With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
I would be willing to speculate that there is almost as much possibility that JS is asexual ....perhaps more.... than he anally raped a claimant.
I don’t believe I am. I’ve been told on here that Sandusky could not have sexually abused boys because of his hypogonadism. Now you are suggesting that even with that condition, he could still perform oral sex on his wife which was my contention a while back but relating to boys instead of his wife.
It’s probably a little off topic though. The point is that Jerry and Dottie know what “making love” is and they claimed they were engaging in it 2-4 times a week.
Right. And I’d that’s the case, how were he and Dottie having sex 2-4 times a week, up until his incarceration? There is clearly a lie in there somewhere.
Remember Lubert
Lubert singled out Spanier for not being proactive in his discussions with other administrators about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys, as evidenced by two separate incidents in 1998 and 2001. According to Lubert, Spanier supposedly decided, "I'm not gonna call human services or research any further whether something happened or didn't happen" when it came to Sandusky and the boys in the shower.
"And then it cost us $200 million to settle this. And he stays on as president," Lubert huffed about Spanier. "That can't happen."
Lubert turned his attention to the question of whether Penn State's top officials committed any crimes.
"I was surprised when they pled guilty," Lubert said, presumably about Schultz and Curley. "I don't think they broke the law. I think they used very poor judgment. And, as I said to you, very poor leadership . . . That doesn't make them bad people. It just means you can't work at Penn State or any other university or any company when you demonstrate that failure in leadership."
"I fired him for that reason," Lubert said, presumably talking about Spanier. "Not because he broke the law but because he used bad judgment."
Lubert talked about "all these theories" and various "snippet
"But at the end of the day, we have five people," Lubert said, presumably throwing Sandusky into the mix, along with Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno.
"Two were convicted, two pled guilty and one said in hindsight, I wished I'd done more," Lubert said. He was talking in private to a would-be author who was a former Second Mile kid himself, somebody who believed that Sandusky was innocent, and that the young men who accused him of sex abuse were lying.
But Lubert wasn't buying it.
"To say you think nothing happened and that Jerry was totally innocent, I just have trouble with all of the other facts surrounding why all that happened to all those five guys," Lubert said, returning to the top Penn State officials caught up in the scandal.
Lubert repeated his mantra: Sandusky and Spanier got convicted, Curley and Schultz pled guilty, and Paterno "said when he was alive, in hindsight I'd wish I'd done more."
About the claimants, Lubert stated categorically, "They're not all victims. There's some that were on the gravy train. There's some [claims] that we settled for $100,000 that would have cost us more to litigate. But there were some real victims. . . [some who] tried to commit suicide. I was in a position to see it."
“There’s some very bad situations,” Lubert concluded. “Did some people exaggerate their situations? Yes, they did. Did some lawyers step in front and say this is far worse than it was and I want more money? Absolutely, that happened. And wherever I could, I settled it. But believe me when I tell you, there was some bad stuff going on."
The Master of Disasters
To initiate their claims of abuse, lawyers for the alleged victims typically filed a "confidential intake questionnaire" that marked the official start of the "Feinberg & Rozen Claims Resolution Process." In a couple of cases, the victims also filed civil lawsuits where university officials and trustees were deposed.
To get paid, an alleged victim had to be a verified member of the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for at-risk kids. It also helped to have testified against Sandusky at his criminal trial in 2012, as did eight of the 36 alleged victims, a trial where Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of abuse.
For an alleged victim to get paid, it also helped to have reports from licensed psychologists, and medical records submitted for review. To get paid, a claimant had to have his paperwork reviewed by Dr. Ziv, and receive a favorable recommendation to settle the case from the law firm of Feinberg Rozen LLP of Washington D.C.
Kenneth Feinberg, dubbed "The Master of Disasters," is the lawyer they called in to approve mass billion-dollar payouts to the victims of 9/11, the BP oil spill, the Virginia Tech shootings, and the Boston Marathon bombing. Besides presiding over terrorist attacks and natural disasters, Feinberg has overseen large billon dollar settlements in class action suits for pain and suffering caused by Agent Orange and the Dalkon Shield. In big disaster cases, Feinberg takes a global approach to settlements, rather than duking it out on one claim after another in the civil courts.
"In certain very limited types of mass disasters, there's gotta be a better way than one-by-one courts," Feinberg told The Observer in 2016. "These programs . . . do that. And they're very successful."
It was also successful for Feinberg Rozen, which, as of January 2017, had been paid $1,484,094 by Penn State, after the law firm approved the first 28 settlements in the Sandusky case.
Feinberg, responding to an email requesting comment, said there wasn't much light he could shed on the process of vetting claims at Penn State.
"The mediation process was highly confidential and I am not at liberty to answer any questions you may pose concerning the value of the claims or other related details," Feinberg wrote in an email. He referred questions to Joseph O'Dea, the lawyer who represented Penn State in the claim mediation process. O'Dea declined comment, referring questions to Lawrence Lokman, a university spokesperson.
"We have no comment for you," Lokman wrote in an email. "The university's perspective on the settlements, and Ken Feinberg's Op-ed describing the process are a matter of public record."
In that 2016 Op-ed piece, Feinberg wrote, "The [claim mediation] process was thorough, fair, respectful and characterized by full arms-length debate in each case." He described the resulting settlements as "a remarkable achievement given the high-profile nature of the cases."
"Preventing years of expensive, protracted, and uncertain litigation will save Penn State millions of dollars, while sparing the victims who brought their cases forward the agony of an extended legal battle," Feinberg wrote. "I believe the Penn State mediation is a model of how such a dispute resolution process should work."
An "Absence of Documentation"
Not everyone agreed with Feinberg's rosy assessment of the claim mediation process. In 2013, the payouts prompted the university’s insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company (PMA), to sue Penn State and the various “John Doe” claimants. The lawsuit ended three years later in a confidential settlement that lawyers in the case say they are prohibited from discussing.
One of those lawyers is Eric Anderson of Pittsburgh, an expert witness who testified on behalf of the insurance carrier. Although he declined to talk about the case, Anderson wrote a report that was disclosed in court records, a report that ripped the university.
“It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals,” Anderson wrote on October 5, 2015. In his report, Anderson decried “the absence of documentation” in the claims, saying in many cases there was “no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which I reviewed."
“I do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money,” Anderson wrote.
I never understood why people get so hung up on this, like they've never heard anyone exaggerate about their romantic lives before.
It would if you were trying to emphasize how 'normal' you are, how much you love your wife and you are not interested in underaged males.
It's like asking someone if they cheat on their income tax. Of course no one has ever done that.
Nah, inappropriate time to be bragging and exaggerating about your sexual exploits in any shape or form. If you weren’t interested in underaged males you could just be honest and say so.
Actually it was an inappropriate question and should not have elicited a response. I fail to see how it determines anything. So if you only have sex 3 times a year with your wife of 30 years you are a pedophile?
Being dishonest was certainly not a great idea as a backup. Or being completely honest, thus showing that he was certainly capable of sexually abusing boys.
Whether he (they) were being honest or dishonest about it, it doesn’t help his cause.
Last edited:
In any case, it's not a good word picture. That, I think is something on which we can all agree.
So let me get this straight:
If you have sex with your wife 4 times a week you are capable of abusing young boys.
Also, if you don't have sex with your wife 4 times a week you are also capable of abusing young boys.
Yep...logic checks out....
Yeah, I don’t see that as so complicated. Is that too much to grasp?
If he has sex with his wife 4 times a week, he is obviously capable of performing sexually. Whether it be with his wife, boys, both, whatever he chooses I suppose. If he does not have sex with his wife 4 times a week it may be because he is having sexual with boys instead, or because he is not attracted to his wife. Not having sex with his does not mean he absolutely can’t have sex with anybody.
Anyway, if he is as religious as you suggested earlier (that he would hang up on somebody for using profanity) do you really think he would lie about his rate of sexual activity? It doesn’t make sense.
The point is that his accusers and MM have turned out to be untruthful.
And that discussion isn't relevant to the subject of Jerry's guilt or innocence unless your objective is to sentence a man to life in prison because he didn't want to admit publicly that he couldn't perform in the bedroom.
Sure it’s relevant if your reason he isn’t guilty is that he couldn’t perform sexually due to his condition. And if you believe the rate of sexual activity claimed by him and Dottie isn’t true then it brings into question his honesty and reliability.
That’s not really an outlandish take is it? I think you can believe him to be innocent and still acknowledge those things at the same time, right?
First, it was Dottie who would hang up at the use of profanity (shows you haven't been listening to the podcast).
Second, then what you are saying is that this question is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
I will finish by saying this (and this is how it is relevant): if he was having sex with his wife four times a week, there is no way, at his age, he would have the energy to also engage in the alleged sex acts with underage boys. Not without pills (and there is no evidence of, or allegation of, recreational ED drug usage).
LOL at doubting Sandusky's "honesty and reliability" in this case. Other than Spanier, Curley and Schultz, Sandusky is one of the few people in this case that have (generally at least) been honest.
BS, on the last point. UNC, I honestly hold you in a higher regard on some of this stuff. I feel like you’re looking at this point with blinders though.
On your first point, you are correct that I haven’t listened to it. I have read the recaps in here though. I just haven’t been able to get myself to the point of enduring Ziegler long enough to listen.
Overall, I just wish people would be open enough to acknowledge the stuff in both sides of the equation.
I just think this line of discussion is way off topic. However, it does speak to what has been wrong with this from the beginning. That being that the onus has always been on Jerry to prove his innocence, rather than on the state to prove his guilt.
Jerry’s legal team put up very little resistant to the prosecution’s case against him.
Though keep in mind, I’m just one guy with a keyboard asking questions like you. I’m not on a jury.
How do you defend against a one time incident that happened between '98 and '02? It was either in old Lasch or new Lasch. V then testifies in GJ, trial and Spanier's trial to THREE different dates. Good luck formulating a defense to that.
I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea. The best way to defend it is probably not to be caught twice alone in a shower having physical contact with a boy in that time period allowing other accusations to appear plausible. Beyond that, I don’t know.
Episode 12: Part 1, The Settlements has dropped
Zig is leaked documents that outline the victim' complaints against Penn State and the financial settlements they receive.
He and Liz introduce us to the "Lock Haven five", and you won't believe their stories.
The diabolical pedophile mastermind, Jerry Sandusky decided to satisfy his deviant sexual appetite on a group of young men from a town nearly 50 miles outside State College.
The settlement documents confirm all of Zigs worst suspicions and provide us with some heavy entertainment value.
Zig is leaked documents that outline the victim' complaints against Penn State and the financial settlements they receive.
He and Liz introduce us to the "Lock Haven five", and you won't believe their stories.
The diabolical pedophile mastermind, Jerry Sandusky decided to satisfy his deviant sexual appetite on a group of young men from a town nearly 50 miles outside State College.
The settlement documents confirm all of Zigs worst suspicions and provide us with some heavy entertainment value.
Why did Jerry spend so much time then, in Lock Haven? Did they have a good pizza shop worth driving 50 miles?
Vaguely.
As former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden has said, McQueary is not a credible witness. As a special agent for the Federal Investigative Service, Snedden investigated former Penn State President Graham Spanier in 2012, to determine whether his top secret security clearance should be renewed by the federal government. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no sex crime at Penn State and no coverup.
Snedden didn't believe McQueary was credible because he told five different versions of what he saw and heard in the Penn State showers, featuring slapping sounds and fleeting glimpses of naked people in the shower. The day he witnessed the shower event, McQueary was repeatedly questioned by his father, a doctor, and a friend of his father's, another doctor, about what happened. McQueary could not definitely say whether he had witnessed a sexual attack or horseplay. And that's why neither of the two doctors, both mandated reporters, ever told the police.
McQueary was also questioned by two Penn State administrators, who came to the same conclusion as the two doctors, that McQueary wasn't sure what he saw or heard in the showers. So they didn't report it to the police either.
"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said in a previous interview with Big Trial, to describe why McQueary wasn't a credible witness. "If it's real it's always been the same thing," Snedden said.
"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.
"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has never responded to multiple requests for comment.
A tainted investigation and grand jury report
That didn't stop the attorney general's office from running with their exaggerated version of McQueary's story.
The 2011 grand jury report was built around a lie. It claimed that McQueary witnessed a 10-yar-old boy in the showers being subjected to “anal intercourse” by a “naked Jerry Sandusky.” McQueary supposedly told Joe Paterno about it, and two other university officials, but Penn State covered it up, the grand jury report says.
But McQueary himself was shocked when he read the grand jury report. He emailed the prosecutors, saying they had “twisted” his words. ”I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy,” McQueary wrote. “I did not see insertion.”
The investigation conducted by the state police in the Sandusky case also included stone-cold proof of police misconduct on tape. On April 21, 2011, the state police made the mistake of leaving a tape recorder on, and the machine caught the police deliberately lying to one alleged victim to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell.
State Troopers Joseph Leiter and Scott Rossman were interviewing alleged victim Brett Houtz at the police barracks, with Houtz’s attorney Benjamin Andreozzi present. While Houtz took a cigarette break the two troopers continued talking with Houtz’s lawyer. They assumed the tape-recorder was turned off but it wasn't.
In their conversation captured for eternity, the troopers talked about how it took them months to get details of sex attacks out of Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Penn State case, and how they’re sure that Houtz was a rape victim too. The troopers then discussed how to get more details of sex abuse out of Houtz.
Attorney Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us.’ ”
“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Trooper Leiter said. Sure enough, when Houtz returned, Trooper Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.”
The trooper told Houtz about nine adults that they had already talked to and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating word for word pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”
The troopers, however, had only interviewed three alleged victims at that point, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse. But Houtz didn't know that.
“I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing,” Trooper Leiter told Houtz. “He [Sandusky] took advantage of you . . . [but] We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place as we get through this procedure. I just want you to understand that you are not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this.”
That's what you call coaching a witness, to manufacture testimony.
Reaction to Ganim's latest story
The condemnation of Ganim's most recent story came from many quarters.
"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."
"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."
"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry. The incident in question is the 1998 episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded. I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."
"On the brighter side, I'm glad to see that Sara and the rest of the news media has seemingly dropped the absurd notion that Joe Paterno was told in the 1970s about abuse that never happened by accusers who made up stories for Penn State money," Dottie Sandusky wrote.
Former Special Agent Snedden called Ganim's scoop "revisionist history."
"The whole thing is absurd," Snedden said about the supposedly new police report from 2011. "It was written ten years after the fact," Snedden said about the 2001 shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary, and described to the state police in 2011.
"Police reports are supposed to be contemporaneous," Snedden said. About the 2011 police report concerning the 2001 shower incident, Snedden asked, "How is that contemporaneous?"
The CNN story, Snedden said, is the product of either "trying to either cover your ass or bolster your position. It appears to me that she [Ganim] doesn't even go through the motions of asking if it's accurate."
John Ziegler, a reporter who has covered the Penn State story for years, was even harsher in his assessment of Ganim's work.
"This one [Ganim's new story] is the biggest piece of crap yet," Ziegler said. "Ganim is pretending that we don't know" about the 1998 shower incident, Ziegler said. "If she was at the [Sandusky] trial she would know that what she's reporting is ancient news. It's got cobwebs on it."
Ziegler went at Ganim's work from another angle -- logic.
"This is actually exculpatory," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest scoop.
When McQueary is telling Joe about the 1998 shower incident, which is almost identical to the 2001 shower incident, Ziegler said, "Joe is immediately flashing back to 1998."
"That tells us that McQueary never said anything [to Paterno] about a sexual assault because Joe already knows that 1998 [the first alleged shower incident] is a nothing burger," Ziegler said. "Had McQueary actually said something about a sexual assault Joe would have never connected it to 1998, because the [Centre County] D.A. had already cleared Sandusky."
Ziegler said he has come to the conclusion that Ganim "was a very ambitious and also very naive or stupid person who got used" by the prosecutors in the Sandusky case to basically "put out a Craig's list ad" for more victims of sexual abuse.
Ziegler said that Ganim's story goes beyond any claims of the prosecutors. Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, went on 60 Minutes Sports in 2013 and declared that there was no evidence that Joe Paterno had ever participated in a cover up.
"I did not find that evidence," Fina said on 60 Minutes Sports.
"It does reek of deception," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest effort to prop up the official Penn State story line. "They have to be worried about something," Ziegler said, who devoted a podcast to it. "This story makes me think that even she doubts it."
Mark Pendergrast, an author who has written a book about Jerry Sandusky, The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, said that McQueary "revised his memory a decade after the Feb. 2001 shower incident, in which he heard slapping sounds but did not see Sandusky and a boy in the shower -- he only fleetingly saw a boy, in the mirror."
Ever hear of Bill Clinton? More than one way to skin a cat boys and girls…
But the point remains that if Sandusky had enough of a sex drive to engage in some sort of sexual activity with his wife 2-4 times a week, he had enough of a sex drive to sexually abuse boys as well. So either he and his wife are lying about their rate of sexual activity or the effects of his hypogonadism on his sex drive made by some on here is grossly overstated.
So if Sandusky was having sex with his wife 2-4 times per week are you saying he's innocent? If Sandusky was not having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant.
Sandusky did not get a fair trial.
Many if not most of his accusers either embellished their stories or just completely lied.
The only hope of ever finding out if Sandusky is guilty and if so, the degree of guilt is to have a new trial. Short of this....everyone is just jerking off about....oh he showered....oh he did or didn't have sex with his wife....LOL
If Sandusky was the worst pedophile ever encountered by the crack PSP investigators....why did so many bullshit irregularities occur in the trial. Should have been simple to put him away without the myth of the crying janitor, only God knows, MM keep quiet and don't correct the GJR.....PSP perjuring themselves on tape.....indicting Gary and Tim so they could not contradict MM....
Last edited:
Nope, what I am saying is that either Jerry and Dottie lied about how often they have sex, for some reason, which really doesn’t help his cause on trying to prove his innocence. Or his condition that has been mentioned in here (I don’t recall it ever being mentioned in the media) of hypogonadism is not at the sexually debilitating level that has has been stated in here. Either way, it’s not helpful in proving Jerry’s innocence.
Give him a new trial if he deserves it, I’ve never said differently. But even if you think Jerry is innocent, surely you can admit that the stated rate of sexual activity doesn’t help his cause, right? Again, I’m not saying it proves him guilty or innocent as far as being a pedophile. I am saying that it does prove him as either being capable of performing sexually or lying about his sex life. I don’t think that’s even debatable.
Again, it is irrelevant. What I will admit and suggest is that neither Dottie nor Jerry should have engaged in any characterization of their intimate relationship. Because the fact is that NOONE can prove them right or wrong.
Saying they had sex 2-4 times a week didn't prevent Jerry from being convicted did it?
Irrelevant.
Not at all irrelevant to the idea that has been stated on here that Jerry has no sex drive because of his condition.
