OT: More JZ - part 1 of a 2 hour interview (audio link)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
Very interesting podcast. I wonder when part 2 will be released.
A lot of discussion surrounding Mike McQueary and AM (v2). Interesting discussion surrounding how the prosecution thought v4 was going to be the star of the case and how v4's attorney asks if it would be alright to tell v4 about other accusations and the investigators say sure, we do it all the time. Then v4 changes he story to include allegations of sex. He said that the abuse of v4 supposedly happened on 2 different trips to bowl games and that there was a picture of Sandusky and v2 in a newspaper from the first bowl game identifying v4 by name. Ziegler asks that if Sandusky was such a mastermind, why would he leave such incriminating evidence.
Ziegler goes on to say that there is no physical evidence of any abuse. No DNA, no pornography, and that not one accuser told anyone (authorities, friends, family member) contemperaneously that they had been abused. He also said that everyone of the accusers has changed their stories over time.
A lot of discussion surrounding Mike McQueary and AM (v2). Interesting discussion surrounding how the prosecution thought v4 was going to be the star of the case and how v4's attorney asks if it would be alright to tell v4 about other accusations and the investigators say sure, we do it all the time. Then v4 changes he story to include allegations of sex. He said that the abuse of v4 supposedly happened on 2 different trips to bowl games and that there was a picture of Sandusky and v2 in a newspaper from the first bowl game identifying v4 by name. Ziegler asks that if Sandusky was such a mastermind, why would he leave such incriminating evidence.
Ziegler goes on to say that there is no physical evidence of any abuse. No DNA, no pornography, and that not one accuser told anyone (authorities, friends, family member) contemperaneously that they had been abused. He also said that everyone of the accusers has changed their stories over time.
Okay - I'll play. ( zips up flamesuit )
And I'll beat that dead horse.
While I appreciate Zig's knowledge and expertise on the media and the malpractice we have seen to date, he loses me because he has no professional or clinical experience with sex assault and PA law.
Simply put - charges might have been brought against JS for the following:
For the life of me, why an Executive Director of a wildly successful children's charity CHOSE to engage in such conduct - that if a parent wanted to escalate the situation and press charges - would most certainly pose at the minimum, a public relations problem for the charity - is inexplicable and unexcusable.
That an Executive Director of a children's charity, an adult without any clinical experience, specialized training or licensing in dealing with such youth engaged in high-risk behaviors; youth with learning, cognitive, social and/or behavioral issues CHOSE to engage in high-risk, questionable & likely illegal behavior himself around such children, is even more confounding.
I'm not buying the "1950's Mayberry RFD goober" excuse. You play with fire, you're gonna get burned. You work with at-risk youth, you damned well better protect yourself.
Wrapping yourself up in a cloak festooned with the squeaky clean colors of Penn State will only protect you for so long because it's not flameproof. Eventually you'll pick the wrong kid with the wrong mother who will escalate a complaint against you. So what steps did you take all along to protect yourself, your charity, your family, your reputation from going up in flames, in case you got hit with some pretty awful allegations?
And I'll beat that dead horse.
While I appreciate Zig's knowledge and expertise on the media and the malpractice we have seen to date, he loses me because he has no professional or clinical experience with sex assault and PA law.
Simply put - charges might have been brought against JS for the following:
- Repeatedly kissing on the cheek and lips of a minor
- Blowing on the stomach of a minor
- Rubbing the back and bare bottom of a minor
- Being Naked in a shower with a minor
- Cuddling with a minor in bed
For the life of me, why an Executive Director of a wildly successful children's charity CHOSE to engage in such conduct - that if a parent wanted to escalate the situation and press charges - would most certainly pose at the minimum, a public relations problem for the charity - is inexplicable and unexcusable.
That an Executive Director of a children's charity, an adult without any clinical experience, specialized training or licensing in dealing with such youth engaged in high-risk behaviors; youth with learning, cognitive, social and/or behavioral issues CHOSE to engage in high-risk, questionable & likely illegal behavior himself around such children, is even more confounding.
I'm not buying the "1950's Mayberry RFD goober" excuse. You play with fire, you're gonna get burned. You work with at-risk youth, you damned well better protect yourself.
Wrapping yourself up in a cloak festooned with the squeaky clean colors of Penn State will only protect you for so long because it's not flameproof. Eventually you'll pick the wrong kid with the wrong mother who will escalate a complaint against you. So what steps did you take all along to protect yourself, your charity, your family, your reputation from going up in flames, in case you got hit with some pretty awful allegations?
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this. We haven't had a Sandusky is innocent thread for
several days. You are a real credit to the other conspiracy nuts
that pollute this board.
I can't explain why Sandusky engaged in these behaviors with minors. It put him at risk and he has had to pay the price for engaging in these risky behaviors for the last 5 years. That doesn't mean he deserves the punishment that he has gotten. IMO, the evidence is less than convincing that he had sexual intent in any of his actions absent any proof that he engaged in sexual acts with minors.
IMO, the accusations of oral and anal sex with minors are not credible. The only accusations of sex at the time of the November 2011 grand jury presentment were from v1 and v4.
V4's accusations only came after his suggestive interview with Corporel Leiter where Leiter says (on tape) to v4 the following. "There is a pretty well defined progression in the way he operated and still operates I guess to some degree and often times this progression, especially when it goes on for an extended period of time, leads to more than just touching and feeling. That's there been actual oral sex that has taken place by both parties and there's - we unfortunately found that there's been -- classified as a rape has occured and I don't want you to feel that again." Given that v4's accusation only came after this interivew, I don't find v4's accusations especially credible.
Given that v1's accusations of oral sex only came months after his inital complaint in November 2008 and 12 people who are very close to him (including best friends, girlfriends, parents of his friends, aunts, next door neighbors, etc.) are willing to go on record in their own name that they don't believe v1 was ever abused, I don't find v1's accusations especially credible either.
I believe his first trial was inherently unfair. His lawyers were extremely ineffective. There were serial instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The grand jury process was tainted. The trial judge was biased. I believe that Sandusky deserves a new trial, but I also realize that he faces an extreme uphill battle. If he is fortunate enough to win a new trial, I think there is a good chance that he walks.
Wendy, without quoting your entire post, I do agree that Sandusky was reckless and creepy. I waffle on my opinion of the "sexual nature" of his crimes.
Which leaves me to question WHY the OAG/Corbett pursued this case as they did. They were, for years, disinterested. The email about Jonelle is a pretty revealing insight to their attitude about Sandusky, and Fisher's allegations.
It also seems very clear that that state used a (possible) pedophile to utterly destroy their political enemies.
it is also kind of revealing that the relentless "Joe knew/Ped State" crowd conveniently avoid the endemic failures of the child welfare system in PA. for DECADES. Which knew far more than anyone at Penn State, and had far greater authority to act. and failed. and is still broken. and does everything it can to keep children at risk.
Weird, right??
Which leaves me to question WHY the OAG/Corbett pursued this case as they did. They were, for years, disinterested. The email about Jonelle is a pretty revealing insight to their attitude about Sandusky, and Fisher's allegations.
It also seems very clear that that state used a (possible) pedophile to utterly destroy their political enemies.
it is also kind of revealing that the relentless "Joe knew/Ped State" crowd conveniently avoid the endemic failures of the child welfare system in PA. for DECADES. Which knew far more than anyone at Penn State, and had far greater authority to act. and failed. and is still broken. and does everything it can to keep children at risk.
Weird, right??
Last edited:
Ziegler is utterly clueless about CSA and has never made any effort to change that.
He makes the most asinine arguments:
"Sandusky can't be guilty of sexually abusing a kid because he had his picture taken with the kid and told a reporter the kid's name".
That's seriously the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Sandusky has to drop the kid off at home after abusing him and trust he won't tell anyone. Yet in Ziegler's mind having his picture taken with kid, and telling a reporter his name, is too big a risk?
"And we don't like her tone" <------ Condescending pricks - meanwhile these assholes are gleefully sharing photos of women being violated in every oriface, which in PA constitutes rape. Was Jonelle just their stooge?
Yes - you make good points. Which brings us to fellow prosecutor Patrick Blessington who worked the Philadelphia Archdiocese case. I've always wondered if he suggested using that prosecution template for PSU. There are a lot of parallels. Without getting into Frank Fina's mind (now there's a dark and dangerous place) us schmucks out here that have zero knowledge of prosecutorial powers and strategy as it applies here in PA will just have to come up with theories.
I'd love to have a professional discuss how they'd work this case. I think we can all agree that an effort to place this on PSU's doorstep is obvious - and it's painfully clear there was never any attempt to bring Second Mile into the conversation.
And @francofan - you make some valid points. However, Jerry is responsible for his behavior around Second Mile youth - not you, not me. As an Executive Director of a children's charity - and get this - A MANDATED REPORTER - it was incumbent of him to familiarize himself with not only PA CPSL, but also with the proper code of conduct around minors, especially if you're going to work with AT-RISK minors - an especially challenging population.
By doing so, he would have been able to protect himself, his family, Second Mile clients. For the life of me, why Dr. Jack didn't keep Jerry on a short leash after complaints were escalated in 1998 is a mystery.
If you're gonna go poking your bare hand into crevices where you KNOW rattlesnakes live, don't be suprised if you get bit. And don't blame the snake. So if you're gonna make it a practice to crawl into bed with a young teen with various issues, lay your lips on their stomach (and possibly their groin area) and "blow raspberries", and not expect to eventually get pegged on that - well, I don't know what to say.
If your not interested in "polluting" this board, then don't reply to the thread and contribute to the pollution.
Here's the problem I'm having. If your mother was doing these things with your daughter, for which would you call child welfare?
I'm simply not convinced that JS had sexual intent with his behavior. I think it's very possible he saw himself as a surrogate father for these at risk kids and fatherly affection as one of the many things these kids lacked.
Unlike JZ, I'm not convinced Sandusky is innocent, but I am convinced laws were broken to put him where he is today. I'm also convinced that C/S/S responded to McQueary's report in the manner they did to prevent the very risks you point out.
They are starting to show studies about how needy people need likes on social media...pretty interesting stuff.
If your daughter and 7 others said she did this, it sure as hell would raise an eyebrow. If 3-4 of them said it went much further and performed oral on them, it would certainly merit the call.
If your daughter and 7 others said she did this, it sure as hell would raise an eyebrow. If 3-4 of them said it went much further and performed oral on them, it would certainly merit the call.
your analogy is wrong. if they said that ONLY AFTER retaining a civil attorney, I would be skeptical.
if they said that ONLY AFTER the investigators lead them to say that, I would be skeptical
Right as that means they all lied. The good father figure here was just framed.
Right as that means they all lied. The good father figure here was just framed.
who knows what the truth is? you sure as hell don't
What you described is intrafamilial - with it's own dynamics and closer "boundaries" and the age of the child factors in as well. A toddler, a pre-schooler or maybe with a child as old as 3rd grade it might be okay. Would I call child welfare on my own mother? Probably not.
Now if this female were a coach, and my 12 year old daughter spent the night at her home and I became aware to this behavior - you're damned right I'd speak with authorities. In fact, I have in a similar situation involving female "coaches" and minor girls.
However - Jerry is exhibiting this behavior with someone else's kids - the "boundaries" are further. It doesn't matter who the minor is - it's still someone else's child and he shouldn't assume the right to "push boundaries" under the banner of being a surrogate father. These aren't toddlers or pre-schoolers - these are boys in middle school.
Plenty of adults mentor, challenge and improve the lives of kids from single parent homes. They do it everyday in the classroom without meeting the statutory definition of a crime.
They're called Teachers.
Here's something else to think about : forget sexual intent - let's just focus on horseplay & rough-housing. You've got some 10 year old kid monkeying around on athletic equipment designed for elite college athletes and he hurts himself, maybe fractures an arm. Or you're yukking it up in the locker room, snapping towels with a 12 year kid - he falls and smacks his face on the tile - breaks teeth or an eye socket. Or the slap-boxing results in bruising on the 14 year old or maybe you break his nose.
What part of this behavior and "program goals" has been approved by Second Mile, it's insurance carrier and did you get a signed waiver from mom before you drove off with this kid in your car?
How the hell do you avoid that lawsuit?
Last edited:
great summary, Wendy. but again, we must look at Sandusky through the lens of the state welfare agencies.
1998 was reported. it was investigated. these issues WERE discussed among investigators. And Sandusky was ultimately not charged. granted, the investigators claimed they told Sandusky not to do this again, but it doesn't appear they said because it was WRONG, just that it COULD get misinterpreted again.
I don't know why some many JoePa/PSU haters struggle with this failure of the state.
you seem perpetually and willfully confused about where most people stand on this issue.
You're definition of the word most must vary from mine. A loud vocal minority is just a loud vocal minority. Most people are not worried about JS's legal woes...sorry to burst that bubble for you.
Last edited:
Good point. The state approved JS as an adoptive/foster parent, slapped the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on the guy - which adds yet ANOTHER layer of respectability on him. I mean - who is the average person out here to second guess what licensed caseworkers say?
I don't recall - did the mother ever want to press charges? And again - most reasonable adults, when you've got a cop in front of you telling you to KNOCK IT OFF IN THE SHOWER WITH KIDS - would be so mortified, they'd comply. Especially if your life's passion is with your local charity that is a huge part of your community standing.
Think of how embarrassing that would have been for any rational adult, yet not our guy Jerry. The world just didn't understand him.
The liability risk was Joe's concern!
I think the boundary issues and the possibility of a repeat of '98 were the concern of C/S/S and even Raykovitz who thought Jerry showering with swim trunks on was a viable compromise to Tim's proposal to rescind Jerry's guest privileges.
I keep coming back to the individual cases. If it was so obvious that JS was a monster, why even press charges on a case in which there was:
No victim
No report of a crime
No date established for said crime
No physical evidence of a crime
No credible eye witness of a crime
And then we learn that the actual witness, deemed not able to testify due to dementia, told police that Sandusky was not the man he saw.
This case was incredibly weak. Quantity over quality and trying JS in the court of public opinion were clearly key facets of the prosecution's strategy. And while I can't state a motivation for putting an innocent man in prison, I also can't overlook the shadiness surrounding the prosecution's actions going back to the GJ presentment.
Which brings into the discussion the wiring in the brain. Opens up a whole 'nother can of worms on Personality Disorders I suppose.
My God - speaking of Personality Disorders - we've got Frank "Fap" Fina and his porn, Tom Corrupt and his Gunslingers, the Swinger's Club at Second Mile, and loads of all these other dysfunctional characters in this epic saga.
I think this is a major point that tools like LaJolla seem to miss
one of the main reasons I am skeptical about some of these convictions is the conduct of the OAG before, during, and after the trial.
Could you please explain this comment?
If you knew anything about adoption and what is included in the background checks performed by law-enforcement pertaining to adoption, you would know the answer to this question.
I've adopted two infants. They run criminal background checks, the 1998 incident would NEVER appear because he was never accused of a crime, nor was he ever charged with a crime against a minor. They also run driving record checks. The social workers who do the pre-adoption and post adoption home studies may never witness these actions, and their 'interviews' with family members in the home and friends and family would also, most likely, never reveal these behaviors... so just because he is an adoptive father is a moot point, and should never come into the discussion.
Now - had he been charged with a crime, or found guilty of a crime - those would have appeared in the background checks AND he would have been denied AND he would have been in jail (unless he had been released).
The bigger GOTCHA is The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cleared him to work with, and run a non-profit organization helping at-risk children, because there should be social workers crawling all over that place.
I have to agree. I'd love to speak with a prosecutor that's familiar with Fina and McGettigan and have them offer up strategy points. I have to believe Tom Corbett's intended trophy kill of Dr. Spanier weighed heavily in case strategy. Especially when Castor told McGettigan not to use Cynthia Baldwin in that strategy.
They did it anyway.
Last edited:
Exactly. And to date, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has gone out of their way to not discuss the Second Mile.
Yeah...because tools like yourself can overlook patterns of behavior or his victims testifying against him as adults. Because there are scumbags in politics means Jerry was framed...you got it.
I believe indy means to imply, Joe didn't want any youngsters around the players in the locker rooms after the games fearing the kids may get injured. Joe told my grandson, Jobie, a few times over several years that he shouldn't be in the lockers. Mr. Johnson intervened and eventually had a pass for Jobie and a side door next to the stadium elevator to enter.
I'm not saying Jerry is innocent but in order for Corbett to get his actual target Jerry had to be guilty.
Jerry didn't make it tough on him. He was a gift that kept on giving.
So is Corbett.
oh em gee - you did not know there was a Swinger's Club? Dr. Jack, his wife Katherine - Trustee Paul Silvis, his wife Nancy, local doctors & locally influential people - they'd hang out across the street over at the Autoport.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Base of operations moved to Gigi's last I heard.
I just think if that was true, things would have blown up long before five years ago and the cases like the janitor one, V2 and V6 would have never seen the light of day.
Similar threads
