ADVERTISEMENT

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

Even if I agree with this statement (not sure I do; if there was no sexual intent the first time why would there be the second time?), doesn't this point to CSS responding correctly? (and I know you haven't been particularly critical of CSS, but others on this thread have).
Not being charged doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t think there could be sexual intent. Could mean that they didn’t have enough to prove it. If you’ve called it a boundary issue, explained it as a boundary to the person, had him admit he shouldn’t have done it then he does it again, just being a boundary issue is less likely to be the case.
 
Well if it was Alan Myers, he was 14 and living part time with Sandusky. That's why the prosecutors didn't want to name the "little boy in the shower." Like I said earlier.....this isn't about unwanted touching anymore. Sandusky has more than served prison time for that sort of offense. This is about whether people believe he was anally raping kids in his family room. About claimants who changed their stories once money was on the table, manipulated by lawyers who changed the type of sex acts, frequency, locations and dates in order to get the maximum financial settlement.
Its quite a leap from Lauro's boundary issues to life in prison. Too much doesn't add up.
Let's not forget we're talking about a perp who had some health issues in the man junk area as well.
Good stuff.
Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

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.
 
Good stuff.
Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany


Ziegler's documentary podast is slated to be inaugurated next week with around 19 very long episodes in the works.

Thank you for the update on this.
While I am interested in what Ziegler has to say, the prospect of "19 very long episodes" if told in Ziegler's usual style (loud rants) would be a tough listen.
I'll give it a try, but executive summaries will be welcome.
 
Thank you for the update on this.
While I am interested in what Ziegler has to say, the prospect of "19 very long episodes" if told in Ziegler's usual style (loud rants) would be a tough listen.
I'll give it a try, but executive summaries will be welcome.

I hear you. I make no promises, but I will try to post summaries with pointers to what seems to me to be the most interesting topics.
 
Thank you for the update on this.
While I am interested in what Ziegler has to say, the prospect of "19 very long episodes" if told in Ziegler's usual style (loud rants) would be a tough listen.
I'll give it a try, but executive summaries will be welcome.
I feel like the rants are worst either on live radio or when he is self producing podcasts. In that he actually has a production team and other journalist working with him on this, I suspect the rants will be less.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
With 19 episodes I am sure a good number will be devoted to a fair airing from the side that believes Jerry is guilty.

Bottom line if at least 9 episodes don't cover that point of view this series has zero credibility
 
I feel like the rants are worst either on live radio when he is self producing podcasts. In that he actually has a production team and other journalist working with him on this, I suspect the rants will be less.

I am interested in seeing the final product and hope the podcast turns out to be a quality production.

I suspect his rants may also be less due to having a woman co-host who is a Los Angeles television sports personality. Does anybody know who his co-host will be?

I am guessing that it might be Pitt alumnus Liz Habib due to the following tweet she made last August in reference to the charging of Glenn Neff for writing a fraudulent check. Neff is a PSU claimant and one of the Lock Haven 5 who were recipients of multi-million dollar settlements.

 
With 19 episodes I am sure a good number will be devoted to a fair airing from the side that believes Jerry is guilty.

Bottom line if at least 9 episodes don't cover that point of view this series has zero credibility
Please listen to the first podcast and provide your critique. I am guessing that if you do, it will be substance free and not a serious attempt to refute what is known to most all of the people who know the case the best and believe that something stinks to high heaven with the whole matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
With 19 episodes I am sure a good number will be devoted to a fair airing from the side that believes Jerry is guilty.

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

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

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

P.S. No one cares if you think this podcast has credibility or not. You are not the arbiter on that topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan and francofan
I don't think you ever watching/listen to documentaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Ziegler would have everything to gain. The interview itself would give him credibility.
 
Nonsense! You have it backwards. A prominent opposition voice wouldn't have the guts to be interviewed by JZ.

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

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

I'm sure he'd love to interview one of the alleged victims, or maybe one of the disgraced prosecutors. I’m sure he has tried.
 
Even Lubert has volunteered that some of the claimants are liars. Fat Boy Tommy got his ass kicked out of office, Fina has been branded a scum bag by his own kind, Jonelle can't get elected dog catcher, Baldwin has been reprimanded and is persona non grata, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has spanked Barry Feudale and the Surma Family has experienced untold grief. The Curse of Joe Paterno.....
 
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.
 
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.

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

It's a pipe dream anymore, but JS certainly deserves a new trial. And I'm far, far from sold on his innocence... and also maybe his guilt.
I wonder if anyone has ever spoken to any of AF's teachers at CMHS? I'm sure they would attest to his stellar character.
 
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.

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

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

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

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

Around a year ago, Gary told me that "Once free (assume this means no longer on probation), I don't know in what circumstance I would be publicly speaking out, but I would probably only participate in some effort that has a good likelihood of having a meaningful impact." Based on this statement, I am guessing that Gary will not be speaking publicly about the case any time soon. It should be interesting to see if Ziegler will include this interview with Gary in his new podcast
 
1. This summer is the end of the probationary period for Gary and Tim. It will be interesting if either of them chooses to speak out and give their side of things after that time is up. I am certain they both maintain that they were never told of anything sexual in nature by McQ.
The interesting thing would be for him to explain the "after discussing it with Joe" comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I'm sure he'd love to interview one of the alleged victims, or maybe one of the disgraced prosecutors. I’m sure he has tried.
Well, I don't know if you've watched any true documentaries, but you used the example of Mr. Moore, who managed to get the interview with NRA President Heston, and then proceeded to interview him calmly, without yelling, ranting, or interrupting.

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

Hey look, I hope the Shultz interview is part of it. But ... please note that if Mr. Ziegler is interrupting, ranting, and leading ... well, then it's not really pure Shultz thoughts - it was him being badgered.
 
Pinkzippo PeanutButter said:
Well, I don't know if you've watched any true documentaries, but you used the example of Mr. Moore, who managed to get the interview with NRA President Heston, and then proceeded to interview him calmly, without yelling, ranting, or interrupting.

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

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

You’ve advocated for it many times, but I’ve always been against the designated hitter rule. By adding the DH, the league is dumbing down the game of baseball. They are attempting to take away the strategy and take away the need for intelligence about the game. Every true, long-term baseball fan should be completely against it.
 
Keep in mind that the only change to the plan Tim proposed "after discussing it with Joe" was to inform Jerry of what had been reported to them.
The media interpreted this as Joe talking Curley out of reporting to the authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
The media interpreted this as Joe talking Curley out of reporting to the authorities.
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
 
Last edited:
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

As far as Tim is concerned, he viewed the 2001 incident similar to the 1998 incident. Mike never suggested he witnessed abuse by Jerry of a child but rather that Jerry was engaged in horseplay.
That's exactly what the evidence would lead me to believe but it would be nice to hear Curley clarify that was the case.
 
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

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

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

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

Were you interviewed for Ziegler’s new podcast?

Do you think the podcast will have any impact on public opinion on the case?
 
Tim met with Joe as we all know. The substance of that discussion was simply this— Joe believed that ALL parties should be informed, not just the ones contemplated. In other words, Jerry should be told too. Joe NEVER suggested to Tim that he should not tell certain people or organizations.

Not surprisingly, the media misinterpreted that comment.

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

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

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

Ziegler will not have the guts to do the same for this podcast, interviewing a prominent opposition voice.
You suggest that 9 episodes need to be devoted to the "other side". That is ludicrous. I'm sure they will cover what Sandusky was charged with and why. I serious doubt anyone from the OAG would agree to an interview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
You suggest that 9 episodes need to be devoted to the "other side". That is ludicrous. I'm sure they will cover what Sandusky was charged with and why. I serious doubt anyone from the OAG would agree to an interview.
I also seriously doubt any of the claimants would agree to an interview, although Ziegler would love to interview them. I also think that Mike McQueary or that janitor witness Ronald Petrosky will not agree to an interview. I also believe that prominent people who are convinced Sandusky is guilty like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, or Ray Blehar would not be interested in being interviewed by Ziegler either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob78
I also seriously doubt any of the claimants would agree to an interview, although Ziegler would love to interview them. I also think that Mike McQueary or that janitor witness Ronald Petrosky will not agree to an interview. I also believe that prominent people who are convinced Sandusky is guilty like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente, or Ray Blehar would not be interested in being interviewed by Ziegler either.
Agreed. Will be interesting to see if anyone from within the program participates. I know JZ has done good interviews with Dick Anderson in the past, but I'm not sure he is enough of a name to move the needle. Would be great if Jay was more public with what he knows/believes (which is very different from Scott).
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Ziegler has a new banner on his twitter feed promoting the "With the Benefit of Hindsight . . ." podcast.

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

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

The only person who could possibly say anything that would help clear Joe's name is Curley and most wouldn't see him as credible anyway.
 
Jay has talked about the Clemente report and how pedophiles groom their victims in a way that it difficult for others to notice. No way is Jay going to come out and claim JS is innocent. His position is that Joe didn't know what was happening before McQueary said something, that McQueary didn't mention sexual assault, and that Joe followed University and NCAA guidelines.

The only person who could possibly say anything that would help clear Joe's name is Curley and most wouldn't see him as credible anyway.
I don't disagree with you about Jay's willingness to speak. But it is my understanding that he knows Sandusky is innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I don't disagree with you about Jay's willingness to speak. But it is my understanding that he knows Sandusky is innocent.
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.
 
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.

If it becomes evident that v1 (AF) and v2 (AM) were not sexually assaulted by JS, then the case against JS collapses. V1 and v2 are the pillars of the case against JS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
Even if you could present evidence that 5 of the victims lied that wouldn't prove that the rest of them lied. I see no way for JS to prove his innocence at this point.
True, but keep in mind there were only 8 victims that testified at trial. Depending on which 5 are proven to be liars, the most serious offenses could be much less serious that what he is currently convicted of.

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

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT