The media may or may not care, but one thing for sure is it doesn't want to admit how criminally wrong it was.
With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
A significant part of the population at large may no longer care about the story, but it seems like the media still cares about the story as they report about every new development in the case. It seems like the media is interested in protecting the narrative that they help create. WTBOH seems like it has made at least a small dent in public opinion. My hypothesis is that the parties that want to protect the narrative have no interest in challenging the WTBOH view or else the change in public opinion becomes more than a dent. I have yet to see anybody on this thread or elsewhere cast any significant doubt on the WTBOH conclusions. I believe the reason for that is because they can’t.
They can't because most, at best, possess only a cliff notes version (e.g. The Freeh summary) of what was fed to the public at the beginning of all of this. In any fair debate or discussion format they would be eaten alive and they know it.
Freeh as in free.
Freeh, of course, shows up at his new post with plenty of baggage from his notoriously bungled investigation of Penn State, which was the basis for draconian sanctions the NCAA issued against the university.
A confidential review of Freeh's report, done by seven Penn State trustees, leaked to the media in February, found that the $8.3 million Freeh Report on PSU was tainted by bias, factual mistakes, and faulty opinions dressed up as facts. The trustees ripped the Freeh Report for its "flawed methodology & conclusions," as well as Freeh himself, for not disclosing a personal conflict of interest, namely that he was using his supposedly independent investigation of Penn State as leverage to get hired as the "go-to investigators" for the NCAA.
Freeh's alleged conflict of interest was laid out in internal emails that the trustees had access to, among the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report, thousands of pages of documents that are still confidential due to a judge's order that makes no sense. But the trustees' report publicized some of the revelations in the source materials.
Such as, back on July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and one of his partners at the firm. Freeh and his staff apparently saw the Penn State investigation as an opportunity to land a client with deep pockets, and plenty of other scandals to ride herd on.
"This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."
In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."
It was a ploy that finally paid off this week. But according to the Penn State trustees' report, Freeh had begun casting his eyes on the NCAA as a potential client a few years earlier.
"Freeh's Group began speculating in January of 2010 about ways to get business from the NCAA," the trustees wrote. It began when Freeh noted in writing NCAA President Emmert's comments that he "intends to increase enforcement actions by adding new investigative resources."
That amounted to "an ideal time to launch" a business development plan, Freeh wrote, that would offer the NCAA the services of the Freeh Group for "athletic compliance and investigations."
"Documents outlining their services offer a view into their early perspectives on their investigative approach," the trustees wrote, "including a focus on assessing 'the student-athlete culture' and a comment about 'typical corruption issues which fall into our sweet-spot.'"
The PSU trustees, however, wound up panning the Freeh Report on Penn State.
"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz knew that Sandusky had harmed children," the trustees wrote.
"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Penn State's culture was responsible for allowing Sandusky to harm children," the trustees wrote. The Freeh Report, the trustees found, was "rife with investigative and reporting flaws." Freeh's investigators were biased, used "unreliable methods of conducting and analyzing interviews, [and] failed to interview most of the individuals with direct knowledge of the events under investigation."
"Our university paid $8.3 million for an 'independent investigation' that was neither independent nor a fair and thorough investigation," the trustees concluded.
Alice Pope, a Penn State trustee, has publicly voiced concerns about the high degree of "cooperation between the PA Office of Attorney General and Freeh" during their parallel investigations into the Penn State sex abuse scandal.
In an "Executive Summary of Findings" of the internal review of the source materials for the Freeh Report, dated Jan. 8, 2017, Penn State's trustees expressed concerns about alleged "interference in Louis Freeh's investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General."
That interference was defined in the executive summary as: "information gathered in the criminal investigations of Penn State officials" that was "improperly (and perhaps illegally) shared with Louis Freeh and his team."
The interference came through regular leaks from former deputy attorney Frank Fina, now facing the possibility of a suspended law license for a year and a day, for other excesses committed during the Penn State investigation.
Freeh has been mum on the topic of Fina's leaks that benefitted his investigators. When I asked Freeh, as a private citizen during the Penn State probe, whether he was authorized to have access to grand jury secrets, the former FBI director through a spokesperson declined comment.
A spokesperson for the NCAA did not respond to a request for comment about how they could possibly hire a long-standing conflict of interest like Freeh.
I am expecting President Barron’s review of the Freeh report to really clear things up!
I'm glad you finally realized how wrong you were. Or are you just really, really bad at sarcasm?
A leopard doesn't change his spots. I serious doubt he will respond to me and identify any specifc accusers that are extremely credible. He won't because there aren't any. As Liz Habib stated, WTBOH has blown holes in ALL of the accusers. Go ahead @Pinkhippo PeanutButter and name one. I dare you to.
none of the accusers are credible. this is a horrible miscarriage of justice.
Please, if you haven't already, contribute whatever you can to Mr. Sandusky's defense fund.
Episode 13 "The Media" has dropped.
Liz and Zig dig deep in episode thirteen to explain the nature of today's media and the prioritization of narrative over news. Pack a lunch because episode thirteen is packed with more than five hours worth of Zig's struggles to get members of the media to embrace the actual facts of this case. It won't disappoint.
Liz and Zig dig deep in episode thirteen to explain the nature of today's media and the prioritization of narrative over news. Pack a lunch because episode thirteen is packed with more than five hours worth of Zig's struggles to get members of the media to embrace the actual facts of this case. It won't disappoint.
With the Benefit of Hindsight...: Episode Thirteen: The Media on Apple Podcasts
Show With the Benefit of Hindsight..., Ep Episode Thirteen: The Media - Jun 15, 2021
podcasts.apple.com
V6 is credible. His story has remained pretty consistent from when it was documented in 1998 to the 2012 trial.
Thanks ChrisAccording to Zig, he says on the podcast he had it. Allegedly, according to one doctor, he had it a "very long time....possibly life." I believe JZ said the record was from 2008.
Episode Nine, Part III: "A Few Bad Men" Details of the medical records start around 54:30 in.
Couple of things here:
1) Being consistent does not necessarily mean he is credible.
2) His own words describe the shower incident as "awkward" and "inappropriate" not as sexual assault.
Victim 6's Mother Reported Sandusky to Police in 1998: Court Documents
This is the verbatim account of Victim 6 from the Grand Jury presentment used to bring charges against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
www.nbcphiladelphia.com
Do I think he probably worked out with Sandusky and horsed around in the shower afterwards? Yes, probably. Does that mean a crime was committed? Perhaps not.
That is for sure! It is a shame to think of all the good Sandusky would have done for society if not for being railroaded.
Short on time, so here is a short answer:
1) Anything is possible, such as that he had a satisfying relationship at home and didn't need to look elsewhere, or your scenario. I think common sense says that 2-4 times a week probably doesn't leave room for much else, especially for a couple that is so religious. I'm no where near his age, so I have no idea if it's realistic. I don't know how anyone can use this to confirm his guilt or his innocence.
2) Not at all. Exaggerating one's romantic life has no bearing on anything else, especially if he wasn't under oath. This question is moot, because you could never prove he is lying unless you find out he has a medical condition that makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes. I don't know how anyone can use this to confirm his guilt or his innocence.
I agree that v6 is credible. The only issues I have with v6 is that I don't believe that he was harmed by Sandusky and I feel that he betrayed Sandusky who had treated him like a son during their 13 year relationship when he testified against him at trial.
A case with only v6's testimony would not hold water. I don't believe a case based on an incident that did not involve sex and was thoroughly investigated by the Department of Public Welfare, the Penn State police, and the Centre County DA resulting in an unfounded report and no criminal charges filed would get to first base. The report should have expunged by both the Penn State and State College police departments and never should have been seen by the OAG and become part of their case.
You are correct, v6 never alleged that his relationship with Sandusky involved any type of sex. After the allegations in the grand jury presentment became public, it doesn't surprise me that v6 thought that Sandusky may have had sexual intent in the 1998 incident. I believe that all of the key CSA allegations against Sandusky are not credible. The WTBOH podcast has blown holes in all of their stories. Based on that, I assert that Sandusky's interactions with v6 did not involve sexual intent and is not criminal.
I give v6 credit for not embellishing his story. I don't believe he was entitled to any damages, but I don't blame him for filing a civil suit against Penn State as much I do the other 35 claimants. I suspect he regrets not embellishing his story. He received only $1.5M for telling the truth when the other trial accusers received substantially more (v1 $7.5M, v2 $6.9M, v3 $7.25M, v4 $7.25M, v5 $8.1M, v7 $3.25M, v9 $20M, v10 $5.5M) when they all clearly embellished their stories.
If you are going to give someone a defacto life sentence, you should be relatively certain that he is guilty of at least one of the crimes with which he is charged. Sadly, that is not the case here.
Admittedly, it's hard for me to sleep at night.....you know, with JS locked up and you running free.
I’ll be completely honest. Both are silly responses made by somebody presumably wanting Jerry to be innocent.
Let me ask you this then:
If 2-4 times a week are doable as an average, isn’t 2 with the wife and another two with boys also possible? That would fall within the 2-4 range. Common sense would say say yes. Again, admitting that is not calling Jerry a pedophile but it is acknowledging the obvious possibility that he is.
"Credible accuser" w/r/t Sandusky is an oxymoron
The Marine Sargent that hunted down AWOL soldiers for a living. The very same one that described the wooden locker closing that even MM hadn't mentioned at that point in time. Of course he made his way to Shubin and just like the fake accuser AJ Dillen, he miraculously had a new story.
I don't consider the Marine Sargent an accuser. He didn't testify at trial and during his PCRA testimony where he said he didn't remember 34 times. He did remember that he was abused, but he didn't say he was abused by Sandusky.
I consider him a claimant. He won a $6.9M settlement from Penn State.
I find him credible in his November, 2011 statement to Curtis Everhart. Not so much when he became a claimant and in his November 2016 PCRA testimony.
I know he is not helpful to your cause. For people who realize there was no sex scandal at Penn State, he is very helpful to their cause because he is a case in point to how this whole story happened.
Last edited:
My favorite is the one who claims he and his stepfather got Joe and the AD on a conference call after he was violently assaulted at a football camp. LOL
Then there is the one who was driven around in Jerry's convertible (silver) and enjoyed lunch with Jerry and Joe....they lunched together often you know.
How about getting 20 million for being anally raped in Jerry's family room....tragically screaming for help....but returning again and again and again......LOL
Last edited:
I can’t tell if you are just being close minded or simply avoiding making a substantive response to my post because it’s too hard. Neither is a good look.
Regardless, my responses are “devils advocate” type responses to someone who presumably wants jerry to be guilty. Meanwhile I’ve never said what you propose is impossible, just offered an alternative view of an ambiguous situation to illustrate why using it to prove guilt or innocence is silly. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to point that out before you understand.
Last edited:
I can't believe you left out Jerry missing practice to drive to Snow Shoe and then back to campus to play racquetball at Rec Hall....on a frequent basis...during the season with V4. The guy either time traveled or should be writing a book on time management from prison.
Remember
Sandusky's lawyers were seeking an evidentiary hearing where Kathleen McChesney, the decorated former FBI agent who's the author of the diary, would be brought in for questioning. Sandusky's lawyers also want to question former deputy attorney general Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case who also happens to be the alleged leaker repeatedly fingered by McChesney in her diary.
But rather than take on the facts as posed in newly discovered evidence, Jennifer Buck, the senior deputy attorney general in charge of the AG's appeals and legal services division, argued Wednesday before a panel of three judges that such an evidentiary hearing would amount to a "fishing expedition," and that's why Sandusky's appeal for a new trial should be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The "fatal flaw" in Sandusky's appeal is that the collusion and leaks documented in the McChesney diary amount to "nothing more than speculation" about what "certain diaries entries and emails should be interpreted to mean," Buck told the judges.
"I think the allegations that we raised are new and they're very grave, and very, very important," countered Al Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer. Lindsay argued that the McChesney diary is a breakthrough in the long running Sandusky case because it documents grand jury leaks and collusion between the AG's criminal investigation of Sandusky, and the supposedly independent civil investigation done on behalf of Penn State by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
"We have to take testimony from the individuals involved," such as McChesney, Fina, and Freeh, Lindsay insisted to the judges during a half-hour of oral arguments in the case.
The 79-page diary was written in 2011 and 2012 by former FBI Special Agent McChesney, when she was acting as co-leader of the civil investigation of Penn State being led by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
As an FBI agent, McChesney was a key member of the task force that arrested serial killer Ted Bundy, and she was prominently featured on camera last year in a Netflix documentary series, "Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes." After the Bundy case, McChesney rose in the ranks to become the only female FBI agent ever appointed to be the bureau's executive assistant director.
McChesney's credibility was such that in 2002, in the wake of the widespread sex abuse scandal involving the Catholic clergy, the U.S. Conference of Bishops hired McChesney to establish and lead its Office of Child and Youth Protection.
She's also the author of a 2011 book, "Pick Up Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way." In state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers are hoping McChesney's unpublished diary will win a new trial for Sandusky, convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of child sex abuse, and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail.
In McChesney's diary, she not only documents grand jury leaks by Fina, but she also describes the AG's office supplying the Freeh Group with documents and grand jury transcripts that they didn't have a legal right to see. McChesney's diary also documented how Fina was actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.
For example, McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group had to notify Fina when they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, an investigator from Penn State Police who probed a 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and a young boy that never resulted in criminal charges. After the Freeh Group notified Fina about the requested interview, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."
In court, however, rather than take on those type of allegations, the AG has argued that Sandusky's lawyers did not produce the McChesney diary in a timely fashion, so that Sandusky's motion for a new trial should be dismissed on procedural grounds by the state Superior Court.
Sandusky's lawyers received a copy of the McChesney diary on Nov. 4, 2019, but they didn't bring it up at a Nov. 22, 2019 re-sentencing hearing, the state Attorney General has argued. Nor did Sandusky's lawyers bring up the diary at a Jan. 28th hearing on post-sentence motions. Instead, Sandusky's lawyers waited until May 9, 2020 to file their motion for a new trial, the AG complained.
But Lindsay has argued that in addition to the McChesney diary, Sandusky's defense team on March 10th received a summary of the Freeh Group's interview with one of the jurors at the Sandusky trial, which Sandusky's lawyers contend amounts to jury tampering.
In oral arguments, Lindsay said the procedural objections from the AG's office amount to a "remarkable response" that's an attempt to dodge the real issue involving evidence from a decorated FBI agent that documents corruption in the AG's office.
Lindsay said he waited to notify the court about the McChesney diary because he wanted "to show the impact" the AG's collusion and leaks had on Sandusky's criminal trial.
"We knew they [the AG and Freeh] were running a de facto joint investigation," Lindsay told the court, but he needed to gather more evidence, such as Freeh's interview with one of the jurors, and an affidavit from Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer.
In an affidavit, Sandusky stated that he had no idea of the collusion that was going on between the AG's office and Freeh. And had he known, Amendola would have sought to dismiss the juror from the case. Amendola stated in his affidavit that he would have also sought to question other jurors in the Sandusky case about whether they were also interviewed by Freeh.
"Is it your position that they [Freeh] may have tainted" one of the jurors, a judge asked.
"Absolutely, our petition alleges that," Lindsay shot back.
In response, Buck argued that an evidentiary hearing required "actual facts that warrant a hearing," she said, and that such a hearing "is not meant to be a fishing expedition."
"What we have at this juncture," Buck argued, was, "they criticize the Freeh report and are taking the diary entries and certain emails and interpreting them, rather than looking at cold hard facts."
A judge asked if the allegation of a "tainted juror" was enough of an argument to "warrant further development of those facts."
Buck agreed, but then asserted that even if true as alleged, "the new evidence doesn't change anything," as in the verdict in the Sandusky trial. As in let's keep moving, there's nothing to see here.
But, Lindsay argued that when she was questioned in court by Amendola and the trial judge, the "responses given by the potential juror seem to be different" than what was recorded in a summary on the juror's interview with the Freeh Group.
During jury selection on June 6, 2012, Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State who served as a juror in the Sandusky trial, was asked by Amendola what she had previously told Freeh's investigators.
"It was focused more on how the board of trustees interacts with the president," Pauley told Amendola, as well as "how faculty are interacting with the president and the board of trustees . . ."
The last thing I want is for Jerry to be guilty. I’ve said all along that the best outcome in this would be if he was innocent and these people just got paid off for false accusations, so to say I want Jerry to be guilty is ridiculous.
I’m not really sure what the rest of the response is trying to get at, to be honest. I asked a really simple question: If Jerry and Dottie due in fact have sex 2-4 times a week, is it possible that he is physically capable of sexually abusing boys as well. If I’m reading your post correctly, you saying yes. So after all of that, you agree with me right? That’s all I’m getting at. It is physically possible for Jerry to sexual abuse boys. Either that, or he’s a liar. Honest to god I didn’t think it was that crazy of a position to take.
We can still try! Literally anyone who has listened to all of the podcasts as well as the bonus material could draw no other conclusion, except Jerry must be freed asap
Is it possible? Sure. Most things are possible. Is it likely? For an average 60 something? Probably not. Is it possible for a 60 something with proven low T? Almost certainly not. But not impossible.
There are very few certainties in any of this. You have to look a probabilities.
My thought is that this whole line of reasoning is not that important.
It is much easier to poke holes in the accusers stories if you think about the timing of the stories in relation to each other (lots of overlap, but yet they never met) and with relation to football season (when JS would have very little free time).
Well, there you go then. You also agree with me. It was not really a ridiculous premise, was it?
And I also agree with you that anything is possible. It is possible that he could have been innocently showering alone with these boys. It’s illogical, but possible.
And for the record, I never said it was important. Just that it was common sense but some people just can’t seem to allow themselves to acknowledge it for some reason.
Last edited:
