Thanks for taking the time to post that CDW. When Rominger gets convicted for his felonies, does that have any impact on the ineffective counsel claim?
Kevin Slaten Comes "Out" For Sandusky's Innocence in Interview with John Ziegler
- Thread starter JohnZiegler
- Start date
Thanks for taking the time to post that CDW. When Rominger gets convicted for his felonies, does that have any impact on the ineffective counsel claim?
None. Zero. The fact that Rominger is a crook does not speak to his effectiveness as a lawyer. Competence and honesty are two different virtues.
Im not sure how much of the petition you read vs skimmed, but after reading it I was left with the impression that JS lawyers where either the most incompetent in the world or they threw the case.
The petition claims more than just second guessing the first defense team, they are arguing for ineffective council, a prejudiced jury via illegal GJ leaks, violation of basic constitutional rights, and numerous counts of prosecutorial misconduct (a few examples: the prosecution lied to the jury when they said V2 was unknown and also lied about the janitor ID'ing JS as the man he saw abusing a kid in the showers, they also implied JS guilt to the jury bc he exercised his 5th amendment right --something the prosecution isn't allowed to do).
The combination of these issues warrants a retrial (i doubt hell get it though bc PA is corrupt to the core).
As I said above, be careful what you wish for. Another trial could be a terrible roll of the dice.
The third option, of course, is that they found it difficult to defend someone they knew to be very much guilty.
I'm also interested in those claiming an unfair trial providing a real life example of a trial they consider to be fair. I think some have watched a few too many episodes of Law and Order.
I never noticed five of the charges are felony "Theft by Deception" and all of the 25 offenses are showing a date of 04/02/12, just weeks before the trial.
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-09103-CR-0000079-2015
F. Lee Bailey was one of the top criminal defense attornies in the country in the latter half of the 20th Century. His masterful cross examination of Mark Fuhrman probably did more than anything else to get OJ Simpson acquitted.
But Bailey was also a crook and spent time in prison and got disbarred for doing the same thing Rominger did.
See, competence and honesty are two different things.
And Rominger's crookedness had nothing to do with Sandusky's case.
Wrong yet again, Mr. Mind Reader. And I'm about as far from PC as one can be. If I were, I'd be siding with you 100%. As it is, I do agree with some of what you say. But unlike you, I listen and even ponder what others have to say re: the fairness of the trial and even the legitimacy of some of the victims' claims. That's it, and yeah he probably will (and should) be in jail for life.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.
And by the way, I was a regular reader of your posts and, up until these threads, found them to be rational and informative. Now, I'm going out to enjoy the unbelievably great weather we're having here in the Northeast. Peace, and have a good weekend.
Last edited:
On the prosecutorial misconduct, alluding to the fact that the defendant didn't testify ain't it. When a defendant doesn't testify, all prosecutors say in closing something like, "It would be great if we knew where the accused was at the time of the crime, but we don't" when, presumably, the person who knew where the accused was is the accused. The prosecution is allowed to point out that the defendant didn't come forward with exculpatory evidence even if the only source of that evidence would be the accused.
The prosecution didn't lie about V2, they just didn't believe that the guy who said he was V2 really was V2. And no lawyer who has spoken to the alleged V2 thinks he's actually V2 (maybe including V2's lawyer).
There's no evidence regarding your allegation that the janitor didn't ID Sandusky (I thought the janitor wasn't even working there at the time, oh, wait a moment!). And other witnesses saw Sandusky walking away holding hands with the boy shortly after the report was made.
And "a combination of issues" isn't enough. To get a new trial, you need a silver bullet.
Read my post again! CONCRETE EVIDENCE! None of the ones who testified were really cross examined. Also, most of them stated they couldn't remember; news flash: one remembers the best of times and the worst and in some cases down to the exact minute.
5 of which had:
- no victim
- no contemporaneous report
-no date
-and the witness that said it was NOT Sandusky.
That should scare every American
That's Pennsylvania for you.
What you're saying is that the prosecution had a "fair rebuttal" and too bad for your argument that isn't what the prosecution did in this case, they went FAR beyond that, they prejudiced the jury. The prosecution simply isn't allowed to comment on a defendants refusal to testify, thus prejudicing the jury. During the state's closing argument they said:
"I'm not sure if there was anything - any other important information communicated because he didn't provide you with something that could have been enormously helpful to us, could have solved many problems today."
"One thing he didn't which he could have provided to Bob Costas, he could have provided it to anybody at anytime. He had the complete capacity to exonerate himself at the time and just say who was there because this is a day - remember, MM, why remember him and not the little boy you're soaping and just being innocently cleansed to? But he didn't provide that name to anybody, ever, certainly not Bob Costas. No he forgot that"
The relief filing states that the clear intent of these statements was to prejudice JS to the jury based on the fact that he did not testify at trial in light of giving his pretrial interviews.
Look, either the state knew V2 was AM and lied when they said they didn't know who V2 was, or they were asking the jury to consider the likelihood that JS committed criminal acts on unknown victims. Either way, trial counsel had no reasonable basis for failing to object or demanding a mistrial.
According to this filing, yes there is (the transcript of this interview is on page 85 #365). There is a documented OAG interview with Calhoun, the janitor who supposedly witnessed JS giving oral to a kid in the showers. In this interview Calhoun states that the man he saw that night was NOT JS. The prosecution then told the defense that Calhoun had dementia and therefore was a worthless person for them to interview and they just inexplicably took the OAG at their word on that. The prosecution then STILL insisted on trying JS on the charges related to the unknown V8, thus prosecutorial misconduct galore....
I noticed that you didn't comment on the state prejudicing the jury pool via 2 separate illegal leaks of GJ info. Do you actually think this didn't have an effect on the fairness of JS's trial???
Last edited:
This whole situation is troubling regarding the case. I have no opinion on guilt other than he was found guilty and I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the State of PA and the unbelievable amount of corruption. No way in hell this prosecution was totally legitimate and that should trouble everyone.
I honestly would not be surprised to find out that JZ is being paid by John Surma to make PSU fans look awful.
Yeah, how dare anyone actually question the likes of Frank Fina, PSU BOT, Louis Freeh, etc. And why would anyone lie for millions of $$, that's never happened before.
Just my opinion, but when I think back to that disastrous Bob Costas interview and consider all the contradictions in this case, I wonder if JZ's characterization of JS as a chaste pedophile isn't pretty close to the mark.
What if he does have a proclivity for young boys, but never crossed that line to where actual sexual abuse occurred. IOW, what if JS is a habitual groomer? If things never went beyond grooming, what is he and is he where he belongs? Is justice being served if Sandusky is much closer to being a creepy but essentially harmless old guy than the monster he has been portrayed to be?
Wouldn't that be consistent with virtually all the original accusations other than AF's? Wouldn't that explain Curley's mention of getting JS professional help? I mean when you consider that both V2 and V6 are on record stating that nothing happened and both maintained relationships with JS into adulthood, it makes you wonder. Wouldn't it make it more understandable how JS could flourish in a small community for so many years with not one victim coming forward other than V6's mom?
I'm just speculating, but I'm convinced that Corbett and his minions had no appetite for taking on JS, the creepy old guy. The prosecution absolutely had to sell the notion that Jerry was a monster, with an emphasis on 'sell'. I believe they also consciously decided that quantity could overcome the lack of quality in their cases. Trying all the cases at once and denying Amendola a single continuance, plus all the other irregularities in this case tell me that the political fortunes of those in the OAG were far more important objectives than taking a child predator off the streets.
Jesus Christ. You are a sick human being.
JZ already has taken all of the tinfoil unfortunately. He's handed some out to a few people though. indynittany's post is proof that some people are just flat out nuts.
Why do you need to do something like this? Nobody, and I mean nobody, even considered the possibility that Sandusky could have been innocent when it counted. After three years have passed, we ought to be adult enough to openly and honestly examine a case with so many obvious irregularities.
JS being a chaste pedo would certainly explain a lot, but even if that was the case, he had a proclivity of getting pre-teen/early teen boys naked, soaping them up, bear hugging in shower, wrestling around, etc. and that is illegal --the youth of PA deserve to be protected from that.
If JS is a chaste pedo he deserves to be in jail for those grooming type crimes but as you said, the question becomes how long should a chaste pedo be in jail vs. a pedo that rapes kids? I'd think if JS was only convicted of the grooming crimes (illegal contact, corruption of minors, etc. etc.) and not IDSI he'd still be spending the rest of his life in jail no?
Well, I'm not real sure what medical care can do to make a guy stop wanting to get teenage boys naked and shower with them. I mean, JS came VERY close to not only getting arrested in 1998 but losing his clearance to work with kids (something that would be devastating to a person such as JS who supposedly devoted his life to working with/helping kids). Yet, after being told by two separate authorities (DPW and UPPD's Schreffler) to stop this showering behavior in 1998, JS inexplicably continued doing so. He was also told by Curley in 2001 that his showering behavior was wrong and needed to stop.
I think the only thing a psychologist would be able to help JS with is driving home the understanding that it's wrong/illegal to get teenage boys to workout/shower with you so that you could see them naked/groom them.
Lmao. And this guy called me stupid?Oh, u mad brah!!!!
Lmao. You of all people are saying someone is grandstanding. Oh my!!
LMAO indeed.
Picking up naked boys in the shower and bear hugging them from behind, your genitals irreconcilably and undeniably in contact with their posteriors... this is "chastity?"
No, this is a felony.
Picking up naked boys in the shower and bear hugging them from behind, your genitals irreconcilably and undeniably in contact with their posteriors... this is "chastity?"
No, this is a felony.
[QUOTE="JeannieNeedsAShooter, post: 142650, member: 6822"]5 of which had:
- no victim
- no contemporaneous report
-no date
-and the witness that said it was NOT Sandusky.
That should scare every American
That's Pennsylvania for you.[/QUOTE]
Inexplicably ignored constantly.
- no victim
- no contemporaneous report
-no date
-and the witness that said it was NOT Sandusky.
That should scare every American
That's Pennsylvania for you.[/QUOTE]
Inexplicably ignored constantly.
Ziegler's business model is stirring the pot, then playing the victim for publicity. He's transparently using the JoeBots and they have no idea.
the fact you use the term JoeBot as a pejorative only confirms your bias.
seriously, I'm sorry Joe didn't sign your football or whatever. your one man vendetta schtick is as tiresome as the Surmas
To be fair they would be JerryBots or JohnBots as even the Paternos have steered away from the nut known as JZ. They are trying to use it as a positive to help prevent abuse unlike those cheering on JZ.
The only reason why people are entertaining the idea he could be innocent is because they think it would justify Penn State's handling of Sandusky and ultimately restore their deity Joe's pristine image. You have normaly rational people coming up with MAMBLA like defenses and constant victim shaming on this board. Please don't tell me it not about Joe. I don't see you defending your local convicted pedophile trying to dig up dirt on his victims. Therefore I feel that many here are acting like cult members that the media and others like portray Penn State fans as.
