Real Crime Profile: Podcast on HBO's PATERNO featuring Scott (Updated with Part II 5/16)
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
It would be funny to redirect the link to JZ's 2 hour broiling of the entire case.
Ha...this begs the question, why won’t anyone debate Zig? I think we know why. Enter the idiots who won’t dare debate Zig to criticize him now.
Thanks Chi, I have to put on a pair of ear phones to get the full impact of the language. Very interesting as I'm having dinner. Thanks again. Step
I found this informative and it should have been done years ago. However, a few of us find Lisa's attitude to be grating. She's missing the bigger picture of our OAG's machinations & lessons lost because of the Fina/McGettigan/Eshbach dumpster fire that raged into a national firestorm once the sports media dropped the Paterno name into that shitty dumpster fire of theirs.
As far as Zig is concerned - when will he address why Jack Raykovitz didn't implement stricter guidelines for Jerry once the police conducted a sting & complaints got escalated through the system, and put the kibosh on the Sleepovers, the Swim Parties, the Shopping Trips, the Babysitting, the Showers, the Snuggles, the Personal Letters, the Personal Texts, the Personal Calls, the Personal Visits, the Out Of State Travel, and the Flagrant Out-Of-Program Contact with Second Mile minors?
Those are ALL red flags of misconduct.
Jack is letting his good friend twist in the wind here. He's been doing it for years and he's laughing at you all. Zig should have Jack, along with charity VP & wife Katherine Genovese on his podcast and discuss why Jerry was railroaded. It's not up to us average rubes out here who never knew who the hell these people were to debate Zig.
As far as Zig is concerned - when will he address why Jack Raykovitz didn't implement stricter guidelines for Jerry once the police conducted a sting & complaints got escalated through the system, and put the kibosh on the Sleepovers, the Swim Parties, the Shopping Trips, the Babysitting, the Showers, the Snuggles, the Personal Letters, the Personal Texts, the Personal Calls, the Personal Visits, the Out Of State Travel, and the Flagrant Out-Of-Program Contact with Second Mile minors?
Those are ALL red flags of misconduct.
Jack is letting his good friend twist in the wind here. He's been doing it for years and he's laughing at you all. Zig should have Jack, along with charity VP & wife Katherine Genovese on his podcast and discuss why Jerry was railroaded. It's not up to us average rubes out here who never knew who the hell these people were to debate Zig.
You can't be serious. No way in a million years woukd those folks ever agree to an interview with Zig. They're keeping a low profile.
Of course they'd never do such.
And yes, this leadership duo is most certainly "tangential". Isn't Zig's wife a school teacher? Surely she could inform him what constitutes misconduct around minors.
Jack & Katherine had oversight of Second Mile minors. Jerry was convicted of abusing minors he met solely through the auspices of the Second Mile. Ergo Jack and Katherine are in a perfect position to explain why these Second Mile victims/claimant's are all money-grubbing liars, why their Second Mile charity chairman is utterly and completely innocent of every charge, because they have documentation here, here and here of their Best Practices in Second Mile oversight.
Such simple documentation as a signed permission form on file in Second Mile offices would have ID'd the McQueary shower kid and certainly blown away those accusers that allegedly never met Jerry.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Jerry's role - as testifed to by Jack Raykovitz in front of a jury last year - was solely that of Chairman, Fundraiser & Emcee at Second Mile events. He was not providing any individual counseling or therapy to any Second Mile kids.
So Jerry takes it upon himself to drive over to Aaron Fisher's home and begin a personal relationship with this minor - which is clearly outside of his prescribed role with the program. It blows up on Jerry. Jack Raykovitz needs to explain why that is.
It's really that simple.
But this is off topic. The post was about the podcast. Carry on.
Last edited:
I'm surprised by how little Scott seems to know. I'd think Scott would have asked Joe about everything.
I doubt Joe remembered much from that weekend. Remember he claimed he waited a day to call Curley because he didn't want to "ruin anybody's weekend". But the very emails Freeh uses to damn Joe reveal that he actually contacted Curley right away. Joe telling a falsehood that made him look much worse than than the actual truth can only be attributed to poor memory. And when you consider the first, pre-Andrew Shubin statement by the boy in the shower, plus the fact that McQueary likely waited 6 weeks before coming to Joe, it is very clear that this shower incident was very benign.
Also, there's evidence that the investigators really twisted Joe's arm in order to get him to back McQueary's testimony and claim the incident was of a sexual nature. Scott was Joe's lawyer at the time, so he may have had a role in that incident as well.
What is the evidence that the investigators twisted Joe’s arm?
Maybe 'influenced' is a better description.
Joe was interviewed by police right before he testified before the GJ. Here's the relevant part of his testimony:
Q: I think you used the term fondling. Is that the term that you used?
Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.
It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.
MM has testified that he never saw Sandusky's hands, and specifically that he did not see fondling. If Mike didn't put that idea into Joe's head, who did?
I think everyone knows nothing criminal occurred in the Lasch locker room on the evening in question. No matter when it was "witnessed" and "reported." OAG needed something to advance their PSU agenda. The empirical evidence lies in the actions taken by some very respected and responsible men.....Dr. Dranov, John McQueary, JVP, TC and GS.
Even Fina and co. knew.....they outed themselves when they threw a stool in the shower. LOL
Just as a starter, remember that JVPs testimony was read into the record by a prosecutor. "was it of a sexual nature." can be tampered with easily ....
I think JVP was convinced by OAG folks that Jerry was a monster and in addition, he liked MM and was trying to be supportive of his situation. If we all go back to the genesis of this story, we have been provided with a great deal of information since......that should lead to more than a little skepticism.
Didn't Joe also make a statement prior to the Grand Jury Police Interview in which he described what McQueary reported to him as horseplay? I do remember hearing that at some point.
Considering what we know about this case, the better question is "what is the evidence that the investigators did not twist Joe's arm?"
Real links for those who can't access those damned short twitter links:
https://art19.com/shows/real-crime-profile-wondery/episodes/bc34223d-41a8-46d9-b2f7-de2bc38321f2
https://art19.com/shows/real-crime-profile-wondery/episodes/ad1d4663-c4ea-4239-9a56-ccc0bb099595
That doesn’t answer my question either. That offers up a possibility of what may have happened with Joe’s testimony, it does not show evidence of Joe’s arm being twisted.
I wasn’t disputing this idea Indy. I was honestly wondering what evidence there was of Joe’s arm being twisted.
There isn't any evidence of this to be honest. At least nothing that has been releases, but things said enough here become fact. That is why you won't get a straight answer on this...there is no evidence. Just ask for a single link anywhere saying Joe was forced or bullied....as we know that man wasn't really one to not speak his mind.....now you need to pretend at 80 years of age he somehow became a weak minded man.
Last edited:
It really does, just not in the way you were expecting. Essentially you are asking us what evidence is there that the earth is flat. I am suggesting that the better question is to ask what evidence is there that the earth is not flat.
No. The poster said there is evidence that Joe’s arm was twisted. I asked what that evidence is thinking I may have missed something.
It’s OK to say the poster was wrong or misstated his thought.
I don't think JVP was the kind of guy who would have his arm twisted. I do think he was 83-84, in failing health and with little recall of an event from a decade ago. I do think he would have been anxious to cooperate and help.
The star witness,a man in his prime,could not remember THE YEAR of the alleged incident.
Ps....JVP'S only interactions would have been with the prosecution.
The star witness,a man in his prime,could not remember THE YEAR of the alleged incident.
Ps....JVP'S only interactions would have been with the prosecution.
Wendy is a woman to love! She nails it every time! She should be the AG of the state of PA.
There is circumstantial evidence that Joe was influenced:
1/12/11 at 8:40 a.m. to approximately 9:20 a.m. (40 minutes), Joe met with:
2 police officers, (Rossman and Sassano) and 2 deputy attorney generals (Fina and Eschbach).
In the police report, there is no mention of the term “sexual”. It does state: “something inappropriate”.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the 2 deputy attorney generals left the room as well. We know this because the police report also reveals that after Joe’s interview concluded, the 2 police officers then interviewed Curley and then Schultz, and only the police officers and Cynthia Baldwin were present in the subsequent interviews, i.e. Fina and Eschbach were no longer there.
1/12/11 at 11:06 a.m. to 11:13 a.m. (7 minutes), Joe testified in front of the grand jury, Eschbach asked the questions:
Joe says: “a mature person who was fondling whatever you might call it – I’m not sure what the term would be a young boy.”
Note: Where did the term fondling come from? Joe did not use the term 2 hours earlier in his police interview, and more importantly, Mike McQueary has never used the term or described fondling. It is clear that Joe was inaccurate when he used the term fondling. We also know that what the Grand Jury presentment states that McQueary saw and then reported to Joe is not accurate.
Joe says: “Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. “
Note: Sexual nature. What does it mean? Does it mean sexual assault? Or does it mean Jerry in the shower with a young boy? Most of us are now repulsed with the mere thought of Jerry being in the shower with a young boy, even if that’s all it was, but I’m not so sure that in that in the time frame and given the nature of the children Sandusky was trying to help it was necessarily repulsive. Joe did not use the term “sexual nature” 2 hours earlier in his police interview. At that point, the prosecution had precisely what it wanted, and it did not want to ask what sexual nature meant, because it might have hurt it (in fact, in Joe’s last police interview - shortly before the indictments - the police officer asked about the sexual assault, and Joe responded that he never said anything about an assault). Moreover, there were no defense attorneys present to clarify precisely what Joe meant by the term “sexual nature”.
Why did Joe meet with 2 prosecutors for 40 minutes that morning, and when the meeting concluded at 9:20 a.m., where did Joe go until 11:06 a.m. Where did the deputy AGs go until 11:06 a.m.? A viable theory exists that the deputy AGs told Joe what they knew about Sandusky. Joe, without committing perjury and in an attempt to help the prosecution, uses the term “sexual nature”.
1/12/11 at 8:40 a.m. to approximately 9:20 a.m. (40 minutes), Joe met with:
2 police officers, (Rossman and Sassano) and 2 deputy attorney generals (Fina and Eschbach).
In the police report, there is no mention of the term “sexual”. It does state: “something inappropriate”.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the 2 deputy attorney generals left the room as well. We know this because the police report also reveals that after Joe’s interview concluded, the 2 police officers then interviewed Curley and then Schultz, and only the police officers and Cynthia Baldwin were present in the subsequent interviews, i.e. Fina and Eschbach were no longer there.
1/12/11 at 11:06 a.m. to 11:13 a.m. (7 minutes), Joe testified in front of the grand jury, Eschbach asked the questions:
Joe says: “a mature person who was fondling whatever you might call it – I’m not sure what the term would be a young boy.”
Note: Where did the term fondling come from? Joe did not use the term 2 hours earlier in his police interview, and more importantly, Mike McQueary has never used the term or described fondling. It is clear that Joe was inaccurate when he used the term fondling. We also know that what the Grand Jury presentment states that McQueary saw and then reported to Joe is not accurate.
Joe says: “Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. “
Note: Sexual nature. What does it mean? Does it mean sexual assault? Or does it mean Jerry in the shower with a young boy? Most of us are now repulsed with the mere thought of Jerry being in the shower with a young boy, even if that’s all it was, but I’m not so sure that in that in the time frame and given the nature of the children Sandusky was trying to help it was necessarily repulsive. Joe did not use the term “sexual nature” 2 hours earlier in his police interview. At that point, the prosecution had precisely what it wanted, and it did not want to ask what sexual nature meant, because it might have hurt it (in fact, in Joe’s last police interview - shortly before the indictments - the police officer asked about the sexual assault, and Joe responded that he never said anything about an assault). Moreover, there were no defense attorneys present to clarify precisely what Joe meant by the term “sexual nature”.
Why did Joe meet with 2 prosecutors for 40 minutes that morning, and when the meeting concluded at 9:20 a.m., where did Joe go until 11:06 a.m. Where did the deputy AGs go until 11:06 a.m.? A viable theory exists that the deputy AGs told Joe what they knew about Sandusky. Joe, without committing perjury and in an attempt to help the prosecution, uses the term “sexual nature”.
Yes, it is not about having his arm twisted but about being very open to suggestions and being convinced of things by other people.
My father was not a man who would have his arm twisted either. He ran his own construction company for more than 30 years. But at the end of his life his mental capabilities and memory were just not there. For example he was mildly diabetic but also had an insatiable sweet tooth. He would always ask for cake. It was very easy to tell him that he just had a piece of cake and he would believe it.
Taking a line from the great Freeh, it is reasonable to assume that Paterno could easily be manipulated by prosecutors.
None of this answers my question... "what is the evidence that the investigators did not twist Joe's arm?"
Scott & Jim discuss Joe's grand jury experience and reveal that Joe's first use of the phrase "sexual nature" occurs during his testimony & just after hearing it verbatim from the AG folks in an interview that preceded his sworn testimony.
Last edited:
I’m an Engineer who has testified as an expert witness a few times. Knowing how attorneys often operate during pre-testimony interviews, there's a good chance Joe’s pre-GJ interview went something like this. I know this is just speculation, but I think its very reasonable based on what we know about the tactics of the investigators and the OAG and what we know about what actually happened in the shower from Allan Myers, and the fact the the GJ testimony was apparently the first time Joe ever used the terms fondling or sexual nature with regards to the case.
Investigator: Joe, Mike says he told you he saw Sandusky raping a boy. Do you remember that?
Joe: I can’t really remember. I knew Mike stopped by one time to complain about Sandusky, but I don’t think he said that.
Investigator: C'mon Joe, we need your testimony to put this monster away. We already have a boy who tells us he was raped by Sandusky. He is certainly a pedophile, we just need the strongest case possible. Mike says he wasn’t that explicit when telling you, but do you remember him saying Sandusky was fondling him?
Joe: Hmm, that sounds more reasonable, maybe he did say something like that
Investigator: Joe, you are not in trouble. You did the right thing by notifying Curley and Schultz. What Mike saw had to be of a sexual nature, otherwise you would have not got those two involved. Also Mike has been such a good assistant coach for you. You could definitely trust him, wouldn't you agree?
Joe: Hmm, I guess so
Investigator: Awesome, you are going to be an excellent witness. You’ll really help us put that sicko away
Joe's statement:
As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.
MM's response to AG:
“I am being misrepresented in the media...as are some others...it just is not right,”
Eschback's response to McQueary:
"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."
As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.
MM's response to AG:
“I am being misrepresented in the media...as are some others...it just is not right,”
Eschback's response to McQueary:
"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."
Agreed...especially when the witness (Joe) is in agreement that the perp ought to be convicted. It is "Standard Operating Procedure" in high profile cases to "implant" certain terminology that the lawyer hopes the witness will use. The lawyer can't say "hey, say this" but can certainly imply.
I was at a trial a couple of years ago where the defense attorney lost his cool during an abuse trial...played right into the hands of the woman who was bringing the civil suit. The attorney for the alleged abused simply stopped, looked at the attorney as if to say "see, this is how they abuse women" but didn't say a word. She then looked at the judge. Then the jury...she made her point. The uncool attorney then objected but to what? the opposing attorney never said a word. But the jury got the message and the case was, effectively, over from there on out.
I had the same question. I've seen lots of speculation regarding possible scenarios, not a lot of what I'd call "evidence."
I'll take it a step further (and others have touched on this here). He wanted to HELP THE PROSECUTION. Much easier to be manipulated when you are trying to help put a monster away.
Too bad he didn't know that a man who did exactly what he should have and should have been lauded was crucified for using words that he thought would help the prosecution. Too bad he didn't know of those who had a hit put out on him!
