The problem is that there is no evidence of that and you couldn't convince someone of it who had no knowledge of the case.
Last edited:
Ziegler Slaten today 4:30 PM ET
- Thread starter JeannieNeedsAShooter
- Start date
The problem is that there is no evidence of that and you couldn't convince someone of it who had no knowledge of the case.
Let's recap what we have learned since the trial:
1. Alan Myers wrote letters to the newspapers saying Jerry never did anything sexual with him.
2. At the time, Shubin said that Alan was not V2. A few months ago Shubin boasts that V2, Alan, is his client.
3. Matt wanted to champion Jerry, but after talking to Shubin changed his mind.
4. After the trial, Shubin got Matt and Alan $3 mil apiece.
5. Aaron said how his Principal did not believe him. It has now been established Aaron was a storyteller.
6. Aaron described sexual molestation. Now we find out Aaron's mother filed protective orders against her husband for fear he was abusing Aaron. We now find Aaron's stepfather is a self confessed child abuser.
7. Jerry was convicted of a felony rape based on hearsay that did not produce a victim or a date. How does one defend against that? No need, it has now been discovered the janitor twice swore the raper was not Jerry.
There are several posters saying there is no reason for a new trial. Are they one of the BOT or related to one?
Some posters dispute the facts, because they claim JZ is a moron. Don't shoot the messenger over facts.
Some posters say JZ is picking on the poor helpless victims. JZ picks on Matt and Aaron, who are known liars, who are writing and talking about Jerry being a pedophile. JZ is pointing out the inaccuracies in their stories. JZ has pretty much left alone the other accusers except to point out such inaccuracies like Jerry meeting them several times after football practice. Gee, does anyone think Joe let the coaches off right after practice?
I have written this quickly and I wish I kept notes, but I don't. If anyone else feels like adding to this, please do.
The bottom line is that if you agree Jerry did not get a fair trial and you live in PA, please put pressure on your State Reps. I think we will be amazed at the results from an unbiased jury. The only question mark now is that there are so many claims one might still think one of them is true. Personally I think Jerry may be found guilty of overstepping boundaries, but let's face it - showering with boys was not a big deal to older men at the time like Kenney. I do think it was shocking to younger men like Mike. Today, it is considered disgusting to all and that is one good thing to come out of this.
1. Alan Myers wrote letters to the newspapers saying Jerry never did anything sexual with him.
2. At the time, Shubin said that Alan was not V2. A few months ago Shubin boasts that V2, Alan, is his client.
3. Matt wanted to champion Jerry, but after talking to Shubin changed his mind.
4. After the trial, Shubin got Matt and Alan $3 mil apiece.
5. Aaron said how his Principal did not believe him. It has now been established Aaron was a storyteller.
6. Aaron described sexual molestation. Now we find out Aaron's mother filed protective orders against her husband for fear he was abusing Aaron. We now find Aaron's stepfather is a self confessed child abuser.
7. Jerry was convicted of a felony rape based on hearsay that did not produce a victim or a date. How does one defend against that? No need, it has now been discovered the janitor twice swore the raper was not Jerry.
There are several posters saying there is no reason for a new trial. Are they one of the BOT or related to one?
Some posters dispute the facts, because they claim JZ is a moron. Don't shoot the messenger over facts.
Some posters say JZ is picking on the poor helpless victims. JZ picks on Matt and Aaron, who are known liars, who are writing and talking about Jerry being a pedophile. JZ is pointing out the inaccuracies in their stories. JZ has pretty much left alone the other accusers except to point out such inaccuracies like Jerry meeting them several times after football practice. Gee, does anyone think Joe let the coaches off right after practice?
I have written this quickly and I wish I kept notes, but I don't. If anyone else feels like adding to this, please do.
The bottom line is that if you agree Jerry did not get a fair trial and you live in PA, please put pressure on your State Reps. I think we will be amazed at the results from an unbiased jury. The only question mark now is that there are so many claims one might still think one of them is true. Personally I think Jerry may be found guilty of overstepping boundaries, but let's face it - showering with boys was not a big deal to older men at the time like Kenney. I do think it was shocking to younger men like Mike. Today, it is considered disgusting to all and that is one good thing to come out of this.
Outside of the living victims who testified to what he did. They don't count to you which is fine. Good news is the molestor will stay locked up until he no longer has a pulse.
Great day for PSU today, enjoy it and root for the pedophile tomorrow!!!
They count, but not without other evidence. See, I believe conjuring up victims was all part of the prosecution's strategy and also that the BOT was complicit. Quantity over quality. All the public needed to hear was the number of charges and its collective mind was made up. Erickson's pretrial promise to settle all the civil suits brought the likes of Matt Sandusky to the trough.
I want evidence for the cases that supposedly happened at PSU, there just isn't any.
I call JZ a moron because he's a moron. Fisher was taunting him with that last picture and he acts like it's real.
This isn't hindsight, in 1998 he was confronted by 3 adults that all told him showering alone with children was wrong. One of them was from child protective services. Sandusky knew showering with children was wrong. There's no explanation, outside of the obvious, for him to continue doing it.
If you can't at least admit that then your mind is made up.
Of course AF was taunting him. He's been exposed as a fraud, along with his mother and he's pissed off.
Showering alone was stupid because it was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Showering after a work out only makes sense.
One thing no one has ever been able to put into context was those admonitions and the only one I'm aware of is the cop's. Did he tell JS not to shower alone with kids and "I'll be watching you"? Or was it more like, "Mr. Sandusky, nothing good can come from you showering alone with these kids. You're putting yourself in a very vulnerable situation. BTW, you wouldn't happen to have any extra tickets for Saturday's game, would you?"
The obvious reason JS continued his behavior was that he never saw anything wrong with it.
This entire post senseless BS and doesn't come close to making a point.
Victim 2? What the hell does victim 2 have to do with that question? He wasn't the only victim, hence the #2.
You're not very good at this.
Todd "soiled underwear" Brewster: I don't Facebook and JZ is moron. Once the Paterno family distanced themselves from him all he had left was Sandusky. He trolls Facebook and attacks victims, that's it.
And here we go adding crap to absolve any real responsibility by anyone in this sorted affair. You're in total denial.
wow I think that is a record, 18 posts is way too soon for me to be ignoring someone. but it was earned.
Way to dodge!
Uh... you're not very good at life apparently, and I'm not talking about the grammar mistakes. Victim 2 was the victim in that shower at PSU that was showering with Jerry when MM walked in. He is THE shower victim. I guess you are new to the internet?
All I've done is state facts. You guys let each other get away with ridiculous leaps in logic to the point where fact is subjective.
I don't know what will happen in a new trial, but I don't believe that a not guilty verdict would be out of the question. I believe that in the first trial that JS had ineffective counsel, that the prosecution committed several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, and that the jury was inherently biased. IMO, I believe Al Lindsay in his Petition for Post Conviction Relief makes a compelling case of each of those issues. At the same time, I am told that PCRAs have a success rate of maybe 1% so the odds are not in JS's favor and he faces a extremely daunting task. I am very interested in seeing the Commonwealth's response to Lindsay's Petition to see how they rebut the notion that v2 is AM, that the janitor charges are unreasonable, that Joe Amendola's counsel was effective, that the prosecution's behavior was reasonable, and that the jury was unbiased. Based on what I know now, I believe the Commonwealth will not have an easy time debunking the Petition, and that if Judge Cleland is at all objective, he will order hearings into whether a new trial is warranted.
Last edited:
Checkmate LT. You are a definitely liar, probably a BOT stooge/PR blogger, and definitely a TROLL You say that you have been a member since May. I have talked about soiled underwear many times before, but not after you joined. Who are you? Are you Jacobson, Andrea DiMaggio, Judas etc.?
I hope that all legitimate posters here see how there is a cartel of BOT supporters here to try and defend the BOT. Their arguments are the same ones and try to discredit JZ who knows this information better than anyone. The BOT has paid millions to a PR firm to defend the BOT and you are reading first hand examples here. There is no way anyone can prove that they did not have sex with anyone they have been in contact with and all these PR types try to do is raise doubt. The jury listened to boys who said they were molested by a MONSTER. All things being equal and I would say the Monster is guilty too, but a trial is about perceiving the accused of being innocent until proven guilty and the jury should have been objective and I seriously doubt anyone was. I know for a fact that I thought Jerry was guilty at the time.
This TROLL LT also attacks JZ's response to Aaron on FB and then says he/she does not read FB. Huh?
The TROLL LT also cites several people telling Jerry not to shower and there is no proof of this. OldTired brought this up originally and it is a good question and now LT is twisting the question to fit the BOT's agenda.
I hope that all legitimate posters here see how there is a cartel of BOT supporters here to try and defend the BOT. Their arguments are the same ones and try to discredit JZ who knows this information better than anyone. The BOT has paid millions to a PR firm to defend the BOT and you are reading first hand examples here. There is no way anyone can prove that they did not have sex with anyone they have been in contact with and all these PR types try to do is raise doubt. The jury listened to boys who said they were molested by a MONSTER. All things being equal and I would say the Monster is guilty too, but a trial is about perceiving the accused of being innocent until proven guilty and the jury should have been objective and I seriously doubt anyone was. I know for a fact that I thought Jerry was guilty at the time.
This TROLL LT also attacks JZ's response to Aaron on FB and then says he/she does not read FB. Huh?
The TROLL LT also cites several people telling Jerry not to shower and there is no proof of this. OldTired brought this up originally and it is a good question and now LT is twisting the question to fit the BOT's agenda.
JZ was on the radio boasting about the picture which was posted here. One look and you know it was nothing more than an attempt to taunt JZ.
I'm sorry if you lack the objectivity to see JZ for what he is but, it's really obvious what he's about.
After the Paterno report, and then being shunned publicly after interviewing JS, he had nothing left to keep him relevant except his access to Sandusky. JZ believed JS was a pedophile in March of 2013:
So JZ magically became convinced of Sandusky's innocence after he couldn't throw Paterno's name around anymore. Talk about a false narrative.
As for me being a troll:
It's a fact that Sandusky was confronted by 3 adults in 98 about showering with children. JS knew it was wrong but continued to do it. To argue anything else is ridiculous.
Now please enlighten me to how that's trolling? Who am I pointing the finger at? The guy serving 30 years in prison after being convicted in a court of law. If you take issue with that, or think it's nothing more than troll bait, you're delusional or trolling.
BTW, your posts have been disturbing enough to recognize your name and your soiled underwear posts have been mentioned.
I'll just make this observation of LT's absurd logic and be done with it.
AF posted the picture to taunt JZ (obviously intending JZ to see it??). JZ saw it and published it. AF responded by threatening to run people over with his truck. So did he want JZ to see it or not?? and that makes JZ the moron??
really, the mental working of some people fascinates me. and what do I mean by "some"??? I'll have an oreo and think about it more tomorrow.
Only problem is victim 2's age literally has nothing to do with the question you quoted (or anything I've posted):
L.T. Young said: ↑
Let me ask you a question, would you let your 11year old son shower alone with Sandusky?
Please tell me what victim 2's age has to do with that question?
I'm not really surprised you don't get it. So if Victim #2, THE shower victim, was 20, does his age still literally have nothing to with the question? It also shows you don't really grasp the facts of the case.
I think AF would be well served to get better advisers. I don't think Dawn Hennessy and/or Mallory Foster are giving him good advise. He needs a new social media strategy. I wonder if his lawyer Michael Boni or his psycholgist Michael Gillum are advising him at this time. He needs help.
This story is not about JZ. This story is about JZ's message. JS did not receive a fair trial and deserves a hearing into whether or not a new trial is warranted.
Some very interesting developments. You could also include malfeasance on behalf of PSU BOT, Freeh, NCAA, OAG, Baldwin, Corbett, etc. Are you aware of any good analyses of the merits of Lindsay's Petition for Post Conviction Relief?
remember, Boni got destroyed when he went on Kevin Slaten, and did not seem to know even basic details of this scandal
I realize that. I am just saying that Boni as well as Gillum couldn't be any worse that Dawn. They have both made out like bandits. Where are they when AF most needs them? Perhaps they don't want to get in any deeper than they already are.
If Jerry was innocent, why didn't he testify after he was indicated by the DPW? He had this relatively famous organization that he was the head of. He was almost universally admired. He had to know if he didn't respond, that would all go down the drain.
At that point it was only one accuser. If he was truly innocent I would think he'd testify to clear his name and he probably would've won, assuming he appeared credible.
His attorney, Joe Amendola, advised against it. Sandusky was facing criminal charges so testifying in a civil manner may not have been the highest priority. Although your point demonstrates that Amendola was not effective in addressing the allegations from the outset and it was clear that he was in over his head and not effective as shown by:
- permitting Sandusky go into the Bob Costas interview so unprepared,
- being totally unprepared for trial and not getting assistance or stepping down
- the mishandling of the am/v2 issue
- the mishandling of the Matt Sandusky's flip and a totally ineffective strategy
- Saying JS was going to testify and then pulling him back
- letting janitor charges see the light of day
- the lack of any depositions of accusers before the trial and the kid gloves treatment during cross examination
- the failure to effectively challenge repressed memory science
- the failure to employ any jury selection or CSA expertise in the defense
- the failure to strenuously object to the use of JS's constitutional right to remain silent against him in closing arguments and other cases of prosecutorial misconduct
1. This was not a civil matter, it was an adminstrative matter;
2. He was not facing criminal charges at that time;
3. The only way he would face criminal charges would have been if the DPW's decision to indicate him was upheld after a hearing.
4. If he didn't testify, the DPW would with 100% certainity be upheld.
5. If he did testify and was credible, he would probably win since the burden of proof was on the Commonwealth.
6. If the DPW's decision was upheld, his future would go down the drain and he would probably be criminally charged.
7. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by testifying.
BTW, depositions aren't generally taken in criminal cases unless the witness is dying or will otherwise be unavailable to testify at trial. Repressed memory wasn't an issue. Jury selection experts are generally worthless, especially when the case is in a small town or medium sized town and the defense attorney will know almost all the panel members personally. I don't understand your point on Matt Sandusky? There was some way of prohibiting him from testifying as a rebuttal witness? Do explain. Getting an expert on CSA wouldn't have helped because it would've opened the door to Alycia Chambers's testimony, which I'm sure the jury would've found more credible. Perhaps you can elucidate on your theories regarding "excited utterance" testimony. Before you do, you should read this http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf.
Finally, the closing argument you complain of is used in courts around the country every day. Whenever the accused doesn't testify, you'll hear arguments like "It sure would be nice to know where the defendant was at the time of the crime but only one person knows that and he didn't testify." The Fifth Amendment doesn't prohibit the prosecution from pointing out the holes in a defendant's case. It only stops the proscution from telling the jury to assume guilt because the defendant didn't testify.
Oh, and every lawyer who has spoken to the guy claiming to be V2 thinks he's a liar, that includes Curley and Schultz's lawyers. You don't help your case by calling a liar.
Last edited:
Sandusky knew he faced serious accusations after Jessica Dershem notified State Police on Nov. 21, 2008. Sandusky hired a lawyer and got horrendous advice. You are reinforcing my point that Sandusky had ineffective counsel.
Any good lawyer needs to know the substance of the charges against their clients and will press to know as much detail as possible. These were charges where there were no contemporaneous reports. These were stories that have changed and evolved over time to fit the situation and Amendola was not able to get any information to possibly impeach the witnesses at trial ahead of time. To add insult to injury, Amendola treated the accusers with kid gloves in cross examination and did an ineffective job in creating reasonable doubt. Repressed memory was a huge issue as AF has said that it was through repressed memory that he recalled being molested by JS and this was over 4 months after the initial report of AF's mothers concern to CMHS, MS and other accusers relied on repressed memory to explain why they didn't make their accusations earlier.
Yes I do think that a CSA expert may have helped JS if they would have been able to say that the lack of JS possessing pornography and the lack of contemporaneous accusations would support that while he may have acted inappropriately he did not act criminally.
I believe the prosecution went beyond a it would be nice to know comment in closing arguments and referenced the fact that Sandusky elected not to testify which is strictly forbidden.
V2 is key to the case. You may think that Allan Myers is not v2, but contrary to your opinion there are a lot of lawyers who think Allan Myers is v2. Andrew Shubin thinks am is v2. PSU BOT lawyers think am is v2. Spanier lawyer Libby Locke thinks am is v2. I believe that Curley's and Schultz's lawyer do as well. If it can be shown that am is not v2, then I would say that a very serious hole in JS's defense exists and that Judge Cleland would be loathe to order any hearings for a new trial. I don't believe the Commonwealth will be able demonstrate that am is not v2.
Last edited:
agreed. Clemente's report was an amazing and helpful piece that was largely ignored by the media.
Actually the post you quoted was about JZ and the fact he's an attention whore.
If you want to argue that doesn't matter, greater good and all, then go right ahead. You're not going to get very far before you start running into problems with that logic.
Last edited:
