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

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,474
5,459
1
Have at it. Makes me feel good knowing that you are expending your efforts trying to "educate" people, keeps you away from things that might be really dangerous with your involvement. As well as occupying the time of those stupid enough to buy into your concept of injustice.
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,474
5,459
1
Why do you believe that? That’s what I recall reading.
edit: You are correct. Just read this article to refresh my memory.

According to the 23-page document, the boy met Mr. Sandusky when he was 7 or 8, at a picnic held by The Second Mile, the nonprofit he founded for at-risk youth. After that, Mr. Sandusky would invite him to tailgates, football games and other outings. The now-grown man testified that when he was 11 in 1998, Mr. Sandusky picked him up at home and told him they would be working out. They went to Penn State, where they lifted weights and played a ball game Mr. Sandusky had made up.”

It included this gem, that you are defending as “horseplay”:
"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,'" according to the presentment. "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."
Your recall incorrectly:

"Victim 6 was referred to the Second Mile program by a school counselor. He met Sandusky at a Second mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he was seven or eight years old, in 1994 or 1995. After Sandusky interacted with Victim 6 after a skit at the picnic, Sandusky telephoned to invite Victim 6 to tailgate and attend a football game with some other boys. He was picked up by Sandusky. Victim 5, B.K., and other boys were present. They went to Holuba Hall, a football practice building on the Penn State campus, and were left there by Sandusky. They threw footballs around until it was time for them to walk to the tailgate hosted by Sandusky's family and then attended the football game.Victim 6 recalls this pattern repeating many times."

He knew Sandusky for at least three years prior, had interacted with him through the Second Mile and socially on many occasions prior to 1998.
 

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
732
385
1
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
Jerry is going to die in prison. Deal with it.

I'm the epitome of dispassionate about this. I really don't give a damn one way or another. It is you that seems to be overcome with passion about it.
 

Fac

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jun 5, 2001
5,627
3,220
1
I pity your partner if you think "chewing" is at all sexual.
At one time my two kids (early and late 20's at the time) thought the word "moist" was unacceptable in having a normal conversation
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
At one time my two kids (early and late 20's at the time) thought the word "moist" was unacceptable in having a normal conversation
I got yelled at once by a girl I was volunteering with for using the word moist. It was bizarre, but she really hates that word.
 

NoBareFeet

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2019
312
410
1
A grown man hugging you from behind in a shower, unsolicited, would have me calling the police immediately. Is that legal?
I am fairly certain I wouldn't call the police in this scenario. I would likely throw the offending party to the ground and unleash a bunch of homophobic expletives. If that didn't do the trick, perhaps full blown angry violence. If that didn't do the trick, then maybe the police, if someone else hadn't already done that for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
909
317
1
Your recall incorrectly:

"Victim 6 was referred to the Second Mile program by a school counselor. He met Sandusky at a Second mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he was seven or eight years old, in 1994 or 1995. After Sandusky interacted with Victim 6 after a skit at the picnic, Sandusky telephoned to invite Victim 6 to tailgate and attend a football game with some other boys. He was picked up by Sandusky. Victim 5, B.K., and other boys were present. They went to Holuba Hall, a football practice building on the Penn State campus, and were left there by Sandusky. They threw footballs around until it was time for them to walk to the tailgate hosted by Sandusky's family and then attended the football game.Victim 6 recalls this pattern repeating many times."

He knew Sandusky for at least three years prior, had interacted with him through the Second Mile and socially on many occasions prior to 1998.
What? Remember Kajak?
The only alleged victim to testify at the Spanier case was Michal Kajak, a 28-year-old previously identified in the Jerry Sandusky case as "Victim No. 5."

In the Spanier case, Kajak was sworn in as a witness behind closed doors in the chambers of Judge John Boccabella. Then, when the witness came out to testify, the judge introduced Kajak to the jury as "John Doe," and the lawyers in the case proceed to question him as John Doe.

While this circus was proceeding, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no conspiracy bloggers used their cellphone to take photos or videos of the celebrity witness who was getting preferential treatment.

The whole point of John Doe's tissue-soaked trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that Kajak/John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary made his famous visit there.

While extra deputies patrolled the courtroom, the sobbing witness told the jury that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky after the famous Mike McQueary shower incident. But the jury wasn't told what that alleged sex abuse of Kajak/Victim No. 5/John Doe was.

It wasn't rape; Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

The jury also wasn't told that because of the alleged abuse, Kajak collected in a civil settlement $8 million.

Kajak, AKA Victim No. 5 or John Doe, also gave four different dates for his alleged abuse in the shower with Jerry – in 1998, when he was 10 years old; in 2000 when he was 12; in 2001, before 9/11, when he was 13; and finally in 2001 after 9/11, when he would have been 14.
But because Kajak was a sacred cow, as certified by the judge in the secrecy and hoopla that accompanied Kajak's trip to the witness stand, the defense lawyers in the case were too intimidated to even ask one question.
Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.
That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.
In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.
"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."
That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.
"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."
As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.
The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.
As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."
"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."
"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.
"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.
As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

GTACSA

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2009
932
257
1
Oh dear lord. You're just doubling down on stupid today. My question was what testimony or evidence supports each verdict for the 1998 shower incident. Since you don't seem to understand, McQueary was the earwitness in 2002, 2001, 2000. There was an entirely separate event in 1998, which is the only incident we are talking about. So absolutely everything you say about the "McQuery" testimony (which even you say is not credible) is moot.

Sure, if you had actually read the thread before responding, you would see post after post specifically reference 1998. I'm sure you will somehow try to dispute this, because "trolls gotta troll". As and example, look at post #1291. I ask specifically about "the first shower incident", and @Connorpozlee replies with the the charges specific to the 1998 shower incident. If you go to page 32 or 33 of this thread and search for 1998, you get MANY hits. This is were you apologize for jumping in the middle of a conversation with a stupid comment, and wasting my time.

@Connorpozlee Shame on you for liking post #1325, a post messing up absolutely basic facts in this case. It's a great move if you want people to think you don't understand this case, or are so desperate for someone to give you backup that you will like any post regardless how stupid and off topic it is. Think about that while you are formulating a response to post #1310.

You
Oh dear lord. You're just doubling down on stupid today. My question was what testimony or evidence supports each verdict for the 1998 shower incident. Since you don't seem to understand, McQueary was the earwitness in 2002, 2001, 2000. There was an entirely separate event in 1998, which is the only incident we are talking about. So absolutely everything you say about the "McQuery" testimony (which even you say is not credible) is moot.

Sure, if you had actually read the thread before responding, you would see post after post specifically reference 1998. I'm sure you will somehow try to dispute this, because "trolls gotta troll". As and example, look at post #1291. I ask specifically about "the first shower incident", and @Connorpozlee replies with the the charges specific to the 1998 shower incident. If you go to page 32 or 33 of this thread and search for 1998, you get MANY hits. This is were you apologize for jumping in the middle of a conversation with a stupid comment, and wasting my time.

@Connorpozlee Shame on you for liking post #1325, a post messing up absolutely basic facts in this case. It's a great move if you want people to think you don't understand this case, or are so desperate for someone to give you backup that you will like any post regardless how stupid and off topic it is. Think about that while you are formulating a response to post #1310.
Good morning to you too.

I was mistaken about which shower incident you were referring to.

End of story.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: pandaczar12

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
Illegal or not it is damning circumstantial evidence that cannot be explained or ignored. There are people that have been convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence alone. The showering was believed by the jury to be enough to convict on those counts.

Just because you don't accept it does not invalidate their interpretation.

Jerry will die in custody.
I think there is a reasonable chance that Jerry will one day walk out of jail a free man.

He is 77 and in reasonable shape given what he has been through. He is mentally sharp and has a solid support system. It is evident that he is innocent.

If you are not so sure, please read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America," listen to John Ziegler's epic podcast "With the Benefit of Hindsight," read Professor Fred Crews' essay "Saint Sandusky?", read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog articles on the Penn State scandal, read John Snedden's 110 page redacted report on his federal investigation supporting the renewal of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances, and/or read Malcolm Gladwell's Penn State chapter in his book "Talking to Strangers."

If you are not convinced, please detail the reasons why you think Pendergrast, Ziegler, Crews, Cipriano, Snedden and/or Gladwell got it wrong.

Most everyone who has taken a retrospective deep dive into the case realize that there are major problems in the case. While not everyone is willing to acknowledge that Sandusky it clearly innocent (he absolutely is), everyone is willing to acknowledge that there were big problems in his trial and it was patently unfair.

More and more people now realize what a travesty of justice this entire case has been. One day some judicial body will realize this fact. I hope that this happens sooner rather than later and while Jerry is still alive.
 

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
732
385
1
I think there is a reasonable chance that Jerry will one day walk out of jail a free man.

He is 77 and in reasonable shape given what he has been through. He is mentally sharp and has a solid support system. It is evident that he is innocent.

If you are not so sure, please read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America," listen to John Ziegler's epic podcast "With the Benefit of Hindsight," read Professor Fred Crews' essay "Saint Sandusky?", read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog articles on the Penn State scandal, read John Snedden's 110 page redacted report on his federal investigation supporting the renewal of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances, and/or read Malcolm Gladwell's Penn State chapter in his book "Talking to Strangers."

If you are not convinced, please detail the reasons why you think Pendergrast, Ziegler, Crews, Cipriano, Snedden and/or Gladwell got it wrong.

Most everyone who has taken a retrospective deep dive into the case realize that there are major problems in the case. While not everyone is willing to acknowledge that Sandusky it clearly innocent (he absolutely is), everyone is willing to acknowledge that there were big problems in his trial and it was patently unfair.

More and more people now realize what a travesty of justice this entire case has been. One day some judicial body will realize this fact. I hope that this happens sooner rather than later and while Jerry is still alive.
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.
 

86Engineer

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2015
390
386
1
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.

The bolded part tells me that PSU2UNC was right....you have no intelligent argument to make.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.
I am very interested in listening to what you have to say concerning the behavior's that Jerry exhibited that are responsible for his criminal conviction. My agenda is the truth. At the time of the June 2012 trial, I thought Jerry was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted on.

Base on information that I have learned since then, I now believe that the jury got it wrong, that he was wrongly convicted and that a miscarraige of justice occurred.

If you can and are so inclined, please detail the reasons why you believe that Jerry is where he belongs. If you can cite hard evidence that would be great. If you can only refer to circumstantial evidence and your feeling and inclinations, that is fine as well.

My issue is that while there were many things amiss in the trial as you have acknowledged, there is also a dearth of hard evidence that Jerry committed the crimes that he was convicted of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
732
385
1
I am very interested in listening to what you have to say concerning the behavior's that Jerry exhibited that are responsible for his criminal conviction. My agenda is the truth. At the time of the June 2012 trial, I thought Jerry was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted on.

Base on information that I have learned since then, I now believe that the jury got it wrong, that he was wrongly convicted and that a miscarraige of justice occurred.

If you can and are so inclined, please detail the reasons why you believe that Jerry is where he belongs. If you can cite hard evidence that would be great. If you can only refer to circumstantial evidence and your feeling and inclinations, that is fine as well.

My issue is that while there were many things amiss in the trial as you have acknowledged, there is also a dearth of hard evidence that Jerry committed the crimes that he was convicted of.
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJollaLion

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,474
5,459
1
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
So your argument is that he is guilty because he was found guilty? That's some damn fine circular reasoning there.

You believe that no jury in the history of the United States has gotten a verdict wrong? I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty confident I could dig up some examples that disprove that notion.
 

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
732
385
1
So your argument is that he is guilty because he was found guilty? That's some damn fine circular reasoning there.

You believe that no jury in the history of the United States has gotten a verdict wrong? I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty confident I could dig up some examples that disprove that notion.
Where did I say I thought he is guilty? I said in the eyes of the law he is guilty. Now are you going to argue that is not factual? Does not matter what I or anybody else thinks, does not change that it is factual.
 

Lattner

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2011
843
273
1
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
Not so simple.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers say they have "recently received information regarding actions taken by attorneys representing individuals who have accused defendant of abusing them. Based upon that information, defendant asserts herein that certain actions taken by said attorneys would likely have affected the court testimony presented by alleged victims, and may also have had a significant effect upon decisions made by the jury in this case."

On June 7, 2011, a state trooper interviewed alleged victim No. 5, referred to by Sandusky's lawyers by his initials, "MK."

Michal Kajak, who got involved with Sandusky's Second Mile charity in 1996, initially claimed that he was sexually abused in the shower by Sandusky during the 1998 football season. According to Kajak's testimony at the Sandusky trial, he maintained that the shower incident occurred during the1998 football season in the East Area locker room, when Kajak was 10 years old.

On November 30, 2011, an individual identified as “John Doe A” filed a civil proceeding against The Second Mile and Penn State University, after which Penn State forwarded the claim to its insurer, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association [PMA].

"On May 17, 2012, MK changed the date of alleged abuse to August, 2001, and the location was also changed to the Lasch Building locker room," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"As noted below, by this time, Penn State’s settlement subcommittee had adopted criteria for consideration of settlements of civil claims in which claims beginning in 2001 and later would receive the highest settlement offers," Sandusky's lawyers.

On July 12, 2016, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Penn State had agreed to pay $93 million to more than 30 of Sandusky's alleged accusers. In the same article, the newspaper reported that PMA was "challenging the assertion that it should cover these payments," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"An expert hired by the company reported that: 'It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals.' ”

This is an understatement, as I previously documented in a story headlined Easy Money at Penn State, which chronicles how the Penn State trustees passed out $118 million to 36 victims, with virtually no questions asked. https://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state that Kajak was represented by "a highly respected and recognized civil attorney." According to Sandusky's lawyers, that attorney, who is not named in the motion, "made ongoing public statements expressing his opinions of the evidence" in the Sandusky case.

Kajak's attorney who appeared on TV was noted Philadelphia lawyer Tom Kline, who did not respond to a request for comment.

On Dec. 10, 2011, Sandusky's lawyers say, Kline commented on TV about what might happen at a preliminary hearing in the Sandusky case.

“You will see at this hearing many victims testifying about a pattern of conduct, which occurred over a long period of time and was predatory in nature," Kline said, according to Sandusky's lawyers.

When Sandusky's trial began on June 18, 2012, according to Sandusky's lawyers, Kine appeared on TV again and stated that he was not impressed by Sandusky's defense.

“If this is what we are having to preview as to the strength of the defense, I am not overwhelmed, and I think it was really not a very strong beginning," Kline stated.

The next day, on June 19, 2012, Kline told the media that two defense witnesses did not do the defendant any favors.

“There was an odd and bizarre attempt to convince the jury somehow that showering [with kids] is culturally accepted in this world. I don’t see how that takes anyone very far," Kline was quoted as saying.

On that same day, Kline also defended what Sandusky's lawyers described as "suggestive questioning of the accusers by law enforcement."

“I think it was perfectly appropriate for a trooper with a reluctant witness, an investigator with a reluctant witness, especially in the face of sex crimes that were done to children when they were young to suggest, look, you don’t want to talk about this, you should know you’re not alone," Kline said.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers quote the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6, as stating:

“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be [disseminated] by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

"It is readily apparent that [Kline] had participated in the investigation of this matter, and had actually participated briefly in the litigation by filing in the criminal proceedings a motion to preserve the confidentiality of the identity of his client in those proceedings on May 29, 2012," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Accordingly, his conduct was governed by that rule."

"It is clear that counsel commented multiple times on the credibility of witnesses, and made clear his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of appellant, in these recordings and in other statements made to media and/or publications," Sandusky's lawyers wrote about Kline.

"The propriety of counsel’s conduct in this matter is not the issue that must be addressed," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Rather, the issue is whether, given the statements made by counsel, the violation of this rule, and the clear indication that, in a proceeding of this type, those violations 'are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect' on the proceeding," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

On Sept. 4, 2013, Kajak's claim against Penn State was settled for $8.1 million.

In their motion for an evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers seek to question Kline about "the nature and extent to which counsel for MK made statements to media or publications prior to, or during, appellant’s trial in these cases."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to question Kline about "The nature and extent to which counsel for MK participated in the investigation and preparation for the criminal proceedings in which [Sandusky] was defendant."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to convene an evidentiary hearing to determine: "The precise relationship between the criminal investigation, the Freeh investigation, the settlement committee created by PSU, [and] the Office of Attorney General, and attorneys representing alleged victims," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"It has been alleged by [Sandusky] in pretrial motions and thereafter that his accusers/alleged victims have communicated with each other throughout the course of the investigation conducted by the Office of Attorney General, and that his accusers/alleged victims have changed their testimony over time in ways which would enhance their civil claims against Appellant, Penn State and others," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"If, as previously alleged by defense counsel, the accusers/alleged victims communicated directly with each other, or through counsel, and if their description of what occurred, and where and when it occurred, was changed by them in ways which would enhance the value of their civil claims, and if their counsel tolerated or encouraged such changes, the evidence presented to the jury would have been false and misleading, and a new trial would be warranted," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

An alleged victim peddles a fictitious story of abuse to attorney Andrew Shubin

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers extensively quote A.J. Dillen, a witness who appeared on reporter John Ziegler's April 21st podcast, "With the Benefit of Hindsight."

Dillen was a former Second Mile participant who met with Andrew Shubin, a State College lawyer who represented nine alleged victims of Sandusky, and did not respond to a request for comment.

On the podcast, Dillen said he went to see Shubin "pretending to be a victim of Sandusky." According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen told Shubin "a fictitious story about being raped by Sandusky in the park area immediately behind Coach Joe Paterno’s house."

According to Dillen, over a three-year period, as he repeatedly met with attorney Shubin and a therapist, they refined Dillen's story of abuse so that Dillen would have a better shot at getting paid.

"Dillen met with this attorney multiple times over a period of three years regarding his purported claim," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "During a number of these meetings, Dillen recorded what was being said with the consent of the attorney."

"In his second meeting with this 'victim,' while being recorded, the attorney read back a different story, changing the number of attacks, and the location of the attacks to the Penn State showers," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"He [Shubin] also stated that Dillen had reported the abuse to Penn State officials, who didn’t believe him," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "None of those new facts were stated by Dillen in the initial interview, and none were true, but all of them would increase the value of any civil proceeding on his behalf."

"Thereafter, the attorney referred him to a mental health counselor, who, according to Dillen, met with him approximately 100 times," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Dillen also recorded certain of the interactions with that counselor as well."

"During his sessions with the counselor, a number of which were recorded, Dillen indicates that he was subjected repeatedly to repressed memory therapy, a process that the prosecution in this case denied using on alleged victims," Sandusky's lawyers write.

In an evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers say they would like to question Shubin about "the nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by Dillen, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to know: "The nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by other accusers who had consulted with him, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

And: "The extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen shared the existence of any changes in any accuser’s reporting of alleged abuse" by Sandusky, his lawyers wrote.

Recovered memory issues resurface

Sandusky's lawyers noted that in previous appeals, the courts have accepted the testimony of therapists in the Sandusky case who denied using repressed memory therapy, which is banned in some states, and not accepted by other courts as evidence.

But "in treating A.J. Dillen," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, "the therapist at one point states:

“We are talking about why you repressed or hid these memories. I think that people do repress memories and that people don’t really think there is a whole continuum of what that means. Sometimes it means they totally forget and it is not in their consciousness at all until something happens sometime in their life… "

"At this end of the continuum, the other side is knowing but not willing to think of it so putting it out of your mind, like what you do with anything unpleasant. But knowing it is there, just not focusing and then there are things in between. This over here on the end is repressed memory. I prefer to use the word disassociation - just means disconnect . . . There are all different ways we disconnect.”

According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen asked, “can people disconnect for years?”

“Yes, people can disconnect for years," the therapist replies, according to Sandusky's lawyers.

"They can disconnect from the knowledge, from what happened, they can disconnect from the feelings, from body sensations. Disassociation happens when you are in a situation that is beyond what is normal… A person can forget about it, and then something happens. A little like a light coming through a window can trigger the memory after years and years. And suddenly they are 'what the hell is happening…' ”.

According to the podcast, Dillen told the therapist that he blamed himself for not remembering the abuse.

“You’re not crazy because you didn’t remember it," the therapist replied. "It’s the way we deal with overwhelming trauma… Psychological defenses… Kick in automatically. It’s part of your brain that deals with that (compartmentalization). When you’re young you tend to forget. I have talked to quite a few guys that were abused by Sandusky, and this is the case with most of them.”

"This therapist met with Dillen weekly for three years, and had him attending multiple group meetings, despite well-accepted principles, which will be articulated by Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. [Elizabeth] Loftus, to the effect that the combination of the suggestive questioning, the use of repressed memory methodology, and the presence of regular group meetings with others making similar claims," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"As a result of the foregoing, the trial court should be given the opportunity to hear testimony and evidence on the allegations set forth herein, listen to the podcast referenced herein, and determine whether PCRA relief was improperly denied and should now be granted, whether any of the accusers subjected to repressed memory should be deemed incompetent to testify . . . and whether a new trial should be granted based on this after discovered evidence," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

The subject of the use of recovered memory therapy at the Sandusky trial was the subject of The Most Hated Man In America; Jery Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, a 2017 book written by Mark Pendergrast, which was excerpted on bigtrial.net.

Finally, the Honorable Senior Judge John C. Cleland

No investigation into the legal travesty that was the Sandusky case would be complete without interviewing Judge John Cleland, who presided over the media circus known as the Sandusky trial, which attracted 240 reporters and 10 TV trucks.

Nine years later, I'm the only reporter left in North America who thinks the Sandusky case might still be a story. Especially since the first time around, they may have gotten everything completely wrong.

If only Sandusky were a black transexual, the social justice warriors at The Philadelphia Inquirer and other mainstream media outlets might be interested in his case, especially because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct and the trampling of a defendant's constitutional rights during every phase of the investigation, prosecution, and trial of Sandusky, not to mention the appeal process that's been willfully blind to all those abuses.

But alas, since Jerry's an old Protestant white guy who might have been completely railroaded by overzealous prosecutors, amateur detectives, quack therapists, tainted judges, lobotomized university trustees, brain-dead reporters, opportunistic "victims" and their greedy lawyers lining up for a big pay day, nobody gives a rip.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state that they want to interview Judge Cleland about the events of Dec. 11, 2011. That was the night before the preliminary hearing in the case, when Judge Cleland convened a highly unusual meeting with both prosecutors and defense lawyers at the Hilton Garden Inn.

At the preliminary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers would have had their only chance to confront Sandusky's accusers, the eight young men who would claim at trial that Sandusky had abused them. But Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, testified that if he didn't agree to waive the preliminary hearing, the attorney general's office had made it clear that they were going to seek bail for Sandusky in the vicinity of $1 million.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
16,108
25,678
1
This is also something someone says when they have no intelligent argument to make.

"Deal with it."

LOL.

What's next: "I'm rubber, you're glue."?
Or someone who has acquaintances or relatives who have profited from the 2011 PSU Gold Rush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07

ThePennsyOracle

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 9, 2015
5,161
4,335
1
Strongly disagree with your logic as I've said many times before.

In the absence of context, you might be correct, but when you add the relevant context surrounding these allegations, it becomes clear that it is completely logical that this was innocent.

I asked this earlier in the thread and didn't get a response from you (I don't think):

Given that Jerry has denied all wrong doing, why did he admit to showering and horseplay? The only way that makes any sense is that it was not sexual in nature. If he is a pedophile and had denied everything else, he would have denied that too. There is no logical reason to deny everything else and admit to that, unless the shower incident was, in fact, innocent.
It’s amazing that Covid discussion gets deleted at BWI while a thread that’s basically a NAMBLA convention is just fine.

Weird flex @Tom McAndrew
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
It’s amazing that Covid discussion gets deleted at BWI while a thread that’s basically a NAMBLA convention is just fine.

Weird flex @Tom McAndrew

If you are not interested in this discussion, please ignore it.

Please don't conflate support for a person's constitutional rights with support for CSA.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are huge problems with the OAG's case against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators.

You are welcome to join a civil discussion on the events surrounding the cases, but please refer to credible evidence if you are able. The facts are that there is a dearth of specific credible evidence that Sandusky is a child molester and that Penn State administrators enabled a child molester.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
Thank you for your response.

I asked because I thought there may have more basis for your opinion. I am not surprised that you didn't share any hard evidence because there is none. You have stated that you don't believe that Gricar did a rigorous investigation of the 98 incident based on some conspiracy theory. I am not buying it.

The OAG did a masterful job of selling their narrative using questionable means. I believe they undertook prosecutorial misconduct as part of their win at all cost, the end justifies the means strategy. It seems like the OAG believed that Jerry was a child molester, but that doesn't justify their grand jury leaks to Sara Ganim, their false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, their violating attorney-client privilege, their juror tampering, their Brady violation and their other questionable tactics.

The media has bought into the OAG narrative that Sandusky is a monster child molester and Penn State knowingly enabled him hook, line and sinker. The media has no interest in admitting they got the story wrong or reporting that their story could possibly be wrong in spite of very strong evidence that it is. Not surprisingly, to this day public opinion is overwhelming against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators. Consequently, in Pennsylvania where judges have to face elections on a periodic basis there is little incentive to give a fair shake to Sandusky or the Penn State administrators.

I grant you that having 1-1 unsupervised contact with at-risk minors is a recipe for disaster for both the minors and their adult guardians. I believe that showering with unrelated minors and having physical contact with them is not a good idea and raises suspicion that it might be intended grooming leading to CSA. I can understand why people will assume the worst based on Sandusky's questionable behavior.

On the other hand, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that Sandusky did not have any sexual intent. None of the 36 accusers that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports of CSA of any kind to friends, family members, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy etc. There is no physical evidence that Sandusky harmed any child. Sandusky had up until then had a totally clean record. He didn't drink alcohol, smoke, consume drugs or use profanity. No pornography of any kind has ever been found in his possession. Sandusky was born with vestigial testicles that left him almost devoid of testosterone and, necessarily, less interested in sex than other men.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
Thank you for your response.
I asked because I thought there may have more basis for your opinion. I am not surprised that you didn't share any hard evidence because there is none. You have stated that you don't believe that Gricar did a rigorous investigation of the 98 incident based on some conspiracy theory. I am not buying it.

The OAG did a masterful job of selling their narrative using questionable means. I believe they undertook prosecutorial misconduct as part of their win at all cost, the end justifies the means strategy. It seems like the OAG believed that Jerry was a child molester, but that doesn't justify their grand jury leaks to Sara Ganim, their false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, their violating attorney-client privilege, their juror tampering, their Brady violation and their other questionable tactics.

The media has bought into the OAG narrative that Sandusky is a monster child molester and Penn State knowingly enabled him hook, line and sinker. The media has no interest in admitting they got the story wrong or reporting that their story could possibly be wrong in spite of very strong evidence that it is. Not surprisingly, to this day public opinion is overwhelming against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators. Consequently, in Pennsylvania where judges have to face elections on a periodic basis there is little incentive to give a fair shake to Sandusky or the Penn State administrators.

I grant you that having 1-1 unsupervised contact with at-risk minors is a recipe for disaster for both the minors and their adult guardians. I believe that showering with unrelated minors and having physical contact with them is not a good idea and raises suspicion that it might be intended grooming leading to CSA. I can understand why people will assume the worst based on Sandusky's questionable behavior.

On the other hand, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that Sandusky did not have any sexual intent. None of the 36 accusers that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports of CSA of any kind to friends, family members, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy etc. There is no physical evidence that Sandusky harmed any child. Sandusky had up until then had a totally clean record. He didn't drink alcohol, smoke, consume drugs or use profanity. No pornography of any kind has ever been found in his possession. Sandusky was born with vestigial testicles that left him almost devoid of testosterone and, necessarily, less interested in sex than other men.
The initial investigator into Jerry’s showering incident in ‘98 thought he should have been charged then. The mystery is why didn’t Gricar choose to do so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,404
7,138
1
The initial investigator into Jerry’s showering incident in ‘98 thought he should have been charged then. The mystery is why didn’t Gricar choose to do so?
Can you get a conviction when another coach was present in the locker room(Seasock's report)?
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
The initial investigator into Jerry’s showering incident in ‘98 thought he should have been charged then. The mystery is why didn’t Gricar choose to do so?

There is no mystery. Griar didn't charge because there was no indication of CSA. Jerry was a cooperative witness and he denied CSA. V6 was a cooperative witness and he also denied CSA. A sting operation was done when Jerry visited v6's house without success. The result was that no charges were filed and Jerry was not indicated.

The only mystery to me is why were the files of the 1998 investigation not expunged as they should have been for unfounded reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
There is no mystery. Griar didn't charge because there was no indication of CSA. Jerry was a cooperative witness and he denied CSA. V6 was a cooperative witness and he also denied CSA. A sting operation was done when Jerry visited v6's house without success. The result was that no charges were filed and Jerry was not indicated.

The only mystery to me is why were the files of the 1998 investigation not expunged as they should have been for unfounded reports.
Let’s be honest, there are a lot of mysteries to the case.
Records were probably not expunged because they knew they’d have to come back to it because even if they thought there was not enough to charge him then, they knew there was no innocent reason for him to engaging in such inexcusable practices.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
Can you get a conviction when another coach was present in the locker room(Seasock's report)?
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know. Was the other coach in the shower with them? The lawyer that was involved decided not to charge him so I have guess he has the ultimate say in it. The police investigator that investigated it at the time thought he should have been charged.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know. Was the other coach in the shower with them? The lawyer that was involved decided not to charge him so I have guess he has the ultimate say in it. The police investigator that investigated it at the time thought he should have been charged.

Do you have any evidence that that any investigator stated in 1998 that Sandusky should be charged?
 

JoeBatters1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,713
1,468
1
That is the irony of 98 in that it appears the only crime committed was not destroying that report per requirements of PA law at the time.

There is no mystery. Griar didn't charge because there was no indication of CSA. Jerry was a cooperative witness and he denied CSA. V6 was a cooperative witness and he also denied CSA. A sting operation was done when Jerry visited v6's house without success. The result was that no charges were filed and Jerry was not indicated.

The only mystery to me is why were the files of the 1998 investigation not expunged as they should have been for unfounded reports.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
Do you have any evidence that that any investigator stated in 1998 that Sandusky should be charged?
I just read it the other day. Let me see if I can find it again.
Edit: Here is the quote:

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.

From this article:

 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
I just read it the other day. Let me see if I can find it again.
Edit: Here is the quote:

"At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors," Mr. Schreffler said on Wednesday, the day after Mr. Sandusky chose to waive his preliminary hearing on 52 counts that accuse him of molesting 10 boys over the last several years.

From this article:

As I thought, this was in 2011, not in 1998. This is looking at the case with a different lens. After the false grand jury presentment in 2011, everyone (myself included) thought Sandusky was a child molester. It seems like Schreffler 2011 comment may have been a CYA move. In any case, the charging decision was from Gricar and not Schreffler. Schreffler only provided input.

Do you agree that as part of the investigation in 1998 that both Sandusky and v6 denied that CSA had occurred and that the sting operation failed?
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,962
9,687
1
As I thought, this was in 2011, not in 1998. This is looking at the case with a different lens. After the false grand jury presentment in 2011, everyone (myself included) thought Sandusky was a child molester. It seems like Schreffler 2011 comment may have been a CYA move. In any case, the charging decision was from Gricar and not Schreffler. Schreffler only provided input.

Do you agree that as part of the investigation in 1998 that both Sandusky and v6 denied that CSA had occurred and that the sting operation failed?
That was my point, made pretty clearly I thought. The guy who’s job it was to decide whether or not charges should be made decided not to charge. That’s on him. The one who actually interacted with the victim and the assailant thought he should be charged. He stated here that he was frustrated at the time that charges were not brought. If you want to perform mental gymnastics to make it something other than what it says, have at it. If Simone Biles had your ability to focus she’d be walking around with a gold medal right now. I’m just reading what it says and have no reason to make it something other than what he said.
Yes, I’ve read that both denied it. Do you agree that it is pretty par for the course for a child victim of sexual abuse to deny it? Do you also agree that most people accused of sexually abusing a child deny it as well?
Did the sting operation fail? Yes, because Gricar decided not to charge him. The police officer believed he should have been charged so from his perspective at the time, he got Sandusky to admit enough to be charged with a crime. Ultimately however, he was convicted on three charges related to that victim so I guess in the long, long run it worked to a degree.
 
Last edited:

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,855
4,601
1
That was my point, made pretty clearly I thought. The guy who’s job it was to decide whether or not charges should be made decided not to charge. That’s on him. The one who actually interacted with the victim and the assailant thought he should be charged. He stated here that he was frustrated at the time that charges were not brought. If you want to perform mental gymnastics to make it something other than what it says, have at it. If Simone Biles had your ability to focus she’d be walking around with a gold medal right now. I’m just reading what it says and have no reason to make it something other than what he said.
Yes, I’ve read that both denied it. Do you agree that it is pretty par for the course for a child victim of sexual abuse to deny it? Do you also agree that most people accused of sexually abusing a child deny it as well?
Did the sting operation fail? Yes, because Gricar decided not to charge him. The police officer believed he should have been charged so from his perspective at the time, he got Sandusky to admit enough to be charged with a crime. Ultimately however, he was convicted on three charges related to that victim so I guess in the long, long run it worked to a degree.

I asked you "Do you have any evidence that that any investigator stated in 1998 that Sandusky should be charged?" and you apparently misunderstood my question.

I believe that Schreffler made his 2011 comment with hindight bias. I don't know if Schreffler believed in 1998 that Sandusky should be charged

I also don't know that it is par for the course for a CSA vistim to deny it.

I believe that the 1998 investigation was by the book and that Gricar and CYS came to the correct conclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeBatters1

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
909
317
1
Thank you for your response.

I asked because I thought there may have more basis for your opinion. I am not surprised that you didn't share any hard evidence because there is none. You have stated that you don't believe that Gricar did a rigorous investigation of the 98 incident based on some conspiracy theory. I am not buying it.

The OAG did a masterful job of selling their narrative using questionable means. I believe they undertook prosecutorial misconduct as part of their win at all cost, the end justifies the means strategy. It seems like the OAG believed that Jerry was a child molester, but that doesn't justify their grand jury leaks to Sara Ganim, their false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, their violating attorney-client privilege, their juror tampering, their Brady violation and their other questionable tactics.

The media has bought into the OAG narrative that Sandusky is a monster child molester and Penn State knowingly enabled him hook, line and sinker. The media has no interest in admitting they got the story wrong or reporting that their story could possibly be wrong in spite of very strong evidence that it is. Not surprisingly, to this day public opinion is overwhelming against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators. Consequently, in Pennsylvania where judges have to face elections on a periodic basis there is little incentive to give a fair shake to Sandusky or the Penn State administrators.

I grant you that having 1-1 unsupervised contact with at-risk minors is a recipe for disaster for both the minors and their adult guardians. I believe that showering with unrelated minors and having physical contact with them is not a good idea and raises suspicion that it might be intended grooming leading to CSA. I can understand why people will assume the worst based on Sandusky's questionable behavior.

On the other hand, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that Sandusky did not have any sexual intent. None of the 36 accusers that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports of CSA of any kind to friends, family members, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy etc. There is no physical evidence that Sandusky harmed any child. Sandusky had up until then had a totally clean record. He didn't drink alcohol, smoke, consume drugs or use profanity. No pornography of any kind has ever been found in his possession. Sandusky was born with vestigial testicles that left him almost devoid of testosterone and, necessarily, less interested in sex than other men.
Ganim leaks were fiction.
Problem No. 1 with Ganim's new story is that the scoop the reporter was peddling directly contradicted one of her previous scoops. Where she claimed that Paterno, who's no longer around to defend himself, knew about a previous allegation of sex abuse regarding Sandusky dating back to 1971.

She also writes in her latest story about the 1998 shower incident as though it's some kind of mystery, even though Ganim, who did not respond to a request for comment, was intimately familiar with all the details.

So when did Joe know that Jerry might be a pedophile, Sara? Was it in 1998? Or was it way back in 1971? Or was it in 1976, with another alleged incident involving a "John Doe 150" that Ganim covered in her Saturday story.

Problem No. 2 with Ganim's latest scoop -- the reporter has an ethical conflict that is undisputed.

At Sandusky's trial, the prosecutors from the state attorney general's office admitted in a legal stipulation that Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Sandusky while working for The Patriot News of Harrisburg, had meddled in a supposedly secret grand jury investigation. An investigation that was in danger of expiring if the prosecutors didn't find more alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky.

So how did Ganim meddle? By acting as an agent for the state attorney general's office when she contacted the mother of the naked 10-year old who was allegedly hugged in the shower back in 1998.

Ganim's ethical conflict was laid out in a legal brief filed by Sandusky's lawyers in their arguments for a new trial. In the brief, Sandusky's lawyers wrote that Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave the mother the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, left this message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."
So when Sara Ganim writes another story about Joe Paterno and the Penn State sex scandal, it's not exactly like Bob Woodward opining about Richard Nixon and Watergate. But that didn't prevent Ganim from making a splash with her bogus scoop in gullible mainstream media outlets, such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, by generating a fresh round of headlines asking What did Joe Know and When Did He Know It?

Let's get to Ganim's new evidence and lay out why the source of it is tainted, as well as the product of an investigation marked by blatant police and prosecutorial misconduct.

The one page Pennsylvania state police report from 2011, supposedly obtained from a source, Ganim wrote, is "described here for the first time." The report "lays out an account from whistleblower Mike McQueary," who was telling Paterno about the infamous shower incident from 2001 starring a naked Jerry Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy.

"Paterno allegedly told McQueary in 2001 that the claim against Sandusky 'was the second complaint of this nature he had received," according to the police report, which was written after Sandusky's arrest 10 years later," Ganim wrote.

"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."

Nice dramatic touches for a police report. Next, Ganim writes:

"Then he [Paterno] made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection."

The police report also noted, Ganim wrote, that Paterno allegedly told McQueary that Dottie Sandusky, Jerry's wife, had told Sue Paterno, Joe's wife, that "Jerry doesn't like girls."


Let's start with McQueary, who, according to Ganim, is now writing a book about his exploits as the alleged Penn State whistleblower.

As former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden has said, McQueary is not a credible witness. As a special agent for the Federal Investigative Service, Snedden investigated former Penn State President Graham Spanier in 2012, to determine whether his top secret security clearance should be renewed by the federal government. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no sex crime at Penn State and no coverup.

Snedden didn't believe McQueary was credible because he told five different versions of what he saw and heard in the Penn State showers, featuring slapping sounds and fleeting glimpses of naked people in the shower. The day he witnessed the shower event, McQueary was repeatedly questioned by his father, a doctor, and a friend of his father's, another doctor, about what happened. McQueary could not definitely say whether he had witnessed a sexual attack or horseplay. And that's why neither of the two doctors, both mandated reporters, ever told the police.

McQueary was also questioned by two Penn State administrators, who came to the same conclusion as the two doctors, that McQueary wasn't sure what he saw or heard in the showers. So they didn't report it to the police either.

"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said in a previous interview with Big Trial, to describe why McQueary wasn't a credible witness. "If it's real it's always been the same thing," Snedden said.
"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.
"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has never responded to multiple requests for comment.


That didn't stop the attorney general's office from running with their exaggerated version of McQueary's story.

The 2011 grand jury report was built around a lie. It claimed that McQueary witnessed a 10-yar-old boy in the showers being subjected to “anal intercourse” by a “naked Jerry Sandusky.” McQueary supposedly told Joe Paterno about it, and two other university officials, but Penn State covered it up, the grand jury report says.

But McQueary himself was shocked when he read the grand jury report. He emailed the prosecutors, saying they had “twisted” his words. ”I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy,” McQueary wrote. “I did not see insertion.”

The investigation conducted by the state police in the Sandusky case also included stone-cold proof of police misconduct on tape. On April 21, 2011, the state police made the mistake of leaving a tape recorder on, and the machine caught the police deliberately lying to one alleged victim to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell.

State Troopers Joseph Leiter and Scott Rossman were interviewing alleged victim Brett Houtz at the police barracks, with Houtz’s attorney Benjamin Andreozzi present. While Houtz took a cigarette break the two troopers continued talking with Houtz’s lawyer. They assumed the tape-recorder was turned off but it wasn't.
In their conversation captured for eternity, the troopers talked about how it took them months to get details of sex attacks out of Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Penn State case, and how they’re sure that Houtz was a rape victim too. The troopers then discussed how to get more details of sex abuse out of Houtz.
Attorney Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us.’ ”
“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Trooper Leiter said. Sure enough, when Houtz returned, Trooper Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.”

The trooper told Houtz about nine adults that they had already talked to and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating word for word pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”
The troopers, however, had only interviewed three alleged victims at that point, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse. But Houtz didn't know that.
“I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing,” Trooper Leiter told Houtz. “He [Sandusky] took advantage of you . . . [but] We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place as we get through this procedure. I just want you to understand that you are not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this.”

That's what you call coaching a witness, to manufacture testimony.

The condemnation of Ganim's most recent story came from many quarters.

"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."

"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."

"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry. The incident in question is the 1998 episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded. I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."

"On the brighter side, I'm glad to see that Sara and the rest of the news media has seemingly dropped the absurd notion that Joe Paterno was told in the 1970s about abuse that never happened by accusers who made up stories for Penn State money," Dottie Sandusky wrote.
Former Special Agent Snedden called Ganim's scoop "revisionist history."

"The whole thing is absurd," Snedden said about the supposedly new police report from 2011. "It was written ten years after the fact," Snedden said about the 2001 shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary, and described to the state police in 2011.

"Police reports are supposed to be contemporaneous," Snedden said. About the 2011 police report concerning the 2001 shower incident, Snedden asked, "How is that contemporaneous?"

The CNN story, Snedden said, is the product of either "trying to either cover your ass or bolster your position. It appears to me that she [Ganim] doesn't even go through the motions of asking if it's accurate."

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

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

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

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

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

"That tells us that McQueary never said anything [to Paterno] about a sexual assault because Joe already knows that 1998 [the first alleged shower incident] is a nothing burger," Ziegler said. "Had McQueary actually said something about a sexual assault Joe would have never connected it to 1998, because the [Centre County] D.A. had already cleared Sandusky."
Ziegler said he has come to the conclusion that Ganim "was a very ambitious and also very naive or stupid person who got used" by the prosecutors in the Sandusky case to basically "put out a Craig's list ad" for more victims of sexual abuse.

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

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

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

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

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