Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET
- Thread starter JeannieNeedsAShooter
- Start date
As long as you don't listen to John, your false narrative is safe LaJolla
I think Ziggy is more knowledgeable about the facts in this case than anybody else. Having said that he still needs to explain why Sandusky continues to pursue his late night excursions into secluded shower rooms with youngsters for years after the 1998 incident. He may very well be not guilty of being a serial child molester, but I won't believe in his innocence until he explains that behavior.
OldTiredLion, I have done many ventures with kids. I am very touchy feely, but I observed boundaries. IMO Jerry was similar, but he was stubborn and did things his way. I think Jerry's MO was to be a father figure to these kids and that meant horse playing and hugging; because this is what he did with his father. I also understood that Jerry's father played a similar role with underprivileged kids in his hometown. Did Jerry observe his father do something similar to this? I think this was more accepted in his father's day and I think when Jerry was investigated by multiple agencies the first time that is what everyone, but one, concluded. The phrase was that it was Jerry being Jerry.
I think looking back on it in today's world that Jerry definitely over stepped boundaries, but as JZ says this was the most investigated case ever and they found zero evidence. The only two eyewitnesses have been totally debunked.
What astounds me to no end is that the people in Pennsylvania are not calling or writing to get action. Jerry should have had a new trial by an objective jury. I don't think there is an objective jury in the world that will convict Jerry of having sex with a child. I think those at this blog who say so are tied in some way to the BOT. I hope the 2011 BOT go on trial for failure of fiduciary responsibilities. They are the ones who need to be in jail.
I think looking back on it in today's world that Jerry definitely over stepped boundaries, but as JZ says this was the most investigated case ever and they found zero evidence. The only two eyewitnesses have been totally debunked.
What astounds me to no end is that the people in Pennsylvania are not calling or writing to get action. Jerry should have had a new trial by an objective jury. I don't think there is an objective jury in the world that will convict Jerry of having sex with a child. I think those at this blog who say so are tied in some way to the BOT. I hope the 2011 BOT go on trial for failure of fiduciary responsibilities. They are the ones who need to be in jail.
Jerry Sandusky did not receive a fair trial and absolutely deserves a new one. Al Lindsay makes a very compelling case in his Petition for Post Conviction Relief that he had ineffective counsel and that there were several instances of obvious prosecutorial misconduct. The Grand Jury Presentment that Mike McQueary witnessed a sexual assault in the shower was false. The unjustified firing of Joe Paterno created an atmosphere in Centre County that ensured that a fair trial would be impossible. Sara Ganim's leaked Grand Jury testimony was an obvious attempt to recruit additional accusers to a case that had up until then been going nowhere. The prosecution's assertion that victim 2 was known only to God was false when they knew that victim 2 was in fact Allan Myers. There is no way that any testimony concerning janitor Jim Calhoun witnessing an assault in the shower should have been allowed as Calhoun stated in an interview before trial that it wasn't Sandusky that he witnessed before he conveniently got dementia. In addition, hearsay witness Ronald Petrovsky's testimony was not corroborated as the prosecution claimed it would be. Furthermore, there is no way the prosecution should have been allowed to use Sandusky's constitutional right to remain silent and not to testify against him in their closing arguments.
It will be very interesting to see the Commonwealth's response to the Petition. They requested and got an extension to file their response. It is now due in early September. IMHO, if Judge Cleland considers the Petition objectively, he will have no choice but to order hearings into whether a new trial is warranted.
Except for the victims testifying about the actual penetration and giving oral...other than that it was just boundary issues. If you simply want to ignore all of the victims or treat them like they are prostitutes since they aren't model citizens, you can say there was no evidence. I mean 15+ years ago the kids weren't carrying cell phones and they didn't save the DNA, so it means Jerry didn't molest anyone. Jerry being Jerry is also what Clemente described as the perfect nice guy predator. Then again he's a leading national expert on the topic and not a guy who tried to make it on the radio.
I realize that you believe that Sandusky is guilty of being a child molester. At the time of the trial, I did as well; but now I am not so sure. Given the developments of the past 3 years, do you think that Sandusky received a fair trial? Do you think the PSU BOT has been acting prudently in negotiating settlements with anyone who claims to be a victim before the resolution of the charges against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier; and without taking a serious look at the validity of their claims? Do you think that any of the accusers might be fabricating their stories?
I believe Jerry had his trial, he is guilty and he will die there. I believe the BoT wanted the hot potato gone and some had an axe to burn with Joe. Those few on the BoT killed two birds with one stone by pointing directly at Joe and the football program. No they shouldn't have paid out so early, but it was a PR move which still doesn't make Jerry somehow innocent. The horrible crap JZ does to the victims is the same thing done to prostitutes who claim rape. Since they are not always high character members of the society, they must be lying. There has been zero proof that all of the victims lied. The simple fact that the vast majority talked about the penetration and sodomy kind of leads you to believe he wasn't just playing patty cakes in his basement.
The only thing that has occurred is a guy who wanted to make a name in radio is going around harassing victims of child molestation. A small minority of people who went to school there want so desperately to believe JZ is right because they think it may turn some things around. When and if a time comes that a victim comes out and says it was all made up or real proof is out there, maybe then I'll look at it some more. That isn't occurring at all. People are stalking victims and their social media pages because they are sour of what happened with their school. There is no perfect trial, but I'll ride my money with Clemente who did study the case and came to the conclusion that JS is a master child molester (top 1%). His background in the field trumps JZ in every regard. I hope he doesn't get another trial as nothing to date has shown he is innocent IMO.
The only thing that has occurred is a guy who wanted to make a name in radio is going around harassing victims of child molestation. A small minority of people who went to school there want so desperately to believe JZ is right because they think it may turn some things around. When and if a time comes that a victim comes out and says it was all made up or real proof is out there, maybe then I'll look at it some more. That isn't occurring at all. People are stalking victims and their social media pages because they are sour of what happened with their school. There is no perfect trial, but I'll ride my money with Clemente who did study the case and came to the conclusion that JS is a master child molester (top 1%). His background in the field trumps JZ in every regard. I hope he doesn't get another trial as nothing to date has shown he is innocent IMO.
so were people wrong to question the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case?
Oh you mean the ONE accuser? Somehow the justice system got that right in the end just like they did here.
In all Fairness, LaJolla, it's pretty well known that the detectives told the victims during their interviews what Fisher's statement was and used leading questions. And then the same detective perjured himself during cross, although he was never charged. I'm far from convinced of Sandusky's innocence, but you seem to pick-and-choose your "facts" and completely ignore others when discussing your opinion.
wow a whole lotta wrong in that post. so it is OK to question a victim's story if there is only one victim, and all trials related to Jerry Sandusky have been exhausted. gotcha
for the record, I still believe Sandusky is guilty of SOME crimes (gotta bring in michnit to parse that word again), but there are certainly enough inconsistencies and irregularities with other aspects of the investigation and trial that make me believe there's something hokey going on
and that doesn't make me a horrible person
It's all pretty well know victims of abuse struggle to come forward even when questioned. Many struggle with emotional issues and some never overcome them leading to addiction and sometimes repeat the abuse. So when preaching about picking and choosing facts, please ensure that you look at the total picture yourself. One to two victims, maybe JZ had something. The problem is he can't write them all off and Jerry had access to every single one of them. People here love to IGNORE THE ACTUAL TESTIMONY by several victims, but that's not a problem to you.
What was wrong? Was there more than one accuser in the Duke case. NO, so that was actually right. Hell that isn't even an opinion, just an outright fact of the case. In Jerry's case nothing has changed in any way other than a wannbe radio guy trying so hard to keep a tiny audience alive. Maybe him and Slaten can keep the couple 100 of you guys interested until Jerry dies in jail. People can feel free to think what they want in terms of guilt, but JZ going after his victims is pretty GD disgusting. Even more so when all he has is the kid used drugs or isn't a great person.
Jerry had access to thousands of kids. the police were caught on tape telling a victim's attorney what they needed to hear. Ganim refused to testify under the stipulation that she conceded that she told a victim's mother she needed her to find more victims to go forward with charges.
and 2 victims were flat out fabrications to throw stink on PSU.
and yet I have consistently said I found at least 3 of the victims' testimony compelling and sufficient to put Sandusky behind bars.
the word you cannot accept into your narrow world view is "nuance"
Exactly...the state used what AF (V1) told them and got the other victims (how many..who knows??) to change their stories based on AF's testimony (MM included in this group as well). There's audio tape evidence of this. If you look at what most of the victims initially told investigators, their stories completely changed once PSU made it known they were going to be throwing millions of dollars at people or after Shubin hot his hands on them. That's a pretty significant little nugget if you ask me.
Look at what the alleged victims said before money was on the table, then look at what they said after money was on the table or after scumbag attorney Shubin got his greedy hands on them. This can't be discounted out of hand. It needs to be looked into.
Now, in all fairness some people might say this is normal for abuse victims, that they don't open up right away, but there's enough reasonable doubt IMO that this needs to be clarified and flushed out under OATH. When people keep changing their stories it hurts their credibility (see Matt Sandusky for a perfect example).
Prosecutors playing fast and loose with the rules and committing misconduct galore, police lying under oath and not being charged with perjury, tainted/prejudiced jury pool, ineffective counsel for JS, etc., etc.....these aren't just little issues that can be overlooked. These issues should raise some serious questions about the fairness and constitutionality of JS's trial...questions that need to be answered under OATH to put this matter to bed once and for all. These issues also raise the question if the state's case was soooo strong against JS, why even resort to these tactics in the first place thus risking a mistrial?? It just doesn't make any logical sense to me.
For the record my beliefs line up pretty closely with Simons and OldTiredLion...I think JS is guilty of some of the crimes but we can't say for sure without an actual legitimate trial. Not the kangaroo court that happened back in summer '12.
How many do you think he's guilty of against people that never came forward at all?
That thought has never crossed some peoples minds. Even though the vast majority of victims don't come forward in abuse, it means they all did in Jerry's case. Some people he abused may have went on to productive lives and don't want to look back. Whether that it is too painful or embarrassing, but it's quite possible more victims are out there. In fact it is very likely that is the case.
Last edited:
I don't think the evidence that JS is guilty is an convincing as you think it is. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, there is no way the BOT should have made any settlements until the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases had been resolved and Penn State's culpability had been established. I believe that the Freeh Report is a farce.
I believe that there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that some of the accusers of have been less than truthful in their version of events. In particular, I believe it is more likely that the original accounts of Matt Sandusky and Allan Myers gave in defense of JS after he was arrested are accurate as opposed to what they said after Joe Paterno was fired and they hired a lawyer. The potential of getting a multi million dollar settlement may have been too difficult to resist. I don't question the accusers because of their status in society, but question their versions of events because they were not made contemporaneously, because they hired lawyers before they went to authorities, and because their version of events have changed over time.
I give Aaron Fisher credit for going to authorities relatively contemporaneously, and he seems more credible to me than most of the other accusers. That being said, his recent behavior does not seem to me to be consistent of that of a CSA survivor. I am not sure that his story stands on its own. I believe it is far from conclusive what exactly happened and that JS did not receive a fair trial. He deserves a new trial and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no idea. If the people you're talking about never came forward or had their cases publicly prosecuted then we can't determine the merit of their accusations.
Since PSU tainted the process by publicly stating they were going to start handing out checks BEFORE JS or CSS had even had their trials it makes it extremely hard to gauge legit accusations vs. people just trying to get some easy money. That move by PSU really muddied the water, messed things up, and tainted the jury pool (btw when has a company/school EVER done this before--admit guilt for indicted employees/former employees and start handing out checks???)....IMO it was a calculated move by PSU to obfuscate things and it worked brilliantly.
And yes I know the difference between criminal and civil issues but at least in the civil cases against PSU have the plaintiffs PROVE that PSU was liable!!
I totally separate the BoT's stupidity from Jerry's crimes. That is just me and one has nothing to do with the other. The BoT were fools and cowards for reacting the way they did. They threw everyone under the bus ahead of any trials at all. Don't confuse my thoughts on Jerry with those of the BoT. Two completely different animals there Steve.
What victim testimony do you find compelling and beyond a reasonable doubt?
I'll have to go back and re-read their testimony, I don't recall offhand. and I haven't revisited the testimony since shortly after the verdict, since at the time I was mostly focused on MM's testimony and how it was not physically possible
Child abuse is a horrible crime. We all agree on this and JS is where he is.
One aspect that I have wondered about considering the victims abuse claims is that in today's age of acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. I know that this may be a stretch, but most of the abuse claims were not of anal sex, mostly touching, and oral. Claims of sexual abuse in the 70's & 80's had a much different stigma attached to it because homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.
My point is that people may be more likely to make false claims of abuse because there is not that additional stigma of it being an homosexual encounter. I think that was a bigger aspect of it with the Catholic church scandal because victims and their families didn't want people to know or think that their child may be a homosexual. The attitudes of today are much different, it is more of no big deal regarding someone's sexuality,
So I do not know if I explained this well or not. Could this be a part of it, that the false victims that want to get a payday are basically willing to say " hey no big deal if I did a homosexual act, I just want to get paid". I may be wrong, but I think that this plays a part.
One aspect that I have wondered about considering the victims abuse claims is that in today's age of acceptance of homosexual lifestyle. I know that this may be a stretch, but most of the abuse claims were not of anal sex, mostly touching, and oral. Claims of sexual abuse in the 70's & 80's had a much different stigma attached to it because homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.
My point is that people may be more likely to make false claims of abuse because there is not that additional stigma of it being an homosexual encounter. I think that was a bigger aspect of it with the Catholic church scandal because victims and their families didn't want people to know or think that their child may be a homosexual. The attitudes of today are much different, it is more of no big deal regarding someone's sexuality,
So I do not know if I explained this well or not. Could this be a part of it, that the false victims that want to get a payday are basically willing to say " hey no big deal if I did a homosexual act, I just want to get paid". I may be wrong, but I think that this plays a part.
I don't know exactly what MM's testimony was but he obviously saw something that shocked and worried him since he reported it. Unless he has a history of making crazy reports the fact that he reported it should tell you something. Who would want to get caught up in a story like that unless they actually saw or at least thought they saw something?
And the person he reported happened to be one that had been investigated for the same thing a few years earlier, at which time BTW he promised police he'd never shower with a kid again. Does this not make alarms go off in peoples heads?
How many people would be investigated but cleared for that but then continue to shower with children, unless there was a compulsion involved? None.
Ziegler is doing you guys no favor by stringing this along and making the whole situation sounds like an unsolved mystery.
It's clear that MM was upset and weirded out by what he saw in the 3 second glimpse through a shower mirror that night, however apparently it wasn't bad enough for him to call UPPD that night or EVER make a written statement to UPPD (or ask C/S why no one from UPPD ever came to get his written statement) so a criminal investigation could get started.
Also, when Curley called MM a few weeks later to follow up and communicate PSU's action plan, MM never expressed dissatisfaction, never said the police needed to be involved, and never said MORE needed to be done. To me this speaks VOLUMES. It tells me that MM was weirded out but wasn't CERTAIN that molestation/abuse was taking place and C/S's action plan of removing JS's guest privileges, telling him his inappropriate showering behavior was wrong/needed to stop, and informing TSM about the incident and PSU's new directives was sufficient enough for him, the one and only witness. It also tells me that MM's 2010 version to OAG/PSP where he claims he was CERTAIN JS was abusing a kid that night and reported it as such in 2001 is B.S. revisionist history.
I do agree with you that JS continuing to shower with kids after being explicitly told not to by LE/DPW is troubling and points to his guilt on some of the charges, however C/S were NOT aware of this directive JS received in 1998 (see Harmon's testimony) so there wouldn't be any "alarms going off" in their heads after they were made aware of 2001. Also in 1998 JS didn't even get his ChildLine clearance to work with kids revoked so you have to keep that in mind as well. LE/DPW pretty much told everyone in 1998, including JS himself, that it was all no big deal, nothing to see here, etc....If LE/DPW really did think JS was a potential molester/etc. but just didn't have enough evidence to criminally prosecute you'd think they would have at least revoked his clearance to work with kids right? But nope....never happened.
Since PSU was told by LE/DPW/CYS EXPERTS that 1998 (naked bear hug from behind in the shower) was no big deal you'd have to think that would have influenced how PSU handled 2001.
I'm not talking about alarms going off in C/S's heads, I'm talking about alarms going off in the heads of a few here who seem to think JS was railroaded.
And as far as MM goes, the degree to which he followed up isn't really the point, rather the point is that he reported it at all. How often does someone report to their Dad or boss that they think they saw a child sexual abuse happening? It's rare and it's certainly not something a person does lightly. Why would MM report this about JS, an older, respected guy that reached high in a profession that MM was aspiring to, unless he thought it was something real? MM would have to be an idiot or a masochist to report this unless he thought it was important. Reporting stuff like that without cause about JS could ruin his career.
And as far as MM goes, the degree to which he followed up isn't really the point, rather the point is that he reported it at all. How often does someone report to their Dad or boss that they think they saw a child sexual abuse happening? It's rare and it's certainly not something a person does lightly. Why would MM report this about JS, an older, respected guy that reached high in a profession that MM was aspiring to, unless he thought it was something real? MM would have to be an idiot or a masochist to report this unless he thought it was important. Reporting stuff like that without cause about JS could ruin his career.
just to clarify, this was work I did with barry Bozeman, not Ziegler. We had a schematic of the locker room with pictures, and went through Mike's testimony. We definitely found testimony that would have been physically impossible, which is not unusual since eye witness testimony IS the most unreliable testimony in court. of course, that doesn't stop everyone from defining reality by what Mike said in 2010 about what he saw in 2002 (or 2001, hey why be accurate???)
Similar threads
