Online Now 528

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Online now 154
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets


Latest Ziegler Tweets - 2nd Tweet Added

  • Exactly. The Media and the world wanted Joe on a platter because he "HAD to know". Freeh served it up fo all to lap up because that is what they wanted. He was mentioned 3 times "maybe" in all the things they looked at. 3 TIMES!!!!

    Yet he was the mastermind behind this cover up for 10 years.

    It actually is a joke and is kind of scary at the same time.

    A joke because if you really think about it, it is impossible and scary because when the media or powers that be want something it doesn't need to be backed up by facts.

  • Serious question, what incentive does Victim 2 have to come out now and say he was not abused?

    After Rodney went to the media and basically declared Penn State's bank open for any and all claims, all the victims would have no reason to retract any claims and risk a hefty pay day. Thanks to Erickson's "We're Sorry, please take our money" tour it would seem even if victim 2 was not abused, no one would question PSU settling with him.

    So why now? What's changed?

  • That's a very good question. It seems like he's walking away from a pay day.

    Maybe he was abused but is ashamed(not right and he shouldn't but this is Jim Clemente's reason why we need to start thinking differently about these offenders) and wants people to think he wasn't.

    Maybe he actually wasn't abused and doesn't want the stigma attached to it.

    Maybe he actually cares about the truth.

    Maybe he's a penn state fan and feels victimized by the BOT and NCAA...

  • One of the fact checkers involved can chime in, but I don't think he said he was never abused by Jerry. He just said he wasn't that particular time. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong there, but I could have sworn it was said somewhere. Jerry's lawyer maybe??? I'm not even sure how credible it was and it could have been some BS just posted elsewhere.

    "One man didn't build this program and one man sure as hell cannot tear it down."

  • I haven't been following this claim too closely. It is possible that the person Zeigler is referring to isn't the same person that claimed to be V2 during the trial and that has since changed his story to sue PSU?

    If it is him he'll have gone from saying nothing happened, to suing PSU for it happening, and then back to saying nothing happened. If it's not him, the only question is why someone would wait this long and the answers to that are vast.

    One theory if it is the same person is that it's possible he was abused by Sandusky for years, but that on the night in question, nothing happened. That would explain not only why the defense didn't call him, but also why the prosecution didn't call him. It could also possibly rationalize how he could have said nothing happened that night, yet still claims to be a victim.

  • Yes, Amendola claimed that he was contacted by V2 and that he was going to say nothing happened that night. He questioned, somewhat cryptically, why the prosecution knew of him as well but wasn't using him. It was a good question at the time. However, that got quieted pretty quickly when the defense didn't call him either. It seems that either both sides deemed him not credible or it was a scenario like I mentioned above where his testimony would hurt both side more than it would help either. The defense didn't want to call a witness that was going to surely be cross examined about years of abuse even if nothing happened that night, and the defense already had a lot of victims and didn't need to call one that would possibly discredit their only witness.

    This post was edited by spud358 13 months ago

  • Amendola talks about victim #2.

    Exclusive Video: Sandusky Attorney Explains W

    In this exclusive interview with,Joe Amendola,the attorney for Jerry Sandusky, explains in detail never before publicly aired why it w...
    signature image signature image signature image
  • not to get away from this specific topic, but I just wanted to add that there is a bunch of smoke on a different message boards about something dropping soon (this week). Sounds like it could be more law suits and possibly in combination with Zeigler's news?

    Either way, there is enough smoke to convince me that the next strategic move in the orchestration against the NCAA is coming very, very soon. And on the eve of possibly the most visible time of the year for the NCAA, I like the timing....

    This post was edited by spud358 13 months ago

  • Sounds like lawsuits are the only way to go.

    I tend to disagree with some of this article but thought I'd share.

    Why the NCAA isn't likely to reduce Penn Stat

    Need to protect powers, ego all point to an association that will dig in, at least through a series of early court rulings here.
    signature image signature image signature image
  • I think that article makes a valid point, but IMO the important thing to consider is that the NCAA isn't risking anything yet. There is no risk in taking a hard stance and fighting this with everything they have until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss. The real indicator isn't going to come until that motion is ruled on and should they rule in PA's favor, shit just got real for the NCAA. I think their actions from that moment on will tell us 1,000x more about their likely actions than anything that has happened to date.

    I they say bring on discovery and we'll see you in court, then the only hope IMO is for PA to win the legal battle. It remains to be seen if the NCAA is willing to risk allowing PA attorneys to go digging through all their investigations and questioning their leaders under oath. If they do, THAT will be a real statement. Anything up until that point is just talk.

    This post was edited by spud358 13 months ago

  • I don't know what to think about the timing of doing it before March Madness. Would it cause things to be talked about more, or would it simply be passed over because March Madness is a bigger story? Not sure what the right call is. I almost would rather have it be in about a month when there is nothing else going on in sports, but people smarter than me will know the best course of action.

    This post was edited by PSU17 13 months ago

  • It won't matter when or where or what....

    Nothing the truth brings out will ever be as media and prosocuter driven as 10 year old boy, rape in shower.....

    It just won't. God could come down from Heaven with what happened clearing everyone from PSU and the media will simply spin it as Paterno put him up to it in Heaven.

  • I'll probably get down voted for this but in my honest opinion, I totally believe MM is embellishing his story. I "Think" MM was coached by the AG's office, told that he could be a hero if he helped bring down the all mighty Jerry Sandusky. Mike embellished his story to suit their needs and ran with it. Once presentment came out, the public didn't see him as a hero and turned on him calling him a coward. So MM reacted by changing his story several times as an act of self preservation. MM is now stuck and can't tell the truth because he will get arrested for perjury.

    It is my personal opinion that what MM told Joe, Tim and Gary in 2001 was not what he SAID he told them in 2011. After the 2001 shower incident, Dr. Dranov's, John McQueary's, Joe Paterno's, Gary Shultz's, Tim Curley's, Graham Spanier's and even MM's actions are all consistent with someone being told of "horseplay" and NOT "Something sexual". I personally read accounts of MM seeing Jerry Sandusky in the shower with a kid and horseplay on various Penn State message boards in the late 2000's (though not direct from MM). Their actions are completely contrary to how someone would react had the words "fondling", "something sexual", "sexual position", "anal rape" and "sexual in nature" been used.

    If MM told these men he witnessed "Horse play", their actions are easily defended by the 1998 incident. "Jerry needs to stop this crap, same thing happened three year ago and he didn't get charged with it. We need to nip this in the butt and stop having Jerry bring kids onto campus and if he doesn't respond to what we are telling him, we need to take it to everyone including CYS and have them do something about it". This is a more humane solution than just going directly to CYS and exposing Jerry to all that public and media scrutiny when all he did was goof off in the shower with a kid, just like in 1998 when no laws were broken" I also would like to add that there is not one shred of evidence that Dr. Dranov, John McQueary or Mike McQueary were ever told by Joe, Tim, Gary or Graham to keep this quiet, MM even testified that he wasn't. If you were planning a mass cover-up wouldn't that be something you would do? Tie up all lose ends?

    If MM told these men he saw "fondling", "something sexual", "sexual position", "anal rape" and "sexual in nature", you have to question the actions of at least seven different men. (Dr. Dranov) he was a mandated reported, why didn't he report it, he had no reason to cover for JS. (John McQueary) why didn't he tell MM to go straight to the police as soon as he was told? (Joe Paterno) why didn't he demand JS be banned from campus? (Gary Schultz) why didn't he have JS arrested or turned over to the DA. Why did he keep supposedly incriminating notes about all of this and why didn't he destroy them once he heard what was coming down? (Tim Curley) why didn't he demand that JS be arrested and turned over to the DA? Why would he even tell the second Mile about it if he intended to cover it up, the less people that know the better? (Graham Spanier) why would the President of a major university but his job and the credibility of that university on the line for a RETIRED football coach? And finally (Mike McQueary) If he was something so sexual why would he tell Joe Paterno he was okay with how everything was handled? Why would he not demand that something more be done? Why didn't he break up what he saw?

    I cannot tell you why MM changed/embellished what he saw, I have my theories, but for whatever reason he did, he is now stuck. If he recants it and tells the truth he will be changed with perjury.

    I "feel" that TRUTH follows the path of least resistance and if you look at the two paths listed above one flows much muck easier than the other.

    Before you slam me about speculation please note I started this out with the comment "It is my personal opinion"

    This post was edited by PSUFAN63 13 months ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Personally I find it much easier to believe that MM was vague with his story than Paterno, Shultz, Curly, and Spanier all decided to look the other way after hearing about a clear case of child abuse.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Why would we slam you? Now I don't mean this as a dig to you but it is a dig to the BOT, NCAA, media, and the lemmings... what you described (or some version very close to it) IS definitely what happened. At least all the evidence and testimony I've heard up to this point suggests that's true and anyone with a shred of common sense or half a brain can see it.

  • I agree with you. It really doesn't make sense that he actually told them what he claims he did, and then just went on and was fine with things. I think he's embellished what his comments were to Schultz and Curley.

  • John Ziegler stated it the best when describing what he believes happened. Based on a one alarm fire being a pot on the stove on fire and a five alarm fire being a house fully engulfed in fire.

    Mike McQueary saw a two alarm fire
    Mike McQueary told JPV, GS and TC he saw a one alarm fire
    Over the next ten years in MM's mind the two alarm fire turned into a three alarm fire
    When the AG talked to MM he changed what he saw from a three alarm into a four alarm fire
    The AG wrote up the presentment as a five alarm fire
    The public is upset that JVP didn't react to a five alarm fire.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Believe it or not there are a lot of MM defenders out there......

    signature image signature image signature image
  • My problem with this entire affair is that nothing is clear. As others have said and Clemente showed JS was a master manipulator. Master, top 1%. I do not believe MM is outright lying, after the fact his mind is reconciljng what he saw in a split second and the charges brought against JS. I di not think there was a coverup, errors in judgement but NO cover up. I thonk they should have reported it, but as Clemente points out this was not clear at the time...

    One other thought is that Joe seemed more explicit in the GJ testimony than earlier accounts given to c&s, is MM any different? I do not know but am not convinced MM is a bold faced liar.

  • I think MM told everyone he saw horseplay. Everyone treated like that.

    I think what happened was later on he found out from Matt Sandusky (they were friends) what kind of creep Jerry actually was and that plus the AG giving a little nudge led to the embellished testimony.

  • This is pretty much dead on with my thinking during this entire mess? Actions speak louder then words and everyone's actions (including Red's) indicate horseplay/uncomfortable versus abuse. Didn't Dranov testify that he asked Mike multiple times if we witnessed abuse and the answer was no?

    signature image

    He ain't heavy - He's my brother!

  • I think the only source for that is Ganim. I believe GJ testimony is generally "secret", which is why we've never actually heard what Mike actually said, just the state's embellished and inaccurate version of it. However, Ganim had a source that was "familiar with Dr. Dranov's testimony" and relayed details of his testimony to her, which she wrote a story on.

    "However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source. "

    Another version of Mike McQueary's story abou

    Assistant football coach has said he saw Jerry Sandusky in a Penn State shower with a boy. What exactly he saw, however, differs in grand jury, witness and police accounts.

    This post was edited by spud358 13 months ago

  • After reading this again, boy is it going to be difficult to get a guilty verdict.

  • ya, that article makes a decent argument about some inconsistencies with Mike's accounts of what happened and I can only imagine that the legal team for these guys, which is pretty impressive, will do an even better job.

    Having said that, the comments reported by Ganim with regard to Dranov, are lacking context. We know that whatever Mike saw was enough to disturb him greatly. We know that he conveyed enough for Paterno to understand it was possibly of "a sexual nature", and we know that Curley/Shultz/Spanier thought enough of it to consult counsel and originally planned to report it to DPW. We know that John McQueary testified that Schultz told him they had been suspicious of Jerry but never had anything to sink their teeth into. none of this is helping their case.... If Baldwin's testimony is allowed, I think she has dirt that could make them look even worse.

    IMO, based on just the facts and actual testimony we have access to, the best narrative I can come up with is that Mike something that disturbed him, but nothing specific. In fact, I think what really disturbed him was the sounds, which is what Dranov kept going back to. I think Mike hear the slapping sounds and assumed someone was having sex in the shower and his world was turned upside down when he saw a child and Sandusky were the people in the shower. I think the truth is that Mike didn't see anything concrete but clearly assumed there was a chance it was the worst case scenario. I'd guess that Dranov was debating calling the police or dealing with it the way they did and part of his decision process was to grill mike on how certain he was that something sexual took place. I think mike couldn't be sure and as he told Dranov, he didn't actually see anything sexual happening.

    Ultimately, this could potentially be broken down Mike having real concern that he caught Jerry doing something terrible, but not actually seeing enough to feel that he could go to the police with what he did see so he went to Paterno, who kicked it up to university leaders. I think the meet of these charges is going to come down to the actual evidence that they knew this was more than inappropriate behavior and was a reportable incident of abuse. The defense will do everything they can to minimize what they felt was going on and the prosecution will do everything they can to prove that they understood it was more than inappropriate horseplay. If none of the 3 waiver and Baldwin is not allowed to testify, it's going to be mike's word plus the supporting evidence (some of which I listed above) vs the word of 3 respected men plus their evidence supporting their claim that it wasn't clearly a crime Mike was reporting.