ADVERTISEMENT

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

I have said B repeatedly. I’m not arguing. I continue to point to you that it is most likely inexcusable and criminal because why else would you hug somebody when you are both naked? For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that it is even a possibility that it (and acts that followed) is criminal. The people that want Jerry to be innocent can’t seem to wrap their minds around the possibility that he’s not innocent. It’s bizarre. Grown men don’t shower alone with boys and hug them. They just don’t. I don’t know one man that has ever done that. I doubt you do either. When those boys later accuse that man of sexually abusing them while they were boys, it’s logical. It’s not absolute proof, but it sure is tough for him to deny.
Jerry and V6 golfed with Bruce Heim a couple of months before the indictments. V6 sent Jerry texts on Father's Day, years after the shower incident, telling him how much Jerry meant to him. V6 told investigators in 1998 that nothing sexual happened. V6 cashed in the least of any of the fake victims because he wasn't willing to lie through his teeth.

With all the prosecutorial misconduct surrounding this case, I don't understand why this is the hill upon which you repeatedly choose to die!
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Jerry and V6 golfed with Bruce Heim a couple of months before the indictments. V6 sent Jerry texts on Father's Day, years after the shower incident, telling him how much Jerry meant to him. V6 told investigators in 1998 that nothing sexual happened. V6 cashed in the least of any of the fake victims because he wasn't willing to lie through his teeth.

With all the prosecutorial misconduct surrounding this case, I don't understand why this is the hill upon which you repeatedly choose to die!
A victim maintaining a relationship with their victimizer is not nearly as outlandish as the idea of a grown man hugging boys alone in the shower and not being a pedophile. The fact that you excuse it is a hill worth dying on though. Keep at it and someday you’ll find a reasonable excuse for it. I’m still waiting to hear one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
A victim maintaining a relationship with their victimizer is not nearly as outlandish as the idea of a grown man hugging boys alone in the shower and not being a pedophile. The fact that you excuse it is a a hill worth dying on though.

What is really outlandish to me is that the Pennsylvania’s Office of Attorney General is willing to railroad 4 good men who had lived exemplary lives. The cases were manufactured by means of a false grand jury presentment that poisoned the jury pool, grand jury leaks to recruit more accusers, violating attorney-client privilege to secure convictions in a win at all costs environment, investigators lying under oath together with using improper questioning techniques to get witnesses to tell them what they want to hear as well as juror tampering and Brady violations.

The OAG misconduct is inexcusable and is very upsetting to me.
 
What is really outlandish to me is that the Pennsylvania’s Office of Attorney General is willing to railroad 4 good men who had lived exemplary lives. The cases were manufactured by means of a false grand jury presentment that poisoned the jury pool, grand jury leaks to recruit more accusers, violating attorney-client privilege to secure convictions in a win at all costs environment, investigators lying under oath together with using improper questioning techniques to get witnesses to tell them what they want to hear as well as juror tampering and Brady violations.

The OAG misconduct is inexcusable and is very upsetting to me.
Sure, there is room for outrage there as well. You should also be outraged that a grown man hugs boys alone in the shower but that seems OK with you. It’s baffling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
It's not okay. But it doesn't prove sexual intent.
Which continues to be a bizarre, move the target answer. I’ve never said it proves sexual intent. It sure is a hell of a sign but it’s not proof. What I said was:

“A victim maintaining a relationship with their victimizer is not nearly as outlandish as the idea of a grown man hugging boys alone in the shower and not being a pedophile.”
I said that because, for some reason, you pointed out that a victim maintained a relationship with Jerry. I would love for one of the Jerry is innocent crowd to say, “Man, I think he’s innocent but you’ve got to admit that showering alone with children and hugging them is impossible to defend for a grown man who worked specifically with disadvantaged boys.” You don’t have to say you think he is guilty. But for the love of god, you can acknowledge the inexcusable showering behaviors as such and also acknowledge that somebody that engages in those behaviors may very well be a pedophile. If you want to know why I stay on this topic, it’s because as many times as I say he may be innocent others refuse to accept that he may be guilty.
 
Gary Schultz has given 2 extensive interviews that are now available.

The first one is an one hour 36 minute interview with John Ziegler from 2018:



The second one is a two hour seven minute interview with John Ziegler and Liz Habib in 2020



Here is what Ziegler says about the interviews on his framingpaterno web pages.

As part of the production of this podcast, John and Liz conducted numerous extremely extensive interviews (including with many people very close to "Victim #1" Aaron Fisher, including his soon to be ex-wfe, Mallory Fisher), most of which are being made available right here, for free, with only light editing to elimiate pauses and production gaps.

Foremost among them are two rather long, news-making, interviews with former Penn State administrator Gary Schultz, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in order to avoid a kangaroo court on more serious charges of covering up for Sandusky. These are the only two media interviews which Schultz has ever done about the case.

The first interview, which was conducted with John back in 2018, deals with many of the key details of the McQueary date issue, a topic on which Schultz is perhaps THE most important witness, since it was emails which he turned over to the prosecution that caused them to suddenly change the date from 2002 to 2001. Here, for the first time, Schultz expresses his stated belief that December 29th, 2000 was indeed the real date, and that, amazingly, Jerry Sandusky is very likely INNOCENT of being a child sexual abuser.

The second, even more extensive, interview with Schultz, conducted by both John and Liz in 2020, covers some of the same ground as the first interview, but also provides remarkable context for just how blindsided everyone from Penn State was when brought in to testify at Sandusky’s grand jury. It ends with Schultz once again proclaiming that he has no reason to believe that Sandusky is guilty, and expressing strong emotion at the enormous toll that the false narrative has taken on everyone involved.

In a rational world, this interview would have been conducted on national television in primetime, but the news media is no longer remotely credible on this story, so Schultz has trusted only this podcast, exclusively, to tell his mind-blowing version of events, which is backed up by voluminous amounts of evidence, including the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses.

If only one interview could be used to prove that the entire media narrative of this case is a fraud, it would be this one.
Or Ganim.
Ganim's ethical conflict was laid out in a legal brief filed by Sandusky's lawyers in their arguments for a new trial. In the brief, Sandusky's lawyers wrote that Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave the mother the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, left this message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."
So when Sara Ganim writes another story about Joe Paterno and the Penn State sex scandal, it's not exactly like Bob Woodward opining about Richard Nixon and Watergate. But that didn't prevent Ganim from making a splash with her bogus scoop in gullible mainstream media outlets, such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, by generating a fresh round of headlines asking What did Joe Know and When Did He Know It?

Let's get to Ganim's new evidence and lay out why the source of it is tainted, as well as the product of an investigation marked by blatant police and prosecutorial misconduct.

The one page Pennsylvania state police report from 2011, supposedly obtained from a source, Ganim wrote, is "described here for the first time." The report "lays out an account from whistleblower Mike McQueary," who was telling Paterno about the infamous shower incident from 2001 starring a naked Jerry Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy.

"Paterno allegedly told McQueary in 2001 that the claim against Sandusky 'was the second complaint of this nature he had received," according to the police report, which was written after Sandusky's arrest 10 years later," Ganim wrote.

"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."

Nice dramatic touches for a police report. Next, Ganim writes:

"Then he [Paterno] made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection."

The police report also noted, Ganim wrote, that Paterno allegedly told McQueary that Dottie Sandusky, Jerry's wife, had told Sue Paterno, Joe's wife, that "Jerry doesn't like girls."



Let's start with McQueary, who, according to Ganim, is now writing a book about his exploits as the alleged Penn State whistleblower.

As former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden has said, McQueary is not a credible witness. As a special agent for the Federal Investigative Service, Snedden investigated former Penn State President Graham Spanier in 2012, to determine whether his top secret security clearance should be renewed by the federal government. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no sex crime at Penn State and no coverup.

Snedden didn't believe McQueary was credible because he told five different versions of what he saw and heard in the Penn State showers, featuring slapping sounds and fleeting glimpses of naked people in the shower. The day he witnessed the shower event, McQueary was repeatedly questioned by his father, a doctor, and a friend of his father's, another doctor, about what happened. McQueary could not definitely say whether he had witnessed a sexual attack or horseplay. And that's why neither of the two doctors, both mandated reporters, ever told the police.

McQueary was also questioned by two Penn State administrators, who came to the same conclusion as the two doctors, that McQueary wasn't sure what he saw or heard in the showers. So they didn't report it to the police either.

"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said in a previous interview with Big Trial, to describe why McQueary wasn't a credible witness. "If it's real it's always been the same thing," Snedden said.
"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.
"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has never responded to multiple requests for comment.



That didn't stop the attorney general's office from running with their exaggerated version of McQueary's story.

The 2011 grand jury report was built around a lie. It claimed that McQueary witnessed a 10-yar-old boy in the showers being subjected to “anal intercourse” by a “naked Jerry Sandusky.” McQueary supposedly told Joe Paterno about it, and two other university officials, but Penn State covered it up, the grand jury report says.

But McQueary himself was shocked when he read the grand jury report. He emailed the prosecutors, saying they had “twisted” his words. ”I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy,” McQueary wrote. “I did not see insertion.”

The investigation conducted by the state police in the Sandusky case also included stone-cold proof of police misconduct on tape. On April 21, 2011, the state police made the mistake of leaving a tape recorder on, and the machine caught the police deliberately lying to one alleged victim to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell.

State Troopers Joseph Leiter and Scott Rossman were interviewing alleged victim Brett Houtz at the police barracks, with Houtz’s attorney Benjamin Andreozzi present. While Houtz took a cigarette break the two troopers continued talking with Houtz’s lawyer. They assumed the tape-recorder was turned off but it wasn't.
In their conversation captured for eternity, the troopers talked about how it took them months to get details of sex attacks out of Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Penn State case, and how they’re sure that Houtz was a rape victim too. The troopers then discussed how to get more details of sex abuse out of Houtz.
Attorney Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us.’ ”
“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Trooper Leiter said. Sure enough, when Houtz returned, Trooper Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.”

The trooper told Houtz about nine adults that they had already talked to and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating word for word pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”
The troopers, however, had only interviewed three alleged victims at that point, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse. But Houtz didn't know that.
“I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing,” Trooper Leiter told Houtz. “He [Sandusky] took advantage of you . . . [but] We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place as we get through this procedure. I just want you to understand that you are not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this.”

That's what you call coaching a witness, to manufacture testimony.

The condemnation of Ganim's most recent story came from many quarters.

"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."

"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."

"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry. The incident in question is the 1998 episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded. I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."

"On the brighter side, I'm glad to see that Sara and the rest of the news media has seemingly dropped the absurd notion that Joe Paterno was told in the 1970s about abuse that never happened by accusers who made up stories for Penn State money," Dottie Sandusky wrote.
Former Special Agent Snedden called Ganim's scoop "revisionist history."

"The whole thing is absurd," Snedden said about the supposedly new police report from 2011. "It was written ten years after the fact," Snedden said about the 2001 shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary, and described to the state police in 2011.

"Police reports are supposed to be contemporaneous," Snedden said. About the 2011 police report concerning the 2001 shower incident, Snedden asked, "How is that contemporaneous?"

The CNN story, Snedden said, is the product of either "trying to either cover your ass or bolster your position. It appears to me that she [Ganim] doesn't even go through the motions of asking if it's accurate."

John Ziegler, a reporter who has covered the Penn State story for years, was even harsher in his assessment of Ganim's work.

"This one [Ganim's new story] is the biggest piece of crap yet," Ziegler said. "Ganim is pretending that we don't know" about the 1998 shower incident, Ziegler said. "If she was at the [Sandusky] trial she would know that what she's reporting is ancient news. It's got cobwebs on it."

Ziegler went at Ganim's work from another angle -- logic.

"This is actually exculpatory," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest scoop.

When McQueary is telling Joe about the 1998 shower incident, which is almost identical to the 2001 shower incident, Ziegler said, "Joe is immediately flashing back to 1998."

"That tells us that McQueary never said anything [to Paterno] about a sexual assault because Joe already knows that 1998 [the first alleged shower incident] is a nothing burger," Ziegler said. "Had McQueary actually said something about a sexual assault Joe would have never connected it to 1998, because the [Centre County] D.A. had already cleared Sandusky."
Ziegler said he has come to the conclusion that Ganim "was a very ambitious and also very naive or stupid person who got used" by the prosecutors in the Sandusky case to basically "put out a Craig's list ad" for more victims of sexual abuse.

Ziegler said that Ganim's story goes beyond any claims of the prosecutors. Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, went on 60 Minutes Sports in 2013 and declared that there was no evidence that Joe Paterno had ever participated in a cover up.

"I did not find that evidence," Fina said on 60 Minutes Sports.

"It does reek of deception," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest effort to prop up the official Penn State story line. "They have to be worried about something," Ziegler said, who devoted a podcast to it. "This story makes me think that even she doubts it."

Mark Pendergrast, an author who has written a book about Jerry Sandusky, The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, said that McQueary "revised his memory a decade after the Feb. 2001 shower incident, in which he heard slapping sounds but did not see Sandusky and a boy in the shower -- he only fleetingly saw a boy, in the mirror."

McQueary's "memory of his meeting with Paterno in 2001was also subject to revisions and this appears to be more evidence of that," Pendergrast wrote in an email. "In other words, this is Sara Ganim once more raising a non-issue based on Mike McQueary's revised memory, and referring as well to highly questionable anonymous allegations dating back to the 1970s."

The 1970s alleged victims
In May 2016, Ganim reported on CNN that a man who claimed to have been sexually abused by Sandusky at a rest stop after he was picked up as a hitchhiker. The alleged victim also claimed that he was personally ordered by Joe Paterno to keep quiet about the abuse.

"Stop it right now" or "we'll call the authorities," the alleged victim claimed that Paterno had told him on the phone.

The alleged victim told Ganim that he had no doubt it was Paterno on the other end of the line ordering him to keep quiet.
 
Sure, there is room for outrage there as well. You should also be outraged that a grown man hugs boys alone in the shower but that seems OK with you. It’s baffling.

Please don't tell me that I should feel outraged over Sandusky's alleged behavior. He is currently in prison serving a virtual life sentences for charges I don't believe he committed. I believe he was railroaded and I am outraged over the OAG railroading him as well as their railroading of Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. I don't believe that Sandusky harmed any children and don't believe he had any nefarious intent.

I don't believe it is ok or a good idea to shower with boys you are not the parent/guardian of or to have physical contact with them while showering. However, I am not outraged by that behavior if there is not nefarious intent.
 
because why else would you hug somebody when you are both naked?
Not everyone equates all nudity with sexuality. It is pretty obvious Jerry does not. The "old guy at the gym who are naked in the locker room WAAAY more than they need to be" are the same.

Is a naked hug appropriate? No. Is it necessary sexual? Also, no. It is necessarily criminal? Also, no.
 
Please don't tell me that I should feel outraged over Sandusky's alleged behavior. He is currently in prison serving a virtual life sentences for charges I don't believe he committed. I believe he was railroaded and I am outraged over the OAG railroading him as well as their railroading of Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. I don't believe that Sandusky harmed any children and don't believe he had any nefarious intent.

I don't believe it is ok or a good idea to shower with boys you are not the parent/guardian of or to have physical contact with them while showering. However, I am not outraged by that behavior if there is not nefarious intent.
Please don't tell me that I should feel outraged over Sandusky's alleged behavior. He is currently in prison serving a virtual life sentences for charges I don't believe he committed. I believe he was railroaded and I am outraged over the OAG railroading him as well as their railroading of Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. I don't believe that Sandusky harmed any children and don't believe he had any nefarious intent.

I don't believe it is ok or a good idea to shower with boys you are not the parent/guardian of or to have physical contact with them while showering. However, I am not outraged by that behavior if there is not nefarious intent.
And the fact that you are not outraged by a grown man hugging boys in a shower is itself, outrageous.
 
Not everyone equates all nudity with sexuality. It is pretty obvious Jerry does not. The "old guy at the gym who are naked in the locker room WAAAY more than they need to be" are the same.

Is a naked hug appropriate? No. Is it necessary sexual? Also, no. It is necessarily criminal? Also, no.
This is, yet again, such a ridiculous response. Absolutely disingenuous and ridiculous. Is the old guy at the gym who is naked way too much getting himself alone in a shower with unrelated boys and hugging them from behind? Absurdly horrible analogy for what Jerry was doing.
Where did I say nudity is sexual? That seems to be something you’ve created in your own head because I certainly have never said it. Jerry was not just naked so that point is irrelevant, no matter how many times you or others say it. Jerry did not just share a group shower alone with boys, so that line of thinking is also irrelevant. Jerry showered alone with boys and initiated physical contact with them, hugging them. Now, is that sexual? It’s damn hard to convince somebody that the intent of that is anything other than sexual. He didn’t manage to convince the officer who actually investigated the case and his defense team didn’t manage to convince a jury of 12 of his peers. Throw him on trial again, and that’s still going to be a damn hard hurdle to get over. If a retrial is warranted, I’m all for it. But you’re going to start the case again with the known and admitted showering activities then get into he-said/he-said stuff. I just don’t see how you can convince 12 rational adults that Jerry is innocent when he repeatedly showered and had physical contact with boys.
 
Just remember, Amendola did nothing to prep Sandusky for talking with Costas, Sandusky's appeal lawyers say. That 2011 interview was replayed in court by the prosecutors, who proceeded to rip Sandusky for talking to Costas, but not the jury. Sandusky was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

The idiocy of the Costas interview was recounted in a 257-page post-hearing brief filed Thursday in Centre County Common Pleas Court by Sandusky's appeal lawyers, Alexander H. Lindsay Jr. and J. Andrew Salemme, of Butler, PA.

Lindsay and Salemme argue that Sandusky deserves a new trial because Amendola foolishly chose to go on national TV and give up his client's right to remain silent and not convict himself. Amendola went on Costas's TV show in a misguided campaign to cultivate "friends" in the media, Sandusky's appeal lawyers write. Amendola told a judge he embarked on his campaign because at the time the media was saying that his client was "worse than Adolph Hitler."In the interview, Costas asked Sandusky if he was sexually attracted to young boys.

Sandusky repeated the question a couple of times, before saying, "I -- I love to be around them . . I -- I -- but no, I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

In their appeal brief, Sandusky's lawyers argue that the Costas debacle wasn't all Jerry's fault. It was editing by NBC that made it appear "that there was repetition of the infamous question and answer regarding Mr. Sandusky being sexually attracted to young boys," the lawyers write.

Amendola admitted that the Costas interview presented at trial had the "same effect as a police interview," except that Amendola was powerless on TV to stop the questioning, Sandusky's lawyers write.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote another criminal defense attorney, James Bryant, as saying he would have only agreed to the Costas interview if they put "a gun to my head."

That interview "killed" Sandusky, Bryant said. Especially when it was played at trial.

At trial, Sandusky's lawyers said, the prosecutors "sought to fix a bias and hostility against Mr. Sandusky in the jury's minds based on the fact that Mr. Sandusky was willing to talk to the media about his case, but he did not take the stand to talk to the jury directly."

Sandusky's lawyers cited the Fifth Amendment that says no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Except if he voluntarily decides to waive that privilege, by going on national TV.

Prior to the Costas interview, Sandusky's lawyers write, Amendola told Sandusky that only Amendola would be interviewed by Costas. And that if Sandusky was interviewed, the only thing he would have to say was that "he was innocent."

The short notice to Sandusky was disclosed by the host of Rock Center, Sandusky's lawyers say.

"Bob Costas, himself, provided an interview in which he recalled that Mr. Amendola only contacted Mr. Sandusky 15 minutes before the interview," Sandusky's lawyers write.

Sandusky originally wasn't even supposed to appear on the show. At the time, in his campaign to win friends in the media, Amendola had promised to do his first interview with Costas. But then the lawyer gave an interview to CNN.

An NBC producer "voiced strong displeasure" after the CNN interview, Sandusky's lawyers write.

"In order to make up for this and ingratiate himself with the media again, Mr. Amendola convinced Mr. Sandusky to do the interview" with Costas, Sandusky's lawyers write. Aamendola told Sandusky the Costas interview would provide a "golden opportunity" to proclaim his innocence.

In their appeal brief, Sandusky's lawyers also fault Amendola for failing to move to quash the grand jury charges against Sandusky because of illegal grand jury leaks.

Amendola was aware that former Patriot News reporter Sara Ganim "had the name and phone number of an agent involved in the investigation and was providing it to potential witnesses," but did nothing to investigate, Sandusky's lawyers write.

Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on Sandusky, wrote the first story about the supposedly secret Sandusky grand jury investigation, on March 30, 2011, so somebody in the know was obviously leaking grand jury secrets to her. In that article, Ganim cited a prior 1998 investigation into another Sandusky shower incident. Somebody had obviously leaked to Ganim a police report from the prior 1998 case that had turned up no crime, and was supposed to be expunged.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers write that Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave the mother the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, had a message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."


Sandusky's lawyers say the trial judge was at fault for not allowing the defense to call Ganim as a witness, so they could ask about the grand jury leaks.

After the initial Ganim article, Ronald Petrosky, a retired Penn State janitor, came forward to accuse
Sandusky of another shower incident.

At the Sandusky trial, prosecutors were allowed to present hearsay evidence via Ronald Petrosky that another retired janitor, James Calhoun, had allegedly "observed Jerry Sandusky molesting a child in the Lasch Building shower."

Sandusky's appeal lawyers fault trial lawyer Amendola for not telling the jury that 13 months prior to the trial, Calhoun had given a taped interview to a state trooper where he denied that it was Sandusky he saw in the shower having sex with a boy.

At trial, however, Sandusky was found guilty of abusing "victim 8," identity unknown. Sandusky's appeal lawyers also faulted Amendola for not objecting when prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told the jury that the identity of Victim No. 2 -- the boy Mike McQueary had allegedly witnessed being anally raped in the showers by Sandusky -- was "known only to God."

At the time, the prosecutors knew that Allan Myers had claimed to be the boy in the showers with Sandusky, and they had done nothing to denied it, Sandusky's lawyers write. Myers told state troopers that he and Sandusky were snapping towels in the shower, which could have accounted for the "slapping sounds" heard by McQueary.

Myers told corporal Corporal Jospeh Leiter and Trooper James Ellis in 2011 that "The grand jury report says Coach McQuearry said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. This is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

But Amendola was so incompetent he never presented Myers's statements to the jury, Sandusky's appeal lawyers write.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers also hit Amendola for not presenting any expert witness testimony "regarding repressed or false memories" of the alleged victims.

Amendola knew about recordings "showing suggestive police questioning and learning that therapy was used to enhance the memories of the accusers," Sandusky's lawyers write. Yet, Amendola did not challenge "the reliability of the accusers or present expert testimony on suggestive questioning" by police and therapists.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a renowned expert on memory.

In an appeal hearing, Loftus testified that Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Sandusky case, "had a therapist who appeared to have convinced his patient that he had repressed memories of abuse."

Aaron Fisher "did undergo a type of repressed memory therapy . . . designed to get people to remember things that somebody thinks they have repressed or forgotten," Loftus testified.

There is "no credible scientific evidence" to support the theory of massive repression of traumatic memories, and subsequent recovery of those repressed memories, Sandusky's lawyers write.

The theory of repressed memory "is so controversial that in many other jurisdictions, accusers who claim to have repressed memories that have been recovered, the cases are even dismissed because of the controversial nature of that theory," Loftus testified.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote Silent No More, the book written by Fisher with his therapist, Mike Gillum.

Prior to therapy, Fisher "never acknowledged any sexual abuse" by Sandusky, his lawyers write. Fisher's book "suggests Gillum used suggestive questioning to ferret out Mr. Sandusky's alleged abuse," Sandusky's lawyers write.

The lawyers quote Fisher from Silent No More: "Mike [Gillum] just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry."
Consider - Baldwin was easily misled.

Baldwin was the lawyer for three high-level Penn State administrators under investigation by Fina, in his overzealous Penn State probe. The disciplinary board found that Fina was so out of control in his pursuit of the Penn State administrators that he actually browbeat Baldwin into becoming a grand jury witness who flipped and testified against her three clients -- former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz, and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley -- without telling her clients that she had thrown them to the wolves.

The disciplinary board also found that in order to get Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, to breach the attorney-client privilege, Fina had to hoodwink the grand jury judge about what his real intentions were when he was questioning Baldwin behind closed doors. That's the same gullible grand jury judge -- the Hon. Barry Feudale -- whom Fina asked to investigate the grand jury leaks.

On top of that mess, Sandusky's appeal lawyers are now in possession of a 79-page diary kept by former decorated FBI Agent Kathleen McChesney that records multiple instances of former deputy Attorney General Frank Fina leaking multiple grand jury secrets -- as well as transcripts and other grand jury records -- to McChesney and the other investigators working for former FBI Director Louis Freeh, in his supposedly "independent" investigation of Penn State.

In their motion for a new trial which has gone completely unreported by the rest of the media, Sandusky's lawyers filed the diary with the court under seal, and asked for permission to convene an evidentiary hearing. Sandusky's lawyers are seeking to drop subpoenas on Freeh, Fina, McChesney, Eshbach and others and question them under oath about the rampant collusion between the two investigations, as outlined in McChesney's diary, that tainted both probes.

How does the Honorable Judge Nichols get around that diary?

In addition to the diary, other newly discovered evidence shows that one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky, a Penn State professor, wasn't being completely candid when Sandusky's trial lawyer asked her what she told Freeh's investigators during a prior interview.

Had Sandusky's lawyer seen the Freeh Group's report of their interview of the juror, they would have discovered that she was a disgruntled employee who was already convinced, based on what she'd read in the newspapers, that Penn State had orchestrated a cover up of Sandusky's alleged crimes with children.

Had Sandusky's lawyer read that report, he would have never allowed the disgruntled and highly opinionated Penn State professor to sit on the jury that convicted Sandusky. And when Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's overwhelmed trial lawyer, was questioning the juror, Frank Fina, sitting over at the prosecutor's table, stayed silent. He never divulged that he was collaborating with Freeh's investigators on a regular basis, and may have even had his own copy of the juror's interview with Freeh's investigators.

How does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around an ethical cloud over that juror?

And in the McChesney diary, written by a former FBI agent who rose up the ranks to become the first woman to ever hold the No. 2 job in the bureau, McChesney casually drops the fact that she's been told Judge John Cleland isn't going to let anything delay Sandusky's rushed trial date.

How did she know that? In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers quote an affidavit from Amendola saying it wasn't him who told McChesney. So in their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's appeal lawyers propose subpoenaing Judge Cleland to the evidentiary hearing, so he can explain that situation.

So now we already have an ethical cloud over not only one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky, and we also have a mushroom cloud over Fina, who sat silently while the juror was being questioned. And we also have an ethical cloud over the trial judge, who was hellbent on convicting Sandusky before the start of the 2012 Penn State football season, so the NCAA and Penn State could strike a deal on voluntary sanctions that would save the Nittany Lions from the death penalty.

And how does the Hon. Judge Nichols get around that?

Meanwhile, Sandusky's appeal lawyers are seeking to comb through thousands of pages of confidential documents known as the "source materials" for the Freeh Report. These are thousands of pages still under seal as the corrupt majority on the Penn State board of trustees seeks to keep an ongoing cover up in operation.

But every day, more of these documents are being leaked, on the scale of a Frank Fina type operation. And these documents that the Penn State board of trustees would like to keep secret are filled with further proof of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State.

Much of this information may be exculpatory, as the kind of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that Judge Nichols said didn't exist when she wrote her boneheaded opinion that denied Sandusky a new trial based on the non-existent, since-shredded credibility of Frank Fina.

Such as on March 12, 2012, when Louie Freeh's investigators got a phone call from Ronald Schreffler, a retired detective with the Penn State University Police Department. Schreffler was the detective who investigated the so-called first shower incident involving Jerry Sandusky and a young boy, back in 1998. It was an investigation of possible sex abuse that multiple authorities subsequently concluded was unfounded.

In the phone call, documented in a report by Richard Sethman, one of Freeh's investigators, Schreffler stated that "it has been clear to him from the beginning that there has been a leak of information in the attorney general's grand jury investigation of Sandusky."

How did Schreffler know that?

"In March of 2011," the report says, "Sara Ganim, a reporter for the Patriot News in Harrisburg came to his residence and asked pointed questions about the 1998 Sandusky investigation," Sethman wrote after his conversation with the retired detective.

"Ganim advised Schreffler that she had a copy of the Pennsylvania State University Police report. She made specific reference to what Schreffler had written in the report. Schreffler asked Ganim how she got a copy of the report but Ganim would not reveal her source."

[But Frank Fina is still out looking for him, a search that could end the next time Fina looks in the bathroom mirror].

Schreffler subsequently told a neighbor who was a retired state police captain "about his encounter with Ganim and of his concern for a leak in the investigation."

On April 4, 2012, Sethman and another Freeh investigator, Tom Cloud, interviewed Schreffler. During the interview, the men at the table discussed the leak to Ganim of the 1998 police report.

"Schreffler stated that he wasn't sure of how information from the 1998 investigation has been leaked to the media but felt that it must be someone involved in the investigation."

Schreffler addd that the media somehow knew that there had been a conflict between the attorney general's office and the state police over whether to include the alleged victim of the 1998 shower incident, identified as Victim No. 6, in the official ranks of Sandusky's alleged victims, which according to Schrefler, "is information that only an insider would know."

In Pennsylvania, however, it can be dangerous to underestimate the level of official corruption. So if the Pennsylvania judiciary succeeds in circling the wagons again, and denying Sandusky's latest bid for a new trial, his only remedy will be, like Graham Spanier, to head to the federal courts, in search of a judge familiar with the U.S. Constitution.

It worked for Spanier, who, as soon as he escaped the corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary, found a federal magistrate who understood the Constitution. The magistrate immediately threw out the entire bankrupt case against the former Penn State president that had been ratified by every level of that corrupt Pennsylvania judiciary.

Either way, the truth will leak out, even amid a news blackout. Because no matter what the courts do, what's in those confidential documents will be shouted all over Big Trial.

More secrets that Frank Fina and Jonelle Eshbach and Louis Freeh and Mark Dambly don't want you to know.

Tracking the truth of the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State has been a lonely vigil. Besides Big Trial, the only media outlet covering the new developments in the Sandusky case has been Search Warrant, a podcast hosted by three cops.

Big Trial was interviewed on one of those podcasts; Search Warrant has devoted a second podcast to a character witness for Sandusky who had intimate knowledge of a couple of the so-called victims in the case. The character witness also had an interesting story to tell about how one of the prosecutors in the case allegedly attempted to intimidate her after she testified.

In a brief preview of what's coming on future Search Warrant podcasts, John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, condemned the mainstream media's "failure to follow through on their obligation to be our watchdog."

"We at Search Warrant are currently unraveling the largest case of prosecutorial misconduct you will ever see," Snedden said. He talked about the McChesney diary written by the former FBI agent who "mistakenly thought it would never see the light of day."

"The diary details blatant collusion, corruption, and criminal acts on the part of the prosecution," Snedden said, before issuing what amounts to a declaration of war.

"Nobody hates a dirty cop or a a dirty prosecutor more than we do at Search Warrant," Snedden said.

"Follow along with us as we unravel this shocking, true story of how prosecutors denied men their constitutional and civil rights to fulfill a political vendetta. Join us as the tables are turned on dirty cops and dirty prosecutors who thought they could get away with it. It's a battle of good versus evil . . . It's about justice."

Meanwhile, the man at the center of this controversy called in today from the State Correctional Institute at Somerset.

In a phone interview, Sandusky said even he was optimistic about where his long-running case is headed next.

"I've been through so much that I don't want to get excited and very optimistic, but I am encouraged," he said. Despite being locked up for 30 to 60 years, "I've been hopeful forever," Sandusky said.

"I keep hoping the people are going to realize the travesty and all of the dishonesty and deception and everything that has transpired during this whole thing," he said. "That's my hope as much as anything. That they'll open their eyes and see."

"A lot of my coaching experiences weren't easy," recalled Sandusky, who was Joe Paterno's defense coach.

"But we were fighters who battled. I was surrounded by people like that and that's how I feel about this. This is wrong and I'm going to fight as long as I can fight."
 
This is, yet again, such a ridiculous response. Absolutely disingenuous and ridiculous. Is the old guy at the gym who is naked way too much getting himself alone in a shower with unrelated boys and hugging them from behind? Absurdly horrible analogy for what Jerry was doing.
Where did I say nudity is sexual? That seems to be something you’ve created in your own head because I certainly have never said it. Jerry was not just naked so that point is irrelevant, no matter how many times you or others say it. Jerry did not just share a group shower alone with boys, so that line of thinking is also irrelevant. Jerry showered alone with boys and initiated physical contact with them, hugging them. Now, is that sexual? It’s damn hard to convince somebody that the intent of that is anything other than sexual. He didn’t manage to convince the officer who actually investigated the case and his defense team didn’t manage to convince a jury of 12 of his peers. Throw him on trial again, and that’s still going to be a damn hard hurdle to get over. If a retrial is warranted, I’m all for it. But you’re going to start the case again with the known and admitted showering activities then get into he-said/he-said stuff. I just don’t see how you can convince 12 rational adults that Jerry is innocent when he repeatedly showered and had physical contact with boys.
This is not an analogy. This is an example to show that nudity =/= sexuality for many (most?) people. If nudity =/= sexuality for Sandusky, the horseplay in the shower was not sexual. It was just horseplay.

Given everything else we know about this case, this seems far more likely than him attempting to sexually assault a boy in a quasi-public shower and then admitting to it (when he has denied all wrongdoing).
 
This is not an analogy. This is an example to show that nudity =/= sexuality for many (most?) people. If nudity =/= sexuality for Sandusky, the horseplay in the shower was not sexual. It was just horseplay.

Given everything else we know about this case, this seems far more likely than him attempting to sexually assault a boy in a quasi-public shower and then admitting to it (when he has denied all wrongdoing).
You continue to push something that nobody on here has ever disagreed with as far as I know. Nudity does not equal sexuality. Great! And absolutely irrelevant to this case because that’s not what the issue is.
You live in an odd world where a grown man lathering up and hugging boys in a shower is “horseplay”. Do you share these views with people outside of this anonymous message board? If so, what kind of a reaction do you get?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WHCANole
And the fact that you are not outraged by a grown man hugging boys in a shower is itself, outrageous.
I have read all of the comments back and forth. I think people are not outraged by the hugging in the sure because they are not outraged. Are you sure you are outraged by it?

I mean I am not outraged by it. Disgusted by it? Yes I am. Find it creepy as heck? Yes I do. Find it weird as heck? Absolutely. Outraged? No.

I cannot speak for others, but maybe this is why they don’t agree with you on your use of word outraged for the hugging. 🤷‍♂️
 
I have read all of the comments back and forth. I think people are not outraged by the hugging in the sure because they are not outraged. Are you sure you are outraged by it?

I mean I am not outraged by it. Disgusted by it? Yes I am. Find it creepy as heck? Yes I do. Find it weird as heck? Absolutely. Outraged? No.

I cannot speak for others, but maybe this is why they don’t agree with you on your use of word outraged for the hugging. 🤷‍♂️
Use whatever word you’d like. Outraged, disgusted, creeped out. Whatever. That is not what they disagree with. They have spent a lot of time excusing it, which is really the outrageous part. They get into diversion tactics (naked doesn’t equal sexual; the victim maintained a relationship with the victimizer, etc…) instead of just acknowledging the possibility that the bizarre showering may in fact be the acts of a pedophile in the same way that I acknowledge the possibility that it may in fact have been a grand conspiracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Repeatedly? How many incidents are documented?
What do you mean by documented? Investigated by the police? Two that I know of. The ‘98 man-boy shower investigated at the time and the McQueary incident investigated years later. I’m not a historian on all of this by any means so there have been others but these two are confirmed by Jerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
I would agree Amendola's handling of Sandusky's case was poor. However, his previous track record was pretty successful.

At minimum Amendola has represented Tim Bagshaw (the scoutmaster and former police officer who molested Scouts in the 80s), Christopher Lee, Mr. Accuweather and Jerry. There could very well be...and probably are, more that I don't know about.
A SC attorney whose knowledge I trust told me a few years ago that Amendola was arguably the best criminal defense attorney in Centre County. I believe any shortcomings in this case can be attributed largely to being overwhelmed and facing an unfriendly judge. That doesn't mean he didn't make any mistakes while under the intense pressure of the case.
 
A SC attorney whose knowledge I trust told me a few years ago that Amendola was arguably the best criminal defense attorney in Centre County. I believe any shortcomings in this case can be attributed largely to being overwhelmed and facing an unfriendly judge. That doesn't mean he didn't make any mistakes while under the intense pressure of the case.
Yeah that is my understanding as well. My critique of his performance is primarily in regard to the NBC interview. Why he allowed it and then didn't step in at any point was a major blunder to me.
 
And the fact that you are not outraged by a grown man hugging boys in a shower is itself, outrageous.

Use whatever word you’d like. Outraged, disgusted, creeped out. Whatever. That is not what they disagree with. They have spent a lot of time excusing it, which is really the outrageous part. They get into diversion tactics (naked doesn’t equal sexual; the victim maintained a relationship with the victimizer, etc…) instead of just acknowledging the possibility that the bizarre showering may in fact be the acts of a pedophile in the same way that I acknowledge the possibility that it may in fact have been a grand conspiracy.
Please don't tell me how to think. You are entitled to you own opinion and I am entitled to mine. I don't find Sandusky's showering behaviors outrageous and that itself is not outrageous.

I am not excusing his behaviors, I believe they are inappropriate and would never recommend that anyone do them or do them myself. On the other hand, I have tried to explain to you why possibly he might have done them without nefarious intent and you have refused to accept my or others explanations.

I certainly can accept the possible that showering with a minor may be the act of grooming by a child molester. However, I don't believe that is the case here because there is a dearth of evidence that Sandusky molested or harmed any child in any way and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise.
 
Please don't tell me how to think. You are entitled to you own opinion and I am entitled to mine. I don't find Sandusky's showering behaviors outrageous and that itself is not outrageous.

I am not excusing his behaviors, I believe they are inappropriate and would never recommend that anyone do them or do them myself. On the other hand, I have tried to explain to you why possibly he might have done them without nefarious intent and you have refused to accept my or others explanations.

I certainly can accept the possible that showering with a minor may be the act of grooming by a child molester. However, I don't believe that is the case here because there is a dearth of evidence that Sandusky molested or harmed any child in any way and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise.
You seem to be involved with people involved in this case. Are you aware of anybody that witnessed Jerry showering with TSM boys in group showers seeing him lathering them up and hugging them while they were present to witness it? If so, that would make some movement towards his innocence. If he really was so absolutely clueless to proper interactions between a man and a child he is working with, his practices should have been the same whether other people could see him or not. If not, it would make your typical person wonder why it would be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
You continue to push something that nobody on here has ever disagreed with as far as I know. Nudity does not equal sexuality. Great! And absolutely irrelevant to this case because that’s not what the issue is.
You live in an odd world where a grown man lathering up and hugging boys in a shower is “horseplay”. Do you share these views with people outside of this anonymous message board? If so, what kind of a reaction do you get?
We've been around circuit before. "Horseplay" can involve many different things. Wrestling, slap flighting, throwing things, wet willies, purple nurples, etc. So yes, an embrace could be part of horseplay.

I'll share these views with anyone who wants to talk about it and have. Most people are better at critical thinking than you are apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottpsurules
A SC attorney whose knowledge I trust told me a few years ago that Amendola was arguably the best criminal defense attorney in Centre County. I believe any shortcomings in this case can be attributed largely to being overwhelmed and facing an unfriendly judge. That doesn't mean he didn't make any mistakes while under the intense pressure of the case.
Truth.


At the prosecution table, then Deputy Attorney Frank Fina sat silently while Amendola was questioning Pauley about what she told Freeh's investigators, even though he probably knew about the interview, and may have even seen a copy of it.

That's why Sandusky's lawyers are asking the state Superior Court to hold an evidentiary hearing where Fina and Freeh can be deposed about their collaboration.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers state describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from seven Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

But John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent, said after reviewing the summary of Pauley's interview with Freeh's investigators, that he believed it was Pauley who contacted Freeh.

According to Snedden, Pauley struck him as a "extremely disgruntled employee who was trying to pursue her own specific agenda."

Why does Snedden think it was Pauley who reached out to Freeh's investigators, rather than them reaching out to her?

As a professor of mechanical engineering, she was "not material to the investigation in any way," Snedden said. The school of mechanical engineering is "about as far away from the Lasch Building as you could possibly be," Snedden said, referring to the offices and training facility of the Penn State football team. Also, the summary doesn't indicate that the investigators in any way had sought out Pauley, Snedden said.

In the summary of her interview, Pauley states that her husband, who also taught in the engineering department, didn't receive tenure, and that she thought that the tenure process "was very political."

She also states that when she was director of undergraduate engineering studies, an employee that she reported for mishandling personal information on students began spreading rumors about her allegedly committing some kind of misconduct. She subsequently was removed as director of undergraduate engineering studies and received an annual appraisal that was "not as strong as usual."

She inquired about why she had been removed as director but was told the process was confidential. When the new director was announced, Pauley was never acknowledged or thanked for her seven years of service. "Many of her peers in the department confided in her that they felt she was not treated fairly throughout the process," Freeh's investigators wrote.

"She's trying to air her grievances in front of somebody whom she thinks can do something about it," Snedden said.
 
We've been around circuit before. "Horseplay" can involve many different things. Wrestling, slap flighting, throwing things, wet willies, purple nurples, etc. So yes, an embrace could be part of horseplay.

I'll share these views with anyone who wants to talk about it and have. Most people are better at critical thinking than you are apparently.
Come on, stop leaving parts out to make sound like less than it is! It wasn’t an embrace, it was an embrace from behind while naked along with lathering the boy up. If Jerry was just embracing kids I don’t think he would have ended up in this situation. I don’t think you’ll lose credibility if you just state it as it was.
The critical thinking line is pretty funny from somebody that needs to disingenuously present the situation as less than what it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
Come on, stop leaving parts out to make sound like less than it is! It wasn’t an embrace, it was an embrace from behind while naked along with lathering the boy up. If Jerry was just embracing kids I don’t think he would have ended up in this situation. I don’t think you’ll lose credibility if you just state it as it was.
The critical thinking line is pretty funny from somebody that needs to disingenuously present the situation as less than what it was.
Were you there? How do you know that's what it was? Because the "victim" said so many years later?

Again: inappropriate behavior. But, in light of everything else we know, not criminal.
 
Were you there? How do you know that's what it was? Because the "victim" said so many years later?

Again: inappropriate behavior. But, in light of everything else we know, not criminal.
“The 11-year-old was only identified as the former assistant football coach's sixth alleged victim. In 1998, his mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again, but he wouldn't make that promise, Schreffler testified.

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testified to the grand jury Sandusky admitted to him and Schreffler in an interview that he hugged the boy while naked in the shower and that he knew it was wrong.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
“The 11-year-old was only identified as the former assistant football coach's sixth alleged victim. In 1998, his mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again, but he wouldn't make that promise, Schreffler testified.

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testified to the grand jury Sandusky admitted to him and Schreffler in an interview that he hugged the boy while naked in the shower and that he knew it was wrong.”
How does that differ from what I said?

I submit that a hug is part of horseplay or at the very least, not inherently sexual.

Him admitting it was wrong actually provides evidence that it was not sexual (he has never admitted to any sexual abuse...why would he admit to that incident?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
How does that differ from what I said?

I submit that a hug is part of horseplay or at the very least, not inherently sexual.

Him admitting it was wrong actually provides evidence that it was not sexual (he has never admitted to any sexual abuse...why would he admit to that incident?)
You asked how I know that’s what it was. I provided you the information from which I got that belief.
Again, he didn’t just admit to the incident he was caught. There was no way to deny the incident so he admitted it.
I’ll tell you what, I’m kind of finally sick of this. I’ll agree to bail on this whole thread if you’ll agree to state that Jerry was not just “horse playing” in the shower but include that he was hugging the boy in the shower. And for Franco, instead of saying that Jerry was never charged for that incident, include that while he wasn’t charged at the time (against the belief of the one who investigated it) that he was later charged and found guilty on three counts relating to that individual. Sounds fair enough?
 
You asked how I know that’s what it was. I provided you the information from which I got that belief.
Again, he didn’t just admit to the incident he was caught. There was no way to deny the incident so he admitted it.
I’ll tell you what, I’m kind of finally sick of this. I’ll agree to bail on this whole thread if you’ll agree to state that Jerry was not just “horse playing” in the shower but include that he was hugging the boy in the shower. And for Franco, instead of saying that Jerry was never charged for that incident, include that while he wasn’t charged at the time (against the belief of the one who investigated it) that he was later charged and found guilty on three counts relating to that individual. Sounds fair enough?
I'm sure that francofan or psu2unc can provide a huge list of cases where adult/child naked contact occurred which resulted in not guilty verdicts by a jury.
 
You asked how I know that’s what it was. I provided you the information from which I got that belief.
Again, he didn’t just admit to the incident he was caught. There was no way to deny the incident so he admitted it.
I’ll tell you what, I’m kind of finally sick of this. I’ll agree to bail on this whole thread if you’ll agree to state that Jerry was not just “horse playing” in the shower but include that he was hugging the boy in the shower. And for Franco, instead of saying that Jerry was never charged for that incident, include that while he wasn’t charged at the time (against the belief of the one who investigated it) that he was later charged and found guilty on three counts relating to that individual. Sounds fair enough?
I don't agree with what you are stating. At all.
 
Hmmmmm……. This is going to be difficult. I’m trying to break up on good terms but you seem to want to cling on. You don’t agree that Jerry hugged a boy in a shower?
I do not agree that any sexual or illegal happened in the shower.
 
I do not agree that any sexual or illegal happened in the shower.
What does that have to do with my previous post? I said I would step out of this thread if you would just agree to include that Jerry was not just “horse playing” but that the horse play included naked hugging. I didn’t say anything about “sexual” or “illegal”. I just requested that you include the simple fact horse playing between a man and child to you includes hugging in the shower. Is that unreasonable? Can you come up with better terms for me to leave this thread?
 
What does that have to do with my previous post? I said I would step out of this thread if you would just agree to include that Jerry was not just “horse playing” but that the horse play included naked hugging. I didn’t say anything about “sexual” or “illegal”. I just requested that you include the simple fact horse playing between a man and child to you includes hugging in the shower. Is that unreasonable? Can you come up with better terms for me to leave this thread?
I don't care if you leave this thread or not.

Hugging and horseplay are not mutually exclusive.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT