Forum: The Rubber Room - Serious disease and death wishes =automatic ban. No blatant socially taboo racist insults, no obscenely gross pics and ABSOLUTELY NO HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY.

Thread: sandusky-coverup

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
  1. #26  
    RX Local Conan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1998
    Posts
    23,315
    OK ERock, if you are going to accuse me or anyone of saying one of the dumbest things you've ever read, be ready to stand up for yourself or at least straighten the record as I did in the following post which didn't seem to register with you.

    What I said was a misstatement but not entirely off the mark because it does include the PSU community, probably in its entirety, not the entire state of Pennsylvania which isn't how it was intended to read. But still it's not far off the mark save for any non-PSU-specific elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERockMoney View Post
    This is likely one of the dumbest statements I have heard on this board, I expect more from you Conan. The supporters of this university, which I am not, certainly had no idea this was taking place. Your talking about an institution of hundreds of thousands alumni, billions of revenue generated for the state and countless accounts of the university strengthen this city, community and state.
    It's not about what anyone knew before the facts were let out, it's what they did AFTER the facts were made known. Did each PSU supporter join in circling the wagons or did each person stop and say how can anyone defend a child rapist or for that matter, someone who protects said rapist, even Jo Paterno himself?

    Quote Originally Posted by ERockMoney View Post
    Like I said, I'm not a supporter, but I do have a responsibility to hire, and we hire heavy Penn State. What happened is unreal, and my personal opinion would be to prosecute those involved in the cover up to the letter of the law, including Paterno. Tear the statue down, erase the records, and put the other assholes in prison as accomplices. However, your talking about 6-8 people from a major corporation of hundreds of thousands. To chastise the entire university is foolish, naive and apparently the thing to do over drinks, the water cooler, on sports forums or at dining outings.
    I stand by what I said which was that any PSU supporter that runs to the defense of anyone on the side of a child molester deserves all the chastisement he gets and then some.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERockMoney View Post
    In the local community its somewhat hilarious that the most noise of "shut the place down", "force them to close their doors", " change the name of the school", comes from local alumni of other universities. I can see why, having to hire people for many years in this state, nine times out of ten, a PSU candidate versus any other state school, all else being equal, makes the competitor obsolete. The difference in academic prowess and day one readiness to enter the workforce is incredible. For this fact, and this fact alone my company will send another huge check to Penn State, and I fully support that. This is my livelihood and I won't sacrifice it for a handful of criminals. Hell, if I disregarded the masses for a few, in this city, everyone would be disregarded.
    Here's a golden opportunity for your company to weed out the weak minded by asking them if a rapist's acts should be kept secret if he works for an organization like PSU football for the sake of protecting the reputation of the program. OF course you'd need to understand the question first before you could appreciate why I would make a suggestion like that.

    Personally I take the comments you mentioned lightly but not where the football program is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERockMoney View Post
    Outside of Penn and Villanova, whom most of their graduates go out of state anyway for higher paying jobs, Penn State replenishes the work force. The 100,000 legitimate people associated with this university should not be punished to the one bad egg. I hear you, drop the hammer on these six-eight assholes involved in the cover up, but to chastise the entire university is foolish. Christ, if I'm forced to hire Pitt, LaSalle, St. Joes, Rutgers, Temple, Kutztown, Shippensburg and Rider grads because Penn State was forced to shut their doors - this community has a problem. If I'm forced to go out of state we have an even bigger problem - I have seen candidates on paper who mirror Penn State grads from some big "name" schools (football schools) who were better equipped to bag my groceries then work at my company.

    Take a step back, view the big picture. This isn't about football and to talk of shutting down one of the premier universities in the country is utterly ridiculous.
    Now there is your ridiculous comment of the day. NO one has said anything about shutting down the university as half of your commentary seemed to assert but it is about its football program. Of course it's about football, everything about the legendary football guru JoPa and his so-called storied football program is on the line here and I am afraid that all those who would close rank could very easily turn out to be all that's left of Joe Paterno and the Nittany Lions when this is all said and done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #27  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    3,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Conan View Post
    OK ERock, if you are going to accuse me or anyone of saying one of the dumbest things you've ever read, be ready to stand up for yourself or at least straighten the record as I did in the following post which didn't seem to register with you.

    What I said was a misstatement but not entirely off the mark because it does include the PSU community, probably in its entirety, not the entire state of Pennsylvania which isn't how it was intended to read. But still it's not far off the mark save for any non-PSU-specific elements.


    It's not about what anyone knew before the facts were let out, it's what they did AFTER the facts were made known. Did each PSU supporter join in circling the wagons or did each person stop and say how can anyone defend a child rapist or for that matter, someone who protects said rapist, even Jo Paterno himself?


    I stand by what I said which was that any PSU supporter that runs to the defense of anyone on the side of a child molester deserves all the chastisement he gets and then some.


    Here's a golden opportunity for your company to weed out the weak minded by asking them if a rapist's acts should be kept secret if he works for an organization like PSU football for the sake of protecting the reputation of the program. OF course you'd need to understand the question first before you could appreciate why I would make a suggestion like that.

    Personally I take the comments you mentioned lightly but not where the football program is concerned.



    Now there is your ridiculous comment of the day. NO one has said anything about shutting down the university as half of your commentary seemed to assert but it is about its football program. Of course it's about football, everything about the legendary football guru JoPa and his so-called storied football program is on the line here and I am afraid that all those who would close rank could very easily turn out to be all that's left of Joe Paterno and the Nittany Lions when this is all said and done.
    Conan,

    Thank you for your follow up responses, I'm just seeing these now after a very long day. They certainly registered and paint a clearer a picture. Much more precise and to the point, which is what I'm used to from you. Your first statement seemed to lay a wide net and emphasis on "EVERYONE in the state that should be ashamed because they supported what happened....", I stand by this being one of the dumbest things statements I have ever seen.

    My rant, if you will call it that, did start to sway from your post. I have never seen you say "shut the program down", however, I'm hearing it non stop from naive idiots in this part of the country and I'm fairly certain this talk is happening elsewhere. IMO, people couldn't be more short sighted with that line of thinking. That was where my comment about this not being about football was directed. RT, seemed to think I was referring to cover up, which I was not - he is right the cover was about football. I firmly believe all those involved should be punished and held as accomplices.

    My moral compass is less sturdy than most, I can see another man wanting to kill another man under certain situations, I think its ok to resolve a dispute between men with fists and I fully understand criminal activity when its a necessity to survival. However, in no way shape or form can I wrap my head violent acts towards women and children, never.

    These men involved in the cover up, which are few, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent and be held accountable as accomplices. Their failure to react led directly to years of incredible torment to countless children - children, not adults.

    I support your follow up posts, but they are very different then your initial statement. I couldn't agree more with you and RT regarding the dopes holding candle night sessions and other non sense, ridiculous. Fortunately, most of those people are teenagers. I can say will full certainty that the majority of alumni, which I am not, associated with this institution are disgusted, embarrassed and appalled by what took place.

    Love or hate the football program, Penn State is an excellent university that consistently produces professional ready talent, something most schools in this area can not proclaim. I like your line of thinking on weeding out the talent we see coming in, because I would not want to hire some young kid, even if talented, that failed to understand the ramifications and the level of misconduct that took place here. I would have to think of a creative way to get there, because I'm sure there would be HR type issues with that line of questioning.

    Lastly, RT's Enron comparison is apples to oranges, Lay, Jeffrey, Skilling and Fastow hid billions of debt, mismanaged assets, gutted the pension and drove the stock price from $100 a share to less than $1 - there was nothing left to come back to. There is something to come back to here, if the Enron leadership committed crimes of equal discern, but left the company standing in strong financial health - Enron would exist today and they would not bring down a corporation for the actions of a few.

    Please don't take this as my support for anyone involved in this madness - furthest from the truth, however, I don't think the university should pay as dear a price as many want for the action of a few. Those few should pay the ultimate price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #28  
    RX SemiGod stander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Blarney Stone
    Posts
    10,358
    Thought you guys might find this interesting. Paterno estate planning. Like I said, he knew this was coming. Further circumstantial evidence that he might have facilitated his own demise....

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...or_salary.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sp...y.html?_r=2&hp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #29  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    I thought if I searched hard enough I would be able to bump a " pure play" thread on the , " cover up "


    So, Here's to you .

    Cheers !

    MAJOR RELEASE: 'Framing Paterno" Tells The Full Story of the PSU "Scandal"




    Today I am releasing a free, online, "mini book" on the entire case. I am doing this from a unique stand point. I have spent months writing this story from the perspective of what you have to believe happened for you to accept the "conventional wisdom" of the case.
    Hopefully, you will find this device to be both extremely informative as well as entertaining. It is the product of an enormous amount of work and I am very proud of it. It is obviously free (as everything I have done here has been) and so I ask is that you read it and share it with others who might be interested in the real truth of this matter.
    The "book" is in three parts (there are links to the next section in each of the others).
    Part one can be found here:
    http://framingpaterno.com/perfect-sense-full-conventional-wisdom-narrati...
    Part two is here:
    http://framingpaterno.com/perfect-sense-full-conventional-wisdom-narrati...
    Part three is here and includes a never before seen "interview" with Aaron Fisher ("Victim 1"):
    http://framingpaterno.com/perfect-sense-full-conventional-wisdom-narrati...
    Again, all I ask is that you read it with an open mind (understanding that it is a bit of a parody) and share it with others if you think it is worthy.
    Thanks for your support.
    John Ziegler
    www.FramingPaterno.com

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #30  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    ...and the Fairy Tail of what happened at PSU, that destroyed many good men continues to erode down to , well nothing

    Lewis's latest order comes after a two-year pause in which the defendants, ultimately successfully, got perjury and obstruction of justice charges dismissed over attorney / client privilege errors.

    Last week, Castor also agreed to drop a single, remaining perjury count against Curley the Superior Court had let stand.
    http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05...up_charge.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #31  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    How Former PSU President Graham Spanier Got Convicted For Something He Didn’t Do

    by John Ziegler | 4:43 pm, March 24th, 2017











    Over five years after the story exploded and became the most controversial scandal in the history of college sports, former Penn State University President Graham Spanier was finally acquitted today of the “conspiracy” charge against him, but convicted on only one of two charges of “endangering the welfare of a child.” He was found guilty of something for which there is no evidence nor logic indicating that he committed a crime and, most amazingly, it happened without his lawyers even putting on a case.
    Despite having no connection to Penn State, I have investigated the entire “Jerry Sandusky Scandal” on almost a full-time basis, for no money, for most of the past five years. I have spoken to Spanier for many hours and dealt with him extensively. I also attended his trial and I am 100% positive that he never had any idea that Sandusky might have been a pedophile, and that he acted almost exactly as he should have throughout the entire situation.
    So, how could something like this have happened in our judicial system? The real story is far too involved to tell in just one short story, but here is essence of it.
    From the very beginning, Spanier and Penn State got caught up in a media firestorm they didn’t see coming because they all honestly thought that Jerry Sandusky was innocent and that, even if he wasn’t (at least in a remotely rational world), they knew they had no culpability for the crimes of a former employee. So when in November of 2011 it was leaked that Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary had supposedly testified to a grand jury that about a decade before (he got the date, month, and year of the episode wrong) he had witnessed Sandusky “raping” a boy, they were completely stunned and unprepared for the media-created terror which would ensue.
    Spanier’s first instincts, which were correct, were to strongly back the two highly-respected long-time Penn State administrators, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, who were being charged with a series of serious crimes related to covering up for Sandusky (I and many others close to the case are now completely convinced that the state’s primary objective in charging them was actually to destroy two of Sandusky’s strongest witnesses). He released a statement doing so before the news media suddenly decided, thanks to the tangential involvement of legendary head football coach Joe Paterno, that this story was now the most outrageous thing that has ever happened in the history of Pennsylvania.
    The statement, which was perfect given the information he had at the time, backfired on him because it was somehow seen as not being accepting enough, before anyone in the case had even spoken publicly, that all of those being implicated, including Sandusky, were clearly guilty. In short, Spanier, an esteemed and very liberal university president, had committed a violation of “political correctness.”
    You see, when a witch hunt in underway, you aren’t allowed to defend yourself or anyone else who might be even remotely involved. You must accept the popular narrative as true and then beg for forgiveness, even if what is being alleged is totally false and without evidence or logic.
    In a pure panic, the Penn State board, guided by then-Governor Tom Corbett (who had a major feud with Spanier over education funding the previous spring), fired Joe Paterno and forced Spanier to resign. That was then seen, effectively, as a guilty plea on behalf of the entire school and it provoked a firestorm of injustice which seemingly will never stop.
    Paterno almost immediately died and Sandusky, without a single continuance or a shred of hard evidence, was convicted just seven months after his arrest. The firings created a huge backlash in the Penn State community and forced the board to justify what they did. That led to them paying Louis Freeh many millions of dollars for the “Freeh Report” to conclude that there was a cover-up. This then incited the NCAA to act with record speed to institute sanctions (which will later be revoked), thus further setting in stone the completely false narrative of a cover up. This then gave the Attorney General’s office the leverage to charge Spanier himself, thus also shutting up a strong voice for what really happened here.
    Meanwhile, Penn State, eager to show the world and news media how much they “get it,” spent about $100 million dollars in tax-payer money in totally un-vetted settlements for Sandusky’s accusers. This even further established the false narrative, especially when overtly absurd stories were selectively leaked to an easily duped news media all too eager to substantiate their original rush to judgement in this case.
    At each point in this battle, those on the other side who were morally certain that they and those they support had done nothing wrong kept thinking that they could cede each piece of land because it wasn’t the proper hill to “die” on. They kept having faith that as time passed and the extreme emotion this case had triggered finally died down, that the system would work. Surely, they believed, if a fair jury ever heard this case that the truth would come out and justice would finally be done.
    What they miscalculated was that which each retreat their position got weaker and the public became both convinced of total guilt and stopped being open-minded, or even caring about it. There was no greater proof of this than the completely nonsensical verdict in Mike McQueary’s civil suit, which showed just how incredibly polluted the jury pool in Pennsylvania is on this case.
    Knowing this is what they faced, last week Curley and Schultz took a plea bargain which gave them a misdemeanor conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. In a remotely normal case, they would get zero prison time and this would be seen as a near total repudiation of the state’s original and laughably overcharged case against them. Instead, the media dutifully did the state’s bidding by ludicrously portraying this development as an admission of a cover up (anyone who objectively saw their testimony this week would realize this interpretation is beyond preposterous).
    At that point, Spanier, who rejected the same plea deal, was basically boxed in. Only a very aggressive defense which sought to blow up the many misperceptions about this case could have saved him from at least a minor conviction. Instead, the defense (directly against my many urgings/warnings) decided to curl up into the fetal position and rely solely on the reality that, according to the law, the state didn’t come close to proving their case.
    Not only did they not even attempt to confront several prosecution witnesses (out fear of being politically incorrect again) who could have been very easily discredited, they literally didn’t even put on a defense. Former NCIS and FIS special agent John Snedden (whose report for the federal government led to Spanier’s top secret security clearance being renewed after the scandal broke, which I released exclusively here last week) traveled many hours to be the defense’s star witness, as was promised to jury, but at the very last moment the defense, in an act of extreme naiveté, decided to rest without calling any witnesses.
    At that moment I knew that the jury that I had seen, which surely had been brainwashed by almost six years of unfair media coverage, was never going to be able to navigate through the fog of emotion on which the prosecution completely relied and thus be able to see that there was no case here on the facts or the law (or that a conviction of any kind here sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for educators everywhere).
    I doubt there has never been a case which more clearly echoed Ben Franklin’s famous quote “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately” than this one. We now have four previously esteemed men who have been unfairly hanged (without even putting up a decent fight in court) all of whom know they are innocent and believe that all the others are as well.
    The real story here is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Sadly, I doubt it will ever be properly told.
    [image screen grab via ABC News]
    John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at johnz@mediaite.com
    This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
    This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/how-...g-he-didnt-do/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #32  
    113-12 with 5 titles in 9 years rolltide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    25,135
    for the pedophile deniers like Brucefan and John Ziegler.... one word....

    CONVICTED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #33  
    113-12 with 5 titles in 9 years rolltide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    25,135
    let me repeat....

    CONVICTED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #34  
    113-12 with 5 titles in 9 years rolltide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    25,135
    in case it's not getting through....

    CONVICTED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #35  
    113-12 with 5 titles in 9 years rolltide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    25,135
    let's make sure it sinks in this time....

    CONVICTED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #36  
    113-12 with 5 titles in 9 years rolltide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    25,135
    perhaps we should spell this out together?

    C
    O
    N
    V
    I
    C
    T
    E
    D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #37  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    Time to put the statue back up

    However, Spanier was found not guilty on two other charges — another child endangerment charge (preventing a report) and felony conspiracy (for the alleged coverup).





    Joe knew what? Put that statue back up!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #38  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    22,347
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #39  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    So just to be crystal clear , the two people who conducted the most extensive investigation into what happened at Penn State concluded , their was no cover-up, and no conspiracy, because there was nothing to cover up . I ask again, is there a reason that Joe's statue is not put back up in front of Paterno field ? ......Like tomorrow 😎



    John Ziegler ·
    ·




    Here's 1st-ever interview with FIS agent @JRSnedden whose report on Graham Spanier should've ended "PSU C-up" myth!!

    https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro.../2017-03-26-2l
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #40  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    22,347
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #41  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    FUNNY STUFF Stevie

    Spanier jury foreman regrets misdemeanor child endangerment verdict for former Penn State president.


    https://youtu.be/UqsiAjTQtI8
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #42  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    Should be an interesting day today . Good luck G.S

    How many realize that Spainier was an abuse victim himself ????/ So silly



    Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Giving readers an unvarnished, uncensored, insider's view of the biggest courtroom drama
    http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/06/pros...g-for.html?m=1







    Friday, June 2, 2017

    Prosecutors In Graham Spanier Case Howling For Blood



    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    The prosecutors in the Graham Spanier case have lost it.

    In a 14-page sentencing memorandum filed May 31, the state Attorney General's office wants to punish one of their own cooperating witnesses for memory lapses on the witness stand. The prosecutors also want former Penn State President Graham Spanier thrown in jail for committing the first-degree misdemeanor offense of endangering the welfare of a child.

    Why are the prosecutors howling for blood? In their sentencing memorandum, the state attorney general's office blames the actions of bloggers and and the politically incorrect comments of the defenders of the Penn State administrators accused of covering up the sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky.

    In the sentencing memorandum, the AG's office states that Sandusky's victims have been "sentenced to a lifetime of tortured memories that all victims of child sexual assault carry with them." And that those victims are "haunted regularly by feelings of pain, fear, self-blame, disgust and shame."

    "These feelings have been compounded by the supporters of these defendants who refer to these young men as 'so-called victims' and frauds who are only out for money," write Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ann Ditka and Deputy Attorney General Patrick J. Schulte.

    Then, the AG's office started pitching red meat.

    "During the dependency of these proceedings, [the victims'] lives have been marred by conspiracy bloggers showing up on their property to harass them, publishing photographs of their automobiles on social media, and revealing their identities," the prosecutors wrote. "The vibrancy and hopefulness of those children before they were molested by Sandusky can never be restored. Physical injuries heal but the emotional scars left behind by sexual abuse last forever."

    Are you getting this? The insanity of the Penn State case is so over-the-top that the prosecutors are appealing to the judge to put Spanier in jail [and maybe one of their cooperating witnesses as well] because of the actions of bloggers in the case.

    And the politically incorrect words of Spanier's supporters like former Penn State trustee Al Lord, the former CEO of Sallie Mae, who famously declared that he was "running out of sympathy for 35 so-called victims with 7-digit net worth."

    In Lord's defense, that's what happens when some 30 so-called victims at Penn State collect $93 million in cash for their alleged suffering. And the university's board of trustees abrogates their fiduciary responsibility by handing out that cash without having any lawyers or psychologists question any of the plaintiffs, to see if they're telling the truth. And if they deserve that kind of money.

    Lord subsequently apologized, which is the standard procedure in American society these days for anyone who dares to call into question a sacred cow.

    But there are a lot of sacred cows running through the so-called Penn State sex scandal.

    Memo to the attorney general's office: During the Penn State scandal, the mainstream media has abandoned its traditional role as watchdogs, in favor of functioning as cheerleaders and agents active on behalf of the prosecution.

    That's why we need bloggers on this case.

    First of all, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out during the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse case, any media policy that hangs out to dry the alleged defendants in a criminal case, but protects the identity of the alleged victims in that same case, is blatant discrimination. Such a policy immediately telegraphs to the news consumer that one party is guilty and the other party in that same contest where guilt or innocence has not yet been determined, is as pure as the driven snow.

    It's a titled playing field, and in any sane world, the media would be reexamining that policy. Especially in the light of the so-called "Billy Doe" case, where a former altar boy who claimed he was raped by two Catholic priests and a Catholic school teacher has been revealed to be a complete fraud.

    In that case, Joe Walsh, a retired detective who led the Philadelphia district attorney's investigation into the altar boy's allegations, came forward last month to file in court a 12-page affidavit that reveals that the former altar boy, Danny Gallagher, admitted he lied to Walsh about his original allegations of brutal rape.

    Walsh also revealed that he repeatedly questioned Gallagher, and caught him in many lies, none of which was ever reported to the defense. And that when Walsh repeatedly told the prosecutor in the case, former Assistant Mariana Sorensen, that Gallagher wasn't credible, she allegedly replied, "You're killing my case."

    But what has been the reaction by the media to the Walsh bombshell? The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has published 59 Billy Doe got raped stories has ignored it. As has Rolling Stone, which published a long Billy Doe got raped story by noted fiction writer Sabrina Rubin Erderly, but hasn't gotten around to retracting it. Like they did with Erderly's previous story about an alleged gang rape that never really happened at a University of Virginia frat house.

    That's why we need bloggers.

    In the case of Billy Doe/Danny Gallagher, when he came to court to testify, the former altar boy was identified at two criminal trials by his real name. And then the media, in a misguided act of self-censorship, didn't publish Gallagher's real name, but kept calling him Billy Doe. Even after he was revealed to be a fraud.

    In the Spanier case, however, all the judge and all the lawyers in the case got into the act, imposing official censorship policies, even though the witness in question was a grown man.

    The only alleged victim to testify at the Spanier case was Michal Kajak, a 28-year-old previously identified in the Jerry Sandusky case as "Victim No. 5."

    In the Spanier case, Kajak was sworn in as a witness behind closed doors in the chambers of Judge John Boccabella. Then, when the witness came out to testify, the judge introduced Kajak to the jury as "John Doe," and the lawyers in the case questioned him as such.

    While this circus was proceeding, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no blogger used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness who was getting preferential treatment.

    The whole point of John Doe's trip to the witness stand was to tell the jury that Kajak/John Doe was sexually abused in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary made his famous visit there.

    While extra deputies patrolled the courtroom, the sobbing witness told the jury that he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky after the famous Mike McQueary shower incident. But the jury wasn't told what the sex abuse was. It wasn't rape; Sandusky allegedly soaped the boy up in the shower and may have touched his penis.

    The jury also wasn't told that because of the alleged abuse, Kajak collected in a civil settlement $8 million.


    Which is why he was driving that brand new BMW to the courthouse in the photo posted by blogger John Ziegler.



    Kajak, AKA Victim No. 5 or John Doe, also gave four different dates for his alleged abuse in the shower with Jerry – in 1998, when he was 10 years old; in 2000 when he was 12; in 2001, before 9/11, when he was 13; and finally in 2001 after 9/11, when he would have been 14.


    But because Kajak was a sacred cow, as certified by the judge in the secrecy and hoopla that accompanied Kajak's trip to the witness stand, the defense lawyers in the case were apparently too intimidated to even ask one question of the witness.


    Spanier's defense lawyers didn't ask about the different dates, the nature of the alleged abuse, or the money he collected. Instead, those cowed defense lawyers told the judge and jury they didn't want to prolong the victim's suffering by subjecting him to cross-examination.

    Like they would have done with any normal human being who was trying to put their client in jail.


    That's how crazy things are in the Penn State case.


    In their unhinged sentencing memorandum, the attorney general's office teed off on Graham Spanier for not showing the proper amount of remorse. And quite possibly for repeatedly turning down the plea bargain deal that his former co-defendants, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz took. And for daring to take the Commonwealth on in a trial, where he then curiously put on no defense.


    "To date, Spanier has shown a stunning lack of remorse for his victims," the attorney general writes. "While he has made various expressions of sympathy for Sandusky's victims in his various public statements," the attorney general writes, "those statements have been completely divorced from taking any personal responsibility. Remorse without taking accountability is not remorse."


    That's when the prosecutors screamed for blood.


    "Nothing short of a sentence that includes a period of jail time would be an appropriate sentence for Graham Spanier," the AG writes. "The only proper sentence for Spanier would be a sentence at the high end of the standard range or aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines," the AG concludes. "There is simply nothing mitigating about the harm he has caused and the nature of his crime."


    As far as the sentencing guidelines are concerned, in the mitigated range, Spanier, who has a clean record, was be subject to "restorative sanctions," presumably probation and/or fines.


    The standard range is up to nine months total confinement. The aggravated range: 12 months.


    Spanier, Curley and Schultz are scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, which should be a real show of frontier justice.


    As for former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, the AG wrote, "While Curley deserved credit of taking responsibility for his actions in the form of admitting his guilt, his repeated claims of memory lapses around critical events surrounding this crime was nothing short of bizarre."


    "The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply no credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."


    "His 'forgetfulness' also allowed him to save face in a room full of supporters who publicly called this trial a 'witch hunt' and [a] fraudulent prosecution," the AG wrote. "Mr. Curley's memory was markedly more clear in his statement to investigators a mere week before his testimony."

    There is no truth but the official truth, the AG's office is saying. As promulgated by us. And since we can't punish the blasphemers, those bloggers and politically incorrect Penn State defenders who dared to speak out, let's take it out on the defendants.


    "Thus, Curley needs to be punished in a manner commensurate with his participation in this crime," the AG writes.


    As far as former Penn State VP Gary Schultz is concerned, "Schultz should be given for credit in terms of his willingness to accept responsibility by virtue of his guilty plea," the AG writes.

    With all due apologies to the AG's office, this is a witch hunt you're conducting here.

    The only remaining question is this afternoon in Dauphin County Court, the Honorable John Bocabella presiding, whether the witches will be burned at the stake.





    Ralph Cipriano at 8:06 AM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #43  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    Ralph is on a roll. For those of you who dont know, Ralph is a former reporter for the Phila Inquirer



    http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/06/grah...sease.html?m=1

    Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog

    Giving readers an unvarnished, uncensored, insider's view of the biggest courtroom dramas





    ay, June 6, 2017

    Spanier Fighting Heart Disease, Cancer, Depression On Way To Jail



    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    The three top former Penn State officials that Judge John Boccabella just sent to jail so he could be tough on crime in a high-profile media case are in bad shape.

    Former Penn State President Graham Spanier is 69 years old, and has had five operations in the past year, in addition to 35 radiation treatments for advanced prostate cancer. According to a sentencing memorandum prepared by Spanier's lawyers, Spanier is being evaluated for imminent open-heart cardiac valve replacement surgery. He's also being treated for high blood pressure, depression and anxiety.

    Former Penn State VP Schultz, 67, is the primary caretaker for his wife, Karen, his high school sweetheart, who has MS. Schultz also cares for his 86-year-old mother-in-law, who moved into Schultz's house in November, 2015. Both Schultz's wife and mother-in-law depend on Schultz's assistance to get through their daily lives, Schultz's lawyers stated in a sentencing memorandum ignored by the judge.


    Former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, 63, suffers from "incurable lung cancer," his lawyer wrote. "Any term of incarceration would negatively impact his health, his ongoing treatment and continuity of health care and cause extreme hardship to himself and his family." In addition, Curley's cancer treatment "has caused liver damage making him susceptible to infection and illness," his lawyer wrote.

    But in the interests of "justice," the show must go on. And the Penn State trio must pay by doing jail time for misdemeanors, after seeing their careers torched, and their reputations destroyed.

    According to the judge's rulings, Spanier has to do two months in jail, followed by up to ten months of house arrest.

    Schultz got two months behind bars and up to 21 months of home confinement.

    Curley will do three months in jail followed by up to 21 months of house arrest.

    The charade of the Penn State trio going off to prison for supposedly turning a blind eye to the suffering of the sainted "victims" of Jerry Sandusky must play out. So in this morality play staged by the prosecutors and judges, the media and public must see someone pay for the sins of Jerry Sandusky.

    Even though Jerry's already doing up to 60 years in solitary confinement.

    The official Penn State storyline as promulgated by the media and justice system, is like Nebuchadnezzar's 90-foot tall golden statue in the Old Testament book of Daniel. There is the official truth, and only the official truth, and everyone must bow and worship before it.

    Or be thrown into a fiery media furnace, in addition to jail.

    As stated by the prosecutors and the judge in this car, the Penn State trio must may for the sins of the official deniers of the truth. Bloggers and blasphemers like former PSU trustee Al Lord, who famously said he was "running out of sympathy for 35 so-called victims with 7-digit net worth."

    But anyone with a sane mind would have to view the Penn State storyline we've been fed for the past seven years and see some gaping holes.

    Such as:

    -- The entire 2011 grand jury report is built upon a lie, that Mike McQueary supposedly saw Jerry Sandusky in the Penn State showers engaged in an "anal rape" of a 10-year-old boy. Even McQueary wrote in an email to the prosecutors that it never happened, he never saw penetration, and that the prosecutors "twisted" his words.

    -- Of the 24 original charges filed by the attorney general's office against the Penn State trio, the only three that stuck were three misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a child. Charges that I've already explained were filed under an original 1972 state law that didn't even apply to them.

    -- Many in Penn State nation seem to think that Jerry Sandusky was a master pedophile, and that the AG's office should have spent their time investigating Sandusky's Second Mile charity, instead of Penn State. A vocal minority believe that Sandusky was innocent, and that the prosecutors manufactured evidence against him. And victims.

    But both sides should agree that Sandusky deserves a new trial, after the earlier farce that he was railroaded at. BigTrial has covered the incompetence of Sandusky's lawyer in an excerpt from a soon-to-be published book by journalist Mark Pendergrast.

    -- If Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile, where's the evidence? The only pornography discovered in the case was on the computers of the prosecutors. Knowledgable law enforcement sources say they have never heard of a case of pedophilia not accompanied by large caches of pornography.

    Also, after three years of investigating, the prosecutors had only found one so-called victim, Aaron Fisher. And this was a guy who initially said nothing ever happened with Jerry. Until he underwent six months of psychotherapy and many more skull sessions with investigators. I'm talking about two state troopers who admitted on a tape-recorded interview with another suspected victim that it took months for the cops to coax to a sex abuse story out of Fisher.

    -- The identity of the victim of one of the most infamous sex abuse crimes in history, the alleged anal rape of that 10-year-old boy in the showers supposedly witnessed by McQueary, is "known only to God," according to the prosecutors. This after seven years of this highly publicized scandal. It makes no sense. Especially to the guy doing 60 years in jail in part for the marquee crime of the indictment where the state was unable to produce a victim.

    If Sandusky gets a new trial, maybe some of these issues will be investigated. But don't expect the mainstream media to show any interest in digging into this. They already have their official story line that everyone must bow and worship before.

    And nobody does more bowing and scraping before sacred cows and the prevailing wisdom than the mainstream media. Take my word for it; I've been a reporter for 40 years.

    Meanwhile, those sentencing memorandums detail the pain and suffering that the official scapegoats of the Penn State scandal have already been subjected to.

    "Dr. Spanier has become the subject of public debate, incessant and vitriolic media commentary [both traditional and 'social' media] and endless ridicule and scorn," wrote lawyers Samuel W. Silver and Bruce P. Merenstein.

    "Dr. Spanier has already suffered severely through public shaming, loss of employment and significant repetitional harm," his lawyers wrote. "He is almost 70 years old and in worsening health."

    In the sentencing memorandum, a doctor detailed those health problems, both mental and physical.

    "Due to the chronic psychological stress from prolonged legal issues, as well as the chronic burden of severe medical problems, Dr. Spanier was diagnosed with major depression and anxiety," wrote Dr. Michael P. Flanagan, the Professor and Vice-Chair of Family and Community Medicine at Penn State's College of Medicine.


    "In addition to his cardiac and prostate cancer medications, as well as extensive radiation therapy, Dr. Spanier has been prescribed three medications to treat underlying reactive depression and associated anxiety," Flanagan wrote.

    In an unsuccessful effort to keep Spanier out of jail, his lawyers detailed Spanier's extraordinary accomplishments and many good deeds.

    In 2005, Spanier was asked by FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss to take the "lead role in national security matters pertaining to higher education," his lawyers wrote.

    In the sentencing memorandum, Tom Mahlik, former NCIS Deputy Assistant Director, told of Spanier's receipt of the Warren Medal.

    "During the ceremony, it was said that 'No American has done more since 9/11 to bring the CIA and FBI closer together in a collaborative working relationship," Mahlik wrote. "Graham is courageous . . . Graham is transparent . . . Graham is trustworthy."

    John R. Sipher, former member of the Clandestine Service of the CIA, described Spanier as "a man of integrity," a "patriot and a concerned citizen" who wasn't paid for his services to the intelligence community.

    Steven L. Soboroff, a childhood friend of Spanier's, and the commissioner of the Los Angeles Police Department, described Spanier as a man of "truthfulness" and "unwavering integrity."

    In the sentencing memorandum, Spanier's lawyers also documented their client's good deeds. Such as Spanier and his wife have donating almost $2 million to Penn State. The couple also has been honored for raising more than $700,000 for the Penn State Renaissance Fund scholarship endowment.

    In Schultz's sentencing memorandum, Thomas J. Farrell and Emily C. McNally, Schultz's lawyers, included a handwritten note from Schultz's wife, Karen.

    "My MS requires someone to be available in times of lack of strength and stability," she wrote. "I hope you understand how important Gary is to me and my well being."

    In Tim Curley's sentencing memorandum, his lawyer, Caroline M. Roberto, tried to explain Curley's memory lapses on the witness stand, which drew the ire of the prosecutors.

    "The Commonwealth asserts that the astonishing forgetfulness that Curley demonstrated during his testimony . . . was simply not credible," the AG wrote. The AG states that Curley's forgetfulness "was designed to protect those who deserved to share blame with Curley for the decisions that led to the colossal failure to protect children from Sandusky."


    His lawyer, however, stated that Curley "testified consistently with his proffered testimony and answered all questions to the best of his ability. Only once did he appear to misunderstand a question and immediately corrected his answer to conform with his prior statement."

    Roberto, in her sentencing memorandum, included a witness who talked about a time before his cancer treatments. When Curley's memory was so good he knew all 26 members of the men's soccer team by name, as well as the names of every coach at Penn State.

    "I had never seen anything like this," wrote Sandra Rogus. "He was doing this with every coach in every sport." Curley, Rugus wrote, "cared deeply about supporting every coach."

    In Curley's sentencing memorandum, his lawyer wrote about the "pain" and "deep and substantial punishment" already inflicted upon Curley during a "media firestorm."

    "Mr. Curley was subjected to epic international shaming and humiliation through relentless media frenzy that went on for years through the Sandusky trial and the publication of the dubious and frequently discredited Freeh Report," Roberto wrote.

    "As well as the dubious and eventually vacated NCAA sanctions against Penn State," Roberto wrote. "Such public shaming of a man revered by so many who was at the peak of his job performance must be taken into account when determining fair sentence to impose."

    Sorry, Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Spanier.

    In the Penn State scandal, there is only one truth that we must all bow before and worship. To that end, the Penn State trio must be sacrificed on the altar of that official truth.

    So the show can go on.



    Ralph Cipriano at 8:31 AM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #44  
    RX Senior sniperpicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Diego Ca
    Posts
    2,732
    HBO is doing a PATERNO movie starring Al Pacino , I just hope there is a scene where Joe PA walks by a shower and sees Jerry getting a forced BJ from a child and Al looks and says ......................... Hoooo Ha ..................... and walks away https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kQBz9azy8
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #45  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    Go get em Ralph

    Felony Friday 076 – Ralph Cipriano on the Parallels Between the Catholic Church And Penn State Sandusky Sex Scandals Posted on by John Odermatt Posted in Liberty & Law 1 Comment

    On today’s episode journalist Ralph Cipriano joins host John Odermatt to discuss two sex scandal that have rocked the state of Pennsylvania, the Penn State/Sandusky scandal and the Archdiocese Sex Abuse Trial. Ralph has had a unique career as a journalist. Throughout his career he has never shied away from controversy. This time is no different, Ralph has steered right into the heart of the controversy surrounding the two cases discussed on today’s show.
    Ralph Cipriano received an undergraduate degree in journalism at the University of Missouri. He is a former staff writer for the Los Angeles Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Currently, Ralph writes for BigTrial.Net. His coverage of the Archdiocese Sex Abuse Trial was first brought to the attention of Felony Friday host John Odermatt by a former guest of this show, John Ziegler. Both Ziegler and Cipriano agree that there are similarities between the Archdiocese Trial and the Penn State/Sandusky scandal. Ralph has written several pieces exposing holes in the media narrative in the Penn State/Sandusky Scandal.
    Today’s episode:

    Download this episode (right click and save)
    Links discussed on today’s show:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #46  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    MONDAY, JULY 10, 2017

    Penn State Confidential: U.S. Attorney, FBI Investigated Second Mile Charity And Came Up With A Big "Nothing Burger"


    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    For years, Penn State alumni have clamored for a federal investigation of The Second Mile charity founded by convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

    It turns out that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have already conducted a federal investigation of The Second Mile. It's an investigation that's apparently been closed since at least 2014, with the result that no charges were ever filed.

    In response to FOI requests filed by Ryan Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter and unsuccessful candidate for Penn State trustee, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. released some 1,000 pages of documents from the closed files of The Second Mile probe.

    What's the bottom line?

    "It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."

    Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.

    "Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said. Two people claim to know about "missing donor money," but nothing else is said about that subject in the rest of the released files.

    The documents released by the feds are heavily redacted, but there are many references to Second Mile board members circling the wagons. References were made in the documents to false allegations being made by a "disgruntled mother" and a "disgruntled kid."

    The documents are more noticeable for what they don't say. Such as in the issue of jurisdiction involving the Sandusky investigation. If, for example, in their investigation of The Second Mile, if the feds any found any evidence of a federal crime, such as Sandusky crossing state lines with sex abuse victims, "They would have taken it [the investigation] away from the state for prosecution," Snedden said.

    "But they [the feds] didn't do any of that," Snedden said after reviewing the documents. "There's no indication they did that."

    Instead, the attorney general pursued the Sandusky investigation, and the feds pursued The Second File.

    "Sadly, neither focused on political vindictiveness and corruption, which is exactly what happened here," Snedden said.

    Snedden has his own experience with a previous secret federal investigation into the Penn State scandal. In 2012, working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, Snedden did a background investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier, to see if Spanier's high level security clearance should be renewed by the government.

    As part of that investigation, Snedden investigated whether Spanier had orchestrated a coverup of Sandusky's crimes. Snedden's investigation concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up. As far as Snedden was concerned, Mike McQueary, the guy who witnessed a naked Sandusky allegedly abusing a boy in the Penn State showers, was not a credible witness.

    Spanier's clearance was renewed as the result of an 110-page report that Snedden wrote back in 2012, a report that was declassified earlier this year.


    In the investigation of The Second Mile, the released files include copies of FBI interviews with eight witnesses whose identities are redacted. The interviews are recorded on FBI "302s," the number of the form that interview summaries were typed on by FBI agents.

    "I see a lot of interviews with a lot of different people, a wide range of positions in the Second Mile hierarchy," Snedden said. "And I don't see any people admitting to knowing anything concrete about Sandusky."

    In the interviews, there are quotes from woman who "had always heard positive things about the organization. She had never heard anything bad about TSM founder Jerry Sandusky."

    Another woman interviewed by the FBI described Sandusky's "nondescript entrance and presence" at a March 25, 2011 "Celebration of Excellence" event in Hershey.

    "Sandusky was not acknowledged during the event formally by TSM," the woman told the FBI.

    "On March 31, 2011, the Patriot News published an article about the grand jury investigation" of Sandusky," the woman told the FBI. "The article was everywhere and everyone was talking about it."

    "She didn't recall seeing any evidence of financial improprieties or anything otherwise questionable," the FBI 302 stated. "She did not personally observe any misuse of donations."

    "The general mood of the room was that of denial," the woman told the FBI. "Everyone appeared to be in support of Sandusky and TSM."

    In another 302, an unidentified witness said, "He did not observe any inappropriate behavior." On the same form, someone, possibly Sandusky himself stated the complainant "was a disgruntled kid, not associated with TSM. He was not aware at the time that the allegation was sexual in nature"

    Another 302 notes that one board member was "shocked after reading the indictment." In addition, "four or five board members in particular were upset that they were never notified. The exchange was heated."

    In the 302s, there was discussion of an earlier 1998 allegation that Sandusky had abused another youth in the shower, but "the allegations were considered 'unfounded.'"

    There is also discussion in the 302s about an alleged allegation involving the Clinton County Children and Youth Services[CYS].

    "CYS did have a safety plan in the event a child was a victim of sexual abuse," the 302 stated. "They did not need to enact their safety plan for SANDUSKY's case because the allegation was not founded and all actions taken by CYS were 'by the book.' "

    Bagwell said he has filed multiple FOI requests as part of his Penn State Sunshine Fund. Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter who is now a web developer, said he filed his requests because he was seeking primary source documents from the Sandusky investigation.

    "What frustrated me about everything since the very beginning was a complete and utter lack of transparency," Bagwell said.


    In his court battle with the U.S. Attorney's office, Bagwell said, the feds indicated that there were some 300,000 pages of documents related to The Second Mile investigation. The feds only released 1,000 pages and "withheld tends of thousands more for reasons not apparent at this time," Bagwell said.

    Bagwell, himself a former journalist, said the press coverage of the scandal has been "abysmal, reactionary and sensationalistic," as well as "factually incorrect." Bagwell said he hopes the newly released documents will have a calming effect on Penn State Nation.

    "Penn Staters are still screaming for an investigation for years of The Second Mile," Bagwell said. "Well, it turns out there was an investigation."


    "My overall view is that everything here [in the documents] seems to support the idea that The Second Mile didn't knowingly do anything wrong," Bagwell said. "The Penn Staters who are clamoring for heads at The Second Mile to roll, I don't think that's an outcome that's appropriate at this point in time."



    POSTED BY RALPH CIPRIANO AT 7:56 PM
    TRIAL: PENN STATE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL



    Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2017/07/penn...0JrfJROOrSD.99
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #47  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    Tuesday, August 22, 2017

    Penn State Confidential: What Mike McQueary Heard And Saw, Part 2


    PART TWO: Editor’s Note: Here is the second and final excerpt on Mike McQueary and Allan Myers from The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, by Mark Pendergrast.

    By Mark Pendergrast
    for BigTrial.net

    On Friday, Nov 11, 2011, Sara Ganim, who had publicly identified Mike McQueary as the “graduate assistant” in the grand jury presentment who had supposedly witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy in the shower, wrote that McQueary was “getting blasted by the public for doing too little.”


    He had received several death threats. The same day, newly appointed Penn State President Rodney Erickson announced that McQueary was being placed on administrative leave “after it became clear he could not continue coaching.”Erickson pointedly continued:"Never again should anyone at Penn State feel scared to do the right thing.”


    McQueary was hard to miss around town. He stood six feet five inches, topped by short bristles of bright orange-red hair, which gave him the nickname Big Red. Now people were asking one another, “Why didn’t Big Red stop it?”


    On Tuesday, McQueary had called an emotional meeting with his Penn State players. He looked pale and his hands were shaking.


    “I’m not sure what is going to happen to me,” he said. He cried as he talked about the Sandusky shower incident. According to one of the players, “He said he had some regret that he didn’t stop it.”



    Then McQueary revealed that he himself had been molested as a child. Perhaps because he had been sexually abused, McQueary was particularly alert to possible abuse, and so he leaped to the conclusion that the slapping sounds he heard in the Lasch Building locker room were sexual.


    It is clear from the testimony of Dr. Dranov and others, however, that McQueary did not witness sodomy that night in February 2001.He thought something sexual was happening, but as he emphasized later, the entire episode lasted 30 to 45 seconds, he heard the sounds for only a few seconds, and his glance in the mirror was even quicker.


    Ten years after the event, his memory had shifted and amplified, after the police told him that they had other Sandusky victims.Under that influence, his memory made the episode much more sexually graphic.


    As I have written previously, all memory is reconstructive and is subject to distortion. That is particularly true when many years have intervened, and when current attitudes influence recall of those distant events. It is worthwhile quoting here from psychologist Daniel Reisberg’s 2014 book, The Science of Perception and Memory: A Pragmatic Guide for the Justice System.


    “Connections between a specific memory and other, more generic knowledge can allow the other knowledge to intrude into our recollection,” Reiserberg notes. “Thus, a witness might remember the robber threatening violence merely because threats are part of the witness’s cognitive ‘schema’ for how robberies typically unfold.”


    That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.


    “As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”


    In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”


    On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.


    I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”


    But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.


    In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”


    Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”


    If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.


    This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

    It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.


    McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.


    McQueary had painted himself into a difficult corner. If he had really seen something so horrendous, why hadn’t he rushed into the shower to stop it? Why hadn’t he gone to the police? Why hadn’t he followed up with Paterno or other Penn State administrators to make sure something was being done? Why had he continued to act friendly towards Sandusky, even taking part in golfing events with him?


    When angry people began to ask these questions, that first week in November 2011, McQueary emailed a friend. "I did stop it not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” he wrote. He now said that he had in essence contacted the police about the incident by alerting Joe Paterno, which led to Gary Schultz talking to him about it, and Schultz was the administrator the campus police reported to.


    “No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”


    Subsequently, McQueary changed his story somewhat. He now recalled that he had loudly slammed his locker door, which made Sandusky stop the abuse, and that he had taken yet a third look in the shower to make sure they had remained apart.


    At the trial, he said that he had “glanced” in the mirror for “one or two seconds,” then lengthened his estimate to “three or four seconds, five seconds maybe.” During that brief glance, he now said that he had time to see Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall, and that he saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement” of his midsection.


    But neither the newly created sodomy scene nor the slammed locker would save McQueary’s career.


    By the time of the trial, eight accusers had been “developed,” as Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach put it. But Allan Myers, the boy in the shower in the McQueary incident, had been so public and vehement in his previous defense of Sandusky that the prosecution did not dare call him to testify.


    When police inspector Joseph Leiter first interviewed him on September 20, 2011, Myers had emphatically denied that Sandusky had abused him or made him uncomfortable in any way.


    After the Grand Jury Presentment was published on November 5, 2011, with its allegations that Mike McQueary had witnessed sodomy in a locker room shower, Myers realized that he was “Victim 2,” the boy in the shower that night, but that the sounds McQueary heard were just snapping towels or slap boxing. Myers then gave a detailed statement to Joseph Amendola’s investigator, Curtis Everhart, denying that Sandusky had ever abused him.


    But within two weeks, Myers had become a client of Andrew Shubin. For months, Shubin refused to let the police interview Myers without Shubin being present, and he apparently hid Myers in a remote Pennsylvania hunting cabin to keep them from finding him.


    After a February 10, 2012, hearing, Shubin verbally assaulted Anthony Sassano, an agent for the attorney general's office, outside the courthouse, cursing him roundly. “He was very vulgar, critical of me,” Sassano recalled. “Let’s call it unprofessional [language], for an attorney.”


    Shubin was angry because the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t interview Myers, who, he claimed, had stayed at Sandusky’s house “over 100 times” where he had been subjected to “both oral and anal sex.” But the police still refused to allow Shubin to be present during any interview.


    Soon afterwards, Shubin relented, allowing a postal inspector named Michael Corricelli to talk to Allan Myers alone on February 28, 2012. But during the three-hour interview, Myers never said Sandusky had abused him. On March 8, Corricelli tried again, but Myers again failed to provide any stories of molestation. On March 16, Corricelli brought Myers to the police barracks for a third interview in which Anthony Sassano took part. Asked about three out-of-state trips, Myers denied any sexual contact and said that Sandusky had only tucked him into bed.


    “He did not recall the first time he was abused by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his notes, nor did Myers recall how many times he was abused. “He indicated it is hard to talk about the Sandusky sexual abuse because Sandusky was like a father to him.” Finally, Myers said that on a trip to Erie, Pennsylvania, Sandusky put his hand inside his pants and touched his penis. Sassano tried valiantly to get more out of him, asking whether Sandusky had tried to put Myers’ hand on his own penis or whether that had been oral sex. No.


    Still, Myers now estimated that there had been ten sexual abuse events and that the last one was in the shower incident that McQeary overheard. “I attempted to have Myers elaborate on the sexual contact he had with Sandusky, but he refused by saying he wasn’t ready to talk about the specifics,” Sassano wrote. Myers said that he had not given anyone, including his attorneys, such details. “This is in contrast to what Shubin told me,” Sassano noted.


    On April 3, 2012, Corricelli and Sassano were schedule to meet yet again with the reluctant Allan Myers, but he didn’t show up, saying that he was “too upset” by a friend’s death.


    “Corricelli indicated that Attorney Shubin advised him that Myers had related to him incidents of oral, anal, and digital penetration by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his report. “Shubin showed Corricelli a three page document purported to be Myers’ recollection of his sexual contact with Sandusky. Corricelli examined the document and indicated to me that he suspected the document was written by Attorney Shubin. I advised that I did not want a copy of a document that was suspected to be written by Attorney Shubin.” Sassano concluded: “At this time, I don’t anticipate further investigation concerning Allan Myers.”


    Mike McQueary Takes The Stand


    That is how things stood as the Sandusky trial was about to begin. Karl Rominger wanted to call Myers to testify as a defense witness, but Amendola refused. “I was told that there was a détente and an understanding that both sides would simply not identify Victim Number 2,” Rominger later recalled. The prosecution didn’t want such a weak witness who had given a strong exculpatory statement to Curtis Everhart. Amendola didn’t want a defense witness who was now claiming to be an abuse victim. “So they decided to punt, to use an analogy,” Rominger concluded.


    Mike McQueary then took the stand to tell his latest version of the shower incident with “Victim 2” (i.e., the unnamed Allan Myers), where he heard “showers running and smacking sounds, very much skin-on-skin smacking sounds.” (Later in his testimony, he said he heard only two or three slapping sounds that lasted two or three seconds.)
    He had re-framed and re-examined his memory of the event “many, many, many times,” he said, and he was now certain that he had looked into the shower three separate times, for one or two seconds
    each, and that he saw “Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against the shower.

    The showers are running and, and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy’s hands are up on the wall.” He saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement.” After he slammed his locker, McQueary said, they separated and faced him. Surprisingly, he said that Sandusky did not have an erection.
    When Amendola failed to object, Judge Cleland inserted himself, obviously fearful of future appeal or post-conviction relief issues. “Wait, wait, wait, just a second,” he warned McGettigan. “I think you have to be very careful for you not to lead this witness.”

    A few minutes later, the judge asked both lawyers to approach the bench. “I don’t know why you’re not getting objections to this grossly leading [questioning],” he told McGettigan, who said, “I’m just trying to get through it fast.”

    McQueary recounted how he had met with Joe Paterno.

    “I made sure he knew it was sexual and that it was wrong, [but] I did not go into gross detail.” Later, he said, he met with Tim Curley, the Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a university vice president.

    In an email quoted during his testimony, McQueary had written, “I had discussions with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police.” He now explained that by this he meant just one person, since Schultz oversaw the university police department.
    With only an hour’s warning, Joe Amendola asked Karl Rominger to conduct the cross-examination of McQueary and handed him the file. Rominger did the best he could, asking McQueary why in 2010 he had told the police that he’d looked into the showers twice but had now added a third viewing, and he questioned him about his misremembering that the shower incident occurred in 2002 rather than 2001.

    Rominger also noted that McQueary had told the grand jury, “I was nervous and flustered, so I just didn’t do anything to stop it.” Now he was saying that he slammed the locker, which allegedly ended the incident.
    Without meaning to, McQueary indirectly helped Sandusky’s case by explaining the demanding work schedule of a Penn State football coach, typically reporting to work Sunday through Tuesday at 7 a.m. and working until 10 p.m. or later. Then, Wednesday through Friday, it was 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. If Sandusky kept the same hours, it was difficult to see when he would have managed to molest all those boys, at least during preseason training and football season.


    Finally, McQueary revealed that he had filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State for having removed him from his football coaching job in the midst of the Sandusky scandal. “I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong to lose that job," he said.



    What Mike McQueary Told Dr. Dranov


    In his brief appearance for the defense, physician Jonathan Dranov recalled the February night in 2001 that his friend and employee, John McQueary, had called to ask him around 9 p.m. to come over, because his son Mike was upset by something that had happened in a Penn State locker room.


    When he came in, Mike was sitting on the couch, “visibly shaken and upset.” The younger McQueary said he had gone to the locker room to put away some new sneakers and “he heard what he described as sexual sounds.”


    Dranov asked him what he meant. “Well, sexual sounds, you know what they are,” McQueary said. “No, Mike, you know, what do you mean?” But he didn’t explain. “He just seemed to get a little bit more upset. So I kind of left that.”


    McQueary told him that he looked toward the shower “and a young boy looked around. He made eye contact with the boy.” Dranov asked him if the boy seemed upset or frightened, and McQueary said he did not. Then, as Dranov recalled, McQueary said that “an arm reached out and pulled the boy back.”


    Was that all he saw? No, McQueary said “something about going back to his locker, and then he turned around and faced the shower room and a man came out, and it was Jerry Sandusky.” Dranov asked McQueary three times if he had actually witnessed a sexual act. “I kept saying, ‘What did you see?’ and each time he [Mike] would come back to the sounds. I kept saying, ‘But what did you see?’ “And it just seemed to make him more upset, so I back off that.”


    Karl Rominger asked Dranov, “You’re a mandatory reporter?” Yes, he was, meaning that he was legally bound to report criminal sexual activity to the police. He did not do that, since he obviously didn’t conclude that it was warranted. He only told Mike McQueary to report the incident to his immediate supervisor, Joe Paterno.


    As a follow-up witness, a Second Mile administrator named Henry Lesch explained that he had been in charge of the annual golf tournament, in which Mike McQueary had played in June 2001 and 2003. The implication was that this seemed strange behavior, supporting an activity in which Jerry Sandusky was a leading sponsor and participant, if McQueary had witnessed sodomy in the shower in February 2001.


    Allan Myers Takes The Stand


    One last hearing took place three months later, on November 4, 2016, when Allan Myers finally took the stand. He had evaded all subpoena attempts for the August hearings. Jerry Sandusky could hardly
    recognize the overweight, bearded, sullen 29-year-old, who clearly didn’t want to be there.


    He wouldn’t use Sandusky’s name, referring to him as “your client” in response to Al Lindsay’s questions. Yes, he had gone to the Second Mile camps for a couple of years “until your client hand-picked me,” he said. He admitted, however, that he had regarded Sandusky as a father figure and that he had lived with the Sandusky’s the summer of 2005, before he attended Penn State. “I left because he was controlling,” Myers said.


    Lindsay had him read the notes of his September 2011 police interview, in which he said that Sandusky never made him uncomfortable and had not abused him, and that he didn’t believe any of the allegations.


    “That would reflect what I said then,” Myers said, “not what I would say now.” That would become his refrain during his testimony, which appeared to be well-rehearsed, along with “I don’t recall.”


    Yes, he had told Curtis Everhart that “Jerry never violated me while I was at his home or anywhere else….I felt very safe and at ease at his home, whether alone with Jerry or with others present.” Yes, he had denied any anal or oral intercourse or any abuse at all.“That’s what I said then," he said.


    Yes, Shubin was Myers’ lawyer for his DUI charge, and then he represented him as a claimed Sandusky victim, and yes, he had received a settlement from Penn State. And yes, he said, he was Victim 2.


    During her cross-examination, Jennifer Peterson asked Myers, “And you told him [Anthony Sassano] that you were sexually abused by Mr. Sandusky, right?” Surprisingly, he didn’t agree. “I don’t remember exactly what I said in the meetings. I know then I was more forthcoming, but not all the way coming, because still processing everything and dealing with it.” It sounded as if he might have been in repressed memory therapy.


    Peterson asked again, “Were you sexually abused?” This time he answered, “Yes,” although he didn’t actually say that it was Sandusky who had abused him. And there the matter was left.


    Meanwhile, several Sandusky-related legal decisions came down, all of them relying on the truth of the abuse narrative.


    Three weeks before Cleland’s recusal, Mike McQueary won his whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State, with the jury awarding the former Penn State coach $7.3 million.

    At the end of November 2016, Judge Thomas Gavin ruled that that amount wasn’t enough, so he added another $5 million. In doing so, he cited prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach’s testimony during the trial that McQueary had been a terrific grand jury witness: “He was rock solid in his testimony as to what he had seen,” Eshbach said. “He was very articulate. His memory was excellent.”


    Eshbach, the author of the notorious Grand Jury Presentment, was correct that McQueary had been articulate, but his “rock solid” testimony had morphed from what he told his father and Jonathon Dranov in February 2001 – that he heard sounds but witnessed no sexual abuse – to his grand jury testimony ten years later.


    And he kept modifying his story and memory after that. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that McQueary had suffered “humiliation” when Graham Spanier publicly supported Curley and Schultz, which by implication impugned the assistant coach. Gavin later added another $1.7 million to pay for McQueary’s lawyers’ fees.


    The Fallout

    Former federal investigator John Snedden, who interviewed many players in the Penn State drama soon after the trial, concluded that there was no cover-up because there was nothing to cover up. Mike McQueary had only heard slapping sounds in the shower. If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have intervened to stop a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"


    Snedden’s boss told him, as a rookie agent, that the first question to ask in an investigation is, “Where is the crime?” In this case, there didn’t appear to be one. "I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses.”


    In 2016, psychologist Julia Shaw published The Memory Illusion, a summary of her own and others’ work. “[My colleagues and] I have convinced people they have committed crimes that never occurred, suffered from a physical injury they never had, or were attacked by a dog when no such attack ever took place,” she wrote.

    The Memory Hackers (2016), a Nova public television program, featured one of Shaw’s subjects recalling an illusory crime in three sessions. In that study, over 70 percent of her subjects developed false memories.


    “What could have been turns into what would have been turns into what was,” the experimental psychologist explained. Her conclusion? “Any event, no matter how important, emotional or traumatic it may seem, can be…misremembered, or even be entirely fictitious…. All of us can come to confidently and vividly remember entire events that never actually took place.”


    Experimental psychologist Frederic Bartlett made similar observations in his classic 1932 text, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Our memories, he noted, “live with our interests and with them they change.” We tend to incorporate details of what really happened, along with other inserted elements, perhaps from a movie we saw or a book we read, or a story someone else told us. This kind of “source amnesia” is amazingly common. In fact, many of us are sure something happened to us, when it was our sibling who actually experienced it.


    That is how Mike McQueary’s memory of the infamous 2001 shower changed. The night of the shower, he said he had heard slapping sounds but had not seen anything incriminating. Ten years later, his retrospective bias led him to have questionable memories of seeing Sandusky moving his hips behind a boy in the shower. With rehearsal, his new memories were solidified, and he became quite confident in them. That phenomenon, called “the illusion of confidence” by The Invisible Gorilla authors, is not unusual, either.


    There may have been other factors influencing McQueary's recollections of that infamous shower incident.


    When he was first contacted by police, Mike McQueary, at that time a married man, apparently sent a “sexting” photo of his own penis to a female Penn State student in April 2010. He may have thought that was why the police wanted to talk to him, and why he didn’t want to meet with them in his home.


    ESPN journalist Don Van Natta, Jr, initially intended to include this information in a feature article about McQueary, but it was cut from the published piece.


    In 2017 McQueary, now divorced, texted another photo of his erect penis to a woman. Investigator John Ziegler obtained the text messages and photo and published them at framingpaterno.com.





    Ralph Cipriano at
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #48  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,233
    One day, that statue will be back up on campus where it belongs, Joe's reputation restored , and the HBO 'documentary " laughed at

    And there is a special place in hell for pos like Freeh

    According to the executive summary, "Louis Freeh and his team disregarded the preponderance of the evidence" in concluding there was a cover up at Penn State of Jerry Sandusky's crimes


    "Louis Freeh and his team knowingly provided a false conclusion in stating that the alleged cover up was motivated by a desire to protect the football program and a false culture that overvalued football and athletics," the executive summary states.
    coordination between Freeh and the NCAA during the Penn State investigation was at best inappropriate and at worst "two parties working together to get a predetermined outcome."




    SATURDAY, JUNE 30, 2018

    Confidential Internal Review Shreds Louis Freeh Report


    image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HmMS8EYzxC4/WzZVRcnrYnI/AAAAAAAAFgk/kiOhd43KwtsFR3tIYCD9YJnSx-UrVbYwgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-06-29%2Bat%2B11.49.45%2BAM.png
    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    A confidential internal review of the Louis Freeh Report on the Penn State sex abuse scandal, conducted behind closed doors for two years by the university's own trustees, found factual mistakes, "deeply flawed" methodology, as well as an alleged conflict of interest on Freeh's part, along with faulty stated opinions that Freeh's own staffers disagreed with, in writing.

    It was the Freeh Report that the NCAA relied upon in 2012 to impose draconian sanctions on Penn State, including a $60 million fine, a bowl game ban that lasted two years, the loss of 170 athletic scholarships and the elimination of 111 of Joe Paterno's wins, although the wins were subsequently restored.

    On Friday, a group of 11 trustees called on the full 38-member board to release the full 200-page critique of the 267-page Freeh Report, formally renounce Freeh's findings, and try to recoup some of the $8.3 million that the university paid Freeh.

    "I want to put the document in your hands so you can read it yourself, but I can't do that today," said Alice Pope, a trustee and St. John's University professor who helped conduct the internal review of the Freeh report. But the materials that Pope and six other trustees had to sue the university to obtain are still under seal according to a 2015 court order. And the university's lawyers have recently advised the 11 minority trustees that the report they worked on for two years remains privileged and confidential.

    So yesterday, Pope called on the full board to release the 200-page report as early as their next meeting, on July 20th. But chances are slim and none that the board's chairman, Mark Dambly, and other majority board members will ever willingly open Pandora's box and reveal to the public the facts they've spent at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to bury for the past six years. Facts will present further evidence of just how badly the trustees, Louie Freeh, and the attorney general botched the Penn State investigation.

    The full board of trustees, Pope said yesterday, never voted to formally adopt the findings of the Freeh Report, which found that Penn State officials had covered up the sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky.

    "Rather, the board adopted a don't act, don't look and don't tell policy" Pope said that amounted to a "tacit acceptance of the Freeh Report." A report that Pope said has resulted in "profound reputational harm to our university along with $300 million in costs so far."

    In addition to the $60 million in fines, the university's board of trustees has -- while doing little or no investigating -- paid out a minimum of $118 million to 36 alleged victims of sex abuse, in addition to spending more than $80 million in legal fees, and $50 million to institute new reforms aimed at preventing future abuse.

    That internal 200-page report and the materials it draws upon may still be privileged and confidential, But Big Trial has obtained a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of that review dated Jan. 8, 2017, plus an attached 25-page synopsis from that same date that highlights the evidence discovered by the minority trustees in their review of those confidential documents still under court seal.

    According to the executive summary, "Louis Freeh and his team disregarded the preponderance of the evidence" in concluding there was a cover up at Penn State of Jerry Sandusky's crimes.

    "Louis Freeh and his team knowingly provided a false conclusion in stating that the alleged coverup was motivated by a desire to protect the football program and a false culture that overvalued football and athletics," the executive summary states.

    According to the executive summary, the trustees faulted Freeh and his investigators for their "willingness . . . to be led by media narratives," as well as "an over reliance on unreliable sources," such as former Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin. Freeh, the executive summary states, also relied on "deeply flawed" procedures for interviewing witnesses. The interviews conducted by Freeh's investigators weren't done under oath, or subpoenas, and weren't tape-recorded, the executive summary wrote, providing for "biased reporting of interviews data" and "inaccurate summaries" of witness testimony.

    At yesterday's press conference, Pope said the 11 trustees wanted to know the degree of cooperation Freeh's team had with the NCAA and the state attorney general's office during their investigations. According to statecollege.com, State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman has previously stated that the coordination between Freeh and the NCAA during the Penn State investigation was at best inappropriate and at worst "two parties working together to get a predetermined outcome."

    In the executive summary, the trustees cited "interference in Louis Freeh's investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, wherein information gathered in the criminal investigations of Penn State officials was improperly (and perhaps illegally) shared with Louis Freeh and his team."

    This is a subject Big Trial will explore in a subsequent blog post. But earlier this year, I wrote to Louis Freeh, and asked if he and his team had authorization to access grand jury secrets. He declined comment.

    Yesterday, Freeh issued a statement that ripped the minority trustees. "Since 2015 . . . these misguided alumni have been fighting a rear-guard action to turn the clock backs and to resist the positive changes which the PSU students and faculty have full embraced," Freeh wrote. He concluded that despite criticism of his report by the minority trustees, to date, they have produced "no report, no facts, news and no credible evidence" against his work.

    But in the executive summary, the trustees blasted Freeh for having an alleged conflict of interest with the NCAA, and they cited some credible evidence to prove it.

    "Louis Freeh's conflict of interest in pursuing future investigative assignments with the NCAA during his contracted period of working for Penn State," the executive summary states, "provided motivation for forming conclusions consistent with the NCAA's goals to enhance their own reputation by being tough on Penn State."

    In a criminal manner, such as the Jerry Sandusky pedophilia investigation, the NCAA had no legal standing. But the NCAA justified its intervention in the case by finding that a lack of institutional control on Penn State's part opened the door to the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.

    In their synopsis of evidence, the trustees relied on internal Freeh Group emails that showed that while Freeh was finishing up his investigation of Penn State, he was angling for his group to become the "go to investigators" for the NCAA.

    On July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and a partner of Freeh's. "This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."

    In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."

    A spokesman for Freeh could not immediately be reached for comment.

    At yesterday's press conference, Pope also raised the issue of a separate but concurrent federal investigation conducted on the Penn State campus in 2012 by Special Agent John Snedden, made public last year, that reached the opposite conclusion that Freeh and the attorney general did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.

    Pope stated she wanted to know more about the discrepancies between the parallel investigations that reached such opposite conclusions.

    Back in 2012, Snedden, a former NCIS special agent working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services [FIS], was assigned to determine whether Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed. During his investigation, Snedden placed Spanier under oath and questioned him for eight hours, as well as interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

    About seven months after Baldwin told Spanier this, she flipped, and appeared in a secret grand jury proceeding to not only testify against Spanier, but also former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley, and former Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz.

    Spanier, who previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified before last month the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, which has accused her of violating the attorney-client privilege.

    After his investigation, Special Agent Snedden concluded in a 110-page report that Spanier had done nothing wrong, and that there was no coverup at Penn State.

    That's because, according to Snedden, Mike McQueary, the alleged whistleblower in the case, was an unreliable witness who told many different conflicting stories about an alleged incident in the Penn State showers where McQueary saw Jerry Sandusky with a naked 10-year-old boy. "Which story do you believe?" Snedden asked.

    In his grand jury testimony, McQueary said his observations of Sandusky were based on one or two "glances" in the shower of an incident at least eight years earlier that each only lasted "one or two seconds." But in the hands of the attorney general's fiction writers, the incident became an anal rape conclusively witnessed by McQueary.

    On March 1, 2002, according to the 2011 grand jury presentment, [McQueary] walked into the locker room in the Lasch Building at State College and heard “rhythmic, slapping sounds.” Glancing into a mirror, he “looked into the shower . . . [and] saw a naked boy, Victim No. 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Jerry Sandusky.”


    "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."

    But the alleged victim never came forward, and, according to the prosecutors, was known "only to God." Days after the presentment, McQueary wrote in an email to the attorney general's office that they had "slightly twisted his words" and "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion."

    On top of that, all the witnesses the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary reported to them "what he had seen," plus another witness cited McQueary, a doctor who's a family friend, have all repeatedly denied McQueary told them that when hey testified in court.


    "I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial last year. He also described the Freeh Report as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

    At the same time Snedden was investigating Penn State, former FBI Director Louis Freeh was writing his report on the scandal, a report commissioned by the university, at a cost of $8.3 million.

    Freeh concluded there had been a cover up. His report also found a “striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university,” which included Spanier, who had repeatedly been severely beaten by his father as a child. Freeh found that Spanier, Paterno, along with Schultz, the former Penn State vice president and Curley, the school’s ex-athletic director “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities....”


    But critics such as the minority trustees have noted that the ex-FBI director reached his conclusions without his investigators ever talking to Paterno, Schultz, Curley, McQueary or Sandusky. Freeh only talked to Spanier briefly, at the end of his investigation. And confidential records viewed by the trustees show that Freeh’s own people disagreed with his conclusions.

    According to those records, Freeh's own staff reviewed a May 21, 2012 draft of the Freeh Report, which was subsequently turned over to Penn State officials. The lead paragraph of the draft said, “At the time of the alleged sexual assaults by Jerry Sandusky, there was a culture and environment in the Penn State Athletic Department that led staff members to fail to identify or act on observed inappropriate conduct by Sandusky.”


    The draft report talked about an environment of fear that affected even a janitor who supposedly saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in the showers in 2000: “There existed an environment within the athletic department that led an employee to determine that the perceived threat of losing his job outweighed the necessity of reporting the violent crime of a child.”


    Over that paragraph in the draft report, a handwritten note said, “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” Freeh, however, in his final version, included that charge about the janitor who allegedly saw Sandusky assault another boy in the showers but was so fearful he didn’t report it.

    But when the state police interviewed that janitor, Jim Calhoun, he stated three times that it wasn’t Sandusky he had seen sexually abusing a boy. (The state police didn’t ask Calhoun who was the alleged assailant.) At Sandusky’s trial, however, the jury convicted the ex-coach of that crime, in part because his defense lawyer never told the jury about the janitor’s interview with the state police.

    In a written statement, Freeh confirmed that the person who wrote “NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!” was one of his guys.

    "Throughout the review at the Pennsylvania State University, members of the Freeh team were encouraged to speak freely and to challenge any factual assertions that they believed are not supported," Freeh wrote on Jan. 10, 2018.

    "Indeed the factual assertions of the report were tested and vetted over a period of many months and, as new evidence was uncovered, some of the factual assertions and conclusions evolved," he wrote. "Our staff debated, refined and reformed our views even in the final hours before the report's release."

    In another handwritten note on the draft of the report, somebody wrote that there was "no evidence" to support Freeh's contention that a flawed football culture was to blame for the Sandusky sex scandal.

    "Freeh knew the evidence did not support this," the executive summary says. But in his final report, Freeh wrote about "A culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."


    While Freeh concluded there was a coverup at Penn State, his investigators weren’t so sure, according to records cited by the trustees in their executive summary. On March 7, 2012, in a conference call, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who was one of Freeh’s senior investigators, noted that they had found “no smoking gun to indicate [a] cover-up.”


    In a written statement to this reporter, Freeh claimed that shortly after McChesney made that observation, his investigators found “the critical ‘smoking gun’ evidence” in a 2001 “email trove among Schultz, Curley and Spanier.”

    In that email chain, conducted over Penn State’s own computer system, the administrators discussed confronting Sandusky about his habit of showering with children at Penn State facilities, and telling him to stop, rather than report him to officials at The Second Mile, as well as the state Department of Public Welfare.

    In the email chain, Curley described the strategy as a “more humane approach” that included an offer to provide Sandusky with counseling. Spanier agreed, but wrote, “The only downside for us if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon [by Sandusky] and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.”

    Curley subsequently told Sandusky to stop bringing children into Penn State facilities, and informed officials at The Second Mile about the 2001 shower incident. But Penn State didn’t inform the state Department of Public Welfare about Sandusky, which Freeh claimed was the smoking gun.


    By definition, however, a cover-up needs a crime to hide. And Penn State’s administrators have repeatedly testified that when McQueary told them about the 2001 shower incident, he described it as horseplay. The Freeh investigation, critics say, never adequately resolved that contradiction. In their executive report, the trustees refer to the allegations of a cover up as "unfounded."

    Freeh, however, maintained that in the six years since he issued his report, its findings have been validated in court.

    "The Freeh team's investigative interviews and fact-finding were not biased and no outcome was ever predetermined," Freeh wrote. "Their only mandate, to which they adhered, was to follow the evidenced wherever it led. The final report I issued is a reflection of this mandate."

    "The accuracy and sustainability of the report is further evidenced by the criminal convictions of Spanier, Schultz, Curley," Freeh wrote. Other developments that verified the conclusions of his report, Freeh wrote, include "voluntary dismissals by the Paterno Family of their suit against the NCAA, Spanier's dismissal of his defamation suit against Freeh, the jury and court findings in the McQueary defamation and whistleblower cases, and the U.S. Department of Education's five-year investigation resulting in a record fine against Penn State."





    POSTED BY RALPH CIPRIANO AT 10:23 AM



    Read more at
    http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/06/inte...YlbMxe35B15.99
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #49  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    22,347
    Do u write to Sandusky in prison?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #50  
    RX SemiGod Sal santorre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    bay village , oh (cleveland)
    Posts
    10,377
    Quote Originally Posted by StevieRay View Post
    Do u write to Sandusky in prison?

    Conjugal visits
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •