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

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1

The trailer is out and it well worth a listen. It is 7 minutes and 57 seconds and Ziegler is only speaking for maybe 20 seconds.

As I guessed, FOX LA Sports anchor Liz Habib is the co-host. Liz is a Pitt alumnus and her brother played football at Penn State.

Mike Agovino is the executive producer and Kevin Campbell is the technical producer.

The trailer starts with a segment with Malcolm Gladwell who compliments Ziegler and states the case is hard and is not Larry Nassar. It is shrouded in mystery up to and including the most important witness (Mike McQueary).

Around the 4 minute mark there is an exchange between Ziegler and Scott Paterno where Scott alleges that Ziegler made an incredibly racist joke about OJ and his white wife and that he will tell Franco and make sure that nobody in the Penn State family will have anything to do with Ziegler. Ziegler denies the allegations

John Snedden's federal investigation will be covered in episode 4. He states that the main bad guy in the story is former Governor Tom Corbett who is clearly a very vindictive individual.

People who will be interviewed on the podcast include Gary Schultz, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, Franco Harris, A. J. Dillen (posed as a victim for 3 years), Josh Fravel, Bruce Heim, Jerry, and Dottie.

Here is a link to the trailer:

 
Last edited:

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
I will be interested to read about his proof that Sandusky is not guilty. It’s very difficult to prove a negative.





Around the 4 minute mark there is an exchange between Ziegler and Scott Paterno where Scott alleges that Ziegler made an incredibly racist joke about OJ and his white wife and that he will tell Franco and make sure that nobody in the Penn State family will have anything to do with Ziegler. Ziegler denies the allegations


The exchange with Scott seemed like a weird thing to highlight. Maybe trying to be controversial to drum up clicks, but an odd choice.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
The exchange with Scott seemed like a weird thing to highlight. Maybe trying to be controversial to drum up clicks, but an odd choice.

Maybe they did it to appease Hippo's contention that they should include some opposing view points. :)

I agree with you that it is an odd choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
884
314
1


The trailer is out and it well worth a listen. It is 7 minutes and 57 seconds and Ziegler is only speaking for maybe 20 seconds.

As I guessed, FOX LA Sports anchor Liz Habib is the co-host. Liz is a Pitt alumnus and her brother played football at Penn State.

Mike Agadino (sp?) is the executive producer and Kevin Campbell is the technical producer.

The trailer starts with a segment with Malcolm Gladwell who compliments Ziegler and states the case is hard and is not Larry Nassar. It is shrouded in mystery up to and including the most important witness (Mike McQueary).

Around the 4 minute mark there is an exchange between Ziegler and Scott Paterno where Scott alleges that Ziegler made an incredibly racist joke about OJ and his white wife and that he will tell Franco and make sure that nobody in the Penn State family will have anything to do with Ziegler. Ziegler denies the allegations

John Snedden's federal investigation will be covered in episode 4. He states that the main bad guy in the story is former Governor Tom Corbett who is clearly a very vindictive individual.

People who will be interviewed on the podcast include Gary Schultz, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, Franco Harris, A. J. Dillon (posed as a victim for 3 years), Josh Fravel, Bruce Heim, Jerry, and Dottie.

Here is a link to the trailer:

John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,886
40,057
1
Baltimore, MD
John Snedden, a former NCIS agent who is a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, talked about his six-month top secret investigation of Graham Spanier and PSU.

Back in 2012, at a time when nobody at Penn State was talking, Snedden showed up in Happy Valley and interviewed everybody that mattered.

Because Snedden was on a mission of the highest importance on behalf of the federal government. Special Agent Snedden had to decide whether Graham Spanier's high-level security clearance should be renewed amid widespread public accusations of a coverup.

And what did Snedden find?

"There was no coverup," Snedden flatly declared on Ziegler's podcast. "There was no conspiracy. There was nothing to cover up."

The whole world could have already known by now about John Snedden's top secret investigation of Spanier and PSU. That's because Snedden was scheduled to be the star witness at the trial last week of former Penn State President Graham Spanier.

But at the last minute, Spanier's legal team decided that the government's case was so lame that they didn't even have to put on a defense. Spanier's defense team didn't call one witness before resting their case.

On Ziegler's podcast, "The World According To Zig," the reporter raged about that decision, calling Spanier's lawyers "a bunch of wussies" who set their client up for a fall.

Indeed, the defenseless Spanier was convicted by a Dauphin County jury on just one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. But the jury also found Spanier not guilty on two felony counts. Yesterday, I asked Samuel W. Silver, the Philadelphia lawyer who was Spanier's lead defender, why they decided not to put Snedden on the stand.

"No, cannot share that," he responded in an email. "Sorry."

On Ziegler's podcast, Snedden, who was on the witness list for the Spanier trial, expressed his disappointment about not getting a chance to testify.

"I tried to contact the legal team the night before," Snedden said. "They were going to call me back. I subsequently got an email [saying] that they chose not to use my testimony that day."


When Snedden called Spanier's lawyers back, Snedden said on the podcast, the lawyers told him he
wasn't going to be called as a witness "not today or not ever. They indicated that they had chosen to go a minimalistic route," Snedden said.

What may have been behind the lawyers' decision, Snedden said, was some legal "intel" -- namely that jurors in the Mike McQueary libel case against Penn State, which resulted in a disasterous $12 million verdict against the university, supposedly "didn't like Spanier at all."

"The sad part is that if I were to have testified all the interviews I did would have gone in" as evidence, Snedden said. "And I certainly think the jury should have heard all of that."

So what happened with Spanier's high-level clearance which was above top-secret -- [SCI -- Sensitive Compartmented Information] -- Ziegler asked Snedden.

"It was renewed," Snedden said, after he put Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours.

In his analysis of what actually happened at Penn State, Snedden said, there was "some degree of political maneuvering there."

"The governor took an active role," Snedden said, referring to former Gov. Tom Corbett. "He had not previously done so," Snedden said, "until this occurred."

As the special agent wrote in his 110-page report:

"In March 2011 [Gov.] Corbett proposed a 52 percent cut in PSU funding," Snedden wrote. "Spanier fought back," publicly declaring the governor's proposed cutback "the largest ever proposed and that it would be devastating" to Penn State.

At his trial last week, Graham Spanier didn't take the witness stand. But under oath while talking to Snedden back in 2012, Spanier had plenty to say.

"[Spanier] feels that his departure from the position as PSU president was retribution by Gov. Corbett against [Spanier] for having spoken out about the proposed PSU budget cuts," Snedden wrote.

"[Spanier] believes that the governor pressured the PSU BOT [Board of Trustees] to have [Spanier] leave. And the governor's motivation was the governor's displeasure that [Spanier] and [former Penn State football coach Joe] Paterno were more popular with the people of Pennylvania than was the governor."

As far as Snedden was concerned, a political battle between Spanier and Gov. Corbett, and unfounded accusations of a coverup, did not warrant revoking Spanier's high-level security clearance. The special agent concluded his six-month investigation of the PSU scandal by renewing the clearance and giving Spanier a ringing endorsement.

"The circumstances surrounding subject's departure from his position as PSU president do not cast doubt on subject's current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment and do not cast doubt on his ability to properly safeguard national security information," Snedden wrote about Spanier.


At the time Snedden interviewed the key people at Penn State, former athletic director Tim Curley and former PSU VP Gary Schultz were already under indictment.

Spanier was next in the sights of prosecutors from the attorney general's office. And former FBI Director Louie Freeh was about to release his report that said there was a coverup at Penn State masterminded by Spanier, Curley and Schultz, with an assist from Joe Paterno.

Snedden, however, wasn't buying into Freeh's conspiracy theory that reigns today in the mainstream media, the court of public opinion, and in the minds of jurors in the Spanier case.

"I did not find any indication of any coverup," Snedden told Ziegler on the podcast. He added that he did not find "any indication of any conspiracy, or anything to cover up."

Snedden also said that Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former general counsel, "provided information to me inconsistent to what she provided to the state." Baldwin told Snedden that "Gov. Corbett was very unhappy" with Spanier because he "took the lead in fighting the governor's proposed budget cuts to PSU."

That, of course, was before the prosecutors turned Baldwin into a cooperating witness. The attorney-client privilege went out the window. And Baldwin began testifying against Spanier, Curley and Schultz.

But as far as Snedden was concerned, "Dr. Spanier was very forthcoming, he wanted to get everything out," Snedden said.

"Isn't possible that he just duped you," Ziegler asked.

"No," Snedden deadpanned. "I can pretty well determine which way we're going on an interview." Even though he was a Penn State alumni, Snedden said, his mission was to find the truth.

"I am a Navy veteran," Snedden said. "You're talking about a potential risk to national security" if Spanier was deemed untrustworthy. Instead, "He was very forthcoming," Snedden said of Spanier. "He answered every question."

On the podcast, Ziegler asked Snedden if he turned up any evidence during his investigation that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.

"It was not sexual," Snedden said about what Mike McQueary allegedly heard and saw in the Penn State showers, before the prosecutors got through hyping the story, with the full cooperation of the media. "It was not sexual," Snedden insisted. "Nothing at all relative to a sexual circumstance. Nothing."

About PSU's top administrators, Snedden said, "They had no information that would make a person believe" that Sandusky was a pedophile.


"Gary Schultz was pretty clear as to what he was told and what he wasn't told," Snedden said. "What he was told was nothing was of a sexual nature."

As for Joe Paterno, Snedden said, "His involvement was very minimal in passing it [McQueary's account of the shower incident] to the people he reported to," meaning Schultz and Curley.

