ADVERTISEMENT

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

Nope, just looking at it logically and with common sense.
You responded to the scenario with this, then didn’t respond again after I answered you:

“If the answer to those question in your hypothetical is "yes" than I will further answer your questions. Otherwise, you are just making shite up to futilely fortify this weird and unimportant hill you've decided to die on.”
I didn't see where you responded to my questions.

It's a bad hypothetical unless the neighbor is also the founder of a charity who mentors boys and has a father like relationship with the fictional son.

If he's just "the neighbor", then I ask the fictional son additional questions and then take appropriate action.
 
I didn't see where you responded to my questions.

It's a bad hypothetical unless the neighbor is also the founder of a charity who mentors boys and has a father like relationship with the fictional son.

If he's just "the neighbor", then I ask the fictional son additional questions and then take appropriate action.
What information would you have to hear to make you not call the police, social services, or just go next door and knock the guy out? I can tell you as a father that there would not be an explanation that would keep me taking one of those courses of action, regardless of the explanation. I can further tell as a social worker that you absolutely do the first two options regardless of the explanation given. I would advise you professionally from doing the third but would completely understand you doing the third.
 
What information would you have to hear to make you not call the police, social services, or just go next door and knock the guy out? I can tell you as a father that there would not be an explanation that would keep me taking one of those courses of action, regardless of the explanation. I can further tell as a social worker that you absolutely do the first two options regardless of the explanation given. I would advise you professionally from doing the third but would completely understand you doing the third.
Again, this is your emotion talking, not logic.

I am not a father, so I can approach the situation logically. You cannot.
 
WRT your last paragraph, you are looking at this entirely through a lens of your own experience and opinion. I understand that in the same way I cannot understand thinking showering with a boy is acceptable. But you have no idea what Sandusky's state of mind/reasoning was. I have explained how one might arrive at his conclusion (miscommunication with police/true belief he did nothing wrong). You cannot know if his intent was sexual or not.
The lengths people will go to here to rationalize something they hope it true is simply mind blowing. There is no state of mind or reasoning that makes it acceptable for Sandusky to have this sort of physical contact with a child while alone and naked in the shower, even more so when that child has a questionable background and is a member of a youth charity where Sandusky is the founder and was in a leadership position. It doesn't matter what his intent was, there's simply no justification for this behavior. None. Full stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
The lengths people will go to here to rationalize something they hope it true is simply mind blowing. There is no state of mind or reasoning that makes it acceptable for Sandusky to have this sort of physical contact with a child while alone and naked in the shower, even more so when that child has a questionable background and is a member of a youth charity where Sandusky is the founder and was in a leadership position. It doesn't matter what his intent was, there's simply no justification for this behavior. None. Full stop.
Agreed.

But you need to agree that unacceptable =/= illegal.
No justification =/= illegal

I'm not sure why it is impossible for people to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBuxton320
Again, this is your emotion talking, not logic.

I am not a father, so I can approach the situation logically. You cannot.
Again, no. Logic says you don’t find out if there was an appropriate for the man to be hugging a boy in the shower or shoving his face into his behind while holding a boy up to a shower head. I get that if. You don’t haVe children the concept might be a little foreign right you but honestly. It shouldn’t be that confusing.
 
Again, no. Logic says you don’t find out if there was an appropriate for the man to be hugging a boy in the shower or shoving his face into his behind while holding a boy up to a shower head. I get that if. You don’t haVe children the concept might be a little foreign right you but honestly. It shouldn’t be that confusing.
It shouldn't be that confusing to you that you have no way of knowing someone's intent and it is completely possible to have inappropriate horseplay (see also: Jackass the Movie) that is non-sexual.

One of many nice things about not having kids is that my judgement isn't clouded by the parenting instinct and I can clearly and logically discuss these issues.
 
It shouldn't be that confusing to you that you have no way of knowing someone's intent and it is completely possible to have inappropriate horseplay (see also: Jackass the Movie) that is non-sexual.

One of many nice things about not having kids is that my judgement isn't clouded by the parenting instinct and I can clearly and logically discuss these issues.
It’s not parenting instinct, it’s basic common sense. Grown men don’t hug children in the shower. Again, not a parenting instinct for non-pedophilic men but common sense. I can guarantee you that you will not meet one man the rest of your life who is not a pedophile that would say it’s just innocent fun to be hugging a child alone in a shower. I urge you to ask as many men you know or meet that question (then duck because some will surely just take a swing at you for even asking).
 
The lengths people will go to here to rationalize something they hope it true is simply mind blowing. There is no state of mind or reasoning that makes it acceptable for Sandusky to have this sort of physical contact with a child while alone and naked in the shower, even more so when that child has a questionable background and is a member of a youth charity where Sandusky is the founder and was in a leadership position. It doesn't matter what his intent was, there's simply no justification for this behavior. None. Full stop.
You must be a parent and not understand.
 
It’s not parenting instinct, it’s basic common sense. Grown men don’t hug children in the shower. Again, not a parenting instinct for non-pedophilic men but common sense. I can guarantee you that you will not meet one man the rest of your life who is not a pedophile that would say it’s just innocent fun to be hugging a child alone in a shower. I urge you to ask as many men you know or meet that question (then duck because some will surely just take a swing at you for even asking).
This just illustrates your lack of logic on the topic. I'm sorry I can't help you with that.
 
I don't understand any dissent here.....All I'm saying is JS deserves a new trial. I'd love to see everything from both sides presented to a more discerning public. No hysteria, no rush to judgement. Perhaps JS is guilty.....if this is the result of a fair trial, there is nothing to debate.
That used to be called “ the American Way”…but perhaps not the Pennsylvania way?
 
Last edited:
Your problem is that you are expecting reasonable arguments from people that have abandoned reasonable thought processes. They have resorted to totally ridiculous rationalizations to claim Jerry's behavior is absolutely acceptable. Invalidate one and they will move to another. None of them can provide an excusable explanation for naked one-on-one contact.
The behavior is abnormal and inappropriate but it doesn’t warrant being locked up for 30 -60 years and having numerous lives ruined so that accusers and attorneys can make millions of dollars.
 
This just illustrates your lack of logic on the topic. I'm sorry I can't help you with that.
Fair point. Grown men hugging kids in the shower and burying their faces into the behinds of the kids they are charged with caring for is perfectly logical.
Again, I ask you to ask all the non-pedophilic men you know who agrees with that. Sadly, I think you’ll be shocked with your findings.
 
The behavior is abnormal and inappropriate but it doesn’t warrant being locked up for 30 -60 years and having numerous lives ruined so that accusers and attorneys can make millions of dollars.
Those children then accused him of sexually assaulting them many times, several years later as adults. Now, were they making it all up? Possibly, who knows. But he is not in prison just because of his showering practices. That unfathomable behavior made the accusations of explicit sexual abuse much, much easier to be believed by a jury and his defense team didn’t seem to have any logical explanations to excuse the behavior.
 
Fair point. Grown men hugging kids in the shower and burying their faces into the behinds of the kids they are charged with caring for is perfectly logical.
Again, I ask you to ask all the non-pedophilic men you know who agrees with that. Sadly, I think you’ll be shocked with your findings.

A thought for you to consider.

PSU2UNC just might be jacking around.
 
A thought for you to consider.

PSU2UNC just might be jacking around.
I don’t think so. I wish that was the case- it would certainly hope so- but I don’t think so. Though it does make more sense than anything else.
 
Those children then accused him of sexually assaulting them many times, several years later as adults. Now, were they making it all up? Possibly, who knows. But he is not in prison just because of his showering practices. That unfathomable behavior made the accusations of explicit sexual abuse much, much easier to be believed by a jury and his defense team didn’t seem to have any logical explanations to excuse the behavior.

The point of this whole thread is that when the PA OAG is lying and conspiring against you, and the judicial system is not playing fair, and every victim has significant holes and/or quite unbelievable stories being used against you, it doesn’t matter what JS could have done or said back in 2012. Upon a longer term view of the evidence, it seems there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.

At minimum, he did not receive a fair and honest trial.
 
Great interview of John Ziegler by lawyer Chris Reid. Interview will replay on https://scottbeason.com tonight at 8pm cdt/9pm edt. 60 minute interview covered how the fiasco started; the perfect storm of circumstances that created the story; the v2 incident involving Mike McQueary and how the OAG got the day, month and the year wrong twice; why there were so many accusers; the media's role and why this story would never happen in Alabama.
Zieg knows, he knows, and it should be enough.
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."



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.
 
The point of this whole thread is that when the PA OAG is lying and conspiring against you, and the judicial system is not playing fair, and every victim has significant holes and/or quite unbelievable stories being used against you, it doesn’t matter what JS could have done or said back in 2012. Upon a longer term view of the evidence, it seems there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.

At minimum, he did not receive a fair and honest trial.
I’ve re-try said all along him all along. You’re going to start with the admitted showering and have a difficult time clearing him after that. As a non-lawyer, I will say that trial seemed like a mess.
 
Fair point. Grown men hugging kids in the shower and burying their faces into the behinds of the kids they are charged with caring for is perfectly logical.
Again, I ask you to ask all the non-pedophilic men you know who agrees with that. Sadly, I think you’ll be shocked with your findings.
I don't remember reading anything to indicate that Jerry was motorboating any kid's butt like this. Seems like this was added in to boost your point.

I think Connorpozlee continues to ignore the factor of Sandusky's age and upbringing. No, I wouldn't shower naked with kids and hug them. Most people would not even consider it. That is obvious. BUT, you are looking at this with a lot of hindsight, and while ignoring how people Jerry's age view nudity and showering against how it is viewed now.

Old dudes love showering in public. I don't get it, but it's true. Old dudes who grew up in rec homes where this happened all the time likely love showering in public even more. I think you are missing the possibility that Jerry was showering and messing around with kids in the shower and thinking that there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about it at all. I think that is possible, if not probable.
 
I don't remember reading anything to indicate that Jerry was motorboating any kid's butt like this. Seems like this was added in to boost your point.

I think Connorpozlee continues to ignore the factor of Sandusky's age and upbringing. No, I wouldn't shower naked with kids and hug them. Most people would not even consider it. That is obvious. BUT, you are looking at this with a lot of hindsight, and while ignoring how people Jerry's age view nudity and showering against how it is viewed now.

Old dudes love showering in public. I don't get it, but it's true. Old dudes who grew up in rec homes where this happened all the time likely love showering in public even more. I think you are missing the possibility that Jerry was showering and messing around with kids in the shower and thinking that there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about it at all. I think that is possible, if not probable.
Nope. Has nothing to do with age or views of nudity. And it has nothing to do with hindsight. Ask all the old dudes you know what they think of showering alone with a kid and hugging them. See how many say it’s a normal or alright thing to do. Ask them if any of this sounds OK (verbatim account of victim 6 from the grand jury presentment):

Victim 6 recalls being taken into the locker room next to Holuba Hall at Penn State by Sandusky when he was 11 years old, in 1998 Sandusky picked him up at his home, telling him he was going to be working out. As they were driving to the University, Sandusky put his right hand upon Victim 6's left thigh several times. When they arrived, Sandusky showed Victim 6 the locker rooms and gave him shorts to put on, even though he was already dressed in shorts. They then lifted weights for about 15 or 20 minutes. They played "Polish bowling" or "Polish soccer", a game Sandusky had invented, using a ball made out of tape and rolling it into cups.

Then Sandusky began wrestling with Victim 6, who was much smaller than Sandusky. Then Sandusky said they needed to shower, even though Victim 6 was not sweaty. Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred. Looking back on it as an adult, Victim 6 says Sandusky's behavior towards him as an ll year old boy was very inappropriate.
 
A thought for you to consider.

PSU2UNC just might be jacking around.
Keep in mind could be joking. Esp. Myers.

Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, that Mike McQueary was a liar, and that nothing sexual ever happened in the shower. And finally, Myers couldn't remember what he told the state attorney general's office after he flipped, and was claiming that Jerry had abused him.

Myers made all these fuzzy statements during a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where he was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial. A 48-page transcript of that hearing was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a curious reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. Myers' pathetic performance on the witness stand proves what a screwed-up case this is, featuring overreaching prosecutors and a hysterical news media.

The media blew it in part because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Myers, who, going by the transcript, clearly wasn't credible.

Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either he was dealing with early-onset Alzheimer's, or else he was lying about everything.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

So is this a chance you're willing to take, the judge asked. Sandusky told the judge his mind was made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he originally got to know the former Penn State assistant football coach through his Second Mile charity.

"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.
 
Logic says you don’t find out if there was an appropriate for the man to be hugging a boy in the shower or shoving his face into his behind while holding a boy up to a shower head.

I'm not sure what the first part was meant to say. But I'd want to know what the "hugging" was like. Was it side to side arm on the shoulder type hug? Or front to front with genitalia touching each other? And what was the reason for the hug? Did the child reach out emotionally and the adult simply reacted with a hug without thinking?

If that second part is true (I never heard that before), then I can't come up with any plausible excuse. The kid slipped and fell on his face? Yikes, we are down a creepy rabbit hole with this discussion.
 
I'm not sure what the first part was meant to say. But I'd want to know what the "hugging" was like. Was it side to side arm on the shoulder type hug? Or front to front with genitalia touching each other? And what was the reason for the hug? Did the child reach out emotionally and the adult simply reacted with a hug without thinking?

If that second part is true (I never heard that before), then I can't come up with any plausible excuse. The kid slipped and fell on his face? Yikes, we are down a creepy rabbit hole with this discussion.
Nah, the second part was an exaggeration by me, though not out of the realm of possibility. Here is the shower hugging story from one of the boys though. Tell me what you think of it. From the known ‘98 incident. If anybody on hear can read this and think it was just some good old shower horseplay I don’t know what else to tell them other than to make sure they stay out of public showers themselves because they are probably looking at some trouble:

Then Sandusky began wrestling with Victim 6, who was much smaller than Sandusky. Then Sandusky said they needed to shower, even though Victim 6 was not sweaty. Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred. Looking back on it as an adult, Victim 6 says Sandusky's behavior towards him as an ll year old boy was very inappropriate.
 
Then Sandusky began wrestling with Victim 6, who was much smaller than Sandusky. Then Sandusky said they needed to shower, even though Victim 6 was not sweaty. Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, "I'm going to squeeze your guts out." Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred. Looking back on it as an adult, Victim 6 says Sandusky's behavior towards him as an ll year old boy was very inappropriate.

As described, it's clearly over the line to inappropriate behavior. It's all Jerry initiating physical contact with a child while naked in the shower. If true, Jerry should have known better. But this makes me even more irritated with TSM. They knew he showered alone with young boys and gave him access to continue doing the same thing just off campus when told he wouldn't be allowed on campus with boys. And the PSU folks are the ones that did jail time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
As described, it's clearly over the line to inappropriate behavior. It's all Jerry initiating physical contact with a child while naked in the shower. If true, Jerry should have known better. But this makes me even more irritated with TSM. They knew he showered alone with young boys and gave him access to continue doing the same thing just off campus when told he wouldn't be allowed on campus with boys. And the PSU folks are the ones that did jail time.
Plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. The play by some on here to minimize it as just horseplay or it being OK because he wasn’t charged with a crime at the time is scary and ignorant to what this type of behavior intended for.
 
Fair point. Grown men hugging kids in the shower and burying their faces into the behinds of the kids they are charged with caring for is perfectly logical.
Again, I ask you to ask all the non-pedophilic men you know who agrees with that. Sadly, I think you’ll be shocked with your findings.
It's more shocking to me that you equate "hugging" with sex.

It's also odd that you think some sort of informal survey of "non-pedophiles" (how would I determine that exactly....ask them?) would be at all informative. I hope you don't have a job that involves data collection, QA or analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
It's more shocking to me that you equate "hugging" with sex.

It's also odd that you think some sort of informal survey of "non-pedophiles" (how would I determine that exactly....ask them?) would be at all informative. I hope you don't have a job that involves data collection, QA or analysis.
Again, wrong. I don’t equate hugging with sex. Now, unnecessary naked hugging initiated by an adult with a child with nobody else around? Yeah, that’s not being done for any innocent purposes. It’s preposterous to think so.
You don’t like my idea of asking people what they think about Jerry’s showering habits? Probably a good idea because you’d probably end up ducking punches from people for even asking a question that absurd like George W Bush ducking shoes.

https://media.tenor.com/images/4ea088c4b4829da524dc221387584976/tenor.gif
 
Again, wrong. I don’t equate hugging with sex. Now, unnecessary naked hugging initiated by an adult with a child with nobody else around? Yeah, that’s not being done for any innocent purposes. It’s preposterous to think so.
You don’t like my idea of asking people what they think about Jerry’s showering habits? Probably a good idea because you’d probably end up ducking punches from people for even asking a question that absurd like George W Bush ducking shoes.

https://media.tenor.com/images/4ea088c4b4829da524dc221387584976/tenor.gif
It's not preposterous.

Also, please define "necessary naked hugging initiated by an adult with a child with nobody else around"? Just curious, since you made sure to distinguish that this was "unnecessary".

Since we are exchanging random gifs:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
It's not preposterous.

Also, please define "necessary naked hugging initiated by an adult with a child with nobody else around"? Just curious, since you made sure to distinguish that this was "unnecessary".

Since we are exchanging random gifs:
I love Letterkenny, great show!
Obviously, there is no necessary naked hugging between a grown man and a child. There is also no acceptable naked hugging between a grown man and an unrelated child. Yet Jerry managed to find a way to make it happen (something no non-pedophile would ever do), didn’t he?
 
I love Letterkenny, great show!
Obviously, there is no necessary naked hugging between a grown man and a child. There is also no acceptable naked hugging between a grown man and an unrelated child. Yet Jerry managed to find a way to make it happen, didn’t he?
Agreed.

But again (deep breath), unacceptable does not equal illegal.
Outside of society norms does not equal illegal.
"Creepy" does not equal illegal.

 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
Agreed.

But again (deep breath), unacceptable does not equal illegal.
Outside of society norms does not equal illegal.
"Creepy" does not equal illegal.

Nope, unnecessary does not equal illegal. Though he was convicted of crimes in that ‘98 showed incident, wasn’t he? So what was unnecessary was also proven in a court of law to be illegal. I know he was acquitted of a couple charges related to that incident but I don’t think he was acquitted of all.
Anyway, you are trying to defend it as being an understandable thing to do. It’s not.
 
Nope, unnecessary does not equal illegal. Though he was convicted of crimes in that ‘98 showed incident, wasn’t he? So what was unnecessary was also proven in a court of law to be illegal. I know he was acquitted of a couple charges related to that incident but I don’t think he was acquitted of all.
Anyway, you are trying to defend it as being an understandable thing to do. It’s not.
I would postulate that he was only convicted (in 2012) of the 1998 shower incident because of the totality of the case. In other words, 1998 by itself was not charge worthy (which is born out by charges not being filed in 1998).

And if you dissect the rest of the charges, you find that the majority of them are either obviously false, or only seem like they could be true given the existence of the other charges. In other words, the whole thing is a house of cards that falls apart when you remove one of the supporting members. This includes 1998.
 
I would postulate that he was only convicted (in 2012) of the 1998 shower incident because of the totality of the case. In other words, 1998 by itself was not charge worthy (which is born out by charges not being filed in 1998).

And if you dissect the rest of the charges, you find that the majority of them are either obviously false, or only seem like they could be true given the existence of the other charges. In other words, the whole thing is a house of cards that falls apart when you remove one of the supporting members. This includes 1998.
Found the verdicts on the charges related to the ‘98 shower victim:
VICTIM 6
Count 28: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.
Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 30: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
You can postulate all you want to make Jerry innocent in your mind. Fact of the matter is that he was convicted for the showering nonsense. It’s not legal to bear hug boys in the shower, as proven in this case.
 
Found the verdicts on the charges related to the ‘98 shower victim:
VICTIM 6
Count 28: Indecent assault
Verdict: Not guilty.
Count 29: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 30: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 31: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
You can postulate all you want to make Jerry innocent in your mind. Fact of the matter is that he was convicted for the showering nonsense. It’s not legal to bear hug boys in the shower, as proven in this case.
You didn't really address my point about the interconnectivity of the charges you just reverted to "well, he was found guilty, so he must be guilty."

It doesn't sound like you are listening to the podcast. I strongly encourage you to do so.
 
You didn't really address my point about the interconnectivity of the charges you just reverted to "well, he was found guilty, so he must be guilty."

It doesn't sound like you are listening to the podcast. I strongly encourage you to do so.
I thought I would listen to the podcast but I realized I can’t take Ziegler for more than two minutes. Does he come up with a reasonable explanation for making kids who are sweaty shower with him and making them use the shower head directly next to his where he then hugs them and lathers them up (that’s pretty disgusting to even type).
I believe hugging an unrelated child in a shower is probably a crime. Why he wasn’t charged with it in ‘98 I don’t know, but it certainly seems like it was an inexcusable pattern of his.
I found this explanation of what might constitute corruption minors:

“What actions constitute something that would corrupt the morals of a minor are debatable. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has attempted to define the phrase “corrupting the morals of a minor” by explaining that it includes actions that would offend the common sense, sense of decency, propriety, and morality which most people in the community entertained.”
 
I thought I would listen to the podcast but I realized I can’t take Ziegler for more than two minutes. Does he come up with a reasonable explanation for making kids who are sweaty shower with him and making them use the shower head directly next to his where he then hugs them and lathers them up (that’s pretty disgusting to even type).
I believe hugging an unrelated child in a shower is probably a crime. Why he wasn’t charged with it in ‘98 I don’t know, but it certainly seems like it was an inexcusable pattern of his.
I found this explanation of what might constitute corruption minors:

“What actions constitute something that would corrupt the morals of a minor are debatable. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has attempted to define the phrase “corrupting the morals of a minor” by explaining that it includes actions that would offend the common sense, sense of decency, propriety, and morality which most people in the community entertained.”
He does. You should listen.

Regarding the explanation of the law, and what I think you fail to acknowledge, is that your interpretation of what is decent and moral is not everyone's interpretation of what is decent and moral. And I would further argue that with a lack of sexual intent, there is nothing immoral or indecent about showering together, even if that showering involves horseplay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
He does. You should listen.

Regarding the explanation of the law, and what I think you fail to acknowledge, is that your interpretation of what is decent and moral is not everyone's interpretation of what is decent and moral. And I would further argue that with a lack of sexual intent, there is nothing immoral or indecent about showering together, even if that showering involves horseplay.
It is what the vast majority of society thinks is moral. It’s why non-pedophilic men don’t do that. That’s why even all the people that come in here with weak excuses say they don’t do it. Because it is wrong, they know it’s wrong, and they would never even fathom doing it. Your defending of a grown man manipulating situations so that he gets them into showers alone and hugs them, lathers them up, holds them up to the shower head should be really concerning for you. Honestly. You can think it’s not illegal but it was and he was convicted of crimes for it.
I am not a lawyer but I still find it hard to believe that the perpetrators intentions are what define it as a crime or not.
 
It is what the vast majority of society thinks is moral. It’s why non-pedophilic men don’t do that. That’s why even all the people that come in here with weak excuses say they don’t do it. Because it is wrong, they know it’s wrong, and they would never even fathom doing it. Your defending of a grown man manipulating situations so that he gets them into showers alone and hugs them, lathers them up, holds them up to the shower head should be really concerning for you. Honestly. You can think it’s not illegal but it was and he was convicted of crimes for it.
I am not a lawyer but I still find it hard to believe that the perpetrators intentions are what define it as a crime or not.
If it isn't sexual, why is it wrong?
 
I would postulate that he was only convicted (in 2012) of the 1998 shower incident because of the totality of the case. In other words, 1998 by itself was not charge worthy (which is born out by charges not being filed in 1998).

And if you dissect the rest of the charges, you find that the majority of them are either obviously false, or only seem like they could be true given the existence of the other charges. In other words, the whole thing is a house of cards that falls apart when you remove one of the supporting members. This includes 1998.
There's absolutely no basis to conclude that the only reason they found him guilty for these specific charges for this specific victim is because of their thoughts about other victims and the case as a whole. This comes across as pure conjecture on your part. There's no evidence to support that opinion. By your logic, along with a lack of supporting evidence, couldn't every trial with multiple charges and victims be invalidated? To the contrary, finding him not guilty on one charge but guilty on others for the victim in question is an indication they did exactly what they were supposed to and evaluated each charge and victim individually. If they did what you state then how do you explain why he wasn't found guilty on all charges for all victims?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
ADVERTISEMENT