Kevin Slaten Comes "Out" For Sandusky's Innocence in Interview with John Ziegler

[JohnZiegler]

For anyone who cares about the PSU/Sandusky "scandal" the interview I did today with Kevin Slaten is an absolute MUST-LISTEN. Kevin has declared that I am right about the essence of the case. He deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I hope more people now feel as if it will be safe to publicly to do the same as I know that there are many other prominent people close to this case who silently also agree with me.
https://dc1.safesync.com/LMTlLPtT/JZ vid/JZ and Kevin May 8 Segment 1.mp3?a=vigifzk21BU

 

[BobPSU92]

lajolla lion will make sure Slaten gets the boot.

 

[OldTiredLion]

For anyone who cares about the PSU/Sandusky "scandal" the interview I did today with Kevin Slaten is an absolute MUST-LISTEN. Kevin has declared that I am right about the essence of the case. He deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I hope more people now feel as if it will be safe to publicly to do the same as I know that there are many other prominent people close to this case who silently also agree with me.
https://dc1.safesync.com/LMTlLPtT/JZ vid/JZ and Kevin May 8 Segment 1.mp3?a=vigifzk21BU

JZ, I think there's no denying that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. However, proclaiming his innocence is a big reach. Personally, I am far from convinced he committed the "rapes" for which he was convicted, but I AM convinced he has a disturbing fetish when it comes to needing physical contact with young boys and frolicking with them in the nude late at night in secluded shower rooms. If you can answer why he didn't, or couldn't, discontinue that disturbing practice after the 1998 incident, I'd be very appreciative because it makes no sense at all to me. Didn't Jerry tell the young boy's mother at that time "I wish I was dead?" So do we.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

JZ, I think there's no denying that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. However, proclaiming his innocence is a big reach. Personally, I am far from convinced he committed the "rapes" for which he was convicted, but I AM convinced he has a disturbing fetish when it comes to needing physical contact with young boys and frolicking with them in the nude late at night in secluded shower rooms. If you can answer why he didn't, or couldn't, discontinue that disturbing practice after the 1998 incident, I'd be very appreciative because it makes no sense at all to me. Didn't Jerry tell the young boy's mother at that time "I wish I was dead?" So do we.

You perfectly stated what many of us think. Great job.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

JZ, I think there's no denying that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. However, proclaiming his innocence is a big reach. Personally, I am far from convinced he committed the "rapes" for which he was convicted, but I AM convinced he has a disturbing fetish when it comes to needing physical contact with young boys and frolicking with them in the nude late at night in secluded shower rooms. If you can answer why he didn't, or couldn't, discontinue that disturbing practice after the 1998 incident, I'd be very appreciative because it makes no sense at all to me. Didn't Jerry tell the young boy's mother at that time "I wish I was dead?" So do we.

Yep. He's not innocent. #freejerrynuts

 

[Chris92]

Yep. He's not innocent.

If he's re-tried tomorrow on the 45 counts, do you think all 45 stick? I don't. Reasonable doubt is entering the equation as more is revealed and he seems to have actual legal representation this time.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

If he's re-tried tomorrow on the 45 counts, do you think all 45 stick? I don't. Reasonable doubt is entering the equation as more is revealed and he seems to have actual legal representation this time.

Does that equate to innocent? Do you think every single victim lied, every single one? For people that won't say he is innocent, it's odd how upset the get about the convicted molester. I feel for his victims and his family. I know it rubs some here the wrong way, but I don't really care. At least him and Slaten have the balls to say it. Some here are afraid to say it and hide behind the fair trial card. I'm not singling you out either as I don't really know your take.

 

[psu00]

JZ, I think there's no denying that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. However, proclaiming his innocence is a big reach. Personally, I am far from convinced he committed the "rapes" for which he was convicted, but I AM convinced he has a disturbing fetish when it comes to needing physical contact with young boys and frolicking with them in the nude late at night in secluded shower rooms. If you can answer why he didn't, or couldn't, discontinue that disturbing practice after the 1998 incident, I'd be very appreciative because it makes no sense at all to me. Didn't Jerry tell the young boy's mother at that time "I wish I was dead?" So do we.

I think this is the general gist of the matter. There may be room to question certain decisions by the trial judge and the honesty of 1 or 2 victims given what has been revealed since trial but this wasn't a case of only 1 or 2 victims bringing charges where if you find 1 to have lied the whole case is in doubt. There were too many victims (many not questioned at trial) who had the same complaints. I think this is a case of some people focusing too much on minutia or an error here and there and missing the bigger picture. A classic case of missing the forest for the trees IMO.

 

[Westcoast24]

For anyone who cares about the PSU/Sandusky "scandal" the interview I did today with Kevin Slaten is an absolute MUST-LISTEN. Kevin has declared that I am right about the essence of the case. He deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I hope more people now feel as if it will be safe to publicly to do the same as I know that there are many other prominent people close to this case who silently also agree with me.
https://dc1.safesync.com/LMTlLPtT/JZ vid/JZ and Kevin May 8 Segment 1.mp3?a=vigifzk21BU

Good lord your a hack. Go away already. Wait maybe we should have a "Facebook" interview. Those are always legit.

 

[NC2017]

For anyone who cares about the PSU/Sandusky "scandal" the interview I did today with Kevin Slaten is an absolute MUST-LISTEN. Kevin has declared that I am right about the essence of the case. He deserves a lot of credit for having the courage to speak the truth. I hope more people now feel as if it will be safe to publicly to do the same as I know that there are many other prominent people close to this case who silently also agree with me.
https://dc1.safesync.com/LMTlLPtT/JZ vid/JZ and Kevin May 8 Segment 1.mp3?a=vigifzk21BU

Well done John. This case reeks from top to bottom. Only a KooK would believe that Sandusky got a fair trial. I wish Messarau were on the JS team.

 

[Chris92]

Does that equate to innocent? Do you think every single victim lied, every single one? For people that won't say he is innocent, it's odd how upset the get about the convicted molester. I feel for his victims and his family. I know it rubs some here the wrong way, but I don't really care. At least him and Slaten have the balls to say it. Some here are afraid to say it and hide behind the fair trial card. I'm not singling you out either as I don't really know your take.

I guess it wasn't really fair of me to ask you that question of the 45 counts.

 

[NITTANYJGK]

This is the first time I read this thread and the topic being discussed. Discussing the possibility that technically the pervert did not get a fair trial is one thing. Trying to say that this sodomite is innocent or even might be innocent should be embarrassing to all board members. People from other sites visit our free board and read this $hit and think we are all part of an insane cult. This is the reason outsiders think we are all whacked out.

You know, I don't give a crap whether that piece of $hit ever got a fair trial. I'm glad the rest of his life is misery.

 

[BobPSU92]

This is the first time I read this thread and the topic being discussed. Discussing the possibility that technically the pervert did not get a fair trial is one thing. Trying to say that this sodomite is innocent or even might be innocent should be embarrassing to all board members. People from other sites visit our free board and read this $hit and think we are all part of an insane cult. This is the reason outsiders think we are all whacked out.

You know, I don't give a crap whether that piece of $hit ever got a fair trial. I'm glad the rest of his life is misery.

So what you're saying is that your beliefs are driven by what athletic supporters of other schools whom you've never met think. Got it.

 

[psu00]

This is the first time I read this thread and the topic being discussed. Discussing the possibility that technically the pervert did not get a fair trial is one thing. Trying to say that this sodomite is innocent or even might be innocent should be embarrassing to all board members. People from other sites visit our free board and read this $hit and think we are all part of an insane cult. This is the reason outsiders think we are all whacked out.

You know, I don't give a crap whether that piece of $hit ever got a fair trial. I'm glad the rest of his life is misery.

It's the OJ Simpson effect. Some people focus on a handful of specific issues and then ignore all other evidence they don't like. It's the 'if the glove doesn't fit then you must acquit' mentality. That said, it's JZ pushing this (Georgetown grad IIRC) with like a handful of people who follow his every word. It's nowhere near the opinion of most PSU fans. I know morons on the Pitt or Ohio state boards will try to present it as all Penn St fans agree with JZ but that's simply not true. It shows their agenda more than anything when they attempt to do this.

 

[NITTANYJGK]

psu00: My question is, why are JZ and others pursuing this issue? What are they hoping will be the eventual outcome? To cleanse our reputation? To revise history? To prove that all these victims lied? All of them? Or to see some of the charges thrown out so they can rationalize, "well, it's not so bad now". This pounding on this issue is an example of people refusing to accept the guilt of that low life roach regardless of all the evidence. And so the beat goes on with these people mired in fantasyland.

 

[psu00]

psu00: My question is, why are JZ and others pursuing this issue? What are they hoping will be the eventual outcome? To cleanse our reputation? To revise history? To prove that all these victims lied? All of them? Or to see some of the charges thrown out so they can rationalize, "well, it's not so bad now". This pounding on this issue is an example of people refusing to accept the guilt of that low life roach regardless of all the evidence. And so the beat goes on with these people mired in fantasyland.

Well, it's just my opinion.......but I don't attribute negative motivations to them. I think they see some/ several issues that appear not to be on the 'up and up' and dig into them trying to correct a wrong (and frankly- I do think they have some points worthy of discussion regarding trial behavior). It's just for me- the preponderance of evidence still points to guilt even conceding on the issues in question.

Personally, I think that even if you gave a retrial with the most pro civil liberty/ anti police judge where even the most liberal bleeding heart Hollywood type could find no issue to complain about in the trial.......JS would still be found guilty. Now he may not be found guilty on all charges as now- but he'd still be found guilty IMO. There were just too many accusers with similar stories.

I don't think the people who jump on this issue are trying to rewrite history. I think they see trial wrongs they want fixed- based on principle. I just think that sometimes in situations like this we all can get too focused on issues X, Y, Z and miss the bigger picture. Missing the forest for the trees. We have all done that at one time or another.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I guess it wasn't really fair of me to ask you that question of the 45 counts.

Do you think he molested children? Fair question?

 

[NapaNit]

Do you think he molested children? Fair question?

LaJolla, I do think he molested children. I also think his trial was not representative of justice. A new trial could bring more pain to PSU but it could also get to what I think is the epicenter of the entire mess, meaning JVP, CSS, BoT, etc., and that is TSM. If a trial could open up that can, I'd be all for it. Therefore, I'm OK with what JZ and friends are doing........mostly. Make sense?

 

[BobPSU92]

LaJolla, I do think he molested children. I also think his trial was not representative of justice. A new trial could bring more pain to PSU but it could also get to what I think is the epicenter of the entire mess, meaning JVP, CSS, BoT, etc., and that is TSM. If a trial could open up that can, I'd be all for it. Therefore, I'm OK with what JZ and friends are doing........mostly. Make sense?

lajolla can't see gray. The nuances, as important as they are, sail right past him.

 

[canuckhal]

For me, it is less about Jerry but the justice system. If you were accused of these crimes and you found out the GJ info. was leaked, the police coerced witnesses, witnesses came forward after money was offered,you had a court proceeding without enough time for your council to prepare, you might feel that justice was not served.

 

[psu1969a]

JZ, I think there's no denying that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. However, proclaiming his innocence is a big reach. Personally, I am far from convinced he committed the "rapes" for which he was convicted, but I AM convinced he has a disturbing fetish when it comes to needing physical contact with young boys and frolicking with them in the nude late at night in secluded shower rooms. If you can answer why he didn't, or couldn't, discontinue that disturbing practice after the 1998 incident, I'd be very appreciative because it makes no sense at all to me. Didn't Jerry tell the young boy's mother at that time "I wish I was dead?" So do we.

I too believe that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. As far as his guilt, unless concrete evidence comes to light about the more serious alleged crimes, I feel that he is innocent. Now, the question becomes: Is he guilty of inappropriate behavior? And that question has yet to be answered.

 

[RobBliz]

I will believe JS is innocent as soon as OJ finds Nichole's killer.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

lajolla can't see gray. The nuances, as important as they are, sail right past him.

I can see gray, but I don't choose to piss into the wind either. Great cause you have Bob.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I too believe that Sandusky didn't receive a fair trial. As far as his guilt, unless concrete evidence comes to light about the more serious alleged crimes, I feel that he is innocent. Now, the question becomes: Is he guilty of inappropriate behavior? And that question has yet to be answered.

Except a few of his victims stated he forced them to give oral....a little bigger than inappropriate behavior. It wasn't just one or two of them either. Was that the unfair part of the trial?

 

[psuguy04]

Is he guilty of inappropriate behavior? And that question has yet to be answered.

Ugh. You are an embarrassment to Penn State.

 

[BobPSU92]

I will believe JS is innocent as soon as OJ finds Nichole's killer.

But it goes back to what proof is there that gives that you level of certainty? I get that a number of victims came forward, but that's just talk. We saw a sham of a trial and a university more than willing to give millions of dollars away. I am certainly suspicious of sandusky being a pedophile, but there is no way I can assert it. There are no eyewitness to sexual activity and there is no physical evidence. And, once again, there are issues with the trial.

 

[71camaro]

But it goes back to what proof is there that gives that you level of certainty? I get that a number of victims came forward, but that's just talk. We saw a sham of a trial and a university more than willing to give millions of dollars away. I am certainly suspicious of sandusky being a pedophile, but there is no way I can assert it. There are no eyewitness to sexual activity and there is no physical evidence. And, once again, there are issues with the trial.

In these kinds of trials, aggregation of claims is really the only proof you'll get. Catching the guy in the act is likely not to happen, and he was a smart guy in his methodology, hence his ability to go undetected for years- probably not going to be filming himself in the act. Hence, you get lots of testimony by victims and corroboration by parents and friends of odd behavior.

 

[NITTANYJGK]

You're right, much more than "inappropriate" behavior. You've got to be kidding me. I don't care whether this perv got a fair trial. What more evidence do you need? He's guilty as sin. This whole defense of the cockroach's trial is a friggin joke.

 

[RobBliz]

The issue is not whether or not JS is guilty. He is and has been convicted. Now there is an issue as to whether or not he received a fair trial. That question is just being answered now. There are procedures for all of these questions. JZ running around like a nutcase just makes him and PSU look bad.

 

[RobBliz]

But it goes back to what proof is there that gives that you level of certainty? I get that a number of victims came forward, but that's just talk. We saw a sham of a trial and a university more than willing to give millions of dollars away. I am certainly suspicious of sandusky being a pedophile, but there is no way I can assert it. There are no eyewitness to sexual activity and there is no physical evidence. And, once again, there are issues with the trial.

The proof that he was convicted on 45 counts by a jury of his peers.

 

[nits74]

Does that equate to innocent? Do you think every single victim lied, every single one? For people that won't say he is innocent, it's odd how upset the get about the convicted molester. I feel for his victims and his family. I know it rubs some here the wrong way, but I don't really care. At least him and Slaten have the balls to say it. Some here are afraid to say it and hide behind the fair trial card. I'm not singling you out either as I don't really know your take.

Truth is, you don't know anyone's take. So, stop trying to imply that you do. You also may want to brush up on your grammar. Him has the balls?

 

[psuguy04]

Truth is, you don't know anyone's take. So, stop trying to imply that you do. You also may want to brush up on your grammar. Him has the balls?

Now we're resorting to attacking "grammer". That's what happens when you have nothing else to say and you're trying to convince yourself that you are still correct.

 

[CDW3333]

Sandusky's PCRA claims will fail.

To get a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel he will have to prove:

1. the claim has arguable merit;

2. defendant's lawyer’s act or failure to act was not reasonably designed to advance the interests of the defendant; and

3. but for his lawyer's actions or inactions, the result of the trial would have been different.

"Arguable merit" means the defendant's lawyer violated some statute or rule of procedure. It doesn't mean, "the case should've been tried differently." I skimmed through that 100 page long petition and I didn't find any allegations of violations of rules of procedure or statutes. You can also argue that failure to call a witness or introduce evidence is ineffective assistance of counsel, but what's the allegation there? V2? Every lawyer who has talked to V2 (including Schultz's) thinks he's a liar. You don't help your case by calling a liar.

But Sandusky's biggest problem is element 3. He basically has to prove he's innocent. How's he going to do that? In some cases there is DNA evidence of innocence. Or maybe if a video tape shows that the suspect was 500 miles away at the time of the crime. Or maybe there's a whole room full of credible alibi witnesses.

Sandusky has none of these. To put it in perspective, most courts deny new trials when somebody else comes forward and confesses to the crime.

The fact is, Sandusky got a fair trial. He didn't get a perfect trial, but there's no such thing as a perfect jury trial.

He had two competent, experienced lawyers (which is one more than almost all criminal defendants get and two more than some get). The Second Mile's insurance carrier paid $500,000 towards Sandusky's defense and I believe Sandusky kicked in another 100 grand. Now $600,000 pales in comparison to what CS and S's lawyers are charging but it's about 15-20 times more than is spent in a typical large felony case.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Truth is, you don't know anyone's take. So, stop trying to imply that you do. You also may want to brush up on your grammar. Him has the balls?

Oh, u mad brah!!!! Jerry's guilty, deal with it.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

The issue is not whether or not JS is guilty. He is and has been convicted. Now there is an issue as to whether or not he received a fair trial. That question is just being answered now. There are procedures for all of these questions. JZ running around like a nutcase just makes him and PSU look bad.

Scary they don't see it. They are those people that just make you cringe.

 

[PrinceIgor]

Defense attorneys frequently prevent a client from testifying for several reasons, one of them the belief he wouldn't get a fair trial. So now the JZ half of Team TickleBear wants to work the other side of the "fair trial" street. I say, "Have at it," with the provision Jerry has to testify.

While a lot of people remain angry over many aspects of the false narrative, Jerry's innocence isn't one of them. Wounds to the school's public image are healing nicely. Nothing would rip out the stitches like the news of a big JerBot movement to grant a new trial... nothing except the roll of the dice the trial itself would bring.

Jerry actually rebutting his accusers under cross would not be a pretty thing, especially if the 1-2 dozen victims not yet heard from take the stand. Talk about Pandorous Box. A bad thing could turn hideous.

Just be careful what you wish for, JZ. It's one thing to be a quiet quack and a loose cannon. It's another to go down as a kamikaze pilot who sank his own carrier.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

Unreal that you get away with this. Talking to JZ, he does not represent PSU or thinking.

Ugh. You are an embarrassment to Penn State.

People are unbelievable. I truly think JZ is into some kind performance art here and some people are actually just adding the color he wants to it.

 

[nits74]

Oh, u mad brah!!!! Jerry's guilty, deal with it.

As I've said on more than one occasion I also believe that to be the case. Unlike you, I'm not 100% certain and don't think the last trial was a fair one. You just don't seem to get what many have said on this and other related threads repeatedly. So, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you are either grandstanding, or just not particularly smart.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

As I've said on more than one occasion I also believe that to be the case. Unlike you, I'm not 100% certain and don't think the last trial was a fair one. You just don't seem to get what many have said on this and other related threads repeatedly. So, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you are either grandstanding, or just not particularly smart.

Don't hide, say it. Unlike you I realize he will die in jail and JZ just needs a cause. 45 counts, 45! Don't talk about being reasonable when you are actually afraid to say what you mean. Don't be PC. I am quite certain he is guilty and he'll rot and die in jail as he should. He raped kids and there is very little doubt about that. We're you pissed when the SEALS shot UBL with no trial? Maybe you and JZ can take on that great cause next.

 

[PSU_Nut]