire way to get Jerry to confess. He executed Clemente's advise to a T, and low and behold, Jerry did not confess. Ziegler went into the interview thinking that Jerry was guilty as hell and came out of it not knowing what to think. He has spent the last 9 years of his life investigating the story and, based to a large part on his research, more and more people everyday are coming around to the conclusion that what the OAG was selling in November, 2011 just isn't right.
I believe that Ziegler would love to interview anybody and everybody associated with the Paterno report, but my suspicion is that most would decline an invitation for an interview. Ziegler has mentioned Jim Clemente many times and Jim is probably better off having people think he is a fraud as opposed to sitting for an interview with Ziegler and leaving no doubt in people's mind that he is.
I would not be surprised if Ziegler interviewed Dr. Fred Berlin who contributed to the Paterno report. Dr. Berlin wrote the following review on the back cover of Mark Pendergrast's book The Most Hated Man America - "Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society."
I suggest that you listen to John and co-host Liz Habbib's episodes of the podcast and/or some of the 17 hours of unedited interviews with the subjects of the episodes. The are 19 episodes produced for the project and they are detailed and comprehensive. After 4 episodes, they are off to a great start.
Episode 1 was on "The Date" and John and Liz made a very strong case that the OAG got the date of the v2 incident wrong twice and Gary Schultz and Malcolm Gladwell agree with them 100%. It matters because it shows Mike McQueary waited 6 weeks to tell Joe Paterno showing that there was a lack of urgency that would have been the case if MM witnessed a sexual assault. Episode 2 is on "The Panic" and John explains how panic and reverse incentives created a perfect storm of circumstances between the state, the university and the media to spawn the massive injustice. Episode 3 is on The Paternos and John details why Scott Paterno made bonehead decisions early and why he wanted to discredit John. John mistakenly thought Scott had inside information from his erroneous tip from David Jones. Episode 4 is on The Adminstrators and why the OAG needed the cover-up narrative to prove the crime. There is no way Spanier should have been indicted let alone convicted. His defense should have put on a defense including questioning Kajak (v5) and John Snedden. Snedden found that there was no cover-up, that Mike McQueary was not credible and that the worst actor in the story was a vindictive Corbett.
You can listen to the trailer and episodes at: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/with-the-benefit-of-hindsight/id1562078872
You can listen to the raw, unedited interviews at: https://www.framingpaterno.com/interviews
Uhhh
But rather than take on the facts as posed in newly discovered evidence, Jennifer Buck, the senior deputy attorney general in charge of the AG's appeals and legal services division, argued Wednesday before a panel of three judges that such an evidentiary hearing would amount to a "fishing expedition," and that's why Sandusky's appeal for a new trial should be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The "fatal flaw" in Sandusky's appeal is that the collusion and leaks documented in the McChesney diary amount to "nothing more than speculation" about what "certain diaries entries and emails should be interpreted to mean," Buck told the judges.
"I think the allegations that we raised are new and they're very grave, and very, very important," countered Al Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer. Lindsay argued that the McChesney diary is a breakthrough in the long running Sandusky case because it documents grand jury leaks and collusion between the AG's criminal investigation of Sandusky, and the supposedly independent civil investigation done on behalf of Penn State by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
"We have to take testimony from the individuals involved," such as McChesney, Fina, and Freeh, Lindsay insisted to the judges during a half-hour of oral arguments in the case.
The 79-page diary was written in 2011 and 2012 by former FBI Special Agent McChesney, when she was acting as co-leader of the civil investigation of Penn State being led by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
As an FBI agent, McChesney was a key member of the task force that arrested serial killer Ted Bundy, and she was prominently featured on camera last year in a Netflix documentary series, "Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes." After the Bundy case, McChesney rose in the ranks to become the only female FBI agent ever appointed to be the bureau's executive assistant director.
McChesney's credibility was such that in 2002, in the wake of the widespread sex abuse scandal involving the Catholic clergy, the U.S. Conference of Bishops hired McChesney to establish and lead its Office of Child and Youth Protection.
She's also the author of a 2011 book, "Pick Up Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way." In state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers are hoping McChesney's unpublished diary will win a new trial for Sandusky, convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of child sex abuse, and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail.
In McChesney's diary, she not only documents grand jury leaks by Fina, but she also describes the AG's office supplying the Freeh Group with documents and grand jury transcripts that they didn't have a legal right to see. McChesney's diary also documented how Fina was actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.
For example, McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group had to notify Fina when they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, an investigator from Penn State Police who probed a 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and a young boy that never resulted in criminal charges. After the Freeh Group notified Fina about the requested interview, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."
In court, however, rather than take on those type of allegations, the AG has argued that Sandusky's lawyers did not produce the McChesney diary in a timely fashion, so that Sandusky's motion for a new trial should be dismissed on procedural grounds by the state Superior Court.
Sandusky's lawyers received a copy of the McChesney diary on Nov. 4, 2019, but they didn't bring it up at a Nov. 22, 2019 re-sentencing hearing, the state Attorney General has argued. Nor did Sandusky's lawyers bring up the diary at a Jan. 28th hearing on post-sentence motions. Instead, Sandusky's lawyers waited until May 9, 2020 to file their motion for a new trial, the AG complained.
But Lindsay has argued that in addition to the McChesney diary, Sandusky's defense team on March 10th received a summary of the Freeh Group's interview with one of the jurors at the Sandusky trial, which Sandusky's lawyers contend amounts to jury tampering.
In oral arguments, Lindsay said the procedural objections from the AG's office amount to a "remarkable response" that's an attempt to dodge the real issue involving evidence from a decorated FBI agent that documents corruption in the AG's office.
Lindsay said he waited to notify the court about the McChesney diary because he wanted "to show the impact" the AG's collusion and leaks had on Sandusky's criminal trial.
"We knew they [the AG and Freeh] were running a de facto joint investigation," Lindsay told the court, but he needed to gather more evidence, such as Freeh's interview with one of the jurors, and an affidavit from Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer.
In an affidavit, Sandusky stated that he had no idea of the collusion that was going on between the AG's office and Freeh. And had he known, Amendola would have sought to dismiss the juror from the case. Amendola stated in his affidavit that he would have also sought to question other jurors in the Sandusky case about whether they were also interviewed by Freeh.
"Is it your position that they [Freeh] may have tainted" one of the jurors, a judge asked.
"Absolutely, our petition alleges that," Lindsay shot back.
In response, Buck argued that an evidentiary hearing required "actual facts that warrant a hearing," she said, and that such a hearing "is not meant to be a fishing expedition."
"What we have at this juncture," Buck argued, was, "they criticize the Freeh report and are taking the diary entries and certain emails and interpreting them, rather than looking at cold hard facts."
A judge asked if the allegation of a "tainted juror" was enough of an argument to "warrant further development of those facts."
Buck agreed, but then asserted that even if true as alleged, "the new evidence doesn't change anything," as in the verdict in the Sandusky trial. As in let's keep moving, there's nothing to see here.
But, Lindsay argued that when she was questioned in court by Amendola and the trial judge, the "responses given by the potential juror seem to be different" than what was recorded in a summary on the juror's interview with the Freeh Group.
During jury selection on June 6, 2012, Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State who served as a juror in the Sandusky trial, was asked by Amendola what she had previously told Freeh's investigators.
"It was focused more on how the board of trustees interacts with the president," Pauley told Amendola, as well as "how faculty are interacting with the president and the board of trustees . . ."
But the interview went much further than that, and also revealed clear bias by Pauley against Penn State and its handling of the Sandusky case. Although she hadn't heard any evidence yet, Pauly already had her mind made up about Sandusky's guilt, as well as whether top Penn Sate officials were guilty of a cover up.
According to a summary of the April 19, 2011 interview with Freeh's investigators, Pauley stated that she believed that the leadership at Penn State just "kicks the issue down the road."
"The PSU culture can best be described as people who do not want to resolve issues and want to avoid confrontation," Pauley told Freeh's investigators, according to their summary of the interview. She also stated that Penn State President Graham Spanier was "very controlling," and that "she feels that [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz are responsible for the scandal."
"She stated that she senses Curley and Schultz treated it [the scandal] the 'Penn State' way and were just moving on and hoping it would fade away," the summary states. In an interview with author Mark Pendergrast, the juror also disclosed that in her opinion, Freeh's investigators were trying to put words in her mouth, Lindsay told the Superior Court panel of judges.
When Pauley was questioned by Amendola at the Sandusky trial, "At no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group, which interviewed this witness," Sandusky's lawyers contended in a brief.
In court, Buck continued to argue that whatever was written in the McChesney diary, "There's certainly no evidence of collusion."
But Lindsay argued that "the whole purpose is of having the hearing is so we can bring in the author of the diary," and "bring in witnesses" who can testify about the collusion, as well as the "virtual gushing of grand jury leaks."
Lindsay also told the judges he was tired of listening to frequent procedural objections from the AG's office.
"When it comes to this case, any procedural thing that they [the AG's office] can throw up that will keep us from getting to what actually happened, happens," Lindsay told the judges.
Now it's up to the Superior Court to see if the AG's office continues to get away with thei
I'd pay to hear Zig interview Vicky triponi
Ziegler's primary motivation is not the truth, it's clicks.
Ziegler definitely ignores things that don't support his stance. When called out on it, he'll continue to ignore it.
He's not above lying about testimony, either. When he does talk about testimony, he seldom if ever cites it so that an independent reviewer can fact check it.
Here's some basic questions I sent him on Twitter on 4/20/21. He's seen them, but continues to ignore them.
And here's a few more tweets I sent him. Still no response from him.
Ziegler definitely ignores things that don't support his stance. When called out on it, he'll continue to ignore it.
He's not above lying about testimony, either. When he does talk about testimony, he seldom if ever cites it so that an independent reviewer can fact check it.
Here's some basic questions I sent him on Twitter on 4/20/21. He's seen them, but continues to ignore them.
So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that clearly placed the night of the incident, and his meeting at the McQueary household, on 2/9/2001? (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.162)
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that Schultz told him The Second Mile had already been informed? That places the date of his meeting with Schultz well after mid-March 2001. (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.161)
You talk about Curley's 2 meetings with Sandusky. You mention Sandusky's confusion at the 1st meeting. Why did you ignore Curley's testimony that Sandusky wanted to check his calendar, did so, & confirmed the 2/9/2001 date in their 2nd meeting? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.358, 389-390)
Schultz bought into your date theory in part because he clearly remembers telling Dranov the investigation was ongoing. He said so four times (1x in 1st interview, 3x in 2nd). But Schultz testified in 2017 he had no recollection of this. Why do you think that is? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.470)
And here's a few more tweets I sent him. Still no response from him.
I listened to Episode 4 today. The interview with NCIS Agent John Snedden was stunning. He conducted a federal investigation in the course of looking into whether Spanier’s Security Clearance should be renewed. He interviewed the key players, unlike the Freeh team. His conclusion is the whole thing was a takedown orchestrated by then-governor Corbett. He thinks all the administrators were innocent and possibly Sandusky as well. Again this coming from a federal investigator.
I don't recall Snedden specifically mentioning Spanier being on advisory boards to the CIA, FBI and NSA. Snedden did the 6 month investigation and then turned his report over to the feds to do the adjudication. It's not uncommon for them to come back with questions on Snedden's reports. He received not a single question and Spanier's clearance was renewed. That tells you all you need to know right there.
As I have said repeatedly, this Snedden stuff is all very interesting, but it's another example of Zigler chery picking.
A security clearance investigation is not a crime investigation. They are very different. Even if an investigator like Snedden thought Spanier was guilt, as long as all the relevant info was out, he'd most likely recommend clearance. There was no blackmailable material there.
So pointing to this Snedden stuff means zero in any meaningful way. Especially with respect to Jerry's case. Sweden did NOT investigate that at all. He didn't interview Jerry or anyone with direct knowledge of Jerry's case.
Irony. Remind us of who Louis Freeh interviewed?
Not defending Freeh, but I will, sticking to the thread topic, discuss whether Ziggie cherry picks his sources (and whether they themselves cherry pick)
The most important thing Snedden says, IMO, is that Tom Corbett is the biggest villain in this whole fiasco. Do you disagree?
The only reason Snedden did his investigation was to determine if Spanier was guilty. In doing so he found that no one was guilty of a crime and it was nothing but a political hit job. His investigation was reviewed by his superiors in detail and they also found Spanier acted appropriately.
that has nothing to do with why snedden did his investigation. all personnel with top secret clearances are investigated every 5 years. There was nothing particularly unique about Spanier being investigated.
Only problem is that Snedden's federal investigation was not initiated based on doing a 5 year renewal, but based specifically on McQueary's allegations and whether there was a cover-up/conspiracy. Sneddon found that McQueary was not a credible witness and that there was no evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy.
Your credibility is shot, not that you had any to begin with. The evidence is backed up by none other than John Snedden.
He is full of shit. But in any case he's not an independent source on whether this was a 5 year update (which it was, and he can produce nothing to dispute that).
Even if you believe that, the investigation speaks for itself and he continued to have security clearance. Common sense tells you that was not going to happen if he was guilty. Especially given the media frenzy and public opinion. The truth should matter. The truth shouldn’t be what the media, the State of PA and Board of Trustees want you to believe. People should look at the facts and make their own decisions. Obviously all of the facts were not reported in the media in this case.
What is your agenda? Let the facts lead you to an independent conclusion. I was initially convinced that what the media was reporting was true and all parties were guilty. I have since learned more and I now have the direct opposite opinion.
Snedden bravo.
Former NCIS special agent John Snedden, who investigated the Penn State sex abuse case on behalf of the federal government, had a more damning critique of McChesney's work.
"It's a diary detailing blatant collusion, corruption and major violations of grand jury secrecy, with an outline of personal gain, authored by a person operating under self-imagined impunity," Snedden wrote in an email. As far as Snedden is concerned, the diary shows that the Freeh Group's intent during the Penn State investigation "was to ingratiate themselves with the NCAA," to gain a lucrative client.
Under Pennsylvania state law, grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept secret. At the time of the Penn State investigation, McChesney and her boss, former FBI Director Freeh, were functioning as private investigators, and as such, did not have authorization to access grand jury information.
McChesney did not respond to written requests for comment. In 2018, when I questioned Freeh about whether he had authorization to access grand jury secrets, the former FBI director, through a spokesperson, declined comment.
The diary begins on Nov. 27, 2011, when McChesney was on the phone with Freeh. McChesney wrote that she learned she was to "take leadership role and focus on monitoring" in the Penn State investigation conducted by Freeh. That involved coordinating with a team of Freeh's investigators that included Tim Flynn, Omar McNeill, and Patti Bescript, and Gregory Paw.
The Freeh team started by gathering files on Sandusky, the retired former Penn State assistant football coach. Among the first documents to be perused: a "1998 investigation report has been provided," McChesney wrote, about the first alleged shower incident involving Sandusky and 11 year-old Zachary Konstas.
But according to state law, the police report that McChesney referred to should not have existed.
The report was prompted by a complaint from the boy's mother, about the 1998 incident where Sandusky washed Konstas's hair in the shower. The incident wound up being investigated by authorities that included an official from the Centre County Children and Youth Services, a detective from the Penn State police, an investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, the boy's therapist, as well as a psychologist hired by the county. The authorities concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or of any sexual conduct whatsoever, so the mother's alleged claim was officially deemed unfounded.
As recounted in The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, by author Mark Pendergrast, the psychiatrist who questioned Konstas five days after the shower incident concluded:
"The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not unusual for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread, acceptable situation and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years."
The psychologist also concluded that since no one else had previously accused Sandusky of abuse, and that the psychologist knew of no case where a then 52-year-old man had suddenly become a pedophile.
As reported by Pendergrast, according to state law, the unfounded report of abuse should have been expunged by the state Department of Welfare, which it was. But the Penn State Police failed to expunge the report. And 13 years later, the report was suddenly relevant after the state attorney general issued a grand jury presentment about a second alleged shower incident where Sandusky allegedly raped a 10-year-old boy, as supposedly witnessed by former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.
The second shower incident, however, was investigated for the federal government by Snedden, who determined that the alleged facts made no sense, and that McQueary was not a credible witness.
McChesney's diary doesn't state how the Freeh team came up with the 1998 police report, but three lines later, McChesney writes: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."
Besides working closely with the Attorney General's office, Freeh's investigators were also staying in constant contact with the NCAA.
McChesney wrote that during the investigation, fellow investigator McNeill "has standing telcall on Fridays with NCAA & Big 10." During those phone calls, the NCAA "will provide questions for" the Freeh Group," McChesney wrote, and that "NCAA high level execs will decide on enforcement actions."
The FBI was also involved in the Penn State probe, McChesney wrote. She speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" for the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."
On Jan. 4, 2012, McChesney wrote that during a meeting with investigator Anthony Sassano and another official from the state attorney general's office, she learned that the "1998 police report" was "out of sequence and filed in administrative rather than criminal." And that the Penn State police chief and the original investigator from the 1998 incident were the "only ones who knew."
Imagine PhPB calling someone else full of shit?
my agenda is wanting a 19 part podcast to fairly present all sides and not ignore the many items that point to Jerry being guilty.
For example these facts about Snedden's investigation are not presented by Ziglie:
- he didn't investigate Jerry
- he didn't interview Jerry
- he didn't interview Corbett or any of Corbett's circle though he lays the blame there
- he didn't interview any 2nd miles
- his investigation was not to exonerate or clear Spanier, but rather to see if he should hold a clearance. Many people accused of and even convicted of crimes have clearances renewed, so in Spanier's case it does not say anything about his innocence (he's still guilty in court at present)
- Snedden had no background in assessment of people accused of Jerry's crimes
Last edited:
It is clear that you are not open to new information that is factual. There is no point with arguing with you since you have decided what you believe. You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Interesting how the ex-governor backtracked and said (directly quoted) they should have never fired Paterno since he and Surma were the two that demanded it. He at least was willing to change his mind after obtaining the facts.
Why would you ever have been convinced that what the media was reporting was true?
Last edited:
Well, that was certainly a mistake. If anything good came out of this whole thing maybe it at least opened your eyes to the risk of blind faith.
Last edited:
