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

[Connorpozlee]

Well there are only two explanations in my mind:
1. The one that I believe...everyone thought Jerry was (where TSM kids were involved) a big "kid" himself. A goof ball around kids who could enthusiastically play silly child like games. This seemingly endeared him to children and he was in a sense a "pied piper." He viewed his real purpose in life as rescuing boys that were disadvantaged in a variety of ways. He gained tremendous satisfaction by changing their lives for the better. Through the sheer power of his persona and commitment he built a massive charity that gained recognition nation-wide.....not to mention accolades from the President of the United States.
While there was wide spread admiration and respect for Jerry among those acquainted with his work......he could be "clueless" bullheaded and lacking in common sense. The aforementioned traits led Sandusky to actions that some called "boundary issues," and were frustrated that Jerry could not seem to understand how others could find these practices objectionable or suspect. Jerry couldn't make a "hit" with every child and often reacted as if failure to connect was a form of rejection.
However, keep in mind that overall his work was enthusiastically lauded and politicians in Pennsylvania, sports personalities and corporate giants all rushed to invest themselves in The Second Mile.

Or..... Jerry created TSM to identify, isolate and sexually abuse young boys. He was an evil genius who successfully concealed his pedophilia for more than 3 decades, having only one contemporaneous complaint filed with authorities. Which was quickly dismissed by the long time respected Count DA. The young man in that case remained a close friend, denied abuse and only after $$ was on the table, conjectured that perhaps Jerry was grooming him. Despite the fact that he was the most heinous and prolific pedophile ever seen by veteran investigators in the Commonwealth of Pa.,,, So cunning that he could operate with impunity right under the nose of the CYS of Centre County and the Courts that allowed TSM to run many programs for children and endorsed numerous adoptions and foster care situations for Jerry and Dottie.

Or both. And they’re not mutually exclusive. Dahmer didn’t rape, kill and eat every boy he met. But he did to some. John Wayne Gacy brought joy to many children as a clown, many more I am sure than the 33 that he killed. It is perfectly feasible for Jerry to have founded a charity that helped many, many children (thousands over the years? Hundreds? I don’t know the actual number) and had a positive impact on their lives while also using that charity as a portal into finding a few to victimize. Nobody is doing horrible things 100% of the time.
Back to my question though, wouldn’t you agree with me that if his showering practices with boys in front of other coaches is different than his practices with them alone, it’s a red flag? Likewise I suppose, if he was hugging, lathering them up and telling him he was going to squeeze their guts out in front if other coaches, wouldn’t that help his cause?

 

[marshall23]

Or both. And they’re not mutually exclusive. Dahmer didn’t rape, kill and eat every boy he met. But he did to some. John Wayne Gacy brought joy to many children as a clown, many more I am sure than the 33 that he killed. It is perfectly feasible for Jerry to have founded a charity that helped many, many children (thousands over the years? Hundreds? I don’t know the actual number) and had a positive impact on their lives while also using that charity as a portal into finding a few to victimize. Nobody is doing horrible things 100% of the time.
Back to my question though, wouldn’t you agree with me that if his showering practices with boys in front of other coaches, it’s a red flag? Likewise I suppose, if he was hugging, lathering them up and telling him he was going to squeeze their guts out in front if other coaches, wouldn’t that help his cause?

But why would he begin to sexually abuse kids at 54 years of age? Also, I forgot to point out that when you add up all the accusations of the "claimants" common sense would tell you that the work schedule of a division one defensive coordinator would in itself make them liars.
I certainly agree that his behavior would have to be consistent. I would also point out that I'm fairly certain that the 98 incident occurred with other people in the vicinity. So that may be the answer to your question.

 

[Connorpozlee]

But why would he begin to sexually abuse kids at 54 years of age? Also, I forgot to point out that when you add up all the accusations of the "claimants" common sense would tell you that the work schedule of a division one defensive coordinator would in itself make them liars.
I certainly agree that his behavior would have to be consistent. I would also point out that I'm fairly certain that the 98 incident occurred with other people in the vicinity. So that may be the answer to your question.

There are lots of questions about all of it. Starting sexual abuse of children at 54 certainly doesn’t make sense, and I’ve pointed that out myself in the past. As for the work schedule, Joe himself said that Jerry had too many distractions at this time didn’t he? Didn’t Joe say he was spending too much time on TSM?
In the infinity is not in the shower. If his behavior in a shower where other people can see him is different than his behavior in a shower alone with a kid where nobody else can see them, you have think there is a reason for the change of behavior.

 

[marshall23]

There are lots of questions about all of it. Starting sexual abuse of children at 54 certainly doesn’t make sense, and I’ve pointed that out myself in the past. As for the work schedule, Joe himself said that Jerry had too many distractions at this time didn’t he? Didn’t Joe say he was spending too much time on TSM?
In the infinity is not in the shower. If his behavior in a shower where other people can see him is different than his behavior in a shower alone with a kid where nobody else can see them, you have think there is a reason for the change of behavior.

As I said, I have no way of knowing if the behavior was different. Does anyone?
But again, I do think the 98 incident that was dismissed occurred with others at least in the building.

 

[marshall23]

There are lots of questions about all of it. Starting sexual abuse of children at 54 certainly doesn’t make sense, and I’ve pointed that out myself in the past. As for the work schedule, Joe himself said that Jerry had too many distractions at this time didn’t he? Didn’t Joe say he was spending too much time on TSM?
In the infinity is not in the shower. If his behavior in a shower where other people can see him is different than his behavior in a shower alone with a kid where nobody else can see them, you have think there is a reason for the change of behavior.

I think Jerry got a little too comfortable as the "defensive genius" at LBU. He may have forgotten that there can only be one head coach. I think that had a lot to do with Joe's decision to tell Jerry he wouldn't be the recommended next head coach.
The defensive staff and the offensive staff may meet in separate rooms, but it must be one "us" if you get my drift.
I think it's common sense to agree that a man can't be the face of a charity and a division one head coach at a school like PSU.

 

[Connorpozlee]

As I said, I have no way of knowing if the behavior was different. Does anyone?
But again, I do think the 98 incident that was dismissed occurred with others at least in the building.

