Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

#81
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Well, I stand corrected . However that was 2013. Lots have changed and evolved since then
No.

This is what you posted:

He as never used the term "chaste pedophille" when describing Jerry . Jerry was as John does describe him
, a dumb dufess who was an old school guy with yes, boundry issues
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#82
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

An innocent man is in jail and a coaching legend destroyed because of this piece of shit

I present to you, the 'boy in the shower "


Friday, September 29, 2017

Boy In The Shower Says He Can't Remember 34 Times

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

Allan Myers, the boy in the Penn State showers that Mike McQueary allegedly saw being raped by Jerry Sandusky, sure has a lousy memory.

Myers couldn't remember when a picture of him posing with Sandusky had been taken, even though it was at Myers' own wedding.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a couple of state troopers when they interviewed him in 2011, and Myers said that Sandusky had never abused him.

Myers couldn't remember what he told a private investigator, namely that Mike McQueary was full of crap, and that nothing sexual had happened in that shower.

A 48-page transcript from a Nov. 4, 2016 hearing where Myers was called as a witness as part of Sandusky's bid for a new trial was released for the first time earlier this week, in response to a request from a reporter for a major mainstream media news outlet. The transcript provides some insight into what is clearly a screwed-up case that the prosecutors and the news media have completely botched.

And they blew it because they showed no skepticism about witnesses like Allan Myers, who, from what he had to say in this transcript, clearly isn't credible.

In the transcript, Myers, who was on the witness stand for less than an hour before Centre County Senior Judge John M. Cleland, said he couldn't recall or didn't remember 34 times.

Either Myers was very forgetful, or he was clearly lying.

Before Myers was brought in as a witness, Sandusky was sworn in and the judge explained to him that since nobody knew what Myers was going to say, his testimony "could be harmful to your case."

But Sandusky had his mind made up.

"It is my decision to have Allan Myers testify," Sandusky told the judge.

Myers, a former Marine, testified that he got to know Sandusky through the former assistant Penn State coach's Second Mile charity.

"Did you think of Mr. Sandusky as a father figure," Al Lindsay, Sandusky's lawyer, asked.

"Yes, I did," Myers said.

Myers was shown a picture of himself and Sandusky at Myers's wedding. Lindsay asked if Myers remembered when that picture was taken.

"That I do not remember," Myers said.

Lindsay showed Myers a photo of a football camp when Myers served as a coach, and posed for a picture with the boys he was coaching, along with Sandusky. Lindsay asked Myers how old he was in the photo.

"I don't remember," Myers said. "I don't even know what year that was."

"Well, were you an adult," Lindsay asked. "Do you know that?"

"I wasn't an adult," Myers said.

"Can you give us any estimate of your age," the lawyer asked.

"No," Myers said.

Myers recalled that he lived in Sandusky's home "right after I graduated high school to attend Penn State."

"And I left there because he [Sandusky] was controlling and I left," Myers said. "And that was the end that I ever lived with him."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered being interviewed on Sept. 20, 2011, by state Trooper James Ellis and Corporal Joseph A. Letter.

"I recall being interviewed," Myers said.

Lindsay gave Myers a copy of the police report and asked if it reflected what he told the state troopers.

"Yes," Myers said, before snapping at the lawyer, "Please don't raise your voice at me."

Lindsay asked if Myers remembered telling the troopers that he and Sandusky at worked out at the Lasch Building.

"I don't remember that interview," Myer said.

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the troopers "nothing inappropriate occurred" in the shower, and that at "no time were you made to feel uncomfortable."

"I don't recall," Myers replied.

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered telling the troopers that after workouts with Sandusky, he and Jerry would return to Sandusky's home and shower in separate facilities?

"I said it," Myers said, "But I don't remember it."

Lindsay asked Myers if he remembered an interview he gave to an investigator named Curtis Everhart who worked at the time for Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer.

Myers remembered the interview.

Lindsay asked if he remembered telling the investigator, "I am alleged Victim No. 2."

"I'm sure I did," Myers said, before adding, "I don't remember everything."

Lindsay asked Myers if he recalled telling the investigator that on the day McQueary thought he saw an anal rape in the showers, Myers said "Jerry and I were slapping towels at each other trying to sting each other."

Myers was a month short of his 14th birthday in 2001 when the infamous shower incident occurred. Even though the official grand jury report says that Mike McQueary heard "slapping sounds" and witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old boy in the shower.

"I don't recall everything I told Mr. Everhart," Myers said.

Did Myers recall telling the investigator that he used to slap the walls and slide on the shower floor when he was taking a shower with Jerry?

"I can't recall everything I said in that interview back then," Myers said.

Lindsay read out loud a quote from a report that stated what Myers had supposedly told Everhart:

"The grand jury report says Coach McQueary said he observed Jerry and I engaged in sexual activity. That is not the truth and McQueary is not telling the truth. Nothing occurred that night in the shower."

"Do you recall telling him that," Lindsay asked the witness.

"Like I said, I can't recall everything I said back then," Myers said. "But if it's in there, I said it then, yes."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the investigator that "I never saw McQueary look into the shower that night. I am sure."

"That's what I said back then," Myers said. "Once again, I can't recall what I said then."

Lindsay read Myers more quotes from the interview with the investigator.

In the quotes, Myers:

-- denied having sex with Sandusky;

-- repeated that "McQueary did not tell the truth;"

-- repeated that "I am alleged Victim No. 2 on the grand jury report;"

-- Again claimed that Sandusky "never sexually assaulted me."

"That's what I said then," Myers said. "And once again, I can't recall everything I said then."

Lindsay asked Myers if he told the truth when he spoke to the investigator.

"Yes," he said.

Myers had once been Jerry Sandusky's biggest defender. He had even written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper stating what a great guy Jerry was.

Then Myers hired attorney Andrew Shubin, who represented eight victims in the Penn State sex abuse scandal.

Myers became Shubin's ninth victim. He flipped on Jerry, claimed he'd been abused, and collected a reported $3 million.

When asked how much he received from his settlement, Myers said," Im not allowed to answer that question."

Lindsay asked Myers, who wasn't called as a witness during the Sandusky trial, where he was when the trial took place.

"I believe I was somewhere in central Pennsylvania," he said. "Now exactly where I was, I can't recall. I might have been working. I don't know exactly, but I was here in Pennsylvania . . . I was somewhere inside Clinton County or Clearfield County, somewhere in that little Trifecta."

Asked if he could recall being in a specific place, Myers replied, "I can't recall where I was when the trial was going on . . . I can't tell you exactly where I was, I don't remember that."

It was Lindsay's contention that Sandusky deserved a new trial because the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, lied to the jury when he said that the existence of Victim No. 2 was "known only to God."

After Myers left the witness stand, Lindsay put Sandusky up to testify as a rebuttal witness.

"Mr. Sandusky, did you ever sexually abuse Allan Myers in any way," Lindsay asked.

"Absolutely not," Sandusky said.

John Ziegler, a reporter who was in the courtroom when Myers testified, said he was glad that the transcript had finally released.

"This is the only testimony of the person who is the epicenter of this whole thing," Ziegler said about the Penn State scandal.

"And it's obvious to anyone who understand the case that he [Myers] wasn't telling the truth," Ziegler said. "He [Myers] remembers everything up until he flips on Jerry and then he can't remember anything."

Myers' testimony, Ziegler said, was "a hundred percent consistent with a guy who had who had flipped for $3 million and felt bad about it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore."

When Sandusky took the stand, Ziegler recalled, "He was in tears, he was angry. It was righteous anger."

John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who investigated the scandal at Penn State, said he was disturbed by Myers' evolving story.

"His initial statements are definitive and exculpatory," Snedden said. "His testimony then degrades into a wishy-washy, exceptionally foggy abyss."

"Being officially interviewed as the 'victim' of a traumatic event doesn't happen everyday," Snedden said. "And then you can't remember the specifics of that interview? Seriously?"

"It's clear why he [Myers] wasn't called by the prosecution" in the Sandusky case," Snedden said. "His testimony is exculpatory and now serves only as an example of blatant prosecutorial manipulation."

And where the hell did they hide Myers during the Sandusky trial?



Ralph Cipriano at 12:30 PM
Share



http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/09/boy-...er-34.html?m=1
 
#83
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

[FONT=&quot]You are blocked from following [/FONT][FONT=&quot]@Zigmanfreud[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and viewing [/FONT][FONT=&quot]@Zigmanfreud[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'s Tweets. [/FONT]Learn more
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#84
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

The fairy tale continues to unravel

It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."



Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Penn State Confidential: Prosecutor Told McQueary To Clam Up


image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oAPdcjH_O...00/jonelle.jpg
By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

On Nov. 10, 2011, six days after the state Attorney General's office released its official grand jury report on the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal, deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was trying to calm Mike McQueary, her distraught star whistle-blower.

McQueary had written Eshbach earlier that day to tell her that the grand jury report that told the world that McQueary had witnessed a naked Sandusky in the Penn State showers having anal intercourse with a 10-year-old boy was wrong. In that same email, McQueary complained to the A.G.'s office that they had "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" that he had actually seen or heard in the showers.

Now there's a star witness you can have confidence in.

In a second email sent that same day, McQueary complained to Eshbach about "being misrepresented" in the media. And then McQueary tried to straighten out a couple of misconceptions, writing that he never went to Coach Joe Paterno's house with his father, and that he had never seen Sandusky with a child at a Penn State football practice.

"I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't."

That email exchange, divulged in a couple of posts by Penn State blogger Ray Blehar, have people in Penn State Nation talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Naturally, the A.G.'s office has nothing to say about it, as an office spokesperson declined comment today.

The 2011 grand jury report said that back when he visited the Penn State showers in 2001, Mike McQueary heard "rhythmic, slapping sounds." Then, he peered into the showers and "saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky."

But McQueary wrote Eshbach, while copying Agent Anthony Sassano, "I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment."

"I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion," McQueary wrote. "It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."

McQueary also complained about the media attention he was getting.

"National media, and public opinion has totally, in every single way, ruined me," McQueary wrote. "For what?"


Later that same day, McQueary wrote a second email to Eshbach and Sassano.

"Also," McQueary wrote, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out of town the night before . . . never ever have I seen JS [Jerry Sandusky] with a child at one of our practices . . . "

The reference about his father not accompanying him to a meeting with Joe Paterno was probably McQueary's attempt to correct a mistake in a Nov. 5, 2011Sara Ganim story about the grand jury presentment that ran in the Harrisburg Patriot News.

In her story, Ganim wrote that according to the indictment, "On March 1, 2002, the night before Spring Break, a Penn State graduate assistant walked into the Penn State football locker room around 9:30 p.m. and witnessed Sandusky having sex with about 10 years old . . . The next morning, the witness and his father told head football coach Joe Paterno, who immediately told athletic director Tim Curley."

Then, McQueary returned to the subject of the bad publicity he was getting over the grand jury report.

"I am being misrepresented in the media," McQueary wrote. "It just is not right."

That's what prompted Eshback to write, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard to to respond. But you can't."

Former NCIS and FIS Special Agent John Snedden, a Penn State alum, was blown away by Eshbach's email response to McQueary.

"It's incredible, it's evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, trying to steer a witness's testimony," Snedden said. "It shows that the prosecution's manipulating the information, throwing out what they don't want and padding what they do want . . . It very strongly suggests a fictitious presentment."

During the defamation suit McQueary filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."

There's another angle to the prosecutorial misconduct story line -- this email exchange between McQueary and Eshbach that was reported on by Blehar was not turned over by the prosecution to defense lawyers during the Sandusky trial and the trial of former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

While we're on the subject of prosecutorial misconduct, at the Spanier trial, it was McQueary who testified that during the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, he got a call on his cell phone from the attorney general's office, tipping him off that "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."

The fact that Mike McQueary didn't see a naked Jerry Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy isn't the only erroneous assumption that came out of that shoddy 2011 grand jury report, Blehar wrote.

"The Sandusky grand jury presentment of Nov. 4, 2011 provided a misleading account of what eyewitness Michael McQueary reported to Joe Paterno about the 2001 incident," Blehar wrote. "Rather than stating what McQueary reported, it stated he reported 'what he had seen' which led the media and the public to erroneously conclude the specific details were reported to Paterno."

Keep in mind what the grand jury report said McQueary had seen -- a naked Sandusky having anal intercourse in the showers with a 10-year-old boy -- never actually happened, according to McQueary.

The grand jury report said:

"The graduate assistant went to his office and called his father, reporting to him what he had seen . . . The graduate assistant and his father decided that the graduate assistant had to promptly report what he had seen to Coach Joe Paterno . . . The next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."

Blehar cited the words of Joe Paterno, who issued a statement on Nov. 6, 2011, saying that McQueary had "at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report."

McQueary agreed.

On Dec. 6, 2011, McQueary was asked under oath whether he had ever used the term "anal sodomy" in talking to Paterno.

"I've never used that term," McQueary said. "I would have explained to him the positions they were in roughly, but it was definitely sexual, but I have never used the word anal or rape in this since day one."

So what exactly did you tell Paterno, the prosecutor asked McQueary.

"I gave a brief description of what I saw," McQueary testified. "You don't -- ma'am, you don't go to Coach Paterno or at least in my mind and I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great detail of sexual acts. I would have never done that with him ever."

Blehar also points out that not even the jury in the Sandusky case believed that Sandusky had anally raped Victim No. 2 in the Penn State showers, because they came to a not guilty verdict on the count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Blehar then cites four other witnesses in the case who also testified that McQueary never used sexual terms in describing what he had allegedly seen in the shower.

"Subsequent testimony in numerous proceedings from 2011 through 2017 by John McQueary, Dr. [John] Dranov, [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State VP Gary] Schutz confirmed that no explicitly sexual terms were used by McQueary when he described what he actually saw," Blehar wrote.

In his second email to Eshbach, McQueary stated, "I never went to Coach Paterno's house with my father . . . It was me and only me . . . he was out the night before . . ."

In the email, McQueary doesn't say who the he was who was out the night before. In his blog post, Blehar takes the he as a reference to McQueary's father.

"Wait, what?" Blehar writes. "Paterno was in State College on Friday night. If this statement is true, then Mike did NOT meet with his father (and Dr. Dranov) immediately after the incident(because John Sr. was 'out of town.')"

"Another fabrication?" writes Blehar. "And the AG knew it."

In handwritten notes written in 2010, McQueary doesn't mention any meeting with his father and Dr. Dranov. Instead, he writes that he "drove to my parents' house" and "spoke with my father about the incident and received advice."

He also reiterates, "to be clear: from the time I walked into the locker room to the time I left was maybe one minute -- I was hastened & a bit flustered."

A hazy one-minute memory that McQueary himself admitted he had no idea "whatever it was" he had actually witnessed.

But it was a hazy, one-minute memory that the AG's office wrote an entire grand jury presentment around. How weak is that?

It was flimsy evidence like this that led Special Agent Snedden to conclude that McQueary was not a credible witness back in 2012 when Snedden was investigating whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have his high-level security clearance with the federal government renewed. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no cover up at Penn State because there was no sex crime to cover up.

Because McQueary gave five different accounts over the years of what he supposedly witnessed during that one minute in the Penn State showers.

"I'd love to see McQueary's cell phone records, absent whatever dick pics he was sending out that day," Snedden cracked, referring to the day McQueary witnessed the shower incident, and then called his father to figure out what to do.

"Did he even call his dad?" Snedden wondered.

Snedden renewed his call for an independent investigation of the entire Penn State scandal, and the attorney general's role in manipulating evidence in the case.

"Anybody who cares about justice needs to be screaming for a special prosecutor in this case," Snedden said.

John Ziegler, a journalist who has covered the Penn State scandal since day one, agreed.

"This seems like blatant OAG misconduct and an indication that they were acutely aware their case had major problems," Ziegler wrote in an email. "Eshbach's response is stunning in that it admits errors in grand jury presentment and tells Mike to shut up about it."

Ziegler said the possibility that Mike McQueary never met with his father and Dr. Dranov, his father's boss, in an emergency meeting, if true, was big news.

"This is HUGE for several reasons," Ziegler wrote. The meeting, which supposedly occurred on the night McQueary witnessed the shower incident was the "ONLY piece of evidence that has EVER been consistent with Mike witnessing something horrible/dramatic" in the Penn State showers. And that's why "Dranov was brought in to meet with him [Mike McQueary] late on a Friday night in February," Ziegler said.

The AG's office, Ziegler speculated, "is desperate for evidence that Mike did something dramatic in reaction to" witnessing the shower incident.

And if the he McQueary was referring to in the email to Eshbach wasn't his father but was really Joe Paterno, Ziegler said, then that's another problem with the official Penn State story line. Because according to his family, Joe Paterno was in town that night and presumably available for an emergency meeting with a distraught assistant who had just witnessed a horrible sex crime in the shower.

If he really did see an anal rape ongoing in the shower, however, does the McQueary story, in any of its versions, make any sense?

McQueary didn't rush into the shower and try to save a helpless, 10-year-old boy.

He didn't call the police.

Like Elvis, he just left the building.

"The meeting with Dranov is all they have," Ziegler wrote.


Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/10/penn...OAMlPxBjSEf.99
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#86
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Imagine being this Bruce bloke...

WTF IS A BLOKE ?
The Media Doesn’t Realize It, But the ‘Penn State Scandal’ Narrative Is Blowing Up


  • JOHN ZIEGLER OCT 12, 2017 5:46 PM






To the vast majority of people, both in the news media and not, the “Penn State Scandal” is extremely old news and as dead and decided as Harvey Weinstein’s movie-making career. However, for a growing number of some of those still enthralled by the case, the truth is only now beginning to become clear. This as the dust finally beings to settle nearly six years after a massive firestorm, ignited by the shocking arrest of Jerry Sandusky, engulfed a city, a university, and several men of extremely high stature.
I have been often ridiculed by high-profile members of the media because I have never accepted the conventional narrative which they all so rapidly embraced back in November of 2011. While I hardly intended or anticipated doing so, I have somehow devoted most of the last five years of my life to figuring out what actually did, and did not happen in this saga. I have, on numerous occasions, including on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, declared that I know that I am right, but that I am also all-too-aware my fight for justice here is utterly doomed (Lauer, very politely, publicly declared my career over for taking a stance so dangerously contrary to the rest of the media herd).




While I am under no delusions that any widely accepted vindication is imminently heading my direction, there have been a couple of recent developments about which I am compelled to write. In any other high-profile case they would be bombshells which would create huge news. However, in this one, thanks to the entire media industrial complex being completely invested in what I refer to as a “fairytale,” I am quite confident that, unless you closely follow my little Twitter feed, you haven’t even heard about them.
Just a couple of days ago, a stunning email emerged (after just sitting for months, unnoticed, on Pennsylvania’s website devoted to documents related to the various legal cases related to the scandal) which may put the essence of this case in a very different light. It is an exchange between the then lead Sandusky prosecutor, Jonelle Eshbach, and the only direct witness to ever testify, then Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.
Here is the email (the red lines were added by the researcher who found it):





Even for those who don’t know much about the case, this document is stunning. This is the day after legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno was fired based entirely on the media’s round-the-clock reporting about a leaked 23-page grand jury presentment, and the prosecutor is admitting to Mike that there is a lot of false information out there but that, despite his desire to correct it, he needs to keep quiet.
Amazingly, this email was not provided in discovery to the defense teams of either Sandusky or former Penn State president Graham Spanier for their criminal trials. This alone should get people in the legal profession to at least wonder what the heck is really going on here, but there is much more in the email of direct evidentiary value.
Specifically, as McQueary lists his grievances regarding all the false reporting of his story, he makes a shocking reference to his meeting with Joe Paterno the morning after he allegedly saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the Penn State showers (it is important to point out that McQuearey has never, despite many attempts, definitively testified to what he thinks he saw in the “two or three” seconds he peered into the shower through the reflection in a bathroom mirror, and that the now adult male Penn State paid millions of dollars as the “victim” of this incident is on record, multiple times, as married Marine, saying that nothing bad happened).




In the email, McQueary tells Eshbach that, contrary to the reporting of Sara Ganim (who ended up winning a Pulitzer Prize for her work on this case for a local newspaper and is now at CNN), his father did NOT go with him to that meeting with Paterno. He then states, “He was out of town the night before.”
This seemingly innocuous comment could very well dramatically alter nearly the entire record of what really went down here. You see, according to McQueary’s later testimonies, he met late “the night before” with his father and Dr. Jonathon Dranov, for whom his dad worked. This urgent meeting, late on a Friday night (February 9th, 2001, though McQueary wrongly testified ten years later, multiple times, that it was March 1, 2002, before the prosecution finally acknowledged everyone involved had somehow gotten the wrong date, month, and year) in mid-winter has always been THE best, and perhaps only evidence, that what McQueary witnessed that night was something he thought at the time to be very significant.
As someone who has been long convinced, for a multitude of reasons (including Dr. Dranov’s own testimony and the fact that the “victim” never testified at trial), that McQueary never saw, nor thought he saw– until investigators came to him ten years later and effectively told him Sandusky was pedophile–any sort of sex act, this late-night meeting has been literally the only “fact” that bothered me. However, based on this “new” email, it is now reasonable to conclude that this meeting likely never actually occurred that night.




Obviously, if McQueary’s dad was “out of town the night before,” then Mike could not possibly have met with him and his colleague Dr. Dranov. If the meeting took place later that weekend, as I now suspect, then there was no “emergency” and there is absolutely nothing in McQueary’s behavior to suggest he witnessed anything more than Sandusky naked with a boy in a shower, which is understandably troubling, but a world away from the charge of “anal rape” which ten years later created the media firestorm which led to Paterno’s firing and started a dramatic domino effect of injustice here.
Now, to be fair, it is theoretically possible that McQueary is somehow referring to Paterno being out of town “the night before” his meeting with the head coach, but that scenario has major problems. One is that Paterno was NOT out of town on that Friday. A second is that he WAS out of town the night AFTER the incident. Even if McQueary’s writing is super weird in that email and he’s referring to Paterno, it still seems to indicate that his meeting with Dr. Dranov might have been Sunday (when Paterno would be out of town “the night before”) and the prosecution still has a major issue.
The email also brings greater scrutiny to why it is that the Dr. Dranov meeting was never mentioned in that grand jury presentment where the prosecution threw in literally everything it had in order to inflame the media and public. The first public mention of it doesn’t come until McQueary testifies a month AFTER he writes this email and it comes after he is under enormous criticism for not having done anything but call his dad (why call your dad when he lives nearby, unless he is “out of town”?) the night of the episode.




Occam’s Razor now strongly suggests that what really happened here was that, ten years later, no one remembered for sure when that meeting took place (again, they ALL got the YEAR wrong) and the prosecution decided that it was in everyone’s interest for it to have occurred that night. Since everyone involved was okay with that, and the media never raised the issue of how/why this was left out of the presentment, there was never any strong reason to doubt this critical part of the narrative.
That is, until now.
Here is a radio interview John Ziegler did today further explaining this development.
Update: This column facilitated proof that Joe Paterno was out of town on the WRONG date to which McQueary was testifying at the time the email was written. If McQueary was somehow referring to Paterno and not his dad, it would mean he had incorrectly created the structure of his original story via Google searches & not his own memory.




John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is a documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com.

Tags: Jerry Sandusky, penn state, t

  • http:
 
#87
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Poor guy doesn't know he's just making the whole thing look even worse for everyone in involved by posting the dumb shit.
 
#90
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Jerry Sandusky's son recently plead guilt to 14 counts of child sex abuse.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#91
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Sounds like things could get very interesting shortly

This piece of shit got 5 million







John Ziegler

· 8 hrs · Twitter
·



For 1st time I now have on-record interview with someone VERY credible to whom a Sandusky accuser has confessed/bragged that they lied for $
 

maxo

EOG Senior Member
#92
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Whoever brings a kid into the showers is severely lacking in judgment and no wonder all this came down on them.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#93
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Whoever brings a kid into the showers is severely lacking in judgment and no wonder all this came down on them.

I agree 100 % . He was a naïve idiot , but not a pedophile
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#98
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Canes Irish Sat night, or why not just snuggle up and enjoy a good book ?


The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment Kindle Edition

by Mark Pendergrast (Author)

The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment Kindle Edition
by Mark Pendergrast (Author)




Everyone knows the story of Jerry Sandusky, the serial pedophile, the Monster. But what if that story is wrong? What if the former Penn State football coach and founder of the Second Mile is an innocent man convicted in the midst of a moral panic fed by the sensationalistic media, police trawling, and memory-warping psychotherapy? The Most Hated Man in America reads like a true crime psychological thriller and is required reading for everyone from criminologists to sports fans.

“If potential readers are convinced that Jerry Sandusky is guilty, they need to read The Most Hated Man in America. This meticulously researched, provocative, and wonderfully written book by Mark Pendergrast, an enormously important contributor to the repressed memory debate, will certainly make them see another side. Maybe they will think twice.”

-- Elizabeth Loftus, Distinguished Professor of Psychology & Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, author, The Myth of Repressed Memory and other books.

The Most Hated Man in America tells a truly remarkable story. In all the media coverage the Sandusky case has received, it’s amazing that no one else has noticed or written about so many of these things, including all the ‘memories’ that were retrieved through therapy and litigation. One would think that the sheer insanity of so much of this will have to eventually come out.”

--Richard A. Leo, Hamill Family Professor of Law and Psychology, University of San Francisco, author, Police Interrogation and American Justice and The Wrong Guys: Murder, False Confessions, and the Norfolk Four

“Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society.”

--Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D. Director, The Johns Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Independent scholar and science writer Mark Pendergrast is the author of many critically acclaimed, deeply researched works of non-fiction, including Memory Warp, The Repressed Memory Epidemic, Victims of Memory, Uncommon Grounds, Inside the Outbreaks, Mirror Mirror, and For God, Country and Coca-Cola, among others. He lives in Vermont and can be reached through his website, www.markpendergrast.com
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
#99

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

hat Bob Costas just did describes how this fairy tale can live on

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]Mark Pendergrast's new book "The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment" has just been published.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]Everyone knows the story of Jerry Sandusky, the serial pedophile, the Monster. But what if that story is wrong? What if the former Penn State football coach and founder of the Second Mile is an innocent man convicted in the midst of a moral panic fed by the sensationalistic media, police trawling, and memory-warping psychotherapy? The Most Hated Man in America reads like a true crime psychological thriller and is required reading for everyone from criminologists to sports fans.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]“If potential readers are convinced that Jerry Sandusky is guilty, they need to read The Most Hated Man in America. This meticulously researched, provocative, and wonderfully written book by Mark Pendergrast, an enormously important contributor to the repressed memory debate, will certainly make them see another side. Maybe they will think twice.”[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]-- Elizabeth Loftus, Distinguished Professor of Psychology & Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, author, The Myth of Repressed Memory and other books.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]“The Most Hated Man in America tells a truly remarkable story. In all the media coverage the Sandusky case has received, it’s amazing that no one else has noticed or written about so many of these things, including all the ‘memories’ that were retrieved through therapy and litigation. One would think that the sheer insanity of so much of this will have to eventually come out.”[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]--Richard A. Leo, Hamill Family Professor of Law and Psychology, University of San Francisco, author, Police Interrogation and American Justice and The Wrong Guys: Murder, False Confessions, and the Norfolk Four [/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]“Virtually everybody knows with certainty that Jerry Sandusky is a serial child molester. He was, after all, found guilty by a jury of his peers. But what if what we think we know about Sandusky is at least in some ways incorrect? Regardless of their ultimate conclusions, readers will find The Most Hated Man in America to be thoughtful and provocative, addressing questions that deserve to be asked in a just society.”[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]--Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D. Director, The Johns Hopkins Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]John Ziegler interviewed Pendergrast in his weekly podcast yesterday.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro...rk-pendergrass[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]In the podcast around the 32:20 mark, Ziegler read the following statement from Bob Costas that Costas made to help Pendergrast get the book published.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]"In a wave, I became part of the Sandusky story when I interviewed him for NBC soon after the allegations were made public. Sandusky's stumbling and seemingly incriminating answers convicted him in the court of public opinion and subsequently they were used by the prosecution during the trial. I am not prepared to say that Sandusky's conviction on multiple charges was incorrect. I am however willing to consider credible information backed by solid research. From what I have read, Mark Pendegrast has a case to make, It deserves a hearing. Many aspects of the Sandusky case including the likely rush to judgment of Joe Paterno should be reviewed with care. An informed public can then decide. Mark Pendergrast's book could well be a useful part of that re-examination."[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]However, when Pendergrast asked Costas if he could use his statement on the book cover, Costas said no. Apparently Costas is afraid of being pilloried for having an opinion that Sandusky could possibly be innocent.[/FONT]
[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]
[/FONT]

[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]https://www.amazon.com/Most-Hated-Ma...man+in+america[/FONT]
 
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Give it up, Bruce boy. Little Bobby Costas also thinks football will be departed because of concussions.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

[h=2]MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017[/h][h=3]Memory Issues In the Jerry Sandusky Case[/h]

image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lc8i7XM3qLQ/Wgn5pFS0s1I/AAAAAAAAE6Y/3F_QQkHc-hQvVtyGw9zB43yVSsnOjpEFQCLcBGAs/s400/Most%2BHated%2BMan%2Bcover%2Bfinal.jpg
By Mark Pendergrast
For BigTrial.net


Like most people, I assumed that Jerry Sandusky must be guilty before I began to research the case in depth. After all, there was that eyewitness of shower abuse, and all those accusers. But I soon came to realize that memory malleability and suggestibility were central to how the allegations against Jerry Sandusky arose, and after in-depth research, I concluded that Sandusky is probably innocent.

What really alerted me initially was reading the trial transcript for June 13, 2012, where I found Dustin Stuble (“Victim 7”) explaining why his testimony had changed from what he said under oath at the grand jury the previous year. “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.”

Aha! I thought. It is obvious that he was in repressed memory therapy. I was right, as Struble himself told me later, and it turned out that repressed memories lay at the core of the case against Sandusky, while other memory issues lay at the heart of the infamous shower scene that got Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier fired.



I write about how human memory works in comprehensive fashion in my new 444-page publication, Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die., as well as in the 399-page book, The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment. They are “sister” publications that help to inform one another, so I urge people to read both of these books. But I realize that a summary would be helpful before readers delve into the books.


Memory is reconstructive. Our brains do not keep individual memories in one place, ready to be called forth by pulling out the proper mental file or hitting the right mental computer key. Instead, our memories are stored all over our brains, and they must be reconstructed. They are subject to contamination, confusion, change, and outright fabrication. With the proper influence, people can come to envision and believe in emotionally stressful events that never occurred.


Usually, our memories serve us relatively well, however. We tend to remember most clearly the best and worst events. We recall the nice things so that we can seek them out again, and we remember the upsetting events so that we can avoid them in the future. Some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which involves being unable to forget severe trauma, but continuing to recall it all too well. So it is not a matter of “repressing” or “dissociating.”


The most dramatic illustration of how destructive false memories can be created occurred during the heyday of the repressed memory epidemic of the late 1980s and 1990s, when many psychotherapists blatantly led their clients to believe that they had suffered years of childhood sexual abuse but had repressed the memories. In many cases, people came to envision being in mythical satanic ritual abuse cults, where they killed and consumed babies and other grotesque fantasies.


Most people think that the repressed memory epidemic is over, but it is not. A majority of Americans and psychotherapists still believe in the myth of repressed memories (or dissociated memories, as they are often called), and, according to a recent survey of a large cross-section of Americans, about 8 percent of those going to therapy in this decade came to believe that they had suffered child abuse that they had completely forgotten, then recalled in the course of therapy.


Thus, it is not surprising that the theory of repressed memory – the idea that people often totally forget abuse though some mental defense mechanism and then remember it later – lies behind some of the Sandusky accusations. I was able to directly interview only one such alleged victim, Dustin Struble, who acknowledged his repressed memories, but there is evidence for memory distortion and/or repressed memories in many others as well. I will go through them here relatively briefly.


Let me emphasize, however, that there were other factors contributing to one of the most amazing and disturbing miscarriages of justice of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. These factors include a media blitz (and blackout of any dissent or inconvenient facts), police trawling and bias, prosecutorial misconduct, a flawed judicial process, illegal leaks, and greed.


I will summarize each of the ten alleged trial victims, some of whom clearly had recovered “repressed memories” of abuse. I’ll take them in the order in which they were numbered, plus Matt Sandusky, who did not testify, but whose story is central to the case.


Aaron Fisher, Victim 1: As a 15-year-old, Aaron Fisher initially said that Jerry Sandusky had hugged him to crack his back, with their clothes on. Over the next three years, with the urging of psychotherapist Mike Gillum, Fisher eventually came to “remember” multiple instances of oral sex. Gillum apparently believed that memories too painful to recall lie buried in the unconscious, causing mental illness of all kinds—among them, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism. “They (abuse victims) just want to numb themselves and push away the unpleasant memories,” Gillum wrote in the book, Silent No More. He sought to “peel back the layers of the onion” of the brain to get to abuse memories. Nor did Aaron Fisher have to tell him anything. Gillum would guess what happened and Fisher only had to nod his head or say Yes. “I was very blunt with him when I asked questions but gave him the ability to answer with a yes or a no, that relieved him of a lot of burden,” Gillum wrote. In the same book, Aaron Fisher recalled: “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”


Fisher explained that “I was good at pushing it (memories of abuse) all away . . . Once the weekends [with Jerry] were over, I managed to lock it all deep inside my mind somehow. That was how I dealt with it until next time. Mike has explained a lot to me since this all happened. He said that what I was doing is called compartmentalizing. . . . I was in such denial about everything.” Without the three years of therapy with Mike Gillum, it is unlikely that Aaron Fisher would ever have accused Jerry Sandusky of sexual abuse, and the case would never have gone forward.


Allan Myers (“Victim 2”) was the teenager in the shower in February 2001, when Mike McQueary heard slapping sounds that he interpreted as sexual. In fact, they were the sounds of Myers and Sandusky slap boxing or snapping towels at one another. McQueary did not see Sandusky and the boy together in the shower – he only caught a glimpse of the boy in a mirror. He changed his memory nearly ten years later when the police told him that Sandusky was a serial molester. McQueary, like many people, did not require therapy to distort his memory. Influenced by current attitudes, he came to envision that he had witnessed something he had not actually seen. This is one of the well-known hazards of eyewitness testimony, as experimental psychologist Elizabeth Loftus and others have demonstrated.


We do not know whether Allan Myers was ever in therapy to help retrieve abuse memories. He received several million dollars as one of the alleged Sandusky victims, but he did not testify at the trial, and he has never actually accused Sandusky of molesting him in any kind of detail. Initially, he provided a very strong defense of Sandusky, saying that he had never abused him, before becoming a client of civil attorney Andrew Shubin, who sent most of his Sandusky clients to therapy, quite likely to help retrieve repressed abuse memories. As reporter Sara Ganim wrote in November 2011, Shubin “teamed up with psychologists, social workers and a national child sex abuse organization so that these people [alleged victims] can seek mental help along with possible legal recourse.”


Jason Simcisko (“Victim 3”) told the police that nothing inappropriate had happened with Jerry Sandusky, when he was first interviewed. When the policemen asked if Sandusky had helped him rinse off in the shower, perhaps lifting him up to the showerhead, Simcisko replied, according to the police report: “There might have been something like that. I don’t exactly remember, but it sounds familiar.” This was the beginning of the process of manipulating his memory. At the end of the interview, the police report noted that Simcisko “agreed to call if he recalled anything further.”


By the time of the trial. Simcisko had remembered Sandusky touching his penis numerous times. He explained why he hadn’t revealed this earlier: “Everything that’s coming out now is because I thought about it more. I tried to block this out of my brain for years.” We don’t know for sure whether Simcisko was in psychotherapy or not, but Andrew Shubin was his lawyer.


Brett Houtz (“Victim 4”) did not make any abuse allegations to either his lawyer or the police during initial contact, but he did make allegations during a long subsequent interview with police, during which his lawyer was present. The police inadvertently left the tape recorder on, revealing their grossly leading interview methods, which can sway memory as effectively as psychotherapy. Police investigator Joseph Leiter said, “I know there’s been a rape committed somewhere along the line,” and noted that “it just took repetition and repetition” to get Aaron Fisher to say anything. He said that the police would routinely tell prospective victims: “Listen, this is what we found so far. You fit the pattern of all the other ones. This is the way he operates and the other kids we dealt with have told us that this has happened after this happened. Did that happen to you?” This is a classic illustration of “confirmation bias,” in which the police had already predetermined in their own minds what that truth was. And in this case, Leiter was intent on getting Houtz to say that Sandusky had forced him into oral sex. Eventually, Houtz did just that.


At the end of the interview, the police asked Houtz to try to remember more. “What usually happens is when you start to think about things…it may be 3 o’clock in the morning, tonight, and you go, Oh, my gosh, I remember this or I remember that or whatever.” In that case, Houtz should call them. “Sometimes things come up and you remember more things in detail.”


By the time Houtz testified in devastating fashion at the trial, he was in therapy with Mike Gillum. During the trial, Houtz said, “I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my mind forever.” It is not clear if he was talking about repressed memories, but it certainly sounds like it. On the other hand, Houtz had a long-standing reputation as a manipulative liar, and his father had initially contacted his lawyer with an obvious eye on money.


Michal Kajak (“Victim 5”) made allegations during his first contact with the police. We have no way of knowing whether Michal Kajak was in repressed memory therapy. By the time he spoke to the police on June 7, 2011, however, the abuse allegations against Sandusky had been publicized by reporter Sara Ganim, who had also contacted Zachary Konstas’s mother, who had, in turn, suggested that the police interview Kajak as a potential victim. We also know that Zach Konstas’s sister had already talked to Kajak about the allegations.


At any rate, Kajak said, according to a police report, that “he did not want to remember this stuff.” Kajak finally said that Sandusky had taken his hand and placed it on Sandusky’s erection for a few seconds during this single shower they took together. His story then was amplified somewhat over time, including a three-year shift in when the abuse allegedly occurred.


It is possible that Kajak, in envisioning the single time he had showered with Sandusky, convinced himself that this had happened. It is also possible that he spoke with his friend Dustin Struble, who was “remembering” his own abuse and might have helped him with his own shower story. Kajak’s allegations do not fit the modus operandi that the police otherwise thought Sandusky used. He was supposed to have “groomed” boys carefully before attempting more overt sexual abuse. The idea that Sandusky would have acted this way during the very first shower must have seemed odd, even to the police.


Zachary Konstas (“Victim 6”) never actually claimed that Sandusky abused him, although under the influence of the investigation and trial, he came to believe that Sandusky had “groomed” him for abuse in a 1998 shower. The day after the shower, Konstas emphatically denied that any abuse had taken place. Over the subsequent years, Konstas expressed his admiration and gratitude to Jerry Sandusky for his role in his life through notes and greeting cards. In 2009, as a twenty-three-year-old, Konstas wrote: “Hey Jerry just want 2 wish u a Happy Fathers Day! Greater things are yet 2 come!” Later that year he wrote: “Happy Thanksgiving bro! I’m glad God has placed U in my life. Ur an awesome friend! Love ya!”


But Zachary Konstas’s perceptions were altered drastically between the fall of 2010 and June 2012. As Allan Myers did, Konstas got a lawyer. Although he never accused Sandusky of sexually abusing him, but he made it sound as though the coach had wanted to, that Sandusky had been “grooming” him for abuse. He also implied that perhaps Sandusky had abused him, but that he, Konstas, had forgotten it. Konstas may have come to believe that he had “repressed” the memories. He had asked his friend, Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) “if [he] remembered anything more, if counseling was helping,” and Konstas himself was clearly undergoing psychotherapy. At Sandusky’s sentencing hearing, he said, “I have been left with deep, painful wounds that you caused and had been buried in the garden of my heart for many years.”


Konstas’s attorney, Howard Janet, explained in an interview how Konstas and the other alleged victims could “create a bit of a Chinese wall in their minds. They bury these events that were so painful to them deep in their subconscious.”


Zachary Konstas may not have recovered specific memories of abuse, but his reinterpretation of his past, along with implications that he may have repressed the memories, were enough for the jury to find Sandusky guilty of planning to abuse him.


Dustin Struble (“Victim 7”) admitted to me that he was in repressed memory, and his trial testimony makes that obvious as well. He had no abuse memories until the police contacted him, and he considered Sandusky a friend and mentor until then. State Trooper Joseph Leiter interviewed Struble for the first time on February 3, 2011. By that time Struble had been thinking about the way Sandusky used to put his hand on his knee while driving, and now he thought he remembered Sandusky moving his hand slowly up towards his crotch sometimes. And other times, he thought Sandusky may have been trying to slide his hand down his back under his underwear waistband. Yes, he had taken showers with Sandusky, but nothing sexual had taken place there. He’d given him bear hugs at times, but not in the shower. They had wrestled around, but Sandusky had never touched him inappropriately.


At the end of the interview, Leiter was excited that Struble was open to the idea that Sandusky might have abused him, but that wasn’t enough. In ending the interview he “advised Struble that as he recalls events to please contact me and we can set up another interview. Also, if he begins having difficulties with his memories to contact me so that assistance can be found.” Struble entered psychotherapy less than three weeks later.


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 Sandusky had 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. On the stand, he explained: “That doorway that I had closed has since been re-opening more. More things have been coming back…. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point.” Struble went on to explain more about how his repressed memories had returned in therapy. He further explained: “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.”


In 2014, I interviewed Struble in his home in State College, PA. In a follow-up email, he wrote: “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.”


Phantom Victim (“Victim 8”) is the product of double hearsay testimony that should never have been allowed at the trial. A janitor named Ron Petrosky said that another janitor, Jim Calhoun, had told him in the fall of 2000 that he saw Sandusky giving oral sex to a young boy in a Penn State locker room shower. By the time of the June 2012 trial, Calhoun had Alzheimer’s and could not testify, but the judge allowed Petrosky to do so. Sandusky was found guilty of molesting this unidentified boy.


But in a taped interview on May 15, 2011, Jim Calhoun had told the police that Sandusky was not the man he saw giving oral sex to a young man in the shower. The defense apparently had not listened to the tape and never entered it into evidence in the trial.


Sabastian Paden (“Victim 9”) came forward after the explosive Grand Jury Presentment became public on November 4, 2011, and the Office of the Attorney General publicized a hotline for prospective Sandusky victims. At that point, it was clear to civil lawyers and alleged victims that there was a possible financial windfall to be had.


Paden’s changed attitude towards Sandusky occurred incredibly quickly, after his mother called his school to ask them to contact the police. When the police appeared at his door, Paden denied having been abused. Sometime in October 2011, the high school senior was seated in Beaver Stadium beside Sandusky, enjoying a Penn State football game with a friend. Less than a month later, however, Paden rocked the grand jury with accounts of his former life as a virtual captive in the Sandusky basement, where he claimed to have screamed for help, to no avail, even though the basement was not soundproofed and there was no way to lock him down there. Paden said that he was forced to perform oral sex on numerous occasions, and that Sandusky attempted anal intercourse over sixteen times, with actual penetration at times.


It is unlikely that repressed memory therapy was involved in encouraging Sabastian Paden’s memories, at least at the outset, since his grotesque allegations arose within just a few days of his mother’s initial phone call. It is instead likely that he was either telling the truth or that he was consciously lying, at the urging of his mother and in search of remuneration and sympathetic attention.


Ryan Rittmeyer (“Victim 10”) also responded to the Sandusky hotline after the case exploded in the media. He had been incarcerated twice—for burglary in 2004, at age seventeen, and in September 2007, when he was twenty, for burglary and assault. He and a teenager assaulted an elderly man on the street, punching him in the face and leaving him with permanent injuries. Rittmeyer was sentenced to twenty-one months in prison and was released in 2009. At the time of the trial, he was married, with a pregnant wife. After he called the hotline, Rittmeyer was represented by lawyer Andrew Shubin.


At his first police interview with officer Michael Cranga on November 29, 2011, Rittmeyer said that Jerry Sandusky had groped him in a swimming pool. Then, while driving a silver convertible, Sandusky had allegedly opened his pants to expose his penis and told Rittmeyer to put it in his mouth. When he refused, Sandusky became angry and told him that if didn’t do it, Rittmeyer would never see his family again. “His life went downhill” subsequently, Cranga wrote in his report, which Rittmeyer apparently blamed on this traumatic event.


During his grand jury testimony on December 5, 2011, Rittmeyer changed and amplified his story. Now he said that something sexual occurred almost every time he saw Sandusky throughout 1997, 1998, and part of 1999, once or twice a month. Finally, Rittmeyer said that he eventually complied and gave Sandusky oral sex, and vice versa.


Jerry Sandusky never owned any kind of convertible, nor was it likely that he borrowed or rented one, which would have been quite out of character for him. The Ryan Rittmeyer testimony, filled with inconsistencies as well as a mythical silver convertible, appears even more questionable because the Sanduskys said that they couldn’t even remember him, whereas they readily admitted knowing the other Second Mile accusers. He may have been one of the Second Mile kids who came to their home, but Dottie Sandusky didn’t know his name, and Jerry Sandusky said that if he met him on the street, he would not recognize him.


There was apparently no repressed memory therapy necessary in Rittmeyer’s case, though it is likely that Shubin sent him for subsequent counseling.


Matt Sandusky didn’t testify at trial, so he never received a victim number. The last of the six children to be adopted by Dottie and Jerry Sandusky, at the age of 18, Matt had supported his accused parent during the investigation. In 2011 he had testified in front of the grand jury that his adoptive father had never abused him. But in the middle of the June 2012 trial, apparently after entering psychotherapy, he “flipped,” going to the police to say that Jerry Sandusky had abused him.


Matt told the police that he was working with a therapist and that “memories of his abuse are just now coming back,” according to the NBC announcer who played portions of the leaked interview tape. When the police asked whether Sandusky had sodomized him or forced him into oral sex, Matt answered: “As of this time, I don’t recall that.”


But by the time Matt appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s television show in 2014, he had remembered oral sex. He made it clear to Winfrey that he had not recalled sexual abuse until he was in repressed memory therapy, but this apparently did not make her skeptical in the least. “So based upon what you’re telling me,” Winfrey said to him, “you actually repressed a lot of it.” And Matt replied, “Uh-huh, absolutely. The physical part is the part that, you know, you can erase.”


When she asked him about first coming forward to talk to the police during the trial, he said, “It was a confusing time.” It wasn’t as if he heard Brett Houtz and all his own abuse memories came rushing back. “My child self had protected my adult self,” he explained. “My child self was holding onto what had happened to me—and taken that from me—so I, I didn’t have the memory of—I didn’t have these memories of the sexual abuse—or with him doing all of the things that he did.”


As he listened to the testimony of Brett Houtz and other alleged victims, he felt somehow that “they were telling my story,” but he apparently didn’t remember abuse right away. “They were telling—you know, all of these things start coming back to you, yes, [and] it starts to become very confusing for me and you try and figure out what is real and what you’re making up.”


In summary, then, repressed memories were key to many of the Sandusky accusations, including the first case which was also the only case for the first two years of the investigation. Then, when Mike McQueary’s memory of the 2001 shower morphed into actually seeing abuse, the police began a frantic search for more alleged victims, who were “developed,” as prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach put it, through suggestive, leading interview tactics and civil lawyer and therapist involvement. The jurors did not have the information they needed to evaluate the spoken testimony in its proper context. If they had known how the testimony was nurtured and created, their opinions about the authenticity of the event might have been altered.


Instead, as we know, they found Sandusky guilty. After the verdict, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly held a triumphant press conference outside the courthouse, during which she referred directly to the importance of repressed memories in the Sandusky case: “It was incredibly difficult for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”







POSTED BY RALPH CIPRIANO AT 2:59 PM
TRIAL: PENN STATE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL



Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/11/memory-issues-in-jerry-sandusky-case.html#CLPO06kL2sOBTWlP.99
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

[h=1]Why the Larry Nassar Scandal Has Almost Nothing In Common with Penn State and Jerry Sandusky[/h]
  • JOHN ZIEGLER JAN 24, 2018 5:28 PM
As former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State doctor, and convicted child sex abuser, Larry Nassar faced his seemingly never-ending stream of accusers during his sentencing hearing (resulting, today, in him getting 175 years in prison), a very consistent, predictable, and extraordinarily lazy media narrative has emerged…


This whole nightmare is just like what happened at Penn State with Jerry Sandusky, or maybe, given the much larger number of accusers, it is even worse.
I totally understand how people who only read headlines, and blindly buy whatever they are told by a news media which is no longer competent enough to be trusted on complex and emotionally-charged stories, would come to this conclusion. After all, both Nassar and Sandusky worked for large college athletic programs, both were accused of sexual abusing lots of teenage kids over an extended period of time, and both led to their respective former employers being suspected of a massive cover up.
However, as someone who has studied the “Penn State Scandal” more intensively than anyone in the world over the last six years, I know this comparison to be completely illegitimate. I literally laughed at one headline in the New York Post which declared, “Michigan State Officials Shrug at Nassar Case: It’s No Sandusky,” because that is absolutely true, just for reasons that are very different than they undoubtedly perceive.
The two cases actually have almost nothing in common. In fact, the Nassar case exposes the absurdity of the entire Penn State/Sandusky media narrative.
Here are just some of the key elements that the Nassar scandal has which did not happen in the Sandusky case:

  • Nassar was found to have lots of child porn. Sandusky had absolutely none of any kind.
  • Nassar quickly pled guilty. Sandusky never even considered a plea bargain and still strongly maintains his innocence, this despite having almost no chance of ever getting out of prison.
  • Nassar used a legitimate medical procedure to get his victims naked and fool everyone that he wasn’t doing anything wrong. While he did very occasionally shower in semi-public places with some of them, Sandusky had no similar ability to get heterosexual teenage boys to do the same, and was not even accused at trial of using drugs or alcohol to ply his victims.
  • As proven by the porn, Nassar clearly has a sexual orientation to girls. There is no evidence, other than the accusations themselves, that Sandusky has a sexual orientation towards boys.
  • Nassar’s wife immediately filed for divorce. Sandusky’s wife, who knew all of his accusers extremely well, is still his strongest supporter, making long trips to visit him in prison every week.
  • USA Gymnastics paid at least one very high-profile victim lots of money to sign an NDA, long before Nassar was convicted. No one ever even asked for money from Sandusky or Penn State to keep quiet.
  • Nassar had over 150 victims willing to be known and to speak publicly, forcefully, and passionately about their abuse. Only a handful of Sandusky accusers have ever made themselves known publicly, none have ever expressed remotely similar emotion, and all of them did so with an extreme financial motive.
As for the cover-up allegations, I am quite positive that there was no cover-up at Penn State. Contrary to media perception, no one was even ever convicted of such a charge (the three Penn State administrators were only convicted, illegitimately in the view of the jury foreman, of one count of misdemeanor child endangerment). There is also no evidence, in my mind, nor any logic, to suggest that there was a cover-up.
While I believe there are literally a thousand data points which contradict the Penn State cover-up myth, the one that is easiest for people to understand is this:
When the only person (then part-time graduate assistant coach Mike McQueary) who ever came directly to Penn State to complain about the retired Sandusky, the school’s wide receivers job had just opened up two days earlier. This was a gig Mcqueary badly wanted, however he did NOT get the position.
Had there been any kind of Penn State cover-up on behalf of FORMER assistant Sandusky, the FIRST thing that would have transpired is that McQueary would have gotten that job and been urged to keep quiet. Neither of those things ever came close to happening.
While I would like to learn more, I also doubt that there was a proactive cover-up at Michigan State (though I am less certain about USA Gymnastics). There simply was no motive for a school to protect a sex abuser because he was helping with athletes in non-revenue sports which very few people even care about on the college level.
Interestingly, Michigan State is responding to all of this in a VERY different and MUCH stronger manner than Penn State did, and I believe that, while they are getting some short-term criticism for it, this could end up working to their advantage.
The number one thing people don’t understand about the “Penn State Scandal” is that PSU completely panicked in firing legendary head football coach Joe Paterno, who was actually a very key prosecution witness and was initially praised for his handling of the situation. This caused those who run the school to have a perverse incentive to curl up into the fetal position and take blame for things which the school had nothing to do with, and which likely never even happened in the first place.
Because Michigan State lacks a Joe Paterno figure to drive massive media coverage beyond today’s sentencing, I am predicting that the NCAA does not rush to judgment like they did with Penn State.
Sometimes evil people are just unfortunately able to get away with horrible acts. It sure seems like Nassar had the perfect set up to do exactly that in this case. Thankfully, he no longer does.
John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker. He has long written about what he believes were the flaws in the case against Jerry Sandusky. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com
Tags: nassar
 

kane

Railbird is a past posting pos
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

You're right asshole, this scandal has nothing in common with Sandusky, Nassar molested girls, whereas your hero molested little boys, now go fuck off
 

Ronaldo

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Kane, Sandusky was just living his true self. Aren't you a liberal?
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Speaker Defends Sandusky, Discussing Malleability of Memory





By NICOLE POLLACK
February 28, 2018

“There’s one thing I should make clear. There is absolutely no way, in the brief period of time I’m going to speak, that I’m going to convince you of anything in this very complex case.”
Science writer Mark Pendergrast used these words to begin his Tuesday, Feb. 20 lecture “The Malleability of Memory and the Conviction of Jerry Sandusky.” Pendergrast, who has authored 14 books on topics ranging from caffeinated beverages to Japanese renewable energy policies, spoke in the Axinn Center about his latest book, “The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment.”
Pendergrast began his talk by summarizing the well-known case of Jerry Sandusky, the former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach who is a convicted serial rapist and child molester. In 1977, Sandusky founded a charity called The Second Mile in State College, Pennsylvania, to provide help and support to atrisk youth. The program also gave Sandusky decades of unsupervised access to vulnerable boys. He was arrested on pedophilia-related charges in 2011 and found guilty in 2012. Yet despite the numerous witnesses who have recounted stories of his abuse, Sandusky insists that he was wrongly convicted.
“I don’t think he’s guilty,” said Pendergrast. “I think he’s entirely innocent.”
Pendergrast explained that much of the case against Sandusky depended on repressed memory therapy, a technique meant to retrieve traumatic experiences that children block from consciousness. Therapists helped Sandusky’s witnesses rebuild memories of abuse that they could not recall. “I’m assuming that everyone knows that repressed memories are pseudoscience,” said Pendergrast. “The idea that you would forget terrible things is not true.”
Pendergrast said that when he first learned about the case, “I was appalled by it, and like everyone, I thought Jerry Sandusky must have done this.” Interviews with Sandusky and his children changed Pendergrast’s mind. Of Sandusky’s six children, five defend their father, describing him as “touchy-feely” but in a paternal way. Adopted son Matt Sandusky started out backing his siblings, but he changed his story after attending repressed memory therapy. He eventually released a statement saying that his father had sexually abused him.
Pendergrast saw Sandusky’s lack of maltreatment toward his own children as an early indication that other witnesses’ stories might not add up. He said, “I would think that if [he were] a pedophile and [he] had four of these interviewed boys, that he would try to do something with them. They weren’t even related by blood. But he didn’t.”
Accusations against Sandusky collected over the years, but former Penn State quarterback Mike McQueary ignited the controversy when he overheard slapping sounds in the locker room shower. It was Sandusky with a boy. Pendergrast emphasized that while McQueary initially spoke only of hearing sounds he interpreted as sexual, his story shifted after he, too, attended repressed memory therapy. There, he remembered seeing Sandusky’s hips moving behind a child’s. The boy in the shower, Allan Myers, later testified that he and Sandusky had been snapping towels and that he could recall nothing sexual about the incident.
Pendergrast recognized that the circumstances of McQueary’s accusation were inherently suspicious. People would question a man in his mid-fifties showering, nude, with a child. Pendergrast responded by describing Sandusky as a “supportive goofball” who was oblivious to what others considered socially acceptable.
Most of the witnesses who ended up testifying against Sandusky said that they had pushed away memories of his abuse until therapy allowed them to recognize what really happened. Pendergrast believes that the therapists implanted the witnesses with false memories. He quoted “Victim 7,” Dustin Struble, as saying, “I had everything blocked out.” Struble also said, “I was good at pushing memories of abuse away. [My therapist] explained a lot to me since this happened.”
“I don’t believe he was abused,” said Pendergrast.
Sandusky’s attorney was, as Pendergrast put it, “completely clueless about repressed memory.” He had no idea how to fight a string of victims who defended Sandusky until they went to therapy and remembered the abuse he had put them through. According to Pendergrast, trial mismanagement and blind trust in repressed memory doomed Sandusky, but because Pennsylvania’s judges are elected rather than appointed, he has little hope of being granted a retrial.
Pendergrast did not expect his brief talk to change anyone’s mind. His stance on Sandusky is so unpopular that he could not find a publisher for his book, which can instead be purchased online in paperback and Kindle form. Pendergrast, who hopes that people will consider his perspective before forming their own conclusions, said, “I beg you to actually read the book.”
When asked whether he believed repressed memory played a role in the #MeToo Movement, Pendergrast said that while repressed memory likely influences some cases, he does not think it is a significant factor. While he sees the #MeToo Movement as “shedding light on the way women have been treated,” he is concerned by events such as the firing of Garrison Keillor. “Where are the details?” Pendergrast said. “The man’s life has been ruined.”
https://middleburycampus.com/37886/f...ity-of-memory/
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

a must listen to broadcast if your following the case

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2018-03-31-1-penn-state-update


From JZ

I did a special podcast today to provide the full/amazing/soul-crushing story of how Newsweek planned to run an EPIC 16,000 word investigation on Monday (co-written by me) rewriting the history of the "Penn State Scandal," until they wimped out 2 days ago.


 

raycabino

Long Live Wilson!
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

I wonder how Sandusky is liking all those adult dick sandwiches?
 
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

a must listen to broadcast if your following the case

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2018-03-31-1-penn-state-update


From JZ

I did a special podcast today to provide the full/amazing/soul-crushing story of how Newsweek planned to run an EPIC 16,000 word investigation on Monday (co-written by me) rewriting the history of the "Penn State Scandal," until they wimped out 2 days ago.


Spoiler alert. 1000 of the words were continuous repeats of the phrase, "It's not even close!"
 

kane

Railbird is a past posting pos
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

John if you read this, could you please move this thread to the Asylum? Thanks.
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Bruce is persistent. I still think he is John Ziegler.
Lol. I have been posting in this forum since 2006

The funny part about this thread is I know many people are actually reading and listening to things I have posted , but as typical in this case , are afraid to show support
Trust me, I get it
 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclu...wing-hbo-paterno-movie-was-spiked-last-moment

EXCLUSIVE: The Bombshell Newsweek Cover Story, Blowing Up the HBO "Paterno" Movie, That Was Spiked At The Last Moment






Here are just some of the new pieces of evidence which are in this version:


  • A new email showing that Joe Paterno’s widow, Sue Paterno, is now, against previous family policy, on record directly contradicting critical parts of the testimony of the only direct witness in the entire case, former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary, who allegedly saw Sandusky abusing a boy in a Penn State shower. Sue who was there that day, has emailed a person directly involved in the case that the ENTIRE fateful "meeting" between Mike and Joe only lasted "three minutes."




  • The real story of the “boy in the shower,” whom the prosecution cynically pretended never existed because his words and actions blow apart McQueary’s credibility.
  • Strong evidence that the entire timeline provided by McQueary and the prosecution, radically altered once because they got it very wrong, is likely still drastically off, thus dramatically changing the entire narrative of what really happened.
  • Documents indicating that Louis Freeh’s own team did not believe that the highly influential conclusions of the “Freeh Report” were supported by legitimate evidence. As seen here, even one of his own employees wrote "NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!" over the very first paragraph of the Freeh Group's internal work product about the supposed "Penn State Football Culture" causing the "cover up."




  • A new email demonstrating that the reporter who broke the story, Sara Ganim, who eventually won a Pulitzer Prize, was receiving, largely inaccurate, leaks from the attorney general’s office in order to directly impact the investigation.
  • Leaked settlement documents, which for the first time reveal which Sandusky accusers Penn State paid and how much, proving at least two of the key accusers at Sandusky’s trial told dramatically different stories for millions of dollars than they did under oath at trial.
  • The identities of the accusers from the 1970s, who reportedly claimed they informed Joe Paterno of their abuse, reveal their stories are not to be remotely believed and were not given real credibility even by Penn State officials willing to believe almost anything.
  • A new, secret, and extraordinary interview with, Ira Lubert (which can be heard at around the 43-minute mark of this podcast), the Penn State trustee in charge of the settlements which raises legitimate questions as to whether even he thinks that anyone in this mess is actually guilty and makes it clear even he thinks at least some of the accusers he paid are lying.
  • Interviews with numerous people very close to key accusers which create extreme doubt about the already suspect stories for which they were paid many millions of dollars.
  • The existence of five key accusers from the tiny town of Lock Haven, who accounted for $35 million in settlements, even though only one of them was a trial accuser.
  • The existence of a three-year “sting” operation, complete with extensive documentation, on the key lawyer and therapist in the case, resulting in a purposely fake accuser, with a laughably absurd story, being totally embraced during over 100 meetings, all paid for by Penn State.
  • Never-seen medical records showing that it likely would have been impossible for Sandusky to commit the acts which were claimed against him during the critical time period, as well as inconceivable that not even one of the thirty-six victims whom Penn State paid to have not mentioned a “distinguishing characteristic” of his genitalia.
http://www.framingpaterno.com/exclu...wing-hbo-paterno-movie-was-spiked-last-moment
 
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

No one cares

at all.

There is a dead cat roadkill lying in the middle of my street that is more important than your story.
 

TobyTyler

EOG Dedicated
Re: Federal Agent: No Sex Scandal At Penn State, Just A "Political Hit Job

Lol. I have been posting in this forum since 2006

The funny part about this thread is I know many people are actually reading and listening to things I have posted , but as typical in this case , are afraid to show support
Trust me, I get it
might be time to move on
 
Top