Well he talked to more people than Freeh and his team did. Oh that's right Freeh couldn't talk to those close to the situation because the AG who he was helping asked him not to. Guess Snedden didn't get that call.
Federal Investigator states PSU3/Paterno are clearly innocent.
- Thread starter Adlee73
- Start date
Well he talked to more people than Freeh and his team did. Oh that's right Freeh couldn't talk to those close to the situation because the AG who he was helping asked him not to. Guess Snedden didn't get that call.
I'm sure Wick has added Snedden to his speed dial for the Paterno case.
Seems reasonable that the OAG would have asked him if he had access to the 2001 emails and notes. If so, how did he consider the change in plans of reporting to DPW. OAG would likely also note that Tim and Gary also lied to him, as they did to the GJ. Those are the only two relevant interviews he did. Any others were with individuals that had no direct involvement in the 2001 incident.
From what I read, (don't know if it was him, in particular) but there was a guy from that investigative team in the courtroom--but he was never called.
Yep - the OAG brought NOTHING to the table that they didn't have at the Preliminary Hearing (the Deputy Dawg affair 5 years ago - that was only debatably sufficient to move the case along - let alone even enter the same time zone as a conviction)
In 5 F-ing years ........... with NOTHING brought to the table by the OAG ......... which they, of course, had to know ........... and they piss their own pants.......... and bury "truth" forever.
Yeah, right.
Agree, but to balance the books, Freeh didn't have subpoena power either. Snedden at least spoke with the involved parties. He spent over 8 hours with Spanier and found him to be forthcoming. He said that he's been doing this long enough to know if someone is trying to BS him.
Because Schultz testimony contradicts what he told the investigator. Curley was no help either.
The prosecution did an awful job and didn't prove their case. If the investigator had testified it would have opened the door to recall them.
I think Snedden's report is important. Not trying to downplay or denigrate it in any way. I was just clarifying who he works for and what types of investigations he does.
A third party's opinion is not admissible in court, unless that person is determined to be an "expert" by the court (term of art), and the subject matter upon which he will opine is one requiring specialized knowledge (beyond the "ken" of the average layperson). Even a well qualified person like Snedden wouldn't be permitted to voice an opinion on credibility issues and on the ultimate issues to be decided by the jury.
Me too. There's no question something's not right there. Gricar was in State College from 1980 to 2005. I'd be very surprised if 1998 was the first time he'd heard about Jerry and underage boys. If he had heard things prior to 1998 it's pretty shocking he didn't do more during that investigation. Who knows....maybe he'd been involved in a Sandusky investigation before 98.
Last edited:
Do you think there is no way that Jerry is innocent?
I am not sure whether he is innocent or not, but I do know his trial was patently unfair. I believe the results of an unfair trial are inherently unreliable.
The 1998 investigation was for period well before and leading up to 1998. Look into the dates when AM began reporting abuse to his school counselors, teachers and administrators.....
I would give anything to get my hands on a clean copy of Gicar's clean hard drive and his files and phone records. Wouldn't you?
I would give anything to get my hands on a clean copy of Gicar's clean hard drive and his files and phone records. Wouldn't you?
What evidence do you need to see or hear to convince you that Jerry is guilty?
There is no way at all that Jerry is innocent. None.
Convincing evidence that he had sexual relations (i.e. OS or AS) with a minor. To date the accounts of McQueary, AM (v2), AF (v1) v4, v7, and v9 have been underwhelming IMO.
Which accuser(s) do you believe ard the most compelling?
Walter Sobchak is one of the funniest characters EVER...makes me laugh hysterically every time!!
Schultz didn't lie, but Curley's foggy memory wouldn't cut a second time when they were ready for it.
But what is convincing evidence to you? If you were on the jury, what evidence would you need to see or hear for you to say guilty?
Some accurate dates so the defendant could defend himself w/ an alibi would be a nice start. Oh, and doing jail time for 2 no show victims based on hearsay should be sort of frowned on in a truly just society. jmo of course.
Specific dates or something in the neighborhood are important. That rules out v7 who was off by 3 years and MM's testimony that was off by a full year. I would also want a witness whose testimony isn't tainted by suggestive testimony like v4 or by repressed memory therapy.
And there are more than a few people who believed he never "talked it over with Joe." He couldn't recall any specifics of that conversation, because, perhaps, there wasn't one?
Some think that Tim would use Joe's name to gain some perceived leverage in a situation.
I wasn't referring to that testimony. I didn't see any point in that angle TBH.
I guess it was to show Curley was lying about 98. I think it was unnecessary and distracted from the important issue, Spanier was lying.
Character witnesses are absolutely allowed in PA courts. Usually it can only be used if the DEFENSE introduces it. Then the DA can use their own character witnesses so long as they apply specifically to rebutting the defense's character witness. The DA may also introduce other character evidence & bring up the defendant's history if it specifically applies to rebutting the character witness.
I'll settle for GJ testimony from Karen Arnold, and others that worked in his office.
A grown man showering late at night in an empty locker room with a young boy is enough evidence for me to know he was not innocent.
The trial seemed odd. Seemed to happen really quickly and motions seemed toball gonin theborosecutions favor. I would not be disappointed to see him get a new trial. I imagine another jury would find him just as guilty as the first one.
Good Grief
Not that I think possible "Snedden Testimony" would have been particularly powerful or enlightening (maybe it would be, IDK), certainly not as enlightening as any of a number of other avenues that this inert shit stain of a "trial" refused to pursue.
But, good grief, the defense - if it so chose - most certainly could have elicited Snedden's testimony.
They just chose to not do dick.
IIRC - they get paid either way....... whether they work or not.
Yes. Very fair. They gave him a chance to defend himself on the stand and he declined. Not that it would have mattered because, you know.... he's a serial pedophile.
Men and boys shower together at YMCAs even today. And when Jerry Sandusky grew up, men and boys showering and even swimming naked together was much more common. Jerry's parents owned a rec center, so he grew up in that culture.
Also, the only man to ever claim to be victim2 considered Jerry to be a father to him, only turning on him after being approached by a lawyer months after the arrest
Lasch is not the YMCA, so bad comparison. And the real issue is touching and hugging while naked. That would not be acceptable in the YMCA or anywhere else. Jerry is smart enough to know that. And if he wasn't, the 1998 incident should have been more than enough for him to realize not to put himself in that position (if he is really innocent).
Last edited:
Some interesting notes, starting around the 50:00 mark Snedden mentions that in Oct 2012 Sassano must have gotten word of his report and contacted him by "unofficial means" (which Snedden thought was very odd for an inter law enforcement contact) to ask if he could get a copy of Snedden's report. Snedden said it wasn't his to give, it was the Federal Govt's (Spanier eventually got a copy of it via FOIA).
He described Sassano as "very agitated" and Snedden thinks it's because Sassano was running out of time re: the state bringing charges against Spanier.
Snedden/Zig think it was because the OAG learned of the FIS report and worried that it may contradict all the stuff they were claiming right as they were about to bring charges against Spanier in Fall 2012 and the second B.S. presentment.
According to Snedden it sounds like the OAG (Sassano) was more worried about what Snedden's investigation turned up not the other way around.
Do those men bear hug boys in the shower? Do they do it in places that are supposed to be vacant in the evening?
I am certainly not denying that Sandusky wasn't a complete weirdo and I firmly believe that the Second Mile should have banned him from spending time alone with kids, but it seems all the allegations of oral and anal sex are false. Victim 9, the only trial accuser to allege anal sex, is clearly a liar. Also the only trial accusers other than Victim 9 to allege oral sex , Victim 1 (Aaron Fisher) and Victim 4, were obviously duped by the "repressed memory therapy" of a complete quack "psychiatrist".
Again, not saying the touching and hugging was appropriate. He was a complete weirdo and a complete moron. Some of his actions are arguably minor crimes. But, I think it is very doubtful that there was any sexual intent and it is certainly not true that he deserves the label of "worst pedophile in the world".
Just FYI, Sandusky's excuse for why he continued to shower with boys after the 1998 incident was that he did stop taking showers with boys in general, but he considered Allen Myers just like a son so he thought it was ok.
