ADVERTISEMENT

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

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?
(a lot of your opinion is, I think and understandably, based on your own experiences in working with kids, including the training you have received)

Horseplay which was deemed acceptable by Sandusky because of a lack of proper training in appropriate contact with TSM members, combined with his odd personality/unique upbringing.

You may not like that explanation. But it is a reasonable explanation.

If you (or anyone else) has documentation of what TSM's training program for its representatives consists of, and that Sandusky DID (in fact) complete that training then that shoots my explanation out of the water (i.e. Sandusky absolutely knew better, but did it anyway). I have never seen such documentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
(a lot of your opinion is, I think and understandably, based on your own experiences in working with kids, including the training you have received)

Horseplay which was deemed acceptable by Sandusky because of a lack of proper training in appropriate contact with TSM members, combined with his odd personality/unique upbringing.

You may not like that explanation. But it is a reasonable explanation.

If you (or anyone else) has documentation of what TSM's training program for its representatives consists of, and that Sandusky DID (in fact) complete that training then that shoots my explanation out of the water (i.e. Sandusky absolutely knew better, but did it anyway). I have never seen such documentation.
Well, there would be no documentation of such trainings because they shredded all of their files if I recall correctly. That said, I don’t know how that agency could have operated without such trainings.
Horseplay doesn’t consist of holding a kid up to a shower head so that his behind is in your face though, does it? Or hugging in the shower so that your genitals are touching a kid, does it? I believe these are things Jerry admitted to but I don’t have an encyclopedic memory of this stuff. It’s possible these were just accusations made by accusers but I seem to recall Jerry saying it.
So if there is information out there somewhere that says Jerry had trainings that would have told him that the showering activity was off limits (though I would offer up that even beyond general common sense saying not to do it, being investigated by police for doing would probably trump the trainings) you would agree that there isn’t a reasonable explanation for it?
 
Well, there would be no documentation of such trainings because they shredded all of their files if I recall correctly. That said, I don’t know how that agency could have operated without such trainings.
Horseplay doesn’t consist of holding a kid up to a shower head so that his behind is in your face though, does it? Or hugging in the shower so that your genitals are touching a kid, does it? I believe these are things Jerry admitted to but I don’t have an encyclopedic memory of this stuff. It’s possible these were just accusations made by accusers but I seem to recall Jerry saying it.
So if there is information out there somewhere that says Jerry had trainings that would have told him that the showering activity was off limits (though I would offer up that even beyond general common sense saying not to do it, being investigated by police for doing would probably trump the trainings) you would agree that there isn’t a reasonable explanation for it?
horse·play /ˈhôrsˌplā/ (from Oxford Dictionary)
noun
rough, boisterous play.
"this ridiculous horseplay has gone far enough"
Similar:
fooling around, foolish behavior, clowning, fooling, tomfoolery

I think the behavior you describe above falls into that definition, yes.

If there was documentation of what the TSM required trainings were and it was shown that Jerry took those trainings, I would re-evaluate my position on the shower incident. But in the absence of that information, my explanation certainly remains plausible.
 
horse·play /ˈhôrsˌplā/ (from Oxford Dictionary)
noun
rough, boisterous play.
"this ridiculous horseplay has gone far enough"
Similar:
fooling around, foolish behavior, clowning, fooling, tomfoolery

I think the behavior you describe above falls into that definition, yes.

If there was documentation of what the TSM required trainings were and it was shown that Jerry took those trainings, I would re-evaluate my position on the shower incident. But in the absence of that information, my explanation certainly remains plausible.
No surprising I’m sure, but I completely disagree that a man engaging in a naked hug with a child meets the definition of horseplay that you posted. I’m guessing that if you had a child and that was done with your child that you wouldn’t but that as simple horseplay either.
I began working with children in 1997 in Kentucky as a volunteer. I went through several trainings to do that and they made it clear what was appropriate and what was not. Naked shower hugging was not mentioned specifically that I can recall but I’m sure the line for inappropriate contact was well short of that. I would be surprised if that was not standard in PA at the same time. Again, that it should really matter by that point for Sandusky because he was investigated by the police because of it.
 
No surprising I’m sure, but I completely disagree that a man engaging in a naked hug with a child meets the definition of horseplay that you posted. I’m guessing that if you had a child and that was done with your child that you wouldn’t but that as simple horseplay either.
I began working with children in 1997 in Kentucky as a volunteer. I went through several trainings to do that and they made it clear what was appropriate and what was not. Naked shower hugging was not mentioned specifically that I can recall but I’m sure the line for inappropriate contact was well short of that. I would be surprised if that was not standard in PA at the same time. Again, that it should really matter by that point for Sandusky because he was investigated by the police because of it.
I'm not sure how you can read that definition (which I will be honest surprised me slightly, but I did not write the dictionary, so I will defer to the folks at Oxford) and think that naked shenanigans in the shower (which are rough and fooling around and boisterous) DO NOT fit that definition.

" by that point for Sandusky because he was investigated by the police because of it."
He had been investigated by the police and no charges were filed. His impression of that interaction was that he should not shower with that boy again because it made him uncomfortable and he agreed because he did not want to do anything to make him uncomfortable. I believe it is agreed upon that he did not subsequently shower with that child.
 
I'm not sure how you can read that definition (which I will be honest surprised me slightly, but I did not write the dictionary, so I will defer to the folks at Oxford) and think that naked shenanigans in the shower (which are rough and fooling around and boisterous) DO NOT fit that definition.

" by that point for Sandusky because he was investigated by the police because of it."
He had been investigated by the police and no charges were filed. His impression of that interaction was that he should not shower with that boy again because it made him uncomfortable and he agreed because he did not want to do anything to make him uncomfortable. I believe it is agreed upon that he did not subsequently shower with that child.
Hugging is not “naked shenanigans”. No adult should ever be engaging in any sort of “naked shenanigans” with a child. Just read that sentence and think if that sounds reasonable to you. It shouldn’t. Would you allow your children to engage in “naked shenanigans” with grown men? I’m just going to assume the answer is no.
Charges being filed or not doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been a massive red flag to him. And I’m sure it was. No reasonable person would not think it was. If you were investigated for hugging a kid while in a shower alone together, would you continue to do it? A reasonable person would not because it would at the very least set off a light bulb that said, “Wow, this must really be a problem and I must be putting myself and my agency in a bad situation by doing this. For the good of myself and my agency, I’m going to stop doing this.“ This was not some sort of a life-sustaining activity he was having to give up. It was -at a minimum- a creepy activity that he had no reason to be engaging in to begin with. Which has to make you ask yourself, “Why would he ever put himself back in that situation”?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: francofan and Fac
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.
In other words, he is guilty until he can prove his innocence?

From this 27-page thread alone there are dozens and dozens of facts and examples of how he was tried and convicted by a corrupt system and claimants who also had very flimsy and suspect stories of abuse. I'll see youd red flag shower story and then raise you fifty (50) other unsupported, unfathomable and and dishonest items that point 100% opposite his guilt.
 
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?
First of all, I don't know if Jerry ever showered with Penn State players. My impression is he showered with youngsters he was mentoring and working out with thru TSM. I would equate it more like showering with others at the YMCA. This I did every time I worked out there. I recall guys my age, kids who were swimming and older guys who just lounged in the steam room. No one thought anything of it. From what I've been led to believe, this is the kind of environment Jerry was raised in.

I don't condone what he did and I agree that it isn't something I would advise anyone to do. However, it still isn't worthy of a life sentence.
This conversation did make me recall that in the 70s when I was a football coach, the game officials would shower in the same gang shower as the team.
We ended this when we were able to get a separate dressing area that had its own shower/toilet facilities. I recall that my primary concern with the mixture of adults and athletes was a hot headed player in the same proximity of the guys who wore stripes that day. I can honestly say that at the time, I had no other concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU2UNC
First of all, I don't know if Jerry ever showered with Penn State players. My impression is he showered with youngsters he was mentoring and working out with thru TSM. I would equate it more like showering with others at the YMCA. This I did every time I worked out there. I recall guys my age, kids who were swimming and older guys who just lounged in the steam room. No one thought anything of it. From what I've been led to believe, this is the kind of environment Jerry was raised in.

I don't condone what he did and I agree that it isn't something I would advise anyone to do. However, it still isn't worthy of a life sentence.
This conversation did make me recall that in the 70s when I was a football coach, the game officials would shower in the same gang shower as the team.
We ended this when we were able to get a separate dressing area that had its own shower/toilet facilities. I recall that my primary concern with the mixture of adults and athletes was a hot headed player in the same proximity of the guys who wore stripes that day. I can honestly say that at the time, I had no other concerns.
You can equate it to showering with others at the YMCA but it’s not even close. And I find it hard to believe you don’t know that. For the millionth time, it’s not about being in a group shower with a boy. It’s about being alone in a large group shower and still managing to have physical contact with them. Those are not even remotely similar. It is like the difference between waving at a woman and walking up grabbing her behind. “I was just greeting her.” No, they are not remotely the same.
What was your answer for what you would do if one of the players told you a coach had been alone in a shower with him and hugged him? Would you have disregarded it, called police, called social services, referred it to higher up school officials?
 
Last edited:
Hugging is not “naked shenanigans”. No adult should ever be engaging in any sort of “naked shenanigans” with a child. Just read that sentence and think if that sounds reasonable to you. It shouldn’t. Would you allow your children to engage in “naked shenanigans” with grown men? I’m just going to assume the answer is no.
Charges being filed or not doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been a massive red flag to him. And I’m sure it was. No reasonable person would not think it was. If you were investigated for hugging a kid while in a shower alone together, would you continue to do it? A reasonable person would not because it would at the very least set off a light bulb that said, “Wow, this must really be a problem and I must be putting myself and my agency in a bad situation by doing this. For the good of myself and my agency, I’m going to stop doing this.“ This was not some sort of a life-sustaining activity he was having to give up. It was -at a minimum- a creepy activity that he had no reason to be engaging in to begin with. Which has to make you ask yourself, “Why would he ever put himself back in that situation”?
I really think we are going in circles here (again).

Would I do that? No.
Do I think that is particularly reasonable way to act? No.
Is it illegal? No (not by the act alone, as evidenced by no charges in 1998)
Do I know exactly what the police conveyed to Sandusky in 1998? No.

I also think there are different versions of "reasonable person". A reasonable person might also view being investigated by police (for what you view as an innocent act of horseplay) and not charged as validation that it was, in fact, an innocent act of horseplay.

Recall, when he learned that the horseplay made the TSM kid uncomfortable, he stopped (never shower with him again). That is where the "I wish I was dead" quote came from: remorse that he had made someone uncomfortable with what he viewed as innocent fun.

All of the behaviors here (IMHO) point to a glaring lack of boundary issues rather than sexual assaults. Without the testimony (which I doubt the veracity of) of other accusers who alleged much more serious assaults, the shower incidents themselves go nowhere (no convictions...again IMHO).
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
If you were investigated for hugging a kid while in a shower alone together, would you continue to do it? A reasonable person would not because it would at the very least set off a light bulb that said, “Wow, this must really be a problem and I must be putting myself and my agency in a bad situation by doing this. For the good of myself and my agency, I’m going to stop doing this.“
^^^ This ^^^

This is why I'm convinced that JS is guilty of something. I'm not sure if he had anal or oral sex with kids. In fact I don't believe many of the accusers. I just think they seized the opportunity for a big payday. That said, a reasonable person would have avoided questionable one on one contact with kids at all costs after the scare in 1998. I'll give JS a pass for 1998 but not after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
In other words, he is guilty until he can prove his innocence?

From this 27-page thread alone there are dozens and dozens of facts and examples of how he was tried and convicted by a corrupt system and claimants who also had very flimsy and suspect stories of abuse. I'll see youd red flag shower story and then raise you fifty (50) other unsupported, unfathomable and and dishonest items that point 100% opposite his guilt.
Nope, not at all guilty until proven innocent. I’m not a court of law, I’m a guy with a lot of experience in this field who has yet to hear a reasonable reason for him to have been in the showers alone hugging boys, or holding them up to a shower head or whatever. It’s so far beyond reasonably appropriate behavior that it needs a much better explanation than just cleaning up after a workout.
As an aside, is this Ziegler podcast offering up any explanation for the showering?
 
Last edited:
I really think we are going in circles here (again).

Would I do that? No.
Do I think that is particularly reasonable way to act? No.
Is it illegal? No (not by the act alone, as evidenced by no charges in 1998)
Do I know exactly what the police conveyed to Sandusky in 1998? No.

I also think there are different versions of "reasonable person". A reasonable person might also view being investigated by police (for what you view as an innocent act of horseplay) and not charged as validation that it was, in fact, an innocent act of horseplay.

Recall, when he learned that the horseplay made the TSM kid uncomfortable, he stopped (never shower with him again). That is where the "I wish I was dead" quote came from: remorse that he had made someone uncomfortable with what he viewed as innocent fun.

All of the behaviors here (IMHO) point to a glaring lack of boundary issues rather than sexual assaults. Without the testimony (which I doubt the veracity of) of other accusers who alleged much more serious assaults, the shower incidents themselves go nowhere (no convictions...again IMHO).
The only reason to repeatedly engage in “boundary issues” are because you are getting something from it. If you were investigated for a “boundary issue” and agreed to never do it again but continue to engage in it, it would not be for innocent reasons.
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that Second Mile members were trained on what is appropriate and not? I can’t imagine they weren’t.
 
^^^ This ^^^

This is why I'm convinced that JS is guilty of something. I'm not sure if he had anal or oral sex with kids. In fact I don't believe many of the accusers. I just think they seized the opportunity for a big payday. That said, a reasonable person would have avoided questionable one on one contact with kids at all costs after the scare in 1998. I'll give JS a pass for 1998 but not after that.

I give JS a pass for the 2000 incident. Allan Myers was like a son to him. Myers said that nothing untoward happened. All 5 people who Mike McQueary reported it to contemporaneously said that is was not reported to them as a sexual assault. Horsing around with a minor is not something I would advise anyone to do, but it is not criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarasotan
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?
Not only that, but continuing to do it after being told not to by uniformed officers and a parent. That would be a wake up call for anyone that thought such behavior might be "normal" to begin with (which I don't). Combine that with his inability to clearly state that he isn't attracted to young boys on national television, the most simple of questions that left nothing open to interpretation yet Jerry botched the reply. Criminality aside, it's no surprise that the general public feels the way they do about him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
No surprising I’m sure, but I completely disagree that a man engaging in a naked hug with a child meets the definition of horseplay that you posted. I’m guessing that if you had a child and that was done with your child that you wouldn’t but that as simple horseplay either.
I began working with children in 1997 in Kentucky as a volunteer. I went through several trainings to do that and they made it clear what was appropriate and what was not. Naked shower hugging was not mentioned specifically that I can recall but I’m sure the line for inappropriate contact was well short of that. I would be surprised if that was not standard in PA at the same time. Again, that it should really matter by that point for Sandusky because he was investigated by the police because of it.
Likely because it was considered common sense. Sadly, with each passing year that term becomes more of a misnomer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connorpozlee
Not only that, but continuing to do it after being told not to by uniformed officers and a parent.
Right. I get the other stuff people point to as their basis for believing Jerry is innocent. I really do, which is why I always say I’m open to to the idea of Jerry being innocent. But at the same time, it seems like people from the Jerry is innocent group can’t get themselves to admit that it was inexcusable. Trying to justify naked one-on-one shower hugs is baffling.
 
Likely because it was considered common sense. Sadly, with each passing year that term becomes more of a misnomer.
Right again. I don’t recall the trainings saying, “It would inappropriate to lay your schlong on the table during lunch with the kids” either but that also didn’t really need to be said. It’s as logical as hugging a boy in a shower.
Thanks for the support, signore. Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one in here that thinks naked shower hugging between a grown man and a boy is wrong.
 
Right. I get the other stuff people point to as their basis for believing Jerry is innocent. I really do, which is why I always say I’m open to to the idea of Jerry being innocent. But at the same time, it seems like people from the Jerry is innocent group can’t get themselves to admit that it was inexcusable. Trying to justify naked one-on-one shower hugs is baffling.
It's minutia!
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I give JS a pass for the 2000 incident. Allan Myers was like a son to him. Myers said that nothing untoward happened. All 5 people who Mike McQueary reported it to contemporaneously said that is was not reported to them as a sexual assault. Horsing around with a minor is not something I would advise anyone to do, but it is not criminal.
It may not have been criminal but it was incredibly stupid. It was also negligent for TSM to allow any employee or agent to have private one on one contact with troubled youth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 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.
As I recall Amendola tried to back out of the case probably realizing he was in over his head but the judge refused his request in addition to refusing a continuance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23
It was also negligent for TSM to allow any employee or agent to have private one on one contact with troubled youth.
TSM had a mentor program specifically designed for one on one contact. Dr. Jack is still practicing and Spanier is in prison. It makes no sense.
 
I really think we are going in circles here (again).

Would I do that? No.
Do I think that is particularly reasonable way to act? No.
Is it illegal? No (not by the act alone, as evidenced by no charges in 1998)
Do I know exactly what the police conveyed to Sandusky in 1998? No.

I also think there are different versions of "reasonable person". A reasonable person might also view being investigated by police (for what you view as an innocent act of horseplay) and not charged as validation that it was, in fact, an innocent act of horseplay.

Recall, when he learned that the horseplay made the TSM kid uncomfortable, he stopped (never shower with him again). That is where the "I wish I was dead" quote came from: remorse that he had made someone uncomfortable with what he viewed as innocent fun.

All of the behaviors here (IMHO) point to a glaring lack of boundary issues rather than sexual assaults. Without the testimony (which I doubt the veracity of) of other accusers who alleged much more serious assaults, the shower incidents themselves go nowhere (no convictions...again IMHO).
I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head … boundary issues not assault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head … boundary issues not assault.
I think your last paragraph hits the nail on the head … boundary issues not assault.
According to the American Psychological Association, boundary issues are defined as:
1. ethical issues relating to the proper limits of a professional relationship between a provider of services (e.g., a physician or a psychotherapist) and his or her patient or client, such that the trust and vulnerability of the latter are not abused (see boundary). A particular area of concern is professional–client sexual relations.

The last sentence is in their for a reason. It is the prime cause of boundary issues. If Jerry had boundary issues it was likely due to sexual reasons.
 
According to the American Psychological Association, boundary issues are defined as:
1. ethical issues relating to the proper limits of a professional relationship between a provider of services (e.g., a physician or a psychotherapist) and his or her patient or client, such that the trust and vulnerability of the latter are not abused (see boundary). A particular area of concern is professional–client sexual relations.

The last sentence is in their for a reason. It is the prime cause of boundary issues. If Jerry had boundary issues it was likely due to sexual reasons.
I am not that kind of doctor, but I am willing to wager that there are a variety of boundary issues that have nothing to do with sex.

Also, boundary issues are not limited to the medical profession.

Not sure your point here.
 
The only reason to repeatedly engage in “boundary issues” are because you are getting something from it. If you were investigated for a “boundary issue” and agreed to never do it again but continue to engage in it, it would not be for innocent reasons.
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that Second Mile members were trained on what is appropriate and not? I can’t imagine they weren’t.
He didn't agree to never do it again. Check your facts.

I have no idea what TSM training procedures were (which is why I asked). I could also see the founder of TSM being allowed to not take the training if he didn't want to.
 
I am not that kind of doctor, but I am willing to wager that there are a variety of boundary issues that have nothing to do with sex.

Also, boundary issues are not limited to the medical profession.

Not sure your point here.
Sure rheee are other boundary issues. Sexual is the most likely and obvious one involving Sandusky and his showering practices.
 
He didn't agree to never do it again. Check your facts.

I have no idea what TSM training procedures were (which is why I asked). I could also see the founder of TSM being allowed to not take the training if he didn't want to.
Where is the information that he did not ever agree to never do it again from? I haven’t seen it, though I have read it mentioned in here.
I would be shocked if Second Mile didn’t require trainings on appropriate and inappropriate relationships and behaviors. Though whether they did or not, it doesn’t excuse naked shower hugging with boys because that is not something anybody needs training to know is wrong. I’ve never met anybody that doesn’t know know that.
 
Sure rheee are other boundary issues. Sexual is the most likely and obvious one involving Sandusky and his showering practices.
Have you done a psychological evaluation of Sandusky to come to this conclusion? If not, you are just guessing based on your own personal biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBuxton320
Have you done a psychological evaluation of Sandusky to come to this conclusion? If not, you are just guessing based on your own personal biases.
Experiences, not biases. I have no bias against Jerry Sandusky. I have experience in the field Jerry Sandusky was working in when he showered with the boys. It’s incomprehensible anybody thinks it’s not completely inappropriate.
 
Where is the information that he did not ever agree to never do it again from? I haven’t seen it, though I have read it mentioned in here.
I would be shocked if Second Mile didn’t require trainings on appropriate and inappropriate relationships and behaviors. Though whether they did or not, it doesn’t excuse naked shower hugging with boys because that is not something anybody needs training to know is wrong. I’ve never met anybody that doesn’t know know that.
I believe this is stated in the JZ audio interviews with JS. His take away from the police conversation was that he was not to shower with that particular boy again (and he did not).

This is consistent with the "be sure to wear a swimsuit" comment.

It is possible that there was a miscommunication (i.e. the police meant not to shower with kids, which would make more sense) but if that message was not understood by Sandusky, that explains why there were additional showers, i.e. he was investigated by police for what he felt was a non-issue, was not charged and was only told (in his mind) not to do it again with that particular TSM kid.
 
I believe this is stated in the JZ audio interviews with JS. His take away from the police conversation was that he was not to shower with that particular boy again (and he did not).

This is consistent with the "be sure to wear a swimsuit" comment.

It is possible that there was a miscommunication (i.e. the police meant not to shower with kids, which would make more sense) but if that message was not understood by Sandusky, that explains why there were additional showers, i.e. he was investigated by police for what he felt was a non-issue, was not charged and was only told (in his mind) not to do it again with that particular TSM kid.
Well, it doesn’t really explain why there were more showers with boys. It offers one possibility why there were more showers with boys. It was inexcusable to do to begin with, incomprehensible to engage in again after being investigated by police for it whether there were charges brought or not. Another possible reason to continue the showering practice? Pedophelia.
Is Sandusky a trusted source on this though? Of course he is going to say he did not agree to not shower with all boys (again, comprehend that sentence and acknowledge the absurdity of it) but only with that specific boy. Who the hell in their right mind needs to be told that? Honestly, who? Who is investigated by the police for inappropriate showering practices and thinks, “Well damn, I can’t shower with that boy anymore. Luckily, I can still go on showering with other boys!” I think you could spend weeks crossing the country and asking grown men and you wouldn’t find one who would need to be told that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JmmyW
Tje pint in this entire sh— sh— is that there are more facts that support that the accusers made up or embellished stories, had their mementoes “refreshed” by people who had their self interests overlook the truth than point to the alleged stories actually happening. It is not even close. It is common sense. The truth doesn’t matter to those people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
As I recall Amendola tried to back out of the case probably realizing he was in over his head but the judge refused his request in addition to refusing a continuance.
He was joking.
Joe Amendola and Karl Rominger, the attorneys for Jerry Sandusky, faced a virtually insurmountable task in preparing for the trial, which Judge John Cleland was clearly intent on holding as soon as possible. Cleland was perhaps sensitive to media criticism questioning why it had taken three years from the time Aaron Fisher, “Victim 1,” first made allegations, to the time of Sandusky’s arrest.[1] The reason: it took those three years for the prosecutors to grow memories, find other alleged victims, and convince the Grand Jury and Office of the Attorney General that there was sufficient evidence to recommend an indictment, but in the hysteria over the case, no one acknowledged that reality.Judge Cleland initially set the court date for May 14, 2012.[2] Then, in response to Amendola’s increasingly anguished complaints that he had not even received the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony, Cleland delayed the trial by a mere three weeks, until June 5.[3] Astonishingly, Pennsylvania law specified that prosecutors didn’t have to hand over testimony given during secret grand jury proceedings until each witness testified at trial.[4] The Grand Jury had essentially amounted to a kangaroo court. Not only was Amendola not allowed to cross-examine witnesses there, he was not even allowed to be present. Judge Barry Feudale, presiding judge of the 30th grand juries, ruled that the Sandusky defense team could have access to the grand jury transcripts only ten days before the first witness was scheduled to testify.Amendola and Rominger had to speed-read through the thousands of pages of discovery material that they did get. For a while, they couldn’t even get the prosecution to give them the names and birthdates of the alleged victims, along with the exact dates on which they were supposed to have been abused by Sandusky. Amendola also wanted the names of anyone who had come forward to claim abuse but who "did not fit the commonwealth's profile and/or the report was deemed to be false,” but that was not forthcoming, either. Neither was information on whatever the prosecution had discovered on Sandusky’s computer, probably because they had found nothing incriminating whatsoever – no child pornography, which was surprising if Sandusky was the compulsive pedophile he was supposed to be.·[5] “We’re really being pushed to kind of decipher this stuff,” Amendola said in February 2012 about the reams of material. “We’ll be prepared to try the case whenever the judge says, but we’re playing a lot of catch-up right now.”[6]Amendola kept complaining. He threatened to file a motion to dismiss the case, since it was very difficult to prepare a defense without exact times and dates of alleged offenses. “All we are asking is [for prosecutors] to go back to these accusers and say, ‘You went to football games — which ones?’ Give us at least something that we could check,” Amendola begged.Prosecuting attorney Joe McGettigan responded that “many of the alleged victims were abused several times a week, or month,” so it wasn’t possible to pin down a particular time. Besides, “They didn’t want to remember what happened and were even encouraged by Sandusky to forget,” he said. Here was another red flag that the alleged victims may have been in therapy searching for repressed memories, but no one picked up on it. When the prosecutors said they wouldn’t provide the information, Judge Cleland commented, "I think the answer is they can't." He thus declared that it was “futile” to demand such details. According to reporter Sara Ganim, “the state Attorney General's Office countered that Sandusky is accused of abusing boys who are now men, who were pressured into forgetting what happened and many times abused weekly for many years.”[7]Despite Amendola’s strenuous objections and repeated requests for a continuance, Cleland denied the requests and stuck to his promised June 5 trial date, which would take place in Centre County, where State College and Penn State were located. Incredibly, Jerry Sandusky had instructed Amendola to oppose a change in venue, assuming that his local reputation would benefit him.[8] Instead, the last place on earth that he was likely to get a fair trial was in Penn State territory, where the case had received a huge amount of horrendous publicity, and Penn State fans were bitter and angry at the impact on Coach Paterno and their beloved institution.On May 30, in a private unscheduled meeting with the judge and prosecutors, Amendola pled for a delay of the trial to allow him time to prepare for it properly. He wanted to call a psychologist as an expert witness, but the psychologist had been unable to prepare his reports because he hasn't been given access to the grand jury testimony. His jury consultant was in Puerto Rico on vacation. One of Amendola’s investigators was having surgery. Amendola and Rominger didn’t have enough time to review all the evidence. They couldn’t call Gary Schultz or Tim Curley because they had exercised their fifth-amendment rights. Cleland again denied the requested continuance, saying "No trial date is ever perfect, but some days are better than others."[9]Later that same day, in an official pre-trial hearing, Amendola asked Cleland to throw out three of the ten alleged victims before the trial. Victim 2, the unnamed Allan Myers, should be thrown out because Mike McQueary’s version of the shower incident kept changing, including the date on which it was supposed to have occurred. Victim 8, the phantom victim supposedly witnessed by the janitor who now had dementia, should be thrown out because it was pure hearsay. And Victim 6, Zachary Konstas, should be thrown out because the district attorney had decided in 1998 that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, so to try it again amounted to a kind of double jeopardy. Cleland denied all of Amendola’s requests. All ten alleged victims would be presented to the jury.[10]On June 5, just before the process of picking a jury commenced, Amendola tried one more tactic. He filed a motion to withdraw as Sandusky’s lawyer, “based on the lack of preparation of all the things that are going on, most notably the absence of our experts and jury consultant.” A “key witness” was unavailable. “My office is still copying materials which we cannot send out to anybody because they’re all confidential. They’re all grand jury materials. My staff is ready to quit.” He said that “some day when people talk to my staff and get a real flavor for what was going on in my office for the past 30, 60 days, they’ll have a better understanding that this is not lawyering.” The reality was that “we have been so far behind, just keeping up with the discovery materials and trying to do due diligence… but we’re at a loss.” They hadn’t even had time to serve subpoenas to potential witnesses. He concluded that “we’re not prepared to go to trial at this time.”Co-counsel Karl Rominger added that he had called the Pennsylvania Bar Ethics Hotline the day before, and they had called his attention to Rule 17.1, a lawyer’s “duty of competency,” and that Rule 1.16 called upon a judge to ask lawyers to withdraw if the judge could tell that they were completely unprepared. The lawyer who answered the hotline said that they would normally render a formal opinion in such cases, but since they knew it was the Sandusky case, they didn’t want to get involved.Amendola said that he was “fully cognizant of the fact that the Court will deny but at least there will be a record.”[11] And he was right. Cleland refused to allow him to withdraw from the case, and jury selection began.

