ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.
Correct, and it's even harder now than it was 10 years ago to question victims. But you're 100 percent right. The scenario where a kid that age is being abused consistently like that would almost certainly start way younger, and be by a family member.

Also I think the important point is that you could say anything is possible and I agree. I am not trying to state it's impossible for a teenager to be groomed in that way and keep coming back. I would say to be able to point to 10+ accusers and ALL of them are like that seems impossible, and lends itself to the possibility all of them are lying.

I also agree with John to a point I think some of them have probably convinced themselves through therapy they AREN'T lying. If Jerry truly was showering with a lot of these kids and was a touchy feely guy I'm sure that some of the accusers are similar to MM. As in, remembered it as "weird" at the time and then with conformation bias through other accusers, felt either they may have been abused or were being groomed for it and JS never took it any further
 
Have listened to each podcast released so far, and wondering why JZ hadn’t talked about McQ telling Eshbach the Grand Jury presentment “twisted his words.” I think that’s very telling as to the misconduct of the OAG, but no mention of it at all.
 
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.
Signorelli is correct, testimony IS evidence. That doesn't mean the testimony is factual.

Attorneys are not looking for the truth. They are looking to win their cases. Of course there should be rules. I fail to understand how the dishonest grand jury presentment was allowed to stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and francofan
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 would actually be curious, is it common to get conviction in pedophilia or even rape cases with no physical or eye witness testimony? I realize technically you could argue that MM was an eye witness, but that was actually the one charge JS didn't get convicted on.
 
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.
Why be tactical? Because facts are important to me. Because some posters here continue to state or imply that there was no evidence of guilt which is factually incorrect. The factual statement is that those posters do not believe that the evidence of guilt was true or that it was insufficient to support a guilty verdict, which is their opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole and GTACSA
I would actually be curious, is it common to get conviction in pedophilia or even rape cases with no physical or eye witness testimony? I realize technically you could argue that MM was an eye witness, but that was actually the one charge JS didn't get convicted on.
But he was convicted on several other charges regarding V2, just not the most serious one. I'd say that MM contributed eye witness testimony and evidence. He saw something. Exactly what he saw is open to interpretation for a number of reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole and GTACSA
But he was convicted on several other charges regarding V2, just not the most serious one. I'd say that MM contributed eye witness testimony and evidence. He saw something. Exactly what he saw is open to interpretation for a number of reasons.
Do you actually believe, that MM believed he witnessed an assault until the cops approached him 10 years later?
 
  • Like
Reactions: blk902
But he was convicted on several other charges regarding V2, just not the most serious one. I'd say that MM contributed eye witness testimony and evidence. He saw something. Exactly what he saw is open to interpretation for a number of reasons.
He saw a young man peek out from around a curtain and an arm pulling him back. MM was at best an ear witness and I invite anyone to research the layout of the locker room in question. He saw nothing! Whatever his (MM) condition when he entered the locker room.....he heard slapping sounds. LOL Think about that for just a second. Slapping sounds from anal intercourse that were so loud you could hear them before the locker room door opened. I say someone watched way too many porn movies. Do I need to add that the "boy" didn't seem to be in any distress......
 
But he was convicted on several other charges regarding V2, just not the most serious one. I'd say that MM contributed eye witness testimony and evidence. He saw something. Exactly what he saw is open to interpretation for a number of reasons.
This is where having multiple accusers fits in. Jerry had to at least have been grooming V2 in their minds.

I believe Amendola had the ammunition to get an acquittal on this, but was too overwhelmed to put together an adequate defense.
 
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.
Where there some that accused him of abusing them hundreds of times? I don’t recall that, but you may be right.
Theo Fleury was abused by his junior hockey coach as a teenager (can’t recall the exact age. 16 or so, maybe?) along with Sheldon Kennedy. It happened several times. His autobiography is a great read from many different angles, but on this topic specifically.
The biggest red flag to me about Sandusky‘s pedophilic activities is the start date. I don’t believe he would have just started predating upon boys in his fifties and I find it hard to believe more from earlier eras wouldn’t have come forward for cash when the Bank of Penn State was open for business.
 
Last edited:
Where there some that accused him of abusing them hundreds of times? I don’t recall that, but you may be right.
Theo Fleury was abused by his junior hockey coach as a teenager (can’t recall the exact age. 16 or so, maybe?) along with Sheldon Kennedy. It happened several times. His autobiography is a great read from many different angles, but on this topic specifically.
The biggest red flag to me about Sandusky‘s pedophilic activities is the start date. I don’t believe he would have just started predating upon boys in his fifties and I find it hard to believe more from earlier eras wouldn’t have come forward for cash when the Bank of Penn State was open for business.
Ones from earlier eras did come through when the lawsuits started flying. But all the stories I saw were INSANE. There was one where Jerry was a grad assistant coach. Kid was there for football camp (I seem to remember he was 15 of 16 too). Jerry smashed his face into a urinal and knocked him out and brutally analy raped him. Then he walked out of the bathroom and found Joe paterno and paterno told him he had a season to worry about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
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.
I think he falls at a 1. I have no doubt that Sandusky is innocent. I have met Jerry and he is a better man than I am. He is sincere and he is truthful to a fault. He has maintained his innocence from day 1 and has no consciousness of guilt.

I don't believe any of the claimants. They all have credibility issues. Liz Habib stated that the With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast has blown major holes in all of the trial accusers and I believe her assessment is spot on. I don't find Aaron Fisher the least bit credible and I don't find Mike McQueary credible either. I found Allan Myers credible in his letter-to-the-editors and his statement to Amendola investigator Curtis Everhart, but I don't find him credible in his PCRA testimony where he answered he didn't remember 34 times. I don't find v4 or v9 are the least bit credible especially in their testimony that Dottie enabled Jerry in his abuse of them. There is no physical evidence showing guilt. No porn of any kind was ever found in Jerry's possession. None of the claimants made contemporaneous reports.

The OAG committed serial acts of prosecutotial misconduct. The leaked confidential grand jury material like a sieve, lied in the grand jury presentment, tampered with the jury, committed Brady violations and violated attorney-client privilege to name just a few of their bad acts. Why do you need to stack the deck if you have a slam-dunk case? The Pennsylvania judiciary has made bad rulings after bad rulings in this case. The media has been grossly incompetent. Jerry has had totally incompetent and ineffective defense counsel.

You can't prove a negative. I was not there so I can't be 100% sure. I would say that I am 99.99% sure.
 
John Ziegler was interviwed today by Paul Zeise of KDKA radio in Pittsburgh. To listen to this excellent interview at the KDKA archive, select Paul Zeise 9 am - 12 pm. The interview starts at around the 9:38:00 mark and goes on for ~ 8 minutes. People are asking for a short clip that demonstrates Jerry's innocence. Here it is. It covers absurdity of Spanier case and the date of the Mike McQueary incident.

https://www.audacy.com/kdkaradio/listen
 
  • Like
Reactions: grinagrin and PSU81
John Ziegler was interviwed today by Paul Zeise of KDKA radio in Pittsburgh. To listen to this excellent interview at the KDKA archive, select Paul Zeise 9 am - 12 pm. The interview starts at around the 9:38:00 mark and goes on for ~ 8 minutes. People are asking for a short clip that demonstrates Jerry's innocence. Here it is. It covers absurdity of Spanier case and the date of the Mike McQueary incident.

https://www.audacy.com/kdkaradio/listen
This will not move the needle even remotely in the slightest.
NOTHING will change the narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
This will not move the needle even remotely in the slightest.
NOTHING will change the narrative.

It seems to me that the WTBOH is making a dent in public opinion. Paul Zeise, Liz Habib and Justin Spiro are all media members who bought the whole enchilada 10 years ago and now realize the false narratives that they were fed. The truth one day will be evident. Too many people know what happened for the truth to be buried forever.
 
John Ziegler was interviwed today by Paul Zeise of KDKA radio in Pittsburgh. To listen to this excellent interview at the KDKA archive, select Paul Zeise 9 am - 12 pm. The interview starts at around the 9:38:00 mark and goes on for ~ 8 minutes. People are asking for a short clip that demonstrates Jerry's innocence. Here it is. It covers absurdity of Spanier case and the date of the Mike McQueary incident.

https://www.audacy.com/kdkaradio/listen
All about MM
Because grand jury testimony is supposed to be secret, there is no available public transcript to show exactly what Mike McQueary said there, but it is clear from everything else he said about this incident, including his subsequent courtroom testimony, that he did not witness sodomy or any other form of sexual abuse that day in the Lasch locker room. His version of events morphed over time, but none of the narratives included witnessing overt sexual abuse.
Here’s what appears to have happened. On a Friday night, February 9, 2001, a full year earlier than the inaccurate date in the Grand Jury Presentment, Jerry Sandusky was indeed taking a shower with a Second Mile boy in the locker room of the Lasch Football Building.

Sandusky took it for granted that boys and men showered together after exercise. It was part of the way he was raised, an accepted part of the sports world. Though he had retired as a Penn State coach two years before, he could still use the facilities, and he sometimes brought the troubled Second Mile boys there for a workout, followed by a shower.
As he often did, Sandusky, whom everyone considered “a big kid” himself, was goofing around with the boy. They were snapping towels at each other, or perhaps slap boxing, according to both Sandusky and the boy in the shower. Mike McQueary, then 26, who had been a Penn State quarterback as an undergraduate, was halfway through his post-graduate education, while working as an assistant football coach. This Friday evening, he came to the Lasch building to retrieve tapes of possible recruits. On the way, he figured he might as well put his new shoes away in the locker room.
Before he opened the door to the locker room, McQueary heard slapping sounds. He thought they sounded sexual. As McQueary later put it when describing the scene, “Visualizations come to your head.” By the time he got to his locker at the near end of the wall, it had quieted down. Curious, he looked obliquely into the shower room through a mirror across the room and caught a glimpse of a boy in the shower. Then an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. Horrified, he assumed that he had just overheard the sounds of child sexual abuse. After closing his locker, he saw Jerry Sandusky walk out of the shower. Was his former coach a pedophile?
McQueary quickly left the building and called his father, John McQueary, and told him his suspicions. His father advised him to come right over to talk about it. Then John McQueary called his employer and friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a nephrologist, asking him to come over and help them sort out Mike’s disturbing experience.
Dranov attempted, using the diagnostic and interviewing skills that he used with patients, to get a clear description of the scene that had so upset his friend’s son. Dranov was unable to get Mike McQueary to put into words anything sexual he had seen, in spite of asking several times, “But what did you see?” McQueary explained that he had seen a boy in the shower, and that an arm had then reached out to pull him back. Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds.
Upon the advice of his father and Dr. Dranov, Mike McQueary took his concerns to legendary head coach Joe Paterno at his home the next day. Apparently because McQueary did not actually witness anything sexual, they did not suggest he contact the police, nor did they feel called upon to do so.
This was the only initiative McQueary ever took connected with the shower incident. Paterno subsequently told his immediate supervisor, Athletic Director Tim Curley, about it, who told Vice President Gary Schultz and university President Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz met with McQueary to hear what he had seen and heard. From that conversation, they concluded that Sandusky had been “horsing around” with a kid and that, while it was not sexual abuse, it wasn’t a good idea, particularly because they remembered that a parent had complained back in 1998 about Sandusky showering with her child (details on that incident shortly).
So Curley told Sandusky that as a result of someone (he didn’t name McQueary) complaining about the shower incident, he should stop working out with Second Mile kids on campus, and there the matter was left, case closed.
McQueary apparently calmed down and accepted that he may have overreacted and that perhaps Sandusky had just been “horsing around.” He remained at least overtly friendly with Jerry Sandusky over the following years. He signed up for the Sandusky Celebrity Golf Event in the fall of 2001, just four months after the shower incident, then took part in other Sandusky charity-related events, such as flag football fund-raisers coached by Sandusky in March 2002 and April 2004 and another golf event in 2003.
By the time the police questioned McQueary about the shower incident in late 2010, he couldn’t remember exactly when it occurred, and he said that it happened during spring break of 2002, more than a year after the actual date. At the time, McQueary was a 6’ 4”, 220-pound 26-year-old. Some critics would later question why, if he had witnessed horrifying child sexual abuse, he would not have rushed in to put a stop to the behavior.
McQueary’s story changed several times after the police told him that they knew Sandusky was a pedophile, as we will see in Chapter 12. In response to the police telling him that Sandusky was a child molester, McQueary searched his decade-old memory and now “remembered” something that he had not reported back in 2001 -- that he had seen Sandusky with his hips moving against a boy’s backside in the shower.
In short, Mike McQueary did not witness Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in the shower, although he later came to believe that he had. At the time of the incident, he overheard slapping sounds and interpreted them as being sexual.
We know a great deal more about this incident because we know the identity of that boy, a Second Miler named Allan Myers, who was nearly 14 years old at the time, not ten, and who remained friends with Sandusky until after the allegations created a public furor in November 2011. Sandusky later recalled that shower with Myers in a 2013 interview with reporter John Ziegler:
“He [Allan] turned on every shower [and] he was like wild, he put soap on himself and was sliding, he was seeing how far he could slide. I remember that. Then we may have been like slapping towels, slap boxing, doing something like that.”
Here Sandusky laughed, remembering that “he [Allan] always, no matter what, he’d always get the last lick in."
Recalling his relationship with Allan Myers, Sandusky said, “He was like family. We did all kinds of things together. We studied. We tutored. We worked out. He went to California with my wife and me twice. He spoke for the Second Mile numerous times.” This all took place after the 2001 shower incident. “He asked me to speak at his high school graduation, and I did. He stayed with us the summer after his high school graduation, worked part-time jobs with classes. He would go home on weekends. We went to his wedding.”
Indeed, Myers, a Marine who had recently received an honorable discharge at the time the allegations broke, came forward to defend Sandusky, telling Sandusky’s lawyer and his investigator, Curtis Everhart, what had actually happened.
 
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.
I wish Joe Rogan would have Ziegler on. It would be so compelling in that free form format. With his audience it would make some serious waves.
 
Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds

I'm pretty sure that the kid would have looked upset if he was just raped or forced to do anything he didn't want to do. Also, a 14 year old boy could probably put up a pretty good fight. IMO there are 3 possible scenarios:
  1. Nothing sexual happened (most likely)
  2. It was not sodomy but the kid went along with some sort of sexual activity willingly (unlikely)
  3. Dranov is lying about what MM told him because he doesn't want to be accused of failure to report (possible but unlikely because that means Dad, C, & S also told a similar lie)
 
Last edited:
Ones from earlier eras did come through when the lawsuits started flying. But all the stories I saw were INSANE. There was one where Jerry was a grad assistant coach. Kid was there for football camp (I seem to remember he was 15 of 16 too). Jerry smashed his face into a urinal and knocked him out and brutally analy raped him. Then he walked out of the bathroom and found Joe paterno and paterno told him he had a season to worry about.

Seems plausible.
 
Dranov asked if the boy had looked scared or upset. No. Did Mike actually see any sexual act? No. McQueary kept returning to the “sexual” sounds

I'm pretty sure that the kid would have looked upset if he was just raped or forced to do anything he didn't want to do. Also, a 14 year old boy could probably put up a pretty good fight. IMO there are 3 possible scenarios:
  1. Nothing sexual happened (most likely)
  2. It was not sodomy but the kid went along with some sort of sexual activity willingly (unlikely)
  3. Dranov is lying about what MM told him because he doesn't want to be accused of failure to report (possible but unlikely because that means Dad, C, & S also told a similar lie)
As you know:
1) AM is on record confirming nothing sexual happened.
2) AM is a heterosexual male. More than unlikely.
3) What would be his motive to fail in his obligation to report?
 
It seems to me that the WTBOH is making a dent in public opinion. Paul Zeise, Liz Habib and Justin Spiro are all media members who bought the whole enchilada 10 years ago and now realize the false narratives that they were fed. The truth one day will be evident. Too many people know what happened for the truth to be buried forever.
Franco, I hope you are correct. But, who are these people that definitively know so much, and why after ten plus years haven't they come forward? Cowardice, greed, other self-interests, etc. have a very long shelf life, unfortunately
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I haven't listened. I may not listen because I personally find Ziegler's communication approach insufferable as I've said several times. That said, I don't expect this interview to move the needle at all, regardless of content. The public and mass media no longer care about this story. That, and any sort of mass market statement that Jerry may be innocent (in a hypothetical media sense, this is not my personal opinion) would be completely toxic publicly. Unless there's some sort of smoking gun, which there isn't or it would have come out by now and a smoking gun to prove a negative is essentially impossible, the narrative is never going to change. Ziegler will continue to tease "bombshells" because that's one way he generates clicks but his bombshells are always duds.
Listen tho
To hammer home the plight of the alleged victims in the scandal, the prosecution put "John Doe" on the stand, a 28-year-old known previously at the Sandusky trial as "Victim No. 5."

Judge John Boccabella seemed to cooperate with the theatrics. John Doe was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. And when he came out to testify, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no spectator used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness.

Conditions during the short Spanier trial have bordered on the draconian. The judge typically wants spectators seated in his courtroom by 8:30 a.m. Anybody who shows up late can't get in. Anybody who leaves the courtroom can't come back. Nobody can talk. And anybody caught using a cell phone not only in the courtroom, but anywhere on the fifth floor of the courthouse, faces a contempt of court rap that carries a penalty of six months in jail.

John Doe told the jury how he had begun attending Second Mile activities when he was 9 or 10, at the suggestion of a teacher, who thought it would improve his English.

The prosecution introduced photos of the boy.

"That was taken in Jerry and Dottie's house," John Doe told the jury about one shot of him posing with Jerry.

The whole point of John Doe's trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers later in the same year that McQueary made his famous visit there.

The prosecution's final witness was Gary Schultz. He dutifully told the jury about how he had just pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child, because he prevented or interfered with the reporting of a possible sex crime against a minor.

Once again, Schultz was referring to the boy Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Jerry Sandusky.

Schultz, the university's former vice president for finance and business, had a better memory than Curley. He recalled how he gave Spanier three updates about the 1998 accusation against Sandusky, made by the mother of an 11-year-old, who had objected to Sandusky giving her son a bear hug in the shower.

When McQueary came forward in 2001 to make his accusations, Schultz said his mind immediately flashed back to 1998. And he "wanted Jerry to get professional help."

Schultz outlined the original plan for coping with the McQueary allegations about the shower incident with Sandusky. The PSU administrators, Curley, Schultz and Spanier, wanted to confront Sandusky, and tell him he wasn't allowed to bring children into Penn State facilities any more. They also wanted to revoke his key to all of Penn State's athletic facilities.

The PSU administrators planed to inform the president of Sandusky's charity, the Second Mile, about what had happened in the showers. And then they were going to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare.

But Curley had second thoughts, thinking it was more "humane" to confront Sandusky first, and then inform the Second Mile, and finally, DPW.

Schultz told the jury how he reluctantly went along with Curley's change of heart. The PSU administrators did confront Sandusky. And they did inform a child psychologist who was the head of the Second Mile charity. But the PSU administrators never reported the shower incident to DPW.

"We should have reported it," Schultz told the jury. "We should have followed the original plan."

The prosecutor asked if PSU had made that report to DPW, would it have spared future victims?

"Who knows," Schultz said. "But it would have been the right thing to do."

On cross-examination, Silver, Spanier's lawyer, pointed out that today on the witness stand, Schultz had described McQueary's description of the shower incident as Sandusky standing behind the boy, with his arms around him.

"That's the first time we've heard that version," Silver said, pointing out to the jury that only after he became a coopering witness did Schultz start singing the prosecution's tune.

As he did with Curley, Silver asked Schultz who he had prevented from filing a report of possible child sexual abuse.

As Curley had done, Schultz blamed himself.

"I had been deficient in not reporting it myself," Schultz said. "I really thought we should report it to DPW."

After the prosecution rested, Spanier's supporters looked happy as they filed out of the courtroom.

"The case wasn't strong," Franco Harris said. He wondered why the prosecution had brought it in the first place.

Tomorrow, when the court reconvenes at 8:30 a.m., the defense plans to call up to four witnesses, which may or may not include Graham Spanier. The expectation is that the jury will have the case by the end of the day.
 
I think he falls at a 1. I have no doubt that Sandusky is innocent. I have met Jerry and he is a better man than I am. He is sincere and he is truthful to a fault. He has maintained his innocence from day 1 and has no consciousness of guilt.

I don't believe any of the claimants. They all have credibility issues. Liz Habib stated that the With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast has blown major holes in all of the trial accusers and I believe her assessment is spot on. I don't find Aaron Fisher the least bit credible and I don't find Mike McQueary credible either. I found Allan Myers credible in his letter-to-the-editors and his statement to Amendola investigator Curtis Everhart, but I don't find him credible in his PCRA testimony where he answered he didn't remember 34 times. I don't find v4 or v9 are the least bit credible especially in their testimony that Dottie enabled Jerry in his abuse of them. There is no physical evidence showing guilt. No porn of any kind was ever found in Jerry's possession. None of the claimants made contemporaneous reports.

The OAG committed serial acts of prosecutotial misconduct. The leaked confidential grand jury material like a sieve, lied in the grand jury presentment, tampered with the jury, committed Brady violations and violated attorney-client privilege to name just a few of their bad acts. Why do you need to stack the deck if you have a slam-dunk case? The Pennsylvania judiciary has made bad rulings after bad rulings in this case. The media has been grossly incompetent. Jerry has had totally incompetent and ineffective defense counsel.

You can't prove a negative. I was not there so I can't be 100% sure. I would say that I am 99.99% sure.
MM somewhat however
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.
McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.
McQueary had painted himself into a difficult corner. If he had really seen something so horrendous, why hadn’t he rushed into the shower to stop it? Why hadn’t he gone to the police? Why hadn’t he followed up with Paterno or other Penn State administrators to make sure something was being done? Why had he continued to act friendly towards Sandusky, even taking part in golfing events with him?
When angry people began to ask these questions, that first week in November 2011, McQueary emailed a friend. "I did stop it not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” he wrote. He now said that he had in essence contacted the police about the incident by alerting Joe Paterno, which led to Gary Schultz talking to him about it, and Schultz was the administrator the campus police reported to.
“No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
Subsequently, McQueary changed his story somewhat. He now recalled that he had loudly slammed his locker door, which made Sandusky stop the abuse, and that he had taken yet a third look in the shower to make sure they had remained apart.
At the trial, he said that he had “glanced” in the mirror for “one or two seconds,” then lengthened his estimate to “three or four seconds, five seconds maybe.” During that brief glance, he now said that he had time to see Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall, and that he saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement” of his midsection.
But neither the newly created sodomy scene nor the slammed locker would save McQueary’s career.

The Elusive Allan Myers [From Chapter 13]
By the time of the trial, eight accusers had been “developed,” as Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach put it. But Allan Myers, the boy in the shower in the McQueary incident, had been so public and vehement in his previous defense of Sandusky that the prosecution did not dare call him to testify.
When police inspector Joseph Leiter first interviewed him on September 20, 2011, Myers had emphatically denied that Sandusky had abused him or made him uncomfortable in any way.
After the Grand Jury Presentment was published on November 5, 2011, with its allegations that Mike McQueary had witnessed sodomy in a locker room shower, Myers realized that he was “Victim 2,” the boy in the shower that night, but that the sounds McQueary heard were just snapping towels or slap boxing. Myers then gave a detailed statement to Joseph Amendola’s investigator, Curtis Everhart, denying that Sandusky had ever abused him.
But within two weeks, Myers had become a client of Andrew Shubin. For months, Shubin refused to let the police interview Myers without Shubin being present, and he apparently hid Myers in a remote Pennsylvania hunting cabin to keep them from finding him.
After a February 10, 2012, hearing, Shubin verbally assaulted Anthony Sassano, an agent for the attorney general's office, outside the courthouse, cursing him roundly. “He was very vulgar, critical of me,” Sassano recalled. “Let’s call it unprofessional [language], for an attorney.”
Shubin was angry because the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t interview Myers, who, he claimed, had stayed at Sandusky’s house “over 100 times” where he had been subjected to “both oral and anal sex.” But the police still refused to allow Shubin to be present during any interview.
Soon afterwards, Shubin relented, allowing a postal inspector named Michael Corricelli to talk to Allan Myers alone on February 28, 2012. But during the three-hour interview, Myers never said Sandusky had abused him. On March 8, Corricelli tried again, but Myers again failed to provide any stories of molestation. On March 16, Corricelli brought Myers to the police barracks for a third interview in which Anthony Sassano took part. Asked about three out-of-state trips, Myers denied any sexual contact and said that Sandusky had only tucked him into bed.
“He did not recall the first time he was abused by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his notes, nor did Myers recall how many times he was abused. “He indicated it is hard to talk about the Sandusky sexual abuse because Sandusky was like a father to him.” Finally, Myers said that on a trip to Erie, Pennsylvania, Sandusky put his hand inside his pants and touched his penis. Sassano tried valiantly to get more out of him, asking whether Sandusky had tried to put Myers’ hand on his own penis or whether that had been oral sex. No.
Still, Myers now estimated that there had been ten sexual abuse events and that the last one was in the shower incident that McQeary overheard. “I attempted to have Myers elaborate on the sexual contact he had with Sandusky, but he refused by saying he wasn’t ready to talk about the specifics,” Sassano wrote. Myers said that he had not given anyone, including his attorneys, such details. “This is in contrast to what Shubin told me,” Sassano noted.
On April 3, 2012, Corricelli and Sassano were schedule to meet yet again with the reluctant Allan Myers, but he didn’t show up, saying that he was “too upset” by a friend’s death.
“Corricelli indicated that Attorney Shubin advised him that Myers had related to him incidents of oral, anal, and digital penetration by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his report. “Shubin showed Corricelli a three page document purported to be Myers’ recollection of his sexual contact with Sandusky. Corricelli examined the document and indicated to me that he suspected the document was written by Attorney Shubin. I advised that I did not want a copy of a document that was suspected to be written by Attorney Shubin.” Sassano concluded: “At this time, I don’t anticipate further investigation concerning Allan Myers.”
That is how things stood as the Sandusky trial was about to begin. Karl Rominger wanted to call Myers to testify as a defense witness, but Amendola refused. “I was told that there was a détente and an understanding that both sides would simply not identify Victim Number 2,” Rominger later recalled. The prosecution didn’t want such a weak witness who had given a strong exculpatory statement to Curtis Everhart. Amendola didn’t want a defense witness who was now claiming to be an abuse victim. “So they decided to punt, to use an analogy,” Rominger concluded.
 
“No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
It's a stretch to claim that he handled things the right way or that he made quick decisions.

Does anybody know what McQueary is doing today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74 and BBrown
It's a stretch to claim that he handled things the right way or that he made quick decisions.

Does anybody know what McQueary is doing today?
Living the easy life from his $12M gift from the courts.
 
Last edited:
Living the easy life from is $12M gift from the courts.
I wonder if PSU paid him the entire $12 million.
I also wonder who much of that went to his attorneys.

$8 million would still be enough for a comfortable life but he was separated from his wife and estranged from his daughter. I don't think anybody would hire him as a football coach and I doubt he wants to take a grunt job.
 

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?

I appreciate the link, but I don’t want to sign up for that service. I still don’t have access to the most recent podcasts on Apple. Guess I’m done with the series.
 
I appreciate the link, but I don’t want to sign up for that service. I still don’t have access to the most recent podcasts on Apple. Guess I’m done with the series.
It’s on Spotify for free, FYI
 
Episode 10 has dropped.

Jerry Sandusky was convicted on June 22, 2012, just seven months after he was charged. In keeping with the torrid pace of this case, just three weeks later the results of an "independent" investigation conducted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh were publicly unveiled.

The Freeh Report concluded that a "culture of corruption" existed within the athletic program and the university and that Penn State administrators, including the now deceased Joe Paterno, President Spanier, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, covered up the child abuse crimes of Jerry Sandusky in order to protect the reputation of Penn State.

The report was damning and a mortal blow to the ongoing efforts at resuscitating the reputations of Penn State leadership, but...

John Ziegler wasn't buying any of it! Listen as Zig walks us through the master class in media manipulation put on by Louis Freeh, the now laughable findings of The Freeh Report and how he and Penn State legend, Franco Harris took on the NCAA.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and BobPSU92
34 min mk baffling.


Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.

ror 0990

According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State faculty member who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror at the Sandusky trial.

"At no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.

At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."

Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."

Coercive Tactics By Freeh's Investigators

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."

"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."

Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."

are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

Sandusky's Lawyers Seek To Depose Freeh, Fina

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.

At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeill. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.

According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."

Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.

Sandusky, 76, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.

According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."

But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that Freeh's investigators were hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators; both sets of investigators were also trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.

The records show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public.
 
This has been mentioned here before, but if you find JZ annoying (and I understand if you do), OR don't want to listen to 50+ hours of podcast, suggest listening to this:


It's with the producer of JZ's podcast (not JZ) being interviewed by the KSN host. There are four parts totaling about an hour.

If you haven't kept up with everything John has done, this is a decent summary.
 
This has been mentioned here before, but if you find JZ annoying (and I understand if you do), OR don't want to listen to 50+ hours of podcast, suggest listening to this:


It's with the producer of JZ's podcast (not JZ) being interviewed by the KSN host. There are four parts totaling about an hour.

If you haven't kept up with everything John has done, this is a decent summary.
WTBOH executive producer Mike Avogino is down to earth and easy to listen to. He is also a good writer. His summary that he provided to KSN host Jim Galanti on why he took on the project and what WTBOH is all about is excellent. It is comprehensive, so it takes at least 20 minutes to read, but it provides some very good background and details on why Mike believes Sandusky did not abuse any children and that Penn State administrators did not cover-up any crimes.

 
John Ziegler will be interviewed by at 7:25 pm tonight by Paul Zeise of 93.7 the Fan in Pittsburgh.



Here is a link to the livestream. Just click the listen button in the upper right hand corner of the screen. Paul is on live right now.

 
This will not move the needle even remotely in the slightest.
NOTHING will change the narrative.
True
The CNN story, Snedden said, is the product of either "trying to either cover your ass or bolster your position. It appears to me that she [Ganim] doesn't even go through the motions of asking if it's accurate."


John Ziegler, a reporter who has covered the Penn State story for years, was even harsher in his assessment of Ganim's work.

"This one [Ganim's new story] is the biggest piece of crap yet," Ziegler said. "Ganim is pretending that we don't know" about the 1998 shower incident, Ziegler said. "If she was at the [Sandusky] trial she would know that what she's reporting is ancient news. It's got cobwebs on it."

Ziegler went at Ganim's work from another angle -- logic.

"This is actually exculpatory," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest scoop.

When McQueary is telling Joe about the 1998 shower incident, which is almost identical to the 2001 shower incident, Ziegler said, "Joe is immediately flashing back to 1998."

"That tells us that McQueary never said anything [to Paterno] about a sexual assault because Joe already knows that 1998 [the first alleged shower incident] is a nothing burger," Ziegler said. "Had McQueary actually said something about a sexual assault Joe would have never connected it to 1998, because the [Centre County] D.A. had already cleared Sandusky."

Ziegler said he has come to the conclusion that Ganim "was a very ambitious and also very naive or stupid person who got used" by the prosecutors in the Sandusky case to basically "put out a Craig's list ad" for more victims of sexual abuse.

Ziegler said that Ganim's story goes beyond any claims of the prosecutors. Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, went on 60 Minutes Sports in 2013 and declared that there was no evidence that Joe Paterno had ever participated in a cover up.

"I did not find that evidence," Fina said on 60 Minutes Sports.

"It does reek of deception," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest effort to prop up the official Penn State story line. "They have to be worried about something," Ziegler said, who devoted a podcast to it. "This story makes me think that even she doubts it."

Mark Pendergrast, an author who has written a book about Jerry Sandusky, The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, said that McQueary "revised his memory a decade after the Feb. 2001 shower incident, in which he heard slapping sounds but did not see Sandusky and a boy in the shower -- he only fleetingly saw a boy, in the mirror."

McQueary's "memory of his meeting with Paterno in 2001was also subject to revisions and this appears to be more evidence of that," Pendergrast wrote in an email. "In other words, this is Sara Ganim once more raising a non-issue based on Mike McQueary's revised memory, and referring as well to highly questionable anonymous allegations dating back to the 1970s."

The 1970s alleged victims

In May 2016, Ganim reported on CNN that a man who claimed to have been sexually abused by Sandusky at a rest stop after he was picked up as a hitchhiker. The alleged victim also claimed that he was personally ordered by Joe Paterno to keep quiet about the abuse.

"Stop it right now" or "we'll call the authorities," the alleged victim claimed that Paterno had told him on the phone.

The alleged victim told Ganim that he had no doubt it was Paterno on the other end of the line ordering him to keep quiet.

"There was no question in my mind who Joe was," the alleged victim told Ganim. "I've heard that voice a million times. It was Joe Paterno."

Sure it was. Penn State's gullible trustees decided, OK, we'll just take your word for it. So the alleged victim got paid $200,000.

Now we come to the most ridiculous part of our story, namely the man referred to in Ganim's most recent opus as "John Doe 150," an alleged sex abuse victim of Jerry Sandusky's dating back to June 1976.

Another ancient claim of abuse that Joe allegedly knew about.

John Doe 150 was represented in his civil claim by Slade McLaughlin and Paul Lauricella, two Philadelphia lawyers who represented Danny Gallagher AKA "Billy Doe" in his bogus claim against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, where Gallagher collected $5 million.

Gallagher is the lying, scheming altar boy who claimed he was the victim of three separate rapes by a couple of priests and a Catholic school teacher. But then the lead investigator in the case, retired detective Joe Walsh, came forward to say that he caught Gallagher telling one lie after another, and that Gallagher even admitted he "made up stuff." Which led the detective to conclude that all of Gallagher's allegations were false.

In the John Doe 150 case, the alleged victim, who is 56 years old, claimed that back in 1976, when he was 15, he attended a Penn State football summer camp for a week. According to alleged victim, he was taking a shower when 10 other kids when Jerry Sandusky, who had just introduced himself, stopped by. And then, after the other boys left the shower, Sandusky "came up to me and began soaping my back and shoulders."

And then "he stuck his finger in my ass," the alleged victim claimed. Sandusky allegedly apologized, saying he didn't realize he was getting that close.

What allegedly happened next is even more unbelievable.

John Doe 150 claims, at 15 years old, that he had the guts to talk about the incident to an anonymous Penn State football player, who told him that Sandusky "does this with all of his, I guess, boys."

According to John Doe 150, at 15, he then had the moxie to hunt down Joe Paterno at his Penn State office, and corner him in the hallway. John Doe 150 supposedly told Paterno what just happened with Sandusky. And Paterno supposedly replied, "I don't want to hear about any of that stuff, I have a football season to worry about."

Have you ever heard a more absurd story? A 15-year-old kid molested on the first day he ever met Jerry Sandusky? No grooming? No box of candy or six-pack first?

A 15-year-old kid who has just been victimized who has the nerve to track down and confront a legendary football coach?

Who would believe this crap? Oh that's right, the same lawyers who bought Billy Doe's lies and made $5 million off of it.

Before he collected his $300,000 settlement, John Doe 150 was never questioned by any lawyers or any psychiatrists representing Penn State. The Penn State Board of Trustees just paid John Doe 150 as one of 32 such claimants who collected a total of $93 million.

What an irresponsible expenditure of money. Even the lawyers who were ripping off Penn State had to know it was bogus. Actually, one of them did, and said so.

In a 2016 interview, Paul Boni, one of John Doe 150's lawyers, said that he knew of no "direct irrefutable evidence" that Paterno knew about any prior abuse by Sandusky dating back to the 1970s.

"I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence" to attack Paterno, Boni said.

So Sara Ganim keeps serving up more fairy tales and asking us to believe them. Only the stories just keep getting crazier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blk902
Scrolling through the posts, so apologize if I missed something. But what new info has JZ introduced for the first time?
 
Scrolling through the posts, so apologize if I missed something. But what new info has JZ introduced for the first time?

A ton of new intetviews including with Gary Schultz, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, Kevin Horne, Bruce Heim, fake accuser A. J. Dillen, Malorie Fisher (Aaron’s wife) and many others. Key people that are now saying that they believe that Jerry is innocent including Schultz, Lord, Capretto, Horne and Heim. Hours of secretly recorded sessions of Dillen with lawyer Andrew Shubin and therapist Cynthia MacNab. Aaron Fisher’s soon to be ex-wife saying that she doesn’t believe Aaron Fisher was abused by Jerry but believes he was abused by step dad and convicted child molester Eric Daniels.

The biggest thing that is new is the sheer volume of material in each of the episodes. The episodes are 2-4 hours long and there are a total of 19 episodes. Pitt alumnus and Fox Sports Anchor Liz Habib does a great job of playing devil’s advocate and tempering John Ziegler. The podcast’s executive director is Mike Avogino and he has done a masterful job in developing a slick and professional product. Both Habib and Avogino had initially bought into the OAG/media narrative of the case and their views have changed 180 degrees.

The podcast has been well received with over 200,000 downloads as of 2 weeks ago.

If you are interested in what caused Avogino to change his mind and what the podcast is all about, please read the compressive summary that Avogino put together. Fair warning, it will take at least 20 minutes to read.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT