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

[Nittany Ziggy]

I vote for a tour of the local watering holes.....

Here is security footage from The G-Man from that fateful night...

 

[marshall23]

I honestly think there’s a good chance Tim wanted to circle back with Joe because after Tim and Gary spoke with Mike, they learned the incident was actually much milder than they expected based on what Joe stated when he first contacted them.

Remember Joe did not personally like Sandusky, so when Joe contacted Tim about Jerry’s latest incident, Joe may have shown more disgust in his voice compared with what the incident really merited. I think Tim contacted Joe because he wanted to make sure Joe wasn’t then going to get on his ass about be too nice to Jerry. Remember Joe never wanted him bringing kids into the locker room in the first place. Also, with Jerry recently almost becoming Virginia’s coach, I am sure Joe didn’t look kindly on a potential rival coach using their facilities.

Also, if you look at all the emails /notes in context, the plan was for Tim to contact Jerry. It was only after Tim started getting cold feet about a potential awkward encounter did they consider involving CYS. Finally, Tim decision to not get CYS involved was actually him manning up and being willing to have this potentially difficult conversation. A gentleman named Adam Clark details this on a Twitter thread.

This is information that most people don't take into account. Sandusky's friends on the BOT ignored Joe's recommendations about the liability issues of bringing kids to Lasch and one certainly should not be surprised if Joe had a little bit of "I told you so...." in his attitude.

 

[jerot]

I honestly think there’s a good chance Tim wanted to circle back with Joe because after Tim and Gary spoke with Mike, they learned the incident was actually much milder than they expected based on what Joe stated when he first contacted them.

Remember Joe did not personally like Sandusky, so when Joe contacted Tim about Jerry’s latest incident, Joe may have shown more disgust in his voice compared with what the incident really merited. I think Tim contacted Joe because he wanted to make sure Joe wasn’t then going to get on his ass about be too nice to Jerry. Remember Joe never wanted him bringing kids into the locker room in the first place. Also, with Jerry recently almost becoming Virginia’s coach, I am sure Joe didn’t look kindly on a potential rival coach using their facilities.

Also, if you look at all the emails /notes in context, the plan was for Tim to contact Jerry. It was only after Tim started getting cold feet about a potential awkward encounter did they consider involving CYS. Finally, Tim decision to not get CYS involved was actually him manning up and being willing to have this potentially difficult conversation. A gentleman named Adam Clark details this on a Twitter thread.

Tim Tim Tim
Silver talked about the government's cooperating witnesses, former Penn State Athletic Director Curley, and former Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz.

"These were the stars of their show," Silver said about the government's cae. But going by their testimony, Silver said, neither Curley nor Schultz ever told Spanier that what Mike McQueary witnessed in the showers was sex abuse.

Silver repeated what Schultz told the jury: "Jerry was always horsing around," Silver quoted Schultz as saying. "Schultz told Spanier it was horseplay."

Of all the government's fifteen witnesses, Silver said, only two, Curley and Schultz, testified that they spoke directly to Spanier about what McQueary told them.

McQueary, Silver reminded the jury, never spoke directly to Spanier about what he witnessed in the showers.

There was no conspiracy at Penn State, Silver said, summing up. Nobody told McQueary, or anybody else, to "keep things quiet, to keep their mouths shut." On the witness stand, both of the government's star witnesses, Curley and Schultz, testified that took the matter seriously. They were trying to do the right thing, Silver said. And they also testified that they did not participate in any conspiracy to cover up, and not report the infamous shower incident.

"There is no evidence that Graham Spanier knowingly endangered the welfare of children," Silver said. He concluded by asking the jury to find his client not guilty.

When Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka stood up to give her closing, she wanted to clear up one thing right away."Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," she said, "They're criminals." And you can't count on criminals to tell you that they knowingly committed crimes.

With a paucity of facts to draw on, Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, turned to fireworks. Spanier, Curley and Schultz, she said, were all guilty of turning their backs on the welfare of children, in favor of protecting themselves and Penn State from scandal.

"Jerry Sandusky was left to run wild," she said.


She talked about the plan that Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on. To confront Jerry Sandusky with the shower incident. And to inform Sandusky that he was no longer allowed to bring children onto Penn State property.

The PSU officials were hoping that Sandusky would admit to a problem and agree to seek help. If not, the PSU officials planned to report the shower incident to the child psychiatrist who led the Second Mile charity that employed Sandusky as a counselor. And also report the shower incident to the Department of Public Welfare, so they could investigate whether Sandusky's conduct amounted to sex abuse.

But there was a "downside" to that approach, as Ditka reminded the jury while she quoted from an email sent by Spanier. The downside was "if the message wasn't heard" by Sandusky, Spanier wrote to Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, Curley and Schultz "become vulnerable for not having reported it."

When you're conspiring to cover up sex abuse, it's not too smart to lay out the plot in an email chain that subsequently become a government exhibit. That's not usually how coverups work. But Ditka skipped over all that to blast the usual villains in the Penn State sex scandal narrative, starring that naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with little boys. they cared about was their own self interest," Ditka told the jury about Penn State's top officials. "Instead of putting him [Sandusky] on a leash," she said, "they let him run wild."

Ditka recounted to the jury the first incident Sandusky was ever accused of. Back in 1998, a mother went to the cops because Sandusky had allegedly given her 11-year-old son a naked bear hug in the shower. And he allegedly picked the boy up and stuck him under a shower head to allegedly wash the soap out of his ears.

The boy, a member of the Second Mile charity, had been lured into the showers by the promise of a pair of "Joe Paterno sox," Ditka reminded the jury. "The lure of Penn State football is strong."

Ditka spoke about what she described as the cover-up mode employed by those at the "top of the totem pole" at Penn State, namely Spanier, Curley and Schultz. And then she vividly contrasted it with the whistle blowing of Mike McQueary, whom she described as "the low man on the totem pole."

Ditka dove once more into all the salacious details of the McQueary shower story -- Sandusky's naked "body moving slowly," "slapping sounds," and "skin against skin."

"What do you think?" she asked the jury. "That's horseplay?"

If it's horseplay, she said, why was the Penn State president and two of his top officials meeting about it on the weekend? Why are Schultz and Curley sitting around Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning if it's just horseplay they're talking about, Ditka argued.

"Skin to skin, hips moving against a boy is not horsing around," she repeated. This is Penn State, she said, where they have ten thousand kids.

"Every time a towel is snapped," Ditka asked, do university officials gather at Graham Spanier's house? knew what they were doing, Ditka said about Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They come up with
a plan," she said. "You have to keep it a secret."

That's why they waited ten days to interview whistle-blowing eyewitness McQueary, Ditka said. Because they didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted to keep the truth under wraps.

"They had a problem and they didn't want to deal with it," Ditka said. The result was, "They own it."

"They prevented a report of sex abuse," Ditka said. "They knew what they were dealing with."

Instead of tackling the problem head on, Ditka said, by hauling McQueary in and finding out exactly what had happened in the shower, PSU's top officials tried "to soft-shoe it."

And when time dragged by, Ditka said, Spanier assured a worried Gary Schultz that "It's taken care of."

Here, Ditka was taking some liberties with trial testimony. When asked on the witness stand who had told him that the shower incident had been investigated and "taken care of," Schultz couldn't remember.

"I can't say for sure that it was Graham Spanier," Schultz told the jury.

It was a quote that Silver had read to the jury. Then he warned that if Ditka tried to use that quote to prove Spanier was guilty, it fell far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that wasn't going to stop Ditka.

It was like the scene in Animal House when Bluto gave the speech to his frat brothers about the Germans bombing Pearl Habor. Otter wondered whether he should correct Bluto, but Boon told him, "Forget it, he's rolling."

Like Bluto, Ditka was rolling.

"Graham Spanier told him [Schultz] 'Its taken care of," Ditka yelled. Before she was done, Ditka would not only declare that it was Spanier who had told Schultz "It was taken care of." She would also ccuse Spanier of deliberately "lying to Schultz."

Next, Ditka reminded the jury that when the Penn State sex abuse scandal exploded, Spanier insisted on running on the university's website two letters of support for Curley and Schultz.

"I support Gary and Tim," Ditka recounted the statements as basically saying. "Not a thought about the kids," she lamented. "They didn't care about kids."

The most entertaining part of Ditka's closing argument was when she trashed both of her star witnesses.

 

[indynittany]

Tim Tim Tim
Silver talked about the government's cooperating witnesses, former Penn State Athletic Director Curley, and former Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz.

"These were the stars of their show," Silver said about the government's cae. But going by their testimony, Silver said, neither Curley nor Schultz ever told Spanier that what Mike McQueary witnessed in the showers was sex abuse.

Silver repeated what Schultz told the jury: "Jerry was always horsing around," Silver quoted Schultz as saying. "Schultz told Spanier it was horseplay."

Of all the government's fifteen witnesses, Silver said, only two, Curley and Schultz, testified that they spoke directly to Spanier about what McQueary told them.

McQueary, Silver reminded the jury, never spoke directly to Spanier about what he witnessed in the showers.

There was no conspiracy at Penn State, Silver said, summing up. Nobody told McQueary, or anybody else, to "keep things quiet, to keep their mouths shut." On the witness stand, both of the government's star witnesses, Curley and Schultz, testified that took the matter seriously. They were trying to do the right thing, Silver said. And they also testified that they did not participate in any conspiracy to cover up, and not report the infamous shower incident.

"There is no evidence that Graham Spanier knowingly endangered the welfare of children," Silver said. He concluded by asking the jury to find his client not guilty.

When Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka stood up to give her closing, she wanted to clear up one thing right away."Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," she said, "They're criminals." And you can't count on criminals to tell you that they knowingly committed crimes.

With a paucity of facts to draw on, Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, turned to fireworks. Spanier, Curley and Schultz, she said, were all guilty of turning their backs on the welfare of children, in favor of protecting themselves and Penn State from scandal.

"Jerry Sandusky was left to run wild," she said.


She talked about the plan that Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on. To confront Jerry Sandusky with the shower incident. And to inform Sandusky that he was no longer allowed to bring children onto Penn State property.

The PSU officials were hoping that Sandusky would admit to a problem and agree to seek help. If not, the PSU officials planned to report the shower incident to the child psychiatrist who led the Second Mile charity that employed Sandusky as a counselor. And also report the shower incident to the Department of Public Welfare, so they could investigate whether Sandusky's conduct amounted to sex abuse.

But there was a "downside" to that approach, as Ditka reminded the jury while she quoted from an email sent by Spanier. The downside was "if the message wasn't heard" by Sandusky, Spanier wrote to Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, Curley and Schultz "become vulnerable for not having reported it."

When you're conspiring to cover up sex abuse, it's not too smart to lay out the plot in an email chain that subsequently become a government exhibit. That's not usually how coverups work. But Ditka skipped over all that to blast the usual villains in the Penn State sex scandal narrative, starring that naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with little boys. they cared about was their own self interest," Ditka told the jury about Penn State's top officials. "Instead of putting him [Sandusky] on a leash," she said, "they let him run wild."

Ditka recounted to the jury the first incident Sandusky was ever accused of. Back in 1998, a mother went to the cops because Sandusky had allegedly given her 11-year-old son a naked bear hug in the shower. And he allegedly picked the boy up and stuck him under a shower head to allegedly wash the soap out of his ears.

The boy, a member of the Second Mile charity, had been lured into the showers by the promise of a pair of "Joe Paterno sox," Ditka reminded the jury. "The lure of Penn State football is strong."

Ditka spoke about what she described as the cover-up mode employed by those at the "top of the totem pole" at Penn State, namely Spanier, Curley and Schultz. And then she vividly contrasted it with the whistle blowing of Mike McQueary, whom she described as "the low man on the totem pole."

Ditka dove once more into all the salacious details of the McQueary shower story -- Sandusky's naked "body moving slowly," "slapping sounds," and "skin against skin."

"What do you think?" she asked the jury. "That's horseplay?"

If it's horseplay, she said, why was the Penn State president and two of his top officials meeting about it on the weekend? Why are Schultz and Curley sitting around Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning if it's just horseplay they're talking about, Ditka argued.

"Skin to skin, hips moving against a boy is not horsing around," she repeated. This is Penn State, she said, where they have ten thousand kids.

"Every time a towel is snapped," Ditka asked, do university officials gather at Graham Spanier's house? knew what they were doing, Ditka said about Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They come up with
a plan," she said. "You have to keep it a secret."

That's why they waited ten days to interview whistle-blowing eyewitness McQueary, Ditka said. Because they didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted to keep the truth under wraps.

"They had a problem and they didn't want to deal with it," Ditka said. The result was, "They own it."

"They prevented a report of sex abuse," Ditka said. "They knew what they were dealing with."

Instead of tackling the problem head on, Ditka said, by hauling McQueary in and finding out exactly what had happened in the shower, PSU's top officials tried "to soft-shoe it."

And when time dragged by, Ditka said, Spanier assured a worried Gary Schultz that "It's taken care of."

Here, Ditka was taking some liberties with trial testimony. When asked on the witness stand who had told him that the shower incident had been investigated and "taken care of," Schultz couldn't remember.

"I can't say for sure that it was Graham Spanier," Schultz told the jury.

It was a quote that Silver had read to the jury. Then he warned that if Ditka tried to use that quote to prove Spanier was guilty, it fell far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that wasn't going to stop Ditka.

It was like the scene in Animal House when Bluto gave the speech to his frat brothers about the Germans bombing Pearl Habor. Otter wondered whether he should correct Bluto, but Boon told him, "Forget it, he's rolling."

Like Bluto, Ditka was rolling.

"Graham Spanier told him [Schultz] 'Its taken care of," Ditka yelled. Before she was done, Ditka would not only declare that it was Spanier who had told Schultz "It was taken care of." She would also ccuse Spanier of deliberately "lying to Schultz."

Next, Ditka reminded the jury that when the Penn State sex abuse scandal exploded, Spanier insisted on running on the university's website two letters of support for Curley and Schultz.

"I support Gary and Tim," Ditka recounted the statements as basically saying. "Not a thought about the kids," she lamented. "They didn't care about kids."

The most entertaining part of Ditka's closing argument was when she trashed both of her star witnesses.

If a boy had been abused, whether or not Jerry heard and acted upon their message would have made no difference with respect to their vulnerability. They would have been vulnerable no matter what Jerry did in the future.

 

[francofan]

Episode 9 has dropped.

Episode 9: A Few Bad Men

The fun really starts now as we enter the courthouse in June of 2012 for the trial of Jerry Sandusky . It's been just seven months since his arrest but Sandusky is already on trial. Prosecutors sped this case along at light speed and it seems like John Ziegler is one of the few people who wondered why. The Commonwealth stacked the deck in every possible way and small town defense attorney Joe Amendoa was out-matched, overwhelmed and unprepared for the gauntlet he'd face. Zig breaks down the play-by-play while Liz painfully absorbs the events of the legal travesty that was the Sandusky trial.

Google Podcasts

podcasts.google.com

 

[Obliviax]

Tim Tim Tim
Silver talked about the government's cooperating witnesses, former Penn State Athletic Director Curley, and former Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz.

"These were the stars of their show," Silver said about the government's cae. But going by their testimony, Silver said, neither Curley nor Schultz ever told Spanier that what Mike McQueary witnessed in the showers was sex abuse.

Silver repeated what Schultz told the jury: "Jerry was always horsing around," Silver quoted Schultz as saying. "Schultz told Spanier it was horseplay."

Of all the government's fifteen witnesses, Silver said, only two, Curley and Schultz, testified that they spoke directly to Spanier about what McQueary told them.

McQueary, Silver reminded the jury, never spoke directly to Spanier about what he witnessed in the showers.

There was no conspiracy at Penn State, Silver said, summing up. Nobody told McQueary, or anybody else, to "keep things quiet, to keep their mouths shut." On the witness stand, both of the government's star witnesses, Curley and Schultz, testified that took the matter seriously. They were trying to do the right thing, Silver said. And they also testified that they did not participate in any conspiracy to cover up, and not report the infamous shower incident.

"There is no evidence that Graham Spanier knowingly endangered the welfare of children," Silver said. He concluded by asking the jury to find his client not guilty.

When Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka stood up to give her closing, she wanted to clear up one thing right away."Gary Schultz and Tim Curley are not our star witnesses," she said, "They're criminals." And you can't count on criminals to tell you that they knowingly committed crimes.

With a paucity of facts to draw on, Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, turned to fireworks. Spanier, Curley and Schultz, she said, were all guilty of turning their backs on the welfare of children, in favor of protecting themselves and Penn State from scandal.

"Jerry Sandusky was left to run wild," she said.


She talked about the plan that Spanier, Curley and Schultz had agreed on. To confront Jerry Sandusky with the shower incident. And to inform Sandusky that he was no longer allowed to bring children onto Penn State property.

The PSU officials were hoping that Sandusky would admit to a problem and agree to seek help. If not, the PSU officials planned to report the shower incident to the child psychiatrist who led the Second Mile charity that employed Sandusky as a counselor. And also report the shower incident to the Department of Public Welfare, so they could investigate whether Sandusky's conduct amounted to sex abuse.

But there was a "downside" to that approach, as Ditka reminded the jury while she quoted from an email sent by Spanier. The downside was "if the message wasn't heard" by Sandusky, Spanier wrote to Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, Curley and Schultz "become vulnerable for not having reported it."

When you're conspiring to cover up sex abuse, it's not too smart to lay out the plot in an email chain that subsequently become a government exhibit. That's not usually how coverups work. But Ditka skipped over all that to blast the usual villains in the Penn State sex scandal narrative, starring that naked Jerry Sandusky cavorting in the showers with little boys. they cared about was their own self interest," Ditka told the jury about Penn State's top officials. "Instead of putting him [Sandusky] on a leash," she said, "they let him run wild."

Ditka recounted to the jury the first incident Sandusky was ever accused of. Back in 1998, a mother went to the cops because Sandusky had allegedly given her 11-year-old son a naked bear hug in the shower. And he allegedly picked the boy up and stuck him under a shower head to allegedly wash the soap out of his ears.

The boy, a member of the Second Mile charity, had been lured into the showers by the promise of a pair of "Joe Paterno sox," Ditka reminded the jury. "The lure of Penn State football is strong."

Ditka spoke about what she described as the cover-up mode employed by those at the "top of the totem pole" at Penn State, namely Spanier, Curley and Schultz. And then she vividly contrasted it with the whistle blowing of Mike McQueary, whom she described as "the low man on the totem pole."

Ditka dove once more into all the salacious details of the McQueary shower story -- Sandusky's naked "body moving slowly," "slapping sounds," and "skin against skin."

"What do you think?" she asked the jury. "That's horseplay?"

If it's horseplay, she said, why was the Penn State president and two of his top officials meeting about it on the weekend? Why are Schultz and Curley sitting around Joe Paterno's kitchen table on a Sunday morning if it's just horseplay they're talking about, Ditka argued.

"Skin to skin, hips moving against a boy is not horsing around," she repeated. This is Penn State, she said, where they have ten thousand kids.

"Every time a towel is snapped," Ditka asked, do university officials gather at Graham Spanier's house? knew what they were doing, Ditka said about Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They come up with
a plan," she said. "You have to keep it a secret."

That's why they waited ten days to interview whistle-blowing eyewitness McQueary, Ditka said. Because they didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted to keep the truth under wraps.

"They had a problem and they didn't want to deal with it," Ditka said. The result was, "They own it."

"They prevented a report of sex abuse," Ditka said. "They knew what they were dealing with."

Instead of tackling the problem head on, Ditka said, by hauling McQueary in and finding out exactly what had happened in the shower, PSU's top officials tried "to soft-shoe it."

And when time dragged by, Ditka said, Spanier assured a worried Gary Schultz that "It's taken care of."

Here, Ditka was taking some liberties with trial testimony. When asked on the witness stand who had told him that the shower incident had been investigated and "taken care of," Schultz couldn't remember.

"I can't say for sure that it was Graham Spanier," Schultz told the jury.

It was a quote that Silver had read to the jury. Then he warned that if Ditka tried to use that quote to prove Spanier was guilty, it fell far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that wasn't going to stop Ditka.

It was like the scene in Animal House when Bluto gave the speech to his frat brothers about the Germans bombing Pearl Habor. Otter wondered whether he should correct Bluto, but Boon told him, "Forget it, he's rolling."

Like Bluto, Ditka was rolling.

"Graham Spanier told him [Schultz] 'Its taken care of," Ditka yelled. Before she was done, Ditka would not only declare that it was Spanier who had told Schultz "It was taken care of." She would also ccuse Spanier of deliberately "lying to Schultz."

Next, Ditka reminded the jury that when the Penn State sex abuse scandal exploded, Spanier insisted on running on the university's website two letters of support for Curley and Schultz.

"I support Gary and Tim," Ditka recounted the statements as basically saying. "Not a thought about the kids," she lamented. "They didn't care about kids."

The most entertaining part of Ditka's closing argument was when she trashed both of her star witnesses.

A few takeaways here, If I may:

1. MM waited at least an entire night before reporting the event. As such, no verified ID was made or was even possible. And, being in a shower and a day late, no possibility of physical evidence.
2. MM admittedly "watered down" the story he told Joe. Joe obviously called Curley/Schultz and told them what MM had told him.
3. Whatever MM told Curley and Schulz was days if not weeks later. Again, no physical evidence and no way to validate the kid. IIRC, JS gave them the kid's name and urged them to call the kid. And, law enforcement went down this path once before, including two stakeouts, which resulted in a net-zero outcome. JS was creepy and that is what got him into trouble, it was thought. There is no law against a man and a child of the same sex showering (as creepy as that is, there is also no law against cheating on your spouse).
4. So Curley and Schultz then tell Spanier. Now we have MM, Dranov, MM's dad, Joe, Curley, Schultz and all being told slightly different stories. Ever play the team building game where a group of people line up and you whisper something in the first person's ear and they whisper it to the next and so on until the last person (being told, you can't ask "what?"). By the end the message is incomprehensible. That is what has happened here.
5. As an aside, we also now know that the prosecution told yet another version of the story.

Overall, while the shower story is the straw that broke the camel's back, in and of itself, is not and never has been actionable in terms of getting a conviction. The convictions came from dozens of people claiming that they were abused by JS. The defense simply selected a handful. And, the PR was so bad, there was no way JS was going to get a fair trial (guilty or innocent). I followed all of this case on an hour-by-hour basis and knew it inside and out. A lot of my memory of the details has faded. But I had two takeaways: 1) the media can not and should never be trusted. None of them. That has only gotten worse (the NYT came out and admitted that the Steele Dossier was BS and it was known as BS for three years by the media. So we were lied to by all of the MSM outlets as well as prominent politicians from both sides of the aisle for years. I've got no problem with people not liking the previous admin or their policies..but blatant lying is blatant lying) 2) Our system of justice is a joke. After my wife became an attorney, I see it day in and day out. This week's example. My wife has a client that was pulled over for not stopping before the pedestrian walkway. The client stopped and then turned right on red but could not stop before the walkway as they couldn't see around traffic stopped in the left lane (continuing straight after the light turned green). They were informed, and it was upheld by the court, that you are to stop before the walkway. Proceed forward. Then stop again to see if traffic is coming before proceeding on. The cops stopped this person and found a "pill crusher" which is considered drug paraphernalia.

 

[francofan]

John Ziegler states there will be only one episode drop this week due to a BIG inerview on Sunday. Nams Noodle, a friend of jz has teased that the only clue he will provide is that it is someone big in the media.

 

[BobPSU92]

John Ziegler states there will be only one episode drop this week due to a BIG inerview on Sunday. Nams Noodle, a friend of jz has teased that the only clue he will provide is that it is someone big in the media.

View embedded media

BOMBSHELL.

 

[Texas Lion]

Cant wait to hear that it is Bob Costas.

 

[francofan]

Cant wait to hear that it is Bob Costas.

Bob Costas is my guess. Ziegler has said that he has had a lot of corrrespondence the past 10 years with Costas and says he understands that Costas' view of the case are now similar to that of Malcolm Gladwell. I am also guessing that Costas may have some regrets for the role he played in helping to convict Sandusky and may not believe that justice was served in this case.

Costas gave a glowing review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" but refused permission to Pendergrast from using it. The following is a comment from a bigtrial blog post on the Pendergrast book that details that review:

John Ziegler interviewed Pendergrast in his weekly podcast on Nov 11
(). In the podcast around the 32:20 mark, Ziegler read the following statement from Bob Costas that Costas made to help Pendergrast get the book published.

"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."

However, when Pendergrast asked Costas if he could use his statement on the book cover, Costas said no. Apparently Costas is afraid of being pilloried for having an opinion that Sandusky could possibly be innocent.

Memory Issues In the Jerry Sandusky Case

By Mark Pendergrast For BigTrial.net Like most people, I assumed that Jerry Sandusky must be guilty befor...

www.bigtrial.net

 

[Texas Lion]

Bob Costas is my guess. Ziegler has said that he has had a lot of corrrespondence the past 10 years with Costas and says he understands that Costas' view of the case are now similar to that of Malcolm Gladwell. I am also guessing that Costas may have some regrets for the role he played in helping to convict Sandusky and may not believe that justice was served in this case.

Costas gave a glowing review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" but refused permission to Pendergrast from using it. The following is a comment from a bigtrial blog post on the Pendergrast book that details that review:

John Ziegler interviewed Pendergrast in his weekly podcast on Nov 11
(

View embedded media

). In the podcast around the 32:20 mark, Ziegler read the following statement from Bob Costas that Costas made to help Pendergrast get the book published.

"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."

However, when Pendergrast asked Costas if he could use his statement on the book cover, Costas said no. Apparently Costas is afraid of being pilloried for having an opinion that Sandusky could possibly be innocent.

Memory Issues In the Jerry Sandusky Case

By Mark Pendergrast For BigTrial.net Like most people, I assumed that Jerry Sandusky must be guilty befor...

www.bigtrial.net

I guess it would be good but I was being sarcastic. JZ has screamed from the rooftop about all the people highlighted so far in the podcast. I already know Costas has turned in to an asset. I was hoping if it were a media personality to be someone who is more mainstream these days. Bob Costas caring about it won't swing any opinion.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I guess it would be good but I was being sarcastic. JZ has screamed from the rooftop about all the people highlighted so far in the podcast. I already know Costas has turned in to an asset. I was hoping if it were a media personality to be someone who is more mainstream these days. Bob Costas caring about it won't swing any opinion.

This time it’s not just Ziegler, but Nams Noodle as well!!

 

[RTRMR]

Why has JZ chosen this, of all things, as his hill to die on?

 

[Chris92]

Why has JZ chosen this, of all things, as his hill to die on?

He talked about this a bit on at least one occasion in the podcasts. Initially he got on the story to look at the injustice done to JVP. It was later he "discovered" that none of the charges against the administrators made any sense.

Zig said he's done a ton of interviews throughout his career and can pick up when someone is being less than truthful. Once he did the first prison interview and listened what JS had to say he started to have serious doubts about the prosecution. He felt as though no one, including the PSU community, cared about the truth; he was the only one crazy enough to take it on.

He also mentions having serious regrets about not pursuing the December 2000 date immediately after the prison interview. But, he thought there's no way the prosecution could screw up the date twice.

 

[LundyPSU]

Dranov confirmed the Feb 2001 date in his testimony

 

[francofan]

Dranov confirmed the Feb 2001 date in his testimony

Please tell me why you think this is significant.

I don't believe that Dranov had an independent recollection of the date that Mike first spoke to him and John McQueary concerning the v2 incident. I believe the key aspects of Dranov's testimony (and that which he had an independent recollection of) are that Mike told him that he didn't see a sexual assault (Dranov asked 3 times what Mike had seen) and that the follow-up meeting that John McQueary and he had with Gary Schultz where they asked about the status of Mike's report took place up to 3 months after the day that Mike first spoke to them about the v2 incident.

The reason this is important is because Gary Schultz is reasonably certain that the status meeting with John McQueary and Dranov took place between Feb 21-23, 2001. We know that Mike's meeting with Joe Paterno took place on Feb. 10, 2001. The key question of when the v2 incident happened would be either it happened 12-14 days before the status meeting if it occurred on Feb. 9, 2001 or it happened 54-56 days before if it occurred on Dec. 29, 2000. It seems to me the 54-56 day gap and the v2 incident date of Dec. 29, 2000 are an order of magnitude more consistent with Dranov's testimony (up to 3 months) as well as John McQueary's testimony (a couple of months) as well as Mike's testimony that the v2 incident took place on a quiet night on campus. Things were dead on campus on Dec. 29, 2000 whereas they were quite lively on Feb. 9, 2001 when the Barenaked Ladies campus took place at BJC and there was a hockey game right next to the Lasch building.

There is an around 8 minute clip of Gary Schultz explaining why he believes the status meeting took place place between Feb. 21-23, 2001 and the v2 incident on Dec. 29, 2000 in the WTBOH podcast episode 1 starting around the 93:30 minute mark.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Please tell me why you think this is significant.

I don't believe that Dranov had an independent recollection of the date that Mike first spoke to him and John McQueary concerning the v2 incident. I believe the key aspects of Dranov's testimony (and that which he had an independent recollection of) are that Mike told him that he didn't see a sexual assault (Dranov asked 3 times what Mike had seen) and that the follow-up meeting that John McQueary and he had with Gary Schultz where they asked about the status of Mike's report took place up to 3 months after the day that Mike first spoke to them about the v2 incident.

The reason this is important is because Gary Schultz is reasonably certain that the status meeting with John McQueary and Dranov took place between Feb 21-23, 2001. We know that Mike's meeting with Joe Paterno took place on Feb. 10, 2001. The key question of when the v2 incident happened would be either it happened 12-14 days before the status meeting if it occurred on Feb. 9, 2001 or it happened 54-56 days before if it occurred on Dec. 29, 2000. It seems to me the 54-56 day gap and the v2 incident date of Dec. 29, 2000 are an order of magnitude more consistent with Dranov's testimony (up to 3 months) as well as John McQueary's testimony (a couple of months) as well as Mike's testimony that the v2 incident took place on a quiet night on campus. Things were dead on campus on Dec. 29, 2000 whereas they were quite lively on Feb. 9, 2001 when the Barenaked Ladies campus took place at BJC and there was a hockey game right next to the Lasch building.

There is an around 8 minute clip of Gary Schultz explaining why he believes the status meeting took place place between Feb. 21-23, 2001 and the v2 incident on Dec. 29, 2000 in the WTBOH podcast episode 1 starting around the 93:30 minute mark.

This kind of encapsulates the problem with this whole case. People are “reasonably sure” of things like dates. Who the hell can remember things 10 years later with any reliable accuracy?

 

[LundyPSU]

Please tell me why you think this is significant.

I don't believe that Dranov had an independent recollection of the date that Mike first spoke to him and John McQueary concerning the v2 incident. I believe the key aspects of Dranov's testimony (and that which he had an independent recollection of) are that Mike told him that he didn't see a sexual assault (Dranov asked 3 times what Mike had seen) and that the follow-up meeting that John McQueary and he had with Gary Schultz where they asked about the status of Mike's report took place up to 3 months after the day that Mike first spoke to them about the v2 incident.

The reason this is important is because Gary Schultz is reasonably certain that the status meeting with John McQueary and Dranov took place between Feb 21-23, 2001. We know that Mike's meeting with Joe Paterno took place on Feb. 10, 2001. The key question of when the v2 incident happened would be either it happened 12-14 days before the status meeting if it occurred on Feb. 9, 2001 or it happened 54-56 days before if it occurred on Dec. 29, 2000. It seems to me the 54-56 day gap and the v2 incident date of Dec. 29, 2000 are an order of magnitude more consistent with Dranov's testimony (up to 3 months) as well as John McQueary's testimony (a couple of months) as well as Mike's testimony that the v2 incident took place on a quiet night on campus. Things were dead on campus on Dec. 29, 2000 whereas they were quite lively on Feb. 9, 2001 when the Barenaked Ladies campus took place at BJC and there was a hockey game right next to the Lasch building.

There is an around 8 minute clip of Gary Schultz explaining why he believes the status meeting took place place between Feb. 21-23, 2001 and the v2 incident on Dec. 29, 2000 in the WTBOH podcast episode 1 starting around the 93:30 minute mark.

Dranov's testimony included his recollection that he was leaving that Feb weekend to visit his daughter in Boston and attend a conference. I believe he had travel records and confirmation of conference attendance.

Defense attorneys missed an opportunity in the prelim hearing to ask Mike what movie he was watching the night of the alleged incident.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Dranov confirmed the Feb 2001 date in his testimony

He confirmed that is when the conversations with McQueary took place. That is irrelevant to when the "shower incident" occurred. It seems pretty clear it did not happen in February, and very likely happened in December.

This is important because it removes any element of urgency from MM's story. Which strongly suggests he did not see a sexual assault.

 

[LundyPSU]

He confirmed that is when the conversations with McQueary took place. That is irrelevant to when the "shower incident" occurred. It seems pretty clear it did not happen in February, and very likely happened in December.

This is important because it removes any element of urgency from MM's story. Which strongly suggests he did not see a sexual assault.

Agreed. Good point. But I don't think anything is clear in this whole mess.

 

[indynittany]

He confirmed that is when the conversations with McQueary took place. That is irrelevant to when the "shower incident" occurred. It seems pretty clear it did not happen in February, and very likely happened in December.

This is important because it removes any element of urgency from MM's story. Which strongly suggests he did not see a sexual assault.

Actually, Mike's actions the night in question strongly suggest he did not see a sexual assault.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Actually, Mike's actions the night in question strongly suggest he did not see a sexual assault.

What were his actual actions that night? Did he actually call his father shaken, causing his father to call Dranov to come over to be another set of ears to hear what had Mike upset? Or has that been debunked?

 

[PSU2UNC]

What were his actual actions that night? Did he actually call his father shaken, causing his father to call Dranov to come over to be another set of ears to hear what had Mike upset? Or has that been debunked?

It isn't clear. His father perjuring himself (saying he didn't recall previously testifying) at the Sandusky trial didn't help clear things up either.

 

[indynittany]

What were his actual actions that night? Did he actually call his father shaken, causing his father to call Dranov to come over to be another set of ears to hear what had Mike upset? Or has that been debunked?

I'm not trying to avoid your question, but I believe had MM told Dranov he witnessed an assault, Dranov would have been required to report it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm not trying to avoid your question, but I believe had MM told Dranov he witnessed an assault, Dranov would have been required to report it.

And Dranov has testified he never told him he witnessed an assault. He said (paraphrased) "He (Mike) kept coming back to what he heard"

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'm not trying to avoid your question, but I believe had MM told Dranov he witnessed an assault, Dranov would have been required to report it.

Well, that is avoiding the question though. And I agree with your point. Likewise, if McQueary had just seen Jerry and a boy showering at separate shower heads he probably doesn’t do anything at all. Seeing a grown man alone, having physical contact in a shower with a child doesn’t have to be sexual assault for it to be alarming and concerning. That’s what I’m asking because I don’t remember. Did he actually call his dad and did his dad call Dranov over that night?

 

[indynittany]

Well, that is avoiding the question though. And I agree with your point. Likewise, if McQueary had just seen Jerry and a boy showering at separate shower heads he probably doesn’t do anything at all. Seeing a grown man alone, having physical contact in a shower with a child doesn’t have to be sexual assault for it to be alarming and concerning. That’s what I’m asking because I don’t remember. Did he actually call his dad and did his dad call Dranov over that night?

I understand (at least in one of Mike's versions) that MM called his Dad from his desk, who told him to come home. I think his dad then called Dr. D and asked him to come over.

Of course it bears repeating that they advised MM to speak with JVP, rather than the authorities.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Well, that is avoiding the question though. And I agree with your point. Likewise, if McQueary had just seen Jerry and a boy showering at separate shower heads he probably doesn’t do anything at all. Seeing a grown man alone, having physical contact in a shower with a child doesn’t have to be sexual assault for it to be alarming and concerning. That’s what I’m asking because I don’t remember. Did he actually call his dad and did his dad call Dranov over that night?

We don't know.

I think it is pretty clear that the shower incident did not occur in February.

It is possible that MM did call them the night of the shower (in December) and they (dad and dranov) lied (or misremembered) when this occurred (lying seems more likely given what happened after).

It is also possible that MM saw whatever he saw in December and then misrepresented when it happened (called his dad from Lasch in February, timed around the job opening caused by Kenny Jackson's departure). This seems very plausible.

 

[Connorpozlee]

We don't know.

I think it is pretty clear that the shower incident did not occur in February.

It is possible that MM did call them the night of the shower (in December) and they (dad and dranov) lied (or misremembered) when this occurred (lying seems more likely given what happened after).

It is also possible that MM saw whatever he saw in December and then misrepresented when it happened (called his dad from Lasch in February, timed around the job opening caused by Kenny Jackson's departure). This seems very plausible.

So you think he called his father two months after the incident occurred and made believe he just saw it? Am I reading this correctly? Honestly not antagonizing, just seeing if I am reading this correctly.

 

[RTRMR]

Through episode 5.
I’ll write my thoughts in a longer version later, but……
If even 1/2 of JZs (insert whatever term you want…..I’ll say “theories”) are even close to true, then soooooooooo many people were unbelievably RAILROADED!!!!

 

[RussianEagle]

Dranov confirmed the Feb 2001 date in his testimony

People’s memories are not perfect. And when someone is provided false information that is purported to be truth about an incident in the distant past, not doubt their memories will be affected.

What likely happened is Dranov remembered the conference being around the same time as speaking to Mike, checked his old calendar, and only then concluded it was the same weekend. He would have done this after the prosecution changed the year to 2001.

Remember too that unlike Jerry Sandusky, Dranov voiced no objection to the original 2002 date.

 

[indynittany]

People’s memories are not perfect. And when someone is provided false information that is purported to be truth about an incident in the distant past, not doubt their memories will be affected.

What likely happened is Dranov remembered the conference being around the same time as speaking to Mike, checked his old calendar, and only then concluded it was the same weekend. He would have done this after the prosecution changed the year to 2001.

Remember too that unlike Jerry Sandusky, Dranov voiced no objection to the original 2002 date.

Along these lines, Joe's famous quote "I wish I had done more." came in the context that the GJ presentment was based in fact, not fiction.

 

[francofan]

Bob Costas is my guess. Ziegler has said that he has had a lot of corrrespondence the past 10 years with Costas and says he understands that Costas' view of the case are now similar to that of Malcolm Gladwell. I am also guessing that Costas may have some regrets for the role he played in helping to convict Sandusky and may not believe that justice was served in this case.

Costas gave a glowing review of Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America" but refused permission to Pendergrast from using it. The following is a comment from a bigtrial blog post on the Pendergrast book that details that review:

John Ziegler interviewed Pendergrast in his weekly podcast on Nov 11
(

View embedded media

). In the podcast around the 32:20 mark, Ziegler read the following statement from Bob Costas that Costas made to help Pendergrast get the book published.

"In a way, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am, however, willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendergrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case, including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno, should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."

However, when Pendergrast asked Costas if he could use his statement on the book cover, Costas said no. Apparently Costas is afraid of being pilloried for having an opinion that Sandusky could possibly be innocent.

Memory Issues In the Jerry Sandusky Case

By Mark Pendergrast For BigTrial.net Like most people, I assumed that Jerry Sandusky must be guilty befor...

www.bigtrial.net

I am doubling down on my guess that tonight's interview will be with Bob Costas. Ziegler is his epic live video interview with Justin Spiro on Friday around the 1:25 mark said that we would be hearing more from Bob soon about his perspective of his November 2011 telephone interview he had with Jerry Sandusky. Bob encouraged people to read Pendergrast's "The Most Hated Man in America" and Ziegler, who speaks with Costas frequently especially of late, characterizes Costas's opinion on the case as similar to Malcolm Gladwell that they both believe Sandusky is not guilty but are only willing to say he deserves a new trial but not say they think he is not guilty due to the toxicity of the case and because of the backlash that would ensue.

 

[lionspride2107]

Why has JZ chosen this, of all things, as his hill to die on?

If I had to guess, it can really only be 2 things.

1. He has some personality affect that just will not allow him to move on from this.

2. He actually thinks he might get rich off this one day.

I do believe if someone could find a way to present his information in a shorter form more entertaining way in a Netflix true crime docuseries like making of a murderer or "the keepers" there would be a market for it.

I think he is 100 percent genuine in his opinion Jerry is innocent and if he can get enough people to listen it would be a big story.

 

[bdgan]

People’s memories are not perfect. And when someone is provided false information that is purported to be truth about an incident in the distant past, not doubt their memories will be affected.

Sounds like repressed memory therapy.

 

[lionspride2107]

Sounds like repressed memory therapy.

Zig actually talks about this too and made a very convincing argument in regards to this case.

Forget about the fact that repressed memory theory in general is kind of based in junk science. But even if you believed in it, the concept that a full blown teenager could fully repress dozens and dozens of sexual encounters with a grown man only to magically remember 7 or 8 years later is impossible to believe.

 

[francofan]

Bob Costas did an interview for the With the Benefit Hindsight podcast. It should be very interesting to hear what he has to say. The interview should drop soon.

 

[nits74]

Zig actually talks about this too and made a very convincing argument in regards to this case.

Forget about the fact that repressed memory theory in general is kind of based in junk science. But even if you believed in it, the concept that a full blown teenager could fully repress dozens and dozens of sexual encounters with a grown man only to magically remember 7 or 8 years later is impossible to believe.

You'd be surprised to learn what several million dollars can do to refresh the memory.

 

[bdgan]

You'd be surprised to learn what several million dollars can do to refresh alter the memory.

IFIFY

 

[PSU2UNC]

So you think he called his father two months after the incident occurred and made believe he just saw it? Am I reading this correctly? Honestly not antagonizing, just seeing if I am reading this correctly.

I am saying is that if the incident did not occur in February (which is seems like is the case) then either:

Mike did call his father immediately after the incident (in December) and his father (and Dranov) lied (or misremembered) the timing of this call/conversation.

OR

Mike saw whatever he saw in December, didn't do anything, then months later attempted to parlay this into a full time job timed around Kenny Jackson's departure, he then called his father to say "I just saw this" even though he saw it months before.