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

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,744
4,384
1
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.

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.





@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.


If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,021
4,906
1
Kevin mentioned that a former recent (within past 15 years) PSU QB, who he described as very popular, is also in the camp of Jerry being innocent. I'm guessing (solely based on when Kevin was in school) that this is McGloin.

Kevin also confirmed that Jay Paterno is in this camp and that MANY people around State College feel this way.
 
Last edited:

86Engineer

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2015
351
328
1
Kevin mentioned that a former recent (within past 15 years) PSU QB, who he described as very popular, is also in the camp of Jerry being innocent. I'm guessing (solely based on when Kevin was in school) that this is McGloin.

Kevin also confirmed that Jay Paterno is in this camp and that MANY people around State College feel this way.

Then why is NO ONE saying anything? WTF?!
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,140
6,257
1
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
98,523
40,455
1
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
well, don't forget that they had the YEAR wrong until the production. How could you have the day correct but the year wrong? IMHO, and I've seen prosecutors do this, the notion that he watched "Rudy" on a Friday night and somehow got inspired at 9 at night to put his spikes in his locker complete and total BS. In addition, if you've ever been in the building, it is highly unlikely he ever saw anything from his locker, in a mirror and in the shower with any clarity (if at all). He stated by the time he looked at them directly, they were separated. So anything he saw that was damning was in a the mirror.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,021
4,906
1
Then why is NO ONE saying anything? WTF?!
Kevin actually discusses this at length as well. He basically said that if you are in any way associated with PSU (job, spouses job, prospective grad student, etc) it is against your own self interest to state this. He even suggested that if you were looking for a job (not just in State College, but in general) it would be against your self interest to "come out" about this.

I don't necessarily condone this, but certainly understand.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,744
4,384
1
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?

Yes, you heard the podcast correctly.

My respect for Ray has been reduced over the years. He has done some good work, but I believe he is dead wrong with the identity of v2. I believe it is crystal clear that Allan Myers is v2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,114
5,948
1
well, don't forget that they had the YEAR wrong until the production. How could you have the day correct but the year wrong? IMHO, and I've seen prosecutors do this, the notion that he watched "Rudy" on a Friday night and somehow got inspired at 9 at night to put his spikes in his locker complete and total BS. In addition, if you've ever been in the building, it is highly unlikely he ever saw anything from his locker, in a mirror and in the shower with any clarity (if at all). He stated by the time he looked at them directly, they were separated. So anything he saw that was damning was in a the mirror.
The OAG needed to disqualify Tim and Gary from being witnesses for Jerry's defense. The statute of limitations was 10 years for their alleged crimes. That's why they used 2002.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,021
4,906
1
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
 

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
202
116
1
If you listen to the entire podcast as the episodes are released you find numerous interviews and other findings that make the story as told by the AG in their false presentment, the news media and by their actions, the PSU Board a complete made up fairytale. The story was told to get a result that served all of their interests and was not anything close to what really happened. They didn’t care what really happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2001
98,523
40,455
1
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
it would also tell you why Paterno didn't do much other than report it. Without knowing who the boy was, there was no way to corroborate the story.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,176
24,155
1
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
Check out the layout of the locker room. See the location of the lockers and the mirror over the sink. MM didn't see much of anything, unless he has xray eyes.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
846
295
1
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
Well
Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,744
4,384
1
Well
Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.

I love the way @jerot uses articles from Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog. They are usually on subject and showcase Cipriano, the journalist who has had the best reporting on the story over the last ~4 years imho. I just wish he/she would cite big trial and provide a link to the story.

It seems like there is bad blood between Cipriano and Ziegler. I believe this happened after they collaborated on the blockbuster article that was slated to be published in Newsweek. When the story was pulled, I believe Ziegler shortly thereafter posted the article on his web pages which caused Cipriano to be upset as the article then probably lost any value to a different publisher.
 

