ADVERTISEMENT

Ziegler on Mohr Stories

it's up!



LINK

looking forward to the CSA mafia shutting this down . . .
Listened on a cross country flight last night so I got through it. Was intriguing, but although better than most interviews, zig still can't get out of his own way.

Was interesting how much jay tried to help him
 
Just listened to it. It'd be interesting to know what people, who have e.g. only read the USA Today pieces by Brennan, thought of it.
Ziegler is up against three walls: (1) 8 victims testified; (2) the Sanduskys are not doing enough to help themselves; and (3) he is trying to equal or overcome media noise.

As for #2, I think the Paternos and Spaniers did the proper thing in issuing something in the vein of a report. In conjunction with that, I've always wondered where the other dozens (or whatever number) of other kids are, who claim that Sandusky was good-to-them, and who spent as much time as the Fisher did (for example). Just from an outside perspective, I would have to logically assume that the Sanduskys would be able to cobble together 10-15 kids who fit in that group, no? I also think Mohr hit on something interesting, which is: did any of the accusers spend time and/or communicate with Sandusky after reports/leaks started to come out, and with that to be included in the report, what was the number of potential TSM victims who were interviewed by police/investigators who said nothing happened (other than V2).

Ziegler has to let go of Paterno's testimony. Mohr is right. It is what it is. You can hash it out and talk about what he said in the interview beforehand or in the preceding sentences to "sexual nature" but it is what it is.

I'm also not so sure about the investigator-conspiring-with-victims-attorney scenario. It was put into evidence at trial (I know under a limiting instruction), and it was odd that the attorney was doing the prodding and not the investigator, but it's also entirely plausible that the attorney and investigators knew that the victim was hiding something and needed to make the victim comfortable in telling everything.

Even if Ziegler is right, or even partially right, which I have no idea...the likelihood of Sandusky getting a new trial is so exceedingly small, it's almost a worthless attempt that they'd be better throwing all of their financial ammo into a serious report and investigation. I.e. an investigation that they didn't have the chance to do because of the lack of continuances. At that point, then they can then later say, "this is what we would have exposed if we were given the chance." Second, I still haven't seen/read anything that would unequivocally exonerate Sandusky for six of the victims. For that, I'm talking about impossible timelines (actual rebutted testimony with direct proof) vis a vis Dershowitz in the Jane Doe case where he claimed that it was "impossible" for him to have been on Epstein's plane or island and whatever time, etc. (History may prove that to be a bad example). Or, some sort of recantation by at least one of the main victims.

Ziegler also has to stop assuming that the media is against him. Mohr response, paraphrasing, "you're here. I'm the media. You're the media" was so on point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Just listened to it. It'd be interesting to know what people, who have e.g. only read the USA Today pieces by Brennan, thought of it.
Ziegler is up against three walls: (1) 8 victims testified; (2) the Sanduskys are not doing enough to help themselves; and (3) he is trying to equal or overcome media noise.

As for #2, I think the Paternos and Spaniers did the proper thing in issuing something in the vein of a report. In conjunction with that, I've always wondered where the other dozens (or whatever number) of other kids are, who claim that Sandusky was good-to-them, and who spent as much time as the Fisher did (for example). Just from an outside perspective, I would have to logically assume that the Sanduskys would be able to cobble together 10-15 kids who fit in that group, no? I also think Mohr hit on something interesting, which is: did any of the accusers spend time and/or communicate with Sandusky after reports/leaks started to come out, and with that to be included in the report, what was the number of potential TSM victims who were interviewed by police/investigators who said nothing happened (other than V2).

Ziegler has to let go of Paterno's testimony. Mohr is right. It is what it is. You can hash it out and talk about what he said in the interview beforehand or in the preceding sentences to "sexual nature" but it is what it is.

I'm also not so sure about the investigator-conspiring-with-victims-attorney scenario. It was put into evidence at trial (I know under a limiting instruction), and it was odd that the attorney was doing the prodding and not the investigator, but it's also entirely plausible that the attorney and investigators knew that the victim was hiding something and needed to make the victim comfortable in telling everything.

Even if Ziegler is right, or even partially right, which I have no idea...the likelihood of Sandusky getting a new trial is so exceedingly small, it's almost a worthless attempt that they'd be better throwing all of their financial ammo into a serious report and investigation. I.e. an investigation that they didn't have the chance to do because of the lack of continuances. At that point, then they can then later say, "this is what we would have exposed if we were given the chance." Second, I still haven't seen/read anything that would unequivocally exonerate Sandusky for six of the victims. For that, I'm talking about impossible timelines (actual rebutted testimony with direct proof) vis a vis Dershowitz in the Jane Doe case where he claimed that it was "impossible" for him to have been on Epstein's plane or island and whatever time, etc. (History may prove that to be a bad example). Or, some sort of recantation by at least one of the main victims.

Ziegler also has to stop assuming that the media is against him. Mohr response, paraphrasing, "you're here. I'm the media. You're the media" was so on point.

Ziegler is doing what he can, but cmon . . . CNN and NBC basically ran 2 entirely fabricated stories that syndicated columnists commented on, in a negative way to Penn State.

the media IS against all of us, it is ice-skating uphill for guys like JZ all the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ziggy
Sexual nature comment is definitely the toughest thing to overcome in defending Paterno. At the end of the day though, if you weigh the entire body of evidence and look at ALL of the statements Paterno made, I still think there is a very strong argument that a rape/sexual assault was not reported to anyone. The one point I always raise about the sexual nature remark is that, if he had really been covering up a rape for 10 years, and then he gets on the stand and is asked what he knew about that incident, why would he make any suggestion that it could've been sexual? That's not something a man guilty of a cover up says. His entire testimony screams that this is a man with nothing to hide. I think John fell flat on his face trying to explain this to Jay, and that's why Jay isn't convinced Paterno is innocent.
It's not a comment, it is a quote. Please provide the entire quote in order to establish your credentials. Joe's "quote" is not hard to overcome at all, if you actually take it in its entirety.
 
Listened on a cross country flight last night so I got through it. Was intriguing, but although better than most interviews, zig still can't get out of his own way.

Was interesting how much jay tried to help him
Jay was right on telling Zig to calm down and trying to get him on track when he went into minutiae. Zig needs to heed Mohr's advice to focus on key points and take a step back. Zig needs to focus on a few key points, stop making generalizations, and take a Valium or three. Zig is the only with the guts to question the so called "victims," but he too is tied to his narrative. If he takes a break, looks at all his evidence with a critical eye, stop the theatrics, it could be interesting where he winds up. At this time, Lubrano is a more competent media spokesperson in defense of PSU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Just listened to it. It'd be interesting to know what people, who have e.g. only read the USA Today pieces by Brennan, thought of it.
Ziegler is up against three walls: (1) 8 victims testified; (2) the Sanduskys are not doing enough to help themselves; and (3) he is trying to equal or overcome media noise.

As for #2, I think the Paternos and Spaniers did the proper thing in issuing something in the vein of a report. In conjunction with that, I've always wondered where the other dozens (or whatever number) of other kids are, who claim that Sandusky was good-to-them, and who spent as much time as the Fisher did (for example). Just from an outside perspective, I would have to logically assume that the Sanduskys would be able to cobble together 10-15 kids who fit in that group, no? I also think Mohr hit on something interesting, which is: did any of the accusers spend time and/or communicate with Sandusky after reports/leaks started to come out, and with that to be included in the report, what was the number of potential TSM victims who were interviewed by police/investigators who said nothing happened (other than V2).

Ziegler has to let go of Paterno's testimony. Mohr is right. It is what it is. You can hash it out and talk about what he said in the interview beforehand or in the preceding sentences to "sexual nature" but it is what it is.

I'm also not so sure about the investigator-conspiring-with-victims-attorney scenario. It was put into evidence at trial (I know under a limiting instruction), and it was odd that the attorney was doing the prodding and not the investigator, but it's also entirely plausible that the attorney and investigators knew that the victim was hiding something and needed to make the victim comfortable in telling everything.

Even if Ziegler is right, or even partially right, which I have no idea...the likelihood of Sandusky getting a new trial is so exceedingly small, it's almost a worthless attempt that they'd be better throwing all of their financial ammo into a serious report and investigation. I.e. an investigation that they didn't have the chance to do because of the lack of continuances. At that point, then they can then later say, "this is what we would have exposed if we were given the chance." Second, I still haven't seen/read anything that would unequivocally exonerate Sandusky for six of the victims. For that, I'm talking about impossible timelines (actual rebutted testimony with direct proof) vis a vis Dershowitz in the Jane Doe case where he claimed that it was "impossible" for him to have been on Epstein's plane or island and whatever time, etc. (History may prove that to be a bad example). Or, some sort of recantation by at least one of the main victims.

Ziegler also has to stop assuming that the media is against him. Mohr response, paraphrasing, "you're here. I'm the media. You're the media" was so on point.
On your third point, yes the JVP testimony is what it is. At least in transcript form. If my corroded memory serves, "we" have yet to hear JVP's actual recorded testimony, and I can't remember via what means or by whom that recorded testimony has been requested, and denied, or what the basis for the denial is. I'm speaking of course to the suggestion that the transcript was altered to change JVP's response from a question, ("was it of a sexual nature?") to a statement ("it was of a sexual nature"). Short of putting this question to bed it becomes an admittedly cumbersome argument to simply suggest "Joe was coached", but I don't think Mohr was able to impress this point upon JZ.
 
