Senior columnist of Mediate and host of "With The Benefit of Hindsight", says Jerry Sandusky is innocent and explains why. 🏈 Subscribe now: bit.ly/SpiroAvenue
i dont get this.... are these all penn state fans defending this guy? hes not innocent, and this guy is very dumb, he is literally saying OXAM's RAZOR incorrectly the whole interview.... not very scholarly lol. this guys adopted son literally said he was abused from age 7-17
i do not trust a journalist is smart enough to decode whether JS in innocent....he does not have the mental fortitude and nuance to be dealing with this. he said it wrong dozen's of times.
Heres another point -- Gary Schultz being on the side of Sandusky being innocent is a nod to HIS innocence. If Sandusky is innocent, so is Gary and vice versa.
And then Paterno is also innocent. So, those that are friends of Paterno and who are enraged by what happened to Paterno (I can't blame them), need to fight for Sandusky's innocence and get him out of prison, in order to restore Paterno's reputation-- thus, it will be a clearly mutually beneficial situation.
Hahahaha... glad I saw the shorter version AFTER I watched the other one for 3.5 hours. I got nothing done tonight but it was worth it!!! Subscribed to Ziegler's podcast and starting episode one tomorrow.
Yes this case is amazing with Ziegler’s material & some hindsight. Honestly, when this was happening I, like many others, generally trusted media. Years & wars later, many of us know better. What’s really sad is how this destroyed ppl’s lives.
His entire podcast is his case. You can also look up his interview with Thaddeus Russell if you want the short version. Your statement is very ignorant. This is an 18 minute clip. You have to actually care whether or not he is an innocent man in jail. And look into the case yourself.
He really thought he had something with constantly repeating the “while Jerry wasn’t a coach” line as if were all gonna be okay that he was r*ping boys in the penn state showers just because he wasn’t technically on the payroll(Which he was btw)
I listened to his podcast and he obsessed about how the graduate assistant forgot the date of the incident and goes on for over an hour trying to prove the date was wrong without ever explaing why in the f*ck that matters at all. It's like every shystie lawyer trying to get people tangled up in the manusha and ignoring the glaring facts of the case. His podcast sounds like an infomercial. I wonder who hired him.
@@ericstencovage4058 Sandusky admitted to being in that shower with that boy. After a long drive they need to workout and then he had to give him a shower. That's Jerry's testimony
The "evidence" you speak of was made up, reverse engineered, as it is in many wrongful conviction cases-- it includes primarily corrupt attorneys. See the book: "The most hated man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the rush to judgement" by Mark Pendegrast. You will have all the evidence you need that shows Sandusky is innocent and then some.
@@ryanballantine867 yup, and the prosecutor himself, not the assist coach, changed the pleading from "slapping sounds" heard to "sodomizing the child" was seen. Pure evil.
@PracticalPerry yeah I mean if you just set prejudice aside (which no one will ever do in this case) and listen to what this dude presents in his hours and hours of evidence and testimony in his podcast, at minimum you would be highly skeptical of whether or not Sandusky is guilty if not completely convinced of his innocence. And I know that sounds absurd on its face. But I urge people to actually take a look at this with an open mind. It's astonishing. I had no idea
You don’t have a single piece of evidence proving your point at all and you yourself can’t even address the evidence and victim’s accounts. What a joke.
Convicted on counts where the jury didn't believe he was guilty but asked the judge if they could convict anyway. Convicted where there was no victim or witness or date? Allan Myers said he was never abused. Jerry never even met the one accuser.
This is a weird thing people say. "You don't have any evidence" - like what are you looking for? He's making the negative case, the defense, not the positive accusation, or offense. If you say "X happened", how exactly does one "show" that X didn't happen? Maybe they could show it's impossible, or unlikely. And what Ziegler has done - with what I think are "breakthrough" arguments but very poorly presented - is show that the testimony is crap, they were all paid 1.6 to 20 million for it each - so massive conflict of interest, all of the accusers continued contact with Sandusky long after the supposed "abuse", and Sandusky shows none of the typical traits of a pedophile. 1. No CP was found. And, Sandusky is a computer idiot. He had to be shown during all of this how to use email. 2. Sandusky has hypogonadism. Meaning he has really tiny balls and almost no testosterone. He had to take testosterone supplements. He is unlikely to be sexual in any way, he was unable to have children of his own. My speculation: he started the "Second Mile" program because he always wanted a son but couldn't have one. 3. The boys he was said to have raped were from 12 to 14, when he was in his 50's. Moreover, these were 12-14 year old football players. 4. None of the rapes were contemporarily reported. All of this happened after. So, you've got a sexless 50-60 year old man, with no CP, supposedly raping 12-14 year old football players in the Penn State showers. Keep in mind these are open-showers like at a gym, they're not private. At any time, anyone could walk by and see it, and there was just one guy who claimed to have walked by and seen it. Not one accuser said he brought them to his home, and they were all paid millions for the accusations (Penn State paid them in settlements). It's prima facie absurd, and there's an enormous reason to lie.
This guy should not be allowed to have public opinion but unfortunately it's allowed. Please anyone tell him he doesn't have a clue about the complexity of child sexual abuse and that he has tons of misconceptions.
He thinks "the only reason anyone cared' about the case was because of football. It never occurred to him to that people would care about the victims. Also Occam's Razor would be that someone dumb enough to fumble pronouncing "Occam's Razor" is dumb enough to believe that all the victims who came forward are lying. (Occam's Razor: they aren't, this guy is.)
