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

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
851
300
1
I think he is most likely guilty (I don’t know he is guilty anymore than others in here know he is innocent) because:
1. Nobody that works with children would get in a shower alone with a child they are working with and have physical contact with them. In fact, I can’t imagine an instance where it would even be OK to be naked with a child you are working with. This comes from 20+ years working with children as an adult, the vast majority of them working with underprivileged children.
2. If for some reason you didn’t know that you shouldn’t be showering with children you are working with, you sure as hell would know it after being investigated by the police for it. What would cause you to continue that practice? Just washing up certainly doesn’t cut it as a reason.
3. Sandusky followed some pretty textbook grooming tactics. Even some of his most ardent supporters in here have said that. If you agree that some of his actions can be labeled as “grooming” then you have to ask the logical question: What was he grooming them for?
Does this answer your question panda?
Of course.
Myers couldn't remember telling a couple of state troopers who interviewed him in 2011 that Sandusky had never abused him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Alexander Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself posing with Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with some boys, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Sandusky was controlling, Myers said, but he didn't say anything about Sandusky being abusive.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky had often worked out at the Lasch Building.

"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower with Jerry, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to the coach's home and shower in separate facilities.

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who at the time was working for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's inept trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and thought there was an anal rape going down in the showers, Myers said, "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. The official grand jury report, however, says that Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

Oh well, nobody expects the prosecutors to get the details right when they're on a witch hunt to put an alleged pedophile in jail. Whether or not they have to make up the evidence themselves. And apparently, nobody expects the witnesses to remember whatever stories they told.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night," another claim by McQueary. "I am sure" it didn't happen, Myers told the investigator.

On the witness stand, Myers wasn't sure.

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator. In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Allan Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He even wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

At the beginning, Myers kept saying that Mike McQueary was a liar, Jerry was a great guy, and that Jerry had never touched him inappropriately.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal. Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected nearly $7 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," I'm not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he stated that the existence of Victim No. 2, the boy in the showers, was "known only to God."

As far as Lindsay was concerned, McGettigan knew that Myers was Victim No. 2, but didn't want to call him as a witness during the Sandusky trial because he had formerly defended Jerry.

On cross examination, the prosecution had a simple script. To reiterate that when he finally got his story straight, Myers was indeed a victim of Jerry Sandusky's.

Jennifer Peterson, a lawyer representing the Commonwealth, asked Myers if he remembered speaking to to Special Agent Anthony Sassano of the state Attorney General's office.

"I remember seeing him and speaking with him," Myers replied. "I don't remember exact dates and times and how long everything was."

"And you told him the top were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, correct?"Peterson asked.

"I don't remember exactly what I said in the meetings," Myers said. "I know then I was more forthcoming but not all the way [forth] coming because [I was] still processing everything and dealing with it."

"Were you sexually abused?" Peterson asked.

"Yes," Myers said.

She didn't ask for any details, possibly because Myers probably forgot them.

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

If Sandusky believed that Myers was going to finally tell the truth, and actually admit he was lying, Sandusky had just gotten torched

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.

John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally been released.

"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about Myers' central role in the Penn State scandal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: capkrokus

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
No I did not. I find that to be very strange behavior. But at the same time, that does not mean if I had done that, I am guilty of sodomizing a child.
Agreed.
I bet If you had done that (why in the world would you?) and been accused of sexually assaulting children it would have been near impossible to explain away innocently.
 

didier

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
951
1,080
1
The police report I linked above was selectively leaked, it's missing pages. It certainly wasn't leaked to help the defense. But, the part still remains in Seasock's report that there was another coach present in '98. The "alone" part just isn't true for the '98 incident.

There's much more to the case than showering. You've told us your stance repeatedly on that topic for 8 years. What other aspects of the prosecution's case do you believe?
In a 1998 interview right after the incident V6 told investigators there was no one else there.

The Seasock information source is unclear. Was it from V6? In Matt Sandusky's book he says Seasock actually interviewed Jerry. Is that where this is coming from? I've not been able to get clarity from Matt about why he thinks Seasock interviewed Jerry.

Unfortunately until the full 1998 documents are released publicly (if they ever are) we won't know the answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,220
6,665
1
In a 1998 interview right after the incident V6 told investigators there was no one else there.

The Seasock information source is unclear. Was it from V6? In Matt Sandusky's book he says Seasock actually interviewed Jerry. Is that where this is coming from? I've not been able to get clarity from Matt about why he thinks Seasock interviewed Jerry.

Unfortunately until the full 1998 documents are released publicly (if they ever are) we won't know the answers.
I fear we'll never see the full documents that were in the file from '98. I know you've tried.

I remember V6's statement about not seeing anyone. But, it's a big locker area and very possible for someone else to be there and not neccesarily seen. With that odd trip to Lasch to visit with Fran, I've wondered if he was the one that was there that night.

It sounds like the fake V is going to hold nothing back. We might learn quite a bit from him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,046
4,940
1
But, it's a big locker area and very possible for someone else to be there and not neccesarily seen.
I've never been inside Lasch but my understanding is that the locker room in question (coaches locker room) is NOT very big at all. Someone can correct me if I am wrong...
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,220
6,665
1
I've never been inside Lasch but my understanding is that the locker room in question (coaches locker room) is NOT very big at all. Someone can correct me if I am wrong...
The '98 incident took place in th old Lasch, the East Area Locker Room building. The MM incident took place in the new Lasch that was built in '99. That was in the tiny staff support locker room.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
4,046
4,940
1
The '98 incident took place in th old Lasch, the East Area Locker Room building. The MM incident took place in the new Lasch that was built in '99. That was in the tiny staff support locker room.
Ah, sorry. Thanks for the clarification. So the incident that was investigated and did not result in charges at the time.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
Agreed.
I bet If you had done that (why in the world would you?) and been accused of sexually assaulting children it would have been near impossible to explain away innocently.
Gary Schultz spoke to this issue in his notes in 2001.

He wrote, "1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d"

If you parse this sentence, it's very revealing. First, it's unreasonable to believe Gary would have used the word "avoid" in this context had he and Tim been told that Sandusky had abused a boy. He certainly would have been more demonstrative. In fact, it's highly unlikely he would have contemplated any scenario in the future in which it would have been acceptable for Jerry to bring TSM kids to Lasch. Secondly, and to your point, Gary wasn't suggesting Jerry not bring "children" to Lasch in the future, under any circumstances. He specifically stipulates, however, that Jerry not bring them there "alone".

IMO, this is the crux of that whole incident. C/S/S were not concerned that a boy had been abused that night. However, they were concerned that sometime in the future a boy might accuse Jerry of inappropriate behavior and it would be his word against Jerry's. In that scenario, regardless of the accusation's merit, PSU would have been screwed.
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,264
11,022
1
I answered that earlier. I take that to be true because I have no reason to believe it’s not and it only makes sense that he would say that because anything else would be ridiculous.
As I’ve said all along, I’m open to changing my mind about the whole thing. If that quote is proven to not be true or embellished that would give me pause.

You've been given reason to question it, and you’ve completely ignored another possible interpretation of that situation. Did you even read the interpretation posted by @francofan in post #261? I'm simply wondering why you believe one interpretation over another? It’s pretty clear you don’t want to answer that question. So I’ll stop asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

ram2020

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2013
3,396
4,538
1
i've listened to the first one. It's good and reasonable and challenges much of the orthodoxy effectively. That said, I think J.S. was a pedophile. Classic grooming patterns, almost overly involved with young boys(boys specifically), immature, etc. There is absolutely 0 chance he sodomized a 10 year old in the shower and mcquery would witness such a thing. Just physically, it makes 0 sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,753
4,401
1
Episode 1 has been posted as have 17 hours of interviews. I will write-up my observations of episode 1 after I listen to it.

Episode 1 is 2 hours and 26 minutes long. I believe episode 1 is all about why we know the v2 incident happened on December 29, 2000.

 

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,753
4,401
1
John Ziegler gives a very interesting 90 minute interview to former Ohio State receiver's coach Zach Smith to discuss the upcoming With the Benefits of Hindsight podcasts.

Highlights of the interview include:

Ziegler did 2 interviews with Gary Schultz (which are available to download), one with just Ziegler and another with Ziegler and Liz Habib for a total of 4 hours. Gary is convinced that the v2 incident happened on Dec. 29, 2000 and (Ziegler paraphrasing) says I can come to no other conclusion than Jerry Sandusky is innocent

Schultz's "secret" Sandusky files were the ones that Gary volunteered to the OAG.

The episodes are long, typically over 2 hours long; but as long as 4 hours and as short as 90 minutes.

 
  • Like
Reactions: capkrokus

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
You've been given reason to question it, and you’ve completely ignored another possible interpretation of that situation. Did you even read the interpretation posted by @francofan in post #261? I'm simply wondering why you believe one interpretation over another? It’s pretty clear you don’t want to answer that question. So I’ll stop asking.
Help me out. What reason have I been given to question it? Honestly, I’m not on some crusade to keep Sandusky in jail and I’m open to changing my mind. Nor am I of the belief that the police are beyond reproach. What I have seen is a statement in a police report stating that he agreed to never shower with children again (which again, should never even have to be said to a man at all, more specifically in his role). What we know is that Jerry Sandusky again showered with at least one other boy. That seems to me to follow some logical steps that it wasn’t some he was able to stop doing (and for anybody that has ever worked in that field, it is absolutely something that should never even have been considered to begin with).
Edit: Just re-read it. Jerry Sandusky saying what the police report says he agreed to is not what he agreed to is not going to cut it for me to question the report. Allow your mind to go to a place where Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. That is exactly what you would expect him to say. And again, nobody working with youths needs to be told by the police not to shower with and have physical contact with them.
 
Last edited:

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
Help me out. What reason have I been given to question it? Honestly, I’m not on some crusade to keep Sandusky in jail and I’m open to changing my mind. Nor am I of the belief that the police are beyond reproach. What I have seen is a statement in a police report stating that he agreed to never shower with children again (which again, should never even have to be said to a man at all, more specifically in his role). What we know is that Jerry Sandusky again showered with at least one other boy. That seems to me to follow some logical steps that it wasn’t some he was able to stop doing (and for anybody that has ever worked in that field, it is absolutely something that should never even have been considered to begin with).
Gary Schultz spoke to this issue in his notes in 2001.

He wrote, "1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d"

If you parse this sentence, it's very revealing. First, it's unreasonable to believe Gary would have used the word "avoid" in this context had he and Tim been told that Sandusky had abused a boy. He certainly would have been more demonstrative. In fact, it's highly unlikely he would have contemplated any scenario in the future in which it would have been acceptable for Jerry to bring TSM kids to Lasch. Secondly, and to your point, Gary wasn't suggesting Jerry not bring "children" to Lasch in the future, under any circumstances. He specifically stipulates, however, that Jerry not bring them there "alone".

IMO, this is the crux of that whole incident. C/S/S were not concerned that a boy had been abused that night. However, they were concerned that sometime in the future a boy might accuse Jerry of inappropriate behavior and it would be his word against Jerry's. In that scenario, regardless of the accusation's merit, PSU would have been screwed.
It’s odd that you always come with this angle Indy. I’ve never really had a problem with the way Schultz and Curley handled it. I think McQueary said something different 10 years or so later than he said at the time.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,884
26,889
1
Help me out. What reason have I been given to question it? Honestly, I’m not on some crusade to keep Sandusky in jail and I’m open to changing my mind. Nor am I of the belief that the police are beyond reproach. What I have seen is a statement in a police report stating that he agreed to never shower with children again (which again, should never even have to be said to a man at all, more specifically in his role). What we know is that Jerry Sandusky again showered with at least one other boy. That seems to me to follow some logical steps that it wasn’t some he was able to stop doing (and for anybody that has ever worked in that field, it is absolutely something that should never even have been considered to begin with).
Edit: Just re-read it. Jerry Sandusky saying what the police report says he agreed to is not what he agreed to is not going to cut it for me to question the report. Allow your mind to go to a place where Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. That is exactly what you would expect him to say. And again, nobody working with youths needs to be told by the police not to shower with and have physical contact with them.
1. TSM should never have allowed J.S. or anybody else to be with troubled youth one on one.

2. J.S. should have been scared straight after 1998. For him to keep showering with kids in private tells me that he had issues. That doesn't mean he raped anybody.

3. It makes zero sense that MM didn't tell his dad or Dranov about sexual assault but he did tell C&S. So no, I don't think he told them about anything more than that it seemed wrong.

4. No way do I believe that J.S. forced sex on kids in his basement and other family members ignored the screams. I think most of the victims lied for money (especially if it took repressed memory therapy).
 

pandaczar12

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2010
10,264
11,022
1
Read my edit
Edit: Just re-read it. Jerry Sandusky saying what the police report says he agreed to is not what he agreed to is not going to cut it for me to question the report. Allow your mind to go to a place where Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. That is exactly what you would expect him to say. And again, nobody working with youths needs to be told by the police not to shower with and have physical contact with them.

So you've just confirmed my suspicion way back in post #310 of circular logic. In that post I questioned if you believe the reporting officer's version of the quote in the police report over the JS version because you think JS is guilty. (Your quoted post above makes that much clear.) The problem is that you used the police report quote as a reason you think JS is guilty back in post #240. Moving on... So you don't question the police report. You believe that the reporting officer's interpretation of of the incident is correct. Does that extend to the part where the reporting officer thought that "no assault occurred"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
So you've just confirmed my suspicion way back in post #310 of circular logic. In that post I questioned if you believe the reporting officer's version of the quote in the police report over the JS version because you think JS is guilty. (Your quoted post above makes that much clear.) The problem is that you used the police report quote as a reason you think JS is guilty back in post #240. Moving on... So you don't question the police report. You believe that the reporting officer's interpretation of of the incident is correct. Does that extend to the part where the reporting officer thought that "no assault occurred"?
What reason do I have to question the police report? Because Jerry said so it not a legitimate reason to question it.
It is obvious that the officer didn’t have proof that an assault occurred, thus he didn’t charge him with a crime. Though, I guess if we’re doubting the report was accurate about Jerry to never shower with kids again (yet again, absolutely nobody working in that field needs to be told that) then we can also doubt that no sexual assault occurred.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
1. TSM should never have allowed J.S. or anybody else to be with troubled youth one on one.

2. J.S. should have been scared straight after 1998. For him to keep showering with kids in private tells me that he had issues. That doesn't mean he raped anybody.

3. It makes zero sense that MM didn't tell his dad or Dranov about sexual assault but he did tell C&S. So no, I don't think he told them about anything more than that it seemed wrong.

4. No way do I believe that J.S. forced sex on kids in his basement and other family members ignored the screams. I think most of the victims lied for money (especially if it took repressed memory therapy).
I absolutely agree with point #1. I absolutely agree with point #3. On point #2, what issues do you think he had?
 

Pinkhippo PeanutButter

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2017
1,232
565
1
I fear we'll never see the full documents that were in the file from '98. I know you've tried.

I remember V6's statement about not seeing anyone. But, it's a big locker area and very possible for someone else to be there and not neccesarily seen. With that odd trip to Lasch to visit with Fran, I've wondered if he was the one that was there that night.

It sounds like the fake V is going to hold nothing back. We might learn quite a bit from him.

How would a fake victim who didn't know Jerry and had nothing to do with his trial, indeed, who surfaced long after trial, do anything to exonerate Jerry?
 

Chris92

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2001
12,220
6,665
1
How would a fake victim who didn't know Jerry and had nothing to do with his trial, indeed, who surfaced long after trial, do anything to exonerate Jerry?
He's actually a Second Mile alum, knows Jerry and was very involved before the trial and even attended it.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,884
26,889
1
I absolutely agree with point #1. I absolutely agree with point #3. On point #2, what issues do you think he had?
I grew up at a time when men and boys used communal showers so I'm inclined to give JS the benefit of the doubt. But after what happened in 98 I would have expected him to avoid private showers with troubled youth. The fact that he continued to do it tells me he had boundary issues at a minimum.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
I grew up at a time when men and boys used communal showers so I'm inclined to give JS the benefit of the doubt. But after what happened in 98 I would have expected him to avoid private showers with troubled youth. The fact that he continued to do it tells me he had boundary issues at a minimum.
Fair enough.
Let me ask you though, did you grow up at a time when men and boys shared communal showers one-on-one, including physical contact?
 

capkrokus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 8, 2006
1,912
1,735
1
Ziegler claims to have taped 55-60 hours of new material. He has said he interviewed Aaron Fisher's ex-wife. I know he has also interviewed John Snedden. I suspect that he included new interviews with the likes of Mark Pendergrast, Malcolm Gladwell, Fred Crews, Anthony Lubrano, Dick Anderson, Jeff Byers, Franco Harris, and others who have first-hand knowledge of the story. Ziegler has said that the podcast will enable him to share a lot of new information that he has collected over the years. He has said in the past that one of the best interviews that he has done was with Gary Schultz who explained why he was convinced that Sandusky was innocent. I wouldn't be surprised if Gary is included prominently in the podcast. Ziegler has stated that he has interviewed over a dozen people who know Aaron Fisher the best and they all believe that Aaron has been less than truthful in his recounting of what has happened. I suspect that Aaron will have a key role in the podcast. I suspect that people who know Glen Neff and Matt Sandusky well will be featured in the podcast as well. Ziegler's co-host is a Los Angeles TV personality, so I believe that most or all of the segments will be new. I don't know if there will be any bombshells, but I suspect it will be very interesting. I am looking forward to the initial podcast.
He also has an interview with someone who ran a sting operation with the attorney Shubin. He was a 2nd mile kid and Shuban not only bought his story, he altered it to say that he was abused on campus. Shubin is on tape saying that prosecutors didn't like him because because his clients weren't credible witnesses.
 

capkrokus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 8, 2006
1,912
1,735
1
It makes no sense that MM told different stories to everyone he spoke to. I can bite that he may have spoke in general terms with Joe. But as Sue said, he wasn't even in their home long enough to say much. The different stories to GS and TC, just fit into the bullshit story that Fina concocted.
And if the prosecutors got the date wrong (which isn't a stretch since they got the date wrong on their first crack) & it was in December, then MM waited weeks before saying anything... not days ... which would lead you to believe that he didn't see anything sexual.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown

capkrokus

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 8, 2006
1,912
1,735
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.
Ziegler has interview of GS on his podcast. GS says that he was badgered by the prosecutors during his grand jury testimony. They pounded their fist on table when they didn't get answers they liked. He also talked about how Baldwin hosed them over.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
Ziegler has interview of GS on his podcast. GS says that he was badgered by the prosecutors during his grand jury testimony. They pounded their fist on table when they didn't get answers they liked. He also talked about how Baldwin hosed them over.
That’s in the podcast that was released today?
 

ednit

Active Member
Jul 23, 2001
39
118
1
Listened to the 1st installment last night. I’ve been following JZ since this whole mess started and have always thought he was “spot on.” Most of what he said in the first installment I had already heard before. It was interesting to hear Gary Schultz in his own words. Even if you think JS is guilty, I don’t, the injustice done to Joe and the other administrators is criminal. When JZ starts to get overly excited, the moderator Liz Habib keeps him on point. I’m looking forward to listening to the rest of the podcasts.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
It’s odd that you always come with this angle Indy. I’ve never really had a problem with the way Schultz and Curley handled it. I think McQueary said something different 10 years or so later than he said at the time.
My argument has always been that the notes and emails from 2001 are the only pieces of evidence that are not tainted. Everything, IMO, should be consistent with what was written at the time.

If C/S/S wanted to prevent a future he said/he said scenario, then they would have done and said exactly what it appears they did. OTOH, if they wanted to protect PSU from a potential scandal from an incident that had already occurred, they would have had to have facilitated a plan to keep that kid quiet.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
I listened to some of the podcast, so maybe JZ addressed this point and I haven't gotten there yet. However, regarding the date, I believe the initial date in the presentment (2002) was chosen because it fell within the 10 year statute of limitations. The OAG, IMO, needed to discredit C/S so they couldn't testify on Jerry's behalf.
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
My argument has always been that the notes and emails from 2001 are the only pieces of evidence that are not tainted. Everything, IMO, should be consistent with what was written at the time.

If C/S/S wanted to prevent a future he said/he said scenario, then they would have done and said exactly what it appears they did. OTOH, if they wanted to protect PSU from a potential scandal from an incident that had already occurred, they would have had to have facilitated a plan to keep that kid quiet.
I’ve always basically agreed with this. Though it really has nothing to do with Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,136
5,982
1
I’ve always basically agreed with this. Though it really has nothing to do with Sandusky’s guilt or innocence.
You're right. It has nothing to do with Sandusky's guilt or innocence. My opinion on that is that Jerry deserves a fair trial. However, my focus in this saga has always been more on PSU, C/S/S and specifically Joe. Jerry doesn't have to be innocent for them to have been falsely accused.

I think it's long past time that PSU was held accountable for what "it" consciously did to Joe and the others. While I support Ziegler's efforts WRT Sandusky, I believe clearing Joe's name and correcting the narrative as it applies to PSU is low hanging fruit.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 27, 2001
50,274
38,913
1
Baltimore, MD
You're right. It has nothing to do with Sandusky's guilt or innocence. My opinion on that is that Jerry deserves a fair trial. However, my focus in this saga has always been more on PSU, C/S/S and specifically Joe. Jerry doesn't have to be innocent for them to have been falsely accused.

I think it's long past time that PSU was held accountable for what "it" consciously did to Joe and the others. While I support Ziegler's efforts WRT Sandusky, I believe clearing Joe's name and correcting the narrative as it applies to PSU is low hanging fruit.
+1
 

Connorpozlee

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2013
7,452
9,081
1
You're right. It has nothing to do with Sandusky's guilt or innocence. My opinion on that is that Jerry deserves a fair trial. However, my focus in this saga has always been more on PSU, C/S/S and specifically Joe. Jerry doesn't have to be innocent for them to have been falsely accused.

I think it's long past time that PSU was held accountable for what "it" consciously did to Joe and the others. While I support Ziegler's efforts WRT Sandusky, I believe clearing Joe's name and correcting the narrative as it applies to PSU is low hanging fruit.
Yep, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you about this.