ADVERTISEMENT

OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)

When Wick threw in the towel any hope I had of finding the truth went with it.

Agreed. The Paterno's were just wasting money, I don't blame them.

Nothing anyone would have done would have changed the outcome one bit. PSU and the admins still would have been the targets, the goal posts would have just moved, it's naïve to think that otherwise. That's the beauty of a fake scandal. They just would have charged them with some other crimes that didn't apply, and convict them in the court of public opinion. Anyone who thinks that this all would have gone away with a phone call is living in fantasyland. The fix was in.
 
Agreed. The Paterno's were just wasting money, I don't blame them.

Nothing anyone would have done would have changed the outcome one bit. PSU and the admins still would have been the targets, the goal posts would have just moved, it's naïve to think that otherwise. That's the beauty of a fake scandal. They just would have charged them with some other crimes that didn't apply, and convict them in the court of public opinion. Anyone who thinks that this all would have gone away with a phone call is living in fantasyland. The fix was in.
When your own BOT fires you by phone and w/o the benefit of an investigation.... They've pretty much told the world that you're guilty. Why would they argue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pandaczar12
I'll listen to it ---- probably tonight, end of day when I have more time.

I've said this for a long time now --- Ziegler's biggest problems are not his research but:

(1) insinuating that Sandusky is innocent of EVERYTHING - that's highly unlikely given the vast number of the claims over so many years,

(2) not focusing his attention (and when I say focused --- I mean focused like a high-intensity laser beam) on the 2001 date and the questionable behavior of Mike McQueary and Jonelle Eshbach. Don't talk about tangential things like Aaron Fisher. What Aaron Fisher does with his $$$ is totally irrelevant. If there is a case to be made here --- with McQueary and the 2001 date and Eshbach is where that case is to made. Talk ONLY about that.

(3) his often bombastic and antagonistic behavior. He turns people off, and

(4) a history of over-promising and under-delivering (this Newsweek article is another case of such).

-----------------------

Maybe he's changed his tune in this podcast. I will listen, at some point.

Fair enough. I think people make a mistake in confusing Ziegler’s bombastic approach with his information. I think a reasonable person can separate the approach from the information. In this podcast he acknowledges that his approach is not helpful to his efforts.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I think people make a mistake in confusing Ziegler’s bombastic approach with his information. I think a reasonable personal can separate the approach from the information. In this podcast he acknowledges that his approach is not helpful to his efforts.

It's also that he displays severe confirmation bias. His facts are fine. He draws conclusions force fitting facts into his pre-concieved story.

He also ignores any facts that go against his narrative.

Further, he's put a lot of effort into avoiding learning about CSA, preferring his own "gut"
 
It's also that he displays severe confirmation bias. His facts are fine. He draws conclusions force fitting facts into his pre-concieved story.

He also ignores any facts that go against his narrative.

Further, he's put a lot of effort into avoiding learning about CSA, preferring his own "gut"

I agree with much of that. He would be much better off if he just stuck to the facts.
The difficult thing about child sexual abuse is that many of the things that are common for victims (for instance, maintaining a close relationship with your abuser) are the same things that somebody who is not abused will do.
 
It's also that he displays severe confirmation bias. His facts are fine. He draws conclusions force fitting facts into his pre-concieved story.

He also ignores any facts that go against his narrative.

Further, he's put a lot of effort into avoiding learning about CSA, preferring his own "gut"
Sounds a great deal like The Commweath's method in this case as well.
 
I agree with much of that. He would be much better off if he just stuck to the facts.
The difficult thing about child sexual abuse is that many of the things that are common for victims (for instance, maintaining a close relationship with your abuser) are the same things that somebody who is not abused will do.

If people had stuck to the facts, there would have been no rush to judgment to begin with.

JZ, to his credit, recognized early that things didn't add up. He questioned the narrative. I get that he's irascible and he doesn't play well with others. But he's also been swimming upstream from the beginning.

Our system is built on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. The stampede by pretty much everyone to distance themselves from Sandusky because of what he was suspected to have done, prevented people from behaving rationally. Simply questioning the narrative got people labeled as a pedophile enabler or worse. Regardless, the burden of proof has been on the accused in this from day one.

Because of the tenacity of JZ and a few others, we now know that narrative to be almost entirely false. Not every time at bat is going to be a home run when just about everybody is lined up against you.

Criticism of JZ for questioning the victims isn't really fair in this case. Here's why. Once someone hires an advocate and seeks $ millions utilizing the courts, our system demands some level of scrutiny. In a case in which there is compelling corroborating evidence, that scrutiny can be tempered. There is none of that here.

And had the prosecution run a clean case, there would be nothing to question.

Nothing I've come to believe makes sense if Jerry is innocent. At the same time, Jerry the monster seems to have been created by the OAG as a prosecution strategy. Up until now, it has been counterproductive, if not impossible, to question the transformation of Sandusky from 'Jerry the inappropriate' to 'Jerry the monster' and also attempt to defend Penn State and JVP. All I can say is it's about time we did!
 
If people had stuck to the facts, there would have been no rush to judgment to begin with.

JZ, to his credit, recognized early that things didn't add up. He questioned the narrative. I get that he's irascible and he doesn't play well with others. But he's also been swimming upstream from the beginning.

Our system is built on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. The stampede by pretty much everyone to distance themselves from Sandusky because of what he was suspected to have done, prevented people from behaving rationally. Simply questioning the narrative got people labeled as a pedophile enabler or worse. Regardless, the burden of proof has been on the accused in this from day one.

Because of the tenacity of JZ and a few others, we now know that narrative to be almost entirely false. Not every time at bat is going to be a home run when just about everybody is lined up against you.

Criticism of JZ for questioning the victims isn't really fair in this case. Here's why. Once someone hires an advocate and seeks $ millions utilizing the courts, our system demands some level of scrutiny. In a case in which there is compelling corroborating evidence, that scrutiny can be tempered. There is none of that here.

And had the prosecution run a clean case, there would be nothing to question.

Nothing I've come to believe makes sense if Jerry is innocent. At the same time, Jerry the monster seems to have been created by the OAG as a prosecution strategy. Up until now, it has been counterproductive, if not impossible, to question the transformation of Sandusky from 'Jerry the inappropriate' to 'Jerry the monster' and also attempt to defend Penn State and JVP. All I can say is it's about time we did!

Why would anyone question JZ Charlie Brown? Don't be discouraged. He will be teeing up another football for you rubes before long. Just keep listening to his podcasts for the date.
 
Why would anyone question JZ Charlie Brown? Don't be discouraged. He will be teeing up another football for you rubes before long. Just keep listening to his podcasts for the date.
Hello Walter,

As always, please give my best to Ms. Geisha

Regards,
PPB :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mary QBA
If people had stuck to the facts, there would have been no rush to judgment to begin with.

JZ, to his credit, recognized early that things didn't add up. He questioned the narrative. I get that he's irascible and he doesn't play well with others. But he's also been swimming upstream from the beginning.

Our system is built on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. The stampede by pretty much everyone to distance themselves from Sandusky because of what he was suspected to have done, prevented people from behaving rationally. Simply questioning the narrative got people labeled as a pedophile enabler or worse. Regardless, the burden of proof has been on the accused in this from day one.

Because of the tenacity of JZ and a few others, we now know that narrative to be almost entirely false. Not every time at bat is going to be a home run when just about everybody is lined up against you.

Criticism of JZ for questioning the victims isn't really fair in this case. Here's why. Once someone hires an advocate and seeks $ millions utilizing the courts, our system demands some level of scrutiny. In a case in which there is compelling corroborating evidence, that scrutiny can be tempered. There is none of that here.

And had the prosecution run a clean case, there would be nothing to question.

Nothing I've come to believe makes sense if Jerry is innocent. At the same time, Jerry the monster seems to have been created by the OAG as a prosecution strategy. Up until now, it has been counterproductive, if not impossible, to question the transformation of Sandusky from 'Jerry the inappropriate' to 'Jerry the monster' and also attempt to defend Penn State and JVP. All I can say is it's about time we did!
I’m not sure there has been a transformation of Jerry the Inappropriate to Jerry the Monster. From the very beginning he has been Jerry the Monster.
 
RE: The handwriting on the cover page (summary of the summary) of the freeh report. It was probably a freeh investigator (in some sense) that wrote it. He was probably disagreeing with it because it wasn't written by them, but rather the ncaa.

Do you think it is possible that one of the elected trustees wrote it after they reviewed everything?

I'd like to think that one of Freeh's staff did this, but the possibility might exist that it was someone who gained access to the source documents.
 
I’m not sure there has been a transformation of Jerry the Inappropriate to Jerry the Monster. From the very beginning he has been Jerry the Monster.
I'm not seeing the evidence to support that. What I am seeing is a concerted effort to exaggerate things to the point that even the most innocent, innocuous behavior became a criminal act.

But let's say you're right. Wouldn't that put an even larger target on TSM and its leadership?
 
I'll listen to it ---- probably tonight, end of day when I have more time.

I've said this for a long time now --- Ziegler's biggest problems are not his research but:

(1) insinuating that Sandusky is innocent of EVERYTHING - that's highly unlikely given the vast number of the claims over so many years,

(2) not focusing his attention (and when I say focused --- I mean focused like a high-intensity laser beam) on the 2001 date and the questionable behavior of Mike McQueary and Jonelle Eshbach. Don't talk about tangential things like Aaron Fisher. What Aaron Fisher does with his $$$ is totally irrelevant. If there is a case to be made here --- with McQueary and the 2001 date and Eshbach is where that case is to made. Talk ONLY about that.

(3) his often bombastic and antagonistic behavior. He turns people off, and

(4) a history of over-promising and under-delivering (this Newsweek article is another case of such).

-----------------------

Maybe he's changed his tune in this podcast. I will listen, at some point.

After first discovering Ziegler's work, I too believed the number of accusers seemed way to high for Sandusky to be completely innocent, but I now have shifted my views based on the following factors.

1) At this point, I see no reason to take seriously any of the claims that were made post-arrest. The Centre Daily Times almost immediately stated that PSU would be on the hook for $100 million to pay out victims, so its very reasonable that many fake accusers would come forward. Of all these accusers, the two that the OAG chose to testify at trial have major problems. V9 told an absurd story about being locked in Sandusky's basement and being subject to forcible anal rape, something no other trial accuser alleges. Its important note that V9 only came forward after the release of the BS grad jury report in which anal rape is actually alleged. V10 contradicted himself several times, which is something that was even noted by Ray Blehar, who does not believe Jerry was innocent: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/victim-10s-tv-interview-inconsistent.html Plus we all know that the post-arrest accusers included the completely absurd ones from 1970s who claimed they had the courage to tell Joe Paterno right away, but then no one else for decades.

2) Of the 6 accusers who came forward before the arrest, 5 of them all knew each other. All 5 alleged abuse about the same time period (1998-2000), all originally denied abuse, all were told about the first accuser by the investigations and then by the first Sara Ganim article, and finally one-by-one started claiming abuse after hiring lawyers. V6 only acknowledged that being lifted in the shower was likely grooming after hearing the stories of others, V3 and V5 gave statements on their claims against PSU that contradicted their trial testimony. V7 admitted he only became aware of his "abuse" through therapy. Also, the lawyer for V3 and V7 was Andrew Shubin, who obviously partook in illegal tampering with V2, ensuring that he would not testify at trial. V4's testimony also had many problems, notably that there is a tape of his attorney and the investigators basically conspiring to have him embellish his story.

3) Its also important to note that between the first Ganim article in March and the arrest in November, the police interviewed many former Second Mile boys, included the one McQueary spotted in the shower with JS. Not one of them claimed abuse other than the previously mentioned five. Doesn't it seem odd that the only ones who claimed abuse all knew each other and all claimed the abuse happened generally at the time period?

4) Aaron Fisher remains the most credible accuser, but his story still has major problems. Judy Fox, is a women who organized a rally to support Aaron, but became suspicious after hearing some of Aaron's mothers bizarre comments. Judy now believes Aaron was never abused at all. I am not sure what Judy's motivation could be unless she honestly knows Aaron is full of crap. Even if her and Aaron's mother had a spat over the mother's actions, it would make more sense for Judy to say she cared about Aaron more than Aaron's own mother, not that Aaron was making the whole thing up.
 
Last edited:
I'm not seeing the evidence to support that. What I am seeing is a concerted effort to exaggerate things to the point that even the most innocent, innocuous behavior became a criminal act.

But let's say you're right. Wouldn't that put an even larger target on TSM and its leadership?

I’m not sure why you always bring that point up to me. I absolutely believe the Second Mile should have been raked over the coals in this scandal. It is absolutely stunning that they have gotten no attention at all. We’re on the same page with TSM, Indy.
 
Black helicopters everywhere

It couldn't possibly be that Newsweek (cash strapped & near bankrupcy) simply has no appetite to publish the names of accusers who received settlements, let alone an article that "debunks" them.

I'm not saying the article would be "victim bashing" but lets be real - A major news magazine has to be very near 100% certain that claims are false before printing that they are false, or else they are in serious legal jeopardy. There may not be much proof one way or the other, but a lack of proof doesn't meet journalistic standards to publish victim names.

Even the planted, false victim doesn't add anything of merit to the story. One false victim doesn't prove anything about the others.

What it would do is provide proof that the false accuser (and any co-conspirators) engaged in attempted (or real) fraud against Penn State, and also against the lawyer and therapist. At least I would think that going to a lawyer and accepting his services under false pretenses would be fraud. I'm sure it was all a lark to the false accuser & Zig, but obviously Newsweek doesn't see it that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
A major news magazine has to be very near 100% certain that claims are false before printing that they are false, or else they are in serious legal jeopardy. There may not be much proof one way or the other, but a lack of proof doesn't meet journalistic standards to publish victim names.

Nope, never happens.

joe-paterno-si-cover-p1.jpg
philadelphia+daily+news.jpg
 
It couldn't possibly be that Newsweek (cash strapped & near bankrupcy) simply has no appetite to publish the names of accusers who received settlements, let alone an article that "debunks" them.

I'm not saying the article would be "victim bashing" but lets be real - A major news magazine has to be very near 100% certain that claims are false before printing that they are false, or else they are in serious legal jeopardy. There may not be much proof one way or the other, but a lack of proof doesn't meet journalistic standards to publish victim names.

Even the planted, false victim doesn't add anything of merit to the story. One false victim doesn't prove anything about the others.

What it would do is provide proof that the false accuser (and any co-conspirators) engaged in attempted (or real) fraud against Penn State, and also against the lawyer and therapist. At least I would think that going to a lawyer and accepting his services under false pretenses would be fraud. I'm sure it was all a lark to the false accuser & Zig, but obviously Newsweek doesn't see it that way.
He has a little small group of people who really want him to be right so no matter how many times he doesn’t deliver, they’ll just keep backing him. I posted Lucy pulling the football a few weeks back for a reason. Victim shaming is a great defense tactic but the trial is over with. There is no real cause currently to think anything will change.
 
I’m not sure why you always bring that point up to me. I absolutely believe the Second Mile should have been raked over the coals in this scandal. It is absolutely stunning that they have gotten no attention at all. We’re on the same page with TSM, Indy.

I'm just reiterating that, logically, the more of a monster he is, the more the blame should fall on TSM and the state LE and child services professionals for messing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianEagle
So does this story just go on Ziegler's web site and that's it? Will he shop it around to other outlets?
 
Disappointing. I still wonder if this was as close to being published by Newsweak as he let on.
He said it was to the point that he was talking with their guy in charge of printing about getting extra copies and having enough print copies in PA.
 
I'm just reiterating that, logically, the more of a monster he is, the more the blame should fall on TSM and the state LE and child services professionals for messing up.
I think most people would not disagree with that opinion. It is amazing that TSM and the various local agencies were never investigated. OTOH, that does not mean that Sandusky is not guilty and that PSU at a minimum did not screw up the handling of him.
 
I think most people would not disagree with that opinion. It is amazing that TSM and the various local agencies were never investigated. OTOH, that does not mean that Sandusky is not guilty and that PSU at a minimum did not screw up the handling of him.
Indy will never admit that. PSU handled it perfectly
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey Lion
Hopefully Cipriano puts it on BigTrial.net as well.

I am very interested in hearing Ralph's reaction to the latest developments. We have heard the story from Ziegler's perspective and I would like to hear things from Ralph's perspective. However, given the apparent divorce between Ziegler and Cipriano, it may be some time before we hear from Ralph.

I wonder what sort of credit that Zig will give Ralph when he posts the article. I also wonder if there will be any legal issues associated with posting the article on a web site. Zig did say that he wasn’t going to post the source documents at this time. This leads to a couple of questions. When, if ever, will the source documents be published and who was/were the source(s) for the PSU settlement documents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT