ADVERTISEMENT

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

It’s indefensible and inappropriate. As an average citizen it is indefensible. As a grown man working with youths it is even more so. If you think it is defensible, would you be OK with me walking up to you in a group shower where we were the only two in there and giving you hug? What excuse would I be able to give you to make you think, “Well, that was inappropriate but he presented a good defense so I’ll buy it”? This is a serious question.
Do you and I have a father son relationship? That is relevant to this situation and would make it defensible.

Did you and I used to play rugby together? That isn't relevant to the case, but would be a realistic situation that would be defensible.

Were you and I in fraternity together?

If you and I had a relationship where horseplay was historically common, this is defensible.

If you were a complete stranger, it is not.

If I was a minor, it would be inappropriate but not indefensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoBareFeet
Illegal or not it is damning circumstantial evidence that cannot be explained or ignored. There are people that have been convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence alone. The showering was believed by the jury to be enough to convict on those counts.

Just because you don't accept it does not invalidate their interpretation.

Jerry will die in custody.
Perhaps it is circumstantial evidence that cannot be ignored.

Allow me ask you this as a follow-up (or anyone else that may want is relying upon and using the fact of showering as a defacto reason to assume criminal intent/behavior and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • If it had been disclosed to the jury at trial that Esbach told McQ ["We know a lot of this information (in the GJP) is not accurate, but you can't say it becasue it will damage our case"], would it have been so conclusive that JS is guilty?

In 2011 the horror and shock of the allegation was that the grad assistant watched JS anally rape a 10-year old. That was the picture embedded in everyone's mind. That was certainly not true, as we have learned. If the V2 shower incident was then fabricated, what else was fabricated. From what i recall, there was no other witness to corroborate any other story. Hearsay at best. The victims all have unsavory pasts and some have criminal backgrounds as well.
 
Do you and I have a father son relationship? That is relevant to this situation and would make it defensible.

Did you and I used to play rugby together? That isn't relevant to the case, but would be a realistic situation that would be defensible.

Were you and I in fraternity together?

If you and I had a relationship where horseplay was historically common, this is defensible.

If you were a complete stranger, it is not.

If I was a minor, it would be inappropriate but not indefensible.
It was their first time together. That was not a “father-son“ relationship. You would agree with this, right? Whatever the relationship became, it certainly wasn’t on a first time together.
Nope, we never played rugby together. We were both in the weight room for ten minutes and you spotted for me before heading to the showers.
Nope, not in a fraternity together, this was our first time alone together.
We not only didn’t have a relationship where horseplay (a hug is not horseplay anyway) was historically common, we didn’t really have a relationship at all to speak of. This was our first time together alone.
So with those answers, how are you defending me doing calling you over from a separate shower head to share mine and hugging you? Im not even going with the age here, which obviously makes it indefensible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
It is true that it doesn't matter what I think, but it does matter what the facts are (which are not reflected in the trial verdict).

It does matter that there was prosecutorial misconduct during the trial.

It does matter that the judge was insanely biased in favor of the prosecution.

It does matter that police were dishonest in order to get depositions AND were caught lying about it on the stand.
What matters to you and what matters to others are two different things. You need to realize that and learn how to deal with it.

You can continue to cry "Not fair!!" like you've been doing while trying to rationalize known facts. However, you have absolutely no control over Jerry's fate. And Jerry's fate is to die in prison, mainly due to his own decisions and behaviors.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
What matters to you and what matters to others are two different things. You need to realize that and learn how to deal with it.

You can continue to cry "Not fair!!" like you've been doing while trying to rationalize known facts. However, you have absolutely no control over Jerry's fate. And Jerry's fate is to die in prison, mainly due to his own decisions and behaviors.
Do you think Jerry ever raped a kid? Blew a kid? Had a kid blow him?

I think most people that have been following this case closely all through the last decade would answer "no" to those questions. So if those things never happened, aren't all the "grooming" claims nonsense? Grooming for what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Perhaps it is circumstantial evidence that cannot be ignored.

Allow me ask you this as a follow-up (or anyone else that may want is relying upon and using the fact of showering as a defacto reason to assume criminal intent/behavior and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
  • If it had been disclosed to the jury at trial that Esbach told McQ ["We know a lot of this information (in the GJP) is not accurate, but you can't say it becasue it will damage our case"], would it have been so conclusive that JS is guilty?

In 2011 the horror and shock of the allegation was that the grad assistant watched JS anally rape a 10-year old. That was the picture embedded in everyone's mind. That was certainly not true, as we have learned. If the V2 shower incident was then fabricated, what else was fabricated. From what i recall, there was no other witness to corroborate any other story. Hearsay at best. The victims all have unsavory pasts and some have criminal backgrounds as well.
I will answer your question with a general comment that there were many things amiss in that trial which if they had gone differently would have likely resulted in a different outcome. I cannot predict alternative outcomes no more than any one else can.

I will also say that it seems highly unlikely that Jerry will ever see a new trial. He had his chance and he royally screwed it up. Bad decisions and bad behavior on his part. Eliminate those and it seems likely there is no trial/charges/scandal. He is the single root cause of his lot in life.

So it appears to me Jerry is right where he stays until he leaves in a box.
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
It was their first time together. That was not a “father-son“ relationship. You would agree with this, right? Whatever the relationship became, it certainly wasn’t on a first time together.
I believe this is patently incorrect.
 
It was their first time together. That was not a “father-son“ relationship. You would agree with this, right? Whatever the relationship became, it certainly wasn’t on a first time together.
Nope, we never played rugby together. We were both in the weight room for ten minutes and you spotted for me before heading to the showers.
Nope, not in a fraternity together, this was our first time alone together.
We not only didn’t have a relationship where horseplay (a hug is not horseplay anyway) was historically common, we didn’t really have a relationship at all to speak of. This was our first time together alone.
So with those answers, how are you defending me doing calling you over from a separate shower head to share mine and hugging you? Im not even going with the age here, which obviously makes it indefensible.
None of that is relevant to the Sandusky case. At all.

A hug can absolutely be horseplay.

Even so, I'm pretty sure if you hugged me in the showers you'd get a "WTF!" and if you didn't back off, possibly a punch in the nose.

I wouldn't file charges though.
 
What matters to you and what matters to others are two different things. You need to realize that and learn how to deal with it.

You can continue to cry "Not fair!!" like you've been doing while trying to rationalize known facts. However, you have absolutely no control over Jerry's fate. And Jerry's fate is to die in prison, mainly due to his own decisions and behaviors.
I'm presenting known facts and you are trying to "rationalize" them away.

You are correct that I have no direct say in Jerry's legal fate. However, I can continue to educate people about the injustice in the hopes that if enough voices are raised, he will get the new trial he deserves.
 
I believe this is patently incorrect.
Why do you believe that? That’s what I recall reading.
edit: You are correct. Just read this article to refresh my memory.

According to the 23-page document, the boy met Mr. Sandusky when he was 7 or 8, at a picnic held by The Second Mile, the nonprofit he founded for at-risk youth. After that, Mr. Sandusky would invite him to tailgates, football games and other outings. The now-grown man testified that when he was 11 in 1998, Mr. Sandusky picked him up at home and told him they would be working out. They went to Penn State, where they lifted weights and played a ball game Mr. Sandusky had made up.”

It included this gem, that you are defending as “horseplay”:
"Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, 'I'm going to squeeze your guts out,'" according to the presentment. "Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred."
 
Last edited:
I'm presenting known facts and you are trying to "rationalize" them away.

You are correct that I have no direct say in Jerry's legal fate. However, I can continue to educate people about the injustice in the hopes that if enough voices are raised, he will get the new trial he deserves.
Have at it. Makes me feel good knowing that you are expending your efforts trying to "educate" people, keeps you away from things that might be really dangerous with your involvement. As well as occupying the time of those stupid enough to buy into your concept of injustice.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: PSU81 and WHCANole
None of that is relevant to the Sandusky case. At all.

A hug can absolutely be horseplay.

Even so, I'm pretty sure if you hugged me in the showers you'd get a "WTF!" and if you didn't back off, possibly a punch in the nose.

I wouldn't file charges though.
I find that fascinating. You wouldn’t report a grown man hugging you in a shower?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Have at it. Makes me feel good knowing that you are expending your efforts trying to "educate" people, keeps you away from things that might be really dangerous with your involvement. As well as occupying the time of those stupid enough to buy into your concept of injustice.
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
 
Why do you believe that? That’s what I recall reading.
edit: You are correct. Just read this article to refresh my memory.

According to the 23-page document, the boy met Mr. Sandusky when he was 7 or 8, at a picnic held by The Second Mile, the nonprofit he founded for at-risk youth. After that, Mr. Sandusky would invite him to tailgates, football games and other outings. The now-grown man testified that when he was 11 in 1998, Mr. Sandusky picked him up at home and told him they would be working out. They went to Penn State, where they lifted weights and played a ball game Mr. Sandusky had made up.”

It included this gem, that you are defending as “horseplay”:
"Victim 6 felt awkward and tried to go to a shower some distance away from Sandusky but Sandusky called him over, saying he had already warmed up a shower for the boy. While in the shower, Sandusky approached the boy, grabbed him around the waist and said, 'I'm going to squeeze your guts out,'" according to the presentment. "Sandusky lathered up the boy, soaping his back because, he said, the boy would not be able to reach it. Sandusky bear-hugged the boy from behind, holding the boy's back against his chest. Then he picked him up and put him under the showerhead to rinse soap out of his hair. Victim 6 testified that the entire shower episode felt very awkward. No one else was around when this occurred."
Your recall incorrectly:

"Victim 6 was referred to the Second Mile program by a school counselor. He met Sandusky at a Second mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he was seven or eight years old, in 1994 or 1995. After Sandusky interacted with Victim 6 after a skit at the picnic, Sandusky telephoned to invite Victim 6 to tailgate and attend a football game with some other boys. He was picked up by Sandusky. Victim 5, B.K., and other boys were present. They went to Holuba Hall, a football practice building on the Penn State campus, and were left there by Sandusky. They threw footballs around until it was time for them to walk to the tailgate hosted by Sandusky's family and then attended the football game.Victim 6 recalls this pattern repeating many times."

He knew Sandusky for at least three years prior, had interacted with him through the Second Mile and socially on many occasions prior to 1998.
 
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
Jerry is going to die in prison. Deal with it.

I'm the epitome of dispassionate about this. I really don't give a damn one way or another. It is you that seems to be overcome with passion about it.
 
I pity your partner if you think "chewing" is at all sexual.
At one time my two kids (early and late 20's at the time) thought the word "moist" was unacceptable in having a normal conversation
 
At one time my two kids (early and late 20's at the time) thought the word "moist" was unacceptable in having a normal conversation
I got yelled at once by a girl I was volunteering with for using the word moist. It was bizarre, but she really hates that word.
 
A grown man hugging you from behind in a shower, unsolicited, would have me calling the police immediately. Is that legal?
I am fairly certain I wouldn't call the police in this scenario. I would likely throw the offending party to the ground and unleash a bunch of homophobic expletives. If that didn't do the trick, perhaps full blown angry violence. If that didn't do the trick, then maybe the police, if someone else hadn't already done that for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
Your recall incorrectly:

"Victim 6 was referred to the Second Mile program by a school counselor. He met Sandusky at a Second mile picnic at Spring Creek Park when he was seven or eight years old, in 1994 or 1995. After Sandusky interacted with Victim 6 after a skit at the picnic, Sandusky telephoned to invite Victim 6 to tailgate and attend a football game with some other boys. He was picked up by Sandusky. Victim 5, B.K., and other boys were present. They went to Holuba Hall, a football practice building on the Penn State campus, and were left there by Sandusky. They threw footballs around until it was time for them to walk to the tailgate hosted by Sandusky's family and then attended the football game.Victim 6 recalls this pattern repeating many times."

He knew Sandusky for at least three years prior, had interacted with him through the Second Mile and socially on many occasions prior to 1998.
What? Remember Kajak?
The only alleged victim to testify at the Spanier case was Michal Kajak, a 28-year-old previously identified in the Jerry Sandusky case as "Victim No. 5."

In the Spanier case, Kajak was sworn in as a witness behind closed doors in the chambers of Judge John Boccabella. Then, when the witness came out to testify, the judge introduced Kajak to the jury as "John Doe," and the lawyers in the case proceed to question him as John Doe.

While this circus was proceeding, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no conspiracy bloggers used their cellphone to take photos or videos of the celebrity witness who was getting preferential treatment.

The whole point of John Doe's tissue-soaked trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that Kajak/John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary made his famous visit there.

While extra deputies patrolled the courtroom, the sobbing witness told the jury that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky after the famous Mike McQueary shower incident. But the jury wasn't told what that alleged sex abuse of Kajak/Victim No. 5/John Doe was.

It wasn't rape; Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

The jury also wasn't told that because of the alleged abuse, Kajak collected in a civil settlement $8 million.

Kajak, AKA Victim No. 5 or John Doe, also gave four different dates for his alleged abuse in the shower with Jerry – in 1998, when he was 10 years old; in 2000 when he was 12; in 2001, before 9/11, when he was 13; and finally in 2001 after 9/11, when he would have been 14.
But because Kajak was a sacred cow, as certified by the judge in the secrecy and hoopla that accompanied Kajak's trip to the witness stand, the defense lawyers in the case were too intimidated to even ask one question.
Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the four different dates for the alleged abuse, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money that the alleged victim collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.
That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.
In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took, copping a plea to a first-degree misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The AG's office was also angry at Spanier for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he curiously put on no defense.
"To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."
That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.
"Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."
As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.
The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.
Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, where frontier justice reigns.
As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."
"The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."
"His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office was saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.
"Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.
As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

In their filing, the AG's office referred derisively to "conspiracy bloggers." One of the most prominent bloggers on the case, John Ziegler, took exception to that characterization.

"The only people who believe in a nonsensical conspiracy here is the prosecution," Ziegler said. " I'm a non-conspiracy person. What they [the prosecution] did is laughable."

"If there was ever any doubt that the prosecution had no case, this filing ended it," Ziegler said. The prosecutors are making "an emotional plea based on lies. They're attacking people who weren't even part of the case."

As far as his own actions are concerned, "I have never gone near Michal Kajak," Ziegler said.

Meanwhile, the AG's office wants to finish their witch hunt.

There's only one remaining question. This afternoon in Dauphin County Court, with the Honorable John Boccabella presiding, whether the witches be burned at the stake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
Oh dear lord. You're just doubling down on stupid today. My question was what testimony or evidence supports each verdict for the 1998 shower incident. Since you don't seem to understand, McQueary was the earwitness in 2002, 2001, 2000. There was an entirely separate event in 1998, which is the only incident we are talking about. So absolutely everything you say about the "McQuery" testimony (which even you say is not credible) is moot.

Sure, if you had actually read the thread before responding, you would see post after post specifically reference 1998. I'm sure you will somehow try to dispute this, because "trolls gotta troll". As and example, look at post #1291. I ask specifically about "the first shower incident", and @Connorpozlee replies with the the charges specific to the 1998 shower incident. If you go to page 32 or 33 of this thread and search for 1998, you get MANY hits. This is were you apologize for jumping in the middle of a conversation with a stupid comment, and wasting my time.

@Connorpozlee Shame on you for liking post #1325, a post messing up absolutely basic facts in this case. It's a great move if you want people to think you don't understand this case, or are so desperate for someone to give you backup that you will like any post regardless how stupid and off topic it is. Think about that while you are formulating a response to post #1310.

You
Oh dear lord. You're just doubling down on stupid today. My question was what testimony or evidence supports each verdict for the 1998 shower incident. Since you don't seem to understand, McQueary was the earwitness in 2002, 2001, 2000. There was an entirely separate event in 1998, which is the only incident we are talking about. So absolutely everything you say about the "McQuery" testimony (which even you say is not credible) is moot.

Sure, if you had actually read the thread before responding, you would see post after post specifically reference 1998. I'm sure you will somehow try to dispute this, because "trolls gotta troll". As and example, look at post #1291. I ask specifically about "the first shower incident", and @Connorpozlee replies with the the charges specific to the 1998 shower incident. If you go to page 32 or 33 of this thread and search for 1998, you get MANY hits. This is were you apologize for jumping in the middle of a conversation with a stupid comment, and wasting my time.

@Connorpozlee Shame on you for liking post #1325, a post messing up absolutely basic facts in this case. It's a great move if you want people to think you don't understand this case, or are so desperate for someone to give you backup that you will like any post regardless how stupid and off topic it is. Think about that while you are formulating a response to post #1310.
Good morning to you too.

I was mistaken about which shower incident you were referring to.

End of story.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: pandaczar12
Illegal or not it is damning circumstantial evidence that cannot be explained or ignored. There are people that have been convicted and executed on circumstantial evidence alone. The showering was believed by the jury to be enough to convict on those counts.

Just because you don't accept it does not invalidate their interpretation.

Jerry will die in custody.
I think there is a reasonable chance that Jerry will one day walk out of jail a free man.

He is 77 and in reasonable shape given what he has been through. He is mentally sharp and has a solid support system. It is evident that he is innocent.

If you are not so sure, please read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America," listen to John Ziegler's epic podcast "With the Benefit of Hindsight," read Professor Fred Crews' essay "Saint Sandusky?", read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog articles on the Penn State scandal, read John Snedden's 110 page redacted report on his federal investigation supporting the renewal of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances, and/or read Malcolm Gladwell's Penn State chapter in his book "Talking to Strangers."

If you are not convinced, please detail the reasons why you think Pendergrast, Ziegler, Crews, Cipriano, Snedden and/or Gladwell got it wrong.

Most everyone who has taken a retrospective deep dive into the case realize that there are major problems in the case. While not everyone is willing to acknowledge that Sandusky it clearly innocent (he absolutely is), everyone is willing to acknowledge that there were big problems in his trial and it was patently unfair.

More and more people now realize what a travesty of justice this entire case has been. One day some judicial body will realize this fact. I hope that this happens sooner rather than later and while Jerry is still alive.
 
I think there is a reasonable chance that Jerry will one day walk out of jail a free man.

He is 77 and in reasonable shape given what he has been through. He is mentally sharp and has a solid support system. It is evident that he is innocent.

If you are not so sure, please read Mark Pendergrast's book "The Most Hated Man in America," listen to John Ziegler's epic podcast "With the Benefit of Hindsight," read Professor Fred Crews' essay "Saint Sandusky?", read Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog articles on the Penn State scandal, read John Snedden's 110 page redacted report on his federal investigation supporting the renewal of Graham Spanier's top-level security clearances, and/or read Malcolm Gladwell's Penn State chapter in his book "Talking to Strangers."

If you are not convinced, please detail the reasons why you think Pendergrast, Ziegler, Crews, Cipriano, Snedden and/or Gladwell got it wrong.

Most everyone who has taken a retrospective deep dive into the case realize that there are major problems in the case. While not everyone is willing to acknowledge that Sandusky it clearly innocent (he absolutely is), everyone is willing to acknowledge that there were big problems in his trial and it was patently unfair.

More and more people now realize what a travesty of justice this entire case has been. One day some judicial body will realize this fact. I hope that this happens sooner rather than later and while Jerry is still alive.
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.
 
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.

The bolded part tells me that PSU2UNC was right....you have no intelligent argument to make.
 
Jerry's decisions and behavior are the root cause of his being where he is now. If he doesn't exhibit that behavior, there is nothing, period. No charges, no trial, no prison. It is his fault he is where he is.

Based on progress to date it seems likely that there will be no retrial or appeal granted. So I doubt there is a reasonable chance that he will walk out a free man.

I've already posted that there were many things amiss from the trial. I don't care enough about Jerry or his future to expend any effort on trial details. I can see the results. He's guilty in the eyes of the law regardless of what any of your heroes say. As a result he is serving time whether he is actually guilty or not. To me there are much more important things going on in the world that affect me, Jerry's fate is down at the noise level.

And please don't ask me the same questions that you ask everyone. You have shown that you aren't interested in listening to any answers that don't fit your agenda so don't waste your time or mine.
I am very interested in listening to what you have to say concerning the behavior's that Jerry exhibited that are responsible for his criminal conviction. My agenda is the truth. At the time of the June 2012 trial, I thought Jerry was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted on.

Base on information that I have learned since then, I now believe that the jury got it wrong, that he was wrongly convicted and that a miscarraige of justice occurred.

If you can and are so inclined, please detail the reasons why you believe that Jerry is where he belongs. If you can cite hard evidence that would be great. If you can only refer to circumstantial evidence and your feeling and inclinations, that is fine as well.

My issue is that while there were many things amiss in the trial as you have acknowledged, there is also a dearth of hard evidence that Jerry committed the crimes that he was convicted of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07
I am very interested in listening to what you have to say concerning the behavior's that Jerry exhibited that are responsible for his criminal conviction. My agenda is the truth. At the time of the June 2012 trial, I thought Jerry was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted on.

Base on information that I have learned since then, I now believe that the jury got it wrong, that he was wrongly convicted and that a miscarraige of justice occurred.

If you can and are so inclined, please detail the reasons why you believe that Jerry is where he belongs. If you can cite hard evidence that would be great. If you can only refer to circumstantial evidence and your feeling and inclinations, that is fine as well.

My issue is that while there were many things amiss in the trial as you have acknowledged, there is also a dearth of hard evidence that Jerry committed the crimes that he was convicted of.
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJollaLion
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
So your argument is that he is guilty because he was found guilty? That's some damn fine circular reasoning there.

You believe that no jury in the history of the United States has gotten a verdict wrong? I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty confident I could dig up some examples that disprove that notion.
 
So your argument is that he is guilty because he was found guilty? That's some damn fine circular reasoning there.

You believe that no jury in the history of the United States has gotten a verdict wrong? I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty confident I could dig up some examples that disprove that notion.
Where did I say I thought he is guilty? I said in the eyes of the law he is guilty. Now are you going to argue that is not factual? Does not matter what I or anybody else thinks, does not change that it is factual.
 
The stupid ones are those who continue to lack the ability to look at this case dispassionately.

Injustice is injustice. Do you deny that multiple attorneys have been sanctioned over their roles in this mess? Do you deny the state police perjured themselves in court? Do you deny the judge made some mind boggling rulings in this case?

If you think all of those things adds up to "justice", then I hope your job isn't any more complicated than picking stones.
Not so simple.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers say they have "recently received information regarding actions taken by attorneys representing individuals who have accused defendant of abusing them. Based upon that information, defendant asserts herein that certain actions taken by said attorneys would likely have affected the court testimony presented by alleged victims, and may also have had a significant effect upon decisions made by the jury in this case."

On June 7, 2011, a state trooper interviewed alleged victim No. 5, referred to by Sandusky's lawyers by his initials, "MK."

Michal Kajak, who got involved with Sandusky's Second Mile charity in 1996, initially claimed that he was sexually abused in the shower by Sandusky during the 1998 football season. According to Kajak's testimony at the Sandusky trial, he maintained that the shower incident occurred during the1998 football season in the East Area locker room, when Kajak was 10 years old.

On November 30, 2011, an individual identified as “John Doe A” filed a civil proceeding against The Second Mile and Penn State University, after which Penn State forwarded the claim to its insurer, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association [PMA].

"On May 17, 2012, MK changed the date of alleged abuse to August, 2001, and the location was also changed to the Lasch Building locker room," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"As noted below, by this time, Penn State’s settlement subcommittee had adopted criteria for consideration of settlements of civil claims in which claims beginning in 2001 and later would receive the highest settlement offers," Sandusky's lawyers.

On July 12, 2016, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Penn State had agreed to pay $93 million to more than 30 of Sandusky's alleged accusers. In the same article, the newspaper reported that PMA was "challenging the assertion that it should cover these payments," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"An expert hired by the company reported that: 'It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals.' ”

This is an understatement, as I previously documented in a story headlined Easy Money at Penn State, which chronicles how the Penn State trustees passed out $118 million to 36 victims, with virtually no questions asked. https://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy-money-in-sandusky-case-penn-state.html

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state that Kajak was represented by "a highly respected and recognized civil attorney." According to Sandusky's lawyers, that attorney, who is not named in the motion, "made ongoing public statements expressing his opinions of the evidence" in the Sandusky case.

Kajak's attorney who appeared on TV was noted Philadelphia lawyer Tom Kline, who did not respond to a request for comment.

On Dec. 10, 2011, Sandusky's lawyers say, Kline commented on TV about what might happen at a preliminary hearing in the Sandusky case.

“You will see at this hearing many victims testifying about a pattern of conduct, which occurred over a long period of time and was predatory in nature," Kline said, according to Sandusky's lawyers.

When Sandusky's trial began on June 18, 2012, according to Sandusky's lawyers, Kine appeared on TV again and stated that he was not impressed by Sandusky's defense.

“If this is what we are having to preview as to the strength of the defense, I am not overwhelmed, and I think it was really not a very strong beginning," Kline stated.

The next day, on June 19, 2012, Kline told the media that two defense witnesses did not do the defendant any favors.

“There was an odd and bizarre attempt to convince the jury somehow that showering [with kids] is culturally accepted in this world. I don’t see how that takes anyone very far," Kline was quoted as saying.

On that same day, Kline also defended what Sandusky's lawyers described as "suggestive questioning of the accusers by law enforcement."

“I think it was perfectly appropriate for a trooper with a reluctant witness, an investigator with a reluctant witness, especially in the face of sex crimes that were done to children when they were young to suggest, look, you don’t want to talk about this, you should know you’re not alone," Kline said.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers quote the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6, as stating:

“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be [disseminated] by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

"It is readily apparent that [Kline] had participated in the investigation of this matter, and had actually participated briefly in the litigation by filing in the criminal proceedings a motion to preserve the confidentiality of the identity of his client in those proceedings on May 29, 2012," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Accordingly, his conduct was governed by that rule."

"It is clear that counsel commented multiple times on the credibility of witnesses, and made clear his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of appellant, in these recordings and in other statements made to media and/or publications," Sandusky's lawyers wrote about Kline.

"The propriety of counsel’s conduct in this matter is not the issue that must be addressed," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Rather, the issue is whether, given the statements made by counsel, the violation of this rule, and the clear indication that, in a proceeding of this type, those violations 'are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect' on the proceeding," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

On Sept. 4, 2013, Kajak's claim against Penn State was settled for $8.1 million.

In their motion for an evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers seek to question Kline about "the nature and extent to which counsel for MK made statements to media or publications prior to, or during, appellant’s trial in these cases."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to question Kline about "The nature and extent to which counsel for MK participated in the investigation and preparation for the criminal proceedings in which [Sandusky] was defendant."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to convene an evidentiary hearing to determine: "The precise relationship between the criminal investigation, the Freeh investigation, the settlement committee created by PSU, [and] the Office of Attorney General, and attorneys representing alleged victims," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"It has been alleged by [Sandusky] in pretrial motions and thereafter that his accusers/alleged victims have communicated with each other throughout the course of the investigation conducted by the Office of Attorney General, and that his accusers/alleged victims have changed their testimony over time in ways which would enhance their civil claims against Appellant, Penn State and others," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"If, as previously alleged by defense counsel, the accusers/alleged victims communicated directly with each other, or through counsel, and if their description of what occurred, and where and when it occurred, was changed by them in ways which would enhance the value of their civil claims, and if their counsel tolerated or encouraged such changes, the evidence presented to the jury would have been false and misleading, and a new trial would be warranted," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

An alleged victim peddles a fictitious story of abuse to attorney Andrew Shubin

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers extensively quote A.J. Dillen, a witness who appeared on reporter John Ziegler's April 21st podcast, "With the Benefit of Hindsight."

Dillen was a former Second Mile participant who met with Andrew Shubin, a State College lawyer who represented nine alleged victims of Sandusky, and did not respond to a request for comment.

On the podcast, Dillen said he went to see Shubin "pretending to be a victim of Sandusky." According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen told Shubin "a fictitious story about being raped by Sandusky in the park area immediately behind Coach Joe Paterno’s house."

According to Dillen, over a three-year period, as he repeatedly met with attorney Shubin and a therapist, they refined Dillen's story of abuse so that Dillen would have a better shot at getting paid.

"Dillen met with this attorney multiple times over a period of three years regarding his purported claim," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "During a number of these meetings, Dillen recorded what was being said with the consent of the attorney."

"In his second meeting with this 'victim,' while being recorded, the attorney read back a different story, changing the number of attacks, and the location of the attacks to the Penn State showers," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"He [Shubin] also stated that Dillen had reported the abuse to Penn State officials, who didn’t believe him," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "None of those new facts were stated by Dillen in the initial interview, and none were true, but all of them would increase the value of any civil proceeding on his behalf."

"Thereafter, the attorney referred him to a mental health counselor, who, according to Dillen, met with him approximately 100 times," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Dillen also recorded certain of the interactions with that counselor as well."

"During his sessions with the counselor, a number of which were recorded, Dillen indicates that he was subjected repeatedly to repressed memory therapy, a process that the prosecution in this case denied using on alleged victims," Sandusky's lawyers write.

In an evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers say they would like to question Shubin about "the nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by Dillen, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to know: "The nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by other accusers who had consulted with him, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

And: "The extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen shared the existence of any changes in any accuser’s reporting of alleged abuse" by Sandusky, his lawyers wrote.

Recovered memory issues resurface

Sandusky's lawyers noted that in previous appeals, the courts have accepted the testimony of therapists in the Sandusky case who denied using repressed memory therapy, which is banned in some states, and not accepted by other courts as evidence.

But "in treating A.J. Dillen," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, "the therapist at one point states:

“We are talking about why you repressed or hid these memories. I think that people do repress memories and that people don’t really think there is a whole continuum of what that means. Sometimes it means they totally forget and it is not in their consciousness at all until something happens sometime in their life… "

"At this end of the continuum, the other side is knowing but not willing to think of it so putting it out of your mind, like what you do with anything unpleasant. But knowing it is there, just not focusing and then there are things in between. This over here on the end is repressed memory. I prefer to use the word disassociation - just means disconnect . . . There are all different ways we disconnect.”

According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen asked, “can people disconnect for years?”

“Yes, people can disconnect for years," the therapist replies, according to Sandusky's lawyers.

"They can disconnect from the knowledge, from what happened, they can disconnect from the feelings, from body sensations. Disassociation happens when you are in a situation that is beyond what is normal… A person can forget about it, and then something happens. A little like a light coming through a window can trigger the memory after years and years. And suddenly they are 'what the hell is happening…' ”.

According to the podcast, Dillen told the therapist that he blamed himself for not remembering the abuse.

“You’re not crazy because you didn’t remember it," the therapist replied. "It’s the way we deal with overwhelming trauma… Psychological defenses… Kick in automatically. It’s part of your brain that deals with that (compartmentalization). When you’re young you tend to forget. I have talked to quite a few guys that were abused by Sandusky, and this is the case with most of them.”

"This therapist met with Dillen weekly for three years, and had him attending multiple group meetings, despite well-accepted principles, which will be articulated by Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. [Elizabeth] Loftus, to the effect that the combination of the suggestive questioning, the use of repressed memory methodology, and the presence of regular group meetings with others making similar claims," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"As a result of the foregoing, the trial court should be given the opportunity to hear testimony and evidence on the allegations set forth herein, listen to the podcast referenced herein, and determine whether PCRA relief was improperly denied and should now be granted, whether any of the accusers subjected to repressed memory should be deemed incompetent to testify . . . and whether a new trial should be granted based on this after discovered evidence," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

The subject of the use of recovered memory therapy at the Sandusky trial was the subject of The Most Hated Man In America; Jery Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, a 2017 book written by Mark Pendergrast, which was excerpted on bigtrial.net.

Finally, the Honorable Senior Judge John C. Cleland

No investigation into the legal travesty that was the Sandusky case would be complete without interviewing Judge John Cleland, who presided over the media circus known as the Sandusky trial, which attracted 240 reporters and 10 TV trucks.

Nine years later, I'm the only reporter left in North America who thinks the Sandusky case might still be a story. Especially since the first time around, they may have gotten everything completely wrong.

If only Sandusky were a black transexual, the social justice warriors at The Philadelphia Inquirer and other mainstream media outlets might be interested in his case, especially because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct and the trampling of a defendant's constitutional rights during every phase of the investigation, prosecution, and trial of Sandusky, not to mention the appeal process that's been willfully blind to all those abuses.

But alas, since Jerry's an old Protestant white guy who might have been completely railroaded by overzealous prosecutors, amateur detectives, quack therapists, tainted judges, lobotomized university trustees, brain-dead reporters, opportunistic "victims" and their greedy lawyers lining up for a big pay day, nobody gives a rip.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state that they want to interview Judge Cleland about the events of Dec. 11, 2011. That was the night before the preliminary hearing in the case, when Judge Cleland convened a highly unusual meeting with both prosecutors and defense lawyers at the Hilton Garden Inn.

At the preliminary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers would have had their only chance to confront Sandusky's accusers, the eight young men who would claim at trial that Sandusky had abused them. But Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, testified that if he didn't agree to waive the preliminary hearing, the attorney general's office had made it clear that they were going to seek bail for Sandusky in the vicinity of $1 million.
 
This is also something someone says when they have no intelligent argument to make.

"Deal with it."

LOL.

What's next: "I'm rubber, you're glue."?
Or someone who has acquaintances or relatives who have profited from the 2011 PSU Gold Rush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07
Strongly disagree with your logic as I've said many times before.

In the absence of context, you might be correct, but when you add the relevant context surrounding these allegations, it becomes clear that it is completely logical that this was innocent.

I asked this earlier in the thread and didn't get a response from you (I don't think):

Given that Jerry has denied all wrong doing, why did he admit to showering and horseplay? The only way that makes any sense is that it was not sexual in nature. If he is a pedophile and had denied everything else, he would have denied that too. There is no logical reason to deny everything else and admit to that, unless the shower incident was, in fact, innocent.
It’s amazing that Covid discussion gets deleted at BWI while a thread that’s basically a NAMBLA convention is just fine.

Weird flex @Tom McAndrew
 
  • Love
Reactions: WHCANole
It’s amazing that Covid discussion gets deleted at BWI while a thread that’s basically a NAMBLA convention is just fine.

Weird flex @Tom McAndrew

If you are not interested in this discussion, please ignore it.

Please don't conflate support for a person's constitutional rights with support for CSA.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are huge problems with the OAG's case against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators.

You are welcome to join a civil discussion on the events surrounding the cases, but please refer to credible evidence if you are able. The facts are that there is a dearth of specific credible evidence that Sandusky is a child molester and that Penn State administrators enabled a child molester.
 
Jerry is where he belongs right now because in the eyes of the law he is guilty. That is a fact dictated by the laws of our society. Pending any parole or reversal of verdict, he will carry that status regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter. Given progress to date and his age it appears very likely that he will die in prison.

You have followed this ordeal with great energy and posted numerous times that some event or the other is going to have a great positive impact towards freedom for Jerry. So far, they have not moved the needle, he is no closer to freedom than the day he entered prison.

I've already posted about circumstantial evidence, why do you ask me again?
Thank you for your response.

I asked because I thought there may have more basis for your opinion. I am not surprised that you didn't share any hard evidence because there is none. You have stated that you don't believe that Gricar did a rigorous investigation of the 98 incident based on some conspiracy theory. I am not buying it.

The OAG did a masterful job of selling their narrative using questionable means. I believe they undertook prosecutorial misconduct as part of their win at all cost, the end justifies the means strategy. It seems like the OAG believed that Jerry was a child molester, but that doesn't justify their grand jury leaks to Sara Ganim, their false grand jury presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape, their violating attorney-client privilege, their juror tampering, their Brady violation and their other questionable tactics.

The media has bought into the OAG narrative that Sandusky is a monster child molester and Penn State knowingly enabled him hook, line and sinker. The media has no interest in admitting they got the story wrong or reporting that their story could possibly be wrong in spite of very strong evidence that it is. Not surprisingly, to this day public opinion is overwhelming against Sandusky and the Penn State administrators. Consequently, in Pennsylvania where judges have to face elections on a periodic basis there is little incentive to give a fair shake to Sandusky or the Penn State administrators.

I grant you that having 1-1 unsupervised contact with at-risk minors is a recipe for disaster for both the minors and their adult guardians. I believe that showering with unrelated minors and having physical contact with them is not a good idea and raises suspicion that it might be intended grooming leading to CSA. I can understand why people will assume the worst based on Sandusky's questionable behavior.

On the other hand, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that Sandusky did not have any sexual intent. None of the 36 accusers that Penn State made settlements with made contemporaneous reports of CSA of any kind to friends, family members, police, teachers, psychologists, clergy etc. There is no physical evidence that Sandusky harmed any child. Sandusky had up until then had a totally clean record. He didn't drink alcohol, smoke, consume drugs or use profanity. No pornography of any kind has ever been found in his possession. Sandusky was born with vestigial testicles that left him almost devoid of testosterone and, necessarily, less interested in sex than other men.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT