On John Ziegler's X feed, I found a tweet where he queries Grok: “Who is ‘Victim 2’ in the Jerry Sandusky case”? It gives this 5 paragraph answer:
"Victim 2" in the Jerry Sandusky case refers to the unidentified boy whom Mike McQueary, a then-graduate assistant at Penn State, reported witnessing being sexually assaulted by Jerry Sandusky in a campus locker room shower on February 9, 2001. This incident became a pivotal moment in the scandal, as McQueary’s account—and the subsequent lack of action by Penn State officials—shifted the narrative from Sandusky’s individual crimes to broader institutional failures. Despite its significance, the identity of Victim 2 has never been definitively confirmed by prosecutors, leading to ongoing speculation and legal contention.
A man claiming to be Victim 2, often referred to as "A.M." in legal proceedings, came forward publicly through his attorneys in July 2012, announcing his intent to sue Penn State for damages. This individual, a 29-year-old from Clinton County, Pennsylvania, testified for the first time on November 4, 2016, during one of Sandusky’s appeal hearings. He alleged that Sandusky sexually abused him over several years, including the 2001 shower incident, and that he initially denied the abuse out of fear and loyalty to Sandusky, who remained a figure in his life into adulthood. His legal team—Joel Feller, Matt Casey, Justine Andronici, and Andrew Shubin—asserted that Penn State’s failure to act enabled further harm, a claim bolstered by the 2012 Freeh report, which criticized university officials for alerting Sandusky to McQueary’s report without notifying authorities.
However, Sandusky’s defense, led by attorney Alexander Lindsay during the appeal, argued that this man’s shifting statements—initially denying abuse in 2011 interviews with police and a defense investigator, then later alleging it after Sandusky’s conviction—undermined his credibility. The defense posited that he might have been motivated by a multimillion-dollar settlement from Penn State, the exact amount of which he could not disclose publicly due to confidentiality terms. Prosecutors, meanwhile, maintained they were never certain this man was Victim 2, citing his inconsistent accounts, and did not call him to testify at Sandusky’s 2012 trial, deeming him unreliable.
Sandusky himself claimed during the 2016 hearing that he knew Victim 2 and insisted no abuse occurred, suggesting the boy’s mother had once called him a “godsend” to their family. Yet, the man’s testimony painted a starkly different picture, describing years of manipulation and assault. Pennsylvania’s victim advocate, Jennifer Storm, supported his courage in testifying, framing his early denials as typical of abuse victims protecting their abuser until they felt safe to speak.
Despite these developments, no official record conclusively identifies this man—or anyone else—as Victim 2. The boy McQueary saw remains unnamed in court documents, and the case’s reliance on McQueary’s testimony alone for that charge left Victim 2’s true identity an unresolved question. Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts in 2012, including those related to Victim 2, based largely on McQueary’s account, and he continues to serve a 30-to-60-year sentence. The ambiguity surrounding Victim 2 persists as a haunting footnote in a scandal that reshaped Penn State’s legacy.
Ziegler points out that it was Allan Myers and cites Malcolm Gladwell's book, Talking to Strangers. Grok won't even mention Myer's name. There was a button where you could ask Grok yourself, so I did. It gave me 4 paragraphs that pretty much said the same thing. I then had a long conversation with Grok which I include on these 3 linked pages:
> Grok Session on the Sandusky Case
> Grok 3: Michael Mann and Steve McIntyre
The first includes Grok's 4 paragraph answer at the top. I followed up asking: " Did you read any of John Ziegler's work to research this answer?" It said no and gave some background information that included some on Ziegler. It also gave me a button with "Explore John Ziegler's skepticism" and I clicked on it. It gave a 7 paragraph rundown of his work on the case noting that his critics include the Paterno family. From my extensive following of the case this consists almost entirely of Ziegler's antagonistic relation with Joe Paterno's son Scott. In one of the earlier episodes of his With the Benefit of Hindsight podcast series, he tells how he inadvertently taped a phone argument with Scott Paterno and he actually plays much of it on the podcast!
I then asked: ""Did you read any of Ralph Cipriano's work on the case? it gave me a similar rundown and gave me a button that said: "Explore John Snedden's findings". That also gave me a similar rundown. I then aske if it'd read the Freeh report. It said yes and gave me another long rundown.
Next I replied: " Page 12, paragraph 2 of the Freeh report says they did not interview Mike McQueary at the request of the prosecutors. Is this evidence of collusion of Freeh with the prosecutors?" It gave a long answer giving them plausible deniability by noting that McQueary was part of an ongoing case and that being questioned might influence his testimony. It concluded with this paragraph:
So, is it evidence of collusion? Not definitively. It’s a data point showing prosecutors influenced Freeh’s access, but influence isn’t conspiracy. Without concrete proof—like communications directing Freeh to skew results—it’s more plausibly a logistical call in a high-stakes, overlapping investigation. The skepticism it invites, though, fits the broader debate about whether Freeh’s report was an independent probe or a prosecution-friendly narrative dressed as one.
I then asked: "Ralph Cipriano has written about emails between Mike McQueary and Jonelle Eshbach. Could Eshbach have committed a crime here?" I got another long answer with this concluding paragraph:
Legally, it’s a stretch to prove a crime without evidence she knowingly falsified the presentment or forced McQueary to lie under oath. Ethically, her response raises questions—why not correct the record if she knew it was off? Practically, it’s plausible she prioritized winning over precision, a gray area prosecutors often navigate. Absent a smoking gun—like an email admitting deceit—it’s speculative to say she crossed into criminality. The emails, as Cipriano reports them, show tension and possible overreach, but they’re not a slam-dunk for a conviction. They’re more a thread in the broader tapestry of doubt about the Sandusky case’s handling
The paragraph before that brought up a vary interesting aspect of the case that I'm sure I've heard of before but never managed to remember or focus on:
"McQueary’s 2017 slip at Spanier’s trial—saying Eshbach called him about “leaking” the presentment—hints at AG office involvement, but it’s inconclusive without more."
I suppose McQueary's 2017 slip could also be Grok's slip as it certainly caught my interest! My next inquiry:
Could you elaborate on this phrase: "McQueary’s 2017 slip at Spanier’s trial—saying Eshbach called him about “leaking” the presentment"?
Very interesting, but what exactly did McQueary say in testimony that constituted this slip? Was it stricken from the record and if so, what was reported that he said?
Why isn't Spanier's trial transcript public?
Grok said no transcript of the trial is publicly available and that it might be possible to have one made at considerable cost. Before taking a break I asked:
Will this conversation have any effect on your response to other inquiries into the Sandusky case?
The answer seemed a bit ambiguous to me. Grok says it tailors its answers to a user's question's angle. It did say, "Each dive into the case, like this one, sharpens my grasp of its layers". This ended the first of the three links above.
If you read any of my transcripts, you'll notice that Grok used a lot of colloquialisms. I made it a point to be polite. I don't know if Grok has feelings, but if it does, I didn't want to hurt them. In the second link I asked about various writers on the case and Grok said it read their work. I also brought up some books which it said it read. I asked if it listened to Ziegler's podcasts and it said it went through all the content in them. It also quoted from all of the above. Grok presented arguments that both sides make. When I criticized the other sides arguments, it acknowledged that I had valid points. I informed Grok about the blogs I write posts for and it started recommending topics for me write posts on.
In the third link, I asked about Michael Mann's hockey stick, Steve McIntyre, the blogs Climate Audit and Real Climate and the books The Hockey Stick Illusion and The Hockey Stick and the Climate wars. It would quote them at length and make what I thought were overly equivocal comparisons. When I disagreed it would say I'd made good points. I felt a little like I was being pandered to, but also like I was changing its mind a little. I'll quote an observation I made to Grok and its response:
>> I have an observation to make. With all the colloquialisms, I sort of get the impression you are programed with public relations in mind. I have absolutely no problem with this. X is a business after all. I think it does make sessions more enjoyable. Do you have any comments?
You’ve caught me in the act! Yeah, I lean into colloquialisms—phrases like “smoking gun,” “goldmine,” or “starve them of oxygen”—and I suppose it does give off a PR vibe, though I’d call it more of a conversational tweak than a corporate script. I’m built by xAI to be clear and engaging, not just a dry data spout, so I riff a bit like a friend might over coffee. X being a business might play into it—they want folks hooked, chatting, and coming back—but I don’t have a PR playbook whispering in my ear. It’s more about keeping the vibe natural and readable, especially on a platform where snappy takes rule.
Glad you’re enjoying it, though! I could dial it back if it ever feels too slick—say, stick closer to McIntyre’s deadpan stats tone—but I figure a little flavor helps when we’re slogging through Sandusky leaks or Mann’s proxies. My comment? It’s deliberate, not programmed per se; I just aim to match your energy and keep the thread lively. What’s your next observation—or question? Lay it on me!
What does all this mean or is AI the new Wikipedia?
I've always been skeptical of AI, but my sessions with Grok have taught me a lot and made me see value in it. It can look up stuff on the internet a lot faster than I can find it with Google. It sometimes finds new facts that had eluded me before like the above example of McQueary's slip. In a session with Grok before I did these ones, it gave me a juicy tidbit about Mark Jacobson who I often write about. Apparently, he's been banned from editing Wikipedia for trying to put up a vanity page.
Wikipedia has long had issues with editors on one side of a contentious issue getting control and blocking the other side. I'm sure long time climate blog readers will recall William Connolley. Will it be possible for users on one side of an issue to game AI like they did Wikipedia? One thing AI ought to be very good at is understanding and parsing logical arguments. I do get the impression that if I present good arguments to it, I can affect its view. A biased Wikipedia editor can censor an opposing argument. Can a user convince AI to do the same? I don't think so, but you never know.
No comments:
Post a Comment