Good JZ interview - over an hour [link]

[lubrano]

As I have said before, we owe John Ziegler a debt of gratitude. Whether you agree with him or his approach, he has caused us all to pause and consider. At times, he has made us uncomfortable. That is not necessarily bad.

For me, the PCRA filing was awakening because Lindsay lays out the case for retrial in an easy to follow and understand fashion. This should be a must-read for all those interested in this case.

In more than four years we have learned much about this matter. Hopefully it will all become public in time.

 

[francofan]

In more than four years we have learned much about this matter. Hopefully it will all become public in time.

The false narratives are out there and to date they have not been discredited. I am referring to the Grand Jury Presentment and the Freeh Report that include Mike McQueary witnessing an anal rape in the showers and that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curely, and Gary Schultz knowingly enabled a pedophile to prey for victims. IMO, Penn State will not be able to be made whole until these myths are shattered. There are presently a number of opportunities for learning relevant information including the alumni BOT review of the Freeh Report source materials, the Paterno family lawsuit, Graham Spanier's defamation suit, the criminal case against CSS, and Sandusky's PCRA. I am interested in knowing what people think might be the key public disclosures, if any, that will take place in 2016.

 

[baircub1!]

I agree that Sandusky's trial was a quite irregular. The standout issues for me were denying the requests for a continuance, the allowance of hearsay (janitor episode), and the apparent ineffectiveness of counsel. So please don't put me in the camp that says the trial was not "botched" (your word).

Having said that, there was plenty of evidence introduced to suggest he is guilty of child molestation. You can't just focus on the irregularities and ignore the harmful evidence. Even the Paternos think he's guilty if you believe their attorney, Wick Sollers.

I also got the strong feeling from Amendolas interviews that even he felt JS was guilty. Its usually not a good sign if your own attorney thinks you're a criminal.

Legally speaking, is he entitled to a new trial? From what little I know I'd have to say yes.
Would I like to see it? No, because I don't think it would be helpful to anyone..

I very much doubt that it would result in an acquittal, but it certainly would reprise the entire disgusting episode. The media would have a field day. The public would be incensed. The talks shows would renew the controversy. The University reputation would be further damaged.

Does anybody really want to go through that again?

You make valid points and I do agree any retrial would be harmful... We are not dealing with an intelligent General Public frankly and I do believe more harm would come to those around PSU once discovered a new trial would take place.

What I'm torn with is that there is little doubt rules were broken and corruption is integrated throughout the PA Judicial system especially with the likes of FINA.. Seth etc.

Why do they go... Free? How can they break the rules without being prosecuted?

I do believe Jerry is guilty... However... The trial was a sham. And as horrendous a crime(s) Sandusky committed... Is it ok for us to also have a corrupt system to get the " bad" guy? In the end... Who are the " bad" guys ?

Lastly... And off topic... Surma is scum. Out of everyone involved with this debacle... Including Mark Emmert... It is John Surma who in my mind is the greatest villain

 

[simons96]

You make valid points and I do agree any retrial would be harmful... We are not dealing with an intelligent General Public frankly and I do believe more harm would come to those around PSU once discovered a new trial would take place.

What I'm torn with is that there is little doubt rules were broken and corruption is integrated throughout the PA Judicial system especially with the likes of FINA.. Seth etc.

Why do they go... Free? How can they break the rules without being prosecuted?

I do believe Jerry is guilty... However... The trial was a sham. And as horrendous a crime(s) Sandusky committed... Is it ok for us to also have a corrupt system to get the " bad" guy? In the end... Who are the " bad" guys ?

Lastly... And off topic... Surma is scum. Out of everyone involved with this debacle... Including Mark Emmert... It is John Surma who in my mind is the greatest villain

the parallels when watching Making a Murderer are stunning

there you had a horrible crime, and the criminal justice system/media was so myopic in focusing on Steven Avery, they overlooked a LOT of (possibly) exculpatory evidence which may have led to the real killer going free (though I have more doubts about Sandusky's innocence than I do about Avery's, my point being is the REAL bad guys escaped any scrutiny)

you also had a holier than thou prosecutor who tainted the jury pool with wild, unsubstantiated details about the alleged crime during a press conference . . . details which were drummed into a alleged "witness" by coercive police interviews . . . and the prosecutor was later removed from the DA's office for being a perv . . .

and that seems to be the question that permeates the documentary . . . how can these people perpetuate lies that ruin people's lives with complete impunity?

 

[Black Elmo 2]

One big difference. The victim in Avery case is dead and can't testify against him. There are multiple victims that have, and will, testify against JS. Probably more than testified in the first trial.

If he's granted a new trial, will you enjoy hearing the disgusting details of how he molested innocent kids? The blow-by-blow played over and over again on the nightly news? How he used Penn State to lure them? The renewed criticism and hatred of Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Shulz. Or maybe the criticism will be lumped together as "Penn State" or worse "Paterno."

If you thought the media was unfair before, what makes you think there will be any less thirst for blood the second time around.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

 

[simons96]

ugh, you ever have someone on "ignore", then you take them off and IMMEDIATELY regret doing so??

the joys of allowing posters like Black Elmo into the fold . . .

 

[baircub1!]

One big difference. The victim in Avery case is dead and can't testify against him. There are multiple victims that have, and will, testify against JS. Probably more than testified in the first trial.

If he's granted a new trial, will you enjoy hearing the disgusting details of how he molested innocent kids? The blow-by-blow played over and over again on the nightly news? How he used Penn State to lure them? The renewed criticism and hatred of Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Shulz. Or maybe the criticism will be lumped together as "Penn State" or worse "Paterno."

If you thought the media was unfair before, what makes you think there will be any less thirst for blood the second time around.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Of course hearing details of the kids stories would be horrific... Just horrific.

However... What about the kids... That " cashed in"... Where they were not molested and I do believe that is the case.

Sandusky's don't ? Give me a frrgn break... No DOUBT corrupt prosecutors railroaded this... And again... I believe in justice ALL the way around.

In a civilized society... You either have a fair and impartial system... Or you have corruption , anarchy and doubt....

What is better?

 

[Black Elmo 2]

ugh, you ever have someone on "ignore", then you take them off and IMMEDIATELY regret doing so??

the joys of allowing posters like Black Elmo into the fold . . .

Maybe you simply can't handle the truth. If JS gets a new trial you better prepare for the worst. If you think the media is going to take a softer, kinder approach to this scandal I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[MtNittany]

One big difference. The victim in Avery case is dead and can't testify against him. There are multiple victims that have, and will, testify against JS. Probably more than testified in the first trial.

If he's granted a new trial, will you enjoy hearing the disgusting details of how he molested innocent kids? The blow-by-blow played over and over again on the nightly news? How he used Penn State to lure them? The renewed criticism and hatred of Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Shulz. Or maybe the criticism will be lumped together as "Penn State" or worse "Paterno."

If you thought the media was unfair before, what makes you think there will be any less thirst for blood the second time around.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Another one that is pretending to be worried about how the media perceives PSU. Talk about wasted energy. Here's a little tip - don't let the media dictate ANYTHING to you. It makes you stupid.

So you believe that JS had sex w/ AF over 100 times? Without his Mother or any of his friends knowing anything about it? At an age when he could have kicked JS' ass any time he wanted to? I'd love to see that scripted testimony again (only w/ competent cross-examination) - if for nothing else than to have a good laugh.

What are you going to do when C/S/S eventually come out and say they didn't do anything because nothing happened? I guess you and the sPitters will just go back to calling them the "Gang of 3" at that point.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

What are YOU going to do when C/S/S say nothing happened and America just laughs at them?

 

[baircub1!]

Maybe you simply can't handle the truth. If JS gets a new trial you better prepare for the worst. If you think the media is going to take a softer, kinder approach to this scandal I've got a bridge to sell you.

Question...you are a parent...and this is not a situation I wish upon anyone... But let's say a member of you family goes missing... victim of a suspected serial killer.

Prosecutors feel they have the suspect and in deed a lot of evidence to suggest this person is responsible for many deaths including that member of your family...

The man charged... Clearly has been railroaded and denies ever having anything to do with your case or others.

He is tried... Sentenced to life... And evidence again later comes out that although most likely guilty... The prosecution in their process was corrupt and questions abound....

You ok with the final verdict?

Again..., this is purely an example as I would never wish this upon my worst enemy....doubts... Though slight do exist.

 

[Adlee73]

I agree that Sandusky's trial was a quite irregular. The standout issues for me were denying the requests for a continuance, the allowance of hearsay (janitor episode), and the apparent ineffectiveness of counsel. So please don't put me in the camp that says the trial was not "botched" (your word).

Having said that, there was plenty of evidence introduced to suggest he is guilty of child molestation. You can't just focus on the irregularities and ignore the harmful evidence. Even the Paternos think he's guilty if you believe their attorney, Wick Sollers.

I also got the strong feeling from Amendolas interviews that even he felt JS was guilty. Its usually not a good sign if your own attorney thinks you're a criminal.

Legally speaking, is he entitled to a new trial? From what little I know I'd have to say yes.
Would I like to see it? No, because I don't think it would be helpful to anyone..

I very much doubt that it would result in an acquittal, but it certainly would reprise the entire disgusting episode. The media would have a field day. The public would be incensed. The talks shows would renew the controversy. The University reputation would be further damaged.

Does anybody really want to go through that again?

There probably won't be a retrial. Either convictions will stick or some (or all) will be thrown out. I'm interested in what evidence you're referring to.
I saw very little if any evidence that wasn't either witness or accuser testimony. Convicting someone entirely on testimony can be very dangerous. I has a Salem Witch Trial aspect.

 

[Adlee73]

Fair point and I acknowledge the inconsistency in my post. I am swayed by the fact that JS was convicted on 45 of 48 counts. The likelihood of acquittal on all those seems impossible. I would not like to see it all dredged up again.

If he were to be acquitted, do you think it would help anything? Heck no, it would make things worse. Most people would be outraged. They'd portray it as more of the Penn State coverup culture that a Centre County jury would acquit him.

The only way this works out for Sandusky without the backlash you mention is if he gets out on what the media can call a "technicality". That could happen if enough leaks are proven to have come from investigators. The evidence I've found suggests at least one major leak came from the Centre County DA's office in February 2009.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Convicting someone entirely on testimony can be very dangerous. I has a Salem Witch Trial aspect.

The defense is free to attack the credibility or accuracy of eyewitness testimony. If they can't poke holes in it, then it is very compelling evidence to a jury. Especially when the victim(s) testify.

 

[Hotshoe]

Maybe you simply can't handle the truth. If JS gets a new trial you better prepare for the worst. If you think the media is going to take a softer, kinder approach to this scandal I've got a bridge to sell you.

The fact is, this isn't about you or what you would go through. If there's a new trial, so be it as long as justice sees her day. That is all that matters.

 

[BigTimeBig]

One big difference. The victim in Avery case is dead and can't testify against him. There are multiple victims that have, and will, testify against JS. Probably more than testified in the first trial.

If he's granted a new trial, will you enjoy hearing the disgusting details of how he molested innocent kids? The blow-by-blow played over and over again on the nightly news? How he used Penn State to lure them? The renewed criticism and hatred of Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Shulz. Or maybe the criticism will be lumped together as "Penn State" or worse "Paterno."

If you thought the media was unfair before, what makes you think there will be any less thirst for blood the second time around.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Two big differences... there was physical evidence that a murder did occur in the Avery case. There is no physical evidence that any rape or assaults occurred in the Sandusky case.

 

[getmyjive11]

Two big differences... there was physical evidence that a murder did occur in the Avery case. There is no physical evidence that any rape or assaults occurred in the Sandusky case.

When is there ever physical video evidence in these kind of cases? The whole "there is no evidence" thing is total BS. Again... those who cry about a lack of evidence totally ignore the volume of victims in this case. These men all came from different places yet you think they are all lying?

Drives me crazy... It's a total lack of common sense.

 

[francofan]

When is there ever physical video evidence in these kind of cases? The whole "there is no evidence" thing is total BS. Again... those who cry about a lack of evidence totally ignore the volume of victims in this case. These men all came from different places yet you think they are all lying?

Drives me crazy... It's a total lack of common sense.

I don't believe the volume of victims was that great. AF was the only victim for over 2 years. There were only 6 identified victims in the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment (v2 and v8 were unidentified). After Penn State opened up their checkbook, additional "victims" surfaced.

 

[psuro]

the parallels when watching Making a Murderer are stunning

there you had a horrible crime, and the criminal justice system/media was so myopic in focusing on Steven Avery, they overlooked a LOT of (possibly) exculpatory evidence which may have led to the real killer going free (though I have more doubts about Sandusky's innocence than I do about Avery's, my point being is the REAL bad guys escaped any scrutiny)

you also had a holier than thou prosecutor who tainted the jury pool with wild, unsubstantiated details about the alleged crime during a press conference . . . details which were drummed into a alleged "witness" by coercive police interviews . . . and the prosecutor was later removed from the DA's office for being a perv . . .

and that seems to be the question that permeates the documentary . . . how can these people perpetuate lies that ruin people's lives with complete impunity?

I don't know what that is, but I equate this whole thing with a novel/movie out a number of years ago, called "Bonfire of the Vanities". A crime was committed, and so many jumped on the resultant fall out for their own benefit, that in very short time, the real victim was forgotten about. Great novel, movie was "so so".

 

[Black Elmo 2]

I don't believe the volume of victims was that great. AF was the only victim for over 2 years. There were only 6 identified victims in the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment (v2 and v8 were unidentified). After Penn State opened up their checkbook, additional "victims" surfaced.

Only six victims? ONLY?? You do realize it simply takes conviction on one to ratify the whole tragic event. Not to mention the prosecution has a whole host of self-identified victims available to it that they didn't have for the first trial.

I understand the desire to unring the bell and restore the reputation of PSU and Paterno. But PSU, and Paterno by association, could come out looking even worse if a retrial happens.

 

[francofan]

I don't know what that is, but I equate this whole thing with a novel/movie out a number of years ago, called "Bonfire of the Vanities". A crime was committed, and so many jumped on the resultant fall out for their own benefit, that in very short time, the real victim was forgotten about. Great novel, movie was "so so".

Only in the Penn State case, there is a question of whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. It is not clear that v1's accusations stand on their own. In the summer of 2010, Frank Fina and the OAG weren't confident enough to charge Sandusky based on v1's testimony alone.

 

[francofan]

Only six victims? ONLY?? You do realize it simply takes conviction on one to ratify the whole tragic event. Not to mention the prosecution has a whole host of self-identified victims available to it that they didn't have for the first trial.

I understand the desire to unring the bell and restore the reputation of PSU and Paterno. But PSU, and Paterno by association, would come out looking even worse if a retrial happens.

I was making the point that there wasn't a boatload of victims at the outset of this story.

If v1's accusations are not credible, that puts an entirely different light on the 5 other accusations that came before Nov 2011 due to the fact that investigators were shown to use v1's accusations during interviews with witnesses in their zeal to get more accusations.

Any accusations that came after Paterno was fired automatically become suspect as Penn State was essentially saying that they would compensate any possible victim who makes an accusation that could possibly be true. In turns out that the claims didn't even need to be credible as all the accuser's lawyer had to do was ask for the Freeh Report source materials for discovery and then Penn State immediately gave in

I am not saying that all of the accusers are lying. In fact, I am not saying any of the accusers are lying. I am saying that there haven't been a lot of credible accusations. IMO, the accusation that has the most credibility is v1. Based on the Moulten report and other information that has come out since the trial, I now believe that v1 has less credibility than he had 4 years ago. I don't believe that Sandusky received a fair trial and would love to see a new trial were a jury can make a fresh judgement on whether v1's accusations are credible or not.

Penn State's and Paterno's reputations are going to be restored regardless of whether or not Sandusky is a pedophile. The Freeh Report is a farce. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz will eventually be exonerated and it won't be because of a technicality, rather it will be because they are innocent. If Sandusky is a pedophile, it should be proven in a court of law with the prosecution playing fair. Valuable lessons on CSA education could be learned in the process.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

When is there ever physical video evidence in these kind of cases? The whole "there is no evidence" thing is total BS. Again... those who cry about a lack of evidence totally ignore the volume of victims in this case. These men all came from different places yet you think they are all lying?

Drives me crazy... It's a total lack of common sense.

Actually, the kids listed in the original GJR all came from the same place. 3,4,5,and 7 all came from a picture in Sandusky's book Touched that was directed to prosecutors by Victim 6s mother. 1 was Aaron Fisher who changed his story numerous times and wasn't believed by the first two grand juries he testified in front of. 2 said nothing happened. 8 is either dead, never existed, or is one of the other kids, and 6 was fully investigated by the State and DA in 1998.

Victims 9, 10, and the rest came forward after they were offered a big payday.

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Hope no one's head splodes on such a nice Friday afternoon.

Scroll down a little for an embedded player

Surma was willing to burn Penn State to the ground to get Joe. Corbett was willing to burn Penn State to the ground to get Spanier. Both succeeded.

Send both of those low life scumbags to a CIA Black Site for a couple of weeks, and you will get the whole story. They are the central nucleus as to why we are where we are.

 

[Adlee73]

The defense is free to attack the credibility or accuracy of eyewitness testimony. If they can't poke holes in it, then it is very compelling evidence to a jury. Especially when the victim(s) testify.

Accuracy??? McQueary got the month, day & year wrong. Janitors got the date and location wrong. 2 accusers got the dates wrong. Every accuser had financial motive. Several accusers had criminal records Evidence of multiple leaks starting as early as February 2009 should've at the very least got the defense a continuance. Investigators were caught on tape conspiring to lie to an accuser to get him to add more serious claims. The national media was already calling accusers were victims. All your using is circular reasoning. To say being convicted is proof of guilt is to suggest nobody has ever been falsely convicted. At least you agree he was convicted solely on testimony. Just because his defense didn't manage to convince a jury that had already been exposed to leaks, advocate demonstrations & a media firestorm doesn't mean in a more fair situation the outcome wouldn't have been different. This is why convicting someone solely on testimony is dangerous. Practically every study done on criminal testimonies has shown without material evidence backing it up it is very unreliable even with multiple testimonies.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

Conviction on 45 of 48 counts is overwhelming. The jury saw and heard all of the evidence and judged the witnesses to be credible.

I know...these jurors were all fooled, just like all of the Grand Jurors were. Darn those corrupt prosecutors and pesky "accusers."

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Conviction on 45 of 48 counts is overwhelming. The jury saw and heard all of the evidence and judged the witnesses to be credible.

I know...these jurors were all fooled, just like all of the Grand Jurors were. Darn those corrupt prosecutors and pesky "accusers."

And there you have it, Black Elmo with the last word!

 

[Adlee73]

Conviction on 45 of 48 counts is overwhelming. The jury saw and heard all of the evidence and judged the witnesses to be credible.

I know...these jurors were all fooled, just like all of the Grand Jurors were. Darn those corrupt prosecutors and pesky "accusers."

Again, what evidence? You're basically saying the testimony proves the testimony & that a jury can't be wrong. The trial Jury didn't get to see evidence we've seen or hear testimony from C/S/S & others. Neither Grand Jury got to hear all the Grand Jury testimonies. One Grand Juror told Don Van Natta he didn't believe McQueary. Your argument is still circular.

 

[RINGGOLD94]

Rhythmic slapping

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Rhythmic slapping

Which of course Allan Myers has stated was the slapping of wet towels. McQueary heard the "slapping sounds" between two sets of doors in the hallway before he entered the locker room.

 

[PSU-Knocker]

Which of course Allan Myers has stated was the slapping of wet towels. McQueary heard the "slapping sounds" between two sets of doors in the hallway before he entered the locker room.

I thought Myers said that he had multiple shower heads turned on and he was running through them.

 

[Talpsu]

The only way this works out for Sandusky without the backlash you mention is if he gets out on what the media can call a "technicality". That could happen if enough leaks are proven to have come from investigators. The evidence I've found suggests at least one major leak came from the Centre County DA's office in February 2009.

What about info coming out about collusion between "victims" and discussions of how this is their chance to cash in? I'd say that would be a pretty big bombshell that would change a lot of the narrative.

 

[WeR0206]

Accuracy??? McQueary got the month, day & year wrong. Janitors got the date and location wrong. 2 accusers got the dates wrong. Every accuser had financial motive. Several accusers had criminal records Evidence of multiple leaks starting as early as February 2009 should've at the very least got the defense a continuance. Investigators were caught on tape conspiring to lie to an accuser to get him to add more serious claims. The national media was already calling accusers were victims. All your using is circular reasoning. To say being convicted is proof of guilt is to suggest nobody has ever been falsely convicted. At least you agree he was convicted solely on testimony. Just because his defense didn't manage to convince a jury that had already been exposed to leaks, advocate demonstrations & a media firestorm doesn't mean in a more fair situation the outcome wouldn't have been different. This is why convicting someone solely on testimony is dangerous. Practically every study done on criminal testimonies has shown without material evidence backing it up it is very unreliable even with multiple testimonies.

Excellent points. To add to them one could say JS' defense team was amateur at best. Ineffective counsel is one of the items pointed out in the PCRA in addition to illegal GJ leaks and prosecutorial misconduct, etc.

If he had better counsel perhaps they would have done a much bettee job cross examining/discrediting the alleged victims.

The JS trial made a complete mockery of the judicial system.

A perfect example of this was the judge not holding JM in contempt when he claimed to have no memory of testifying at the 12/16/11 prelim for CSS a mere six months after giving the testimony. Instead judge Cleland basically told a bewildered Rominger to back off the witness bc he gave his answer.

 

[getmyjive11]

Actually, the kids listed in the original GJR all came from the same place. 3,4,5,and 7 all came from a picture in Sandusky's book Touched that was directed to prosecutors by Victim 6s mother. 1 was Aaron Fisher who changed his story numerous times and wasn't believed by the first two grand juries he testified in front of. 2 said nothing happened. 8 is either dead, never existed, or is one of the other kids, and 6 was fully investigated by the State and DA in 1998.

Victims 9, 10, and the rest came forward after they were offered a big payday.

So what? You have 30ish victims total right now.

 

[RINGGOLD94]

Let's keep it going......Jerry,Jerry,Jerry,Jerry,Jerry,Jerry... where's Steve the bodyguard?

 

[Adlee73]

What about info coming out about collusion between "victims" and discussions of how this is their chance to cash in? I'd say that would be a pretty big bombshell that would change a lot of the narrative.

The media is so ignorant and bullheaded now they'd totally ignore it or find some BS excuse like get some "expert" for hire to say this is normal victim behavior.

 

[Adlee73]

So what? You have 30ish victims total right now.

30ish accusers. 8 identified victims, 9 if you count Myers.

 

[Adlee73]

I thought Myers said that he had multiple shower heads turned on and he was running through them.

He also said he may've been slapping the walls. His mom suggested it may've been towel snapping as Myers & Sandusky were known to do.

 

[elvis63]

There are some sick weirdos here. It's embarrassing .

 

[LaJolla Lion]

So what? You have 30ish victims total right now.

Who cares about the victims. They are all liars. Jerry is the only victim!!! Said no rational person ever!