Ziegler WRSC 8/19

[SteveMasters]

This is the problem Steve, it's all about what you BELIEVE. You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are flat out wrong on facts. I just showed that with the post of the transcript. You asked if I knew there was more than what the PCRA used (i.e. JC said it wasn't JS) and the PCRA itself PROVES there is more (how much more is still to be determined because it isn't included in the exhibits, just a place holder page), even if you don't have access to the exhibits yet (which I do).

Your refusal to accept these type of things means one of two things; you aren't interested in the real truth or you wouldn't understand it anyway.

The problem is John you haven't proven that I am wrong. I never said that paragraph 365 was the entire interview Jim Calhoun gave to Trooper Yakicik. How is it even relevant? You have even acknowledged that you don't believe that JS is guilty of the v8 counts. What type of things do I refuse to accept? Try again John. Where am I wrong?

 

[no1lion99]

The problem is John you haven't proven that I am wrong. I never said that paragraph 365 was the entire interview Jim Calhoun gave to Trooper Yakicik. How is it even relevant? You have even acknowledged that you don't believe that JS is guilty of the v8 counts. What type of things do I refuse to accept? Try again John. Where am I wrong?

OK Steve let's walk this through simply for you.

1 You said:

"Jim Calhoun, the janitor that allegedly witnessed a sexually assault by Sandusky, made a statement to Commonwealth investigator Trooper Yakicik on May 15, 2011 that he remembered Coach Sandusky and that he didn't believe that Sandusky was the person he saw. ( paragraph 365, p.85 of the PCRA)."

So you accept that a transcript exists of an interview conducted by Trooper Yakicik. It is listed exactly where you say it is.

2. That paragraph of the PCRA states:

"In the tape recording....After Calhoun describes the assault in graphic detail..."

This is documentation by the PCRA authors themselves that there is more to the transcript than what is posted in Paragraph 365 (which you alerted us all to).

3. You however then said:

"I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you? "

That's false, and the evidence you use on one hand to attempt to exonerate your prison pen pal Jer, explicitly says there is. There's no contention that you have been shown to be wrong on that fact. If you believe the statement in the PCRA re 'not JS' then you have to accept as fact there is more to the transcript. The two positions come together.

 

[SteveMasters]

OK Steve let's walk this through simply for you.

1 You said:

"Jim Calhoun, the janitor that allegedly witnessed a sexually assault by Sandusky, made a statement to Commonwealth investigator Trooper Yakicik on May 15, 2011 that he remembered Coach Sandusky and that he didn't believe that Sandusky was the person he saw. ( paragraph 365, p.85 of the PCRA)."

So you accept that a transcript exists of an interview conducted by Trooper Yakicik. It is listed exactly where you say it is.

2. That paragraph of the PCRA states:

"In the tape recording....After Calhoun describes the assault in graphic detail..."

This is documentation by the PCRA authors themselves that there is more to the transcript than what is posted in Paragraph 365 (which you alerted us all to).

3. You however then said:

"I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you? "

That's false, and the evidence you use on one hand to attempt to exonerate your prison pen pal Jer, explicitly says there is. There's no contention that you have been shown to be wrong on that fact. If you believe the statement in the PCRA re 'not JS' then you have to accept as fact there is more to the transcript. The two positions come together.

How is my statement "I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you?" false?

Yes, I agree now that you have shown that there is probably more to the transcript; but so what? When I responded to you I didn't know if there was more to it and I am struggling to understand the relevance of what difference it makes if there is any more to the transcript. The key to paragraph 365 in my view is that Jim Calhoun didn't believe that it was Jerry Sandusky that he witnessed and the v8 counts are without merit. Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that you also have said that you think the v8 counts are without merit as well.

 

[no1lion99]

How is my statement "I don't know if there is any rest of the transcript. Do you?" false?

Yes, I agree now that you have shown that there is probably more to the transcript; but so what? When I responded to you I didn't know if there was more to it and I am struggling to understand the relevance of what difference it makes if there is any more to the transcript. The key to paragraph 365 in my view is that Jim Calhoun didn't believe that it was Jerry Sandusky that he witnessed and the v8 counts are without merit. Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe that you also have said that you think the v8 counts are without merit as well.

Probably? If you believe JC made the statement you claim then you HAVE TO BELIEVE there is more to the transcript, period. It says so in your own evidence you point to.

As for how more transcript could be relevant, you truly are a piece of work. You don't see how it could be relevant WHAT ELSE a demented man said in the interview? Have you ever spoken to someone with dementia?

Like I said, have you ever wondered why Lindsay did NOT release the entire transcript? Because it's not that hard to guess. The part he released is the only part that supports his case. The next question/answer could have been him explaining how right after he saw this not-Sandusky person, a green man with 4 legs and a tail took the boy away in a ship. Get a clue.

 

[SteveMasters]

Probably? If you believe JC made the statement you claim then you HAVE TO BELIEVE there is more to the transcript, period. It says so in your own evidence you point to.

As for how more transcript could be relevant, you truly are a piece of work. You don't see how it could be relevant WHAT ELSE a demented man said in the interview? Have you ever spoken to someone with dementia?

Like I said, have you ever wondered why Lindsay did NOT release the entire transcript? Because it's not that hard to guess. The part he released is the only part that supports his case. The next question/answer could have been him explaining how right after he saw this not-Sandusky person, a green man with 4 legs and a tail took the boy away in a ship. Get a clue.

You are grasping at straws John. I assume you are aware of Ray's January 2015 blog post where he calls the janitor incident a hoax. JC either had dementia or not, but Joe Amendola inexplicably never required proof of this OAG assertion. The OAG may have decided that they rather not have a witness that didn't fit their narrative and JC conveniently having dementia would have been nice cover for what Louis Freeh called the most horrific rape of the entire case. Of course Lindsay is going to put evidence that most favors his client in the PCRA. What would you expect him to do? If there is any incriminating evidence in Trooper Yakicik's interview with JC, I would expect to see that in the Commonwealth's response; however I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Speaking of the PCRA, you earlier said "But I can easily pick about 5-10 places where Lindsay does himself no favors and even exposes bigger problems for JS. "

I have yet to see you provide even one example in the PCRA of where Lindsay does himself no favors and exposes bigger problems for JS. Lindsay makes some very serious allegations against the OAG in the PCRA and I believe the Commonwealth is going to have a hard time brushing them off. I think that Judge Cleland realizes that a lot of the substance underlying the allegations is credible and that there is a realistic chance that he will move the PCRA forward.

 

[no1lion99]

You are grasping at straws John. I assume you are aware of Ray's January 2015 blog post where he calls the janitor incident a hoax. JC either had dementia or not, but Joe Amendola inexplicably never required proof of this OAG assertion. The OAG may have decided that they rather not have a witness that didn't fit their narrative and JC conveniently having dementia would have been nice cover for what Louis Freeh called the most horrific rape of the entire case. Of course Lindsay is going to put evidence that most favors his client in the PCRA. What would you expect him to do? If there is any incriminating evidence in Trooper Yakicik's interview with JC, I would expect to see that in the Commonwealth's response; however I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Speaking of the PCRA, you earlier said "But I can easily pick about 5-10 places where Lindsay does himself no favors and even exposes bigger problems for JS. "

I have yet to see you provide even one example in the PCRA of where Lindsay does himself no favors and exposes bigger problems for JS. Lindsay makes some very serious allegations against the OAG in the PCRA and I believe the Commonwealth is going to have a hard time brushing them off. I think that Judge Cleland realizes that a lot of the substance underlying the allegations is credible and that there is a realistic chance that he will move the PCRA forward.

You know my twitter handle, go find the examples as I already posted them there....not gonna do your homework for you any more.

 

[SteveMasters]

You know my twitter handle, go find the examples as I already posted them there....not gonna do your homework for you any more.

You may have forgotten but you blocked me on twitter. You blocked me right after Ray blocked me. I believe that Ray and you blocked me because you disagreed with my opinions. If it was for a different reason, please let me know.

I don't believe you have any evidence that Lindsay has harmed his case with the PCRA. If you did, you would have no problem sharing it publicly. I am not going to do your homework for you. You were the one who stated that you could easily pick 5-10 examples where there has been harm. I guess it isn't that easy.