Spanier, 68, who was born in Cape Town, South Africa, became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. When Snedden interviewed Spanier, he couldn't recall the exact date that he was approached by Curley and Schultz with the news about the shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary.

It was "approximately in the early 2000 decade," Snedden wrote, when Spanier recalled being approached by Schultz and Curley in between university meetings. The two PSU administrators told Spanier they wanted to give him a "head's up" about a report they had received from Joe Paterno.

"A staff member," Snedden wrote, "had seen Jerry Sandusky in the locker room after a work out showering with one of his Second Mile kids. [Spanier] knew at the time that Jerry Sandusky was very involved with the Second Mile charity," Snedden wrote. "And, at that time, [Spanier] believed that it only involved high school kids. [Spanier] has since learned that the charity involves younger disadvantaged children."

Because it was Spanier's "understanding at that time that the charity only involved high school kids it did not send off any alarms," Snedden wrote. Then the prosecutors and their friends in the media went to work.

"Curley and Schultz said that the person who had given the report was not sure what he had seen but that they were concerned about the situation with the kid in the shower," Snedden wrote
Is it just me but were the defense attorneys for both JS and Spanier complete idiots?
Frankly they along with good ole Cynthia should be sued for malpractice and then disbarred.
 

JeannieNeedsAShooter

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 17, 2007
1,126
1,013
1
I will be interested to read about his proof that Sandusky is not guilty. It’s very difficult to prove a negative.
I’d like for someone to prove he’s guilty, ziegler has proven how upside down this entire situation is. The problem is people (especially Penn Staters who are emotionally invested and traumatized by this point) can’t admit they were/are dead wrong.
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,210
9,121
1
Maybe they did it to appease Hippo's contention that they should include some opposing view points. :)

I agree with you that it is an odd choice.

Isn't Heim also a surprising person to be interviewed? He is one of the people who dropped the ball on behalf of TSM, no? If he/they had done the right thing back in 2001, none of C/S/S/P would have been blamed for anything 10 years later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74 and BBrown

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,304
5,263
1
Is it just me but were the defense attorneys for both JS and Spanier complete idiots?
Frankly they along with good ole Cynthia should be sued for malpractice and then disbarred.
I'm not a lawyer but I think many times an attorney looks at the law, looks at the evidence and then says, well, there is very clearly not enough evidence to convict. The burden is not on us to prove innocence. We can take a fairly conservative approach and will still win.

They can tend to discount that jurors can be morons, or that judges can make incorrect (or corrupt) rulings or that prosecuting attorneys will play dirty.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
I’d like for someone to prove he’s guilty, ziegler has proven how upside down this entire situation is. The problem is people (especially Penn Staters who are emotionally invested and traumatized by this point) can’t admit they were/are dead wrong.
Yeah. It’s tough to prove child sexual abuse one way or the other. Especially 10+ years after it happened.
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,333
6,951
1
People who will be interviewed on the podcast include Gary Schultz, Al Lord, Bob Capretto, Franco Harris, A. J. Dillon (posed as a victim for 3 years), Josh Fravel, Bruce Heim, Jerry, and Dottie.
The long awaited Schultz interview and fake V going on the record? Those interviews alone will be worth listening to the series.
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
Isn't Heim also a surprising person to be interviewed? He is one of the people who dropped the ball on behalf of TSM, no? If he/they had done the right thing back in 2001, none of C/S/S/P would have been blamed for anything 10 years later.

I believe that Curley reported the v2 incident to Jack Raykowitz, the CEO of TSM. I am not sure of Bruce Heim’s role at TSM. I spoke to Heim at one of the Sandusky hearings a year or two ago. He said that when the grand jury presentment came out, he like a lot of us thought that Jerry could have fooled him and might be guilty as charged. As he learned more information, his opinion changed. I believe he eventually gave some money to Jerry’s defense fund.

TSM has become a bogeyman for a lot of people who were upset that Penn State was implicated in the scandal. If Jerry is guilty, then responsibility for Jerry’s actions lies more with TSM than with Penn State. However, if Jerry is innocent then there is no culpability for Jerry’s actions from either TSM or Penn State. However that does not excuse TSM’s protocols for 1-on-1 contact with at risk children or other practices.

I am going to reserve judgment until I hear the interview with Heim. I am interested in what he has to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,252
579
1
The exchange with Scott seemed like a weird thing to highlight. Maybe trying to be controversial to drum up clicks, but an odd choice.

I mean Scott has no reason to make that claim up. And Zig hates OJ passionately bc he dated Ron's sister.

If you have ever spoken to Zig about OJ you'd know it's easy to trigger him, and if you think he goes crazy on this case , you haven't seen anything.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
She certainly seems to be unbiased. LOL
I didn’t even read the whole article. It was the first linked that popped up in a google search. But the part about not showering was quoted from the police report, wasn’t it? Biased or not doesn’t really matter there if she’s quoting the report.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
I didn’t even read the whole article. It was the first linked that popped up in a google search. But the part about not showering was quoted from the police report, wasn’t it? Biased or not doesn’t really matter there if she’s quoting the report.
I don't believe anything I read anymore. I wasn't part of any conversation JS had with police. Who really knows what was said? Perhaps he was advised not to shower with that child again? I certainly would have avoided such a situation. However, I also don't know how many times he did shower with Second Mile kids after that. Does anyone? As far as Allan Myers, hell the kid was 14 and basically lived with Dottie and Jerry. I've said many times, I only know that many of the claimants are complete liars. All of them?...can't say....is Jerry 100% innocent?.....can't go that far. But I do know he wasn't raping boys in his family room while Dottie was home.
I also know that someone who was a long time close friend of Jerry.....never, ever believed any of the charges were legitimate. This person was a man I respected more than any man in my life outside of my father. So you see how I lean.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
I mean Scott has no reason to make that claim up. And Zig hates OJ passionately bc he dated Ron's sister.

If you have ever spoken to Zig about OJ you'd know it's easy to trigger him, and if you think he goes crazy on this case , you haven't seen anything.
Is there anyone Zig didn't "date?"
 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
Who provided the alleged quote... Schreffler? Sandusky?
I believe that Amy Davidson Sorkin was quoting the grand jury presentment.

Once, in 1998, the State College police got involved, but the investigation went nowhere; one of the many dismaying passages in the document is this: “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said he would not.”

The alleged quote is in dispute. Sandusky has stated that he was understanding that Schreffler advised him to never again shower with zk (v6) and in the course of a 13 year friendly relationship he never did. In fact, zk has never alleged that Sandusky did anything sexual with him. In 2011, his tune changed somewhat to state he believed that Sandusky might have been grooming him. The fact still remains that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA, Penn State police, State College police, and CYS which resulted in Sandusky not being charged with any crime and not being indicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarasotan

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
I believe that Amy Davidson Sorkin was quoting the grand jury presentment.

Once, in 1998, the State College police got involved, but the investigation went nowhere; one of the many dismaying passages in the document is this: “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said he would not.”

The alleged quote is in dispute. Sandusky has stated that he was understanding that Schreffler advised him to never again shower with zk (v6) and in the course of a 13 year friendly relationship he never did. In fact, zk has never alleged that Sandusky did anything sexual with him. In 2011, his tune changed somewhat to state he believed that Sandusky might have been grooming him. The fact still remains that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA, Penn State police, State College police, and CYS which resulted in Sandusky not being charged with any crime and not being indicated.
Now surely everyone can agree that the grand jury presentment was a pile of hot steaming bullshit.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
884
314
1
The exchange with Scott seemed like a weird thing to highlight. Maybe trying to be controversial to drum up clicks, but an odd choice.
Not so fast.
"None of it makes any sense," Snedden said about McQueary's tale. "It's not a credible story."

Back in 2001, Snedden said, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen.

If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something to stop it.

"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.

If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"

Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, then why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building? The locker room where McQueary supposedly saw Sandusky with the boy in the showers.

When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.

"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"

At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.

Working on behalf of FIS, Snedden wrote a 110-page report, all in capital letters, where he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.

In his report, Snedden interviewed Thomas G. Poole, Penn State's vice president for administration. Poole told Snedden he was in Graham Spanier's office when news of the Penn State scandal broke, and Penn State's then-senior Vice President Gary Schultz came rushing in.

Schultz blurted out that "McQueary never told him this was sexual," Snedden wrote. Schultz was shocked by what McQueary told the grand jury, Snedden wrote.

"He [McQueary] told the grand jury that he reported to [Schultz] that this was sexual," Schultz told Poole and Spanier.

"While speaking, Schultz shook his head back and forth as in disbelief," Snedden wrote about Poole's observations. Poole "believes it appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this information."
"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said. "If it's real it's always been the same thing."

But that's not what happened with McQueary. And Snedden thinks he knows why.
"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 not responded to multiple requests for comment.

In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.

"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.
[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."

There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.

There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.

Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."

Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.

Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.

Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."

Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.
Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.

Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.
"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."
Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?

"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."

How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?

"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."

"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."

"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.

It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.

Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."
Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.

Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.

There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.

At an executive session, the vice chairman of the PSU board, John Surma, the CEO of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh, told his fellow PSU board members, "We need to get rid of Paterno and Spanier," Snedden said. And then Surma asked, "Does anybody disagree with that?"

"There wasn't even a vote," Snedden said. In Snedden's report, Dr. Rodney Erickson, the former PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier "is collateral damage in all of this."

Erickson didn't believe there was a coverup at Penn State, because of what Spanier had told him.

"I was told it was just horsing around in the shower," Spanier told Erickson, as recounted in Snedden's report. "How do you call the police on that?"

On the night the board of trustees fired Paterno, they kept calling Paterno's house, but there was no answer. Finally, the board sent a courier over to Paterno's house, and asked him to call Surma's cell phone.


When Paterno called, Surma was ready to tell the coach three things. But he only got to his first item.
 

IsomsPopBelly

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2019
1,276
1,004
1
Just put a Lenny Moore or Cappy statue where the Italian Orc Monster and its monstrous hands used to be and be done with all this noise.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
Not so fast.
"None of it makes any sense," Snedden said about McQueary's tale. "It's not a credible story."

Back in 2001, Snedden said, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen.

If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something to stop it.

"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.

If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"

Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, then why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building? The locker room where McQueary supposedly saw Sandusky with the boy in the showers.

When he was a baby NCIS agent, Snedden said, a veteran agent who was his mentor would always ask the same question.

"So John," the veteran agent would say, "Where is the crime?"

At Penn State, Snedden didn't find one.

Working on behalf of FIS, Snedden wrote a 110-page report, all in capital letters, where he catalogued the evidence that led him to conclude that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.

In his report, Snedden interviewed Thomas G. Poole, Penn State's vice president for administration. Poole told Snedden he was in Graham Spanier's office when news of the Penn State scandal broke, and Penn State's then-senior Vice President Gary Schultz came rushing in.

Schultz blurted out that "McQueary never told him this was sexual," Snedden wrote. Schultz was shocked by what McQueary told the grand jury, Snedden wrote.

"He [McQueary] told the grand jury that he reported to [Schultz] that this was sexual," Schultz told Poole and Spanier.

"While speaking, Schultz shook his head back and forth as in disbelief," Snedden wrote about Poole's observations. Poole "believes it appeared there was a lot of disbelief in the room regarding this information."
"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said. "If it's real it's always been the same thing."

But that's not what happened with McQueary. And Snedden thinks he knows why.
"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 not responded to multiple requests for comment.

In Snedden's report, he interviewed Schuyler J. McLaughlin, Penn State's facility security officer at the university's applied research laboratory. McLaughlin, a former NCIS agent himself, as well as a lawyer, told Snedden that McQueary initially was confused by what he saw.

"What McQueary saw, apparenty it looked sexual to him and he may have been worried about what would happen to him," Snedden wrote. "Because McQueary wanted to keep his job" at Penn State.
[McLaughlin] "believes Curley and Schultz likely asked tough questions and those tough questions likely caused McQueary to question what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. McLaughlin "believes that after questioning, McQueary likely did not know what he actually saw," Snedden wrote. "And McQueary "probably realized he could not prove what he saw."

There was also confusion over the date of the alleged shower incident. At the grand jury, McQueary testified that it took place on March 1, 2002. But at the Sandusky trial, McQueary changed the date of the shower incident to Feb. 9, 2001.

There was also confusion over the identity of the boy in the showers. In 2011, the Pennsylvania State Police interviewed a man suspected of being "Victim No. 2." Allan Myers was then a 24-year-old married Marine who had been involved in Sandusky's Second Mile charity since he was a third-grader.

Myers, however, told the state police he "does not believe the allegations that have been raised" against Sandusky, and that another accuser was "only out to get some money." Myers said he used to work out with Sandusky since he was 12 or 13, and that "nothing inappropriate occurred while showering with Sandusky." Myers also told the police that Sandusky never did anything that "made him uncomfortable."

Myers even wrote a letter of support for Sandusky that was published in the Centre Daily Times, where he described Sandusky as his "best friend, tutor, workout mentor and more." Myers lived with Sandusky while he attended college. When Myers got married, he invited Jerry and Dottie Sandusky to the wedding.

Then, Myers got a lawyer and flipped, claiming that Sandusky assaulted him ten times. But at the Sandusky trial, the state attorney general's office deemed Myers an unreliable witness and did not call him to testify against Sandusky.

Instead, the prosecutor told the jury, the identity of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, "was known only to God."

Myers, however, eventually collected $3 million in what was supposed to be a confidential settlement with Penn State as Victim No. 2.
Mike McQueary may not have known for sure what he heard and saw in the shower. And the cops and the prosecutors may not know who Victim No. 2 really was. But John Snedden had it figured out pretty early what the source of the trouble was at Penn State.

Snedden recalled that four days into his 2012 investigation, he called his bosses to let them know that despite all the hoopla in the media, there was no sex scandal at Penn State.
"I just want to make sure you realize that this is a political hit job," Snedden recalled telling his bosses. "The whole thing is political."
Why did the Penn State situation get blown so far out of proportion?

"When I get a case, I independently investigate it," Snedden said. "It seems like that was not the case here. It wasn't an independent inquiry. It was an orchestrated effort to make the circumstances fit the alleged crime."

How did they get it so wrong at Penn State?

"To put it in a nutshell, I would say there was an exceptional rush to judgment to satisfy people," Snedden said. "So they wouldn't have to answer any more questions."

"It's a giant rush to judgement," Snedden said. "There was no debate."

"Ninety-nine percent of it is hysteria," Snedden said. Ninety-nine percent of what happened at Penn State boiled down to people running around yelling, "Oh my God, we've got to do something immediately," Snedden said.

It didn't matter that most of the people Snedden talked to at Penn State couldn't believe that Graham Spanier would have ever participated in a coverup, especially involving the abuse of a child.

Carolyn A. Dolbin, an administrative assistant to the PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier told her "that his father has physically abused him when [Spanier] was a child, and as a result [Spanier] had a broken nose and needed implants."
Spanier himself told Snedden, "He had been abused as a child and he would not stand for that," meaning a coverup, Snedden wrote.

Snedden couldn't believe the way the Penn State Board of Trustees acted the night they decided to fire both Spanier and Paterno.

There was no investigation, no determination of the facts. Instead, the officials running the show at Penn State wanted to move on as fast as possible from the scandal by sacrificing a few scapegoats.

At an executive session, the vice chairman of the PSU board, John Surma, the CEO of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh, told his fellow PSU board members, "We need to get rid of Paterno and Spanier," Snedden said. And then Surma asked, "Does anybody disagree with that?"

"There wasn't even a vote," Snedden said. In Snedden's report, Dr. Rodney Erickson, the former PSU president, told Snedden that Spanier "is collateral damage in all of this."

Erickson didn't believe there was a coverup at Penn State, because of what Spanier had told him.

"I was told it was just horsing around in the shower," Spanier told Erickson, as recounted in Snedden's report. "How do you call the police on that?"

On the night the board of trustees fired Paterno, they kept calling Paterno's house, but there was no answer. Finally, the board sent a courier over to Paterno's house, and asked him to call Surma's cell phone.


When Paterno called, Surma was ready to tell the coach three things. But he only got to his first item.
I suggest we conduct a poll.....which group would you have preferred was running PSU when the scandal broke?
A. The PSU Old Guard BOT
B. The Captain and crew of the Titanic
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,886
40,057
1
Baltimore, MD
Now surely everyone can agree that the grand jury presentment was a pile of hot steaming bullshit.

There's an awful lot of Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" that I can see in this case.
I suggest we conduct a poll.....which group would you have preferred was running PSU when the scandal broke?
A. The PSU Old Guard BOT
B. The Captain and crew of the Titanic


annnnnndddd the difference would beeee?
Well ok I can see the one huge difference....The Capt. of the Titanic didn't deliberately steer his ship into the iceberg.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
There's an awful lot of Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" that I can see in this case.



annnnnndddd the difference would beeee?
Well ok I can see the one huge difference....The Capt. of the Titanic didn't deliberately steer his ship into the iceberg.
ding ding ding
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
I believe that Amy Davidson Sorkin was quoting the grand jury presentment.

Once, in 1998, the State College police got involved, but the investigation went nowhere; one of the many dismaying passages in the document is this: “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said he would not.”

The alleged quote is in dispute. Sandusky has stated that he was understanding that Schreffler advised him to never again shower with zk (v6) and in the course of a 13 year friendly relationship he never did. In fact, zk has never alleged that Sandusky did anything sexual with him. In 2011, his tune changed somewhat to state he believed that Sandusky might have been grooming him. The fact still remains that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA, Penn State police, State College police, and CYS which resulted in Sandusky not being charged with any crime and not being indicated.

I’ve see the quote posted often, but I’ve never seen the source. Interesting to find out it’s disputed. It seems that relying on a disputed quote to make a conclusion about guilt or innocence is not sensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
Now surely everyone can agree that the grand jury presentment was a pile of hot steaming bullshit.
I believe that Amy Davidson Sorkin was quoting the grand jury presentment.

Once, in 1998, the State College police got involved, but the investigation went nowhere; one of the many dismaying passages in the document is this: “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said he would not.”

The alleged quote is in dispute. Sandusky has stated that he was understanding that Schreffler advised him to never again shower with zk (v6) and in the course of a 13 year friendly relationship he never did. In fact, zk has never alleged that Sandusky did anything sexual with him. In 2011, his tune changed somewhat to state he believed that Sandusky might have been grooming him. The fact still remains that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA, Penn State police, State College police, and CYS which resulted in Sandusky not being charged with any crime and not being indicated.
If I’m not mistaken, it was a quote taken from the police report that was included in the grand jury report.
 

Bob78

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 5, 2001
8,210
9,121
1
I believe that Curley reported the v2 incident to Jack Raykowitz, the CEO of TSM. I am not sure of Bruce Heim’s role at TSM. I spoke to Heim at one of the Sandusky hearings a year or two ago. He said that when the grand jury presentment came out, he like a lot of us thought that Jerry could have fooled him and might be guilty as charged. As he learned more information, his opinion changed. I believe he eventually gave some money to Jerry’s defense fund.

Right, Curley talked to Jack R. Jack scoffed and suggested swim trunks, then years later did not come to the defense of C/S/S when he testified against them that he was in fact a proper reporting authority for Central Mtn. Schools! (omg omg omg!!!) And no one seemed to put that simple equation together to get the 2+2 answer of 4. I keep thinking I must have misunderstood something, but I don't think I did, other than just how deeply despicably disgusting the whole case vs C/S/S/P has been.

I think it was Heim who was the Chairman of TSM at the time, but I could be wrong. Given he was, Heim was the one who called bull- on it all, and shut down a furhter look by TSM. He offered his hotel swimming pool to JS. What a guy. Later, when the BOT wanted to honor him at halftime of a game, the public uproar over it by people who knew he played a big role in squashing the JS investigation as it needed to be done caused them to rescind the honor.

If all of that was not Heim, my apologies. But that is why I find it interesting that he was interviewed by Zeigler.

But here is the thing that baffles me - I think it is clear that TSM deserves a ton of blame. Tons. Most all of it. Had Jack done what he was mandated to do, C/S/S/P would not have had their lives upended. Still, some of those same people and others with deep knowledge have never blamed TSM and even defended them when questions were asked. I asked a question about TSM at the press conference wrt the A7 report release. The person answering me seemed surprised that I even mentioned TSM. (am I in bizarro world regarding TSM?!?!) Yet, other people around town who knew the org. cannot fathom how some TSM people can even look themselves in the mirror.

One theory around the TSM teflon revolves around Kitty Genovese's (Jack R's wife) last name. I don't know if that is said just for giggles or if some people believe it. Maybe somewhere in between? No idea here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,333
6,951
1
I’ve see the quote posted often, but I’ve never seen the source. Interesting to find out it’s disputed. It seems that relying on a disputed quote to make a conclusion about guilt or innocence is not sensible.
@Connorpozlee is correct, it's the last thing mentioned on the police report. It's the kind of thing one might expect to find in the DPW letter to JS letting him know their investigation was closed and not to do it again. Since the prosecution relied on the police report and not the DPW letter, one can deduce it wasn't in there.

'98 police report
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan and Bob78

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,828
4,568
1
Right, Curley talked to Jack R. Jack scoffed and suggested swim trunks, then years later did not come to the defense of C/S/S when he testified against them that he was in fact a proper reporting authority for Central Mtn. Schools! (omg omg omg!!!) And no one seemed to put that simple equation together to get the 2+2 answer of 4. I keep thinking I must have misunderstood something, but I don't think I did, other than just how deeply despicably disgusting the whole case vs C/S/S/P has been.

I think it was Heim who was the Chairman of TSM at the time, but I could be wrong. Given he was, Heim was the one who called bull- on it all, and shut down a furhter look by TSM. He offered his hotel swimming pool to JS. What a guy. Later, when the BOT wanted to honor him at halftime of a game, the public uproar over it by people who knew he played a big role in squashing the JS investigation as it needed to be done caused them to rescind the honor.

If all of that was not Heim, my apologies. But that is why I find it interesting that he was interviewed by Zeigler.

But here is the thing that baffles me - I think it is clear that TSM deserves a ton of blame. Tons. Most all of it. Had Jack done what he was mandated to do, C/S/S/P would not have had their lives upended. Still, some of those same people and others with deep knowledge have never blamed TSM and even defended them when questions were asked. I asked a question about TSM at the press conference wrt the A7 report release. The person answering me seemed surprised that I even mentioned TSM. (am I in bizarro world regarding TSM?!?!) Yet, other people around town who knew the org. cannot fathom how some TSM people can even look themselves in the mirror.

One theory around the TSM teflon revolves around Kitty Genovese's (Jack R's wife) last name. I don't know if that is said just for giggles or if some people believe it. Maybe somewhere in between? No idea here.

I place the blame squarely on Tom Corbett and the OAG. Without Tommy, there is no sex scandal at Penn State.

TSM’s protocols left a lot to be desired and they made some questionable judgments, but I believe the root of the scandal is Corbett’s vendetta against Spanier and Penn State. I agree with John Snedden that the number one bad guy in the fiasco is Tom Corbett.

I am already looking forward to episode 4 and the interview of Snedden.

I am not sure of Bruce Heim’s role at TSM and in TSM’s deciding how to react to Curley’s information regarding the McQueary report. However there was no sexual assault reported and Jerry was the founder of TSM, so I am not outraged that Heim allowed Jerry and TSM use of the hotel pool after Curley’s conversation with Jack. This should have been a wake-up call for TSM. I am interested in hearing what Bruce Heim has to say on the matter, which I expect Ziegler and Liz Habib to probe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78

LundyPSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2002
11,480
1,875
1
I believe that Amy Davidson Sorkin was quoting the grand jury presentment.

Once, in 1998, the State College police got involved, but the investigation went nowhere; one of the many dismaying passages in the document is this: “Detective Schreffler advised Sandusky not to shower with any child again and Sandusky said he would not.”

The alleged quote is in dispute. Sandusky has stated that he was understanding that Schreffler advised him to never again shower with zk (v6) and in the course of a 13 year friendly relationship he never did. In fact, zk has never alleged that Sandusky did anything sexual with him. In 2011, his tune changed somewhat to state he believed that Sandusky might have been grooming him. The fact still remains that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated by the Centre County DA, Penn State police, State College police, and CYS which resulted in Sandusky not being charged with any crime and not being indicated.
That response from Sandusky is just nonsense. That kind of clueless response doesn't help his cause. If Jerry didn't realize that showering with any youth was an issue after a police investigation, then that only furthers the opinion of his guilt.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
That response from Sandusky is just nonsense. That kind of clueless response doesn't help his cause. If Jerry didn't realize that showering with any youth was an issue after a police investigation, then that only furthers the opinion of his guilt.
Guilty of what? I think that is a valid question. Poor judgement? Stupidity? Sandusky is spending the equivalent of a life sentence as "victims" testified he forced them/or preformed oral sex and at least one claimed anal rape. Isn't that a pretty huge leap? He showered with kids therefor he must have done all the above? I can't quite see the logic in that. On another issue, how long should you be imprisoned for stealing 7 million dollars?
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
Guilty of what? I think that is a valid question. Poor judgement? Stupidity? Sandusky is spending the equivalent of a life sentence as "victims" testified he forced them/or preformed oral sex and at least one claimed anal rape. Isn't that a pretty huge leap? He showered with kids therefor he must have done all the above? I can't quite see the logic in that. On another issue, how long should you be imprisoned for stealing 7 million dollars?
At the least, he was guilty of absolutely horrendous judgement. At the least, he absolutely set himself up to be falsely accused of child sexual abuse. That’s at the least.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,294
11,082
1
@Connorpozlee is correct, it's the last thing mentioned on the police report. It's the kind of thing one might expect to find in the DPW letter to JS letting him know their investigation was closed and not to do it again. Since the prosecution relied on the police report and not the DPW letter, one can deduce it wasn't in there.

'98 police report

Thanks! Good to know where it came from. Are you aware of any recording of this conversation, or do we have to assume the reporting officer’s interpretation is accurate?
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
At the least, he was guilty of absolutely horrendous judgement. At the least, he absolutely set himself up to be falsely accused of child sexual abuse. That’s at the least.
I could not agree more with the first two sentences. I think what I'm advocating is that bad judgement and stupidity does not warrant a life sentence. Our prisons are not big enough! LOL
What we have here, is a dirty prosecutor (suspended), a dirty judge (removed), at least some "victims" who are blatant liars.....etc. Police who perjured themselves during the trial..... I simply believe that Sandusky deserves another trial. Let's see everything in the light of day. If he's guilty....all fine and dandy.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,719
9,344
1
I could not agree more with the first two sentences. I think what I'm advocating is that bad judgement and stupidity does not warrant a life sentence. Our prisons are not big enough! LOL
What we have here, is a dirty prosecutor (suspended), a dirty judge (removed), at least some "victims" who are blatant liars.....etc. Police who perjured themselves during the trial..... I simply believe that Sandusky deserves another trial. Let's see everything in the light of day. If he's guilty....all fine and dandy.
I’m fine with another trial. Always have been. His defense seemed to be horrible and the court decisions seemed to be stacked against him. But I think when you start with the inexplicable showering activity and being found behind wrestling mats with another boy in an otherwise empty gym, you’ve got an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty.
 

marshall23

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2013
15,635
24,927
1
I’m fine with another trial. Always have been. His defense seemed to be horrible and the court decisions seemed to be stacked against him. But I think when you start with the inexplicable showering activity and being found behind wrestling mats with another boy in an otherwise empty gym, you’ve got an uphill climb to be viewed as not guilty.
Again, I say, guilty of what? Sodomy? He's already served almost 10 years, even if he's guilty of touching, groping etc. If he did those things, he should serve time....but there is a big difference between touching and sodomy.
Looking at what the impact was on PSU....do you think the national outrage was about a tickle monster? Or was it about a guy who stuck his junk in kids mouths and rear ends? I simply believe that it is a huge leap of faith to assume a man who showered with boys must have sodomized them. I believe that "victims" were coached by their money grubbing lawyers to claim dates of abuse, frequency of abuse and the nature of the abuse to maximize the financial settlements. Do you disagree? These are the stories that the media adopted and ran with.