ADVERTISEMENT

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

my agenda is wanting a 19 part podcast to fairly present all sides and not ignore the many items that point to Jerry being guilty.

For example these facts about Snedden's investigation are not presented by Ziglie:

  • he didn't investigate Jerry
  • he didn't interview Jerry
  • he didn't interview Corbett or any of Corbett's circle though he lays the blame there
  • he didn't interview any 2nd miles
  • his investigation was not to exonerate or clear Spanier, but rather to see if he should hold a clearance. Many people accused of and even convicted of crimes have clearances renewed, so in Spanier's case it does not say anything about his innocence (he's still guilty in court at present)
  • Snedden had no background in assessment of people accused of Jerry's crimes
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based on sounds and without credible victims and witnesses."
" I just want you to know this was a political hit job." On the Freeh Report, "It's an embarrassment to law enforcement."
Have you ever heard of a pedophile where large amounts of pornography were not found? "No."
This is a retired NCIS special agent.
But hey, some hay seed who has a handle Pinkhippo PeanutButter disagrees. LOL
 
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based on sounds and without credible victims and witnesses."
" I just want you to know this was a political hit job." On the Freeh Report, "It's an embarrassment to law enforcement."
Have you ever heard of a pedophile where large amounts of pornography were not found? "No."
This is a retired NCIS special agent.
But hey, some hay seed who has a handle Pinkhippo PeanutButter disagrees. LOL
I do question Snedden's qualifications relative to child sex crimes

Snedden didn't talk to Corbett or anyone on his team when concluding it was a political hit job

The Freeh report was not a law enforcement document so why does Snedden say its an embarrassment to law enforcement?
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
I do question Snedden's qualifications relative to child sex crimes

Snedden didn't talk to Corbett or anyone on his team when concluding it was a political hit job

The Freeh report was not a law enforcement document so why does Snedden say its an embarrassment to law enforcement?
Let me hazard a guess.....Freeh was once the Director of the FBI. To assign his pedigree to that report was an embarrassment to anyone associated with law enforcement. Why would anyone need to speak to Tom Corbett to make a determination about his motivation? His involvement from his long cell phone conversations with John Surma, to his remember the little boy in the shower speech......to his victory party in downtown state college..... wake up. Even if Sandusky is guilty of every single accusation.....it should not have been a PSU "scandal." I've never spoken to Hitler.....I'll bet I can make a judgement about him....how about you?
 
I do question Snedden's qualifications relative to child sex crimes

Snedden didn't talk to Corbett or anyone on his team when concluding it was a political hit job

The Freeh report was not a law enforcement document so why does Snedden say its an embarrassment to law enforcement?
If you read the Freeh report you know the details in the report did not support any of Louis’s conclusions. It was a document that was delivered in exchange for him receiving multi million dollars. It was not independent. It was cover for the Board of Trustees that were too invested to admit they made a mistake. They didn’t care about the truth. They just cared about people thinking they were correct with how they handled the entire issue including firing Spanier and Parterno. It is prevalent with leaders today. They don’t admit when they are wrong.
 
It is clear that you are not open to new information that is factual. There is no point with arguing with you since you have decided what you believe. You are obviously entitled to your opinion. Interesting how the ex-governor backtracked and said (directly quoted) they should have never fired Paterno since he and Surma were the two that demanded it. He at least was willing to change his mind after obtaining the facts.
Facts!
I listened to Episode 4 today. The interview with NCIS Agent John Snedden was stunning. He conducted a federal investigation in the course of looking into whether Spanier’s Security Clearance should be renewed. He interviewed the key players, unlike the Freeh team. His conclusion is the whole thing was a takedown orchestrated by then-governor Corbett. He thinks all the administrators were innocent and possibly Sandusky as well. Again this coming from a federal investigator.
Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.

Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.

After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.

That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.

In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.

That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.

On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”
"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and, "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."

On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was "a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.

At the same time Snedden was investigating Penn State, former FBI Director Louis Freeh was writing his report on the Penn State scandal, a report commissioned by the university, at a staggering cost of $8.3 million.

Freeh concluded that there had been a cover up. His report found a “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university,” which included Spanier, who had repeatedly been severely beaten by his father as a child, requiring several operations as an adult. Freeh also found that Spanier, Paterno, along with Schultz, the former Penn State vice president and Curley, the school’s ex-athletic director, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities.”
But critics such as the minority trustees have noted that the ex-FBI director reached his sweeping conclusions without his investigators ever talking to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier briefly, at the end of his investigation. And confidential records viewed by the trustees show that Freeh’s own people disagreed with his conclusions.

According to those records, Freeh's own staff reviewed a May 21, 2012 draft of the Freeh Report, which was subsequently turned over to Penn State officials. The lead paragraph of the draft said, “At the time of the alleged sexual assaults by Jerry Sandusky, there was a culture and environment in the Penn State Athletic Department that led staff members to fail to identify or act on observed inappropriate conduct by Sandusky.”
The draft report talked about an environment of fear that affected even a janitor who supposedly saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the showers in 2002: “There existed an environment within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat of losing his job outweighed the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.”
Over that paragraph in the draft report, a handwritten note said, “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” Freeh, however, in his final version of his report, included that charge about the janitor who allegedly saw Sandusky assault another boy in the showers but was so fearful he didn’t report it.

But when the state police interviewed that janitor, Jim Calhoun, he stated three times that it wasn’t Sandusky he had seen sexually abusing a boy. [The state police didn’t ask Calhoun who was the alleged assailant.] At Sandusky’s trial, however, the jury convicted the ex-coach of that crime, in part because his defense lawyer never told the jury about the janitor’s interview with the state police.

In a written statement, Freeh confirmed that the person who wrote “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” was one of his guys.

"Throughout the review at the Pennsylvania State University, members of the Freeh team were encouraged to speak freely and to challenge any factual assertions that they believed are not supported," Freeh wrote on Jan. 10, 2018.

"Indeed the factual assertions of the report were tested and vetted over a period of many months and, as new evidence was uncovered, some of the factual assertions and conclusions evolved," he wrote. "Our staff debated, refined and reformed our views even in the final hours before the report's release."

In another handwritten note on the draft of the report, somebody wrote that there was "no evidence" to support Freeh's contention that a flawed football culture was to blame for the Sandusky sex scandal.

"Freeh knew the evidence did not support this," the executive summary says. But in his final report, Freeh wrote about "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."
While Freeh concluded there was a coverup at Penn State, his investigators weren’t so sure, according to records cited by the trustees in their executive summary.

On March 7, 2012, in a conference call, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who was one of Freeh’s senior investigators, noted that they had found “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.”
In a written statement to this reporter, Freeh claimed that shortly after McChesney made that observation, his investigators found “the critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence” in a 2001 “email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier.”

In that email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, the administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities, and telling him to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

In the email chain, Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

Curley subsequently told Sandusky to stop bringing children into Penn State facilities, and informed officials at The Second Mile about the 2002 shower incident witnessed by McQueary, an incident that the prosecutors subsequently decided really happened in 2001. But Penn State didn’t inform the state Department of Public Welfare about Sandusky, which Freeh claimed was the smoking gun.
 
Facts!

Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

About six months after Baldwin told Snedden this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also against former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.

Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly violating the attorney-client privilege.

After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.

That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden told Big Trial last year.

In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower that lasted only "one or two seconds," glances relating to an incident at least eight years previous. But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, those glances of "one or two seconds" became an anal rape of a child, as conclusively witnessed by McQueary.

That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.

On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”
"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen. The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

But the alleged victim of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. Days, after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and, "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."

On top of that, all the witnesses that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was "a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.

At the same time Snedden was investigating Penn State, former FBI Director Louis Freeh was writing his report on the Penn State scandal, a report commissioned by the university, at a staggering cost of $8.3 million.

Freeh concluded that there had been a cover up. His report found a “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university,” which included Spanier, who had repeatedly been severely beaten by his father as a child, requiring several operations as an adult. Freeh also found that Spanier, Paterno, along with Schultz, the former Penn State vice president and Curley, the school’s ex-athletic director, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities.”
But critics such as the minority trustees have noted that the ex-FBI director reached his sweeping conclusions without his investigators ever talking to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier briefly, at the end of his investigation. And confidential records viewed by the trustees show that Freeh’s own people disagreed with his conclusions.

According to those records, Freeh's own staff reviewed a May 21, 2012 draft of the Freeh Report, which was subsequently turned over to Penn State officials. The lead paragraph of the draft said, “At the time of the alleged sexual assaults by Jerry Sandusky, there was a culture and environment in the Penn State Athletic Department that led staff members to fail to identify or act on observed inappropriate conduct by Sandusky.”
The draft report talked about an environment of fear that affected even a janitor who supposedly saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the showers in 2002: “There existed an environment within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat of losing his job outweighed the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.”
Over that paragraph in the draft report, a handwritten note said, “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” Freeh, however, in his final version of his report, included that charge about the janitor who allegedly saw Sandusky assault another boy in the showers but was so fearful he didn’t report it.

But when the state police interviewed that janitor, Jim Calhoun, he stated three times that it wasn’t Sandusky he had seen sexually abusing a boy. [The state police didn’t ask Calhoun who was the alleged assailant.] At Sandusky’s trial, however, the jury convicted the ex-coach of that crime, in part because his defense lawyer never told the jury about the janitor’s interview with the state police.

In a written statement, Freeh confirmed that the person who wrote “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” was one of his guys.

"Throughout the review at the Pennsylvania State University, members of the Freeh team were encouraged to speak freely and to challenge any factual assertions that they believed are not supported," Freeh wrote on Jan. 10, 2018.

"Indeed the factual assertions of the report were tested and vetted over a period of many months and, as new evidence was uncovered, some of the factual assertions and conclusions evolved," he wrote. "Our staff debated, refined and reformed our views even in the final hours before the report's release."

In another handwritten note on the draft of the report, somebody wrote that there was "no evidence" to support Freeh's contention that a flawed football culture was to blame for the Sandusky sex scandal.

"Freeh knew the evidence did not support this," the executive summary says. But in his final report, Freeh wrote about "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."
While Freeh concluded there was a coverup at Penn State, his investigators weren’t so sure, according to records cited by the trustees in their executive summary.

On March 7, 2012, in a conference call, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who was one of Freeh’s senior investigators, noted that they had found “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.”
In a written statement to this reporter, Freeh claimed that shortly after McChesney made that observation, his investigators found “the critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence” in a 2001 “email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier.”

In that email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, the administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities, and telling him to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

In the email chain, Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

Curley subsequently told Sandusky to stop bringing children into Penn State facilities, and informed officials at The Second Mile about the 2002 shower incident witnessed by McQueary, an incident that the prosecutors subsequently decided really happened in 2001. But Penn State didn’t inform the state Department of Public Welfare about Sandusky, which Freeh claimed was the smoking gun.
Yea - doesn’t sound to me like Snedden is full of shit!
 
My conclusion is that Jerry violated boundaries but did not have sex with any child. The question is that now that this has gone on so long that if you do clear him, how are you going to give Jerry back all these years?
My hope is for Jerry is to get exonerated as soon as possible and then we can give Jerry back the rest of the years he has left. It would be great if it happened in Pennsylvania courts, but with their track record on this case, changes for this are slim at best. However, he does have an active appeal that is awaiting decision and he has a very strong case. Frank Fina is a disgraced prosecutor who has been sanctioned by the state. There are grand jury leaks, juror tampering, Brady violations and serial other acts of prosecutorial misconduct in plain view and, at a minimum, evidenciary hearings are clearly warranted.

Chances in federal court may be better as there is a more fair playing view and there is a very clear record that this case at least deserves another look. As time goes on, more and more of the general population become aware that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice, but overall it still hardly a dent. A game changer would be if a major media outlet like Netflix repackaged the With the Bennefit of Hindsight documentary into 1-2 hour video segments along the lines of The Making of a Murderer. If that happens, I believe there would be a very good chance that we would see a swing in public opinion in the case and that all bets will be off.
 
This was a surprisingly informative discussion. Here's another link.
Powerful. So I guess it's fair to conclude from this that Sandusky's "innocence" is an open secret around PSU?
I also agree with what Kevin Horne says about being angry at JS for not taking precautions (being more cautious) after 1998. This kind of stupidity or naiveté is not worthy of a life sentence, however.
 
Last edited:
Let's bet on whether ZIG interviews any of the people that contributed to the Paterno report on this situation.... or whether he even acknowledges its existence.

You would think that in 19 episodes he'd manage to find time to cover the one document that studied the situation and came out clearing Paterno.

Hint, he won't because he doesn't give a crap about truth or Joe or PSU. He only cares about clearing Jerry.
Well Thornburg is dead, so that would be a tough interview.

Seems very unlikely that Clemente would agree to an interview. I think his credibility has taken a pretty huge hit over the past decade.

Who would you have them interview exactly?

I believe the podcast has already mentioned the Paterno report and it's contents.
 
Ziegler's primary motivation is not the truth, it's clicks.

Ziegler definitely ignores things that don't support his stance. When called out on it, he'll continue to ignore it.

He's not above lying about testimony, either. When he does talk about testimony, he seldom if ever cites it so that an independent reviewer can fact check it.

Here's some basic questions I sent him on Twitter on 4/20/21. He's seen them, but continues to ignore them.

So your 12/29/2000 date scenario: McQ met his dad/Dranov that night or shortly after; Dranov says he met Schultz three months or so later; Schultz clearly remembers telling him investigation is ongoing, placing that meeting 21/21-2/23/2001; and you worked backward to your date.
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that clearly placed the night of the incident, and his meeting at the McQueary household, on 2/9/2001? (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.162)
You say Dranov testimony is critical in your date scenario. But why did you ignore his testimony that Schultz told him The Second Mile had already been informed? That places the date of his meeting with Schultz well after mid-March 2001. (Spanier trial, 3/21/2017, p.161)
You talk about Curley's 2 meetings with Sandusky. You mention Sandusky's confusion at the 1st meeting. Why did you ignore Curley's testimony that Sandusky wanted to check his calendar, did so, & confirmed the 2/9/2001 date in their 2nd meeting? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.358, 389-390)
Schultz bought into your date theory in part because he clearly remembers telling Dranov the investigation was ongoing. He said so four times (1x in 1st interview, 3x in 2nd). But Schultz testified in 2017 he had no recollection of this. Why do you think that is? (Spanier trial, 3/22/2017, p.470)

And here's a few more tweets I sent him. Still no response from him.





@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
 
Kevin mentioned that a former recent (within past 15 years) PSU QB, who he described as very popular, is also in the camp of Jerry being innocent. I'm guessing (solely based on when Kevin was in school) that this is McGloin.

Kevin also confirmed that Jay Paterno is in this camp and that MANY people around State College feel this way.
 
Last edited:
Kevin mentioned that a former recent (within past 15 years) PSU QB, who he described as very popular, is also in the camp of Jerry being innocent. I'm guessing (solely based on when Kevin was in school) that this is McGloin.

Kevin also confirmed that Jay Paterno is in this camp and that MANY people around State College feel this way.

Then why is NO ONE saying anything? WTF?!
 
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
well, don't forget that they had the YEAR wrong until the production. How could you have the day correct but the year wrong? IMHO, and I've seen prosecutors do this, the notion that he watched "Rudy" on a Friday night and somehow got inspired at 9 at night to put his spikes in his locker complete and total BS. In addition, if you've ever been in the building, it is highly unlikely he ever saw anything from his locker, in a mirror and in the shower with any clarity (if at all). He stated by the time he looked at them directly, they were separated. So anything he saw that was damning was in a the mirror.
 
Then why is NO ONE saying anything? WTF?!
Kevin actually discusses this at length as well. He basically said that if you are in any way associated with PSU (job, spouses job, prospective grad student, etc) it is against your own self interest to state this. He even suggested that if you were looking for a job (not just in State College, but in general) it would be against your self interest to "come out" about this.

I don't necessarily condone this, but certainly understand.
 
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?

Yes, you heard the podcast correctly.

My respect for Ray has been reduced over the years. He has done some good work, but I believe he is dead wrong with the identity of v2. I believe it is crystal clear that Allan Myers is v2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
well, don't forget that they had the YEAR wrong until the production. How could you have the day correct but the year wrong? IMHO, and I've seen prosecutors do this, the notion that he watched "Rudy" on a Friday night and somehow got inspired at 9 at night to put his spikes in his locker complete and total BS. In addition, if you've ever been in the building, it is highly unlikely he ever saw anything from his locker, in a mirror and in the shower with any clarity (if at all). He stated by the time he looked at them directly, they were separated. So anything he saw that was damning was in a the mirror.
The OAG needed to disqualify Tim and Gary from being witnesses for Jerry's defense. The statute of limitations was 10 years for their alleged crimes. That's why they used 2002.
 
I used to follow this closely and have great respect for Ray B and jimmy w however i have only listened to the Schultz interview and the first 2 podcasts. I hadn't ever given much credence to the "date changes" issue but in listening to the podcast it made me wonder.
. Grand jury heard March 1 2002 and campus was dead. [did MM actually say campus was dead?]
. i think Zig said it was JS who said March couldn't have been the right date. [did I hear that right}
If those things are true how would MM's credibility have played out if the date changes weren't discussed until trial?
lawyer - so you think the date was March 2nd, MM yes to the best of my recollection.
lawyer - part of the reason was this was the beginning of spring break and you recall the campus being deserted is the correct? MM -yes sir
lawyer - how would explain that the records show you met with Coach Paterno on February 10th of 2001.
MM perhaps my recollection was incorrect and the Lasch episode was February 9th.
Lawyer - of but was everything else true?
MM yes sir
lawyer - as it turns out Feb 9th there was a concert at BJC and a hockey game right where Lasch is located. Does that seem like a good description of campus being dead?
MM -duh

Forget even that if rocky was on from 8:00-!0:00 and MM saw te thing at Lasch between 9;00-9:30 he ikely saw less than 1/2 the movie and yet felt inspired to go work out on a Friday night.

That seems to me to present real credibility issues at the very onset with MM. I now think the date mix up was more significant than I had thought.

Did i hear the podcasts correctly?
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
 
If you listen to the entire podcast as the episodes are released you find numerous interviews and other findings that make the story as told by the AG in their false presentment, the news media and by their actions, the PSU Board a complete made up fairytale. The story was told to get a result that served all of their interests and was not anything close to what really happened. They didn’t care what really happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
it would also tell you why Paterno didn't do much other than report it. Without knowing who the boy was, there was no way to corroborate the story.
 
The date issue is a big deal in terms of MM's credibility for a number of reasons, but a big one goes beyond just "misremembering the date". If the date is really December (which it appears to be) and everyone agrees when he went to Paterno, that means he waited six weeks(?) to report this to Paterno. That does not align with the idea that he saw a sexual assault (i.e. why wait weeks to talk to JVP???); it does conveniently align with when Kenny Jackson departed the coaching staff.
Check out the layout of the locker room. See the location of the lockers and the mirror over the sink. MM didn't see much of anything, unless he has xray eyes.
 
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
Well
Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.
 
Well
Keep in mind it was John Doe/Victim No. 5's previous testimony that Sandusky abused him at their first meeting. The only problem, as Ziegler disclosed on his podcast, was the photo of Victim No. 5 was taken from a book, "Touched, The Jerry Sandusky Story," by Jerry Sandusky. And according to Amazon, that book was published on Nov. 17, 2000.

Three months before the alleged shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. Meaning that in a real world where facts matter, John Doe/Victim No. 5 was totally irrelevant to the case.

It was the kind of thing that a defense lawyer would typically jump on during cross-examination, confusion over the date of the abuse. Excuse me, Mr. Doe, we all know you have suffered terribly, but when did the abuse happen? Was it in 1998, or was it 2000, or 2001 or even 2002? And hey, what's the deal with that photo?

But the Spanier trial was conducted in the Twilight Zone. Spanier's lawyers chose not to ask a single question of John Doe. As Samuel W. Silver explained why to the jury in his closing statement: he did not want to add to the suffering of a sainted victim of sex abuse by subjecting him to cross-examination. Like you would have done with any normal human being when the freedom of your client was at stake.

That left Spanier in the Twilight Zone, where he was convicted by a jury on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

To add to the curious nature of the conviction, the statute of limitations for endangering the welfare of a child is two years. But the incident that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were accused of covering up, the infamous Mike McQueary shower incident, happened back in 2001.

At the Spanier trial, the prosecution was only able to try the defendant on a charge that had long ago expired by throwing in a conspiracy charge. In theory, that meant that the defendant and his co-conspirators could still be prosecuted, because they'd allegedly been engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct over sixteen years -- the coverup that never happened --- which kept the original child endangerment charge on artificial respiration until the jury could decide the issue.


But the jury found Spanier not guilty on the conspiracy charge. And they also found Spanier not guilty of engaging in a continuing course of [criminal] conduct.

That means that Spanier was convicted on a single misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of a child, dating back to 2001. A crime that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on.

On this issue, Silver was willing to express an opinion.

"We certainly will be pursuing the statute of limitations as one of our post-trial issues," he wrote in an email.

Meanwhile, Graham Spanier remains a prisoner in the Twilight Zone. And until there's a credible investigation of what really happened, all of Penn State nation remains trapped in there with him.

I love the way @jerot uses articles from Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog. They are usually on subject and showcase Cipriano, the journalist who has had the best reporting on the story over the last ~4 years imho. I just wish he/she would cite big trial and provide a link to the story.

It seems like there is bad blood between Cipriano and Ziegler. I believe this happened after they collaborated on the blockbuster article that was slated to be published in Newsweek. When the story was pulled, I believe Ziegler shortly thereafter posted the article on his web pages which caused Cipriano to be upset as the article then probably lost any value to a different publisher.
 
I love the way @jerot uses articles from Ralph Cipriano’s big trial blog. They are usually on subject and showcase Cipriano, the journalist who has had the best reporting on the story over the last ~4 years imho. I just wish he/she would cite big trial and provide a link to the story.

It seems like there is bad blood between Cipriano and Ziegler. I believe this happened after they collaborated on the blockbuster article that was slated to be published in Newsweek. When the story was pulled, I believe Ziegler shortly thereafter posted the article on his web pages which caused Cipriano to be upset as the article then probably lost any value to a different publisher.
Another way to say it is Ziggg stole Cipriano-s work
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
In the Zig interview did Gary ever say what MM told him and Curley? Or did he just say that they were never told about sexual assault?
 
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?


You say, "Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews."

Your first problem is this assumption. The answers are not in the Schultz interviews. Your second problem is that you're blatantly disingenuous. It was clear in my questions to Ziegler that I'd listened to the Schultz interviews. It was also clear in my post to which you replied that I included this very Ziegler tweet and my response to it. Here it is again:



A debate with Ziegler? My terms are simple. I posed my questions already. The ball is in his court to respond with answers that actually address the questions. If he continues to ignore them, that's his choice.

You say, "I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs." This is a non-sequiter. The point of my post and my questions to Ziegler have nothing to do with my beliefs; they only had to do with significant evidence that Ziegler ignored in attempting to prove his date theory.

Where's your intellectual curiosity? Don't you want Ziegler to answer my questions? Have you done any independent research to answer them? (It shouldn't be hard since I cited the date and page in the transcripts, which is far more than Ziegler ever does.) Are you OK with Ziegler lying, misrepresenting things, and cherry-picking?
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
@JmmyW

I disagree with your premise that Ziegler is not interested in the truth. I believe his primary motivation is a journalistic search for the truth. I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs.

Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews.



If you are unsatisfied with his responses, then you are welcome to challenge him to a debate. Ziegler has said many times that he would be willing to accept any reasonable offer to debate. Please inform him of your terms and have at it.

You complain that Ziegler hasn’t answered your questions, but you have repeatedly failed to answer the questions I have asked of you. If you would like someone to respond to your legitimate questions, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to respond to legitimate questions that others have of you.

If you are so inclined, please respond to the following questions I have of you:
  • Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
  • Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
  • Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
  • Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
  • Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
  • Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
  • Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
  • Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
  • Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
  • Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
  • Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
  • Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?

my first response to the above
You say, "Ziegler did respond to you. In response to you, he asked whether you had listened to the Schultz interviews. I assume he is saying the answers to your questions are in the Schultz interviews."

Your first problem is this assumption. The answers are not in the Schultz interviews. Your second problem is that you're blatantly disingenuous. It was clear in my questions to Ziegler that I'd listened to the Schultz interviews. It was also clear in my post to which you replied that I included this very Ziegler tweet and my response to it. Here it is again:



A debate with Ziegler? My terms are simple. I posed my questions already. The ball is in his court to respond with answers that actually address the questions. If he continues to ignore them, that's his choice.

You say, "I question whether your motivation is a search for the truth. It seems to me that one of your main objectives is to find evidence that supports your current beliefs." This is a non-sequiter. The point of my post and my questions to Ziegler have nothing to do with my beliefs; they only had to do with significant evidence that Ziegler ignored in attempting to prove his date theory.

Where's your intellectual curiosity? Don't you want Ziegler to answer my questions? Have you done any independent research to answer them? (It shouldn't be hard since I cited the date and page in the transcripts, which is far more than Ziegler ever does.) Are you OK with Ziegler lying, misrepresenting things, and cherry-picking?

It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole and Bob78
Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​
Curley, Shultz, Paterno, McQuerary Sr, and Dranov all said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. So it seems to me that either he didn't convey it or else they all lied about what they were told. You might even throw Raykovitz in to that group.
 
My suspicions about the methods, tactics and ethics of the PSP and The Commonwealth OAG have been confirmed after listening to Gary Schultz and Kevin Horne on the podcast. Schultz reveals the shouting and fist pounding antics of prosecutors, unhappy with responses that did not fit their agenda. Horne makes it clear that while he suspected Sandusky to be innocent for some time, felt compelled (due to potential repercussions) to keep his opinion to himself. We already knew that 2 PSP perjured themselves (without any discipline). Now we have empirical evidence of how justice worked under the direction of Tom Corbett. The Commonwealth essentially operated as a totalitarian state. Citizens never cower when they see guilty parties prosecuted. However, when the innocent are randomly targeted a culture of fear is created. The goal of keeping Tim and Gary from testifying at the Sandusky Trial, coupled with the desire to suppress any outcry for a measured applications of justice explains the secret police methods employed in this case. It should lead us to question how often Fina and his Oprichnik like side kicks bullied others in their reign of terror.
Regardless of your opinion on Sandusky's guilt, if you are a citizen of Pa. you should be outraged.
 
Curley, Shultz, Paterno, McQuerary Sr, and Dranov all said that Mike didn't tell them about sexual assault. So it seems to me that either he didn't convey it or else they all lied about what they were told. You might even throw Raykovitz in to that group.
Either Mike was coerced by investigators into embellishing his story....thru threats or perhaps his regret at not being more aggressive at the time he reported (since investigators convinced him JS was the worst pedophile in the world)...what is clear is that at the time he never mentioned sexual abuse.
Dad and Dranov= response= report to Joe (administrative not criminal)
Joe= report to Curley (administrative)
Curley and Shultz= (report to Raykovitz and ban TSM) (administrative)
Raykovitz (child care expert) No action needed

There can be no argument to suggest any abuse was reported at the time.
 
my first response to the above


It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
Mixing facts with fallacy gets you a grade of F on an essay in a high school history test. When you lie as Freeh did...nothing is of value after that.
Sandusky never should have showered with "children" after the 98 incident. Does anyone know if this was frequent or was it Alan Meyer age 13+? Does this make him guilty of all charges of child sex abuse?
Regardless of the date, Mike couldn't see anything (check the layout of the locker room) and based on the reactions of the respected Dr, Dranov, he never reported the sexual abuse of a child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
...Sandusky never should have showered with "children" after the 98 incident.
I disagree. Sandusky should have never showered alone with children after the '98 incident.

This is one of the problems I have with JZ. He does these great interviews with Gary and he never actually asks him to address the notes he took relative to the shower incident. I would love to hear what Gary was thinking at the time.

My take on Gary's notes and the emails is that C/S/S were focused on preventing a future he said/he said scenario.

Gary wrote:
On 2/12/01 Schultz made the following notes shortly after he and Curley first met with Joe, presumably after he consulted with Courtney. Not sure if before or after giving a heads up to Spanier. (Exhibit 5E, pg. 219 of Freeh Report):

-Talked w TMC, reviewed 1998 history

-agreed TMC will discuss with JVP & advise we think TMC should meet w/JS on Friday

-unless he “confesses” to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned with child welfare


From this, we learn that Tim most likely had no prior knowledge of 1998. That Schultz said he reviewed the history of that event suggests that he didn’t go into depth. As has been pointed out, no one accused JS of sexual impropriety then, so knowledge of this incident is moot as far as perjury is concerned.

The second point suggests that Joe was, as he claimed, only peripherally involved. He was initially kept in the loop, but his input was not required or requested.

The initial plan was for Tim to meet with JS that week. This meeting did not take place. It would be interesting to know why, but I think you could argue that the delay had to do with not having yet met with Mike. It may also speak to the general treatment of this issue as more of an HR/PR problem, not as a criminal one.

The third point is critical and very telling. Schultz uses the word ‘confesses’. The quotation marks are his. Confess to what? What does Schultz believe to be Sandusky’s “problem”? In the context of his notes, if the problem was pedophilia that would mean that if Jerry admitted he sexually abused a child, Schultz saw no need to have DPW review the matter, but if Jerry did not admit to same, Schultz believed the matter warranted the involvement of an independent agency concerned with child welfare. That’s completely backwards! Can we at least agree on that? Yet that is what Louis Freeh would have us believe is a “reasonable conclusion”.

Also, these notes provide conclusive evidence that reporting to DPW was considered to be an optional step from the beginning. What did Schultz tell Courtney and what was Courtney’s response?

On 2/25/01, per Schultz's notes from the meeting between Curley, Schultz and Spanier that took place after Tim and Gary had met with MM (Exhibit 5E, pg. 223 of Freeh Report):

3) Tell Chair* of Board of Second Mile

2) Report to Dept. of Welfare

1) Tell J.S. to avoid bringing children alone into Lasch Bldg.d


* Who is chair??

What does this suggest?

First, look at step #1. "Avoid"? Does that word choice fit the scenario suggested in the accusations?

I would equate this with a DUI issue, whereas we are being told to believe that it was a hit and run. IOW, they intended to tell Jerry to "avoid" driving when he's had a few rather than "avoid" running over old ladies on his way home from the bar. You don't use a word like "avoid" when a serious crime has already occurred. You use a word like "avoid" when the potential exists for something to go wrong if the questionable behavior continues unabated.

The word "alone" is significant, IMO. When coupled with "avoid" it indicates their intent is to advise Jerry, for his own good, that he should avoid situations in which he is alone with children in the Lasch Bldg. because problems could arise. It wasn’t Jerry’s behavior so much, but that he was alone with a boy that led to this restriction.

This reminds me of when I used to go camping with my son's scout troop. Often there was a restroom on the grounds, but some distance from where we made camp. In my mind, it made sense for an adult to accompany a boy who had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. It was dark. They could get lost. They might be afraid. Worst case, there might be some creep out there. However, the policy was that even the fathers/scout leaders in the group weren't allowed to take a boy by himself. Two boys or two adults are fine. One adult and one boy are not. I thought that was overkill until I thought about it and realized that it served to not only protect me, but the BSA.

Step # two is important because it proves that there was no intent to conceal the matter, even after speaking with Mike. Absent from any of these communiques is any reference to protecting the football program from bad publicity.

This does suggest a change in the approach from Schultz's initial notes, especially since he repeated this step in an email to Curley the next day. However, it wasn't necessarily so. Only he knows what he meant here. He may have just been repeating what he wrote before, but in an abbreviated form that he/they understood. Assuming the optional aspect of reporting to DPW was removed at this point, why? Did Mike say anything that Joe did not? Did Spanier argue that the matter needed to be reported regardless to cover their butts and protect PSU?

Step #3 is interesting. Why inform the chair of TSM, not Exec. Director Jack Raykovitz? This is worth understanding more clearly. My take is that if a crime had occurred, Jack would have been the one to contact because he was involved in the day to day operations. He would have been in the better position to look into it, find the boy and see to his wellbeing. Informing the chair, OTOH, suggests to me that they saw the incident as more of a potential PR problem.

That Schultz didn't know who the chair was, and presumably none of them did, also tells me that they weren't trying to hide anything. It would be one thing if they were buds, but that doesn't appear to have been the case.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Sandusky should have never showered alone with children after the '98 incident.
Sandusky never should have showered alone with children, ever. There is no school of thought that would have made it OK for somebody in his role to have been doing so. It is beyond reasonable to think he didn’t know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUSignore
my first response to the above


It's ironic that you respond to my post about Ziegler not answering my questions, don't bother to address any of them yourself, and come back with a whole host of separate questions, most of which I've already addressed in the past. Regardless, here you go:


Do you believe the date of the v2 incident to be Feb. 9, 2001?
Yes. It's far more consistent with the evidence than 12/29/2000.​

Do you believe that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the Lasch building shower?
No. I think he believed a sex assault might have happened. But according to his own testimony, he never saw an explicit sex act. How well he conveyed that to Paterno, and then to Curley and Schultz 7-10 days later is certainly up for debate. But it's clear from all involved that he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The obvious conclusion is that he suspected child abuse, which is exactly what Courtney researched for Schultz.​

Do you believe that the Freeh Report is factual?
Yes and no. It contains a lot of facts. But it also contains opinions and conclusions that are not balanced by any other possible conclusion. That's it's major fault.​

Do you believe that Spanier, Curley and Schultz knowingly enabled the acts of a CSA offender?
No.​

Do you believe Mike McQueary is a credible witness?
Yes. Insofar as he saw Sandusky in a shower with boy and suspected sexual abuse. I do think his level certainty in what exactly he told Curley and Schultz shifted in one direction, just as Schultz and Curley's admission about what he told them shifted in the other direction. To be clear, I think McQueary told them he suspected sex abuse. But in their meeting, I suspect Curley/Schultz pushed back to get clarity on exactly what he saw, and he had to admit he didn't exactly see anything explicit. Unfortunately, none of them said they remembered any of the questions at that meeting.​

Do you believe the identity of v2 is known only to God?
No. But I suspect McGettigan believed those words when he made his closing arguments. I think AM believes he was V2. But any argument that asks if he isn't the real V2, why didn't the real V2 come forward, fails the logic test.​

Do you believe that Frank Fina claiming that he set up a sting operation to catch the grand jury leaker proves that he was not the leaker?
No. That's just faulty logic. Just like my example immediately above. And just like any argument that claims that if the V1 case (or V2 case) falls apart, the entire case falls apart.​

Do you believe that the OAG's and the Freeh Group's investigations were independent?
Mostly, but it's clear they shared information. And that should be no surprise at all. Freeh's first press release stated that they would share information with authorities. Now, did the OAG improperly share information with Freeh? That's definitely possible.​

Do you believe that Juror 0990, Laura Pauley, who had been interviewed by the Freeh Group before Sandusky's trial was a fair, unbiased, and open-minded juror?
It seems she was biased against PSU leadership. That's probably not too surprising since she'd been on the faculty for at least 20 years at the time of the Sandusky trial. But she's an engineer, they tend to have good analytical skills, so she was probably an open-minded juror for the Sandusky trial. Just because Freeh interviewed her shouldn't have disqualified her from being a juror. But if she lied about that during voir dire, then yeah, I'd say she was biased. I did review the public transcripts during jury selection; she was never asked about being interviewed by Freeh. If she was asked, the records are either sealed or weren't made public.​

Do you believe Malcolm Gladwell is biased in his view of the case?
Yes. But only because I don't think he did any detailed independent research, and just took what Ziegler handed him about the date theory.​

Do you believe Mark Pendergrast does not know what he is talking about in regard to this case?
He knows a lot about the case, but just like Ziegler, he omits things that don't support his theories or outright lies about them. There's a lot of similarities between Pendergrast, Ziegler, and Freeh in that regard.​

Do you believe John Snedden’s federal investigation into Spanier was flawed?
No. But any suggestion that Snedden investigated the charges against Sandusky and proved him innocent (as suggested by some in this thread, and elsewhere) is absurd.​

And some bonus question you didn't ask:

What about the Barenaked Ladies concert on 2/9/2001?
This is an unpersuasive argument. The concert started at 8pm. Any traffic control on the street would have been gone shortly after the concert started. The BJC is not "right across the street" from Lasch. The most likely drive to Lasch from downtown is University Ave to Hastings. You can only see the top part of the back side of the BJC on that route. Nothing about that view would indicate a concert was going on. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

What about the ice hockey game on 2/9/2001?
This is another unpersuasive argument. It might make sense if it were the Icers hockey team, who were #2 in the ACHA, but they were in Ohio that night. The Ice Lions were the lower level of the two club hockey teams. They had a record of 6-12-2 and were on a five-game losing skid. It's doubtful there were many in attendance at Greenberg to watch them play. It's also doubtful anyone going to that game would have parked in the restricted parking area for the Lasch building when there was a sizable parking lot on the other side of Greenberg. Take a look on google street view & see for yourself.​

Do you believe Sandusky when he says he was only warned not to shower Victim 6 after 1998?
No. It makes no sense that Officer Shreffler and Jerry Lauro would restrict to their admonition not to shower with kids to just a single boy. They both knew he had showered with multiple boys in the past. They both knew he gave naked bear hugs to two different boys (V6 and BK) in 1998. It makes no sense to only tell him not to shower with V6.​
Well, you lose credibility with the answer to your first question. Multiple people have looked into it and concluded that the December date is more likely than the February date. What evidence do you have that makes it more consistent?

MM said there weren’t many kids on campus. Dec 29th - yes
Feb 9th - no

Dranov/McQ met with Schultz and Curley a few months after MM told them about it.
Dec 29th - yes
Feb 9th - no

What else ya got?
 
ADVERTISEMENT