At this time, Lubrano is a more competent media spokesperson in defense of PSU.

I agree. It is interesting that Lubrano thinks that Ziegler has done a lot of good work on the Penn State fiasco. He is not the only BOT member who listens to what JZ has to say. I believe that Lubrano, Tribeck, and Capretto are all very sympathetic to JZ's point of view based on discussions I have had with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshall30
Sexual nature comment is definitely the toughest thing to overcome in defending Paterno. At the end of the day though, if you weigh the entire body of evidence and look at ALL of the statements Paterno made, I still think there is a very strong argument that a rape/sexual assault was not reported to anyone. The one point I always raise about the sexual nature remark is that, if he had really been covering up a rape for 10 years, and then he gets on the stand and is asked what he knew about that incident, why would he make any suggestion that it could've been sexual? That's not something a man guilty of a cover up says. His entire testimony screams that this is a man with nothing to hide. I think John fell flat on his face trying to explain this to Jay, and that's why Jay isn't convinced Paterno is innocent.
Not if the 'sexual nature' sentence has a ? after it. Bring me the audio. I refuse to rely on someone's transcription. It is way too important.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan and T J
Not if the 'sexual nature' sentence has a ? after it. Bring me the audio. I refuse to rely on someone's transcription. It is way too important.

This ^^
Barker read that into the record. We have no idea of the tone, intonation and voice inflections. Barker could have simply read it wrong. The court recorder could have typed it in wrong - we've seen lots of transcripts with spelling errors & grammar mistakes. And it was couched with so many qualifiers.

Zig failed to get across that originally this was supposed to be a routine political assassination by Tom Corbett. Paterno was never the target - Spanier was. The AG's office took a "calculated risk" and tried to surf along the edge of this without touching Paterno. They're very careful to not implicate Joe in Kelly's press conference - until Frank "Moral Obligation" Noonan pipes up and that flames into a national conflagration using the Paterno name as kindling.

Zig needs to stress that Penn State's goose was being cooked all along down in Harrisburg that spring and summer while the Sandusky filed simmered away on Tom Corbett's desk - and there wasn't a damned thing Penn State could do about Frank Fina and his fellow gunslingers. Paterno could have been retired already - it didn't matter. Who at Penn State is keeping their ear to the ground with regards to the AG's office - no one. Why would they?

Spanier was the trophy pelt and Corbett & Fina were out for easy election points. It was about anchoring the Harrisburg media fire and the Pennsylvania voter public ire on the steps of Old Main. They were never truly interested in prosecuting Sandusky, and they were never interested in cracking heads over at Second Mile.

Not enough attention is placed on the prosecutorial misconduct and discussing the prosecutors themselves. I also think that cat Blessington figures more into it as well.
 
This ^^
Barker read that into the record. We have no idea of the tone, intonation and voice inflections. Barker could have simply read it wrong. The court recorder could have typed it in wrong - we've seen lots of transcripts with spelling errors & grammar mistakes. And it was couched with so many qualifiers.

Zig failed to get across that originally this was supposed to be a routine political assassination by Tom Corbett. Paterno was never the target - Spanier was. The AG's office took a "calculated risk" and tried to surf along the edge of this without touching Paterno. They're very careful to not implicate Joe in Kelly's press conference - until Frank "Moral Obligation" Noonan pipes up and that flames into a national conflagration using the Paterno name as kindling.

Zig needs to stress that Penn State's goose was being cooked all along down in Harrisburg that spring and summer while the Sandusky filed simmered away on Tom Corbett's desk - and there wasn't a damned thing Penn State could do about Frank Fina and his fellow gunslingers. Paterno could have been retired already - it didn't matter. Who at Penn State is keeping their ear to the ground with regards to the AG's office - no one. Why would they?

Spanier was the trophy pelt and Corbett & Fina were out for easy election points. It was about anchoring the Harrisburg media fire and the Pennsylvania voter public ire on the steps of Old Main. They were never truly interested in prosecuting Sandusky, and they were never interested in cracking heads over at Second Mile.

Not enough attention is placed on the prosecutorial misconduct and discussing the prosecutors themselves. I also think that cat Blessington figures more into it as well.
Right On Wendy! i recall Scott Paterno requesting the audio recording of Joe from the Grand Jury and that request being denied. Anyone have more recent information on that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
Ziegler is an excellent researcher but he's horrible in a debate setting or trying to articulate a thought. There's a reason some of the smartest guys in media aren't on air talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
ADVERTISEMENT