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: Penn st got what was coming -school a disgrace

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
  1. #151  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Let us know when the child rapist is out of prison and found not guilty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #152  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Well at least we know Glenn Neff , that poor boy from Lock Haven , got kissed by Jerry.....and abused fer sure

    The poor bastard only walked away with 7 Million, not enough I say!!!


    Oh wait, hes a lying piece of white trash too . Son of bitch actually tried to bribe one of his friends to say Jerry kissed him , and if he would say that.....He would buy him a brand new truck

    Damn, I really thought we had a live one there . Nope, another one that lied for money Huh

    Ill keep looking ....
    EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CHUCK BUSKIRK
    https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro...-18-3-ask-john
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #153  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Quote Originally Posted by StevieRay View Post
    Let us know when the child rapist is out of prison and found not guilty
    Bump
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #154  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    John explain why its so hard to get the interview from the folks around the Penn State scandal

    Physical threats and payoffs of the people who know these "poor innocent victims' are liars https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro...medium=twitter

    White trash scum , all of them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #155  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Ok Ok, . I have to admit I was wrong. Jerry was a Ped, and the one victim I am sure about is Matt Sandusky, his adopted son. I mean he went on Oprah he wrote a book . This is a direct quote from poor Matt


    Matthew Sandusky: "There Is No Reason for Me to Lie"


    Read more: http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahprime/...#ixzz5Ejpo5Ka3

    Yet, this does seem a little strange

    Before he flipped, Matt Sandusky had previously told the police and the grand jury that his adopted father had never abused him. He even went to court to fight his ex-wife, so that his children could continue to visit the Sandusky home after Jerry Sandusky was arrested for sex abuse. On the opening day of Sandusky’s trial, Matt sat next to Dottie Sandusky and heard Brett Swisher-Houtz’s tales of abuse. That night, according to author Pendergrast, Matt, who was staying with the Sanduskys, told one of his adopted siblings, “This is ridiculous. Anybody can make accusations without evidence and get paid. I could, you could, anyone could . . . But I actually have morals.”

    Three days later, Matt, who became attorney Andrew Shubin’s client, flipped, telling police he’d been abused by Sandusky’s inappropriate touching. If true, he had committed perjury before the grand jury.

    [Meanwhile, all five of his adopted siblings continued to support their foster father; with each stating they did not believe Matt had ever been abused. Matt’s former teen lover, who had tried to commit suicide with him, wrote a long email saying that Matt had never mentioned any abuse to her, and she didn’t believe he’d been abused. She described Jerry Sandusky, whom she lived with as a teeanger, as having a “childlike mind and soul,” adding that “our culture and society don’t understand that kind of ‘innocence’ and playfulness today.”]

    Matt told the police that he was working with a therapist and that “memories of his abuse are just now coming back

    Nah, fuck it, more white trash lying POS scum

    still searching though
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #156  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Quote Originally Posted by StevieRay View Post
    Let us know when the child rapist is out of prison and found not guilty
    Bump
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #157  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Boy do I feel foolish . Now even though all those other boys I discussed above are not exactly telling the truth, I know realize what a fool I have been defending Joe, and Jerry S . I must be a pedophile lover , and may just admit myself to therapy. My sudden change of heart is because after watching the HBO "documentary" Paterno, I learned the story of the poor , sweet, innocent boy depicted in the film, Aaron Fisher , and his loving, caring, mother, Dawn. The scenes describing little Aaron being picked on ( I guess in today's politically correct world its called being bullied , the bed wetting, the mental trauma that young boy faced, practically brought me to tears . Of course we all are well aware that there is no case against Jerry if there is no Aaron, since he was the only accuser for two years . The 7.5 million Aaron got certainly justified, I mean whats 7.5 million these days

    Yes, of course its odd that originally Aaron said nothing at all sexual happened , and that 12 people very , very close to Aaron , gave interviews on tape saying they were sure AF was a liar . It did bother me little that it seems no one in his town of over 9k people seems to believe him. Maybe there is one, but no one has come forward to even acknowledge any part of AF's story . Yes, its strange that it took 3 years of therapy for AF to "remember" that although the first story of Jerry just cracking his back with his clothes on, turned into this 15 year old wrestler, being "hypnotized" ( we all know Jerrys intense training as a licensed hypnotist, oh wait, anyway) and coming back for more, more meaning oral sex over 100 times ! Huh .

    Im sure Dawns next door neighbor was just misquoting her when she quoted Daniels as saying. And, “When this all settles out, she’ll have a nice big house in the country with a fence and the dogs can roam free.”
    she even testified that Daniels was enthusiastic about the prospect of suing Sandusky, because it would be “her ticket out of the neighborhood.” .......
    http://www.framingpaterno.com/huge-r...andusky-innoce









    APRIL FOOLS ( IN JUNE ) Aaron is a white trash piece of garbage , a known liar, and all around trouble maker ( listen to his friends speak about him), and Dawn is a crack whore white trash party girl, who would lie through her teeth for cash


    NOT HIM EITHER, STILL LOOKING

    Aaron fisher not a homosexual
    Jerry not a homosexual

    No porn found in this case, other then the prosecutors computer

    Shocking not one of the 'victims' ever asked Jerry to be tested for STDs?

    Odd that none of the victims had any interest, at all, to show up at any of Jerry's appeals to plead that Judge not let Jerry get off

    I guess They were all to busy car shopping

    And just to make sure no one is left out, here is a nice new Audi from the Facebook page of "Victim 5," whose full name is in the public record:

    ere are two fancy sports cars from the Facebook page of "Victim 10," whose full name is in the public record (who only came forward after the Paterno firing, and who Jerry and his wife Dottie insist they don't even know)
    He is hardly the only accuser with a sports car fetish. In fact, the one silver ling of this entire fiasco may be that the sports car business in the State College area has to have been booming over the last couple of years.
    Here is one which is currently the star of the Facebook cover photo of "Victim 7" (whose full name is in the public record):
    knew before my trip that Aaron’s mother Dawn had purchased a Porsche. This seemed to be a VERY odd choice of automobile for a mother of someone who supposedly (as would have to be the case if Aaron is telling the truth about Sandusky) fed their teenage son for three years to a horrible predator while they partied hard and somehow were so clueless that they couldn’t figure out what was going on. But I also learned that her third car, which she apparently never uses, is a Mercedes (I am also hearing so-far proven rumors of a recently purchased fourth car, a Camaro). Here are photos of those two cars:



    It is remarkable the number of sports/luxury cars have been purchased in this case with Penn State money. Aaron himself has bought several top-tier vehicles, including this souped-up Mustang which he recently took the stripes off of, presumably to not be recognized.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #158  
    RX Senior stock07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Back Seat of my Car, Most of the time
    Posts
    2,072
    wow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #159  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    The whole trial was a joke


    Of course , . Virtually anyone paying attention knew about these accusations in November 2011

    Penn State lawyer, prosecutor accused of ethical lapses in Sandusky investigation


    http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/03...hical_lap.html Disciplinary hearing opens for PSU's ex-top lawyer during Sandusky investigation

    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/cri...s/201805220097

    Prosecutor who pursued Penn State officials faces questions over his tactics


    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/br...-20180610.html




    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #160  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Quote Originally Posted by StevieRay View Post
    Let us know when the child rapist is out of prison and found not guilty
    Bump
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #161  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by StevieRay View Post
    Bump
    Stevie, my biggest fan! Hopin to get that dam statue back up first
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #162  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Good luck buddy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #163  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Fascinating "debate" between John and Josh Webb-Thomson


    John of course, schooled him, and eventually flipped him

    as he always does


    https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro...-webb-thompson

    Staff Writer for @TheMarvelReport | Contributor @AthlonSports | Work feat. on ESPN, NBC, CBS, & more | email: TwistFightsOn@gmail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #164  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    A System of Justice 'Systematically Destroyed'

    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    Lawrence J. Fox, a Philadelphia lawyer who's a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, is an expert on teaching legal ethics and professional responsibility.

    And Fox has harsh words for the conduct of former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky case, as well as for Cynthia Baldwin, the former Penn State counsel who represented three top Penn State officials before the grand jury investigating Sandusky. That was before Baldwin flipped, at the behest of Fina, to become a prosecution witness, and testify against her former clients, an act of betrayal that horrified Fox.

    "When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed," Fox wrote in a 2013 filing recently unsealed in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court.

    Tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Philadelphia, Fox will testify as an expert witness on behalf of the state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board, to make the case that former prosecutor Fina is guilty of professional misconduct. But for those who can't wait for the hearing, Fox's scathing opinions of the actions of Fina and Baldwin are laid out in the recently unsealed filing.

    "It is the Commonwealth whose lawyers were fully aware of the conflicts under which Ms. Baldwin was laboring at the time of the grand jury proceeding," Fox wrote, clearly referring to Fina, who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury after she flipped.

    Fina was aware that Baldwin had a conflict of interest, Fox wrote, namely her decision to stab in the back her former clients. Yet, Fina and his fellow prosecutors "stood silent," Fox wrote, and "took full advantage of the conflicts" to gather information against those clients.

    The prosecutors also "never informed the court of the nature and extent of the conflicts" of interest, Fox wrote. So that the court could fulfill its duty of assuring that the "rights of Messrs. [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz and [former Penn State athletic director Tim] Curley to effective representation were not systematically violated in the extreme."

    In the unsealed filing, Fox ripped the Commonwealth's defense of Fina's actions.

    "The Commonwealth actually asserts that because Messrs. Schultz and Curley were aware that Ms. Baldwin was general counsel for Penn State, they should have understood that they were merely second-class clients, and, as a result, are entitled to no attorney-client privilege whatsoever," Fox wrote.

    But the Rules of Professional Conduct do not mention "a watered-down second-class version of clienthood," Fox wrote, but only defines "one form of clienthood." But Baldwin announced to "Schultz and Curley, the court, the grand jury, as well as the Commonwealth's lawyers," Fox wrote, that she represented Schultz and Curley. And as their lawyer, Fox wrote, she was "required, in fact, to represent both of them to the full extent required by her fiduciary duties . . . the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, the Pennsylvania statutory provisions covering the right to counsel before a grand jury" as well as the U.S. Constitution.

    But while Baldwin was representing her clients, Fox wrote, "her fingers were crossed behind her back, and she never fully intended to fulfill that obligation, let alone warn them they would not receive the benefit of attorney-client privilege because of their second-class status."

    "The law governing the attorney-client privilege in a joint representation is clear," Fox wrote. "There can be no waiver of the privilege unless each client has given his or her informed consent . . . to waive the privilege."

    But the record of the case "demonstrates that there never was so much as a telephone call" to let Schultz and Curley know that the Commonwealth was seeking a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, Fox wrote.

    By flipping and not telling her former clients she was about to stab them in the back, Baldwin "turns the law of privilege literally upside-down, rendering it a false protection and leaving the clients helpless before the power of the Commonwealth," Fox wrote.

    As for Baldwin, Fox wrote, her "sins here are both manifold and manifest. Turning against one's client is the greatest betrayal a lawyer can commit."

    "But that is what Ms. Baldwin did here, stripping the clients of any opportunity to object to her misdeeds," Fox wrote. "Either she was subpoenaed to the grand jury or she voluntarily agreed to appear. Either way, she ran right through the red light by, in fact, testifying before the grand jury without notice to her former clients."

    "No lawyer is permitted to disclose confidential information without the informed consent of the client," Fox wrote. "As a result of Ms. Baldwin's misconduct, Messrs. Schultz and Curley went six months without being aware of Ms. Baldwin's betrayal, and only learned of her shocking abandonment of her former clients when the new indictment was issued. Ms. Baldwin's conduct in this regard cries out for relief."

    Fox labeled Baldwin's conduct as a "blatant betrayal . . . unprecedented in the annals of lawyer representation of clients."

    According to the disciplinary board's petition against Fina, it was Fina who set up that blatant betrayal by hoodwinking Judge Barry Feudale, then presiding over the grand jury investigating Sandusky.

    On Oct. 22, 2012, Fina and Baldwin appeared before the judge in a conference to discuss Schultz and Curley's claim of attorney-client privilege in light of Baldwin's imminent appearance as a grand jury witness against her former clients.

    The petition notes that lawyers for Schultz, Curley, as well as former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was also formerly represented by Baldwin, were not invited to the conference. At the conference, the petition says, Fina told the judge regarding the attorney-client privilege that he intended to "put those matters on hold" until the judge made a decision regarding the privilege, and "we can address that later on."

    Penn State's counsel then argued that the judge should make a ruling on the attorney-client privilege first, before Baldwin testified. But Fina told the judge, "We need not address the privilege issue," because "we are not going to ask questions about" the grand jury testimony of Schultz and Curley, "and any preparation for, or follow-up they had" with Baldwin.

    Fina asked the judge to keep Baldwin's testimony secret so "We can address this privilege matter at a later date." That prompted the judge to tell Fina to proceed under the assumption that "you're not going to get into any inquiry as to [Baldwin's] representation" of her former clients.

    But Fina double-crossed the judge. On Oct. 26, 2012, he questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, and "did elicit" what the disciplinary board described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications between Baldwin and Curley, Schultz, and Spanier" as well as "confidential information" pertaining to the three former clients.

    Fina's questioning of Baldwin was "calculated," the disciplinary board wrote, to attack the credibility of Baldwin's three former clients. In the petition, the disciplinary board proceeded to list 73 examples from the grand jury transcript where Fina elicited confidential testimony from Baldwin that violated the attorney-client privilege, according to the petition filed by Paul J. Killion, chief disciplinary counsel, and Amelia C. Kittredge, disciplinary counsel.

    The actions of Fina and Baldwin led the state Superior Court to throw out charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy against Schultz, Curley and Spanier.

    At a two-hour disciplinary hearing on May 23 in Pittsburgh, Baldwin contended she wasn't guilty of any misconduct. She testified that after she received grand jury subpoenas for Curley and Schultz, she told them, as well as Spanier, that she couldn't be their personal lawyer because she was representing Penn State. Baldwin also asserted that she told the Penn State officials their communication with her wouldn't remain confidential, and that they were free to get outside lawyers to represent them.

    "Don't be nervous. Just tell the truth," Baldwin testified that she advised Curley.

    Baldwin testified that both Curley and Schultz described a shower incident allegedly witnessed by Mike McQueary back in 2001 involving Sandusky and a naked boy as "horseplay." Baldwin also contended that she asked the Penn State officials if they knew of any documents describing that incident that had been requested by a subpoena from the attorney general's office, and her clients said they didn't know of anything.

    Baldwin testified she felt "duped" when months later, a file kept by Schultz documenting the horseplay incident was turned over to investigators.

    In court records, Baldwin's former clients tell a different story. They contend that Baldwin did not inform them of the risks of appearing before the grand jury, and that Baldwin knew about the file kept by Schultz on Sandusky.

    The former clients also contend that Baldwin turned them into sitting ducks for prosecutors like Fina.

    "Ms. Baldwin informed me that the grand jury investigation focused on Jerry Sandusky, not on me or PSU, and that I was being called purely as a witness," Schultz wrote in an affidavit recently unsealed in Dauphin County. "Ms. Baldwin told me that neither I nor PSU were under investigation," Schultz wrote. "She told me that I could have outside counsel, if I wished, but at that point, seeing all the stories [of the Penn State officials] are consistent, she could represent me, Tim Curley and Joe Paterno as well."

    Schultz said he told Baldwin he might have a file on Sandusky still in his office, and that it "might help refresh my memory." But Schultz said that Baldwin told him not to "look for or review any materials."

    "Ms. Baldwin also told me that PSU and I were not targets of the investigation and that I would be treated as a witness," Schultz wrote. "There never was any discussion of the Fifth Amendment privilege or the risk of self-incrimination."

    "I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me during in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was looking out for my interests," Schulz wrote. "Based on he representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."

    In his affidavit of Oct. 25, 2012, Schultz wrote that Baldwin only told him he needed a separate lawyer "approximately one week before the charges were filed against me."

    In a Jan. 16, 2013 affidavit, Spanier wrote that prior to his grand jury appearance, Baldwin "did not reveal that I had been subpoenaed, and I believed that I was going voluntarily. She did not inform me that Penn State and I were targets of the investigation. As far as I knew, the investigation focused solely on Sandusky."

    When Spanier appeared before the grand jury in 2011, "I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me during and in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was acting in my best interests," Spanier wrote. " Although Ms. Baldwin mentioned that I was entitled to a separate attorney, she did not encourage me to retain one, or explain why I might want one. Based on her representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."

    "On the day of my grand jury testimony, Ms. Baldwin accompanied my swearing in" before the judge, and "stated that she was representing me in connection with my testimony," Spanier wrote. "And I had no reason to think otherwise."

    "Ms. Baldwin sat with me in the grand jury room. I was asked by the OAG attorney whether I was represented by counsel. I responded that I was, and identified Ms. Baldwin. She did not say anything."

    "Ms. Baldwin first told me that I should retain a separate attorney on Nov. 8, 2011, after Sandusky, Schultz and Curley had been indicted," Spanier wrote. "At no point did I waive my right to confidentiality in my communications with Mrs. Baldwin or otherwise waive attorney-client privilege."

    Tomorrow, it will be Fina's turn to answer charges of misconduct.

    In a response to the disciplinary board's charges, Fina's lawyers, Dennis C. McAndrews and Joseph E. McGettigan 3d, contend that Fina "has not violated any rule of conduct" and they request that the board dismiss the charges against him.

    In their filing, Fina's lawyers describe their client as "instrumental in convicting the most notorious serial child molester in American history, and in developing evidence that administrators at [Penn State] . . . failed to act in accordance with their legal, professional and/or ethical responsibilities in taking steps to prevent future harm to the children of this Commonwealth by that predator."


    The lawyers also assert that Fina did nothing improper before the grand jury. They quote Judge Feudale concluding that "a careful review of the testimony of attorney Baldwin before the grand jury . . . reflects that Baldwin's testimony did not [in this court's review] violate any attorney-client or work product privilege."

    Ralph Cipriano at
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #165  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Anthony Spinelli. Sorry it took so long to update but finally found the poor little boy who actually was abused by Jerry

    In 1988 when Anthony was 16, he attended a PSU football camp . Poor kid heard about the Sandusky scandal on prison TV in Nov 2011 , and claimed that he was abused at the football camp by Jerry
    And THAT was the reason he turned to drugs and beaten a man to death When he was released from prison his lawyer filed a claim to allow an exemption to the statue of limitations, saying little Anthony wanted to be a "voice for the voiceless " A year later Spinelli stabbed a guy in Boston, but no question that was Jerrys fault too.

    Now I do have to say on fairness, that is somewhat troubling that Jerry says he doesn't even have any memory of this person and neither do any of the other coaches from the camp

    http://www.telegram.com/news/2016122...-football-star

    sounds credible to me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #166  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Why is he still in prison?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #167  
    RX Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    jamestown
    Posts
    314
    What are you trying to accomplish with this thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #168  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by damian View Post
    What are you trying to accomplish with this thread?
    A University ripped apart by a myth, Joe Paterno, the coach with the most wins in college football history, legacy destroyed by lies , an innocent man serving life in prison, white trash scum turning like rats on someone who was a father figure to them, gets paid millions from a BOT that just wanted this to end, media malpractice like this country has never seen.

    This case is the biggest injustice I have ever seen, and did the most damage in history, where a murder wasn't involved ( ironically If the charges against Jerry were murder, he would actually have more support )

    Educate people by showing that if can happen to great people like Joe, Jerry, Spanier, Schultz and Curley, in can happen to any of us

    Im hoping to expose the truth.

    Damien, your thoughts on the topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #169  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    oh yeeeh. This case had it all for sure

    Freeh & Fina: Way too close for comfort. Documents show they kept each other apprised so Freeh's conclusions would back up Fina's indictments of PSU admins

    Yes, as I am sure you are all aware . The only pornography found in this case of course belonged to ...... No, not Jerry

    Frank Fina

    MONDAY, JULY 2, 2018

    'CLOSE HOLD -http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/07/close-hold-important-its-deputy.html- Important' -- It's Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina On The Line, Ready To Spill More Grand Jury Secrets



    Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/07/clos...X8rCyvqeyKo.99
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #170  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Welcome to the world of white trash, lying , pond scum, piece of shit "victims"

    The man is a 28-year-old military veteran with a record of convictions for minor crimes like retail theft and marijuana possession. He has two children of his own and is seeking to adopt his wife’s children
    Standing straight at attention before the judge, his forearms heavily tattooed and his hair buzz-cut short, the man acknowledged that he had been awarded a $1 million payout in addition to the settlement payments, but had blown through that money in 18 months
    He told the judge that he needed cash from his settlement not only to expand his business, but to help his wife with her salon, and to pay back child support and taxes

    http://www.dailylocal.com/general-ne...u-victims-case
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #171  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by brucefan View Post
    Welcome to the world of white trash, lying , pond scum, piece of shit "victims"

    The man is a 28-year-old military veteran with a record of convictions for minor crimes like retail theft and marijuana possession. He has two children of his own and is seeking to adopt his wife’s children
    Standing straight at attention before the judge, his forearms heavily tattooed and his hair buzz-cut short, the man acknowledged that he had been awarded a $1 million payout in addition to the settlement payments, but had blown through that money in 18 months
    He told the judge that he needed cash from his settlement not only to expand his business, but to help his wife with her salon, and to pay back child support and taxes

    http://www.dailylocal.com/general-ne...u-victims-case
    running out of money because he paid his ex-wife and several buddies to keep quiet?

    From John
    "Fascinating article here by about how Glenn Neff, one of the "Loch Haven 5" Sandusky accusers who got $35 million total, has apparently blown through his money & asking for the rest now. I spoke to the reporter & the judge made it clear he thought Neff was not a credible witness.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #172  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #173  
     

  24. #174  
    RX Local
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North of there
    Posts
    23,545
    Great games back in the day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #175  
    RX Senior brucefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    wellington
    Posts
    2,356
    white trash scum !


    TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2018

    Easy Money In The Sandusky Case; Penn State Not Minding The Store


    image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QwFUaLvuajo/Wz0dXVNnsfI/AAAAAAAAFnY/MljerG6ECUkmR85uRJAOe6EBVtb6_-h3gCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-04%2Bat%2B3.16.58%2BPM.png
    By Ralph Cipriano
    for BigTrial.net

    On Oct. 1, 2014, Brett Swisher-Houtz, "Victim No. 4" in the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse case was called to testify as a witness in a civil case.

    In Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, Penn State University was being sued by its own insurance carrier. The Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association had taken issue with the large multimillion payouts the university was awarding to 36 young men like Victim No. 4, payments to date that have totaled $118 million.


    Steven J. Engelmyer, the lawyer representing Penn State's insurance carrier, had a simple question for Swisher-Houtz, who just a year earlier, on Sept. 12, 2013, had collected a confidential settlement from Penn State of $7.25 million.

    “Has anybody from Penn State ever spoken to you?" the lawyer wanted to know.


    Not that I’m aware of,” the witness replied.




    image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gD_UksK-nWc/Wz4F9jOXzUI/AAAAAAAAFns/152trHX0kAoSRNE3P3ymnpnfmh85NKokQCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-05%2Bat%2B7.46.10%2BAM.png
    In terms of legal battles, it was easy money. In sex abuse cases, alleged victims can potentially face a grilling from a private investigator, a deposition by a lawyer, and an extensive evaluation conducted by a forensic psychiatrist. They can also be asked to submit to a polygraph test to see if they're telling in truth.

    Instead, here's what happened with Swisher-Houtz. On Dec. 4, 2012, lawyers Benjamin D. Andreozzi and Jeffrey Fritz, who did not respond to requests for comment, filed a three-and-a-half-page civil claim on behalf of the alleged victim. It was reviewed on behalf of Penn State by Barbara Ziv, a consulting forensic psychiatrist from Flourtown, PA, as well as law firm headed by Kenneth Feinberg of Washington, D.C.

    When asked to specify the facts of his alleged abuse, "where it happened and the date on which it happened," Swisher-Houtz's lawyers wrote, "The instances of abuse were so frequent that Mr. Swisher-Houtz cannot be expected to list them here. In summary, Mr. Sandusky forced Mr. Swisher to engage in oral sex on countless occasions and attempted to penetrate his anus. See Sandusky trial transcript or grand jury reports related to Victim No. 4." The lawyers also submitted a report on the victim's behalf from a licensed psychologist.


    Nearly a year later, Swisher-Houtz hit the lottery when the university paid him $7.25 million.

    It could have been a rougher road to settlement. In the case of Swisher-Houtz, there was stone-cold proof on tape that the cops had deliberately lied to him to elicit more details of alleged abuse. A suspect therapist had also used widely discredited memory-recovery therapy on Victim No. 4 to elicit testimony that a prominent memory expert stated in court had no credible scientific basis.

    At the very least, a skillful interrogator might have succeeded in driving down the price of a settlement. But according to Swisher-Houtz, nobody from the university ever bothered to ask him anything. Penn State just wrote out another big check in its quest to purchase an atonement from scandal.

    The Conductor on the Gravy Train

    The university trustee who oversaw victim settlements isn't talking, but we have some insight into his mindset thanks to a brief May 17, 2017 recorded interview between a would-be author and Ira Lubert. The Philadelphia real estate guru is the Penn State trustee who oversaw the board’s legal subcommittee, which approved the first 26 multi-million dollar settlement awarded to the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky. Those 26 claims were subsequently ratified en masse by the entire board, after Lubert assured his fellow trustees that the claimants had been thoroughly vetted.

    In a remarkably candid interview of just three and a half minutes, obtained by reporter John Ziegler, Lubert talked about the alleged victims of Sandusky, none of whom had attended Penn State. Lubert colorfully described the claimants as being lined up "at the trough" waiting on the “gravy train.”

    A gravy train on which Lubert was the conductor.
    image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BxHN0R0ZLPE/WzvAW1d01AI/AAAAAAAAFlw/c5LjZrQOMTkgAoFzpdNCPejmSxXG9DDKQCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-03%2Bat%2B2.28.08%2BPM.png

    Lubert blamed the university's plight on poor judgment exercised by Penn State's top officials. He was presumably talking about former university President Graham Spanier, Vice President Gary Schultz, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Coach Joe Paterno.


    "I believe all four of them were great people; I have a lot of respect for all of them," Lubert said.

    In the taped interview, Lubert, who did not respond to several requests for comment, was generous in his praise of Penn State's top officials, before burying them.

    "I think they did amazing things for the university," Lubert said. "But all four used poor judgment and poor leadership. And as a result of that, they couldn't continue to lead our university."

    Lubert singled out Spanier for not being proactive in his discussions with other administrators about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys, as evidenced by two separate incidents in 1998 and 2001. According to Lubert, Spanier supposedly decided, "I'm not gonna call human services or research any further whether something happened or didn't happen" when it came to Sandusky and the boys in the shower.

    "And then it cost us $200 million to settle this. And he stays on as president," Lubert huffed about Spanier. "That can't happen."

    Lubert turned his attention to the question of whether Penn State's top officials committed any crimes.

    "I was surprised when they pled guilty," Lubert said, presumably about Schultz and Curley. "I don't think they broke the law. I think they used very poor judgment. And, as I said to you, very poor leadership . . . That doesn't make them bad people. It just means you can't work at Penn State or any other university or any company when you demonstrate that failure in leadership."

    "I fired him for that reason," Lubert said, presumably talking about Spanier. "Not because he broke the law but because he used bad judgment."

    Lubert talked about "all these theories" and various "snippet[s] of information" out there about the Sandusky case, and then returned to his bottom line.

    "But at the end of the day, we have five people," Lubert said, presumably throwing Sandusky into the mix, along with Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno.

    image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gF3KmU1Qm_M/WzvTAjVE9hI/AAAAAAAAFmU/OsN_4AAq_HMR-QxvUy-UcPtaN5HhS--qACK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-03%2Bat%2B3.47.48%2BPM.png
    "Two were convicted, two pled guilty and one said in hindsight, I wished I'd done more," Lubert said. He was talking in private to a would-be author who was a former Second Mile kid himself, somebody who believed that Sandusky was innocent, and that the young men who accused him of sex abuse were lying.

    But Lubert wasn't buying it.

    "To say you think nothing happened and that Jerry was totally innocent, I just have trouble with all of the other facts surrounding why all that happened to all those five guys," Lubert said, returning to the top Penn State officials caught up in the scandal.

    Lubert repeated his mantra: Sandusky and Spanier got convicted, Curley and Schultz pled guilty, and Paterno "said when he was alive, in hindsight I'd wish I'd done more."

    About the claimants, Lubert stated categorically, "They're not all victims. There's some that were on the gravy train. There's some [claims] that we settled for $100,000 that would have cost us more to litigate. But there were some real victims. . . [some who] tried to commit suicide. I was in a position to see it."


    “There’s some very bad situations,” Lubert concluded. “Did some people exaggerate their situations? Yes, they did. Did some lawyers step in front and say this is far worse than it was and I want more money? Absolutely, that happened. And wherever I could, I settled it. But believe me when I tell you, there was some bad stuff going on."

    The Master of Disasters

    To initiate their claims of abuse, lawyers for the alleged victims typically filed a "confidential intake questionnaire" that marked the official start of the "Feinberg & Rozen Claims Resolution Process." In a couple of cases, the victims also filed civil lawsuits where university officials and trustees were deposed.

    To get paid, an alleged victim had to be a verified member of the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for at-risk kids. It also helped to have testified against Sandusky at his criminal trial in 2012, as did eight of the 36 alleged victims, a trial where Sandusky was found guilty of 45 counts of abuse.

    For an alleged victim to get paid, it also helped to have reports from licensed psychologists, and medical records submitted for review. To get paid, a claimant had to have his paperwork reviewed by Dr. Ziv, and receive a favorable recommendation to settle the case from the law firm of Feinberg Rozen LLP of Washington D.C.

    Kenneth Feinberg, dubbed "The Master of Disasters," is the lawyer they called in to approve mass billion-dollar payouts to the victims of 9/11, the BP oil spill, the Virginia Tech shootings, and the Boston Marathon bombing. Besides presiding over terrorist attacks and natural disasters, Feinberg has overseen large billon dollar settlements in class action suits for pain and suffering caused by Agent Orange and the Dalkon Shield. In big disaster cases, Feinberg takes a global approach to settlements, rather than duking it out on one claim after another in the civil courts.

    "In certain very limited types of mass disasters, there's gotta be a better way than one-by-one courts," Feinberg told The Observer in 2016. "These programs . . . do that. And they're very successful."

    It was also successful for Feinberg Rozen, which, as of January 2017, had been paid $1,484,094 by Penn State, after the law firm approved the first 28 settlements in the Sandusky case.

    Feinberg, responding to an email requesting comment, said there wasn't much light he could shed on the process of vetting claims at Penn State.

    "The mediation process was highly confidential and I am not at liberty to answer any questions you may pose concerning the value of the claims or other related details," Feinberg wrote in an email. He referred questions to Joseph O'Dea, the lawyer who represented Penn State in the claim mediation process. O'Dea declined comment, referring questions to Lawrence Lokman, a university spokesperson.

    "We have no comment for you," Lokman wrote in an email. "The university's perspective on the settlements, and Ken Feinberg's Op-ed describing the process are a matter of public record."

    In that 2016 Op-ed piece, Feinberg wrote, "The [claim mediation] process was thorough, fair, respectful and characterized by full arms-length debate in each case." He described the resulting settlements as "a remarkable achievement given the high-profile nature of the cases."


    "Preventing years of expensive, protracted, and uncertain litigation will save Penn State millions of dollars, while sparing the victims who brought their cases forward the agony of an extended legal battle," Feinberg wrote. "I believe the Penn State mediation is a model of how such a dispute resolution process should work."


    An "Absence of Documentation"

    Not everyone agreed with Feinberg's rosy assessment of the claim mediation process. In 2013, the payouts prompted the university’s insurance carrier, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company (PMA), to sue Penn State and the various “John Doe” claimants. The lawsuit ended three years later in a confidential settlement that lawyers in the case say they are prohibited from discussing.


    One of those lawyers is Eric Anderson of Pittsburgh, an expert witness who testified on behalf of the insurance carrier. Although he declined to talk about the case, Anderson wrote a report that was disclosed in court records, a report that ripped the university.

    “It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals,” Anderson wrote on October 5, 2015. In his report, Anderson decried “the absence of documentation” in the claims, saying in many cases there was “no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which I reviewed."


    image: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VPOeDBFSDYc/Wz4GhFPWV9I/AAAAAAAAFn4/5qGVotho9j8BIIRpfh8gk1d4YZNEVLMFACK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-05%2Bat%2B7.46.50%2BAM.png
    “I do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money,” Anderson wrote.

    The lawyer suggested that “potential punitive damages . . . factored into Penn State’s evaluations,” along with “a concern about publicity and a desire to resolve the matters very quickly.”

    The Catholic Comparison

    The average settlement at Penn State was $3.3 million, more than double the highest average settlements paid out to alleged victims of sex abuse in the Catholic clergy scandals, such as in:

    -- Boston, where the church in 2003 paid $85 million to 552 alleged victims, an average settlement of $153,985.

    -- Los Angeles, where the church in 2006 paid $60 million to 45 alleged victims, an average of $1.3 million.

    -- Los Angeles, where the church in 2007 paid $660 million to 508 alleged victims, an average of $1.3 million.

    -- San Diego, where the church in 2007 paid $198 million to 144 alleged victims, an average of $1.4 million.

    Throwing Gasoline on a Fire


    Another factor that may have led to higher settlements at Penn State was the publication of the Freeh Report of 2012, which blamed the university's football culture for the scandal, and accused Penn State's top administrators of engaging in a cover up.

    Gary Langsdale, the university’s risk officer, was deposed in the insurance case on May 30, 2014. At the deposition, Engelmyer, the insurance carrier’s lawyer, asked Langsdale if he had any concerns about the impact the Freeh Report would have on claims of abuse.

    “The report seemed to throw gasoline on a fire,” Langsdale replied.


    Engelmyer turned to the university's efforts to vet the claims.

    "Tell me what steps Penn State took to confirm that the claimants that they were paying are, in fact credible and were telling true stories," the lawyer asked.

    "I read through the material that was provided by the victim's attorney, considered it in context with what we were told by Dr. [Barbara] Ziv was Mr. Sandusky's pattern of abuse, listened to Feinberg and Rozen on the subject, listened to Dr. Ziv on the subject," Langsdale testified.

    The lawyer asked Langsdale if he had any concerns that Dr. Ziv, the psychologist hired by the university as an expert to evaluate claims, “did not interview any of the first 26 or so victims who received payments from Penn State?”


    “Not particularly,” Langsdale said.

    "Why not," Engelmyer asked.

    "Because I thought the process is robust enough to give us a good picture of the claims," Langsdale said.

    Dr. Ziv could not be reached for comment. She was a prominent witness at the Bill Cosby rape trial, where she testified about common "rape myths" regarding the behavior of victims of sex abuse. One of those myths, Dr. Ziv told the jury, was that victims lie.

    No more than seven percent of sex abuse claims are false, Dr. Ziv told the jury. She added that the actual percentage of false claims could be as low as two percent.

    Dr. Ziv was clearly a believer in the overall veracity of alleged victims of sexual abuse, so it makes sense why she wouldn't have to personally interview alleged victims to certify their accounts as true. University officials, however, subsequently decided to change their hands-off approach to claimants, when it came to having a psychiatrist review those claims.

    In 2015, the university began hiring psychiatrists to examine the claimants, beginning with Skyler Coover, No. 29 on the list, who was paid $7 million. The exams didn't seem to lower the price of settlements. Besides Coover, six more claimants were examined by university psychiatrists, and all seven of those victims collected a total of $27.8 million, or $3.97 million each.

    In contrast to Dr. Ziv's faith in the veracity of alleged victims of abuse, a judge recently questioned the credibility of Glenn Neff, an alleged victim of Sandusky's who was attempting to gain immediate access to the confidential settlement of $7 million that he received last year from Penn State.

    According to the Chester County Daily Local News, on July 17th, Chester County Judge William P. Mahon "angrily dismissed" a request to transfer assets from Neff's multimillion-dollar settlement that was sought by a Delaware-based financial firm. The newspaper did not name Neff as a victim, because of a typical media policy of self-censorship when it comes to alleged victims of sex abuse, but Neff's name was printed on legal documents in the case.

    According to the newspaper, the Delaware firm sought court approval of a plan to convert $2.99 million from Neff's 2017 settlement into $850,000 in cash. In court, Neff testified that he needed the money to bolster his tree-trimming business and his wife wanted to expand a beauty salon.

    But Judge Mahon said the proposed settlement, the third in the case, was "riddled with sketchy assertions about [Neff's] financial well-being that were contradicted by statements" Neff made in court.

    "I am beginning to wonder what the heck is going on," the judge said, adding "these petitions are completely unreliable."

    "This is abysmal," the judge said, before declaring, "Petition dismissed." The judge compared the behavior of the many firms seeking to gain access to Neff's settlement by offering immediate cash to "sharks with blood in the water."

    In his claim, Neff alleged that he was sexually abused by Sandusky "on multiple dates between January 2004 and May 2005," including oral and anal rapes, but didn't tell anybody about it until 2016.

    As he left the hearing, according to the story filed by reporter Michael Rellahan, Neff refused to answer a reporter's questions, and Neff's wife "shouted before making an obscene gesture while boarding an elevator."

    Rolling Over



    As part of their concerted effort to turn the page on the Sandusky scandal, Penn State's board of trustees decided not to publicly contest any of the findings of the Freeh Report. Even though behind closed doors, some trustees were highly critical of the work done by the former FBI director.


    On Jan. 14, 2015, Karen Peetz, former president of the board of trustees during the Sandusky scandal, was deposed by lawyer Engelmyer in the insurance case.

    In response to questions from Engelmeyer, Peetz criticized Freeh for an "overreach" when he accused Penn State officials of concealing Sandusky's conduct, and having a "striking lack of apathy" for victims.

    "His spin on the situation," was how Peetz characterized Freeh's criticisms. When the university hired Freeh, Peetz testified, she expected "nothing but the facts."


    "I expected facts," she repeated, but stated that instead of facts, the university got "editorializing" from Freeh. As well as a "kind of dramatization," Peetz said, when Freeh faulted the university's football culture for the sex abuse scandal.

    Peetz also stated that she had no idea until she read the Freeh Report that the NCAA was relying on it to punish the university.

    "Were you aware that they [the NCAA] were using the Freeh Report as a factual basis for the imposition . . . of sanctions?" Engelmyer asked.

    "No," Peetz said.

    "When did you first find out?" the lawyer asked. "Was it when you read it?"

    "Yes," she said.


    But, according to Peetz, rather than take issue with Freeh, a majority of trustees decided to roll over.


    "We made a decision not to pick apart the Freeh Report, thinking that that wasn't going to be that helpful to moving forward," Peetz testified.

    She added, "There's a group of trustees who would like to do that."



    "It just doesn't make sense."

    While Penn State took a hands-off approach to investigating claims of abuse, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia had a practice of hiring private detectives to investigate claims.

    Jack Rossiter, a former FBI agent of 30 years, investigated more than 150 cases of alleged sex abuse as a private detective employed by the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia between 2003 and 2007.

    In a situation involving national publicity, like the Jerry Sandusky case, Rossiter said, you'd have to be on guard for criminals and drug addicts coming forward to seek a pay day.

    "With national headlines and all these people lining up, you'd have to be more skeptical" of the claims, Rossiter said.

    "Obviously, you have to do a detailed interview" with each alleged victim, he said, asking questions such as, "Who did you tell, when did you tell them? And who can corroborate your story?"

    "That's what you do, you investigate," Rossiter said. "The key," he said, is to find corroboration for the victim's story, to see if their stories hold up.

    "A good interviewer could have broken somebody who was fabricating something," Rossiter said. Especially if you drag them through all the details of what the Penn State locker room looked like, to determine "whether they were really in the shower."

    The surest way to spot a fake, Rossiter said, is to come at their story from the opposite point of view.

    In investigating cases for the archdiocese, Rossiter said, "I have to go into it believing the victim is telling the truth." If the detective merely tried to help the church cover up abuse, "I'm of no value to anyone," Rossiter said.

    So he always gave the victim "a clean slate," the benefit of the doubt, Rossiter said. Then, the former FBI agent set out to try and corroborate the victims' stories. In seeking proof, Rossiter went as far as to polygraph priests accused of abuse.

    As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims supposedly told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.

    If a pedophile was running loose for that long, "You would think someone would pick it up," Rossiter said. "Either at school or the parents or a close friend."

    Rossiter was also troubled by the use of recovered memories by many alleged victims of Sandusky.

    "I always have my doubts about that," he said. The radically changing stories of many of the victims was another source of concern for an investigator playing defense on claims. Rossiter said he couldn't understand why the university didn't do more to investigate claims of abuse.

    It sounds like "they just got a pool of money together and said let's buy everybody off and get this damn thing behind us," Rossiter said. "It just doesn't make sense."
    image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-curRP86-VMY/Wz4H1aCoQ4I/AAAAAAAAFoQ/qitLSNwTxcoGww1px_X1Fip6EpwPASoOACK4BGAYYCw/s320/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-05%2Bat%2B7.57.33%2BAM.png

    Swisher-Houtz's Claim


    When the father of Brett Swisher-Houtz read the story by Sara Ganim in the Patriot-News about how a grand jury was investigating Jerry Sandusky for sex abuse, he advised his son, a former Second Mile alum, to hire lawyer Benjamin Andreozzi, who specialized in taking sex assault cases on contingency.

    But when Andreozzi first came to see him on April 5, 2011, Swisher-Houtz wasn’t cooperative, and didn’t say anything had happened to him. Two days later, when a state police corporal knocked on his door, Swisher-Houtz said he wanted to talk to his lawyer before he talked to police.


    On April 21, 2011, Pennsylvania State Troopers Joseph Leiter and Scott Rossman interviewed Swisher-Houtz at the police barracks, with his attorney present, and a tape recorder running. This time, Swisher-Houtz was more cooperative.

    During the first 50 minutes of questioning, as recounted in trial transcripts, Swisher-Houtz told the troopers about wrestling matches with Sandusky, and how Sandusky would pin him to the floor with his genitals allegedly stuck in the boy’s face. Then, Sandusky would allegedly kiss and lick the inside of the boy’s legs, Swisher-Houtz claimed. That prompted Trooper Rossman to ask if Sandusky would kiss or lick his testicles.


    “Kind of,” he replied, but the state troopers suspected the witness was holding back graphic details of more serious abuse.

    Cops Caught Lying


    While Swisher-Houtz smoked a cigarette outside, the two state troopers talked with Houtz’s lawyer, unaware that the tape-recorder was still running. On tape, the troopers talked about how it had taken months to coax rape details out of Aaron Fisher, "Victim No. 1" in the Sandusky case.

    “First, it was, 'Yeah, he would rub my shoulders;' then it took repetition and repetition and finally, we got to the point where he [Fisher] would tell us what happened,” Leiter said. The troopers talked about how they were sure Swisher-Houtz was another rape victim, and they discussed how to get more details out of him.


    Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us?’”


    “Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Leiter said.


    When Swisher-Houtz returned, Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.” The trooper told him about nine adults the police had already interviewed, and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating, word for word, pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”


    At that point, the troopers had only interviewed three alleged victims who claimed they’d been abused, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse.


    “I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing,” Trooper Leiter told Swisher-Houtz. “[Sandusky] took advantage of you . . . We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place... I just want you to understand that you are not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this.”


    At their request, Swisher-Houtz became more graphic, asserting that Sandusky used to pin him face down in the shower, then hump the boy’s buttocks until he ejaculated. Sandusky, he claimed, would also push his penis into the boy’s face until he had an orgasm.

    Suspect Therapy


    image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p1ROGNqs8bU/Wz0bgv8sjnI/AAAAAAAAFmw/K_hI6hty8Wg64i4bdU3KyyLVxmNTIH2CQCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Most%2BHated%2BMan%2Bcover%2Bfinal.jpeg
    Swisher-Houtz subsequently began therapy sessions with psychotherapist Mike Gillum, the same therapist who counseled Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Penn State case.

    By the time Sandusky went on trial on June 11, 2012, Swisher-Houtz was the prosecution’s leadoff witness. He testified that for years Sandusky had inserted his penis into the boy’s mouth two or three times a week while they showered, sometimes with Sandusky ejaculating. It happened “40 times at least,” Swisher-Houtz told the jury.

    Sandusky also attempted to anally rape him in the shower, the witness claimed, but that he pushed Sandusky off “with all my might” and got away.


    When asked by Sandusky’s attorney why he hadn’t initially said he was abused, the witness testified, “I have spent, you know, so many years burying this in the back of my mind forever.”

    Author Mark Pendergrast wrote a book about the Sandusky case. He's skeptical about Swisher-Houtz’s claims of repressed memories of abuse, as well as similar claims from three of the eight other alleged victims who testified against Sandusky at trial.

    “All of the recovered memories in the Sandusky case are most certainly false,” said Pendergrast, who wrote The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, a book that's been excerpted on Big Trial.

    “They shouldn’t even be called memories," Pendergrast said about so-called repressed memories of abuse; "they’re confabulations.”


    “This entire case started because therapist Mike Gillum saw Aaron Fisher as a patient,” Pendergrast said. Gillum “used incredibly leading methodology and got over-involved” with his patient, Pendergrast said, to the point where “Aaron Fisher became convinced that he remembered traumatic abuse that probably didn’t happen.”


    In the Aaron Fisher case, Fisher, then 15, told school officials about his physical contact with Sandusky, but didn’t describe it as overtly sexual. A youth services counselor advised Fisher's mother to bring her son to psychotherapist Gillum.


    Starting at the first session, and continuing during weekly and sometimes daily sessions, Gillum asked leading questions, and Fisher began to recall multiple instances of Sandusky fondling him and forcing him to participate in oral sex.

    In Silent No More, a 2012 book Gillum co-authored with Fisher and his mother, Gillum wrote that he saw his job as “peeling back the layers of the onion” in Fisher’s mind to uncover hidden memories of abuse.

    “Look, I know that something terrible happened to you,” Gillum told Fisher at the first session. And then Gillum would guess how Sandusky had abused Fisher. The patient simply had to say “yes,” or just nod his head to confirm the allegation that Sandusky had committed a sex crime.


    After three years of such therapy, Fisher, became convinced that Sandusky had abused him more than 100 times between 2005 and 2008. Those crimes allegedly included oral sex and touching the boy’s genitals. The abuse allegedly took place at various locations, including Sandusky’s home and car, in hotel rooms, at Fisher’s school and on the Penn State campus.

    “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator,” Fisher wrote in Silent No More. “When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”


    The psychotherapist accompanied Fisher to police interviews, and when he testified before two grand juries. During those two years, Fisher, then the only alleged victim the authorities had in the case, repeatedly broke down crying in front of the first grand jury, and could not elaborate on details of his alleged abuse.

    When asked if Sandusky had forced him to engage in oral sex, Fisher denied it. Gillum then volunteered to testify on his client’s behalf, on the grounds that the teenager was too emotionally fragile to continue. But that didn't happen. When a second grand jury convened to investigate Sandusky, Fisher testified by reading a written statement about his alleged abuse.


    In 2013, the university paid Fisher, whose lawyer, Andrew Shubin, did not respond to requests for comment, a confidential settlement of $7.5 million.

    In 2016, Gillum also began counseling Glenn Neff, another alleged victim, who, according to Neff's claim of abuse, "will be seen in psychotherapy with Michael Gillum, M.A., for the foreseeable future."



    image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z358-nM9_Nk/Wz4GxpyFg3I/AAAAAAAAFoE/fgcXr0Ty2q842OpejBQ9Aj25XmZ36FZSACK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-05%2Bat%2B7.47.59%2BAM.png

    Pendergrast says there’s nothing scientific about the claim that people can repress memories of traumatic events.

    “Everything we know about the science of memory shows that the things that we remember the best are the most traumatic events that happen to us." The problem people have with traumatic memories, Pendergrast said, is they can’t forget them.

    “That’s what PTSD is,” Pendergrast said, referring to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. “There’s no convincing evidence whatsoever that people can forget years of traumatic events.”


    But at the Sandusky trial, the prosecution presented repressed memory theory as fact. Before calling his witnesses, the prosecutor, Joseph McGettigan, told the jury that he would have to “press these young men for the details of their victimization,” because “they don’t want to remember.” That’s why the investigation was slow,” McGettigan said, because “the doors of people’s minds” were closed.


    After a jury found Sandusky guilty, then Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly held a press conference outside the courthouse.

    About the alleged victims, Kelly said, “It was incredibly difficult for some of them to unearth long-buried memories of the shocking abuse they suffered at the hands of this defendant.”

    No Credible Scientific Support

    Another critic of recovered memory therapy is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the world’s foremost experts on the malleability of human memory. Loftus, who testified at a hearing on behalf of Sandusky’s unsuccessful bid for a new trial, has given lectures to the Secret Service and FBI; she also has a contract to work for the CIA





    On May 11, 2017, testifying by phone, Loftus told Judge John Foradora, “There is no credible scientific support for this idea of massive repression." Nor is there any credible support, she added, for the idea that “you need psychotherapy to dig it out, and you can reliably recover these memories . . . in order to heal yourself.” In many jurisdictions, she told the judge, cases involving repressed memories have been thrown out of court.


    She wasn’t alone in her critique; another expert witness cited in Sandusky’s appeal, Harvard psychologist Richard McNally, described repressed memory theory as “psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing empirical support.”


    image: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rTK9JTlfwmY/WzvSoml2k4I/AAAAAAAAFmI/8nDUA7A4nmkI_1TGnJf80SEJWFFBho97QCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-03%2Bat%2B3.46.14%2BPM.png
    Human memory “doesn’t work like a recording device” that can simply be played back at a later date, Loftus told the judge. Memories evolve over time and can be distorted or contaminated with suggestive and leading questioning. Her experiments have also shown that people can be talked into believing things that aren’t true.

    “You can plant entirely false memories in the minds of people for events that never happened,” she explained. And once those false memories are planted, she told the judge, people will relate those memories as if they were true, “complete with high levels of detail and emotion.”


    In her experiments, Loftus said, “We have successfully convinced ordinary, otherwise healthy people, that they were lost in the shopping mall” when they were five- or six-years-old, “that they were frightened, cried and had to be rescued by an elderly person and reunited with the family.” Other researchers have planted false memories about being “nearly drowned” as a child, and “rescued by a lifeguard,” she testified. People have been convinced that they were “attacked by a vicious animal,” Loftus added, or that they committed a serious crime as a teenager.


    During the appeal hearing, Loftus said, “It seems pretty evident that there were drastic changes in the testimony of some of the [Sandusky] accusers.” One reason for those changes, she testified, was the “highly suggestive” way police and psychotherapists interviewed them.

    Rap Sheets


    While Penn State was paying out claims, the university didn't run background checks on the alleged victims. If they had, university officials would have discovered that 12 of the 36 claimants had criminal records, which experts such as former FBI Agent Rossiter say should have only increased suspicions about credibility.


    At Penn State, the alleged victim with the most extensive criminal record is Ryan Rittmeyer, represented by Joel J. Feller, who did not respond to a request for comment.

    On November 29, 2011, Rittmeyer called the Pennsylvania state attorney general’s sex abuse hotline; he subsequently became Victim “No. 10” in the Sandusky case.

    Rittmeyer’s rap sheet features 17 arrests from 2005 to 2016. They include arrests for reckless endangerment [he pled guilty and was sent to prison for 60 days], theft by deception and false impression [he pled guilty and got six months in jail and two years probation], receiving stolen property, a second count of theft by deception and false impression [he pled guilty and was put on probation for a year], criminal solicitation and robbery to inflict or threaten immediate bodily harm [he pled guilty and went to jail for 21 months] simple assault, and possession of a firearm [he pled guilty, went to jail for six months, and was put on probation for one year].


    After he called the sex abuse hotline, Rittmeyer told the cops that Sandusky had groped him at a swimming pool and then attempted to have oral sex while driving him around in a silver convertible. Sandusky supposedly told Rittmeyer that if he didn’t submit, he would never see his family again.


    image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HPNkpwMYVrU/Wz0c567GCxI/AAAAAAAAFnM/Wxo48t42N38TCBBq1i6JAHEhF-gzKqaFgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-04%2Bat%2B3.14.47%2BPM.png

    On December 5, 2011, Rittmeyer testified before the grand jury, and changed his story to claim he saw Sandusky once or twice a month during 1997, 1998, and part of 1999, and that something sexual occurred almost every time. He claimed that he and Sandusky usually engaged in oral sex.


    The problems with Rittmeyer’s story start with the car.

    “Jerry Sandusky never owned a silver convertible,” said Dick Anderson, a retired coach who was a colleague of Sandusky’s for decades on the Penn State coaching staff, and has known Sandusky since 1962, when they were Nittany Lions teammates. “He drove Fords or Hondas.”


    Another retired assistant coach who was a colleague of Sandusky’s, Booker Brooks, said that when he first heard about the convertible, “I laughed out loud.” Because nobody on the coaching staff drove a convertible, Brooks says.

    Assistant coaches drove cars donated by local dealers, Brooks said. That’s because they had to pick up star high school recruits at airports, as well as their families. The cars the assistant coaches drove, Brooks said, needed to have four doors and a big trunk for luggage.


    In spite of his lengthy criminal record and his questionable claim, Penn State didn’t subject Rittmeyer to a deposition with a lawyer, or an evaluation from a psychiatrist. Instead, after reviewing the paperwork for his claim, the university in 2013 paid Rittmeyer, 26, of Ellicott City, MD, $5.5 million.

    The Grooming Process

    According to records of the claims, Zachary Konstas, the 11 year-old boy who took a shower with Sandusky back in 1998, was of the few claimants who was actually deposed. On June 18, 2015, Konstas was videotaped during a deposition he gave in a civil case, John Doe 6 v. Penn State, The Second Mile and Gerald Sandusky.

    It was Konstas's mother who was the first person to complain to authorities after she found out that her son had taken a shower with Sandusky. When questioned by police, Sandusky admitted that he had given the boy a bear-hug in the shower, and lifted him up to the shower head so he could wash shampoo out of his hair, but he denied any sexual abuse, as did Konstas.

    Various authorities came to the same conclusion. After an investigation by the Penn State police, the Centre County District Attorney and a psychologist and investigator on behalf of the county’s Children and Youth Services, no evidence of sex abuse was found.


    The psychologist who interviewed the boy for an hour wrote, “The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach.” The psychologist, who interviewed several high school and college football coaches, wrote that it was “not uncommon for them to shower with their players.”


    Konstas subsequently hired a lawyer and entered psychotherapy. He then contended that although Sandusky had never abused him, he was “grooming” him for future abuse. At Sandusky’s 2012 trial, Konstas testified that in addition to lifting him up to the showerhead to wash the shampoo out of his hair, Sandusky had slowly lathered him up with soap; Konstas also claimed that when Sandusky lifted him up he had “blacked out,” and could not remember whatever else might have happened.


    After Sandusky was convicted, Konstas, 29, of Colorado Springs, CO sued Penn State in the civil courts claiming he had been abused.


    In his civil claim, Konstas alleged that Sandusky used Penn State's showers to create "his own personal peep show" starring the 11-year-old boy as the victim. And that during the shower, Sandusky, playing "The Tickle Monster," used the tickling "as a pretense to put his hands over [Konstas's] adolescent body."


    In 2015, Konstas collected a confidential settlement of $1.5 million.


    But the university didn't say yes to all the claimants. Three claims were rejected, for unspecified reasons.

    One of those rejected claims was filed by by an inmate. Shamont Sapp, 49, acting as his own lawyer claimed that from 1978 to 1984, Sandusky took him along on trips where he met with the commissioner of the Big 8 conference in St. Louis, attended Celtics games in Boston, and visited the home of the late former PSU President John Oswald.

    Sapp also claimed that Sandusky frequently paid him for sex with Sandusky and other men, including former Centre County D.A. Ray Gricar, who disappeared in 2005 and was subsequently declared dead.

    Sapp, who in his claim explained that he didn't testify at Sandusky's trial because he "was in prison in Oklahoma at the time," pled guilty to assault in 1999, and pled guilty to theft by deception in 2015.

    In a letter to a judge, Sapp made some more allegations, claiming that he spoke to PSU President Spanier on the phone in 2011 and told him he had been sexually assaulted by Sandusky, and that Spanier called him a liar. In the same letter, Sapp claimed that "Joe Paterno caught us once in Sandusky's office naked from the waist down."

    But not even Penn State was willing to grant a settlement from a guy who was filing his claim from jail, because they rejected Sapp's claim.

    "It Just Doesn't Make Common Sense"


    Some of the newer civil claims filed against Sandusky and Penn State reached the furthest back in time; they are also among the most improbable.


    Michael Quinn, “John Doe 150,” was represented by Slade McLaughlin, who represented “Billy Doe” in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse scandal, as well as 11 other alleged victims at Penn State.


    In the Philadelphia case, “Billy Doe,” whose real name is Danny Gallagher, claimed to have been repeatedly raped when he was a 10 and 11-year-old altar boy by two priests and a Catholic school teacher. He collected $5 million in a civil settlement with the Philadelphia archdiocese, but his story has since been shredded by a retired Philadelphia police detective who was the lead investigator on the case.

    Retired Detective Joe Walsh testified and wrote in a 12-page affidavit that he repeatedly caught Gallagher in one lie after another, and that Gallagher even admitted to the detective that he “just made up stuff and told them anything.”

    But at least Gallagher had to work for his money. In his civil case against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Gallagher was examined extensively by two forensic psychiatrists, who found him non-credible. Gallagher also had to submit to two full days of depositions, where he handled all the factual contradictions in his many changing stories of abuse by claiming he didn't remember more than 130 times.

    Gallagher's lawyer also claims that Gallagher passed a polygraph test. But when asked for proof, the lawyer has repeatedly declined to share the results of the test, which is not admissible in court.

    A problem for the archdiocese, however, was that Gallagher's civil case was slated to go to trial the month before Pope Francis was scheduled to visit Philadelphia for a historic visit in September 2015. Church officials, who had been skeptical of Gallagher's claims, subsequently decided to settle the case and pay the former altar boy $5 million.


    In the Penn State case, Quinn -- "John Doe 150" -- claimed that when he was in ninth grade, he attended a summer camp on the Penn State campus sponsored by The Second Mile. At that camp, Sandusky, whom Quinn had never met, supposedly came up to him in the shower and without even saying hello, soaped him up, and stuck his finger in the boy’s anus.

    Here, the story takes a couple of incredulous turns.


    In his claim against Penn State, Quinn asserted that as a ninth grader, he had the gumption to immediately tell several Penn State football players about what Sandusky had supposedly done to him.

    Even more incredibly, Quinn claimed that the next day, he tracked down legendary Coach Paterno in a hallway outside the coach’s office and supposedly confronted Paterno about what Sandusky had allegedly done to him.

    According to Quinn's claim, Paterno allegedly replied, “I don’t want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about.”


    image: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WTcrESwM7ac/WzvSKKc2jpI/AAAAAAAAFl8/fHTHOoMXCFsv9NoO1Sw5h1TX57VItZcLgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-07-03%2Bat%2B3.43.46%2BPM.png
    The coach, of course, was dead and couldn't defend himself. But some Paterno loyalists bristle at Quinn's claim.

    When he first heard the details of Quinn’s allegations, Franco Harris, a Penn State star from the 1970s, and an NFL Hall-of-Famer, told reporter John Ziegler that Quinn’s story about allegedly tracking down and confronting Paterno was “unbelievable . . . It just doesn’t make common sense.”


    It didn’t matter. Even though his claim was decades past the statute of limitations, which in Pennsylvania, for victims of sex abuse, is age 30, on Sept. 12, 2013, Quinn, 56, of Plains, PA, was paid a confidential settlement by Penn State of $300,000.

    Quinn's lawyer, Slade McLaughlin, who also represented Glenn Neff, continues to defend his clients.

    "All of my Penn State clients were solid people, and told the truth as far I know," McLaughlin wrote in an email. "If I had reason to disbelieve a client's story, I either rejected the case or had the client undergo a lie detector test. Not that facts like that matter to a so-called journalist like you. . . . You are a low life, bottom of the pit scumbag . . ."


    A year after Quinn got paid, he was called as a witness to testify on Oct 13, 2014, in the civil case where Penn State’s insurance carrier sued the university.


    “Have you ever been interviewed by anybody from Penn State regarding your claim,” asked lawyer Steven J. Engelmyer, on behalf of the university's insurance carrier.


    “No,” Quinn replied.



    Read more at http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/08/easy...z71oBwByUKJ.99
    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
  •