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

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
With 19 episodes I am sure a good number will be devoted to a fair airing from the side that believes Jerry is guilty.

Bottom line if at least 9 episodes don't cover that point of view this series has zero credibility
Please listen to the first podcast and provide your critique. I am guessing that if you do, it will be substance free and not a serious attempt to refute what is known to most all of the people who know the case the best and believe that something stinks to high heaven with the whole matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
With 19 episodes I am sure a good number will be devoted to a fair airing from the side that believes Jerry is guilty.

Bottom line if at least 9 episodes don't cover that point of view this series has zero credibility
I don't think you ever watching/listen to documentaries.

Did Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine spend 40% of the movie discussing why guns are good?

It is fine to have a thesis and try to support that thesis. In doing so you may have to refute alternative theses. But you do not have to give them equal time.

P.S. No one cares if you think this podcast has credibility or not. You are not the arbiter on that topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan and francofan

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,252
579
1
I don't think you ever watching/listen to documentaries.

Did Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine spend 40% of the movie discussing why guns are good?

It is fine to have a thesis and try to support that thesis. In doing so you may have to refute alternative theses. But you do not have to give them equal time.

P.S. No one cares if you think this podcast has credibility or not. You are not the arbiter on that topic.
Bad example,,

Moore gave the president of the NRA an opportunity to share his message, and aired the interview and interaction essentially unedited, if I recall.

Ziegler will not have the guts to do the same for this podcast, interviewing a prominent opposition voice.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,347
6,281
1
Bad example,,

Moore gave the president of the NRA an opportunity to share his message, and aired the interview and interaction essentially unedited, if I recall.

Ziegler will not have the guts to do the same for this podcast, interviewing a prominent opposition voice.
Nonsense! You have it backwards. A prominent opposition voice wouldn't have the guts to be interviewed by JZ.

Not saying I'd blame him/her. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.

But Ziegler would have everything to gain. The interview itself would give him credibility.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
Nonsense! You have it backwards. A prominent opposition voice wouldn't have the guts to be interviewed by JZ.

Not saying I'd blame him/her. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.

But Ziegler would have everything to gain. The interview itself would give him credibility.

I'm sure he'd love to interview one of the alleged victims, or maybe one of the disgraced prosecutors. I’m sure he has tried.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
Even Lubert has volunteered that some of the claimants are liars. Fat Boy Tommy got his ass kicked out of office, Fina has been branded a scum bag by his own kind, Jonelle can't get elected dog catcher, Baldwin has been reprimanded and is persona non grata, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has spanked Barry Feudale and the Surma Family has experienced untold grief. The Curse of Joe Paterno.....
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,207
9,117
1
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.

2. I have mentioned this before on here, a few years back. A couple from Lock Haven used to have the seats next to me for hockey. The first time a fraternity brother of mine went with me to a game, he got in a conversation with them about the JS case. He is a former player and very invested in the whole thing, especially from a C/S/S/P point of view. These folks told him that as soon as they saw one of the litigants' names from LH, they knew there was a 99+% chance that that particular case (at least) was fraudulent, as they knew the guy and knew he was a lifelong, well-known liar in the LH community.

It's a pipe dream anymore, but JS certainly deserves a new trial. And I'm far, far from sold on his innocence... and also maybe his guilt.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,619
24,885
1
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.

2. I have mentioned this before on here, a few years back. A couple from Lock Haven used to have the seats next to me for hockey. The first time a fraternity brother of mine went with me to a game, he got in a conversation with them about the JS case. He is a former player and very invested in the whole thing, especially from a C/S/S/P point of view. These folks told him that as soon as they saw one of the litigants' names from LH, they knew there was a 99+% chance that that particular case (at least) was fraudulent, as they knew the guy and knew he was a lifelong, well-known liar in the LH community.

It's a pipe dream anymore, but JS certainly deserves a new trial. And I'm far, far from sold on his innocence... and also maybe his guilt.
I wonder if anyone has ever spoken to any of AF's teachers at CMHS? I'm sure they would attest to his stellar character.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.

2. I have mentioned this before on here, a few years back. A couple from Lock Haven used to have the seats next to me for hockey. The first time a fraternity brother of mine went with me to a game, he got in a conversation with them about the JS case. He is a former player and very invested in the whole thing, especially from a C/S/S/P point of view. These folks told him that as soon as they saw one of the litigants' names from LH, they knew there was a 99+% chance that that particular case (at least) was fraudulent, as they knew the guy and knew he was a lifelong, well-known liar in the LH community.

It's a pipe dream anymore, but JS certainly deserves a new trial. And I'm far, far from sold on his innocence... and also maybe his guilt.

I would be very surprised if Tim had anything to say about the case publicly. When NCIS Special Agent John Snedden interviewed him as part of his federal investigation into whether Spanier's top-level security clearances should be renewed, Tim declined to discuss any specifics of the case and that leads me to believe that he will have nothing to say publicly.

Gary is a different story. He reportedly gave an interview to Ziegler that explained why he is certain that Sandusky is innocent. Ziegler has stated that his interview with Gary was one of the best interviews he has ever done. I believe that Ziegler assured him that he would not release the interview until he was out of legal jeopardy. I believe that Ziegler has stated the only person he shared his interview with Gary was to Malcolm Gladwell.

Around a year ago, Gary told me that "Once free (assume this means no longer on probation), I don't know in what circumstance I would be publicly speaking out, but I would probably only participate in some effort that has a good likelihood of having a meaningful impact." Based on this statement, I am guessing that Gary will not be speaking publicly about the case any time soon. It should be interesting to see if Ziegler will include this interview with Gary in his new podcast
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
54,819
28,088
1
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.
The interesting thing would be for him to explain the "after discussing it with Joe" comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,252
579
1
I'm sure he'd love to interview one of the alleged victims, or maybe one of the disgraced prosecutors. I’m sure he has tried.
Well, I don't know if you've watched any true documentaries, but you used the example of Mr. Moore, who managed to get the interview with NRA President Heston, and then proceeded to interview him calmly, without yelling, ranting, or interrupting.

Ziegler is simply not capable of any of that. He can't interview people on his own side respectfully, without interrupting, ranting, asking leading questions, etc.

Hey look, I hope the Shultz interview is part of it. But ... please note that if Mr. Ziegler is interrupting, ranting, and leading ... well, then it's not really pure Shultz thoughts - it was him being badgered.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
Pinkzippo PeanutButter said:
Well, I don't know if you've watched any true documentaries, but you used the example of Mr. Moore, who managed to get the interview with NRA President Heston, and then proceeded to interview him calmly, without yelling, ranting, or interrupting.

Ziegler is simply not capable of any of that. He can't interview people on his own side respectfully, without interrupting, ranting, asking leading questions, etc.

Hey look, I hope the Shultz interview is part of it. But ... please note that if Mr. Ziegler is interrupting, ranting, and leading ... well, then it's not really pure Shultz thoughts - it was him being badgered.

You’ve advocated for it many times, but I’ve always been against the designated hitter rule. By adding the DH, the league is dumbing down the game of baseball. They are attempting to take away the strategy and take away the need for intelligence about the game. Every true, long-term baseball fan should be completely against it.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
54,819
28,088
1
Keep in mind that the only change to the plan Tim proposed "after discussing it with Joe" was to inform Jerry of what had been reported to them.
The media interpreted this as Joe talking Curley out of reporting to the authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

lubrano

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2005
1,094
7,637
1
The media interpreted this as Joe talking Curley out of reporting to the authorities.
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
 
Last edited:

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
54,819
28,088
1
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
That's exactly what the evidence would lead me to believe but it would be nice to hear Curley clarify that was the case.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.

Anthony - I have a couple of questions for you if you will indulge me.

Do you think Tim will ever speak publicly about the whole travesty?

Were you interviewed for Ziegler’s new podcast?

Do you think the podcast will have any impact on public opinion on the case?
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
Anthony,

Have you bought into the assertion that the v2 incident that Mike witnessed ocurrred on Dec. 29, 2000 and not Feb. 9, 2001?
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Bad example,,

Moore gave the president of the NRA an opportunity to share his message, and aired the interview and interaction essentially unedited, if I recall.

Ziegler will not have the guts to do the same for this podcast, interviewing a prominent opposition voice.
You suggest that 9 episodes need to be devoted to the "other side". That is ludicrous. I'm sure they will cover what Sandusky was charged with and why. I serious doubt anyone from the OAG would agree to an interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
You suggest that 9 episodes need to be devoted to the "other side". That is ludicrous. I'm sure they will cover what Sandusky was charged with and why. I serious doubt anyone from the OAG would agree to an interview.
I also seriously doubt any of the claimants would agree to an interview, although Ziegler would love to interview them. I also think that Mike McQueary or that janitor witness Ronald Petrosky will not agree to an interview. I also believe that prominent people who are convinced Sandusky is guilty like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, or Ray Blehar would not be interested in being interviewed by Ziegler either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
I also seriously doubt any of the claimants would agree to an interview, although Ziegler would love to interview them. I also think that Mike McQueary or that janitor witness Ronald Petrosky will not agree to an interview. I also believe that prominent people who are convinced Sandusky is guilty like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, or Ray Blehar would not be interested in being interviewed by Ziegler either.
Agreed. Will be interesting to see if anyone from within the program participates. I know JZ has done good interviews with Dick Anderson in the past, but I'm not sure he is enough of a name to move the needle. Would be great if Jay was more public with what he knows/believes (which is very different from Scott).
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
Ziegler has a new banner on his twitter feed promoting the "With the Benefit of Hindsight . . ." podcast.

He states "The truth about what happened at Penn State has been locked in a vault for ten years - you've just been given the key."

 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
54,819
28,088
1
Agreed. Will be interesting to see if anyone from within the program participates. I know JZ has done good interviews with Dick Anderson in the past, but I'm not sure he is enough of a name to move the needle. Would be great if Jay was more public with what he knows/believes (which is very different from Scott).
Jay has talked about the Clemente report and how pedophiles groom their victims in a way that it difficult for others to notice. No way is Jay going to come out and claim JS is innocent. His position is that Joe didn't know what was happening before McQueary said something, that McQueary didn't mention sexual assault, and that Joe followed University and NCAA guidelines.

The only person who could possibly say anything that would help clear Joe's name is Curley and most wouldn't see him as credible anyway.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Jay has talked about the Clemente report and how pedophiles groom their victims in a way that it difficult for others to notice. No way is Jay going to come out and claim JS is innocent. His position is that Joe didn't know what was happening before McQueary said something, that McQueary didn't mention sexual assault, and that Joe followed University and NCAA guidelines.

The only person who could possibly say anything that would help clear Joe's name is Curley and most wouldn't see him as credible anyway.
I don't disagree with you about Jay's willingness to speak. But it is my understanding that he knows Sandusky is innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
54,819
28,088
1
I don't disagree with you about Jay's willingness to speak. But it is my understanding that he knows Sandusky is innocent.
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.

If it becomes evident that v1 (AF) and v2 (AM) were not sexually assaulted by JS, then the case against JS collapses. V1 and v2 are the pillars of the case against JS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,298
5,257
1
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.
True, but keep in mind there were only 8 victims that testified at trial. Depending on which 5 are proven to be liars, the most serious offenses could be much less serious that what he is currently convicted of.

If nothing else, my desire is that the general public knows that 99% of what they think they know about the case is wrong. I don't think this podcast (or anything really) will accomplish that, but every step in that direction is a positive, IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78 and francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,715
9,344
1
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
I also seriously doubt any of the claimants would agree to an interview, although Ziegler would love to interview them. I also think that Mike McQueary or that janitor witness Ronald Petrosky will not agree to an interview. I also believe that prominent people who are convinced Sandusky is guilty like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, or Ray Blehar would not be interested in being interviewed by Ziegler either.
Why do you think any of the claimants/victims would speak with Ziegler? What would be the benefit for them?
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,207
9,117
1
OK, word police. He strongly believes, based on more evidence than you or I have. Happy, Pappy?

There are a good number of very rational, logical, well-grounded, proud-to-know people who believe he is innocent. (I can't get there myself). In talking with a few, they tend to draw the fine-line distinction between their very strong beliefs, 99.99% certainty, and truly knowing. fwiw.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
884
314
1
I would be very surprised if Tim had anything to say about the case publicly. When NCIS Special Agent John Snedden interviewed him as part of his federal investigation into whether Spanier's top-level security clearances should be renewed, Tim declined to discuss any specifics of the case and that leads me to believe that he will have nothing to say publicly.

Gary is a different story. He reportedly gave an interview to Ziegler that explained why he is certain that Sandusky is innocent. Ziegler has stated that his interview with Gary was one of the best interviews he has ever done. I believe that Ziegler assured him that he would not release the interview until he was out of legal jeopardy. I believe that Ziegler has stated the only person he shared his interview with Gary was to Malcolm Gladwell.

Around a year ago, Gary told me that "Once free (assume this means no longer on probation), I don't know in what circumstance I would be publicly speaking out, but I would probably only participate in some effort that has a good likelihood of having a meaningful impact." Based on this statement, I am guessing that Gary will not be speaking publicly about the case any time soon. It should be interesting to see if Ziegler will include this interview with Gary in his new podcast

I have - extensively. He/She laughs at the concept of AF telling the truth about the time of day. Especially if a dollar is involved.
Had Sandusky's lawyer seen the Freeh Group's report of their interview of the juror, they would have discovered that she was a disgruntled employee who was already convinced, based on what she'd read in the newspapers, that Penn State had orchestrated a cover up of Sandusky's alleged crimes with children.

Had Sandusky's lawyer read that report, he would have never allowed the disgruntled and highly opinionated Penn State professor to sit on the jury that convicted Sandusky. And when Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's overwhelmed trial lawyer, was questioning the juror, Frank Fina, sitting over at the prosecutor's table, stayed silent. He never divulged that he was collaborating with Freeh's investigators on a regular basis, and may have even had his own copy of the juror's interview with Freeh's investigators.

How does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around an ethical cloud over that juror?

And in the McChesney diary, written by a former FBI agent who rose up the ranks to become the first woman to ever hold the No. 2 job in the bureau, McChesney casually drops the fact that she's been told Judge John Cleland isn't going to let anything delay Sandusky's rushed trial date.

How did she know that? In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers quote an affidavit from Amendola saying it wasn't him who told McChesney. So in their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers propose subpoenaing Judge Cleland to the evidentiary hearing, so he can explain that situation.

So now we already have an ethical cloud over not only one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky, and we also have a mushroom cloud over Fina, who sat silently while the juror was being questioned. And we also have an ethical cloud over the trial judge, who was hellbent on convicting Sandusky before the start of the 2012 Penn State football season, so the NCAA and Penn State could strike a deal on voluntary sanctions that would save the Nittany Lions from the death penalty.

And how does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around that?

Meanwhile, Sandusky's appeal lawyers are seeking to comb through thousands of pages of confidential documents known as the "source materials" for the Freeh Report. These are thousands of pages still under seal as the corrupt majority on the Penn State board of trustees seeks to keep an ongoing cover up in operation.

But every day, more of these documents are being leaked, on the scale of a Frank Fina type operation. And these documents that the Penn State board of trustees would like to keep secret are filled with further proof of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State.

Much of this information may be exculpatory, as the kind of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that Judge Nichols said didn't exist when she wrote her boneheaded opinion that denied Sandusky a new trial based on the non-existent, since-shredded credibility of Frank Fina.

Such as on March 12, 2012, when Louie Freeh's investigators got a phone call from Ronald Schreffler, a retired detective with the Penn State University Police Department. Schreffler was the detective who investigated the so-called first shower incident involving Jerry Sandusky and a young boy, back in 1998. It was an investigation of possible sex abuse that multiple authorities subsequently concluded was unfounded.

In the phone call, documented in a report by Richard Sethman, one of Freeh's investigators, Schreffler stated that "it has been clear to him from the beginning that there has been a leak of information in the attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky."

How did Schreffler know that?

"In March of 2011," the report says, "Sara Ganim, a reporter for the Patriot News in Harrisburg came to his residence and asked pointed questions about the 1998 Sandusky investigation," Sethman wrote after his conversation with the retired detective.

"Ganim advised Schreffler that she had a copy of the Pennsylvania State University Police report. She made specific reference to what Schreffler had written in the report. Schreffler asked Ganim how she got a copy of the report but Ganim would not reveal her source."

[But Frank Fina is still out looking for him, a search that could end the next time Fina looks in the bathroom mirror].

Schreffler subsequently told a neighbor who was a retired state police captain "about his encounter with Ganim and of his concern for a leak in the investigation."

On April 4, 2012, Sethman and another Freeh investigator, Tom Cloud, interviewed Schreffler. During the interview, the men at the table discussed the leak to Ganim of the 1998 police report.

"Schreffler stated that he wasn't sure of how information from the 1998 investigation has been leaked to the media but felt that it must be someone involved in the investigation."

Schreffler addd that the media somehow knew that there had been a conflict between the attorney general's office and the state police over whether to include the alleged victim of the 1998 shower incident, identified as Victim No. 6, in the official ranks of Sandusky's alleged victims, which according to Schrefler, "is information that only an insider would know."

In Pennsylvania, however, it can be dangerous to underestimate the level of official corruption. So if the Pennsylvania judiciary succeeds in circling the wagons again, and denying Sandusky's latest bid for a new trial, his only remedy will be, like Graham Spanier, to head to the federal courts, in search of a judge familiar with the U.S. Constitution.

It worked for Spanier, who, as soon as he escaped the corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary, found a federal magistrate who understood the Constitution. The magistrate immediately threw out the entire bankrupt case against the former Penn State president that had been ratified by every level of that corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary.

Either way, the truth will leak out, even amid a news blackout. Because no matter what the courts do, what's in those confidential documents will be shouted all over Big Trial.

More secrets that Frank Fina and Jonelle Eshbach and Louis Freeh and Mark Dambly don't want you to know.

Tracking the truth of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State has been a lonely vigil. Besides Big Trial, the only media outlet covering the new developments in the Sandusky case has been Search Warrant, a podcast hosted by three cops.

Big Trial was interviewed on one of those podcasts; Search Warrant has devoted a second podcast to a character witness for Sandusky who had intimate knowledge of a couple of the so-called victims in the case. The character witness also had an interesting story to tell about how one of the prosecutors in the case allegedly attempted to intimidate her after she testified.

In a brief preview of what's coming on future Search Warrant podcasts, John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, condemned the mainstream media's "failure to follow through on their obligation to be our watchdog."

"We at Search Warrant are currently unraveling the largest case of prosecutorial misconduct you will ever see," Snedden said. He talked about the McChesney diary written by the former FBI agent who "mistakenly thought it would never see the light of day."

"The diary details blatant collusion, corruption, and criminal acts on the part of the prosecution," Snedden said, before issuing what amounts to a declaration of war.

"Nobody hates a dirty cop or a a dirty prosecutor more than we do at Search Warrant," Snedden said.

"Follow along with us as we unravel this shocking, true story of how prosecutors denied men their constitutional and civil rights to fulfill a political vendetta. Join us as the tables are turned on dirty cops and dirty prosecutors who thought they could get away with it. It's a battle of good versus evil . . . It's about justice."

Meanwhile, the man at the center of this controversy called in today from the State Correctional Institute at Somerset.

In a phone interview, Sandusky said even he was optimistic about where his long-running case is headed next.

"I've been through so much that I don't want to get excited and very optimistic, but I am encouraged," he said. Despite being locked up for 30 to 60 years, "I've been hopeful forever," Sandusky said.

"I keep hoping the people are going to realize the travesty and all of the dishonesty and deception and everything that has transpired during this whole thing," he said. "That's my hope as much as anything. That they'll open their eyes and see."

"A lot of my coaching experiences weren't easy," recalled Sandusky, who was Joe Paterno's defense coach.

"But we were fighters who battled. I was surrounded by people like that and that's how I feel about this. This is wrong and I'm going to fight as long as I can fight."
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
Ziegler states that there will be "tons of new stuff" in the podcast.

He also states that he doesn't "believe" that Sandusky is not guilty, he has proven it.

 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,827
4,568
1
I will be interested to read about his proof that Sandusky is not guilty. It’s very difficult to prove a negative.

Ziegler's vehicle of proof will be a series of podcasts not a book. That being said, I doubt you will have the patience to listen to an entire podcast. I hope to summarize the key points of the podcasts with a pointer to the specific time in the podcast for people who are interested in the details.

In terms of proof, I believe Ziegler is talking about a stronger standard of the proof that juries use when they consider whether or not there is a reasonable doubt where he is convinced beyond any doubt in his mind that Sandusky is innocent.

I am convinced that Sandusky is innocent as well. I base my opinion on the facts of the case as well as the circumstantial evidence that I am aware of.

I base this on conversations and correspondence I have had with Jerry, Dottie, John Snedden, Mark Pendergrast, Gary Schultz, Al Lindsay, Dick Anderson, Ziegler, Bob Capretto and others. I also base this on a plethora of interviews I have listened to conducted by Ziegler as well as by Snedden and others, and on a review of court proceedings and briefs. In addition, my opinion is corroborated by Pendergrast's very thorough book on the case "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as Ralph Cipriano's numerous excellent posts on his bigtrial blog.

The key circumstantial evidence I have of Sandusky's innocence includes the corrpution of the OAG (Fina/Baldwin being sanctioned, Eschbach twisting McQueary's words in the gjp, the grand jury leaks, the McChesney diaries that showed collusion between the OAG and Freeh, juror tampering, etc.). Other key circumstantial evidence includes Sandusky's consistently proclaiming his innocence, not being a broken man, no pornography ever found in his possession, his hypogonadism diagnosis, and an excellent reputation before 2011. Finally, the key piece of circumstantial evidence to me is that there is no evidence that any of the 36 claimants made any contemporaneous reports of CSA to family members, friends, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy or anybody else.

I am looking forward to listening to the podcasts and I have no doubt that my belief in Sandusky's innocence will be further strengthened.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,715
9,344
1
Ziegler's vehicle of proof will be a series of podcasts not a book. That being said, I doubt you will have the patience to listen to an entire podcast. I hope to summarize the key points of the podcasts with a pointer to the specific time in the podcast for people who are interested in the details.

In terms of proof, I believe Ziegler is talking about a stronger standard of the proof that juries use when they consider whether or not there is a reasonable doubt where he is convinced beyond any doubt in his mind that Sandusky is innocent.

I am convinced that Sandusky is innocent as well. I base my opinion on the facts of the case as well as the circumstantial evidence that I am aware of.

I base this on conversations and correspondence I have had with Jerry, Dottie, John Snedden, Mark Pendergrast, Gary Schultz, Al Lindsay, Dick Anderson, Ziegler, Bob Capretto and others. I also base this on a plethora of interviews I have listened to conducted by Ziegler as well as by Snedden and others, and on a review of court proceedings and briefs. In addition, my opinion is corroborated by Pendergrast's very thorough book on the case "The Most Hated Man in America" as well as Ralph Cipriano's numerous excellent posts on his bigtrial blog.

The key circumstantial evidence I have of Sandusky's innocence includes the corrpution of the OAG (Fina/Baldwin being sanctioned, Eschbach twisting McQueary's words in the gjp, the grand jury leaks, the McChesney diaries that showed collusion between the OAG and Freeh, juror tampering, etc.). Other key circumstantial evidence includes Sandusky's consistently proclaiming his innocence, not being a broken man, no pornography ever found in his possession, his hypogonadism diagnosis, and an excellent reputation before 2011. Finally, the key piece of circumstantial evidence to me is that there is no evidence that any of the 36 claimants made any contemporaneous reports of CSA to family members, friends, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy or anybody else.

I am looking forward to listening to the podcasts and I have no doubt that my belief in Sandusky's innocence will be further strengthened.
When I said I will be interested read about his proof I meant most likely in here. I can’t handle listening to him for more than a minute or two. I’ve tried in the past but I always feel like I’m being yelled at for no reason. I’d rather just get the gist from you or others here.
I continue to believe he is guilty of crimes against children based upon his continued practice of having naked contact with unrelated children after agreeing to never do so again. As always though, I am open to changing my opinion.