With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

[francofan]

Ralph Cipriano reports on the latest Sandusky appeal in his bigtrial blog today entitled "One More Time: Sandusky's lawyers again target Frank Fina."

They are seeking evidentiary hearings with Freeh, McChesney, Paw, Fina, McGettigan, Sassano, Feathers, Amendola, Rominger, Cleland and A.J. Dillen.

The filing questions v5 (MK) attorney Tom Klein's propriety of making public statements on Sandusky's preliminary hearing and trial. The filing also includes new discovered material from the With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast, in particular the tape recordings of purposely false accuser A. J. Dillen talking to attorney Andrew Shubin and Shubin telling him to change the location of his alleged assault to the Penn State campus and over 100 psychological sessions with therapist Cynthia Macnab who was Shubin's goto therapist and a proponent of repressed memory therapy.

Here is the snippet of Cipriano's story on the A.J. Dillen story:

An alleged victim peddles a fictitious story of abuse to attorney Andrew Shubin

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers extensively quote A.J. Dillen, a witness who appeared on reporter John Ziegler's April 21st podcast, "With the Benefit of Hindsight."

Dillen was a former Second Mile participant who met with Andrew Shubin, a State College lawyer who represented nine alleged victims of Sandusky, and did not respond to a request for comment.

On the podcast, Dillen said he went to see Shubin "pretending to be a victim of Sandusky." According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen told Shubin "a fictitious story about being raped by Sandusky in the park area immediately behind Coach Joe Paterno’s house."

According to Dillen, over a three-year period, as he repeatedly met with attorney Shubin and a therapist, they refined Dillen's story of abuse so that Dillen would have a better shot at getting paid.

"Dillen met with this attorney multiple times over a period of three years regarding his purported claim," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "During a number of these meetings, Dillen recorded what was being said with the consent of the attorney."

"In his second meeting with this 'victim,' while being recorded, the attorney read back a different story, changing the number of attacks, and the location of the attacks to the Penn State showers," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"He [Shubin] also stated that Dillen had reported the abuse to Penn State officials, who didn’t believe him," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "None of those new facts were stated by Dillen in the initial interview, and none were true, but all of them would increase the value of any civil proceeding on his behalf."

"Thereafter, the attorney referred him to a mental health counselor, who, according to Dillen, met with him approximately 100 times," Sandusky's lawyers wrote. "Dillen also recorded certain of the interactions with that counselor as well."

"During his sessions with the counselor, a number of which were recorded, Dillen indicates that he was subjected repeatedly to repressed memory therapy, a process that the prosecution in this case denied using on alleged victims," Sandusky's lawyers write.

In an evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers say they would like to question Shubin about "the nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by Dillen, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

Sandusky's lawyers also want to know: "The nature and extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen made changes to the information provided by other accusers who had consulted with him, including changes to the location and nature of the abuse he claimed, and the nature and number of the occurrences of abuse."

And: "The extent to which counsel for A.J. Dillen shared the existence of any changes in any accuser’s reporting of alleged abuse" by Sandusky, his lawyers wrote.

Recovered memory issues resurface

Sandusky's lawyers noted that in previous appeals, the courts have accepted the testimony of therapists in the Sandusky case who denied using repressed memory therapy, which is banned in some states, and not accepted by other courts as evidence.

But "in treating A.J. Dillen.," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, "the therapist at one point states:

“We are talking about why you repressed or hid these memories. I think that people do repress memories and that people don’t really think there is a whole continuum of what that means. Sometimes it means they totally forget and it is not in their consciousness at all until something happens sometime in their life… "

"At this end of the continuum, the other side is knowing but not willing to think of it so putting it out of your mind, like what you do with anything unpleasant. But knowing it is there, just not focusing and then there are things in between. This over here on the end is repressed memory. I prefer to use the word disassociation - just means disconnect . . . There are all different ways we disconnect.”

According to Sandusky's lawyers, Dillen asked, “can people disconnect for years?”

“Yes, people can disconnect for years," the therapist replies, according to Sandusky's lawyers.

"They can disconnect from the knowledge, from what happened, they can disconnect from the feelings, from body sensations. Disassociation happens when you are in a situation that is beyond what is normal… A person can forget about it, and then something happens. A little like a light coming through a window can trigger the memory after years and years. And suddenly they are 'what the hell is happening…' ”.

According to the podcast, Dillen told the therapist that he blamed himself for not remembering the abuse.

“You’re not crazy because you didn’t remember it," the therapist replied. "It’s the way we deal with overwhelming trauma… Psychological defenses… Kick in automatically. It’s part of your brain that deals with that (compartmentalization). When you’re young you tend to forget. I have talked to quite a few guys that were abused by Sandusky, and this is the case with most of them.”

"This therapist met with Dillen weekly for three years, and had him attending multiple group meetings, despite well-accepted principles, which will be articulated by Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. [Elizabeth] Loftus, to the effect that the combination of the suggestive questioning, the use of repressed memory methodology, and the presence of regular group meetings with others making similar claims," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

"As a result of the foregoing, the trial court should be given the opportunity to hear testimony and evidence on the allegations set forth herein, listen to the podcast referenced herein, and determine whether PCRA relief was improperly denied and should now be granted, whether any of the accusers subjected to repressed memory should be deemed incompetent to testify . . . and whether a new trial should be granted based on this after discovered evidence," Sandusky's lawyers wrote.

One More Time: Sandusky's Lawyers Again Target Frank Fina

By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net Jerry Sandusky's lawyers are back in court again seeking an evidentiary hearing so they can question for...

www.bigtrial.net

 

[PSU2UNC]

Well, there you go then. You also agree with me. It was not really a ridiculous premise, was it?
And I also agree with you that anything is possible. It is possible that he could have been innocently showering alone with these boys. It’s illogical, but possible.
And for the record, I never said it was important. Just that it was common sense but some people just can’t seem to allow themselves to acknowledge it for some reason.

I'm not really agreeing with you. The line of reasoning is sound but it cannot be used to confirm anything nor disprove anything. So it isn't terribly helpful to the argument.

I would argue that it is far more plausible that he innocently showered with kids than it is plausible that he was having multiple and concurrent illegal relationships with multiple boys at a time during football season (when he was likely working 50+ hours a week, plus running a charity, plus being active with church, plus having a family life).

 

[AvgUser]

Ralph Cipriano reports on the latest Sandusky appeal in his bigtrial blog today entitled "One More Time: Sandusky's lawyers again target Frank Fina."

This nugget from Cipriano is better.
But alas, since Jerry's an old Protestant white guy who might have been completely railroaded by overzealous prosecutors, amateur detectives, quack therapists, clueless judges, lobotomized university trustees, brain-dead reporters, opportunistic "victims" and their greedy lawyers lining up for a big pay day, nobody gives a rip.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'm not really agreeing with you. The line of reasoning is sound but it cannot be used to confirm anything nor disprove anything. So it isn't terribly helpful to the argument.

I would argue that it is far more plausible that he innocently showered with kids than it is plausible that he was having multiple and concurrent illegal relationships with multiple boys at a time during football season (when he was likely working 50+ hours a week, plus running a charity, plus being active with church, plus having a family life).

You are agreeing with me because I never said it confirms or disproves anything. I said it allows for the possibility. That is all. I don’t know what else to tell you. It was not said with any expectation of people disagreeing with it, but here we are. Even though you are not really disagreeing with it, you won’t admit you agree with the statement.
If we’re going to get into “much more likely”, I would say it much more likely that a grown man showering and having physical contact with a boy to the point that he is investigated for it, agrees to never do it again, then does the exact same thing within a couple years of the first investigation is a pedophile than not.

 

[marshall23]

none of the accusers are credible. this is a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Please, if you haven't already, contribute whatever you can to Mr. Sandusky's defense fund.

I beg to differ. One accuser is credible. AJ Dillon. From all appearances Dillion is accusing Andrew Shubin of being a complete fraud, a charlatan and for all intense and purposes a criminal. Are you Shubin? A close friend, associate or perhaps a relative?
I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding, correct? Surely, honest Andrew would never encourage any of the many claimants he represented to LIE....you know, change dates, frequency of abuse and the very nature of the abuse......would he? Because that is what Dillion is accusing him of and I have yet to run across any information that Honest Andrew is suing Dillon. Perhaps Honest Andrew is vacationing in the remote cabin he procured for AM to assure he would not be available for testimony and is unaware of how his GOOD name is being pissed on?

 

[jerot]

Couple of things here:

1) Being consistent does not necessarily mean he is credible.

2) His own words describe the shower incident as "awkward" and "inappropriate" not as sexual assault.

Victim 6's Mother Reported Sandusky to Police in 1998: Court Documents

This is the verbatim account of Victim 6 from the Grand Jury presentment used to bring charges against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

Do I think he probably worked out with Sandusky and horsed around in the shower afterwards? Yes, probably. Does that mean a crime was committed? Perhaps not.

Accusers are apt.
Jerry Sandusky, still protesting his innocence, was back in court to be re-sentenced after the latest official screwup in this ongoing travesty of a case. An appeals court had ruled that the trial judge hadn't properly applied mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines when he put Sandusky away the first time back in 2012 for 30 to 60 years.

But in the grand tradition of the Pennsylvania judiciary, circling the wagons, a new judge, the Honorable Maureen Skerda, gave Sandusky the exact same sentence that he got the first time around -- 30 to 60 years in jail. The message from the Pennsylvania judiciary was unmistakable -- we may have screwed up the details, but when it comes to Jerry Sandusky and the rest of the defendants in the so-called Penn State sex scandal, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply, and neither does the Bill of Rights. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

The most nauseating moments of the criminal proceeding at the Centre County Courthouse came when Senior Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Buck, representing a corrupt office that has a shameful track record in this case, charged Sandusky with several new crimes allegedly committed in jail.

Buck the crusader told the judge about Sandusky's shocking prison transgressions -- not returning his meal tray, objecting to being moved out of his cell, and complaining about phone calls that he wanted to make.

"It's failure to take responsibility, claiming that he is the victim, which is a theme throughout this case, and it's his rights that are being violated," the sanctimonious prosecutor told the judge.

Sorry Ms. Buck, but Sandusky and his lawyers have a point; his constitutional rights have been shamefully violated, as have the constitutional rights of all the other defendants in this case.

Let's briefly review the shocking behavior of the authorities who are responsible for putting Sandusky away for life, and crucifying three former Penn State administrators for an alleged crime that turned out to be unconstitutional.

One of Buck's glorious predecessors is former deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case. Fina is presently before the state Supreme Court, and it's not because he's representing a client. Fina's in danger of losing his law license because of his overzealous misconduct during the Penn State investigation.

What did prosecutor Fina do? In the secrecy of the grand jury, by bullying a defense lawyer and hoodwinking a judge, Fina cynically worked to deprive the three other Penn State defendants of their constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer.

Cynthia Baldwin, former counsel for those same defendants, is also presently before the state Supreme Court. She's facing public censure for her misconduct in betraying her own clients at Fina's command, by testifying in secret before the grand jury against those clients.

Why did Baldwin violate the most sacred duty of any lawyer? Because Fina the overzealous and unprincipled bully had threatened her with indictment.


And what about Judge Skerda's predecessor, the original trial judge in this case, the Hon. John Cleland? He wasn't around because he had to recuse himself from the case.

Now here's a jurist Pennsylvania can be proud of. Cleland's the judge who oversaw the mad rush to convict Sandusky in just seven months after his arrest. How did the judge pull that off? By trampling on Sandusky's constitutional rights.

Before the trial started, Sandusky's defense lawyer tried to get the trial postponed so he could wade through 12,000 pages of grand jury transcripts he had just received only 10 days before the start of trial.

The defense lawyer begged for a continuance, telling the judge that he needed time to read the files and find out what Sandusky's accusers were saying about him; he also needed time to subpoena witnesses.

But the judge said sorry, we've got a schedule to stick to, so no delays.

"We can't prepare . . . I felt like Custer at Little Bighorn for God's sake," Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's original defense lawyer, testified during an appeals hearing.

Jerry Sandusky had a constitutional right to a fair trial, but in order to save Penn State football, which was being threatened with the death penalty by the NCAA, Sandusky had to be convicted and sitting in jail before the start of the 2012 college football season. To top off a deal that PSU had struck with the NCAA to voluntarily take their lumps, but save the Nittany Lions from extinction.

Jerry Sandusky also had a constitutional right to confront his accusers, but Judge Cleland took care of that too.

The night before the preliminary hearing in the case, the only opportunity where Sandusky's lawyers would have had the right to confront his accusers, the eight young men who claimed that Sandusky had abused them, Judge Cleland convened an unusual meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn. At the meeting, with the prosecutors nodding in agreement, the judge talked Amendola into waiving the preliminary hearing.


So the Pennsylvania railroad that Sandusky was riding on could stay on schedule.

After he recused himself, the Hon. Judge Cleland was replaced by the Hon. Judge John Foradora, who presided over the appeal hearings where Sandusky was denied a new trial. To pull that off, Judge Foradora had to turn a blind eye to all of the shocking unconstitutional transgressions of the judges, prosecutors and other authorities in the case.

And why did Judge Foradora have to step down? Because an associate was being investigated by the state attorney general's office.

Let's not forget the other rampant misconduct and malfeasance in this case.

The cops were caught on tape conspiring with a defense lawyer to lie to one of the alleged victims, to extract the testimony they needed to convict Sandusky.

The therapists in the case relied on recovered memory therapy, such as hypnosis and guided imagery, that is completely unscientific and banned as testimony in other jurisdictions.

The victims in the case, civil and criminal, made no contemporaneous reports of abuse. Most came forward after PSU waved the white flag of surrender to the NCAA. And every plaintiff's lawyer in Pennsylvania was trying to get in on the gold rush at Penn State.

All of these alleged victims told improbable and constantly changing stories that were never vetted by anyone.

Indeed, the trustees at Penn State, who completely abdicated their responsibilities, wrote out $118 million in checks to 36 alleged victims in the case without doing anything to vet the truthfulness of the claims.


We're talking about lie detector tests, interviews with private detectives, depositions by lawyers, examinations by forensic psychiatrists, background checks, etc. None of this was done by anybody at Penn State. Instead, they just wrote out checks to put the scandal behind them.

By the way, wasn't it interesting that none of the so-called victims in the case showed up at the courthouse to confront their alleged tormenter after they all got paid?

There is such a stench that hangs over this case, a stench that comes from greedy plaintiff's lawyers and clients who didn't even have to give up their real names in order to hit the lottery.

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

I beg to differ. One accuser is credible. AJ Dillon. From all appearances Dillion is accusing Andrew Shubin of being a complete fraud, a charlatan and for all intense and purposes a criminal. Are you Shubin? A close friend, associate or perhaps a relative?
I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding, correct? Surely, honest Andrew would never encourage any of the many claimants he represented to LIE....you know, change dates, frequency of abuse and the very nature of the abuse......would he? Because that is what Dillion is accusing him of and I have yet to run across any information that Honest Andrew is suing Dillon. Perhaps Honest Andrew is vacationing in the remote cabin he procured for AM to assure he would not be available for testimony and is unaware of how his GOOD name is being pissed on?

You are right about Dillon, at least. Anyone who hears his account and especially the recordings would have to conclude Jerry is innocent.

 

[marshall23]

You are right about Dillon, at least. Anyone who hears his account and especially the recordings would have to conclude Jerry is innocent.

Please respond in detail about what is incorrect in my post. Are you not offended by Shubin's tactics? If this is is MO, it certainly cast doubts on every claimant represented by him....don't you agree. If not, please explain why?
Perhaps they don't pay you enough to give thoughtful and detailed answers?

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

Please respond in detail about what is incorrect in my post. Are you not offended by Shubin's tactics? If this is is MO, it certainly cast doubts on every claimant represented by him....don't you agree. If not, please explain why?
Perhaps they don't pay you enough to give thoughtful and detailed answers?

anyone who's followed this story has to question Shubin. The podcasts are compelling and deserve airing on a mainstream platform.

 

[francofan]

anyone who's followed this story has to question Shubin. The podcasts are compelling and deserve airing on a mainstream platform.

After listening to the podcasts, what is your opinion of people like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente and Ray Blehar who believe that Sandusky is a pillar of community child molester?

 

[Pinkhippo PeanutButter]

After listening to the podcasts, what is your opinion of people like Scott Paterno, Jim Clemente and Ray Blehar who believe that Sandusky is a pillar of community child molester?

Obviously they are wrong. Jerry has not shown any signs of being a PoC molester.

 

[scottpsurules]

Reached my limit with oracle couple months ago and should have done it long ago, but time for the other ass hippo to ignore….

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[pandaczar12]

The last thing I want is for Jerry to be guilty. I’ve said all along that the best outcome in this would be if he was innocent and these people just got paid off for false accusations, so to say I want Jerry to be guilty is ridiculous.

It sure doesn't seem that way. You repeatedly view every situation as a way to confirm his guilt. Some of us don't have that bias, and just want to view the evidence with an open mind and consider every possibility.

I’m not really sure what the rest of the response is trying to get at, to be honest.

I don't have time to spoon-feed it to you, just to likely have it be ignored again.

I asked a really simple question: If Jerry and Dottie due in fact have sex 2-4 times a week, is it possible that he is physically capable of sexually abusing boys as well. If I’m reading your post correctly, you saying yes. So after all of that, you agree with me right? That’s all I’m getting at. It is physically possible for Jerry to sexual abuse boys. Either that, or he’s a liar. Honest to god I didn’t think it was that crazy of a position to take.

Like I said, anything is possible. That doesn't mean it's likely. It just takes some mental gymnastics. Like your point:

If 2-4 times a week are doable as an average, isn’t 2 with the wife and another two with boys also possible? That would fall within the 2-4 range.

If he is guilty of abusing 30+ victims, some hundreds of times, that destroys this argument. If those hundreds of incidents of abuse are spread out at 2 times per week... then no 2-4 range is possible, because it would always be just 2 with the wife.

Either that, or he’s a liar.

Exaggerating one's romantic life has no bearing on anything else, especially if he wasn't under oath. This point is moot, because you could never prove he is lying unless you find out he has a medical condition that makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes. I don't know how anyone can use this to confirm his guilt or his innocence.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It sure doesn't seem that way. You repeatedly view every situation as a way to confirm his guilt. Some of us don't have that bias, and just want to view the evidence with an open mind and consider every possibility.

I don't have time to spoon-feed it to you, just to likely have it be ignored again.

Like I said, anything is possible. That doesn't mean it's likely. It just takes some mental gymnastics. Like your point:

If he is guilty of abusing 30+ victims, some hundreds of times, that destroys this argument. If those hundreds of incidents of abuse are spread out at 2 times per week... then no 2-4 range is possible, because it would always be just 2 with the wife.

Exaggerating one's romantic life has no bearing on anything else, especially if he wasn't under oath. This point is moot, because you could never prove he is lying unless you find out he has a medical condition that makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes. I don't know how anyone can use this to confirm his guilt or his innocence.

I will just address your last point. This was not locker room talk so the point is not moot. He wasn’t sitting around with the boys about all the girls he’s nailed over a bucket of beers. He was talking about his sex life in relation to being accused (or was this after he was already convicted? I don’t recall) of being a pedophile mastermind. Overstating his sex life there would be absurd. That said, we know that at the very least, Jerry Sandusky made absolutely horrible decisions so maybe that was just another one to go along with showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them, wrestling with them alone in expectedly empty gyms, not being able to clearly state that you are not attracted to boys, etc….. I think even the most ardent Jerry Sandusky believer would agree that he made several horrible decisions, right? That can’t really be rejected can it?

 

[indynittany]

I will just address your last point. This was not locker room talk so the point is not moot. He wasn’t sitting around with the boys about all the girls he’s nailed over a bucket of beers. He was talking about his sex life in relation to being accused (or was this after he was already convicted? I don’t recall) of being a pedophile mastermind. Overstating his sex life there would be absurd. That said, we know that at the very least, Jerry Sandusky made absolutely horrible decisions so maybe that was just another one to go along with showering alone with boys and having physical contact with them, wrestling with them alone in expectedly empty gyms, not being able to clearly state that you are not attracted to boys, etc….. I think even the most ardent Jerry Sandusky believer would agree that he made several horrible decisions, right? That can’t really be rejected can it?

In this insanely litigious society we're in, your point is probably valid. However, a man is sitting in prison for life here. Shouldn't our focus be on all the irregularities (I'm being polite) surrounding his prosecution, including the role played by our own BOT, the former governor and a judicial system that appears to be broken?

 

[Connorpozlee]

In this insanely litigious society we're in, your point is probably valid. However, a man is sitting in prison for life here. Shouldn't our focus be on all the irregularities (I'm being polite) surrounding his prosecution, including the role played by our own BOT, the former governor and a judicial system that appears to be broken?

Sure, the focus can be on several different things. He make some pretty inexcusably poor choices for a man working in his role. He is largely in jail as a result of his own choices, but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty. He put himself in highly suspicious positions that allowed him to be believably accused. He hired a lawyer who didn’t seem to capable of handling his case. He couldn’t make a simple statement that he isn’t attracted to boys. Those are his choices. Again, it doesn’t make him necessarily guilty but it certainly allows himself to be painted in a guilty light.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Sure, the focus can be on several different things. He make some pretty inexcusably poor choices for a man working in his role. He is largely in jail as a result of his own choices, but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty. He put himself in highly suspicious positions that allowed him to be believably accused. He hired a lawyer who didn’t seem to capable of handling his case. He couldn’t make a simple statement that he isn’t attracted to boys. Those are his choices. Again, it doesn’t make him necessarily guilty but it certainly allows himself to be painted in a guilty light.

Poor choices do not necessarily mean guilt, nor should someone who has only made poor choices be punished the same way someone who is guilty is.

 

[marshall23]

Sure, the focus can be on several different things. He make some pretty inexcusably poor choices for a man working in his role. He is largely in jail as a result of his own choices, but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty. He put himself in highly suspicious positions that allowed him to be believably accused. He hired a lawyer who didn’t seem to capable of handling his case. He couldn’t make a simple statement that he isn’t attracted to boys. Those are his choices. Again, it doesn’t make him necessarily guilty but it certainly allows himself to be painted in a guilty light.

I understand what you are saying. I have to disagree that Sandusky is "largely" in jail due to his choices. I think it might be more accurate to say he seemed to make choices that contributed to suspicion. Largely JS is in jail because former TSM contacts of his changed their stories and claimed he abused them to varying degrees. Pulling the curtains back on Shubin's tactics, the highly unusual denial of any consideration for continuance, the documented perjury of PSP, the crying janitor fable, repressed memory magic, MM's need to comply with OAG and the dirty tactics of the OAG....I would say those considerations are "largely" why JS is in jail for life.
Most of us are making judgements from the upper deck. I've said here before that I had two very close friends who were also longtime friends of JS. They never for one moment believed he was a pedophile
Let's look at another angle. When Tim told Jack Raykovitz that Jerry could no longer use the PSU Facilities....what did he do? He spoke to Bruce Heim and made arrangements to use the hotel facilities up the street.....do you think Heim and Raykovitz had even the slightest suspicion Jerry was a pedophile? Raykovitz is still practicing. Something doesn't add up.
From what I can gather there was never one contemporaneous report or complaint about child abuse. The 98 situation came from the mother, was investigated and the young man, his sister and mother forged a long friendship after that.
It used to be our standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.......are we now convicting people who act or look suspicious?

 

[MacNit07]

In this insanely litigious society we're in, your point is probably valid. However, a man is sitting in prison for life here. Shouldn't our focus be on all the irregularities (I'm being polite) surrounding his prosecution, including the role played by our own BOT, the former governor and a judicial system that appears to be broken?

A-freaking-men.

A virtual life sentence…society should be much more sure…this case has to have more than a garden variety amount of prosecutorial misconduct. Murder raps have been tossed for much less.

 

[MacNit07]

I understand what you are saying. I have to disagree that Sandusky is "largely" in jail due to his choices. I think it might be more accurate to say he seemed to make choices that contributed to suspicion. Largely JS is in jail because former TSM contacts of his changed their stories and claimed he abused them to varying degrees. Pulling the curtains back on Shubin's tactics, the highly unusual denial of any consideration for continuance, the documented perjury of PSP, the crying janitor fable, repressed memory magic, MM's need to comply with OAG and the dirty tactics of the OAG....I would say those considerations are "largely" why JS is in jail for life.
Most of us are making judgements from the upper deck. I've said here before that I had two very close friends who were also longtime friends of JS. They never for one moment believed he was a pedophile
Let's look at another angle. When Tim told Jack Raykovitz that Jerry could no longer use the PSU Facilities....what did he do? He spoke to Bruce Heim and made arrangements to use the hotel facilities up the street.....do you think Heim and Raykovitz had even the slightest suspicion Jerry was a pedophile? Raykovitz is still practicing. Something doesn't add up.
From what I can gather there was never one contemporaneous report or complaint about child abuse. The 98 situation came from the mother, was investigated and the young man, his sister and mother forged a long friendship after that.
It used to be our standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.......are we now convicting people who act or look suspicious?

You are so correct M23.
Connor…would have a much different standard if such accusations were applied to him/her.

 

[marshall23]

A-freaking-men.

A virtual life sentence…society should be much more sure…this case has to have more than a garden variety amount of prosecutorial misconduct. Murder raps have been tossed for much less.

Murder convictions are difficult without a body.....Jerry was brought down by a child known only to God.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Poor choices do not necessarily mean guilt, nor should someone who has only made poor choices be punished the same way someone who is guilty is.

Somehow after all this time it’s not clear to you but I will state it again: I’ve never said it means guilt. It absolutely points in the direction of guilt but it doesn’t prove it.
Are you willing to agree that he made several horrible choices?

 

[marshall23]

You are so correct M23.
Connor…would have a much different standard if such accusations were applied to him/her.

I don't understand any dissent here.....All I'm saying is JS deserves a new trial. I'd love to see everything from both sides presented to a more discerning public. No hysteria, no rush to judgement. Perhaps JS is guilty.....if this is the result of a fair trial, there is nothing to debate.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I understand what you are saying. I have to disagree that Sandusky is "largely" in jail due to his choices. I think it might be more accurate to say he seemed to make choices that contributed to suspicion. Largely JS is in jail because former TSM contacts of his changed their stories and claimed he abused them to varying degrees. Pulling the curtains back on Shubin's tactics, the highly unusual denial of any consideration for continuance, the documented perjury of PSP, the crying janitor fable, repressed memory magic, MM's need to comply with OAG and the dirty tactics of the OAG....I would say those considerations are "largely" why JS is in jail for life.
Most of us are making judgements from the upper deck. I've said here before that I had two very close friends who were also longtime friends of JS. They never for one moment believed he was a pedophile
Let's look at another angle. When Tim told Jack Raykovitz that Jerry could no longer use the PSU Facilities....what did he do? He spoke to Bruce Heim and made arrangements to use the hotel facilities up the street.....do you think Heim and Raykovitz had even the slightest suspicion Jerry was a pedophile? Raykovitz is still practicing. Something doesn't add up.
From what I can gather there was never one contemporaneous report or complaint about child abuse. The 98 situation came from the mother, was investigated and the young man, his sister and mother forged a long friendship after that.
It used to be our standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.......are we now convicting people who act or look suspicious?

He chose to repeatedly put himself in situations that are highly suspicious and make it very easy for somebody to make a false accusation if they wanted to. That’s entirely on him. In all your years working with kids I’m sure you would not have put yourself in the positions he did. In all my years working with kids I would never put myself in the positions he did. His choice to be in the spots he was in. On top of that, he chose what seemed to be an inept defense attorney. Lots of bad choices.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You are so correct M23.
Connor…would have a much different standard if such accusations were applied to him/her.

Nope, I wouldn’t be in that position to begin with. Nobody in their right mind working with children would ever have naked physical contact with them. Nobody. I wouldn’t even need to be investigated by police about the activity to stop doing it because I have enough common sense not to do it in the first place. As does every other person that works with children.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I don't understand any dissent here.....All I'm saying is JS deserves a new trial. I'd love to see everything from both sides presented to a more discerning public. No hysteria, no rush to judgement. Perhaps JS is guilty.....if this is the result of a fair trial, there is nothing to debate.

I’ve been in favor of this all along, if it’s proven to be warranted. I don’t think the reason for it can be just because he made a poor choice for a defense attorney but if it meets the criteria for a retrial, I’m all for it.

 

[indynittany]

Sure, the focus can be on several different things. He make some pretty inexcusably poor choices for a man working in his role. He is largely in jail as a result of his own choices, but that doesn’t make him automatically guilty. He put himself in highly suspicious positions that allowed him to be believably accused. He hired a lawyer who didn’t seem to capable of handling his case. He couldn’t make a simple statement that he isn’t attracted to boys. Those are his choices. Again, it doesn’t make him necessarily guilty but it certainly allows himself to be painted in a guilty light.

What I'm saying is that you're making him prove his innocence, when at this point you can't possibly prove his guilt. I realize that he's been convicted of these crimes. However, with everything we now know, that process has to be revisited.

 

[marshall23]

He chose to repeatedly put himself in situations that are highly suspicious and make it very easy for somebody to make a false accusation if they wanted to. That’s entirely on him. In all your years working with kids I’m sure you would not have put yourself in the positions he did. In all my years working with kids I would never put myself in the positions he did. His choice to be in the spots he was in. On top of that, he chose what seemed to be an inept defense attorney. Lots of bad choices.

I started teaching and coaching in 1971. While I never showered with players or students, I did put myself "out there" many times. When I coached, I routinely gave players a ride home. In fact, that was considered an obligation back in the day. I would never do this today. But there were many situations I can think of that could have led to he said....he said.
As for Jerry's choice of an attorney, I recall a comment by Amendola.....I believe he was asked when it dawned on Jerry that he was in trouble.....I believe Amendola said when the verdict came back. I'm sure he would do it different. At the time, he probably couldn't believe that anyone would think he could do these things.
Remember, we're talking about not just a local icon, but a guy who was held up as a hero by Presidents. When you talk about behavior drawing conclusions....what could be more innocent than seeing the charges as unbelievable? I mean if you are a pedophile and you did these things......you would have hired a slew of lawyers like OJ. Jerry obviously believed that the truth would prevail.

 

[Connorpozlee]

What I'm saying is that you're making him prove his innocence, when at this point you can't possibly prove his guilt. I realize that he's been convicted of these crimes. However, with everything we now know, that process has to be revisited.

He participated in naked physical contact with more than one boy. We know that to be a fact, right? So if you start there and then have several others testify that he sexually assaulted them while seemingly putting up little defense you get a conviction. He was proven guilty in a court of law. I’d the trial was not up to the standards of the legal system, then it should be revisited.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Somehow after all this time it’s not clear to you but I will state it again: I’ve never said it means guilt. It absolutely points in the direction of guilt but it doesn’t prove it.
Are you willing to agree that he made several horrible choices?

If those choices were the only information that we had on this case (they existed in a vacuum), then yes, those choice (which were poor) point towards guilt.

HOWEVER, we have lots of other information that puts those choices into context and swings the pendulum of probability in the other direction.

 

[indynittany]

He participated in naked physical contact with more than one boy. We know that to be a fact, right? So if you start there and then have several others testify that he sexually assaulted them while seemingly putting up little defense you get a conviction. He was proven guilty in a court of law. I’d the trial was not up to the standards of the legal system, then it should be revisited.

I am far more certain that crimes were committed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against JS than I am that JS committed any crimes against young boys.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I started teaching and coaching in 1971. While I never showered with players or students, I did put myself "out there" many times. When I coached, I routinely gave players a ride home. In fact, that was considered an obligation back in the day. I would never do this today. But there were many situations I can think of that could have led to he said....he said.
As for Jerry's choice of an attorney, I recall a comment by Amendola.....I believe he was asked when it dawned on Jerry that he was in trouble.....I believe Amendola said when the verdict came back. I'm sure he would do it different. At the time, he probably couldn't believe that anyone would think he could do these things.
Remember, we're talking about not just a local icon, but a guy who was held up as a hero by Presidents. When you talk about behavior drawing conclusions....what could be more innocent than seeing the charges as unbelievable? I mean if you are a pedophile and you did these things......you would have hired a slew of lawyers like OJ. Jerry obviously believed that the truth would prevail.

Your first statement says it all though. Even in 1971 you didn’t shower with players or students. I’m assuming you mean not at all, not even in the one on one situations like Jerry did. Why didn’t you? If I am not mistaken, you were an AD at one point weren’t you? What your reaction have been (let’s say in 1998) if one of the athletes told you that one of your coaches was lathering him up in the shower?

 

[Connorpozlee]

If those choices were the only information that we had on this case (they existed in a vacuum), then yes, those choice (which were poor) point towards guilt.

HOWEVER, we have lots of other information that puts those choices into context and swings the pendulum of probability in the other direction.

Fair enough. There is a lot of information. Just don’t ignore the showering activity because it is a massive red flag.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Fair enough. There is a lot of information. Just don’t ignore the showering activity because it is a massive red flag.

I'd agree it is massive by itself. In the grand scheme of other information we have, I think it is a minor point.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'd agree it is massive by itself. In the grand scheme of other information we have, I think it is a minor point.

Yikes. OK.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yikes. OK.

This is how I feel when I read your posts.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Connorpozlee]

This is how I feel when I read your posts.

But you are entitled to your opinion.

Tough to get past somebody thinking a grown man who is in charge of an agency providing services to underpriveledged youths having physical contact with boys in a shower is a minor point. You may not think it’s a smoking gun, but it most definitely not a minor point.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Tough to get past somebody thinking a grown man who is in charge of an agency providing services to underpriveledged youths having physical contact with boys in a shower is a minor point. You may not think it’s a smoking gun, but it most definitely not a minor point.

In the context of the other mountains of evidence that we have, this questionable shower behavior (which is not, in and of itself, illegal) is pretty low on the list of important information about this case.

It isn't clear to me why you are (and have been) so fixated on this particular detail, but again, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Connorpozlee]

In the context of the other mountains of evidence that we have, this questionable shower behavior (which is not, in and of itself, illegal) is pretty low on the list of important information about this case.

It isn't clear to me why you are (and have been) so fixated on this particular detail, but again, you are entitled to your opinion.

Because that’s the start of everything. The other stuff is he said/he said stuff. Could be true, could be false. But he intentionally showered alone with boys and had physical contact with them. We know that. That is as a massive a red flag as could be. I do not know of one person that would do that. I work with children. I know many others (obviously) who do as well. I also know many who do not. Not one single person I know would engage in that behavior. I don’t of anybody on this board- though all the times I have mentioned it- who has ever said that they do or would do that. As I’ve said before, if somebody could reasonably talk me past that then I could get on the Jerry innocence train. I just don’t see how you get past that. It is absolutely not a minor point by any means, no matter what your belief on each accuser is. A grown man having physical contact with a boy in a shower is not reasonable. I’ve been told they just worked out and had clean off. OK, but why the contact. I’ve been told he was teaching proper hygiene. Preposterous and even if so, why the physical contact? No reasonable excuse.
You seem like a reasonable poster. respect your opinion, honestly. What reasonable explanation can you offer up for the physical contact in the showers from a man in Jerry’s position?