And I haven’t said that it was different, I was just asking the question. I would think it would have been mentioned by Anderson but it seems he went the route we see many in here go that Jerry was showering with boys just like people do at the YMCA, which of course is not really the point. I guess you’d have to hear from coaches that were in the showers with him and the boys at those times to know what he did.

 

[jerot]

Pendergrast explains -

"The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not unusual for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread, acceptable situation and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years."

The psychologist also concluded that since no one else had previously accused Sandusky of abuse, and that the psychologist knew of no case where a then 52-year-old man had suddenly become a pedophile.

As reported by Pendergrast, according to state law, the unfounded report of abuse should have been expunged by the state Department of Welfare, which it was. But the Penn State Police failed to expunge the report. And 13 years later, the report was suddenly relevant after the state attorney general issued a grand jury presentment about a second alleged shower incident where Sandusky allegedly raped a 10-year-old boy, as supposedly witnessed by former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.

The second shower incident, however, was investigated for the federal government by Snedden, who determined that the alleged facts made no sense, and that McQueary was not a credible witness.

McChesney's diary doesn't state how the Freeh team came up with the 1998 police report, but three lines later, McChesney writes: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

Besides working closely with the Attorney General's office, Freeh's investigators were also staying in constant contact with the NCAA.

McChesney wrote that during the investigation, fellow investigator McNeill "has standing telcall on Fridays with NCAA & Big 10." During those phone calls, the NCAA "will provide questions for" the Freeh Group," McChesney wrote, and that "NCAA high level execs will decide on enforcement actions."

The FBI was also involved in the Penn State probe, McChesney wrote. She speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" for the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

On Jan. 4, 2012, McChesney wrote that during a meeting with investigator Anthony Sassano and another official from the state attorney general's office, she learned that the "1998 police report" was "out of sequence and filed in administrative rather than criminal." And that the Penn State police chief and the original investigator from the 1998 incident were the "only ones who knew."

McChesney also listed in her diary the initials of numerous Penn State officials who got subpoenaed for the 2011 grand jury investigation. She also records that "AG got 2nd mile records from subpoena," referring to The Second Mile, the charity for at risk youth started by Sandusky.
She also noted that the AG interviewed Ruth Jackson, the wife of Kenny Jackson, a former Penn State assistant football coach, as well as another man who had "been to the grand jury - and possibly friends with JS," as in Jerry Sandusky.
McChesney described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."
On March 7, 2012, she wrote "No smoking gun to indicate coverup." She also wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.
According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them." McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile.
On March 30, 2012, McChesney noted that Sandusky's trial was rescheduled to June 5th of that year. Meanwhile, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina, that Fina was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."
McChesney was referring to an email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, where President Spanier and two other top administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities. The officials discussed simply telling Sandusky to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for at-risk youth, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.
In the email chain, Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”
In her diary, McChesney seemed to know what's going on with the supposedly secret grand jury proceedings being conducted by the state attorney general's office. She wrote that "40+ more people before grand jury." She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."
In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Spanier, Athletic Director Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.
Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts." On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."
McChesney's diary also portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses. McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."
In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.
On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain."
She wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."
McChesney also wrote that Paw was scheduling meetings with lawyers for Schultz and Curley. "Have not seen emails," she wrote, without saying whom she was referring to.
As part of their investigation, the Freeh Group was also looking at former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. The Freeh Group contacted the state attorney general's office for help but the AG's office advised them that they had "nothing further on Paterno [other] than what" the Freeh Group already had.
On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."
McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.
The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."
The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest. The email was contained in other confidential records connected to the Freeh investigation, records that the Penn State board of trustees has repeatedly refused to release.
The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno and the 1998 shower incident.
"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."
On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."
McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."

Pendergrast has more, incredible -

In 2004, Struble wrote in his own handwriting on an application for a scholarship from Second Mile, “Jerry Sandusky, he has helped me understand so much about myself. He is such a kind and caring gentleman, and I will never forget him.” Struble attended Penn State football games and tailgating parties every year for fourteen years with the Sanduskys, until he was twenty-five.
On April 11, 2011, Struble testified at the Sandusky grand jury proceeding. He said nothing about bear hugs, hair washing, or being dried off in the shower. He said that Sandusky had put his hand on his waistband, but “I can say he never went the whole way down and grabbed anything.”[2] · He denied that Sandusky had kissed him and said that Sandusky had never touched his privates or fondled him at all over his clothes. Indeed, Struble said that Sandusky had never had any physical contact with him at all in the shower. When he did shower with Sandusky, also present were “other assistant coaches or players or there was a couple random people that were in there from time to time….they would just be passing through and say hi…”
After his grand jury testimony, Struble signed a contingency agreement with State College, PA, attorney Andrew Shubin, meaning that the lawyer would only be paid if Struble received compensation. Lawyers in such cases typically receive from 33 to 40 percent of the total payment.[3] Before the June 2012 trial, Struble met with Shubin from ten to fifteen times. During his trial testimony, he claimed not to know the contents of the contingency agreement he had signed.
As late as January 2012, Struble apparently was still ambivalent about his feelings for Sandusky. That month, when he ran into Todd Reed, a Sandusky protégé and supporter, he told Reed that he and his friend Zach Kontas were both “very shocked” by the allegations and that “Zach was crying on the phone [with Dustin Struble] because he was upset about Jerry Sandusky and this situation….Zach was upset because his mom was pushing Zach to accuse Jerry.”[4]
By the time of the trial, Struble had changed his story, asserting that Sandusky gave him bear hugs, washed his hair in the shower, and then dried him off. He said that he had only disclosed these detailed to his attorneys and prosecutor Joe McGettigan a few months before the trial. Now he testified that Sandusky put his hand down his pants and touched his penis in the car, that Sandusky had grabbed him in the shower and pushed the front of his body up against the back of Dustin’s body, that Sandusky had touched his nipples and blown on his stomach. Now he said that that he never saw anybody else in the shower area, implying that he and Sandusky were alone there.
Defense attorney Joe Amendola challenged Struble, asking why he had changed his testimony so radically since the previous year.
Amendola: But today now you recall that he put his hand down pants, Mr. Sandusky [did], and grabbed your penis?
Struble: Yes. That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more. More things have been coming back and things have changed since that grand jury testimony. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point.[5]

Struble went on to explain more about how his repressed memories had returned in therapy.
“Through counseling and through talking about different events, through talking about things in my past, different things triggered different memories and have had more things come back, and it’s changed a lot about what I can remember today and what I could remember before, because I had everything negative blocked out. Now with the grand jury testimony was when I was just starting to open up that door, so to speak.”[6]
Further defending his changed testimony, Struble explained: “No, that testimony is what I had recalled at that time. Through – again, through counseling, through talking about things, I have remembered a great deal more things that I blocked out. And at that time, that was, yes, that’s what I thought but at this time that has changed.”[7]
During his testimony, Struble also revealed that he and Zachary Konstas had talked about how the repressed memory therapy was going. “Zach would ask me sort of what happened to me almost -- I feel so that he could confide in me. But he had asked me if I remembered anything more, if counseling was helping, just all kinds of random things.”[8]
When prosecutor McGettigan asked Struble why he hadn’t disclosed Sandusky’s abuse to the police during his first or second interrogation, Struble explained: “I had sort of blocked out that part of my life. Obviously, going to footballs games and those kind of things, I had chose sort of to keep out in the open, so to speak. And then the more negative things, I had sort of pushed into the back of my mind, sort of like closing a door, closing—putting stuff in the attic and closing the door to it. That’s what I feel like I did.”[9]
Dustin Struble was the only alleged Sandusky victim who agreed to speak to me on the record. In October 2014, I spoke with him at length in his home in State College, Pennsylvania, with follow-up by email and phone, and he verified that he had recovered memories of abuse and that he thought the door to his abuse memories was still only part-way open. He remained in therapy with Cindy McNab at The Highlands in State College.

“Actually both of my therapists have suggested that I have repressed memories, and that’s why we have been working on looking back on my life for triggers. My therapist has suggested that I may still have more repressed memories that have yet to be revealed, and this could be a big cause of the depression that I still carry today. We are still currently working on that.”[10]
I tried to clarify how his memories came back, asking whether that happened during therapy sessions and whether his therapist used any form of trance work. No, he said, “the memories come back instantly but fragmented, almost like a light bulb going off in your mind but with a sick feeling accompanying it. Most of these triggers occur at random places/times and are utterly unexpected. For me it feels like a giant puzzle that I seemingly stumble into key pieces. However, I feel like there are a few more missing pieces that are needed to solve this particular puzzle. When these events happen, I do discuss them with my therapist most of the time.”[11]
Late in 2013, Struble and four or five other alleged Sandusky victims met for weekly group therapy sessions over a three month period, which Struble found particularly validating and helpful in terms of triggering new memories. “That helped me go back and confront memories from the past. It had a big impact on me, hearing people echo what I couldn’t put into words.”[12]
I have to say that I liked Dustin Struble, who had just turned thirty, had bought a new house and car with the compensation money he had received from Penn State, and was planning to get married the following year. Bored at home, he went back to working part-time as a cook at the Eat’nPark restaurant. He considered himself an introvert and still struggled with depression. He used to smoke a lot of marijuana but stopped after he was arrested for selling it, and then he lost most of his friends when the police coerced him into taking part in a sting operation. “I take legal drugs now,” he said. “I was on six but now just four -- Selexa is an anti-depressant, Xanax for anxiety, Aderal for ADHD, and Ambion to sleep at night.”[13]
It was very clear that Struble, a personable but troubled young man, now truly believed that Sandusky had abused him, based on his recovered memories. I asked what he would have told me about Jerry Sandusky if I had asked him in 2010. “I would have said I went to games with him and that we were friends. At that point I was completely shut off to the negative aspects of it, wasn’t even aware of them really.”[14]
End of excerpt from The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment. Below is an email Mark Pendergrast sent to Dustin Struble a year later, but he never responded to it:
July 2, 2015, email Hi, Dustin – I am so glad that you are willing to read Victims of Memory and I mailed it to you today by priority mail. I hope it gets there before you leave for your honeymoon. In my cover letter, you’ll see I suggested that you start with Chapters 2 and 3, but I’m thinking that Chapter 1 is also very important because it explains how the repressed memory fad began in the 1980s and what the most important books supporting the idea of repressed memories were at that time, such as The Courage to Heal, so I suggest you start with it. Here are some quick summary points for you to consider:
Sigmund Freud made this theory up (of repressed sexual abuse memories) in 1895, then changed his mind about it two years later, but the theory just won’t go away. Most people still believe that humans can “repress” traumatic childhood memories and then “remember” them years later.
In fact, memory science tells us that people tend to remember traumatic events better than other events in their lives. They may not remember them in perfect detail, but they do not completely forget abusive incidents that were perceived as traumatic at the time.
Repressed memory therapy became a fad in the USA around 1988-1998, but it was debunked by memory scientists, researchers, professional associations, and many court cases.
But repressed memory therapy did not go away, it just went quietly underground. Many therapists still believe in this theory and encourage clients to “remember” and believe in illusory abuse memories. These therapists are not “bad” people. They truly believe they are doing good.
People can come to believe in very detailed memories of sexual abuse even though the abuse never occurred. Often therapists or their clients build on things that really did happen, such as a shower or wrestling around or a bedtime goodnight, and they get people to visualize additional things that did not happen during that shower, wrestling around, or saying goodnight, etc.
All memory is imperfect and subject to distortion, even without influential therapy. We all tend to revise our memories to fit our current beliefs and emotions. That could account for Mike McQueary’s changed memory of the shower scene, ten years after the fact, when he visualized seeing Jerry Sandusky behind a boy against the wall, when in fact that is not what he told Dr. Dranov or his father at the time of the incident. At that time, he just said he heard slapping sounds that he interpreted as being sexual, then saw Jerry and a boy walking out of the shower.
I know that you remain convinced that seeing the mesh shorts and t-shirt triggered a real repressed abuse memory, as did seeing a man with lots of curly grey chest hair. And this “explains” why you hated chest hair and shaved yours when you were in your late teens.
But consider that there is an alternative explanation that involves self-fulfilling expectations. You were in a state of extreme emotional agitation and were convinced that Jerry must have abused you, and you had come to believe in the theory of repressed memories. In such a state of heightened expectation, it is not surprising that were “triggered” by mesh clothing. I don’t know why you shaved your chest hair, but this is the sort of “proof” that isn’t really proof, such as the woman I wrote about in Victims of Memory who didn’t like pickles and took that as evidence that she had been raped because pickles were like penises.

The bottom line is that it is unlikely that people can or do “repress” traumatic memories. They remember them all too well. They may not remember incidents in great detail, but they certainly do not consider someone to be a good friend and then discover, to their horror, that this person had sexually abused them for years without their conscious awareness.
There are many other well-researched books about the issue of repressed memories, such as Remembering Trauma, by Richard McNally, The Myth of Repressed Memory, by Elizabeth Loftus, Making Monsters, by Richard Ofshe, and Try to Remember, by Paul McHugh. Also, Daniel Schacter has written some good books on memory in general, such as The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Remembers and Forgets.
Take care, Dustin, and good luck on your journey towards truth and healing.
--Mark Pendergrast

 

[marshall23]

And I haven’t said that it was different, I was just asking the question. I would think it would have been mentioned by Anderson but it seems he went the route we see many in here go that Jerry was showering with boys just like people do at the YMCA, which of course is not really the point. I guess you’d have to hear from coaches that were in the showers with him and the boys at those times to know what he did.

Well Anderson thinks he's innocent. My friend thought he was innocent. If you believe Zig, Jay is leaning that way, Booker Brooks as well has testified. Now McQueary claimed that Scrap and Schiano were aware of nonsense, but they quickly denied that claim.
These cases are very difficult since there is no physical evidence and there were no contemporaneous complaints or reports. I do wish they would have required a physical exam of the claimant that insisted he was subjected to repeated anal sex and locked in Jerry's family room "screaming." Only locks from the inside and he kept coming back week after week?
Again, I don't know if he's innocent. I'd just love to know the truth. I know we did not get that in the first trial.
I think the world of Joe Paterno. I fashioned my coaching career in many ways emulating him (not x and o ) but his principles. I think he was the victim of one of the worst smears in history. If Jerry is innocent or even if the majority of the most heinous accusations are dispelled, it would be immensely satisfying to me.......and I believe many others.....and while it's too late to change the narrative that the media ran with......I'd be okay with that.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Well Anderson thinks he's innocent. My friend thought he was innocent. If you believe Zig, Jay is leaning that way, Booker Brooks as well has testified. Now McQueary claimed that Scrap and Schiano were aware of nonsense, but they quickly denied that claim.
These cases are very difficult since there is no physical evidence and there were no contemporaneous complaints or reports. I do wish they would have required a physical exam of the claimant that insisted he was subjected to repeated anal sex and locked in Jerry's family room "screaming." Only locks from the inside and he kept coming back week after week?
Again, I don't know if he's innocent. I'd just love to know the truth. I know we did not get that in the first trial.
I think the world of Joe Paterno. I fashioned my coaching career in many ways emulating him (not x and o ) but his principles. I think he was the victim of one of the worst smears in history. If Jerry is innocent or even if the majority of the most heinous accusations are dispelled, it would be immensely satisfying to me.......and I believe many others.....and while it's too late to change the narrative that the media ran with......I'd be okay with that.

Joe was smeared, regardless of what the truth is. He did as he should have. The rest is he said-he said stuff and tough to know for sure what the complete truth is.
Good discussion Marshall. Have a good rest of the day.

 

[marshall23]

Joe was smeared, regardless of what the truth is. He did as he should have. The rest is he said-he said stuff and tough to know for sure what the complete truth is.
Good discussion Marshall. Have a good rest of the day.

Enjoy

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

It is now August and as I understand it, both Curly and Shultz probation is over. They are free men and can say whatever they want without retribution by the AG’s office.

I know that Curley is reluctant to be in the spotlight but his relationship with Joe should out weigh that reluctance. Is there any statement going to be issued?

 

[didier]

I asked because I thought there may have more basis for your opinion. I am not surprised that you didn't share any hard evidence because there is none. You have stated that you don't believe that Gricar did a rigorous investigation of the 98 incident based on some conspiracy theory. I am not buying it.

It's not much of a conspiracy theory.

A.) Many DAs across the country have cut deals with prominent alleged pedophiles (and their attorneys) if they feel they don't have a lock-tight case. Prominent is key...these guys can afford really good lawyers that can tear the victims apart. These aren't just the guys living in trailers molesting their nieces...those guys are easy to convict.

B.) Gricar had cut at least one of these deals before 1998 with another alleged pedophile.

C.) Gricar's assistant stated to a number of people that Gricar agreed not to prosecute Sandusky if he got help.

D.) Gricar's other assistant had "extensive disagreements" with him about how he was handling the Sandusky case

This isn't 100% proof that such a deal occurred with Jerry but it is strongly suggestive. There are many interviews that remain under seal regarding this case. If they are ever released it would either strengthen or weaken the argument that this deal was cut.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The problem Marshall, is that some people are appalled at the irregularities of the investigation and trial but not by a grown man manipulating situations to shower with and initiate physical contact with boys. The lack of being appalled at the latter makes them being appalled at the former seem disingenuous. I think a reasonable person can see issues with the prosecution of Jerry while also acknowledging that there is no defense for Jerry being in that situation repeatedly. I honestly (and obviously) don’t get how people can try to rationalize and/or defend Jerry’s showering practices with boys.

Jerry's conduct in these situations was inappropriate.

BUT.

Say it with me:

Inappropriate.
Does.
Not.
Equal.
Criminal.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Ziegler is a "reporter" and I'm a brain surgeon.

Really? Impressive. Where did you do your residency?

 

[PSU2UNC]

It's not much of a conspiracy theory.

A.) Many DAs across the country have cut deals with prominent alleged pedophiles (and their attorneys) if they feel they don't have a lock-tight case. Prominent is key...these guys can afford really good lawyers that can tear the victims apart. These aren't just the guys living in trailers molesting their nieces...those guys are easy to convict.

B.) Gricar had cut at least one of these deals before 1998 with another alleged pedophile.

C.) Gricar's assistant stated to a number of people that Gricar agreed not to prosecute Sandusky if he got help.

D.) Gricar's other assistant had "extensive disagreements" with him about how he was handling the Sandusky case

This isn't 100% proof that such a deal occurred with Jerry but it is strongly suggestive. There are many interviews that remain under seal regarding this case. If they are ever released it would either strengthen or weaken the argument that this deal was cut.

Can you please provide citations for these assertions, especially (B)?

I have followed this case very closely and I do not recall any definitive proof of any of these items.

Also, if (A) applied to Sandusky, why did he hire the legal team he did in 2011? They were not only NOT the dream team, they were completely out of their depth.

 

[didier]

Can you please provide citations for these assertions, especially (B)?

I have followed this case very closely and I do not recall any definitive proof of any of these items.

Also, if (A) applied to Sandusky, why did he hire the legal team he did in 2011? They were not only NOT the dream team, they were completely out of their depth.

A.) Check the Altoona GJ report on bishop abuse. There were several instances documented, including a letter from one DA in the 1970s stating that he was going to do exactly that. The opening scene of Spotlight is based on incidents of DAs hushing up cases in Boston in the 1970s.

B.) Check McChesney's notes. The police report on this individual contains even more detail.

C.) I have an email in front of me stating "That was Ray and my case in 1998...and unfortunately, RG's decision NOT to prosecute if he received help with the problem (with parent's blessing) backfired 10 yrs later..." He communicated similar messages to other people I've spoken to.

D.) Amendola request in discovery in February 2012...asks for Karen Arnold police interview citing " extensive disagreements" between Arnold and Gricar in regard to the 1998 case.

 

[didier]

Also, if (A) applied to Sandusky, why did he hire the legal team he did in 2011? They were not only NOT the dream team, they were completely out of their depth.

Amendola's a very competent lawyer. And he's handled pretty much every prominent accused pedophiles case in Centre County going back to the 1980s.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Amendola's a very competent lawyer. And he's handled pretty much every prominent accused pedophiles case in Centre County going back to the 1980s.

He did not demonstrate to be a competent lawyer during this trial. At best, he was overwhelmed. At worst, he didn't know what he was doing.

Can you please provide the court case information of all the other "prominent pedophile cases" in Centre County that he defended? My understanding is that he mostly worked on DUI cases. Also, how many "prominent pedophile cases" do you think there were in Centre County??

Finally, even if the first two parts of your statement are true, he was not equipped to handle a trial of this nature and it was obvious.

 

[PSU2UNC]

B.) Check McChesney's notes. The police report on this individual contains even more detail.

C.) I have an email in front of me stating "That was Ray and my case in 1998...and unfortunately, RG's decision NOT to prosecute if he received help with the problem (with parent's blessing) backfired 10 yrs later..." He communicated similar messages to other people I've spoken to.

D.) Amendola request in discovery in February 2012...asks for Karen Arnold police interview citing " extensive disagreements" between Arnold and Gricar in regard to the 1998 case.

Can you please be more specific (page # )on McChesney's notes? They are not well organized and are hard to find things in.

Is this email in the public domain? If so, can you please provide a link?

I'm nor sure how an assertion in a request for discovery equal proof of this, but OK. I'm sure prosecutors disagree all the time about how to handle cases.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Jerry's conduct in these situations was inappropriate.

BUT.

Say it with me:

Inappropriate.
Does.
Not.
Equal.
Criminal.

The officer that investigated said it was. Inappropriate doesn’t always equal criminal, obviously. But sometimes it does. And not being charged doesn’t always mean a crime wasn’t committed.

 

[didier]

He did not demonstrate to be a competent lawyer during this trial. At best, he was overwhelmed. At worst, he didn't know what he was doing.

Can you please provide the court case information of all the other "prominent pedophile cases" in Centre County that he defended? My understanding is that he mostly worked on DUI cases. Also, how many "prominent pedophile cases" do you think there were in Centre County??

Finally, even if the first two parts of your statement are true, he was not equipped to handle a trial of this nature and it was obvious.

I would agree Amendola's handling of Sandusky's case was poor. However, his previous track record was pretty successful.

At minimum Amendola has represented Tim Bagshaw (the scoutmaster and former police officer who molested Scouts in the 80s), Christopher Lee, Mr. Accuweather and Jerry. There could very well be...and probably are, more that I don't know about.

 

[francofan]

It is now August and as I understand it, both Curly and Shultz probation is over. They are free men and can say whatever they want without retribution by the AG’s office.

I know that Curley is reluctant to be in the spotlight but his relationship with Joe should out weigh that reluctance. Is there any statement going to be issued?

Gary Schultz has given 2 extensive interviews that are now available.

The first one is an one hour 36 minute interview with John Ziegler from 2018:



The second one is a two hour seven minute interview with John Ziegler and Liz Habib in 2020



Here is what Ziegler says about the interviews on his framingpaterno web pages.

As part of the production of this podcast, John and Liz conducted numerous extremely extensive interviews (including with many people very close to "Victim #1" Aaron Fisher, including his soon to be ex-wfe, Mallory Fisher), most of which are being made available right here, for free, with only light editing to elimiate pauses and production gaps.

Foremost among them are two rather long, news-making, interviews with former Penn State administrator Gary Schultz, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in order to avoid a kangaroo court on more serious charges of covering up for Sandusky. These are the only two media interviews which Schultz has ever done about the case.

The first interview, which was conducted with John back in 2018, deals with many of the key details of the McQueary date issue, a topic on which Schultz is perhaps THE most important witness, since it was emails which he turned over to the prosecution that caused them to suddenly change the date from 2002 to 2001. Here, for the first time, Schultz expresses his stated belief that December 29th, 2000 was indeed the real date, and that, amazingly, Jerry Sandusky is very likely INNOCENT of being a child sexual abuser.

The second, even more extensive, interview with Schultz, conducted by both John and Liz in 2020, covers some of the same ground as the first interview, but also provides remarkable context for just how blindsided everyone from Penn State was when brought in to testify at Sandusky’s grand jury. It ends with Schultz once again proclaiming that he has no reason to believe that Sandusky is guilty, and expressing strong emotion at the enormous toll that the false narrative has taken on everyone involved.

In a rational world, this interview would have been conducted on national television in primetime, but the news media is no longer remotely credible on this story, so Schultz has trusted only this podcast, exclusively, to tell his mind-blowing version of events, which is backed up by voluminous amounts of evidence, including the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses.

If only one interview could be used to prove that the entire media narrative of this case is a fraud, it would be this one.

 

[didier]

Can you please be more specific (page # )on McChesney's notes? They are not well organized and are hard to find things in.

Is this email in the public domain? If so, can you please provide a link?

I'm nor sure how an assertion in a request for discovery equal proof of this, but OK. I'm sure prosecutors disagree all the time about how to handle cases.

1.) Search for Accuweather ( I don't currently have the file in front of me for page numbers)

2.) It's not. It was a private communication

3.) They do but we know that Gricar decided not to prosecute. "Extensive disagreements" with Arnold would suggest Arnold wanted to be more aggressive. Arnold did not want Seasock involved and yet the interview occurred. She was pulled off the case shortly after that interview.

 

[francofan]

It's not much of a conspiracy theory.

A.) Many DAs across the country have cut deals with prominent alleged pedophiles (and their attorneys) if they feel they don't have a lock-tight case. Prominent is key...these guys can afford really good lawyers that can tear the victims apart. These aren't just the guys living in trailers molesting their nieces...those guys are easy to convict.

B.) Gricar had cut at least one of these deals before 1998 with another alleged pedophile.

C.) Gricar's assistant stated to a number of people that Gricar agreed not to prosecute Sandusky if he got help.

D.) Gricar's other assistant had "extensive disagreements" with him about how he was handling the Sandusky case

This isn't 100% proof that such a deal occurred with Jerry but it is strongly suggestive. There are many interviews that remain under seal regarding this case. If they are ever released it would either strengthen or weaken the argument that this deal was cut.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and I am still not buying it. It seems like there was a thorough investigation done in 1998 that came to the correct conclusion not to charge or indicate Sandusky. Do you have any clear and convincing indication that the conclusion was wrong?

On the other hand, there have been several clear and convincing indications that the 2010-2012 OAG investigation that resulted in Sandusky's indictment and conviction had serious problems including the false grand jury presentment that McQueary witnessed an anal rape, leaked grand jury information, juror tampering, Brady violations, violating attorney-client privledge, investigators lying under oath plus many other. When you consider this in the light of the dearth of hard evidence that Sandusky harmed anybody and a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise, I believe it is clearly evident that Sandusky was railroaded. At a minimum, Sandusky deserves a new trial.

 

[PSU2UNC]

The officer that investigated said it was. Inappropriate doesn’t always equal criminal, obviously. But sometimes it does. And not being charged doesn’t always mean a crime wasn’t committed.

Being charged does also not mean a crime has been committed.

 

[PSU2UNC]

1.) Search for Accuweather ( I don't currently have the file in front of me for page numbers)

2.) It's not. It was a private communication

3.) They do but we know that Gricar decided not to prosecute. "Extensive disagreements" with Arnold would suggest Arnold wanted to be more aggressive. Arnold did not want Seasock involved and yet the interview occurred. She was pulled off the case shortly after that interview.

1) Thanks. I did that. "Accuweather" does not appear in the McChesney notes.

2) Not super helpful then, is it?

3) That doesn't mean Gricar was wrong and Arnold was right.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I would agree Amendola's handling of Sandusky's case was poor. However, his previous track record was pretty successful.

At minimum Amendola has represented Tim Bagshaw (the scoutmaster and former police officer who molested Scouts in the 80s), Christopher Lee, Mr. Accuweather and Jerry. There could very well be...and probably are, more that I don't know about.

In that I have never heard of any of those other cases, I think it is safe to say none were as high profile/high pressure/tried in the media the way Sandusky's case was.

Just curious, how did those cases end up? What's Amendola's batting average?

 

[didier]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and I am still not buying it. It seems like there was a thorough investigation done in 1998 that came to the correct conclusion not to charge or indicate Sandusky. Do you have any clear and convincing indication that the conclusion was wrong?

DAs cut deals all the time. It really isn't that unusual. It's become less frequent in regard to child sex abuse cases but it was fairly common practice 2+ decades ago.

The investigation cannot be considered thorough if the DAs office didn't meet with the victim or his mother. That's borderline prosectutorial misconduct.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Being charged does also not mean a crime has been committed.

Obviously both are true. So how you can be convinced Sandusky did not have ill intentions while placing himself in an unimaginable position for somebody in his role is baffling to me.

 

[didier]

1) Thanks. I did that. "Accuweather" does not appear in the McChesney notes.

2) Not super helpful then, is it?

3) That doesn't mean Gricar was wrong and Arnold was right.

1.) I think they spell it Accu weather that's why. It's pages 13 and 44.

2.) It's helpful to me. I have no doubt he wrote it. Whether he's accurately recalling what happened is another story. But he was probably the closest person to Gricar in the office and I don't see why he'd say something like this that makes Gricar look bad.

3.) It doesn't but it suggests that at least one person in the office didn't seem to like what was happening to the investigation. And then that person was taken out of the investigation.

 

[didier]

In that I have never heard of any of those other cases, I think it is safe to say none were as high profile/high pressure/tried in the media the way Sandusky's case was.

Just curious, how did those cases end up? What's Amendola's batting average?

Lee, Bagshaw and Accuweather were all let off easy. Lee was granted an ARD (Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition) from Madeira in 2006. He was recharged after Sandusky in 2015/16 and sentenced to 18 years. Most observers do not believe he should have ever been given an ARD originally.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Obviously both are true. So how you can be convinced Sandusky did not have ill intentions while placing himself in an unimaginable position for somebody in his role is baffling to me.

Because of the rest of the context surrounding the case.

I agree with you that if there was only one data point here that it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion than the one you have. But when the totally of the evidence is considered, your conclusion really doesn't make any sense.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Because of the rest of the context surrounding the case.

I agree with you that if there was only one data point here that it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion than the one you have. But when the totally of the evidence is considered, your conclusion really doesn't make any sense.

When you start with a grown man trained in working with at risk youth showering alone with them and hugging them in the shower, it makes sense.
I’m intrigued though, what do you think my conclusion is?

 

[PSU2UNC]

When you start with a grown man trained in working with at risk youth showering alone with them and hugging them in the shower, it makes sense.
I’m intrigued though, what do you think my conclusion is?

Your conclusion (as you have stated before) is that the showering incident in question was inherently sexual.

My conclusion is that it was inappropriate and not necessarily sexual.

Does anyone know (first hand or through court documents) what trainings TSM employees had to complete? I don't recall hearing this discussed at trial.

During the very brief time when I worked with kids (I taught basketball at a YMCA Day Camp for one summer), the only thing I remember was that I had to go through a criminal background check. I do not recall any formal training other than that. Granted this was 30 years ago, but...

 

[Connorpozlee]

Your conclusion (as you have stated before) is that the showering incident in question was inherently sexual.

My conclusion is that it was inappropriate and not necessarily sexual.

Does anyone know (first hand or through court documents) what trainings TSM employees had to complete? I don't recall hearing this discussed at trial.

During the very brief time when I worked with kids (I taught basketball at a YMCA Day Camp for one summer), the only thing I remember was that I had to go through a criminal background check. I do not recall any formal training other than that. Granted this was 30 years ago, but...

Nope, I’ve never said it was inherently sexual. I said nobody has ever come up with a reasonable excuse for it that excuses it. I’ve consistently said that my mind is open, but until somebody comes up with something to excuse I have to assume it is sexual.
I’ve worked in several different organizations over the last 25 years that are similar to TSM. Every one of them included trainings that would make it impossible to not understand that you should not hug boys naked. Is it possible TSM didn’t provide such trainings? I guess so. But even at that, the training is not necessary because any adult who is not two standard deviations south of the IQ mean knows that you can’t do that. It doesn’t take a training to be told not to shower alone with a boy and hug them.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Nope, I’ve never said it was inherently sexual. I said nobody has ever come up with a reasonable excuse for it that excuses it. I’ve consistently said that my mind is open, but until somebody comes up with something to excuse I have to assume it is sexual.
I’ve worked in several different organizations over the last 25 years that are similar to TSM. Every one of them included trainings that would make it impossible to not understand that you should not hug boys naked. Is it possible TSM didn’t provide such trainings? I guess so. But even at that, the training is not necessary because any adult who is not two standard deviations south of the IQ mean knows that you can’t do that. It doesn’t take a training to be told not to shower alone with a boy and hug them.

Multiple posters (including myself) have give you reasonable explanations. You reject them. That does not make them invalid.

I don't disagree that these trainings should have occurred. I have no knowledge of what was required and/or what trainings were actually taken. Maybe someone here had previously worked with TSM and can comment on training requirements?

I also agree that the vast majority of people would not think it acceptable to shower alone with a young man and engage in horseplay. However, just because it is not acceptable behavior does not make it criminal.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Multiple posters (including myself) have give you reasonable explanations. You reject them. That does not make them invalid.

I don't disagree that these trainings should have occurred. I have no knowledge of what was required and/or what trainings were actually taken. Maybe someone here had previously worked with TSM and can comment on training requirements?

I also agree that the vast majority of people would not think it acceptable to shower alone with a young man and engage in horseplay. However, just because it is not acceptable behavior does not make it criminal.

“Cleaning up after a (10 minute) workout” does not cut it as a valid excuse. I’m sure you know that, but you cling to it for some reason instead of just saying, “That is absolutely bizarre and inappropriate behavior. I still don’t think he’s a pedophile but damn, there is no excuse for that”. Instead of saying there is no excuse for it, you excuse it and you really shouldn’t.

 

[PSU2UNC]

“Cleaning up after a (10 minute) workout” does not cut it as a valid excuse. I’m sure you know that, but you cling to it for some reason instead of just saying, “That is absolutely bizarre and inappropriate behavior. I still don’t think he’s a pedophile but damn, there is no excuse for that”. Instead of saying there is no excuse for it, you excuse it and you really shouldn’t.

Let me ask this another way:

In your mind, are either of these statements true:

A) The behavior is inexcusable, therefore it was criminal.

B) The behavior is inexcusable, but it may or may not be criminal.

If it is (B), I don't know what we are arguing about.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Let me ask this another way:

In your mind, are either of these statements true:

A) The behavior is inexcusable, therefore it was criminal.

B) The behavior is inexcusable, but it may or may not be criminal.

If it is (B), I don't know what we are arguing about.

I have said B repeatedly. I’m not arguing. I continue to point to you that it is most likely inexcusable and criminal because why else would you hug somebody when you are both naked? For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that it is even a possibility that it (and acts that followed) is criminal. The people that want Jerry to be innocent can’t seem to wrap their minds around the possibility that he’s not innocent. It’s bizarre. Grown men don’t shower alone with boys and hug them. They just don’t. I don’t know one man that has ever done that. I doubt you do either. When those boys later accuse that man of sexually abusing them while they were boys, it’s logical. It’s not absolute proof, but it sure is tough for him to deny.

 

[jerot]

In that I have never heard of any of those other cases, I think it is safe to say none were as high profile/high pressure/tried in the media the way Sandusky's case was.

Just curious, how did those cases end up? What's Amendola's batting average?

Just remember, Amendola did nothing to prep Sandusky for talking with Costas, Sandusky's appeal lawyers say. That 2011 interview was replayed in court by the prosecutors, who proceeded to rip Sandusky for talking to Costas, but not the jury. Sandusky was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

The idiocy of the Costas interview was recounted in a 257-page post-hearing brief filed Thursday in Centre County Common Pleas Court by Sandusky's appeal lawyers, Alexander H. Lindsay Jr. and J. Andrew Salemme, of Butler, PA.

Lindsay and Salemme argue that Sandusky deserves a new trial because Amendola foolishly chose to go on national TV and give up his client's right to remain silent and not convict himself. Amendola went on Costas's TV show in a misguided campaign to cultivate "friends" in the media, Sandusky's appeal lawyers write. Amendola told a judge he embarked on his campaign because at the time the media was saying that his client was "worse than Adolph Hitler."In the interview, Costas asked Sandusky if he was sexually attracted to young boys.

Sandusky repeated the question a couple of times, before saying, "I -- I love to be around them . . I -- I -- but no, I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."

In their appeal brief, Sandusky's lawyers argue that the Costas debacle wasn't all Jerry's fault. It was editing by NBC that made it appear "that there was repetition of the infamous question and answer regarding Mr. Sandusky being sexually attracted to young boys," the lawyers write.

Amendola admitted that the Costas interview presented at trial had the "same effect as a police interview," except that Amendola was powerless on TV to stop the questioning, Sandusky's lawyers write.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote another criminal defense attorney, James Bryant, as saying he would have only agreed to the Costas interview if they put "a gun to my head."

That interview "killed" Sandusky, Bryant said. Especially when it was played at trial.

At trial, Sandusky's lawyers said, the prosecutors "sought to fix a bias and hostility against Mr. Sandusky in the jury's minds based on the fact that Mr. Sandusky was willing to talk to the media about his case, but he did not take the stand to talk to the jury directly."

Sandusky's lawyers cited the Fifth Amendment that says no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Except if he voluntarily decides to waive that privilege, by going on national TV.

Prior to the Costas interview, Sandusky's lawyers write, Amendola told Sandusky that only Amendola would be interviewed by Costas. And that if Sandusky was interviewed, the only thing he would have to say was that "he was innocent."

The short notice to Sandusky was disclosed by the host of Rock Center, Sandusky's lawyers say.

"Bob Costas, himself, provided an interview in which he recalled that Mr. Amendola only contacted Mr. Sandusky 15 minutes before the interview," Sandusky's lawyers write.

Sandusky originally wasn't even supposed to appear on the show. At the time, in his campaign to win friends in the media, Amendola had promised to do his first interview with Costas. But then the lawyer gave an interview to CNN.

An NBC producer "voiced strong displeasure" after the CNN interview, Sandusky's lawyers write.

"In order to make up for this and ingratiate himself with the media again, Mr. Amendola convinced Mr. Sandusky to do the interview" with Costas, Sandusky's lawyers write. Aamendola told Sandusky the Costas interview would provide a "golden opportunity" to proclaim his innocence.

In their appeal brief, Sandusky's lawyers also fault Amendola for failing to move to quash the grand jury charges against Sandusky because of illegal grand jury leaks.

Amendola was aware that former Patriot News reporter Sara Ganim "had the name and phone number of an agent involved in the investigation and was providing it to potential witnesses," but did nothing to investigate, Sandusky's lawyers write.

Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her work on Sandusky, wrote the first story about the supposedly secret Sandusky grand jury investigation, on March 30, 2011, so somebody in the know was obviously leaking grand jury secrets to her. In that article, Ganim cited a prior 1998 investigation into another Sandusky shower incident. Somebody had obviously leaked to Ganim a police report from the prior 1998 case that had turned up no crime, and was supposed to be expunged.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers write that Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave the mother the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, had a message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."


Sandusky's lawyers say the trial judge was at fault for not allowing the defense to call Ganim as a witness, so they could ask about the grand jury leaks.

After the initial Ganim article, Ronald Petrosky, a retired Penn State janitor, came forward to accuse
Sandusky of another shower incident.

At the Sandusky trial, prosecutors were allowed to present hearsay evidence via Ronald Petrosky that another retired janitor, James Calhoun, had allegedly "observed Jerry Sandusky molesting a child in the Lasch Building shower."

Sandusky's appeal lawyers fault trial lawyer Amendola for not telling the jury that 13 months prior to the trial, Calhoun had given a taped interview to a state trooper where he denied that it was Sandusky he saw in the shower having sex with a boy.

At trial, however, Sandusky was found guilty of abusing "victim 8," identity unknown. Sandusky's appeal lawyers also faulted Amendola for not objecting when prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told the jury that the identity of Victim No. 2 -- the boy Mike McQueary had allegedly witnessed being anally raped in the showers by Sandusky -- was "known only to God."

At the time, the prosecutors knew that Allan Myers had claimed to be the boy in the showers with Sandusky, and they had done nothing to denied it, Sandusky's lawyers write. Myers told state troopers that he and Sandusky were snapping towels in the shower, which could have accounted for the "slapping sounds" heard by McQueary.

Myers told corporal Corporal Jospeh Leiter and Trooper James Ellis in 2011 that "The grand jury report says Coach McQuearry said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. This is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

But Amendola was so incompetent he never presented Myers's statements to the jury, Sandusky's appeal lawyers write.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers also hit Amendola for not presenting any expert witness testimony "regarding repressed or false memories" of the alleged victims.

Amendola knew about recordings "showing suggestive police questioning and learning that therapy was used to enhance the memories of the accusers," Sandusky's lawyers write. Yet, Amendola did not challenge "the reliability of the accusers or present expert testimony on suggestive questioning" by police and therapists.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a renowned expert on memory.

In an appeal hearing, Loftus testified that Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Sandusky case, "had a therapist who appeared to have convinced his patient that he had repressed memories of abuse."

Aaron Fisher "did undergo a type of repressed memory therapy . . . designed to get people to remember things that somebody thinks they have repressed or forgotten," Loftus testified.

There is "no credible scientific evidence" to support the theory of massive repression of traumatic memories, and subsequent recovery of those repressed memories, Sandusky's lawyers write.

The theory of repressed memory "is so controversial that in many other jurisdictions, accusers who claim to have repressed memories that have been recovered, the cases are even dismissed because of the controversial nature of that theory," Loftus testified.

In their brief, Sandusky's lawyers quote Silent No More, the book written by Fisher with his therapist, Mike Gillum.

Prior to therapy, Fisher "never acknowledged any sexual abuse" by Sandusky, his lawyers write. Fisher's book "suggests Gillum used suggestive questioning to ferret out Mr. Sandusky's alleged abuse," Sandusky's lawyers write.

The lawyers quote Fisher from Silent No More: "Mike [Gillum] just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry."