Reasonable Doubt podcast Adam Carolla and Mark Geragos interview JZ

[francofan]

Very interesting podcast.

Adam and Mark and open the show with John Ziegler in studio. They open the show talking about how their perceived political affiliations may have possibly hurt them in their professional circles. This leads to a discussion how media narrative can shape the public’s perception of a story, and how this pertains to the Sandusky case. Next John informs Adam and Mark about some of the odd circumstances surrounding the Sandusky case, and expresses his belief in the innocence of both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. He explains how he believes Matt Sandusky is the biggest bad actor involved in the case.

http://reasonabledoubtpodcast.com/2016/08/john-ziegler/

 

[thecoolestfish]

Very interesting podcast.

Adam and Mark and open the show with John Ziegler in studio. They open the show talking about how their perceived political affiliations may have possibly hurt them in their professional circles. This leads to a discussion how media narrative can shape the public’s perception of a story, and how this pertains to the Sandusky case. Next John informs Adam and Mark about some of the odd circumstances surrounding the Sandusky case, and expresses his belief in the innocence of both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. He explains how he believes Matt Sandusky is the biggest bad actor involved in the case.

http://reasonabledoubtpodcast.com/2016/08/john-ziegler/

Ugh. Why can't JZ just STFU already??

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Ugh. Why can't JZ just STFU already??

Of all the things to take issue with - why would JZ speaking to his concerns, trouble you so much?

Aside from the "someone else said it, so I'm gonna say it too" momentum (like what we see each election cycle ) it just baffles me why anyone would be either concerned or upset with JZ stating his beliefs
Whether one shares those beliefs fully, partial, or not at all

 

[simons96]

Very interesting podcast.

Adam and Mark and open the show with John Ziegler in studio. They open the show talking about how their perceived political affiliations may have possibly hurt them in their professional circles. This leads to a discussion how media narrative can shape the public’s perception of a story, and how this pertains to the Sandusky case. Next John informs Adam and Mark about some of the odd circumstances surrounding the Sandusky case, and expresses his belief in the innocence of both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. He explains how he believes Matt Sandusky is the biggest bad actor involved in the case.

http://reasonabledoubtpodcast.com/2016/08/john-ziegler/

this is a great podcast. Look forward to listening to it every Saturday (we had our PSU Alumni Chapter Fall Social this morning, so I haven't had the chance to listen!)

 

[joeparules]

Ugh. Why can't JZ just STFU already??

You don't have to be a JZ fan to at least appreciate the fact he makes others think more about this issue and not just be another lemming following the media's narrative!? I wish he would drop the big "JS is innocent" routine, but at least he is making people think for themselves.

 

[wensilver]

At 32:30 Zig discusses the person that came to him for the specific purpose of setting up a "sting".

I would like to hear more about this and would like to see those recordings and documentation handed over to those in a decision-making capacity to expose this. More specifically, who was the attorney that set up this fake claim? An ethics complaint should be filed with the State Disciplinary Board.

Here is how to file a complaint against an attorney:http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/consumers/complaint-forms/index.php

Here are the District Offices: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/contact/district-offices.php#district_III

If it was someone from Philadelphia or surrounding counties, Ms. Amy Kittredge in the Trooper office would handle that, I have her contact info.

If it was Shubin, that would be District 3 - It should be sent to:

District 3 Office
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 5800
P.O. Box 62675
Harrisburg, PA 17106-2675
Telephone: (717) 772-8572
Fax: (717) 772-7463

Disciplinary Counsel-in-Charge

• James P. Barker

Disciplinary Counsel

• Anthony A. Czuchnicki
• Kristin A. Wells

Auditors

• Lowell R. Kratzer

 

[ChiTownLion]

"More specifically, who was the attorney that set up this fake claim?"

Think he said it was MS' attorney.

 

[wensilver]

"More specifically, who was the attorney that set up this fake claim?"

This he said it was MS' attorney.

Which would be Shubin?

So Centre County.

I did send Zig's earlier statements about this fake accuser to the entire BoT, PSU Pres, some in Admin & the Office of General Counsel. I also copied our Attorney General & Auditor General.

I would hope that Zig releases relevant information to state authorities.

 

[coveydidnt]

Typically incoherent ranting. Can he please bother to organize his thoughts? Or is he just trying to confuse things more?

Gerais said 12 times that's interesting but not relevant.

Also Adam's classic, if a bunch of kids are going on a camping trip and one Dad quickly volunteers to take them, Don'the pick him. Jerry is that Dad.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Which would be Shubin?

So Centre County.

I did send Zig's earlier statements about this fake accuser to the entire BoT, PSU Pres, some in Admin & the Office of General Counsel. I also copied our Attorney General & Auditor General.

I would hope that Zig releases relevant information to state authorities.

Sadly he's a Nigerian prince and we have a ton of suckers. Just keeps stringing people along instead of really coming forward with information, but hey people keep listening I guess.

 

[83wuzme]

I remember when this scandal started to break, my attorney wife cautioned me about believing JS could not do such things. She said, that in her experience, it is rare for people to bring baseless claims like this against an individual because they cause so much turmoil to the accuser.
Everything that I saw jibes with the fact that JS is a pedophile. He may not consider what he does with young men and boys as wrong, but thankfully society still does. The smirk on his face at the sentencing said it all.

 

[wensilver]

Also Adam's classic, if a bunch of kids are going on a camping trip and one Dad quickly volunteers to take them, Don'the pick him. Jerry is that Dad

Excellent point.

As much as I appreciate what Zig puts out in a number of areas - way too many unanswered questions about Jerry's conduct and lack of Second Mile leadership in correcting that conduct in order to protect both Jerry & minors.

I'd really like to hear more opinions from attorneys on this:

 

[Nellie R]

this is a great podcast. Look forward to listening to it every Saturday (we had our PSU Alumni Chapter Fall Social this morning, so I haven't had the chance to listen!)

It's ok and the usual Ziegler POV that ignores some facts and makes some incorrect insinuations about those who don't lap up every word he says. The thing that bothered me the most was Adam Corolla assuming people are willing to believe JS guilty "because he got Joe Paterno fired". Typical incorrect "football fan" non-sequitur which is imho an insult to college-educated people who are students of the case and can tell the difference between something caused by PSUBOT malfeasance , and something else entirely, the finer points on victim psychology versus JZ's JS is innocent theme.

 

[Nellie R]

I certainly agree with this. Turned it off after 30 minutes just like the Jay Mohr show. Just unbearable to listen to. He does much better on shows where the people interviewing him already know a lot about the case.

He drifts away from the facts (which are extremely powerful) and rambles out about irrelevant details. In fairness to him, this case is not easily explained at all, but he just isn't even close. He needs to actually prepare for these interviews and he clearly doesn't.

I actually do appreciate his efforts. The facts he has been able to dig up are really amazing. But he needs a lot of help if he is ever going to change people's minds on this case.

LOL, facts "he" has been able to dig up? Only some are his and he can own those, but he gladly took all the research everyone else did from the get-go and now claims he is the "only one" who did it.

 

[Nellie R]

Which would be Shubin?

So Centre County.

I did send Zig's earlier statements about this fake accuser to the entire BoT, PSU Pres, some in Admin & the Office of General Counsel. I also copied our Attorney General & Auditor General.

I would hope that Zig releases relevant information to state authorities.

I would be more happy about this JZ claim if it were an honest attorney who did it to expose the BOT and their ridiculous non-vetting claim process.

e.g. Marci Hamilton and Jeff Anderson would come out smelling like roses if they could expose/explain why they filed suit against SECOND MILE, Sandusky and PSU in Philly, had JDA, aka TW accept money from PSU and sign an agreement NOT to sue TSM, THEN took a cut from those ill-gotten gains...

 

[LafayetteBear]

I went to high school with Mark Geragos. He's a smart guy and a competent attorney, but also a huge self-promoting douchebag. Also, he smoked a shit ton of ganja in high school.

Edit: He did not smoke it with me, though.

 

[simons96]

It's ok and the usual Ziegler POV that ignores some facts and makes some incorrect insinuations about those who don't lap up every word he says. The thing that bothered me the most was Adam Corolla assuming people are willing to believe JS guilty "because he got Joe Paterno fired". Typical incorrect "football fan" non-sequitur which is imho an insult to college-educated people who are students

maybe I didn't hear adam correctly, I think there was another dot he connected. People were UPSET that Joe was fired, and many DID blame Sandusky's actions. of course most people assumed everything they heard in the media was the truth.

 

[Nellie R]

maybe I didn't hear adam correctly, I think there was another dot he connected. People were UPSET that Joe was fired, and many DID blame Sandusky's actions. of course most people assumed everything they heard in the media was the truth.

I listened twice, but will try it a third time. I just hate it when entrenched false anchor (again, PSUBOT's fault) is used at all.

 

[wensilver]

I went to high school with Mark Geragos. He's a smart guy and a competent attorney, but also a huge self-promoting douchebag. Also, he smoked a shit ton of ganja in high school.

Edit: He did not smoke it with me, though.

Veering off course slightly - maybe Geragos should meet Dambly then.

 

[simons96]

I listened twice, but will try it a third time. I just hate it when entrenched false anchor (again, PSUBOT's fault) is used at all.

I didn't get the impression he was agreeing with the narrative, just observing it from a historical perspective.

 

[simons96]

I thought Zig's strongest portion of the segment was highlighting the connection between V2 and Matt Sandusky, how they both defended Jerry, then "switched" sides (and neither testified at trial!) to become "victims" who took million dollar paydays from Penn State.

 

[Nellie R]

Veering off course slightly - maybe Geragos should meet Dambly then.

Unless Geragos "forgot" about this poster's claims of his High School activities, LOL!

 

[psuro]

I went to high school with Mark Geragos. He's a smart guy and a competent attorney, but also a huge self-promoting douchebag. Also, he smoked a shit ton of ganja in high school.

Edit: He did not smoke it with me, though.

Didn't smoke or didn't share?

 

[simons96]

Veering off course slightly - maybe Geragos should meet Dambly then.

2 entirely different birds. LOL

 

[coveydidnt]

I thought Zig's strongest portion of the segment was highlighting the connection between V2 and Matt Sandusky, how they both defended Jerry, then "switched" sides (and neither testified at trial!) to become "victims" who took million dollar paydays from Penn State.

As Geragos points out if it didn't happen at trial it matters not at all for PCRA. If the strongest portion isn't relevant, then it is over.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Veering off course slightly - maybe Geragos should meet Dambly then.

I actually thought that same thought. Dambly went to the same high school as my wife (Conestoga High School in Berwyn). He is a piece of work, but his wife (Lauren, I believe) is an even bigger piece of work. ("I'm an attorney, and you should keep that in mind." OK...)

 

[simons96]

I will add that Adam has been one of the few "voices" to publicly defend Joe Paterno, and say he got the shaft from the university and the media.

 

[thecoolestfish]

Of all the things to take issue with - why would JZ speaking to his concerns, trouble you so much?

Aside from the "someone else said it, so I'm gonna say it too" momentum (like what we see each election cycle ) it just baffles me why anyone would be either concerned or upset with JZ stating his beliefs
Whether one shares those beliefs fully, partial, or not at all

You really don't get it? Really?

 

[L.T. Young]

Of all the things to take issue with - why would JZ speaking to his concerns, trouble you so much?

Aside from the "someone else said it, so I'm gonna say it too" momentum (like what we see each election cycle ) it just baffles me why anyone would be either concerned or upset with JZ stating his beliefs
Whether one shares those beliefs fully, partial, or not at all

Because he's a third rate journalist that's mentally ill?

The majority of his arguments and "logic" are flawed, and that's putting it nicely.

If you actually listened objectively to the stupidity that comes out of Ziegler's mouth you'd understand it.

Ziegler actually argued that Sandusky doesn't have a sexual bone in his body. How does he know this? Ziegler has been around a lot of football coaches and "they are sexual beings". But Ziegler has yet to meet a single person who Sandusky ever mentioned sex to. Not a comment or innuendo.

Think it about for a second. A man convicted of sex acts (and the accompanying desires) he could never mention to anyone being extremely abnormal about discussing sex is proof he's innocent?

Ziegler logic, one sided and worthless.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Didn't smoke or didn't share?

I didn't smoke much at all in high school, and not much in college, either. Went more with alcohol. Geragos, on the other hand, smelled like an ashtray for much of high school. He hung out with what we called the "loadie" crowd at our high school. So named because the were frequently loaded, even during school hours. His dad was a successful attorney, and he did little in high school. He must have applied himself a whole lot more after finishing high school..

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Because he's a third rate journalist that's mentally ill?

The majority of his arguments and "logic" are flawed, and that's putting it nicely.

If you actually listened objectively to the stupidity that comes out of Ziegler's mouth you'd understand it.

Ziegler actually argued that Sandusky doesn't have a sexual bone in his body. How does he know this? Ziegler has been around a lot of football coaches and "they are sexual beings". But Ziegler has yet to meet a single person who Sandusky ever mentioned sex to. Not a comment or innuendo.

Think it about for a second. A man convicted of sex acts (and the accompanying desires) he could never mention to anyone being extremely abnormal about discussing sex is proof he's innocent?

Ziegler logic, one sided and worthless.

Is anyone holding a gun to your head, and forcing you to agree with all (or any) of his "conclusions"?

If not......what's the problem?

 

[StinkStankStunk]

You really don't get it? Really?

I asked. Only because I found it curious, and was interested in the "why" behind your statement.

What about Ziegler speaking his mind / stating his case....whatever term one wants to use.....bothers you so?

I'm NOT asking if you think he is right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle....what I am asking is - why does it perturb you so ("Why can't JZ just STFU already?")

I don't expect you will respond to that inquiry - and you certainly don't have to - and, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it really doesn't much matter if you do or not.

 

[LafayetteBear]

What about Ziegler speaking his mind / stating his case....whatever term one wants to use.....bothers you so?

I'm NOT asking if you think he is right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle....what I am asking is - why does it perturb you so ("Why can't JZ just STFU already?")

Barry: I'll bite on answering this one. I fully agree that JZ has the right to express his opinion. JZ clearly believes that Jerry is innocent, and that a finding of innocence on Jerry's part has the additional benefit of lifting the cloud over Paterno, et al.

But given how strongly I believe that Sandusky is NOT innocent, and how strongly the notion of Sandusky as monster is ingrained in collective mind of the general public, I fear that giving people like JZ a platform to expound on Sandusky's innocence will inevitably lead the general public to conclude that "those Penn State nuts" are deluded, and trying to defend the indefensible.

All along, I have believed it is critical to distinguish between Sandusky's conduct and Joe's, Curley's, Schultz's, and Spanier's conduct. The arguments coming from people like JZ make it more difficult to convince the general public that such a distinction should be made, to the detriment on the entire Penn State community.

I understand if others feel differently. This is how I feel.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

Barry: I'll bite on answering this one. I fully agree that JZ has the right to express his opinion. JZ clearly believes that Jerry is innocent, and that a finding of innocence on Jerry's part has the additional benefit of lifting the cloud over Paterno, et al.

But given how strongly I believe that Sandusky is NOT innocent, and how strongly the notion of Sandusky as monster is ingrained in collective mind of the general public, I fear that giving people like JZ a platform to expound on Sandusky's innocence will inevitably lead the general public to conclude that "those Penn State nuts" are deluded, and trying to defend the indefensible.

All along, I have believed it is critical to distinguish between Sandusky's conduct and Joe's, Curley's, Schultz's, and Spanier's conduct. The arguments coming from people like JZ make it more difficult to convince the general public that such a distinction should be made, to the detriment on the entire Penn State community.

I understand if others feel differently. This is how I feel.

I wasn't asking you - - - so quit butting in!!!!

LOL

Seriously though, I really don't disagree with anything you wrote.
I think the crux of your point comes down to this part of the post:

"....I fear that giving people like JZ a platform to expound on Sandusky's innocence will inevitably lead the general public to conclude that "those Penn State nuts" are deluded, and trying to defend the indefensible.

All along, I have believed it is critical to distinguish between Sandusky's conduct and Joe's, Curley's, Schultz's, and Spanier's conduct. The arguments coming from people like JZ make it more difficult to convince the general public that such a distinction should be made, to the detriment on the entire Penn State community."

As I said, I really can't disagree.
Which doesn't mean I necessarily DO agree....which sounds incongruent.....but really isn't.

Its just a matter of perspectives being a bit different....and recognizing that different perspectives do lead to different preferences among folks - even if they agree on all the underlying premises..

I have, for the most part, long given up on caring what the "general public" thinks.

The "general public" is more concerned about Ryan Lochte pissing in public, than they are about what their kids are learning in school.
The "general publc" will cast a vote for the Presidency of the United States primarily based upon what they see splattered on FaceBook and Twitter.
The "general public" has an attention span of 8 seconds, and a willingness to read only up to about a 6th grade level (if they are willing to read at all)...and if you expect them to engage in 3 minutes of critical thought? Fuggetaboutit.
So my feeling wrt the "general public" is - - - - - F them.

Now, is "not giving a rats ass what the left-of-the-bell-curve general public thinks" the right way or the wrong way to view things? Who's to say.....and that's why I contended that I could neither agree or disagree, per se.

While I expect we would agree nearly 100% on the underlying premises, I -personally - just feel that there is no harm in hearing what JZ has to say (since I - personally - couldn't care less what conclusions some lazy, mouth-breathing cretin might reach)....and I do regularly find some value in some of his discussions (granted, sometimes - when he really gets off-track - those discussions can be not worth much.......but, I think, when you actually listen to what he has to say - without predetermining its "worthiness" based on the speaker - there is good stuff in there - if one is willing to THINK and EVALUATE as one listens. Which, back to your point, means that - even if you, personally, might extract something worthwhile from his "discussions" - only a very small minority are going to get anything of value )

Anyway, my guess is that 95% of the folks who get uppity wrt JZ do NOT think it through to the degree that you do......but are just knee-jerk parroting what they are "supposed to" say.

RANDOM trivial tidbit (somewhat related): Folks on Social Media (Twitter, FaceBook etc) are much more likely to "LIKE" a post....than they are to actually READ it.(even if reading it would take no more than 12 seconds.....even more so if reading time reaches the agonizingly laborious 24 seconds )
Think about what THAT says about the "general public".....frightening

I'm too damn old to waste above-ground time worrying about those dumb-f&cks.

 

[coveydidnt]

I will add that Adam has been one of the few "voices" to publicly defend Joe Paterno, and say he got the shaft from the university and the media.

That's not true at all. He often compares Joe & Cosby. He never says it was unfair.

 

[simons96]

Barry: I'll bite on answering this one. I fully agree that JZ has the right to express his opinion. JZ clearly believes that Jerry is innocent, and that a finding of innocence on Jerry's part has the additional benefit of lifting the cloud over Paterno, et al.

But given how strongly I believe that Sandusky is NOT innocent, and how strongly the notion of Sandusky as monster is ingrained in collective mind of the general public, I fear that giving people like JZ a platform to expound on Sandusky's innocence will inevitably lead the general public to conclude that "those Penn State nuts" are deluded, and trying to defend the indefensible.

All along, I have believed it is critical to distinguish between Sandusky's conduct and Joe's, Curley's, Schultz's, and Spanier's conduct. The arguments coming from people like JZ make it more difficult to convince the general public that such a distinction should be made, to the detriment on the entire Penn State community.

I understand if others feel differently. This is how I feel.

just one clarification to your criticism about JZ . . . he clearly states he interviewed Sandusky the first 2 times assuming he was guilty. He also states that the second interview was conducted with some insight by Clemente that would have exposed Sandusky's guilt. JZ changed his view over the course of investigating.

BUT, JZ also states that his initial view was that there was no way Paterno knowingly covered up for a serial pedophile for decades. The media's tear down of Joe prompted him to start digging.

Whether you agree with JZ or not (and quite frankly, I find it amusing when people propose these "either/or" binary scenarios when it comes to JZ. I absorb his work with the same critical thinking I absorb most information. I am not and never been a "Jerry is 100% innocent" person, despite efforts to pigeonhole me as such), it is hard to ignore the implications of some of the information he has unearthed.

 

[psuro]

I appreciate the information Ziegler has uncovered. But I believe his main focus is to attack MSM and whatever information he uncovers feeds his desire to blast them. If and when something happens and Joe is "exonerated" in public eye-does Ziegler then disappear?

 

[simons96]

I appreciate the information Ziegler has uncovered. But I believe his main focus is to attack MSM and whatever information he uncovers feeds his desire to blast them. If and when something happens and Joe is "exonerated" in public eye-does Ziegler then disappear?

that has never been a hidden agenda for a guy who specializes in "media malpractice" LOL

I think if Joe is publicly exonerated, regardless of what happens with Sandusky, Ziegler will likely move on to other things. He has a radio show. He has a column on mediate (he does some great work dissecting this year's election).

 

[BUFFALO LION]

Very interesting podcast.

Adam and Mark and open the show with John Ziegler in studio. They open the show talking about how their perceived political affiliations may have possibly hurt them in their professional circles. This leads to a discussion how media narrative can shape the public’s perception of a story, and how this pertains to the Sandusky case. Next John informs Adam and Mark about some of the odd circumstances surrounding the Sandusky case, and expresses his belief in the innocence of both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. He explains how he believes Matt Sandusky is the biggest bad actor involved in the case.

http://reasonabledoubtpodcast.com/2016/08/john-ziegler/

I've listened over and over again to the minute 32 cut of the show where Zig says why he hasn't released the Shubin bombshell. Unfortunately, he was being talked over and I couldn't understand what he said. It sounds like he's saying "the tape's not flat" or something like that, but that can't be right. Was anyone else able to separate out his reason among three competing voices?

Plus, a short 5 or 10 second clip was cut out right before the 32 minute mark (like around 31.50 or something). Wonder if that was intentional to protect someone, or just a defect in the recording.

Overall, this just proves how hard it is to explain this case to the uninformed. Even if someone is willing to listen to your info, just one question or point of clarification can throw the discussion into a million different tangents. Every time Zig tried to get back to the main material aspects of the case, another question would take things in a different direction.

I would love for him to release that Shubin info though. If he actually has tape of Allan Myers's and Matt Sandusky's attorney trying to manipulate a false claim from a fake victim, that would be huge.

 

[simons96]

I've listened over and over again to the minute 32 cut of the show where Zig says why he hasn't released the Shubin bombshell. Unfortunately, he was being talked over and I couldn't understand what he said. It sounds like he's saying "the tape's not flat" or something like that, but that can't be right. Was anyone else able to separate out his reason among three competing voices?

Plus, a short 5 or 10 second clip was cut out right before the 32 minute mark (like around 31.50 or something). Wonder if that was intentional to protect someone, or just a defect in the recording.

Overall, this just proves how hard it is to explain this case to the uninformed. Even if someone is willing to listen to your info, just one question or point of clarification can throw the discussion into a million different tangents. Every time Zig tried to get back to the main material aspects of the case, another question would take things in a different direction.

I would love for him to release that Shubin info though. If he actually has tape of Allan Myers's and Matt Sandusky's attorney trying to manipulate a false claim from a fake victim, that would be huge.

I don't think the tape was cut, Ziegler just paused mid sentence for some reason (could have been something happening in studio)

I listened to the clip (around 32:48) a few times and did not hear exactly what Ziegler said. Pretty sure he has talked about these tapes on other podcasts.

I agree with you, though. it is hard to explain this to people who have not been following CLOSELY. 99% of the "haters" I have talked to cannot even name Raykovitz or Baldwin, or understand their significant roles in this scandal.