This is pure gold!
Ya see corny 90s shite like this is part of the problem around here - update yourself to Arrested Development at the least my man
With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Ya see corny 90s shite like this is part of the problem around here - update yourself to Arrested Development at the least my man
Apparently classic, timeless, and relevant memes just ain't cuttin' it around here anymore for some. (aka 'Story of my life'.)
I don’t know how it could be more clear that Sandusky is innocent. Him being a pedophile is laughable at this point. This whole case would get laughed out of a fair court. Maybe someday at the federal level.
With the Benefit of Hindsight...
Check out this great listen on Audible.com. The true story of corruption, greed and self interest that destroyed Penn State, its iconic coach Joe Paterno and an alleged monster. This series follows the nearly ten year investigation of this case conducted by journalist John Ziegler. Ziegler has...
www.audible.com
In Episode 9 Part II we meet the last of the prosecution witnesses and get introduced to "victim" #9, Sebastian Paden. Paden's accusations against Sandusky are the most egregious of all and they're also the hardest to believe. Joe Amendola begins to make the case for the defense while Zig and Liz deliver play by play of a performance best captured by the legal term, "ineffective". We hear from Dottie Sandusky but will Joe Amendola put Jerry on the witness stand?
Heads up: the Keystone Sports Network’s 5/26 show hosted by @KSN Jim features guest Mike Agovino, who is the executive producer of With the Benefit of Hindsight, for all 4 “quarters.”
Apple link
Apple link
Last edited:
This episode was very good I thought. He really breaks down Matt Sandusky, who when you think about all the key figures who alleged abuse he might have the most ridiculous of the stories. I recall when he "flipped" at trial, and that was actually the final nail for me in believing in Sanduskys guilt.With the Benefit of Hindsight...
Check out this great listen on Audible.com. The true story of corruption, greed and self interest that destroyed Penn State, its iconic coach Joe Paterno and an alleged monster. This series follows the nearly ten year investigation of this case conducted by journalist John Ziegler. Ziegler has...
In Episode 9 Part II we meet the last of the prosecution witnesses and get introduced to "victim" #9, Sebastian Paden. Paden's accusations against Sandusky are the most egregious of all and they're also the hardest to believe. Joe Amendola begins to make the case for the defense while Zig and Liz deliver play by play of a performance best captured by the legal term, "ineffective". We hear from Dottie Sandusky but will Joe Amendola put Jerry on the witness stand?
Zig breaks down how his actions basically make it impossible to believe he was assaulted. I think the main one, which I knew at the time but completely forgot. Was Matt's kids used to spend time over there while Matt and his ex wife worked. When JS got charged his wife forbid them to go over there, and Matt lobbied in court to allow them to continue to visit with JS. This was mere months before he would allege the abuse.
I believe that Mike (Executive Producer) did a really good job explaining things on the show but there is so much information that it was impossible to cover everything in one hour. Mike gave me a summary to read that he said was okay for me to share. Here is the link. It is lengthy (40 pages) but if you are interested in the topic it is a very interesting read.
http://www.keystonesportsnetwork.com/with-the-benefit-of-hindsight/
Great interview @KSN Jim! Thanks for having the guts to be willing to discuss the topic. Thanks for the comprehensive 4 quarter segments of what the With The Benefit of Hindsight podcast is all about. Thanks also for sharing Mike Avogino's 40 page cliff notes of what the podcast is all about. I was surprised to hear that there have already been 200,000 downloads. Mike has done a great job as executive director of the podcast and Liz Habib has done an excellent job as co-host.
I would love to see somebody with a different theory come on your show and explain why their theories make more sense than John Ziegler's theories. I am guessing that there will be noone who will accept your challenge because it would be very difficult if not impossible to do so. Ziegler and Avogino have done an excellent job of laying out the evidence. It would be very difficult to refute.
Thank you for saying that. I was a bit concerned what the reaction would be. And yes, if there were someone who wanted to come on to refute what Mike and John Ziegler have to say, I would put them on the show.
No problem at all. In fact the 'e' at the end seems to be the more popular spelling
I thought Curley and Schultz agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor EWOC, not FTR. That charge had already been dropped. And Spanier was convicted of EOOC, not FTR, right?
What’s amazing to me:
My wife and I had 5-6 hours together, yesterday in the car.
I was discussing the bullet points of this case/podcast with her.
About 3 paragraphs in, she cut me off, and gave me the same canned response as everyone(and I’m paraphrasing):
“Yeah, we’ll he’s a sicko, and there were so many victims, that there’s NO WAY he ISN’T guilty! THEY should have burned that football program to the ground!”
This is my spouse of 16 years, who did NOT want to hear any facts!
The above pretty much ties in very nicely into what JZ is saying…..because of the nuclear toxicity of the crimes/case, NO ONE is willing to to reconsider even the most minor details.
My wife and I had 5-6 hours together, yesterday in the car.
I was discussing the bullet points of this case/podcast with her.
About 3 paragraphs in, she cut me off, and gave me the same canned response as everyone(and I’m paraphrasing):
“Yeah, we’ll he’s a sicko, and there were so many victims, that there’s NO WAY he ISN’T guilty! THEY should have burned that football program to the ground!”
This is my spouse of 16 years, who did NOT want to hear any facts!
The above pretty much ties in very nicely into what JZ is saying…..because of the nuclear toxicity of the crimes/case, NO ONE is willing to to reconsider even the most minor details.
Yep thanks to the media this is how society will always view this regardless what facts come out
That’s when you say, “Ok honey. I’ll shut up. Let’s just listen to a podcast.” And turn on WTBOH, so you can let JZ do the talking for you.
Long read but very thorough. It includes the author's opinions in addition to facts but the facts don't seem to be in dispute.
That's the problem.
- The Sandusky story is old news. People are no longer interested.
- Reporting a counter narrative could ruin somebody's reputation and career.
Right. I think another problem about changing the narrative is actually similar to what starter the problem for PSU/Joe.
1. Nobody cares about Sandusky. So even this really strong evidence that he's innocent in the podcast isn't really interesting enough for the national news media to pick up. I do believe, if by some miracle, he actually gets a new trial that MIGHT stir up enough of the original interest in the story that someone would pick it up.
2. I do think Paterno is famous enough that if there was an actual bombshell that changed the narrative it would still get picked up and be a big story. The problem is the narrative against him is effectively just an opinion and there is no facts that could prove or disprove it.
Joe never had due process.
The narrative could be changed if the BOT decided to change it.
I don't think there is strong evidence that Sandusky is completely innocent. I DO think there is very strong evidence that MM didn't report anything sexual and that many if not most claims against Sandusky are questionable.
It's nearly impossible to prove that you didn't know something. I thought it was interesting that Sue said MM was only at the house for 3 minutes. Let's say she was exaggerating and he was there for 10 minuetes. IMO that's still not enough time for him to convey his concerns about witnessing sexual assault.
I think the only thing that could partially change the narrative about Paterno is if Curley came forward explaining his email in more detail.... that Joe had no part in deciding not to report to authorities.
NO way. The BOT is interested in moving on.
Agreed 100%!
I've obviously followed the entire story since it happened. Although I have not listened to any of the podcast, I did read the KSN Summary of the podcast that was posted. Whereas there will never be any evidence to confirm Sansdusky's 'complete innocence', nearly every paragraph in the KSN Summary points out evidence - both circumstantial and factual - that casts immense doubt on Jerry Sandusky being a serial pedophile. ON a scale of 1-100 with 1 being 100% innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and 100 being guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, i think he falls at about a 10.
Yes, Liz is good.
John always seems to want to take a nugget of something someone said and turn it into a complete confirmation of his point of view. My observation.
I'm not sure if his motivation is to collect an army of supporters so he does not fight alone, or if it is to tell everyone that he changed someone's opinion. My opinion is that, regardless of motivation, it comes off as the latter.
The man has done great work on this. His style leaves a lot to be desired, but everyone should agree that he has dared to go where no one has dared. And, in so doing, has propped up his theories, where in normal circumstances, they would gain attention by those in power to do something about it.
What evidence is there that Sandusky broke the law? A weirdo with boundary issues - absolutely!
Sworn eyewitness testimony from a "very credible witness" that Sandusky was subjecting a young boy to anal intercourse in the shower
While you are free to agree or disagree with it (and I am not getting into my opinions here), testimony is a form of evidence. There was testimony from a number of alleged victims and McQueary against Sandusky.
If you believe that you are the most ignorant person on earth. The witness told 5 people what he saw and none of them said he saw that. The witness emailed the AG and told them they misstated his story in the presentment and they told him they are revising it. Basically don’t let the facts confuse you, we have a case to win. Pathetic!Sworn eyewitness testimony from a "very credible witness" that Sandusky was subjecting a young boy to anal intercourse in the shower
So I suppose I should clarify my statement.
Technically you're correct, there is no "evidence" he's innocent. There is also no "evidence" he's guilty. Unfortunately, this isn't a case where there is physical evidence that could be proved or disproved. Or a case with a proven victim like in a murder case where there is no question the crime was committed, the only question is who. So in reality, it's impossible for Sandusky to be exonerated in that sense.
So in reality, the only "evidence" we're discussing is the credibility of the witnesses and accusers, and the likelihood they're telling the truth.
So with that said, I would argue there is really nothing BUT evidence that these are not credible accusers.
Let's start with the fact that Jerry somehow managed to be a pedophile well into his 60s, before he ever had anyone accusing him of assaulting them, to literally anyone. It isn't even as if, any of these accusers had family members or friends come forward to support them that they've been talking about this for years but were too afraid to come forward. Literally none of them. Think about that for a moment. While it may not be uncommon for a sexual predator or pedophile to evade arrest for many years, it certainly is uncommon to have no history regarding accusations and abuse. Take the Nassar case as JZ likes to point out, he was approached and had children report back to their parents about the abuse MANY times before he was caught. He was only able to continue because his assaults were under the guise of his medical expertise. This is particularly damming for JS accusers, given the fact that none of them were small children during the alleged incidents. All, as far as I recall, were teenagers at the times of the alleged assaults. In addition, none of the accusers (with the exception of Matt Sandusky who was not one of the accusers for the trial) were family members, it is nonsensical to believe these heterosexual teenagers continued to go back to spending time with JS, several of whom claim to have been abused dozens and even hundreds of times.
Lastly, almost all of these accusers continued relationships with Sandusky well into adulthood, including spending time with him nearly up to the time of his arrest.
I think the age thing is something people don't discuss enough. These were people who claim to be abused as teenagers, and then come out as accusers in their 20s. This would be believable potentially, if JS was a family member and maybe they were very small children at this time. This idea, that you've repressed memories of brutal abuse as a full blown teenager, so much so that you maintained a relationship with your abuser, is an absurd concept.
To be specific, ear witness.Sworn eyewitness testimony from a "very credible witness" that Sandusky was subjecting a young boy to anal intercourse in the shower
If Jerry was guilty of what some of these "victims" accused them of, there would have to be some physical evidence. These kids' assholes would have been ripped to shreds, for starters.
It's good you put "very credible witness" in quotes. Because he wasn't.Sworn eyewitness testimony from a "very credible witness" that Sandusky was subjecting a young boy to anal intercourse in the shower
Testimony is a form of evidence, but that doesn't mean it cannot be questioned. Very, very little of the testimony makes any sense when critically examined.
I think this is a good point and is perhaps uncomfortable/not PC(?) to discuss, but John brings it up multiple times.
The likelihood of a 12 or 13 year old heterosexual male being abused 100s of times without being physically forced, or plied with drugs or alcohol, or without some sort of major payoff is MUCH MUCH less likely than with a younger child. At 12 or 13, 99% of boys know what sex is. This is part of why the OAG kept "rounding down" the ages of the alleged victims. So if the stories were "this happened once and then I never saw Sandusky again" that might be more believable. That's not the case. Not saying it is impossible, but when considered along with the rest of the information we have, this is a major red flag in the veracity of the accusations.
Which is why I said you're free to agree or disagree with it. But to say there's no evidence is not a factual statement because testimony is evidence.
I think you know the evidence was not factual. So why be technical. The truth matters not just self serving embellished testimony. The trial was not a search for the truth. These money hungry accusers ruined people’s lives and reputations. The truth should matter.
