Franco, is there an archive link for this latest interview? Missed it last evening.
With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Thanks. I think Paul actually went to Temple, but yes, his son did play for Pitt. I always liked him until, as I mentioned above, he at the time was dismissively referring to Paterno defenders as "wackos". Good to hear that he is more openminded these days.
Its ok but I thought the stuff on the KSN podcast was better.
Zig just can't talk about this calmly or rationally.
He also went off on some tangents about MM gambling, which may be true, but he said the game tape of the RU game bears that out and I disagree about that particular event.
Mike Agovino makes a calmer, collected argument and does it without alot of emotion. He is very easy to listen to. That said, Zig has done some amazing research on the case and his conviction couldn't be stronger. It seems like the WTBOH team of Agovino, Zig, and Liz Habib compliment each other. Liz does a good job of tempering Zig and telling Zig he is FOS when he gets out of line.
Ask Rutgers!
Schiano had been selected as the next head football coach at the University of Tennessee. His hiring was to be announced on Sunday night, Nov. 26, 2017. Instead, after a series of rumor-mongering tweets and political grandstanding, and a graffiti-covered rock on campus proclaiming “SCHIANO COVERED UP CHILD RAPE AT PENN STATE,” he was abruptly dropped like a hot potato.
Why? Because of Mike McQueary, who changed his memory from hearing slapping sounds in a shower (of Sandusky snapping towels with a 13-year-old boy) to witnessing sexual abuse, ten years after the event. And because McQueary then massaged his memory yet again two years ago in a deposition for a civil case, and recalled someone else (assistant coach Tom Bradley) allegedly telling him that Schiano, who was an assistant coach at Penn State from 1990 to 1995, had supposedly said that he saw Sandusky doing something bad to a boy in a shower.
So this is 25 years ago he said he said he said he saw something. Both Bradley and Schiano deny ever having heard anything about Sandusky abusing anyone.
That’s because Schiano never said such a thing to Bradley, and Bradley said no such thing to McQueary.
And Sandusky did no such thing. The real story here is too much for the mass media to acknowledge. The media are invested in the narrative of Jerry Sandusky the serial pedophile, the Monster. But guess what? The imprisoned former Penn State football coach may be an innocent man, a victim of a moral panic fed by the sensationalistic media, police trawling, memory-warping psychotherapy, and greed, as I document in my book, The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment.
It is a fascinating, complex case that richly deserves this book-length treatment. Thus, I am unlikely to convince anyone in an article. (But see this link to a good summary article already available on this website.) Nonetheless, I can’t keep silent when yet another career is being ruined through slanderous triple-hearsay about crimes that never occurred in the first place.
In the hothouse atmosphere of college football, politics, money, and moral panics, the mere mention of the named Sandusky is enough to tarnish anyone. Tennessee bigwigs fell all over themselves condemning Schiano with zero evidence but plenty of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy. One state representative said, “We don’t need a man who has that type of potential reproach in their life as the football coach. It’s egregious to the people.” On the contrary, his statement is what is egregious. Three gubernatorial candidates hastened to condemn Schiano as well, while another politico tweeted that “a Greg Schiano hire would be anathema to all that our University and our community stand for.”
And what does the University stand for? Freedom of expression? Innocent until proven guilty? Or avoiding any controversy like the plague? The latter seems to be the current academic approach. Penn State University threw in excess of $100 million at virtually anyone who claimed to be a Sandusky victim, without any investigation, in the same sort of mad rush to keep up appearances.
We could all be accused via triple-hearsay of a non-existent crime, especially if we ever had anything to do with Jerry Sandusky – or Mike McQueary, it appears.
Did you listen to the Schultz interviews? That in my mind is one of the biggest pieces of new information.
The interview with Kevin Horne was also informative and the Costas interview, while perhaps not "bombshell" status, was very interesting and should be broadcast more widely.
If you're well versed on the case and you've listened to Ziegler before, I don't know that he's dropped any new "bombshells". Even the never before discussed medical records of Sandusky's medical records featuring his testicular issue which effectively left him with "visibly shrunken testicles" and almost no testosterone, I'd heard rumors about before.
I think the real thing that's very interesting to me is I've heard most of this before, but never pieced together like this. When you hear it all together it really is overwhelming, and really opens your eyes to the possibility Jerry really could be 100 percent innocent.
There really is no question, that at the very least 90 percent of these accusers are completely FOS.
JZ also really frames things in perspectives I have never thought of. For example, he talks about the presumption of innocence and how Jerry never had it and how important it is in a he said she said case. And it resonated with me SO well because I used to write off JZs conclusions and revealing information about the victims as "no big deal" because I presumed Jerry as guilty. So information about some of the victims flipping after being close to Jerry for so many years, or bragging to friends about all the money they have etc etc. Seemed like no big deal and no proof of his innocence. But when you look at all the evidence, with the assumption that Jerry is innocent to begin with, all of these little pieces start to make a lot of sense and how the one Aaron Fisher accusation was all the cops ever had. Then they got MM to change his story, had Sara Ganim go fishing for accusers who ALL initially denied any wrong doing and only came forward when it was clear PSU was going to pay up, and you realize the entire thing might really be BS.
You mean like V9? The crazy soundproof basement accuser? He got 20 effin million DOLLARS!!!. Damn, most of us on this board could have come up with a more credible tale.
Not to mention, according to Jerry and Dottie apparently, they absolutely never met that kid. I also knew that accusation was BS even at the time. Not a single accuser ever even came close to that type of accusation. Serial pedophiles typically have a pretty standard MO across victims.
I believe you have v9 and v10 mixed up.
Sebastian Paden was v9. Jerry and Dottie knew sp. His accusation was that he was abused in the Sandusky sound proofed basement. I believe he was awarded $20 M in a settlement with Penn State. Ryan Rittmeyer was v10. Jerry and Dottie did not know rr. His accusation included being abused by Jerry in a silver convertible.
JZ was far from oblivious -
"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.
"Yes, I did," Myers said.
Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.
"That I do not remember," Myers said.
Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.
"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."
"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"
"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.
"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.
"No," Myers said.
Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."
"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."
Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.
Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.
"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.
Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.
"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."
Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.
"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.
Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."
"I don't recall," Myers replied.
Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.
"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."
Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.
Myers remembered the interview.
Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."
"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."
Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."
Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.
Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.
"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.
Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?
"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.
Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:
"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."
"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.
"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."
Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.
On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.
"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."
Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:
-- denied having sex with Sandusky;
-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"
-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"
-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."
"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."
Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.
"Yes," he said.
Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.
At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.
Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.
When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."
Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.
"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."
Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."
It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."
As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.
On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.
Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.
"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."
"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.
"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."
"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.
"Yes," Myers said.
She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.
After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.
If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched
He has discussed this before. Ironically, this is maybe the only thing that makes me think Jerry might be guilty.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jerry asked about how often he was banging Dottie in this time period, and he answered several times a week? Seems implausible.
I know I read that somewhere. Anytime remember the source?
in Mark Pendergasts book
Jerry says he had sex with Dottie 2-3 times per week, until he went to prison
Ditties says she had sex with Jerry 4x per week, up until his imprisonment
I can't see a 70 year old man doing this, even without the stuff about Jerry's low T and shriveled balls.
Episode 11 has dropped.
Episode Eleven: No Good Deed
In Episode Eleven we learn about John Ziegler's efforts to get Dottie Sandusky another opportunity to declare her husband's innocence in front of a national audience. All she has to do is call his accusers liars, can she do it? We also learn the long tale of Matt Sandusky. Matt convinced the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18, he told Sports Illustrated he couldn't imagine what would have become of him if not for the Sandusky's, he went to court to allow his children to visit Jerry Sandusky while Jerry was out on bail and he sat right next to Dottie Sandusky on the first day of Jerry's trial...but then he suddenly realized that he had been abused.
Episode Eleven: No Good Deed
In Episode Eleven we learn about John Ziegler's efforts to get Dottie Sandusky another opportunity to declare her husband's innocence in front of a national audience. All she has to do is call his accusers liars, can she do it? We also learn the long tale of Matt Sandusky. Matt convinced the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18, he told Sports Illustrated he couldn't imagine what would have become of him if not for the Sandusky's, he went to court to allow his children to visit Jerry Sandusky while Jerry was out on bail and he sat right next to Dottie Sandusky on the first day of Jerry's trial...but then he suddenly realized that he had been abused.
With the Benefit of Hindsight...: Episode Eleven: No Good Deed on Apple Podcasts
Show With the Benefit of Hindsight..., Ep Episode Eleven: No Good Deed - Jun 3, 2021
podcasts.apple.com
does he also cover the other participant in the national TV interview, Jeff Sandusky? The son of Jerry who would soon afterwards be himself convicted for CSA?Episode 11 has dropped.
Episode Eleven: No Good Deed
In Episode Eleven we learn about John Ziegler's efforts to get Dottie Sandusky another opportunity to declare her husband's innocence in front of a national audience. All she has to do is call his accusers liars, can she do it? We also learn the long tale of Matt Sandusky. Matt convinced the Sandusky's to adopt him at age 18, he told Sports Illustrated he couldn't imagine what would have become of him if not for the Sandusky's, he went to court to allow his children to visit Jerry Sandusky while Jerry was out on bail and he sat right next to Dottie Sandusky on the first day of Jerry's trial...but then he suddenly realized that he had been abused.
With the Benefit of Hindsight...: Episode Eleven: No Good Deed on Apple Podcasts
Show With the Benefit of Hindsight..., Ep Episode Eleven: No Good Deed - Jun 3, 2021podcasts.apple.com
Speaking of leaving things out, could you please expand on the nature of Jeff Sandusky's CSA? Surely there are some parallels to what Jerry was convicted of, right?
I think I know what you're touching on here and I'm not sure it's any sign of guilt.
Whether Jerry is a pedophile or not, they both would be smart enough to realize why this question is being asked. They would likely lie whether he was guilty or not.
Not to mention, if he truly was impotent or had sexual issues, who knows what either of them define as sex?
I think Jerry is innocent because I consider him a good and honest guy. HOWEVER, it does seem like he is flat out lying about how often he is putting it to Dottie. If he would lie about this, then what else would he lie about? This is the one thing that makes me think Jerry might actually be guilty.
It also wouldn't surprise me, given how religious they are (and have ostensibly only been with each other) that their definition of "making love" might not necessarily include intercourse. Just a thought...
Let's apply the same rationale to the claimants. At one time or another they all stated that nothing of a sexual nature happened with JS. So did they lie then.....or did they lie when $$$ was on the table? Either way they are all liars!
Jerry and Dottie should have responded that the question was improper, immaterial and personal. Hell, if frequency of sex is to be considered....and you want to believe the claimants....Jerry would have had to have been on IV's to replace his fluids and there would have been a waiting list of victims taking numbers outside the gang showers.
Are you saying that Jerry passed along his pedophile genes to an adopted child?
Perhaps the same logic could be applied to some of the claimants and their families?
Better yet, how about the rap sheets of the "victims?"
So a question...you call out Jerry and Dottie for their response....would you have been inclined to believe them if they responded more like your hero AM? Jerry's response could have been.."I don't remember exactly......I remember seeing her......we did it but I don't remember it...." LOL
Yes, exactly. This was my point (above). How is that this is Jerry's fault, but somehow when you bring up the extensive rap sheets of many of the accusers you get "well, they were at risk kids. Of course Jerry preyed on kids who were more likely to commit crimes". The double standard proposed here is staggering...
That’s a serious stretch. I’m pretty religious. I know a lot of even more religious people. I don’t know one of them that would mistake what “making love” is with something less than sex. Like the showering activities, this seems like it would have to be a situation where you’d have to rely upon Jerry having an IQ at least two standard deviations from the mean to think he doesn’t understand.
i Know nothing of this son’s conviction (I do remember it happening but none of the facts around it). I assume what the poster was alluding to was the possibility that this son was abused by Jerry, making it more likely that he would become an abuser himself. I probably shouldn’t assume that’s what the poster intended, but that’s what I assumed he was alluding to.
He was trying to bang a 17 year old girl. NOTHING at all like what Jerry was accused of.
My understanding is he was convicted of soliciting and receiving nude photos from underage girls. I can't say I'm an expert on how abuse victims pass along their abuse to others but I would take an educated guess this and Jerrys alleged behaviors were completely unrelated.
Are you religious to the point that you will hang up on someone if they use profanity?
Have you only ever seriously dated one person?
I'm not saying that they don't understand what sex is. Hell, it doesn't even have to do with being religious. I've "made love" many times that have not included intercourse...
For crying out loud, he’s an adult. Religiousness has nothing to do with understanding what sex is (as you just said) but your original post intimated it does. Jerry and Dottie both know what “making love” is. Believe and defend Jerry all you want because there is certainly enough with his situation to question. But you should stop with the idea that they have a different definition for “making love”. When people go to these lengths they discredit the real questions in the case.
I'm trying to avoid having graphic sex discussions here, but if you and your partner exchange oral favors have you "made love"? Because you have not had intercourse. What if said oral favors are one sided? Is that still "making love"? I think the answer is obviously "yes."
I don't think they asked Dottie/Jerry for their specific sex acts. So there is significant variability in the physical acts that an comprise "making love"
They didn’t have to ask, it’s understood what was being stated.
Let’s go with the idea of giving but not receiving. If that is a possibility, then Jerry’s low testoterone level would have absolutely no bearing on his ability to orally or manually sexually abuse a boy, right? Because I suggested this earlier (couple of years ago maybe?) and it was shot down as a possibility (by francofan, I believe).
You are conflating issues here. Also, I do not believe what you are suggesting aligns with the allegations.
Ability and desire are separate issues. If Jerry did have low testosterone levels, I highly doubt he would be "driven" to such behavior.
That may be the case. I certainly have no personal information about their sex life. My point was only that "making love 3 or 4 times a week" may mean different things to different people.
Latest posts
-
-
FB Recruiting NitBits: Multiple top prospects to visit campus this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