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,232
565
1
I love the way @jerot uses articles from Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog. They are usually on subject and showcase Cipriano, the journalist who has had the best reporting on the story over the last ~4 years imho. I just wish he/she would cite big trial and provide a link to the story.

It seems like there is bad blood between Cipriano and Ziegler. I believe this happened after they collaborated on the blockbuster article that was slated to be published in Newsweek. When the story was pulled, I believe Ziegler shortly thereafter posted the article on his web pages which caused Cipriano to be upset as the article then probably lost any value to a different publisher.
Another way to say it is Ziggg stole Cipriano-s work
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,722
26,716
1
In the Zig interview did Gary ever say what MM told him and Curley? Or did he just say that they were never told about sexual assault?
 

JmmyW

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2013
542
2,057
1
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?


You say, "Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews."

Your first problem is this assumption. The answers are not in the Schultz interviews. Your second problem is that you're blatantly disingenuous. It was clear in my questions to Ziegler that I'd listened to the Schultz interviews. It was also clear in my post to which you replied that I included this very Ziegler tweet and my response to it. Here it is again:


A debate with Ziegler? My terms are simple. I posed my questions already. The ball is in his court to respond with answers that actually address the questions. If he continues to ignore them, that's his choice.

You say, "I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs." This is a non-sequiter. The point of my post and my questions to Ziegler have nothing to do with my beliefs; they only had to do with significant evidence that Ziegler ignored in attempting to prove his date theory.

Where's your intellectual curiosity? Don't you want Ziegler to answer my questions? Have you done any independent research to answer them? (It shouldn't be hard since I cited the date and page in the transcripts, which is far more than Ziegler ever does.) Are you OK with Ziegler lying, misrepresenting things, and cherry-picking?
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole

JmmyW

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2013
542
2,057
1
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?

my first response to the above
You say, "Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews."

Your first problem is this assumption. The answers are not in the Schultz interviews. Your second problem is that you're blatantly disingenuous. It was clear in my questions to Ziegler that I'd listened to the Schultz interviews. It was also clear in my post to which you replied that I included this very Ziegler tweet and my response to it. Here it is again:



A debate with Ziegler? My terms are simple. I posed my questions already. The ball is in his court to respond with answers that actually address the questions. If he continues to ignore them, that's his choice.

You say, "I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs." This is a non-sequiter. The point of my post and my questions to Ziegler have nothing to do with my beliefs; they only had to do with significant evidence that Ziegler ignored in attempting to prove his date theory.

Where's your intellectual curiosity? Don't you want Ziegler to answer my questions? Have you done any independent research to answer them? (It shouldn't be hard since I cited the date and page in the transcripts, which is far more than Ziegler ever does.) Are you OK with Ziegler lying, misrepresenting things, and cherry-picking?

It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole and Bob78

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,722
26,716
1
Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​
Curley, Shultz, Paterno, McQuerary Sr, and Dranov all said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. So it seems to me that either he didn't convey it or else they all lied about what they were told. You might even throw Raykovitz in to that group.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,176
24,155
1
My suspicions about the methods, tactics and ethics of the PSP and The Commonwealth OAG have been confirmed after listening to Gary Schultz and Kevin Horne on the podcast. Schultz reveals the shouting and fist pounding antics of prosecutors, unhappy with responses that did not fit their agenda. Horne makes it clear that while he suspected Sandusky to be innocent for some time, felt compelled (due to potential repercussions) to keep his opinion to himself. We already knew that 2 PSP perjured themselves (without any discipline). Now we have empirical evidence of how justice worked under the direction of Tom Corbett. The Commonwealth essentially operated as a totalitarian state. Citizens never cower when they see guilty parties prosecuted. However, when the innocent are randomly targeted a culture of fear is created. The goal of keeping Tim and Gary from testifying at the Sandusky Trial, coupled with the desire to suppress any outcry for a measured applications of justice explains the secret police methods employed in this case. It should lead us to question how often Fina and his Oprichnik like side kicks bullied others in their reign of terror.
Regardless of your opinion on Sandusky's guilt, if you are a citizen of Pa. you should be outraged.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,176
24,155
1
Curley, Shultz, Paterno, McQuerary Sr, and Dranov all said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. So it seems to me that either he didn't convey it or else they all lied about what they were told. You might even throw Raykovitz in to that group.
Either Mike was coerced by investigators into embellishing his story....thru threats or perhaps his regret at not being more aggressive at the time he reported (since investigators convinced him JS was the worst pedophile in the world)...what is clear is that at the time he never mentioned sexual abuse.
Dad and Dranov= response= report to Joe (administrative not criminal)
Joe= report to Curley (administrative)
Curley and Shultz= (report to Raykovitz and ban TSM) (administrative)
Raykovitz (child care expert) No action needed

There can be no argument to suggest any abuse was reported at the time.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,176
24,155
1
my first response to the above


It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
Mixing facts with fallacy gets you a grade of F on an essay in a high school history test. When you lie as Freeh did...nothing is of value after that.
Sandusky never should have showered with "children" after the 98 incident. Does anyone know if this was frequent or was it Alan Meyer age 13+? Does this make him guilty of all charges of child sex abuse?
Regardless of the date, Mike couldn't see anything (check the layout of the locker room) and based on the reactions of the respected Dr, Dranov, he never reported the sexual abuse of a child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,114
5,948
1
...Sandusky never should have showered with "children" after the 98 incident.
I disagree. Sandusky should have never showered alone with children after the '98 incident.

This is one of the problems I have with JZ. He does these great interviews with Gary and he never actually asks him to address the notes he took relative to the shower incident. I would love to hear what Gary was thinking at the time.

My take on Gary's notes and the emails is that C/S/S were focused on preventing a future he said/he said scenario.

Gary wrote:
On 2/12/01 Schultz made the following notes shortly after he and Curley first met with Joe, presumably after he consulted with Courtney. Not sure if before or after giving a heads up to Spanier. (Exhibit 5E, pg. 219 of Freeh Report):

-Talked w TMC, reviewed 1998 history

-agreed TMC will discuss with JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/JS on Friday

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare


From this, we learn that Tim most likely had no prior knowledge of 1998. That Schultz said he reviewed the history of that event suggests that he didn’t go into depth. As has been pointed out, no one accused JS of sexual impropriety then, so knowledge of this incident is moot as far as perjury is concerned.

The second point suggests that Joe was, as he claimed, only peripherally involved. He was initially kept in the loop, but his input was not required or requested.

The initial plan was for Tim to meet with JS that week. This meeting did not take place. It would be interesting to know why, but I think you could argue that the delay had to do with not having yet met with Mike. It may also speak to the general treatment of this issue as more of an HR/PR problem, not as a criminal one.

The third point is critical and very telling. Schultz uses the word ‘confesses’. The quotation marks are his. Confess to what? What does Schultz believe to be Sandusky’s “problem”? In the context of his notes, if the problem was pedophilia that would mean that if Jerry admitted he sexually abused a child, Schultz saw no need to have DPW review the matter, but if Jerry did not admit to same, Schultz believed the matter warranted the involvement of an independent agency concerned with child welfare. That’s completely backwards! Can we at least agree on that? Yet that is what Louis Freeh would have us believe is a “reasonable conclusion”.

Also, these notes provide conclusive evidence that reporting to DPW was considered to be an optional step from the beginning. What did Schultz tell Courtney and what was Courtney’s response?

On 2/25/01, per Schultz's notes from the meeting between Curley, Schultz and Spanier that took place after Tim and Gary had met with MM (Exhibit 5E, pg. 223 of Freeh Report):

3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile

2) Report to Dept. of Welfare

1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d


* Who is chair??

What does this suggest?

First, look at step #1. "Avoid"? Does that word choice fit the scenario suggested in the accusations?

I would equate this with a DUI issue, whereas we are being told to believe that it was a hit and run. IOW, they intended to tell Jerry to "avoid" driving when he's had a few rather than "avoid" running over old ladies on his way home from the bar. You don't use a word like "avoid" when a serious crime has already occurred. You use a word like "avoid" when the potential exists for something to go wrong if the questionable behavior continues unabated.

The word "alone" is significant, IMO. When coupled with "avoid" it indicates their intent is to advise Jerry, for his own good, that he should avoid situations in which he is alone with children in the Lasch Bldg. because problems could arise. It wasn’t Jerry’s behavior so much, but that he was alone with a boy that led to this restriction.

This reminds me of when I used to go camping with my son's scout troop. Often there was a restroom on the grounds, but some distance from where we made camp. In my mind, it made sense for an adult to accompany a boy who had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. It was dark. They could get lost. They might be afraid. Worst case, there might be some creep out there. However, the policy was that even the fathers/scout leaders in the group weren't allowed to take a boy by himself. Two boys or two adults are fine. One adult and one boy are not. I thought that was overkill until I thought about it and realized that it served to not only protect me, but the BSA.

Step # two is important because it proves that there was no intent to conceal the matter, even after speaking with Mike. Absent from any of these communiques is any reference to protecting the football program from bad publicity.

This does suggest a change in the approach from Schultz's initial notes, especially since he repeated this step in an email to Curley the next day. However, it wasn't necessarily so. Only he knows what he meant here. He may have just been repeating what he wrote before, but in an abbreviated form that he/they understood. Assuming the optional aspect of reporting to DPW was removed at this point, why? Did Mike say anything that Joe did not? Did Spanier argue that the matter needed to be reported regardless to cover their butts and protect PSU?

Step #3 is interesting. Why inform the chair of TSM, not Exec. Director Jack Raykovitz? This is worth understanding more clearly. My take is that if a crime had occurred, Jack would have been the one to contact because he was involved in the day to day operations. He would have been in the better position to look into it, find the boy and see to his wellbeing. Informing the chair, OTOH, suggests to me that they saw the incident as more of a potential PR problem.

That Schultz didn't know who the chair was, and presumably none of them did, also tells me that they weren't trying to hide anything. It would be one thing if they were buds, but that doesn't appear to have been the case.
 
Last edited:

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,409
9,014
1
I disagree. Sandusky should have never showered alone with children after the '98 incident.
Sandusky never should have showered alone with children, ever. There is no school of thought that would have made it OK for somebody in his role to have been doing so. It is beyond reasonable to think he didn’t know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUSignore

Beachwineguy

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2008
1,905
2,961
1
49
Florida
www.dperrine.myhst.com
my first response to the above


It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
Well, you lose credibility with the answer to your first question. Multiple people have looked into it and concluded that the December date is more likely than the February date. What evidence do you have that makes it more consistent?

MM said there weren’t many kids on campus. Dec 29th - yes
Feb 9th - no

Dranov/McQ met with Schultz and Curley a few months after MM told them about it.
Dec 29th - yes
Feb 9th - no

What else ya got?
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,205
6,639
1
And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.
You're going with the assumption that Mike was home and watching "Rudy" and not his "working late" version. Which version do you believe?
X3RXWa1.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and francofan

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,114
5,948
1
Sandusky never should have showered alone with children, ever. There is no school of thought that would have made it OK for somebody in his role to have been doing so. It is beyond reasonable to think he didn’t know that.
You're coming at this from a concern for the kids. I get that. However, C/S/S, IMO, were more concerned about a repeat of the '98 incident, in which a concerned mother initiated an investigation. And though that investigation failed to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, that Mother could have sued Jerry, TSM and PSU in civil court and would have likely won a quick and lucrative settlement.

IMO, that's not to suggest C/S/S were callous to the well being of the boy, but rather felt Jerry, while well meaning, needed to be protected from himself.

As for Jerry, I think he believed his motives were beyond reproach and he hadn't done anything wrong. He was too naive to see the risk involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,409
9,014
1
You're coming at this from a concern for the kids. I get that. However, C/S/S, IMO, were more concerned about a repeat of the '98 incident, in which a concerned mother initiated an investigation. And though that investigation failed to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, that Mother could have sued Jerry, TSM and PSU in civil court and would have likely won a quick and lucrative settlement.

IMO, that's not to suggest C/S/S were callous to the well being of the boy, but rather felt Jerry, while well meaning, needed to be protected from himself.

As for Jerry, I think he believed his motives were beyond reproach and he hadn't done anything wrong. He was too naive to see the risk involved.
I’m not coming at it from any angle about the administrators. I think they were railroaded. My comment was just about Jerry. Nobody in their right mind (even in 1998) in his position didn’t know that what he was doing was absolutely wrong. People get on my case for repeating this point over and over but it continues to amaze me that anybody tries to defend it. It is really indefensible.
 
Last edited:

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,744
4,384
1
You say, "Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews."

Your first problem is this assumption. The answers are not in the Schultz interviews. Your second problem is that you're blatantly disingenuous. It was clear in my questions to Ziegler that I'd listened to the Schultz interviews. It was also clear in my post to which you replied that I included this very Ziegler tweet and my response to it. Here it is again:



A debate with Ziegler? My terms are simple. I posed my questions already. The ball is in his court to respond with answers that actually address the questions. If he continues to ignore them, that's his choice.

You say, "I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs." This is a non-sequiter. The point of my post and my questions to Ziegler have nothing to do with my beliefs; they only had to do with significant evidence that Ziegler ignored in attempting to prove his date theory.

Where's your intellectual curiosity? Don't you want Ziegler to answer my questions? Have you done any independent research to answer them? (It shouldn't be hard since I cited the date and page in the transcripts, which is far more than Ziegler ever does.) Are you OK with Ziegler lying, misrepresenting things, and cherry-picking?
Thank you for your responses. They help me to see where you are coming from. I believe your motivations are important as you were discussing Ziegler's motivations and I thought your motivations were pertinent relative to attempting to determine why you were engaging Ziegler.

I do not speak for Ziegler. I am not a big fan of his style and crass personality. I don't agree with alot of what he writes unrelated to the Penn State story. However, imho I think his take on the important questions in this story are spot on. If you think he has been less than honest in this case, please cite specific examples with your best evidence you have that Ziegler is less than honest or that he has been cherry-picking..

I do have some curiousity in regards to your questions. I may have misintepreted them. My quick analysis was I thought you might be trying to show that the Dec. 29 was probably not the date based on the dates of Dranov's meeting with Schultz about the status of Mike's report and when the meeting between Curley and Raykowitz took place. Please let me know just what your questions are all about and where you think Ziegler's logic is faulty.

I, mistakenly or not, surmised that your pointed questions appeared to me as a way for you to cast doubts on the Dec. 29 date. I personally am sold on the Dec. 29 date because I wholeheartedly believe based on my research it is the only date that makes any sense. Schultz thinks it makes sense. Malcolm Gladwell thinks it makes sense. These are 2 very credible individuals who have thought long and hard about this case and they don't seem like they would be people prone to jumping to rash and faulty conclusions on such an important question. In addition, Jerry thinks this date is correct. In Ziegler's prison interview with Sandusky, Sandusky doesn't buy the Feb. 9 date because Allan Myers had school that day and there is no way he would have taken Myers out of school to go on a trip to Washington PA for a book signing event on that date. This date is also corroborated by Jerry's college roommate in a phone call with Jerry after Jerry was turned down for the UVA head coaching job. I believe that Jerry's story is credible and that he should be entitled to the presumption of innocence as most legal experts would acknowledge that his trial was patently unfair.

I would love to see you debate Ziegler. If you want to engage Ziegler in a debate, I would suggest that you provide him with your terms in a tweet and I think it is likely that you will get a response to your questions. I would be very surprised to see Ziegler ignore a tweet that you send to him asking to debate.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,409
9,014
1
Thank you for your responses. They help me to see where you are coming from. I believe your motivations are important as you were discussing Ziegler's motivations and I thought your motivations were pertinent relative to attempting to determine why you were engaging Ziegler.

I do not speak for Ziegler. I am not a big fan of his style and crass personality. I don't agree with alot of what he writes unrelated to the Penn State story. However, imho I think his take on the important questions in this story are spot on. If you think he has been less than honest in this case, please cite specific examples with your best evidence you have that Ziegler is less than honest or that he has been cherry-picking..

I do have some curiousity in regards to your questions. I may have misintepreted them. My quick analysis was I thought you might be trying to show that the Dec. 29 was probably not the date based on the dates of Dranov's meeting with Schultz about the status of Mike's report and when the meeting between Curley and Raykowitz took place. Please let me know just what your questions are all about and where you think Ziegler's logic is faulty.

I, mistakenly or not, surmised that your pointed questions appeared to me as a way for you to cast doubts on the Dec. 29 date. I personally am sold on the Dec. 29 date because I wholeheartedly believe based on my research it is the only date that makes any sense. Schultz thinks it makes sense. Malcolm Gladwell thinks it makes sense. These are 2 very credible individuals who have thought long and hard about this case and they don't seem like they would be people prone to jumping to rash and faulty conclusions on such an important question. In addition, Jerry thinks this date is correct. In Ziegler's prison interview with Sandusky, Sandusky doesn't buy the Feb. 9 date because Allan Myers had school that day and there is no way he would have taken Myers out of school to go on a trip to Washington PA for a book signing event on that date. This date is also corroborated by Jerry's college roommate in a phone call with Jerry after Jerry was turned down for the UVA head coaching job. I believe that Jerry's story is credible and that he should be entitled to the presumption of innocence as most legal experts would acknowledge that his trial was patently unfair.

I would love to see you debate Ziegler. If you want to engage Ziegler in a debate, I would suggest that you provide him with your terms in a tweet and I think it is likely that you will get a response to your questions. I would be very surprised to see Ziegler ignore a tweet that you send to him asking to debate.
Ziegler will only respond in the form of a formal debate? That seems odd.
 

LundyPSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2002
11,476
1,870
1
Just curious, did Snedden have access during his investigation to all parties, email records, notes, etc?
 

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,232
565
1
If you want to beat Ziegler in a debate give him a 2 minute time limit to make a coherent summary of his thoughts. Otherwise you're likely to get 40 hours of ranting and raving with 1 hour of content.
like a 19 episode podcast plus 32 hours of interviews plus 8 or 9 promotional bonus interviews released in just the last 2 weeks?

Can't imagine why the average Joe Blow hasn't put their entire life on pause and consumed that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole and bdgan

blk902

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 10, 2008
202
116
1
like a 19 episode podcast plus 32 hours of interviews plus 8 or 9 promotional bonus interviews released in just the last 2 weeks?

Can't imagine why the average Joe Blow hasn't put their entire life on pause and consumed that.
You don’t have to like Ziegler to have an open mind about what did and did not happen. Common sense tells most people that the prosecution’s narrative doesn’t make sense. The AG computers had more child porn on them than Jerry’s by a score of A lot to zero.
 
Last edited:

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
8,140
6,257
1
The OAG needed to disqualify Tim and Gary from being witnesses for Jerry's defense. The statute of limitations was 10 years for their alleged crimes. That's why they used 2002.
yea i get that, but my point was had the whole dates wrong issue not been brought up until the trial IMO it would have seriously hurt MM's cred. Sure he could mis remember the date, but how do you mis remember the date and also mis remember the state of the campus. And yet vividly recall a 2- second glance through a mirror