• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Penn State Cult (Joe Knew)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BB73 said:
No thanks. I read the presentment and followed the story and the trial very closely. I don’t need to review anything.
Click to expand...
If you read the presentment and followed the trial then I am sure you can name all of the changes the prosecutors and McQueary made during that process? Because the presentment wasn't what the prosecutors used in the trial, and in fact was quite different.

I don't understand what people are afraid of? It is just information. You can form your own opinion. I prefer to have as much information and as many facts as possible when I make a judgment on a situation. Like I have said, I am only into a few episodes, but this guy raises some serious issues and he has nothing to gain or lose on the outcome of his investigation.

I am not saying Sandusky is innocent, but the way it went down has quite a few issues and the media is to blame. That part is clear from the podcasts. It is hardly debatable in my opinion so far that the media created a narrative that was not true. The timeline and facts do not support the media narrative.

I am going to finish listening to the podcasts and get more info and my opinion may change or it may not, but I am not afraid to listen to a guy that spent 8 years researching this case. I followed the case and condemned them and have called Penn St Ped St for years. But I am not scared to listen to a podcast and possibly come to a different conclusion or remain unchanged or understand better how the media built a narrative.

I think it is weird to get attacked on here just because I have an open mind and the ability to listen to a guy that may have some better information than previously known, or he may be wrong. Listen for yourself. That is all. I was really hoping there would be some other folks around here that listened also and had an opinion on the podcasts information. How can you make fun of Ziegler and dismiss what he has to say when you don't know what he said? I would like to hear opinions on what he actually has to say and see what others around here think of it.
 
Upvote 0
Hstead said:
If you read the presentment and followed the trial then I am sure you can name all of the changes the prosecutors and McQueary made during that process? Because the presentment wasn't what the prosecutors used in the trial, and in fact was quite different.

I don't understand what people are afraid of? It is just information. You can form your own opinion. I prefer to have as much information and as many facts as possible when I make a judgment on a situation. Like I have said, I am only into a few episodes, but this guy raises some serious issues and he has nothing to gain or lose on the outcome of his investigation.

I am not saying Sandusky is innocent, but the way it went down has quite a few issues and the media is to blame. That part is clear from the podcasts. It is hardly debatable in my opinion so far that the media created a narrative that was not true. The timeline and facts do not support the media narrative.

I am going to finish listening to the podcasts and get more info and my opinion may change or it may not, but I am not afraid to listen to a guy that spent 8 years researching this case. I followed the case and condemned them and have called Penn St Ped St for years. But I am not scared to listen to a podcast and possibly come to a different conclusion or remain unchanged or understand better how the media built a narrative.

I think it is weird to get attacked on here just because I have an open mind and the ability to listen to a guy that may have some better information than previously known, or he may be wrong. Listen for yourself. That is all. I was really hoping there would be some other folks around here that listened also and had an opinion on the podcasts information. How can you make fun of Ziegler and dismiss what he has to say when you don't know what he said? I would like to hear opinions on what he actually has to say and see what others around here think of it.
Click to expand...

2 things:

1. If you’re not saying Sandusky is innocent (even though you said you’re not sure he did it,) what are you saying? That the details may be off? Obviously you aren’t suggesting all those people were lying on him, right?

2. Another reason I’m not interested in things he has to say is based on the information you are saying he’s disputing. I don’t think I ever heard anyone say Mike McQueary ever seen it first hand. That was the same defense PSU fans were making. “He only heard sounds, and never saw anything. We can’t believe him.”
 
Upvote 0
buchtelgrad04 said:
2 things:

1. If you’re not saying Sandusky is innocent (even though you said you’re not sure he did it,) what are you saying? That the details may be off? Obviously you aren’t suggesting all those people were lying on him, right?

2. Another reason I’m not interested in things he has to say is based on the information you are saying he’s disputing. I don’t think I ever heard anyone say Mike McQueary ever seen it first hand. That was the same defense PSU fans were making. “He only heard sounds, and never saw anything. We can’t believe him.”
Click to expand...
I am not sure now, due to the questions he has raised in the first four podcasts. He raised doubts for me. So obviously I was "sure" at one time, but now am not until I hear more information and listen to the rest of the podcasts. Then I will reform my opinion. Similar to an appeal if you will. I found him guilty, now I have to reexamine the facts, because the original presentment and the media have screwed up. Make sense? I haven't gotten to the witnesses part yet, however two of the witnesses changed their stories apparently. I will examine those instances when I get to them, but so far I haven't gotten there yet.

The problem with McQueary is the timeline mostly. It couldn't have happened like he said it did or when he said it did. He claimed he went to Joe the next day. There is no way that happened and Ziegler can explain why fairly easily. The two guys he supposedly told immediately, his father and his fathers friend, the fathers friends testimony doesn't support McQueary. In my mind, since McQueary changed his story multiple times and his timeline was impossible, I have to maybe throw out everything he has to say. He isn't very credible in my eyes. Which was my gut reaction the first time I heard his story. What grown man is going to walk away if they think a boy is being sexually assaulted? Most I know would step in and save the kid. Just didn't make sense to me from the beginning.

The kid that was never named in the shower, which Ziegler ended up identifying and the prosecutors absolutely knew at the trial but wouldn't mention him, said it didn't happen. That person actually wrote letters to two news papers defending Sandusky. Evidently they were in the shower, but nothing sexual happened. Now I think it is weird they were in the shower together, but according to the then boy, nothing happened and the prosecutors knew that is what he would testify to so they wouldn't disclose his name. That doesn't pass the smell test.

Just raises questions. Like I said, maybe Sandusky is a pedo, but either way, the media narrative and the prosecutors pulled some BS therefore I have to reform my opinion.

I drive a lot and love podcasts. This one is pretty interesting and I plan to listen to all of them and form my opinion in the end.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hstead said:
If you read the presentment and followed the trial then I am sure you can name all of the changes the prosecutors and McQueary made during that process? Because the presentment wasn't what the prosecutors used in the trial, and in fact was quite different.

I don't understand what people are afraid of? It is just information. You can form your own opinion. I prefer to have as much information and as many facts as possible when I make a judgment on a situation. Like I have said, I am only into a few episodes, but this guy raises some serious issues and he has nothing to gain or lose on the outcome of his investigation.

I am not saying Sandusky is innocent, but the way it went down has quite a few issues and the media is to blame. That part is clear from the podcasts. It is hardly debatable in my opinion so far that the media created a narrative that was not true. The timeline and facts do not support the media narrative.

I am going to finish listening to the podcasts and get more info and my opinion may change or it may not, but I am not afraid to listen to a guy that spent 8 years researching this case. I followed the case and condemned them and have called Penn St Ped St for years. But I am not scared to listen to a podcast and possibly come to a different conclusion or remain unchanged or understand better how the media built a narrative.

I think it is weird to get attacked on here just because I have an open mind and the ability to listen to a guy that may have some better information than previously known, or he may be wrong. Listen for yourself. That is all. I was really hoping there would be some other folks around here that listened also and had an opinion on the podcasts information. How can you make fun of Ziegler and dismiss what he has to say when you don't know what he said? I would like to hear opinions on what he actually has to say and see what others around here think of it.
Click to expand...

Since you quoted me and made some statements, I’ll respond to them.

I’m not afraid of anything, and resent the implication. Perhaps you didn’t mean me specifically, but when you quote somebody and then make statements that’s how it appears. I don’t believe I’ve ever made fun of Ziegler, but I have no inclination to listen to whatever he’s saying. Sandusky was proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, and his own statements and actions leave me no doubt regarding his actual guilt. He was the scum of the earth, and Paterno deserved his downfall for what he did and didn’t do in allowing those crimes to occur long after red flags had been raised.

You can certainly listen to those podcasts and form your own opinions. But you can’t make me listen to them, I have no interest in revisiting the details of Sandusky’s crimes. They might ruin my weekend.
 
Upvote 0
BB73 said:
Since you quoted me and made some statements, I’ll respond to them.

I’m not afraid of anything, and resent the implication. Perhaps you didn’t mean me specifically, but when you quote somebody and then make statements that’s how it appears. I don’t believe I’ve ever made fun of Ziegler, but I have no inclination to listen to whatever he’s saying. Sandusky was proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, and his own statements and actions leave me no doubt regarding his actual guilt. He was the scum of the earth, and Paterno deserved his downfall for what he did and didn’t do in allowing those crimes to occur long after red flags had been raised.

You can certainly listen to those podcasts and form your own opinions. But you can’t make me listen to them, I have no interest in revisiting the details of Sandusky’s crimes. They might ruin my weekend.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to insult you or anyone. My apologies. You have obviously formed your opinion, I did too. You may have read way more than I did originally, but I am finding the podcasts interesting and am learning new stuff about it. Obviously it is your prerogative to listen or not. Sort of like the Innocence Project, they have blown apart a lot of guilty verdicts out there, albeit with DNA usually, but sometimes mistakes are made.

My guess is after listening to the podcasts, I am going to continue to believe Sandusky is a pedo, but I think I may change my mind on what Joe knew and when, and mostly likely will change my mind on Spanier and the administration. Maybe, I will finish the podcasts and decide.

I would just like to hear what guys around here thought of the podcasts.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
That's how we get anti-vaxxers and other more political dumbness.

And it's not "just information". It's usually misinformation. Which, unfortunately, has been shown to be quite dangerous.
Click to expand...
This isn’t directed at you, but just jumping on how painfully obvious it is that this is misinformation...

The guy pointing out “timeline irregularities” 20 years after the event based on the recollection of the witness 10 years after the event, and using that as the basis to cast doubt on anything seems to me like the height of disingenuous bullshit.

Newsflash, remembering the exact timeline of events isn’t really that fucking important, especially when the guy is trying to recall them a decade later. Oh, it changed over time? Almost like there was a massive investigation that revealed details that were initially forgotten in the intervening decade that had passed?

And also, pointing to people he didn’t sexually abuse has nothing to do with the ones he did and was convicted for.
 
Upvote 0
Surely Zeigler has information the defense team didn't have. Surely, as some random Huckster, it is Zeigler we should be looking to for the fax and evidents. Let's not forget Sandusky was represented by competent legal counsel. I guess, while being privy to all the evidence against Sandusky, they just didn't have Zeigler's vision. Under informed, such that it was.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top