· Although there was no pornography on Sandusky’s computer, his investigators were sending “graphic and raunchy” pornography by email to one another, though the Office of the Attorney General has refused to make the emails public.
 
The only reason to repeatedly engage in “boundary issues” are because you are getting something from it. If you were investigated for a “boundary issue” and agreed to never do it again but continue to engage in it, it would not be for innocent reasons.
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that Second Mile members were trained on what is appropriate and not? I can’t imagine they weren’t.
TSM boondoggle.

In response to FOI requests filed by Ryan Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter and unsuccessful candidate for Penn State trustee, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. released some 1,000 pages of documents from the closed files of The Second Mile probe.

What's the bottom line?

"It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."



Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.

"Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said. Two people claim to know about "missing donor money," but nothing else is said about that subject in the rest of the released files.

The documents released by the feds are heavily redacted, but there are many references to Second Mile board members circling the wagons. References were made in the documents to false allegations being made by a "disgruntled mother" and a "disgruntled kid."

The documents are more noticeable for what they don't say. Such as in the issue of jurisdiction involving the Sandusky investigation. If, for example, in their investigation of The Second Mile, if the feds any found any evidence of a federal crime, such as Sandusky crossing state lines with sex abuse victims, "They would have taken it [the investigation] away from the state for prosecution," Snedden said.

"But they [the feds] didn't do any of that," Snedden said after reviewing the documents. "There's no indication they did that."

Instead, the attorney general pursued the Sandusky investigation, and the feds pursued The Second File.

"Sadly, neither focused on political vindictiveness and corruption, which is exactly what happened here," Snedden said.

Snedden has his own experience with a previous secret federal investigation into the Penn State scandal. In 2012, working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, Snedden did a background investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier, to see if Spanier's high level security clearance should be renewed by the government.

As part of that investigation, Snedden investigated whether Spanier had orchestrated a coverup of Sandusky's crimes. Snedden's investigation concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up. As far as Snedden was concerned, Mike McQueary, the guy who witnessed a naked Sandusky allegedly abusing a boy in the Penn State showers, was not a credible witness.

Spanier's clearance was renewed as the result of an 110-page report that Snedden wrote back in 2012, a report that was declassified earlier this year.

In the investigation of The Second Mile, the released files include copies of FBI interviews with eight witnesses whose identities are redacted. The interviews are recorded on FBI "302s," the number of the form that interview summaries were typed on by FBI agents.

"I see a lot of interviews with a lot of different people, a wide range of positions in the Second Mile hierarchy," Snedden said. "And I don't see any people admitting to knowing anything concrete about Sandusky."

In the interviews, there are quotes from woman who "had always heard positive things about the organization. She had never heard anything bad about TSM founder Jerry Sandusky."

Another woman interviewed by the FBI described Sandusky's "nondescript entrance and presence" at a March 25, 2011 "Celebration of Excellence" event in Hershey.

"Sandusky was not acknowledged during the event formally by TSM," the woman told the FBI.

"On March 31, 2011, the Patriot News published an article about the grand jury investigation" of Sandusky," the woman told the FBI. "The article was everywhere and everyone was talking about it."

"She didn't recall seeing any evidence of financial improprieties or anything otherwise questionable," the FBI 302 stated. "She did not personally observe any misuse of donations."

"The general mood of the room was that of denial," the woman told the FBI. "Everyone appeared to be in support of Sandusky and TSM."

In another 302, an unidentified witness said, "He did not observe any inappropriate behavior." On the same form, someone, possibly Sandusky himself stated the complainant "was a disgruntled kid, not associated with TSM. He was not aware at the time that the allegation was sexual in nature"

Another 302 notes that one board member was "shocked after reading the indictment." In addition, "four or five board members in particular were upset that they were never notified. The exchange was heated."

In the 302s, there was discussion of an earlier 1998 allegation that Sandusky had abused another youth in the shower, but "the allegations were considered 'unfounded.'"

There is also discussion in the 302s about an alleged allegation involving the Clinton County Children and Youth Services[CYS].

"CYS did have a safety plan in the event a child was a victim of sexual abuse," the 302 stated. "They did not need to enact their safety plan for SANDUSKY's case because the allegation was not founded and all actions taken by CYS were 'by the book.' "

Bagwell said he has filed multiple FOI requests as part of his Penn State Sunshine Fund. Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter who is now a web developer, said he filed his requests because he was seeking primary source documents from the Sandusky investigation.

"What frustrated me about everything since the very beginning was a complete and utter lack of transparency," Bagwell said.

In his court battle with the U.S. Attorney's office, Bagwell said, the feds indicated that there were some 300,000 pages of documents related to The Second Mile investigation. The feds only released 1,000 pages and "withheld tends of thousands more for reasons not apparent at this time," Bagwell said.

Bagwell, himself a former journalist, said the press coverage of the scandal has been "abysmal, reactionary and sensationalistic," as well as "factually incorrect." Bagwell said he hopes the newly released documents will have a calming effect on Penn State Nation.

"Penn Staters are still screaming for an investigation for years of The Second Mile," Bagwell said. "Well, it turns out there was an investigation."

"My overall view is that everything here [in the documents] seems to support the idea that The Second Mile didn't knowingly do anything wrong," Bagwell said. "The Penn Staters who are clamoring for heads at The Second Mile to roll, I don't think that's an outcome that's appropriate at this point in time."
 
Tje pint in this entire sh— sh— is that there are more facts that support that the accusers made up or embellished stories, had their mementoes “refreshed” by people who had their self interests overlook the truth than point to the alleged stories actually happening. It is not even close. It is common sense. The truth doesn’t matter to those people.
Common sense also says grown men do not give hugs to boys in the shower.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT