FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again

GulfCoastLion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 14, 2002
5,852
3,401
1
Houston, TX
ESPN again?




Remember, 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 about the internal review of the source materials for 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 more than two years remains privileged and confidential, and out of reach of the public.

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. They don't want to reveal to the public the facts that the university has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep buried for the past six years. Facts that will present further evidence of just how badly the trustees, Louie Freeh, and the attorney general's office thoroughly botched the Penn State investigation in a rush to judgment. Not to mention the media.

The full board of trustees, Pope noted 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 internal review dated Jan. 8, 2017, plus an attached 25-page synopsis of evidence gleaned from those confidential files 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.

There's more: "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.

In 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 they weren't tape-recorded, the executive summary states. Those faulty methods led to "biased reporting of interview 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 was authorized to have access to grand jury secrets in Pennsylvania. He declined comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope addressed this topic, saying, "additional information has emerged in the public domain indicates cooperation between the PA Office of Attorney General and Freeh. We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the Office of Attorney General."

Yesterday, Freeh issued a statement that ripped the minority trustees. "Since 2015," he wrote, "these misguided alumni have been fighting a rear-guard action to turn the clocks back and to resist the positive changes which the PSU students and faculty have fully embraced." He concluded that despite consistent criticism of his report by the minority trustees, in the last six years, they have produced "no report, no facts, news and no credible evidence" that have damaged the credibility of his investigation.

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 lacked legal standing. But the NCAA justified its intervention in the case by finding that a lack of institutional control on the part of Penn State enabled 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 did not respond to a request for comment.

At yesterday's board meeting, Pope said the "NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them from punishing Penn State," but that the "NCAA decided to punish Penn State anyway in order to enhance its own reputation." She added that documents made public to date show that the "NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh investigation."

"We believed it was important to understand the degree of cooperation between the Freeh investigation and the NCAA."

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. The federal investigation, made public last year, but completely ignored by the mainstream media, 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 led to polar 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. Snedden also interviewed many other witnesses on the Penn State campus, including Cynthia Baldwin, who told him that Spanier was a "man of integrity."

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

Baldwin, who had previously represented Spanier, Curley and Schultz before the grand jury, testified last month before the disciplinary board of the state Supreme Court, where she has been brought up on misconduct charges for allegedly 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 told Big Trial last year.

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

That, my friends, is what we call prosecutorial misconduct of the intentional kind, the kind that springs convicted murderers out of a Death Row jail cell. And it's a scandal that for six years, the attorney general's office has refused to address, a scandal that the mainstream media has failed to hold the AG accountable for.

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 of the shower rape has never came forward, despite an avalanche of publicity, and, according to the prosecutors, his identity was known "only to God." But McQueary knew the prosecutors weren't telling the truth. 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 that the grand jury presentment claimed that McQueary had reported to them "what he had seen," the alleged anal rape of a 10-year-old boy [plus another witness cited by McQueary, a doctor who was a longtime family friend] have all repeatedly denied in court that McQueary ever told them that he witnessed an anal rape.
"I've never had a rape case successfully prosecuted based only on sounds, and without credible victims and witnesses," Snedden told Big Trial. As for the Freeh Report, Snedden described it as "an embarrassment to law enforcement."

Snedden also told Big Trial that the real cause behind the Penn State scandal was
"a political hit job" engineered by former attorney general and Gov. Tom Corbett, who had it in for Spanier, after they feuded over drastic budget cuts proposed by the governor at Penn State. Corbett has previously denied the charges.

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

Freeh concluded that there had been a cover up. His report 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, requiring several operations as an adult. Freeh also 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 sweeping 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 2002: “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 of his report, 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 2002 shower incident witnessed by McQueary, an incident that the prosecutors subsequently decided really happened in 2001. 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 or 2002 shower incident, he described it as horseplay.

Also, an earlier 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and another boy, referred to by Freeh, was also investigated by multiple authorities, who found no crime, nor any evidence of sex abuse.
Freeh, however, claimed that a trio of college administrators should have caught an alleged serial pedophile who, in that 1998 shower incident, had already been cleared by the Penn State police, the Centre County District Attorney, as well as a psychologist and an investigator from Centre County’s Department of Children and Youth Services. To buy into the conclusions of the Freeh Report, you’d also have to believe that Penn State’s top officials were dumb enough to plot a cover up on the university’s own computers.

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 repeatedly 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."

At yesterday's board of trustees meeting, however, trustee Pope, cited public criticisms of the Freeh Report that included:

-- "On a foundation of scant evidence, the [Freeh] report adds layers of conjecture and supposition to create a portrait of fault, complicity and malfeasance that could well be at odds with the truth . . . [As] scientists and scholars, we can say with conviction that the Freeh Report fails on hits own merits as the indictment of the university that some have taken it to be. Evidence that would compel such an indictment is simply not there." -- A group of 30 past chairs of the Penn State faculty.

-- "The Freeh Report was not useful and created an 'absurd' and 'unwarranted' portrait of the University. There's no doubt in my mind, Freeh steered everything as if he were a prosecutor trying to convince a court to take the case." -- Penn State President Eric Barron.

-- "On Nov. 9th, 2011, I and my fellow Trustees, voted to fire Joe Paterno in a hastily called meeting. We had little advance notice or opportunity to discuss and consider the complex issues we faced. After 61 years of exemplary service, Coach Paterno was given no chance to respond. That was a mistake. I will always regret that my name is attached to that rush to injustice."

"Hiring Louis Freeh and the tacit acceptance of his questionable conclusions, without review, along with his broad criticism of our Penn State culture was yet another mistake. . . Those who believe we can move on without due process for all who have been damaged by unsupported accusations are not acting in Penn State's best interest . . . We have the opportunity to move forward united inner commitment to truth. I urge all who love Penn State's name to fight on." -- Resignation speech of former 18-year trustee Alvin Clemens.

-- "Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.

-- "Clearly the more we dig into this, the more troubling it gets. There clearly is a significant amount of communication between Freeh and the NCAA that goes way beyond merely providing information. I'd call int coordination . . . Cleary, Freeh was way past his mandate. He was the enforcement person for the NCAA. That's what it looks like. I don't know how you can look at it any other way. It's almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State. At a minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties working together to get an outcome that was predetermined."-- State Senate majority leader Jake Corman.

In summation, Pope said, "Some have said that the university's interests are best served by putting this unfortunate chapter behind us. We think differently. We believe that the only way to move forward is from a solid foundation based on an honest appraisal of our history. How can we create effective solutions if we might be working with a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems involved?"

"Our review, which took nearly two and a half years to complete, was a serious and thorough effort," Pope said. "We look forward with sharing the results of our analysis of the Freeh Report's source material without colleagues on the board at our meeting in July."

Bob Costas perhaps summed it up best from a media standpoint, but even he was very careful not to potentially appear to exonerate, or support Paterno too much. Way too political and the narrative was deeply established throughout

“Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
First, how does any of that relate to Paterno? He was told of a watered-down story
Based on his own testimony Joe was told by MM that he (MM) saw Sandusky doing something "sexually inappropriate" with a child in that shower. That is CSA.
and reported it to his boss and someone outside the vertical and got out of the way.
Except when he got back into it when it was time to decide whether to report Sandusky to DPW.
There is no evidence he interfered in any way other than to ask MM if he was OK days later.
He participated in the decision not to report Sandusky
Second, by the time C/S got the data, it was too late. There was no way to know who the kid was from JS or the second mile. What were they supposed to do?
Call the police
I do agree they underperformed.
That's an understatement. They went to jail for their "underperformance"
But that is easy to say in hindsight. They, perhaps, dragged their feet but that is a far cry from actively coving up. And that is why all the charges were dropped (after the prosecution tortured them for five years) and settled on a misdemeanor.
For which they went to jail
Back to MM, he "convinced" juries based on the volume of claims, not his alone. For example, if Deshawn Watson. If there was one accuser, nobody would care. But with 22 accusers, the idea is that something must have happened to make 22 accusers. MM never convinced a single person his story was true by itself. The prosecution even stated this....that the value was in getting several stories that we unconnected and disassociated.
This is typical for prosecuting Pillars of the Community. It takes a lot to get them.
If anyone is to blame, it is TSM. After them, it is the police that never connected the dots.
They weren't told anything actionable. They didn't know about 1998 either.
MM is not believable, IMHO. he walked out on a kid being raped by an adult as a 26-year-old football player/coach? C'mon.
By one of the most beloved figures in the PSU family. You wouldn't have done any differently. MM was freaked out not so much by what he saw but WHO he saw doing it.
If he wasn't trustworthy enough to intervene for a kid being raped, how trustworthy is his story? IMHO, he either a) walked away from a kid being raped by an adult or b) embellished his story to make him seem like he wasn't a total loser. You chose. It has to be one of those two options.
I chose that he saw a beloved figure molesting a young boy and freaked. Maybe not sterling but understandable given MM's position at that time.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
I can't take him seriously because he is unwilling and unable to counter the conclusions of John Snedden, Mark Pendergrast, John Ziegler, Ralph Cipriano, Professor Fred Crews, Professor Michael Bailey, Malcolm Gladwell, Dick Anderson and a host of others without resorting to character assasinations.
I have countered them. Their narrative is not believable.
Their conclusions are very credible
Not at all
and have been adopted by thousands who have been willing to take a deep dive on this topic
Like the thousands that believe the CIA killed JFK and Area 51 loons who at one time planned to storm the facility to find the aliens.
On the other hand, former NCIS Special Agent of the year John Snedden is spot on with his assessment that it is in fact Mike McQueary who is clearly not a very credible witness.
Did Snedden even talk to MM?
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Bob Costas perhaps summed it up best from a media standpoint, but even he was very careful not to potentially appear to exonerate, or support Paterno too much. Way too political and the narrative was deeply established throughout
Bob Costas thinks Paterno was negligent and told Ziegler that.
“Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.
The motivations are reasonable.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,482
54,572
1
Bob Costas perhaps summed it up best from a media standpoint, but even he was very careful not to potentially appear to exonerate, or support Paterno too much. Way too political and the narrative was deeply established throughout

“Louis Freeh . . . assigned motivations to people, including Paterno, which at best were unknowable, and at worst might have been irresponsible." -- reporter Bob Costas.
yeah...nobody is going to
Based on his own testimony Joe was told by MM that he (MM) saw Sandusky doing something "sexually inappropriate" with a child in that shower. That is CSA.

Except when he got back into it when it was time to decide whether to report Sandusky to DPW.

He participated in the decision not to report Sandusky

Call the police

That's an understatement. They went to jail for their "underperformance"

For which they went to jail

This is typical for prosecuting Pillars of the Community. It takes a lot to get them.

They weren't told anything actionable. They didn't know about 1998 either.

By one of the most beloved figures in the PSU family. You wouldn't have done any differently. MM was freaked out not so much by what he saw but WHO he saw doing it.

I chose that he saw a beloved figure molesting a young boy and freaked. Maybe not sterling but understandable given MM's position at that time.
you lie like a rug. Paterno did exactly what he should have: reported it to his boss and Schulz, whose office described him as "head of campus police". I am not going to read the rest of your BS. I only needed to read the first BS line
 

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,041
3,495
1
Finally, Eschbach did not muzzle MM. ALL prosecutors will always ask their witnesses to refrain from talking to the media as it could create bias in the public view and jeopardize the case (that happened in the OJ murders). She could not and did NOT TELL MM (or threaten him) not to say anything but urged him not to and that is quite normal for the reasons stated.
Esbach to McQ: I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't


1. She knew it was false but allowed it to go anyway. By definition that is dishonest and a lie.
2. Further, she told McQ that he cannot respond and speak out about it. She didnt urge. She stated overtly that he could not say anything. He had no idea that he was permitted to correct the record.

Ask 1,000,000 people what that statement from Esbach says and what it means and at least 999,999 or more will certainly see it different than you mr fina. I'm sure the bourbon and blues guy would even agree.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
yeah...nobody is going to

you lie like a rug. Paterno did exactly what he should have: reported it to his boss and Schulz, whose office described him as "head of campus police". I am not going to read the rest of your BS. I only needed to read the first BS line
Idolatry
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Esbach to McQ: I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond," Eshbach emailed McQueary. "But you can't


1. She knew it was false but allowed it to go anyway. By definition that is dishonest and a lie.
Nope. Incorrect does not mean lie it means a mistake. Anyway, A GJP is superseded by a trial where Sandusky was acquitted of that charge but found guilty of others regarding Victim 2. MM told the OAG he though it was anal sodomy.
2. Further, she told McQ that he cannot respond and speak out about it. She didnt urge. She stated overtly that he could not say anything.
Explained earlier and she had no power to make him be quiet. Notice lack of threat if he disobeyed.
He had no idea that he was permitted to correct the record.
Sure he did.
Ask 1,000,000 people what that statement from Esbach says and what it means and at least 999,999 or more will certainly see it different than you mr fina.
I'm not Fina LOL but you mean 999,999 Joebots would read it that way but unfortunately for you there aren't that many. BTW answer the question why she wasn't charged by either the OAG or the PA Bar for prosecutorial misconduct? They definitely went after your buddy Fina. Still quiet about that aren't you? LOL
I'm sure the bourbon and blues guy would even agree.
Ask him
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,058
362
1
Haven't read the entire stream, don't intend to. Whatever happened at PSU was committed by a former coach and non-employee, that is not the case at Michigan and Ohio State. If only PSU had strong non Paterno hating administration, money would have been paid and no never-ending publicity. They could have let the man retire with honor.

Agh!

The trustees ripped the Freeh Report for its "flawed methodology & conclusions," as well as Louis Freeh himself, for not disclosing a personal conflict of interest.

The internal review, the preliminary contents of which were posted on Big Trial last June, had been the subject of a nine-month cover up by the majority of the board of trustees at Penn State, led by PSU board president Mark Dambly. He's a shady character who in his younger days got mixed up in a multimillion dollar cocaine ring but beat the rap by wearing a wire. Under Dambly's "leadership," the Penn State trustees have been ardently stonewalling, refusing to release the final version of the internal review of the Freeh Report, so they can continue to cover up their own corruption and failures.

"It's a document Penn State doesn't want you to see,"the WJAC anchorman told his audience before introducing Sinderson. "Penn State has kept it under wraps," Sinderson agreed. Then, to officially end the cover up, WJAC-TV promptly posted the entire 113-page report online.

The Freeh Report was supposed to be an independent investigation into what happened at Penn State. But, the seven trustees wrote, "the NCAA was closely involved with the Freeh investigation; the NCAA knew that their own rules prevented them from punishing Penn State, and the NCAA decided to punish Penn State in order to enhance its own reputation."

The NCAA used the Freeh Report to justify draconian sanctions against Penn State, including a $60 million fine, a four-year bowl game ban, the loss of 40 athletic scholarships, and the vacating of 111 Joe Paterno wins.

In their report, the seven trustees note that an independent federal investigation done by former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden, another Big Trial scoop, came to the opposite conclusion that Freeh did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.

Why did Snedden come to that conclusion? Because during a six-month confidential investigation done on the Penn State campus back in 2012, an investigation that was subsequently revealed in 2017, Snedden determined that Mike McQueary's story about witnessing Jerry Sandusky allegedly raping a 10-year-old boy in the showers, made no sense, and that McQueary wasn't a credible witness.

Another big fact that supports Snedden's conclusion: after two decades, no alleged victim of the shower rape has ever come forward, despite an avalanche of publicity and the certainty of a multimillion dollar payout from the overly generous trustees at Penn State. The identity of the victim, the prosecutors claimed at trial, was "known only to God."

Without a victim and a credible witness the infamous rape in the showers never happened. It's the work of fiction writers in the attorney general's office who, according to McQueary himself, "twisted" his words about "whatever it was" he actually saw in the shower. Even McQueary doesn't know what he saw nearly 20 years ago.

In their review of the Freeh Report, the seven trustees, who pored over thousands of pages of confidential documents, came to the same conclusion that Snedden did, that there was no official cover up at Penn State.

"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz knew that Sandusky had harmed children," the trustees wrote.

"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Penn State's culture was responsible for allowing Sandusky to harm children." The trustees also concluded that the alleged "independence of the Freeh Report appears to have been fatally compromised by Louis Freeh's collaboration with three interested parties -- the NCAA, Governor [Tom] Corbett and his Office of Attorney General, and members of the Penn State Board of Trustees."

"The NCAA, Governor Corbett, and the Penn State Board of Trustees appear to have had their own conflicts of interest that influenced the unsupported conclusions of the Freeh Report," the trustees wrote. They also ripped Freeh for his having his own undisclosed conflict of interest, namely a stated desire to use the Penn State investigation as a step ladder on his way to becoming the "go-to investigators" for the scandal-plagued NCAA.

The Freeh Report, the trustees found, was "rife with investigative and reporting flaws." Freeh's investigators were biased, used "unreliable methods of conducting and analyzing interviews, [and] failed to interview most of the individuals with direct knowledge of the events under investigation." Such as Joe Paterno, Sandusky, McQueary, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz.

Freeh also supplied "motivations and casual factors supported only by speculation and conjecture,"the trustees wrote. They accused Freeh of cherry-picking facts and "withholding the vast majority of investigative findings, which were contrary to the report's conclusions."

The trustees also concluded that Freeh failed in is obligation to conduct an "independent and comprehensive investigation;" they formally repudiated Freeh's conclusions as "unsupported by the investigative data."

The Freeh Report, the seven trustees concluded, has caused "grievous harm to the university," "profound repetitional damage," and has cost the university to date more than $300 million.
The trustees have publicly suggested that the university cut its losses by going after Freeh to recoup the $8.3 million paid to him.

The seven trustees also found that the full Penn State Board of Trustees breached their fiduciary duty "resulting in harm to the university" by "failing to formally review or evaluate the Freeh Report," and failing to vote to either accept or reject it.

Now that's pure cowardice. But it's only the start of the problems.

The trustees, as Big Trial reported, also failed in their fiduciary duty to vet the stories told by 36 alleged victims, who were paid a total of $118 million, an average of $3.3 million each, without the university asking any questions.

No depositions by lawyers, no personal interviews with psychiatrists or trained investigators, no lie detector tests. Almost all of the alleged victims in the case didn't even have to publicly state their real names. How's that for easy money?

The seven trustees who wrote their internal review also ripped Freeh for faulty methadology.

When Freeh interviewed more than 400 witnesses, the trustees found, the interviews weren't tape-recorded, or authenticated by the witnesses. In addition, multiple witnesses complained of "coercive tactics" employed by Freeh's investigators, the trustees wrote.

Freeh's investigators shouted at and insulted witnesses. They also demanded specific information such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids." One witness stated he was fired for not telling Freeh's investigators the story they were demanding.

Freeh's investigators were also routinely talking to prosecutors in the attorney general's office such as Frank Fina, whose brazen leaking of grand jury secrets was another story broken by Big Trial. According to the seven trustees at Penn State, Fina was routinely supplying Freeh's investigators with secret grand jury transcripts.

And Anthony Sassano, the AG's lead investigator, was supplying Freeh with documents obtained from Sandusky's house through search warrants. As well as an AG interview with the son of a Penn State trustee who supposedly could provide information about "Sandusky showering with boys."

It was a real "cozy relationship" between Freeh's investigators and the state attorney general's office, the trustees charge, a relationship that tainted both probes since Freeh and his team were not authorized to be privy to any grand jury secrets.

Last year, I actually got a chance to ask Louis Freeh, through a spokesperson, to explain how he was authorized to access grand jury secrets. In a telling exchange, he declined comment.

But Freeh was clearly playing follow the leader.

Early on in his probe, in February 2012, Freeh emailed his team saying, "We should try to make sure the [grand jury] is not onto something new . . . which totally 'scoops' us."

Meanwhile, Freeh allegedly was also taking direction in his investigation from certain Penn State trustees such as Keith Masser, the vice chair. Masser told the Associated Press, before any investigation had been conducted, that he was convinced that there had been an official cover up at Penn State. The same conclusion was subsequently reached by Freeh, at the direction of trustees like Masser, the internal review stated.

Ken Frazier, the chairman of the Penn State board of trustees, also sent Freeh an ESPN story which claimed that Sandusky wasn't stopped earlier "because no one dared challenge the power of Penn State and Paterno, no one dared challenge the legacy of the football powerhouse and the great man himself."

"I happened to find this ESPN piece by Howard Bryant well written and well reasoned," Frazier wrote Freeh. "It focuses on the larger lessons to be learned from excessive respect for 'icons' [Coach Paterno and PS football.]"

Freeh dutifully sent along the story to his underlings, adding in an email and adding that "many people" were expecting his investigation to explain why the failure to report sex abuse at Penn State was because of "the desire to protect Paterno and the [football] program."

That opinion found its way into the Freeh Report, even though in an internal email, Freeh told one of his investigators that the allegation that Penn State was out to protect Paterno and the football team was "never really articulated in any evidence I have seen."

But Freeh wasn't going to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

In his report, Freeh wrote that Sandusky was allowed to continue abusing children because of Penn Sate's "culture of reverence for the football program." Instead of searching for facts, the Freeh Report became an echo chamber for the prejudices of certain trustees, and the media-driven narrative on the evils of Paterno and his highly-successful football program.

"Our university paid $8.3 million for an 'independent investigation' that was neither independent nor a fair and though investigation," the trustees concluded.

It was the end of a long journey for the seven minority trustees, who had to go to court in 2015 to sue their own university to gain access to the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report. Along the way, the trustees had to spend about $500,000 of their own money before a judge in 2016 approved reimbursement.

The trustees were granted access to review the so-called source materials that are still under a confidentiality seal from a Common Pleas Court judge. But as somebody who's read hundreds of pages of that stuff, there's nothing in there that should be marked confidential.

All of it should be revealed to the public, which has lingering and well-placed doubts about what happened at Penn State. The only people with a motive to continue the cover up are people who are trying to cover up proof of their own incompetence, breach of duties, and stunning ineptitude.

The fallout from the internal review: the official narrative of the Penn State scandal is a house of cards in the process of tumbling down.

To be fair, the internal report on Freeh didn't go far enough. It doesn't state an opinion on whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent, or whether he was railroaded, and deserves a new trial because of a botched prosecution, official conflicts of interest, the interference of politics in the criminal investigation, and pervasive media malpractice. Even though the internal review extensively quotes two of Big Trial's blog posts on former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden, and his finding of no cover up at Penn State, the internal reviews doesn't consider the implications of Snedden's other main conclusion -- that the whole rape in the showers story, as told by Mike McQueary doesn't make sense, and didn't really happen.

But the internal review on Freeh does detail so many official conflicts of interest, so much political corruption and collusion -- on the part of the NCAA, Corbett, Louis Freeh, the Penn State board of trustees and the attorney general's office -- that any fair-minded reader would have to conclude that the whole swamp at Penn State is tainted and corrupted, and we can't trust anything they told us.

What's needed now, as Snedden has repeatedly said, is the appointment of an independent federal prosecutor and a legitimate federal investigation to find out what really happened at Penn State.

But make no mistake, in a case dominated by willful leaks from the prosecution, the reform trustees have just struck back, presumably, with a big leak of their own.

It's devastating. And WJAC-TV wasn't the only beneficiary.

After nine months of stonewalling, the internal review on Louis Freeh allegedly has been mailed out to several parties. Rumor has it that even the sleepy Philadelphia Inquirer has a copy and may even write about it some day.

Or maybe not.

Sorry, but it's hard to trust that newspaper, especially when it comes to sex abuse. Big Trial has spent the past eight years unraveling a parallel sex scandal in the Philadelphia archdiocese. A scandal where a former altar boy claimed at 10 and 11 years old that he was repeatedly raped by two priests and a Catholic schoolteacher. They all went to jail in the prosecutorial crusade led by former D.A. and future criminal Rufus Seth Williams. As did Msgr. William J. Lynn, the first Catholic administrator in the country to be jailed in the nation's Catholic clergy sex scandals, not for touching a child, but for failing to adequately supervise an abusive priest.

The two Pennsylvania sex scandals both began in 2011 with grand jury reports that turned out to be works of fiction. The win scandals have amazing parallels -- Sandusky was convicted the same day as Msgr. Lynn, in two bombshells broadcast simultaneously that day on the Inquirer's front page.

Freeh's investigators also saw the twin scandals as similar in nature. In an email to Freeh, Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent who became one of Freeh's co-leaders of his investigation on Penn State, wrote, "Louie: Just wanted to reach out to you in the event that any of my experiences with the Catholic Bishops Conference would be of use to your team."

McChesney served as the executive director of the office of child and youth protection of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. She was also the editor of "Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2003-2012."

"Good luck with your investigation," McChesney wrote Freeh. "Too many sad parallels between this case and the Church."

Freeh responded by telling his staff in an email that McChesney's experience in investigating the church would come in handy at Penn State because "the church has an insularity similar to what we are seeing" at Penn State.

"It is important to note that before the investigation had begun, Freeh investigators were making assumptions about an insular culture at Penn State and making connections with the Catholic Church cover up of pedophile priests," the seven trustees note in their report.

How about that for bias and preconceived notions?


But, as Big Trial has revealed time and time again on this blog, as well as documented in two cover stories for Newsweek, the former altar boy who was at the center of the Philadelphia sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church -- Danny Gallagher AKA "Billy Doe" -- turned out to be a junkie hustler and conman who made the whole story up.

As Seth Williams' former lead detective, Joe Walsh, has come forward to document, the entire Philadelphia prosecution of the church was a knowing fraud. And Gallagher was a complete liar that Detective Walsh caught in one lie after another, until Gallagher finally admitted to the detective that he made up the whole story.

And what was the Inky's response, at the paper where they have cranked out more than 60 pro-prosecution stories and editorials always presenting Billy Doe as a legitimate victim of sex abuse -- they have never outed Gallagher or wrote one story exposing him for the fraud he is.

Even after the D.A.'s office let the schoolteacher, a convicted child rapist, out of jail nearly a dozen years early, because of Walsh's testimony about prosecutorial misconduct. How often does that happen?

As I said before, it's hard to trust that newspaper; especially when it comes to sex abuse. With the Inky that topic is always black and white. The victims are anonymous and always 100 percent pure. And the perps, who are hung in the public square, are always 100 percent guilty.

The deeper problem at the Inky is that the newspaper has always been pro-prosecution. At the moment, too many Inky reporters are tied up tied up handling all the latest prosecution leaks in the newest federal corruption case against Philadelphia labor leader "Johnny Doc" Dougherty.

The idea, of course, is convict Johnny Doc in the court of public opinion before he ever goes to trial, and taint yet another jury pool.

It's just the kind of thing that the prosecutors at Penn Stated used to love to do, leak, leak, leak. Especially through a certain friendly and cooperative 23-year-old reporter at the Patriot-News who wound up with a Pulitzer for essentially being a dupe for a completely phony story line.

Maybe it's time to give that Pulitzer back. Because at Penn State, the prosecutors -- as well as their accomplices in the media -- not only blew the big story but also the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joeaubie21

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
Why is police brutality the problem of Donald Trump? The feds have zero to do with the police. Why do most Americans still think two hookers peed on DT? So, let me tell you why: The media deems it so.

The media made a lot tying JVP to a pedo story. Anyone who gets in the way of that will get destroyed. Just watch the media go after Elon Musk, perhaps the greatest person on the planet in terms of advancing worldwide society.

Nobody is going to risk their careers because they will be destroyed. Having said that, we had the former CEO of Nike and Franco come out. Others did, as well, just not as visibly.
Where am I talking about police brutality? Again you’re reaching in a pretty irrational manner,
Why is police brutality the problem of Donald Trump? The feds have zero to do with the police. Why do most Americans still think two hookers peed on DT? So, let me tell you why: The media deems it so.

The media made a lot tying JVP to a pedo story. Anyone who gets in the way of that will get destroyed. Just watch the media go after Elon Musk, perhaps the greatest person on the planet in terms of advancing worldwide society.

Nobody is going to risk their careers because they will be destroyed. Having said that, we had the former CEO of Nike and Franco come out. Others did, as well, just not as visibly.
Where the F am I talking about police brutality? And as for the risk their careers , you’re right . Because those close to the incident know what really happened and there’s no defending. Clarifying the issue are going deeper into will not change the narrative .
Because the narrative is true . They rigged 1998 so they couldn’t play 2002 straight up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Where am I talking about police brutality? Again you’re reaching in a pretty irrational manner,

Where the F am I talking about police brutality? And as for the risk their careers , you’re right . Because those close to the incident know what really happened and there’s no defending. Clarifying the issue are going deeper into will not change the narrative .
Because the narrative is true . They rigged 1998 so they couldn’t play 2002 straight up.
He's high. I think a lot of times these guys post drunk or high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
He's high. I think a lot of times these guys post drunk or high.
1. Something happened.
2. It was a crime.
3. MM reported it.
4. They did nothing. They act like MM said nothing specific and well he wasn't clear, but either way we will wait 8 days to talk to Mike and well we might as well tell TSM something vague 5,6 weeks later.
Why not press Mike? Put words in his mouth and ask are you trying to say this? Get in the head of the police force and take some serious notes? CYA yourself?
I'm a dad and if my kids told me something that was potentially upsetting them to the degree that mike was supposedly upset, I'm pressing my kids. Like the old who wants to be a millionaire I'm calling a friend or expert. In my case it's my friend who was on this case. I'd let him talk to my kids with them there and see what he thinks.
So instead we had four idiots with no experience in any investigations flub it intentionally from the beginning in an attempt to perform some damage control.
If it's nothing there's no reason to fill in TSM. There was no reason to wait so long to talk to Mike unless you were slow playing it, waiting to see if a victim came forward. |the counter is they didn't think he reported it well enough.
That's not on Mike, that's on them for not looking into it well enough. They're not stupid men, but they either covered it up here or they're morons. the answer is the first choice.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Interesting thought.
I’ve thought this d!ckhead could be Fina for a while.
I wasn't actually serious about him being Fina, but how effing funny would that be?? He'd certainly have the time to do it since he doesn't have a law license anymore....LOLOLOL.

I think it is more likely he one of the old pennlive trolls, but you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Why do you F ing care what he thinks? Your a loon and he’s jerking your chain like a pro. He’s like an expert fisherman, sets the hook , and goes to town.
I don’t give a crap about what you do, you’re an obsessed weirdo chasing “truths” that don’t exist . “Truths” no one cares about. You realize this month long thread was about an ESPN special that you and others thought would somehow move public opinion and bring these “facts” to light. Nope, it will never happen.
But I bet you’ll be arguing with some guy online in 5,10 or more years saying any day now….
I care because I'm being called a liar.

Maybe you are OK with being called a liar (and worse) repeatedly over and over in a public forum. I am not and will continue to defend myself. If he stops calling me a liar (about things that don't actually matter to the case BTW), I'd be happy to go back to actually discussing the case.

Regarding the ESPN special, no one that it would be a "good" thing. We starting talking about how wrong it was before Nole caused things to go off the rails.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
You guys whole "outrage" about the "OAG lies" is nothing more than a writing mistake and nothing more.
Had the OAG corrected their "writing mistake" (hysterical that you think that) when MM objected then you might have a point. But they stuck to their guns because they knew that the wrong (intentionally wrong IMHO) wording of the presentment worked in their favor.
As I have said all along, replace anal rape with sexual molestation (which MM DID see) and the public outrage would be the same.
Speculation on your part. I strongly disagree. Molestation to most people implies "touching". No way the outrage is as high as there was with "anal rape."
The OAG should have said something like "MM observed what he believed to be anal sodomy" in the beginning narrative of Victim 2 which was indeed the truth.
But they didn't. And that wasn't an accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
No anytime somebody says something crazy like that post I figure they are high. I think you are high a lot.
By "crazy" you mean "disagrees with you." And I'm never high. I don't touch drugs.
BS Liar

Because it's stolen valor

You haven't given me one piece of proof. Sorry, faked screen shots won't get it done.
Again, tell me:

a) what you want to see electronically that you will believe. Because apparently anything I show you (even if it has a seal on it like my transcript) you will claim is photoshopped.

b) that you WILL apologize for calling me a liar and (worse) accusing me of stealing valor.
The burden is on who makes the claim. You made the claim and I called you out. You have no proof so You are a liar.
You are making the accusation, moron. If you claim I killed a guy, the onus is on you to prove that.
No the mule just laid down.
To take a nap. And crushed you underneath him.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Not once.
I thought I told you Hong Kong. I can get there pretty quick.
Tell me when and where in HK. And show me your plane ticket so I know you are serious.
Says the man who hides behind an anonymous internet handle. LOL
You are also hiding behind an internet handle, moron.
I thought I told you Hong Kong. Let me know when.
You choose. And make sure to show me your plane ticket, so I know you are serious.
Are you fighting your urges? LOL
You keep using being gay as an insult. That is definitely homophobic. You need help.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
They admitted guilt and the sanction was not rescinded as you asserted. And I can't admit when I'm wrong? LOL
They admitted guilt to try to make the scandal go away. They absolutely WERE rescinded.

That report is trash BTW
Your opinion. Most disagree and the facts support that.
Violating a rule is an infraction which you cannot have sanctions without an infraction Rooster.
A Major Infraction is a very specific thing. Violating a vague rule about ethical behavior is not a Major Infraction because it isn't listed as such.
 

AvgUser

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2016
2,041
3,495
1
I wasn't actually serious about him being Fina, but how effing funny would that be?? He'd certainly have the time to do it since he doesn't have a law license anymore....LOLOLOL.

I think it is more likely he one of the old pennlive trolls, but you never know.
I think he is a scummy lawyer of some sort. He has great disdain for Cipriano for some bizarre reason. The same for Snedden. Frankie Porn Fina would fit that bill. It’s also interesting that the asshat who claims moral superiority is content with his cohort leaking intentionally false and dishonest statements. It’s okay to him because they weren’t reprimanded. So it makes it right 🙄
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
1. Something happened.
Agreed.
2. It was a crime.
Disagree.
3. MM reported it.
He didn't report it to police, which, if it was a crime, he would have done.
4. They did nothing. They act like MM said nothing specific and well he wasn't clear, but either way we will wait 8 days to talk to Mike and well we might as well tell TSM something vague 5,6 weeks later.
They didn't "do nothing". The took action commensurate with what it was: an emeritus professor mis-using athletic facilities in a way that was concerning from a liability perspective.
Why not press Mike? Put words in his mouth and ask are you trying to say this? Get in the head of the police force and take some serious notes? CYA yourself?
They did and he didn't tell them a crime occurred. Because he didn't see a crime.
I'm a dad and if my kids told me something that was potentially upsetting them to the degree that mike was supposedly upset, I'm pressing my kids. Like the old who wants to be a millionaire I'm calling a friend or expert. In my case it's my friend who was on this case. I'd let him talk to my kids with them there and see what he thinks.
I think his dad and Dranov DID press him and he didn't tell them anything sexual. That's telling.
So instead we had four idiots with no experience in any investigations flub it intentionally from the beginning in an attempt to perform some damage control.
If MM saw a crime, he needed to go to police. He didn't see a crime, so all it was was three admins dealing with inappropriate behavior. And they handled that properly.
If it's nothing there's no reason to fill in TSM.
Sure there was. CYA for inappropriate behavior.
There was no reason to wait so long to talk to Mike unless you were slow playing it, waiting to see if a victim came forward. |the counter is they didn't think he reported it well enough.
Or it wasn't a big deal and the admins are quite busy. Recall Spanier was out of town (out of the country?) when the report occurred.
That's not on Mike, that's on them for not looking into it well enough. They're not stupid men, but they either covered it up here or they're morons. the answer is the first choice.
It's on Mike for not going to police if he saw a crime. He didn't go to the police, so either he didn't see a crime, or the entire blame falls on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
Agreed.

Disagree.

He didn't report it to police, which, if it was a crime, he would have done.

They didn't "do nothing". The took action commensurate with what it was: an emeritus professor mis-using athletic facilities in a way that was concerning from a liability perspective.

They did and he didn't tell them a crime occurred. Because he didn't see a crime.

I think his dad and Dranov DID press him and he didn't tell them anything sexual. That's telling.

If MM saw a crime, he needed to go to police. He didn't see a crime, so all it was was three admins dealing with inappropriate behavior. And they handled that properly.

Sure there was. CYA for inappropriate behavior.

Or it wasn't a big deal and the admins are quite busy. Recall Spanier was out of town (out of the country?) when the report occurred.

It's on Mike for not going to police if he saw a crime. He didn't go to the police, so either he didn't see a crime, or the entire blame falls on him.
Everything you wrote was bullshit. Again, my friend investigated these guys, they covered it up in 98 and 02 again.
Your heroes were too stupid to use the phone :

Call ChildLine at 1-800-932-0313.​

All you need was a suspicion to call to get the ball rolling.
They deliberately slow played it. Either that or they’re morons . I don’t think they’re that stupid. They just didn’t care.
Down the road someone should write a book and title it , “Profiles In Expediancy : The Penn State Story”.
 

jerot

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,058
362
1
IMO the article tries paint the picture that Paterno somehow could have stopped Hodne earlier. That seems to be crap.

I don’t know from the article that Paterno knew players were going to the preliminary hearing in support of Hodne - of course Hodne was entitled to the presumption of innocence and support of his friends and teammates at that point.

Once it was clear he was guilty it is also clear Paterno had less than zero interest in helping and in fact could be accused of witness tampering in the opposite direction in his statement that Hodne was guilty and the threat that if the player testified on his behalf he’d be off the team - a threat he apparently followed through with.

To me, the article wants to imply that Paterno’s call to Karen was to intimidate her but the only quote we got was, “Are you OK?” IMO hardly intimidating but I have no experience as a female victim of sexual assault.

I try not to be an apologist for Joe as I think he did what he should have but also believe he should have asked more questions or simply said, “I don’t want that guy around campus, period.” His referral to supervisors and hands off approach, while probably appropriate, seems short of what his true influence was.

Imply?
Pretty obvious.



Ten years after an illegal grand jury leak set off the media firestorm known as the Penn State sex abuse scandal, the evidence of official misconduct in this case is so pervasive and egregious that Jerry Sandusky deserves to walk out of prison today as a free man.


Since 2017, Big Trial has reviewed thousands of pages of court transcripts and legal proceedings in the case, along with hundreds of pages of confidential documents that are still under a judge's seal.
Taken together, those records tell a clear story -- the case against Sandusky is fatally flawed from top to bottom. A decade later, records show, the actions of many of the principal actors in this case, including prosecutors, judges, and FBI Director Louis Freeh, who led the civil investigation at Penn State, are irredeemably tainted by misconduct, incompetence, unethical behavior, conflict of interest, collusion and/or corruption.
In addition, psychologists in the case used scientifically discredited recovered memory therapy to elicit suspect testimony from many of the alleged victims, whose improbable and constantly evolving stories to this day have never been vetted by anyone. Finally, the defendants' own medical records cast doubt on whether Sandusky was physically capable of performing the acts he was accused of.
Based on the evidence that I will present here, there's no longer any reason for any sane person to believe in the findings of both the civil and the criminal investigations conducted at Penn State. A decade later, the prevailing story line in the Penn State sex scandal about the man who's supposed to be the most notorious pedophile in America amounts to an X-rated fractured fairy tale that, when viewed from multiple angles, makes no freaking sense.
There's a looming shadow that's cast over the entire Penn State scandal, and that's the egregious conduct of an overzealous prosecutor on a rampage, former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, who was the lead prosecutor at Penn State.
Amelia Kittredge, the counsel for the state Supreme Court's disciplinary board who ran the investigation that resulted in Fina losing his license to practice law, memorably described Fina to the state's highest court as "someone who cannot or will not separate right from wrong."
A decade later, Fina's fingerprints are all over this travesty of a case, particularly when it comes to illegal grand jury leaks. But when we're talking about bad actors in the Sandusky case, Fina's got plenty of company.
The tragedy of all this is if the state gets its wish, Sandusky, who at 77, still professes his innocence, may die in prison before the truth about the scandal behind the scandal at Penn State is finally known.
Much of the material published below will be familiar to Big Trial readers, as it has been presented piecemeal over the past five years in some 60 blog posts published on this website.
The stories were written by myself as well as author Mark Pendergrast, who excerpted on bigtrial.net several chapters from his 2017 book, The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment.


It was ten years ago this month, on Nov. 4, 2011, that the premature leak of the pending grand jury indictment of Sandusky to reporter Sara Ganim set off the media firestorm that would railroad Sandusky into spending what amounts to a life sentence in jail.
Just five days after that leak, without doing any fact-finding, Penn State's panicked board of trustees hastily fired Joe Paterno, the winningest football coach in America, as well as longtime Penn State President Graham Spanier.
With the tenth anniversary of the Penn State case upon us, rather than examine its own malpractice and negligence, the news media has chosen to regurgitate a completely discredited story line that's built around a big lie.
To counter the prevailing narrative, I've decided to publish in one spot large chunks of the evidence that clearly shows Sandusky was railroaded.
As outlined below, the level of official misconduct in this case is so extreme that it rises to the level of egregious. That's the term the state Supreme Court used in 1992 when it freed former Lower Merion High School Principal Jay Smith from prison, where he had been on death row for six years, after his conviction for the murders of English teacher Susan Reinert and her two children, whose bodies were never discovered.
In the Jay Smith case, the state Supreme Court found that prosecutors in the state attorney general's office committed egregious misconduct when they hid exculpatory evidence that would have benefitted the defendant. The hidden evidence included two grains of sand found between the toes on Reinert's body that indicated she may have died at the Jersey Shore, as opposed to the the prosecution's theory of the case, which was that Smith had killed Reinert in his basement.
In freeing Smith, the state Supreme Court barred a retrial on the grounds that it would amount to unconstitutional double jeopardy.
In the Sandusky case, the state attorney general's office outdid its previous standards for corruption by knowingly writing a false and inflammatory grand jury presentment, deliberately leaking that false presentment to the media, and then basically manufacturing the trial testimony that was used to convict Sandusky. To finish the job, the judges in this case trampled on Sandusky's constitutional rights at every turn, while turning a blind eye to overwhelming evidence of official misconduct.
Stated simply, the Sandusky case is a cluster f--k from start to finish that can't be undone.


Let's start at the beginning, with the headline charge in the grand jury presentment that has permanently convicted Sandusky in the minds of an entire nation, as well as the jury pool in Centre County. The headline charge that was also responsible for the firing of Paterno and Spanier.
“Remember that little boy in the shower,” then-Gov. Tom Corbett told the university’s board of trustees on Nov. 9, 2011, just before they decided, in a mad rush to judgment, to fire Paterno and Spanier without even taking a formal vote.
According to that grand jury presentment, a decade earlier, at 9:30 p.m. on March 1, 2002, a then-28-year-old Penn State graduate assistant walked into the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus.
[The prosecutors subsequently claimed they had gotten the date of the shower story wrong, and moved the date of that alleged incident back 13 months to Feb. 9, 2001.]
The graduate assistant, subsequently identified as assistant Penn State football coach Mike McQueary, heard "rhythmic slapping sounds" emanating from the showers, sounds that he "believed" to be evidence of "sexual activity."
According to the grand jury presentment, McQueary looked into the showers and saw "a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."
According to the grand jury presentment, the "distraught" graduate assistant called his father for advice, and then he left he Lasch Building and went straight home.
"The next morning," according to the grand jury presentment, McQueary "went to [Coach Joe] Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen."
The rape in the showers, as well as the implication that McQueary promptly told Paterno about "what he had seen" -- as in that rape in the showers -- are both works of fiction written by overzealous prosecutors in the state attorney general's office.
How do we know this? From the words of the sole witness himself, in emails first disclosed by blogger Ray Blehar.
On Nov. 10, 2011, six days after the grand jury presentment was leaked, McQueary emailed deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach to tell her that the grand jury report the AG had just published was factually incorrect.
"I feel my words are slightly twisted and not totally portrayed correctly in the presentment," McQueary wrote. "I cannot say 1000 percent sure that it was sodomy. I did not see insertion. It was a sexual act and or way over the line in my opinion whatever it was."
In a second email that day to Eshbach, McQueary complained about "being misrepresented" in the media. To which Eshbach replied, "I know that a lot of this stuff is incorrect and it is hard not to respond. But you can't."
During a defamation suit that McQueary subsequently filed against Penn State, Eshbach was sworn in as a witness and asked to explain what she meant by telling McQueary not to talk.

"My advice to Mr. McQueary not to make a statement was based on the strengthening of my -- and saving of my case," Eshbach testified. "I did not want him [McQueary] making statements to the press at that time that could at some time be used against him in cross-examination. He [McQueary] was perfectly free to make a statement, but I asked him not to."
Less than a month after the grand jury presentment, Paterno issued a statement disclosing that when he went before the grand jury, he testified, "It was obvious that the witness [McQueary] was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report."
To further confirm this, on Dec. 16, 2011, McQueary testified under cross-examination that "I have never used the word anal or rape in this -- since day one."
Besides Paterno, McQueary told his story about "whatever it was" that he had allegedly witnessed within hours of the alleged incident in the Penn State showers to his father, John McQueary, and his father's friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, who, as a doctor, was a mandated reporter when it comes to allegations of sex abuse.
Approximately 10 days later, McQueary told Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and senior Vice President for finance and business Gary Schultz about what he had allegedly seen in the showers.
All five men -- Paterno, McQueary's father, Dr. Dranov, Curley and Schutz -- have testified under oath that Mike McQueary never told them that he witnessed anything sexual going on in the showers. Instead, Paterno, Curley and Schultz characterized what McQueary told them about as "horseplay."
On Nov. 23, 2010, recounting what was then a nearly decade-old incident in the showers, McQueary wrote out a statement to police that said whatever he witnessed took place during a brief time period that lasted between 30 and 45 seconds.
During that time, McQueary wrote to the cops, he glanced into a mirror once, which gave him a reflected view of the showers, and then he glanced directly into the showers.
McQueary told a grand jury in 2010 that the two “glances” he took each lasted “maybe one or two seconds.”
But the story McQueary told kept changing.
On Nov. 8, 2011, after the grand jury presentment became public, McQueary emailed a friend and claimed that instead of leaving the locker room and doing nothing to stop an alleged rape of a child in progress, "I did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room."
In that email that was subsequently published in Thee Morning Call of Allentown, PA, on Nov. 15, 2011, McQueary also claimed that he told the police about the rape in the showers. But the next day, representatives from both the Penn State campus police and the State College police publicly stated that they had no record of McQueary ever reporting any sex crime to them.
In subsequent retellings of the shower story, McQueary claimed that when he left the locker room, he slammed his locker door, which he said, made Sandusky look up and stop the abuse. McQueary also claimed that as he was leaving the shower room, he took another glance in the showers a second time, to make sure that Sandusky and the boy remained apart.
At the Sandusky trial in 2012, McQueary testified that when he first glanced in the showers eleven years earlier, this time he said that glance lasted between one and five seconds, and that he saw Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall.
On the witness stand, McQueary claimed that he now recalled a "very slow, slow, subtle movement" of Sandusky's crotch against the boy's buttocks.
The identity of the victim, the boy in the showers, Deputy Attorney General Joe McGettigan told the jury at the Sandusky trial, was "known only to God." But jurors didn't buy that story, and despite convicting Sandusky on 45 other counts, they acquitted Sandusky on the charge of abusing the unknown boy in the showers.
[According to author Mark Pendergrast, McGettigan was lying when he said they didn't know the identity of the boy in the showers. He's a former Marine named Allan Myers, who was 14, and not 10 at the time of the alleged shower incident. Myers initially told the state police and a private investigator that Sandusky was a father figure and mentor who had never abused him, and that they were horsing around that day in the shower, snapping some towels, when McQueary walked in.
That was before Myers decided to drastically change his story and cash in, to the tune of a $6.9 million civil settlement. During Sandusky's bid for a new trial, Myers was sworn in as a witness in 2016 and asked which story he told was the truth. He responded by saying he couldn't remember 34 times.]



The Penn State sex scandal was the subject of a criminal investigation by the state attorney general's office, and a supposedly independent civil investigation conducted at the cost of $8 million by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
The investigation conducted by the state attorney general's office resulted in the indictment of Sandusky for the alleged rape of the boy in the showers, as well as for allegedly abusing seven other minors.
On June 22, 2012, a Centre County jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of sex abuse, and sentenced him to 30 to 60 years in jail.
The state attorney general's office also initially charged Spanier, Curley and Schultz with failing to report allegations of child abuse to authorities, along with allegedly committing perjury during grand jury testimony.
The Freeh Report concluded that there was an official cover up of Sandusky's sex crimes at Penn State. And that during that cover up, the Freeh Report claimed, Spanier, Curley and Schultz had displayed a "total and consistent disregard" for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's alleged victims, as well as a "striking lack of empathy."
In publishing their 267-page report, the authors of the Freeh Report claimed they operated "with total independence," and that "no party interfered with, or attempted to influence the findings in this report."
The media has dutifully reported on the two investigations done by the state attorney general's office, and former FBI Director Freeh, as well as their findings about a rape in the showers, followed by an official cover-up on the part of Penn State's top officials.
But there has been a total news blackout in the mainstream media on the third investigation done at Penn State. It was done by the federal government in 2012, which resulted in a 110-page report that initially was stamped confidential, but was finally declassified in 2017.
The federal investigation was conducted by former NCIS Special Agent and veteran cold case investigator John Snedden, then on assignment for the U.S. Federal Investigative Services.
Against the backdrop of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, Snedden's job was to determine whether former Penn State President Spanier deserved to have a high-level national security clearance renewed amid allegations that he had orchestrated an official cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's sex crimes.
With national security at stake, Snedden conducted a five-month investigation on the Penn State campus in 2012. And what did he find?
That the rape in the showers story told by McQueary made no sense, and that McQueary, who told so many different versions of that story -- according to author Mark Pendergrast, a total of five different accounts -- wasn't a credible witness.
Snedden also concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime in the showers to cover up. It was the exact opposite of the conclusions reached by the state attorney general's office, and the Freeh Report.
As a result, the feds cleared Spanier, and renewed his high level security clearance.
Why didn't Snedden buy the rape in the showers story?
Back in 2001, Snedden told Big Trial, Mike McQueary was a 26-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former college quarterback used to running away from 350-pound defensive linemen. If McQueary actually saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower, Snedden said, he probably would have done something about it.

"I think your moral compass would cause you to act and not just flee," Snedden said.

If McQueary really thought he was witnessing a sexual assault on a child, Snedden said, wouldn't he have gotten between the victim and a "wet, defenseless naked 57-year-old guy in the shower?"

Or, if McQueary decided he wasn't going to physically intervene, Snedden said, instead of going home and doing nothing about a child rape in progress, why didn't he call the cops from the Lasch Building?
As Snedden says, the story makes no sense. It was also egregious prosecutorial misconduct for the state attorney general's office to fictionalize and sensationalize such a flimsy, decade-old story, and then hang an entire grand jury presentment on it.



While the Freeh Group investigation claimed to operate with "total independence," there's a confidential record that meticulously documents ample evidence of routine collusion between the criminal investigation of Penn State conducted by the state attorney general's office, and the supposedly independent investigation conducted by the Freeh Group.
And that evidence comes from a seemingly unimpeachable source, former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, who was credited with starting the investigation that led to the capture of serial killer Ted Bundy.
In "Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes," McChesney revealed on camera how the federal investigation of the serial killer got started. A woman called and said, "I'm concerned about my boyfriend -- his name is Ted Bundy."
The girlfriend proceeded to detail Bundy's suspicious behavior that included following women around at night, hiding a knife in his car and keeping a bag of women's underwear in his apartment.
McChesney, who was on the task force that ultimately arrested Bundy, rose to become the only female FBI agent appointed to be the bureau's executive assistant director. Her credibility was such that in 2002, in the wake of the widespread sex abuse scandal involving the Catholic clergy, the U.S. Conference of Bishops hired McChesney to establish and lead its Office of Child and Youth Protection.
McChesney is also the author of a 2011 book, "Pick Up Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way."
But in the Sandusky case, the decorated former FBI special agent is now known for another book she wrote -- an unpublished, confidential 79-page diary written in 2011 and 2012, back when McChesney was a private investigator working for her old boss, former FBI Director Freeh, while investigating Penn State.
In her diary, McChesney records multiple contemporaneous instances of then Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Penn State case, leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group.
It's clear from the McChesney diary that multiple grand jury documents were also regularly leaked to the Freeh Group, as was a 1998 police report on an earlier alleged shower incident that was investigated and found to be unfounded, resulting in a report that was supposed to have been expunged in 1999.
While the Freeh Group claimed in their report that they operated with "total independence" and "no party interfered with, or attempted to influence the findings in this report," the McChesney diary tells a different story.
Namely, that in conducting their supposedly independent investigation, the Freeh Group was regularly colluding with and working seemingly under the direction of the state attorney general's office, and particularly under the direction of deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.
According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them."
McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the A.G.'s office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for disadvantaged youths.
According to McChesney, Fina was actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.
For example, McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, an investigator for Penn State Police who probed the earlier 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and another boy that turned out to be unfounded; he also wrote the police report that was supposed to be expunged.
After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."
According to the McChesney diary, Fina also routinely kept the Freeh Group up to date on what was going on with the grand jury investigation, telling Freeh's investigators secrets that the defendants and their lawyers weren't privy to.
For example, the night before former Penn State President Spanier, Curley and Schultz were going to be arrested, Gregory Paw, another Freeh investigator, sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest.

The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
When I asked Freeh, through a spokesperson, whether he as a private citizen during the Penn State investigation, was authorized to have access to grand jury secrets, Freeh declined comment.
Other emails contained in documents under seal show that while investigating Penn State, Freeh may have had a conflict of interest. According to the emails, Freeh, whose investigators had telephone conferences with every Friday with NCAA officials, saw the Penn State investigation as a way to land the NCAA as a permanent client.

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. "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. 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."
It took seven years but Freeh's efforts finally paid off. In August, 2019, the NCAA hired five employees of the Freeh Group to staff its new Complex Case Unit.
The McChesney diary was the basis for a motion for a new trial filed with the state Superior Court in 2020 by Sandusky's appeal lawyers. In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers requested an evidentiary hearing where McChesney would have been summoned to testify under subpoena and asked to authenticate the diary.
But a year later, on May 13, 2021, the state Superior Court denied that motion, ruling that Sandusky's lawyers did not file their appeal in a timely fashion.
Instead, the state Superior Court blasted Sandusky's appeal lawyers, saying that they "dithered for one-half a year" before bringing the newly discovered evidence to the court's attention.


The Freeh Group's investigation at Penn State involved interviewing hundreds of people, including a Penn State faculty member before she was chosen as a juror in the Sandusky case.
And when it came time for defense lawyers to question the juror, she misrepresented what she had told the Freeh Group.
The juror was identified by Freeh's investigators as Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State, who did not respond to a request for comment. During jury selection on June 6, 2012, Pauley was asked by Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, what she told Freeh's investigators.

"It was focused more on how the board of trustees interacts with the president," Pauley told Amendola, as well as "how faculty are interacting with the president and the board of trustees . . ."
But an April 19, 2011 confidential summary of that interview shows that the juror had already made up her mind about the guilt of Sandusky, by reading her local newspaper. According to the report of the interview, Pauley had also already decided that Penn State's top administrators were guilty of a cover up.
In her interview with Freeh's investigators, Pauley stated that she was "an avid reader of the Centre Daily Times" and that she believed that the leadership at Penn State just "kicks the issue down the road."

"The PSU culture can best be described as people who do not want to resolve issues and want to avoid confrontation," she told Freeh's investigators.

Pauley, a tenured professor who served on the Faculty Advisory Committee for three years, told Freeh's investigators that Penn State President Graham Spanier was "very controlling," and that "she feels that [former Penn State Athletic Director Tim] Curley and [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz are responsible for the scandal."

"She stated that she senses Curley and Schultz treated it [the scandal] the 'Penn State' way and were just moving on and hoping it would fade away."
While Pauley was being questioned by Amendola, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote, "at no time during this colloquy, or any other time, did the prosecution disclose that it was working in collaboration with the Freeh Group which interviewed the witness."
Had Amendola known what Pauley told Freeh's investigators, he would have sought to have her stricken from the jury. He would have also asked the judge to find out whether any other jurors had met with Freeh's investigators.

At Sandusky's trial, while Amendola was questioning Pauley about what she told Freeh's investigators, Deputy Attorney Frank Fina sat silently at the prosecution table and said nothing.
Since the McChesney's diary documents how the Freeh Group routinely kept the attorney general's office abreast of the Freeh investigation, it's possible that Fina knew all about the Freeh Group's interview with Pauley.
It's also possible that Fina may have even been given his own copy of that interview with the juror.


On Feb. 19, 2020, the state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania voted to suspend for a year and a day the law license of former deputy attorney general Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Penn State case, for his "reprehensible" and "inexcusable" misconduct during the grand jury investigation of three Penn State officials that he accused of orchestrating a cover up.
Fina, the disciplinary board found, was guilty of purposely "misleading" a grand jury judge into thinking that Fina wasn't going to press Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's former counsel, into breaking the attorney-client privilege behind closed doors and betraying three top Penn State officials who were her former clients -- Spanier, Curley and Schultz.
Fina got Baldwin to cooperate by threatening her with an indictment for obstruction of justice. So Baldwin went into the grand jury and testified against her clients, without even notifying them of her betrayal.

After deliberately misleading the judge back in October 2012, Fina then "proceeded to question [Baldwin] extensively about the very subjects he represented to Judge [Barry] Feudale he would avoid," the disciplinary board concluded.
"These actions are reprehensible" and "inexcusable," the disciplinary board wrote.
Even worse, the disciplinary board found that Fina's alleged defense of his behavior before the board was "without substance." What Fina did, the disciplinary board said, was to tear down all the safeguards built into the criminal justice system by turning defense attorney Baldwin "into a witness for the prosecution against her clients."
"Unlike other lawyers, the prosecutor is more than a zealous advocate for a client," the state Supreme Court wrote. "The prosecutor bears as well the high and non-delegable duty of ensuring a fair process for the defendant and of comporting himself or herself always in a manner consistent with a position of public trust."
"To state it plain, instead of Baldwin serving as a shield for her former clients, her testimony was elicited and used by Fina as a sword against them, to devastating effect," the court wrote. In addition, when he was brought up on charges of misconduct, the disciplinary board concluded, Fina "failed to acknowledge he had a special responsibility to ensure justice and utterly failed to acknowledge the ramifications of his conduct."

The board found that "deflecting responsibility and displaying a lack of sincere remorse constitute aggravating factors."
Clearly, Fina was a man who would stop at nothing to accomplish his goals. Even if it meant breaking the law.
There was more fall-out from Fina's actions.
In 2013, then state Attorney General Katharine Kane ousted Judge Feudale from his duties as supervising grand jury judge in Harrisburg, citing his close relationship with Fina and lack of objectivity.
On Feb. 21, 2020, the state Supreme Court publicly censured Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice herself, for her "unfathomable" and "incompetent" actions in betraying her own clients.
In censuring Baldwin, the court noted her "lack of remorse for her actions," saying she "cast blame for her problems on everyone involved," but never herself.


The trial of Sandusky was presided over by the Honorable John Cleland, who oversaw a rush to judgment that resulted in Sandusky going from indictment to conviction at trial in just seven months.
How did the judge pull that off? By trampling on Sandusky's constitutional rights.

Before the trial started, Sandusky's defense lawyers tried to get the trial postponed so they could wade through 12,000 pages of grand jury transcripts he had just received only 10 days before the start of trial.

Amendola, Sanduksy's trial lawyer, begged for a continuance, telling the judge that he needed time to read the files and find out what Sandusky's accusers were saying about him; he also needed time to subpoena witnesses.

"We can't prepare . . . I felt like Custer at Little Bighorn for God's sake," Amendola testified during an appeals hearing. But Judge Cleland turned him down.
[Besides being unprepared, Joe Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, was painfully inept, as detailed on this blog by author Mark Pendergrast.]

Jerry Sandusky had a constitutional right to a fair trial. But in order to save Penn State football, which was being threatened with the death penalty by the NCAA, Sandusky had to be convicted and sitting in jail before the start of the 2012 college football season to wrap up the Penn State scandal in a nice, neat bow.
Putting Sandusky in jail for life fit right into the deal that PSU had struck with the NCAA, which was to voluntarily admit guilt and take their lumps, which included a $60 million fine. But the payoff for Penn State was that the Nittany Lions would escape the death penalty that the NCAA had threatened to impose on the football program in Happy Valley.

Jerry Sandusky also had a constitutional right to confront his accusers, but Judge Cleland took care of that as well.

The night before the preliminary hearing in the case, the only pretrial opportunity where Sandusky's lawyers would have had the right to confront his accusers -- the eight young men who claimed that Sandusky had abused them -- Judge Cleland convened an unusual off-the-record meeting of prosecutors, a magistrate, and defense lawyers at the Hilton Garden Inn at State College.
At the meeting, with prosecutors nodding in agreement, the judge talked Amendola into waiving the preliminary hearing so that Sandusky could remain out on bail for his trial. On their end of the deal, the state attorney general's office, which had previously requested bail of $1 million for Sandusky, agreed to lower that amount to $250,000.
The A.G. had also had threatened to file more charges against Sandusky, but according to the deal worked out by the judge during the off-the-record session at the Hilton Garden Inn, no more charges would be forthcoming.

So Amendola caved and took the deal. The grand result of Sandusky's lawyers waiving the preliminary hearing was that the Pennsylvania railroad that Sandusky was riding on would stay on schedule.
During the appeal process, after Judge Cleland's actions were disclosed regarding the Hilton Garden Inn conference, the judge had to turn over notes that he had taken during the off-the-record session. Cleland then voluntarily recused himself from continuing to preside over the appeals in the Sandusky case.
While the Sandusky case was headed to trial at breakneck speed, some people in the know were aware that the Honorable Judge Cleland wasn't going to budge on the scheduled trial date.
In the McChesney diary, on May 10, 2012, the former FBI agent noted in a conference call with Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil, two of Freeh's investigators, that Paw is going to talk to Fina, and that the "judge [is] holding firm on date of trial."

In an affidavit, Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, stated that McChesney didn't get that information from him.

"An obvious question arises as to whether or not the trial judge was communicating with a member of the Freeh Group, attorneys for the attorney general's office, or anyone else concerning the trial date," Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote.

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers sought to question Judge Cleland at an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether, and to what extent, collusion between the office of the attorney general, the Freeh investigation and the NCAA had an impact on the trial."
But the court denied that appeal.

During the appeals of Sandusky's conviction, his lawyers accused deputy attorney generals Fina and Eshbach of breaking state law by repeatedly leaking grand jury secrets.
But on Oct. 18, 2017, Jefferson County Presiding Judge John Henry Foradora issued a 59-page opinion where he cleared Fina and Eshbach of leaking, while denying Sandusky a new trial sought under the Post Conviction Relief Act.
In his opinion, Judge Foradora concluded that Fina and Eshbach weren't the leakers who were feeding reporter Sara Ganim intel about the impending grand jury presentment.
Why? Because Fina said so.

The judge bought Fina's alibi that he and Eshbach had supposedly set an "internal trap" to find the real leakers. But apparently the two prosecutors were about as successful as O.J. Simpson was in his hunt for the real killers.
Fina had asked his old buddy, Judge Barry Feudale, the supervising judge of the grand jury, to investigate the leak, Judge Foradora wrote. So, Judge Foradora decided, after hearing testimony from Fina, that it couldn't be Fina or Eshbach who were doing the leaking at the A.G.'s office.
At the PCRA hearing, "the testimony, then did not support the idea that the prosecution leaked grand jury information for any reason, let alone for the purpose of generating more victims," the judge wrote.
"If anything it supports the opposite conclusion, because while someone might be skeptical about the validity of Eshbach and Fina's internal 'trap'" to catch the real leakers, the judge wrote. "It is a fact of human nature that one engaged in or aware of misconduct he does not wish to have exposed does not ask an outside source to investigate it."
Unless the judge in question is an old pal. As in wink, wink.
One of the allegations of a leak raised by Sandusky's lawyers involved an incident related by the prosecution's official whistle blower in the Sandusky case, Mike McQueary.
At the 2017 trial of former PSU President Graham Spanier, McQueary was asked by a prosecutor how he found out that Sandusky was going to be arrested.
During the bye week of the 2011 Penn State football season, McQueary said, "I was on my way to Boston for recruiting and I was going from the F terminal over to the B terminals over in Philadelphia Airport."
That's when "the AGs called," McQueary said, referring specifically to Eshbach. According to McQueary, Eshbach told him "We're going to arrest folks and we are going to leak it out."
But rather than believe McQueary, Judge Foradora decided to trust Fina and Eshbach.
In denying Sandusky a new trial, Judge Foradora foolishly staked his entire 59-page opinion on the credibility and integrity of Frank Fina, which is now in tatters.
On Feb. 5, 2019, the state Superior Court, in a 70-page written by another gullible judge, the Honorable Judge Carolyn Nichols compounded this lunacy by denying Sandusky's appeal of Judge Foradora's opinion not to grant a new trial.
Once again, Judge Nichols and another court bought Fina and Eschbach's explanation that they had set an "internal trap" to find the real leakers, and didn't do any leaking themselves.


According to Mark Pendergrast, therapists in the Sandusky case used scientifically-discredited recovered memory therapy on six of Sandusky's eight accusers at trial, and on several other alleged victims who wound up getting civil settlements.
Pendergrast focused on the work of therapist Mike Gillum, who for three years, in weekly and sometimes daily skull sessions, basically brainwashed Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1, into recalling memories of abuse, after he had originally denied he had been abused.
In a book Gillum co-wrote with Fisher, Silent No More, the therapist, who was convinced from the get-go that Sandusky was a serial abuser, stated that he sought to “peel back the layers of the onion” of Fisher's brain to recover memories of abuse that Gillum already knew were there.
During these weekly and sometimes daily sessions, Fisher didn't have to say anything. According to Silent No More, Gillum would guess what happened and Fisher only had to nod his head or say Yes.
“I was very blunt with him when I asked questions but gave him the ability to answer with a yes or a no, that relieved him of a lot of burden,” Gillum wrote. In the same book, Aaron Fisher recalled: “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”
The grand result of Gillum's work --- Fisher cashed in for $7.5 million.
Another alleged victim who initially denied he had been abused, Dustin Struble, Victim No. 7, dramatically changed his story after he also underwent recovered memory therapy.
Like many of the other alleged victims in this case, Struble's story kept evolving. Struble told the grand jury that Sandusky had never touched his privates or touched him in the shower, which Struble said he and Sandusky shared with other coaches and players.
But at Sandusky's trial, Struble changed his story to say that Sandusky put his hands down the boy's pants when they were riding in Sandusky's car. And this time when he told the story about showering with Sandusky, Struble claimed that Sandusky was alone with him in the shower. And that Sandusky grabbed the boy and pushed his own naked front against the boy's backside, then he touched the boy's nipples and blew on his stomach.
When asked why his account had changed, Struble testified, "That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more. More things have been coming back and things have changed since that grand jury testimony. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point."
Struble's new story won him a civil settlement of $3,250,000.
A prominent 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 on how memory works 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 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, Loftus told the judge, cases involving repressed memories have been thrown out of court.
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 to the judge. And once those false memories are planted, she said, people will relate those memories as if they were true, “complete with high levels of detail and emotion.”
But at the Sandusky trial, repressed memories were consistently presented as fact. Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told the jury before calling his witnesses 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 told the jury, 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 where she said of the alleged victims, “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.”
During the appeal hearing over Sandusky's conviction, memory expert Loftus told Judge Foradora, “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.
But rather than listen to Loftus, and the science, Judge Foradora chose to believe the recovered memories of the victims, which was the basis for the state attorney general's X-rated fractured fairy tale


At Penn State, the university paid out $118 million to 36 alleged victims without investigating anything.
The average cost of the settlements was $3.3 million, more than double the average settlements paid out by the Catholic Church in abuse cases in Los Angeles and San Diego.
In 2013, the extravagant 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 told Big Trial they were prohibited from discussing.
One of those lawyers is Eric Anderson of Pittsburgh, an expert witness who testified on behalf of the insurance carrier.

“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."
“I do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money,” Anderson wrote.

In paying out the $118 million, the university did not undertake any of the usual methods to vet the stories of the accusers, such as having them questioned by private investigators, deposed by lawyers, personally examined by forensic psychiatrists, or subjected to polygraph tests.
Instead, the university just wrote checks.


On May 1, 2009, deputy state attorney general Eshbach wrote a formal request to initiate a grand jury probe of Sandusky. Nineteen months later, the state attorney general's investigation of Sandusky the alleged serial pedophile, had produced only one alleged victim, the brainwashed Aaron Fisher.
To make matters worse, the first grand jury that heard Fisher testify didn't believe him, so they issued no indictment.
But in November 2010, the A.G. got a tip about the shower incident that Mike McQueary had supposedly witnessed a decade earlier, a breakthrough that suddenly energized the Sandusky investigation.
On March 10, 2011, the state attorney general convened a second grand jury. They were aided by reporter Sara Ganim, who on March 31, 2011, wrote the first story about the secret grand jury probe of Sandusky that revealed for the first time the allegation that Sandusky was a serial sexual abuser of children.
The Ganim story basically functioned as a want add for the A.G.'s office to recruit more sex abuse victims.
The state police and the attorney general's office promptly created a seven-member joint task force and sent them out knocking on the doors of hundreds of young men who were alums of Sandusky’s Second Mile charity for disadvantaged youths, hunting for alleged victims.
But the joint task force didn't have much success.
As one frustrated investigator emailed on June 3, 2011, as recounted by author Mark Pendergrast in his book, “We have recently been interviewing kids who don’t believe the allegations as published and believe Sandusky is a great role model for them and others to emulate.”
On Jan. 4, 2012, Anthony Sassano, a narcotics agent from the state attorney general's office who led the Sandusky investigation, testified that the special task force interviewed 250 men who were former members of the Second Mile charity, but found only one man who claimed to be a victim of abuse.
Ask yourself a simple question. If Jerry Sandusky was allegedly the most notorious pedophile in America who's been on rampage in a small town of 42,000 for nearly four decades, why does the state have to create a special joint task force to go out knocking on doors, and hunting down victims?
Shouldn't they be lined up around the block?
But then the grand jury presentment hit the media. On Nov. 10, 2011, Business Insider ran a story predicting that Penn State wound wind up paying Sandusky's accusers a total of $100 million.
Suddenly, every plaintiff’s lawyer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had been alerted about a possible jackpot at Penn State. All they had to do to hit the lottery was to round up some guys who were willing to claim they were abused.
In seeking a lottery payoff, these alleged victims wouldn't even have to give up their real names. The media, for sure, could be counted on to keep their identities secret. While they were vilifying and destroying Jerry Sandusky's name and reputation every day.
After Sandusky was convicted, the floodgates opened, and 41 men filed civil claims for damages. Thirty-six of them would eventually get paid.

And it didn't require any heavy lifting.


Penn State had hired Kenneth Feinberg, dubbed “The Master of Disaster,” to oversee the settlement process with victims. Feinberg specialized in a global approach to settlements, rather than duke it out in court with one individual claim after another.
At Penn State, Feinberg prepared a form for alleged victims that merely required their lawyers to make their allegations, as part of what was billed as a “claims resolution process."
The claims as submitted in more than 120 pages of confidential records that the press or public has never seen, are entirely devoid of evidence.
None of the initial claims were authenticated by signed affidavits, there were no reports of forensic evidence or witness testimony, or corroboration of any kind. Except when a few of the victims who were pals got each other to vouch for their stories.
The stories of the alleged victims, which were often improbable, and featured constantly changing details, remain completely unvetted to this day.
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.
As far as the Penn State case was concerned, Rossiter told Big Trial he was surprised to hear that apparently not one of the 36 alleged victims ever told anyone about the attacks when they allegedly occurred -- a period that spanned nearly four decades.
Got that? Over four decades, in at least 500 alleged sex crimes involving 36 innocent victims, there was not one contemporaneous report of abuse.

If a pedophile was running loose for that long in small town, Rossiter said, "You would think someone would pick it up. Either at school or the parents or a close friend."
On top of that, in a scandal involving national publicity, like the Sandusky case, Rossiter said, if you were a gate keeper at Penn State, you'd have to be on guard against 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.
But Penn State never even ran background checks to see if any of the alleged victims had criminal records. When Big Trial checked, we found that 12 of the 36 alleged victims who got paid did indeed have criminal records, including arrests for tampering with and fabricating physical evidence, identity theft, criminal conspiracy, theft, receiving stolen property, theft by deception, robbery and terroristic threats.
The way the system is supposed to work, somebody at Penn State should have investigated the stories told by the alleged victims.
"That's what you do, you investigate," Rossiter emphasized. "The key is to find corroboration for the victim's story, to see if their stories hold up."
But Penn State didn't do any of that. Instead, they just wrote checks.
Why? Because the trustees had already decided that they would pay any price to save their beloved Nittany Lions.
As for Jerry Sandusky, and his constitutional rights, nobody gave a damn.



In their civil claims of abuse, the 36 alleged victims portray Sandusky as a sexually insatiable predator with the virility of a male porn star in his 20s. According to the claims, Sandusky was constantly on the prowl for forced sex with boys, and never had any problems achieving an erection.
Sandusky’s medical records, however, from 2006 to 2008, depict a man in his 60s suffering from all kinds of ailments and conditions, including atrophied testicles and chronic prostatitis.

A doctor who reviewed Sandusky’s medical records, but asked to remain anonymous, told Big Trial in an email, “This guy couldn’t get an erection no matter how he tried. Even Cialis/Viagra would probably not work.”
The doctor added that because the medical issue was never raised at trial, Sandusky should have sued his lawyers for malpractice.

Doctors described Sandusky as having an “androgen deficient state,” meaning he had levels of male sex hormones so low it was unhealthy. Sandusky’s medical records state that he was undergoing “testosterone replacement therapy for significant low levels of both free and total testosterone.”
Sandusky's medical records reveal that he was being treated with antibiotics for chronic prostatitis, an inflammation of the prostate commonly caused by bacterial infection that results in frequent and painful urination. Prostatitis can also cause sexual problems such as low libido, erectile dysfunction, and painful ejaculations.

Sandusky’s chronic prostatitis began in 2005 and continued through 2008, his medical records state. Doctors described Sandusky as being “light-headed” and suffering “dizziness” from using Flomax, which he began taking in 2006, because he was having trouble urinating.

In addition to his urological problems, Sandusky’s medical records list many ailments that raise the question of whether Sandusky was healthy and energetic enough to be out having rampant, promiscuous sex with all those boys.
Sandusky’s ailments include cysts on one of his kidneys, a small aneurysm in his brain, a 2006 hernia operation, bleeding hemorrhoids, chest pains, headaches, drowsiness, elevated blood pressure, and sleep apnea.
He was on thyroid medication when he went to the doctors and told them he began “falling apart” in 2005. By 2008, his doctors wrote, Sandusky reported he was falling asleep at the wheel and gotten involved in two car accidents.

The medical records also describe a distinctive feature of Sandusky’s anatomy that none of his accusers have ever mentioned.
On February 2, 2006, Dr. Frank B. Mahon at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, who was treating the 62-year-old Sandusky for chronic prostatitis, wrote that Sandusky had “small” testicles of “perhaps 2 cm” or centimeters each, which equals .787 of an inch. The average size of adult testicles are between two and three inches.

On December 18, 2008, another doctor at the Hershey Medical Center wrote that the 6-foot-1 210-pound former coach, nearly 65, had “marked testicular atrophy with very little palpable testicular tissue.”

In stark contrast to the way he is portrayed in the claims against him, a couple of law enforcement types who have observed Sandusky in close quarters describe him as an anomaly in the hyper-macho world of football coaches, saying he comes across as asexual.
There may be genetic reasons for that. Sandusky’s medical records state that as a boy, he had “delayed development of secondary sexual characteristics” that required shots, but they don’t say what kind of shots. Sandusky told his doctors he was “unable to have children” because his “sperm counts were low.”

Sandusky's medical records state that he suffered from hypothyroidism, [underactive thyroid] as well as hypogonadism, meaning his body didn’t produce enough testosterone to maintain good health.

The medical records, which date from 2006 to 2008, cover the same time period during which a couple of key trial accusers, Aaron Fisher and Sabastian Paden, claimed they were being raped hundreds of times by Sandusky.
Fisher settled his civil case against Penn State for $7.5 million. Paden, whose lawyers won in court access to all the confidential records in the Penn State case that are still under a judge's seal, got the biggest pay out of all the alleged victims, $20 million.

Totaling up the allegations made in 36 civil claims that were paid, the alleged victims stated that they had been raped or sexually abused by Sandusky at a minimum of least 520 to 620 times.

At his trial, Sandusky’s lawyers never used his medical records in his defense, probably because they didn’t have time to even read boxes of grand jury testimony, or serve subpoenas on witnesses.

In prison, Sandusky’s appeals lawyer said, he remains on a half-dozen medications, including continuing testosterone replacement therapy, and Terazosin for continuing prostate infections.

There’s another angle to the story of Sandusky’s medical records -- there are 36 alleged victims who got paid after claiming they were raped and abused hundreds of times by Sandusky, including nine alleged victims who claim that Sandusky had engaged with them in high-risk and apparently unprotected anal sex.
Yet not one of these alleged victim has ever asked to see Sandusky’s medical records, to find out whether he had HIV or any venereal disease. Nor has any victim ever sought to have Sandusky tested for any diseases.
That's the kind of evidence that would aid a criminal case. In a civil case, if Sandusky was found to have infected his victims with disease, it would have raised the damages.

But in the Penn State case, none of the alleged victims ever pursued the disclosure of any of Sandusky’s medical records.
You have to ask why.
And whether the answer is because it never really happene



Jerry Sandusky is a relic from another time. He's an only child who was the son of Polish immigrants. His father, Art Sandusky, a trolley conductor, was the coach of a local baseball team who ran a recreation center that took in troubled kids and hired disabled people as employees.
At the recreation center, the motto hung on the wall by Sandusky's father said, "Don't give up on a bad boy, because he might turn out to be a great young man." Jerry Sandusky, a devout Methodist who grew up in that rec center, adopted his father's mission, and was out to save the world one troubled kid at a time.
At the rec center, it was a common practice for men and boys to shower together. When Sandusky first got in trouble in 1998, for taking a shower with 11 year-old Zachary Konstas, after a complaint from the boy's mother, the incident wound up being investigated by authorities that included an official from the Centre County Children and Youth Services, a detective from the Penn State police, an investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, the boy's therapist, as well as a psychologist hired by the county.
The authorities concluded that there was no evidence of abuse or of any sexual conduct whatsoever, so the mother's alleged claim was officially deemed unfounded. As recounted in The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, by author Mark Pendergrast, the psychiatrist who questioned young Zach Konstas for an hour concluded:

"The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not unusual for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread, acceptable situation and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years."
The problem in the Sandusky case is that the customs of an earlier time, as in a communal shower for men and boys, are being viewed through a modern lens.
Since he couldn't have kids of his own, Jerry and his wife Dottie adopted six children, five girls and a boy. Only one of those adopted kids, Matt Sandusky, who took his adoptive dad's name, would ultimately claim to be abused.
According to author Mark Pendergrast, after Matt sat next to his adoptive mother on the first day of the Sandusky trial and heard the alleged victim spout accusations of abuse that were the result of recovered memory therapy, Matt came home and told one of his siblings, "This is ridiculous. Anyone can make accusations without evidence, and get paid. I could, you could, anyone could . . . but I actually have morals."
Three days later, Matt famously flipped. After first telling authorities he hadn't been abused, Matt gave a statement to the police that said that after he went to a psychiatrist, he had recalled memories of past abuse. His flip earned him an appearance on Oprah, and a civil settlement of $325,000.
The other five of Sandusky's adopted kids, however, told Pendergrast that they'd never been abused, and that they didn't believe that Matt had ever been abused either.
I'll leave the last words to the man who's been in prison for the past ten years as a result of egregious official misconduct and a decade of media malpractice.
"I am an innocent person, wrongly convicted by sinister ways of deception, dishonesty and disregard," Sandusky wrote from prison.
"I did not commit the heinous crimes I was accused of doing. Oral and anal sex never entered my mind, nor did I ever engage in them with anybody. This includes my wife, who has been my only sexual partner and loyally stands with me today."
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
Everything you wrote was bullshit. Again, my friend investigated these guys, they covered it up in 98 and 02 again.
Your heroes were too stupid to use the phone :

Call ChildLine at 1-800-932-0313.​

All you need was a suspicion to call to get the ball rolling.
They deliberately slow played it. Either that or they’re morons . I don’t think they’re that stupid. They just didn’t care.
Down the road someone should write a book and title it , “Profiles In Expediancy : The Penn State Story”.
Your friend is full of shit.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
Your friend is full of shit.
No he isn’t , however you are. You’re a fool, a weirdo. A person who needs both a new hobby and a new religion.
The actions of your heroes kept a child predator on the street. I’ll trust someone I know versus incompetent and stupid higher ups that created this mess.
I know what he’s done. He’s put predators behind bars . Your guys kept one on the street .
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
No he isn’t , however you are. You’re a fool, a weirdo. A person who needs both a new hobby and a new religion.
The actions of your heroes kept a child predator on the street. I’ll trust someone I know versus incompetent and stupid higher ups that created this mess.
I know what he’s done. He’s put predators behind bars . Your guys kept one on the street .
I have nothing to keep with keeping anyone on the street or putting anyone behind bars. Not my job.

However, your friend isn't being honest with you (or your friend didn't really work on this). The OAG even knew their case was super weak. That's why they broke so many legal and ethical rules in prosecuting it.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
I have nothing to keep with keeping anyone on the street or putting anyone behind bars. Not my job.

However, your friend isn't being honest with you (or your friend didn't really work on this). The OAG even knew their case was super weak. That's why they broke so many legal and ethical rules in prosecuting it.
Bullshit, you were not in the investigation, you know nothing about how they were nor ever did any , and you’re blindly supporting the bad guys.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,201
21,812
1
I have nothing to keep with keeping anyone on the street or putting anyone behind bars. Not my job.

However, your friend isn't being honest with you (or your friend didn't really work on this). The OAG even knew their case was super weak. That's why they broke so many legal and ethical rules in prosecuting it.
All an opinion of a cultist . A blinded fan boy who pathetically has to fight for the honor of dishonorable men on a message board. Get s hobby,
I’m speaking out against those who cover up or deny these crimes . Mainly because I don’t want onlookers thinking all psu alums are deluded idiots.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
I care because I'm being called a liar.
You are a liar
Maybe you are OK with being called a liar (and worse) repeatedly over and over in a public forum. I am not and will continue to defend myself. If he stops calling me a liar (about things that don't actually matter to the case BTW), I'd be happy to go back to actually discussing the case.
You are insecure and that is because your persona is fake.
Regarding the ESPN special, no one that it would be a "good" thing. We starting talking about how wrong it was before Nole caused things to go off the rails.
BS. You were saying how it would help your case blah blah blah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
All an opinion of a cultist . A blinded fan boy who pathetically has to fight for the honor of dishonorable men on a message board. Get s hobby,
I’m speaking out against those who cover up or deny these crimes . Mainly because I don’t want onlookers thinking all psu alums are deluded idiots.
These are all insults that you sling because you have no actual facts.

It is interesting to note that ZERO new evidence has come out since 2011 that supports the OAG's case, but there is tons of new evidence that refutes it.

I don't want all onlookers thinking that PSU harbored pedophiles (because they didn't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
Had the OAG corrected their "writing mistake" (hysterical that you think that) when MM objected then you might have a point. But they stuck to their guns because they knew that the wrong (intentionally wrong IMHO) wording of the presentment worked in their favor.
Baloney overblown
Speculation on your part. I strongly disagree. Molestation to most people implies "touching". No way the outrage is as high as there was with "anal rape."
No it's not. The public doesn't like CSA in any form and that's what MM saw and reported
But they didn't. And that wasn't an accident.
Overblown. You conspiracy boobs are all the same (JFK and Area 51). You nit pick stuff in the case (Sarah Ganim hasn't written a book so she MUST be lying!, MM said he wore blue but it was red!) and look for unimportant inconsistencies and then scream "CONSPIRACY!" THE GJP later used better words to describe what MM reported. He thought he saw anal sodomy. It was reveled at trial although it may have looked like that he didn't see insertion so they acquitted Sandusky on that charge but convicted him on 4 more regarding Victim 2. This is why you will never change the narrative because you have nothing solid just BS around the edges. LOL
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
By "crazy" you mean "disagrees with you." And I'm never high. I don't touch drugs.
No by crazy I mean nonsensical. You are a liar.
Again, tell me:

a) what you want to see electronically that you will believe. Because apparently anything I show you (even if it has a seal on it like my transcript) you will claim is photoshopped.
Do you understand what "independently verifiable" means idiot? You give me information and then I can go to source *I* pick out and verify it. Not some photo shopped screen shot you make up.
b) that you WILL apologize for calling me a liar and (worse) accusing me of stealing valor.
I will not apologize to anyone who lies about their persona and steal valor.
You are making the accusation, moron. If you claim I killed a guy, the onus is on you to prove that.
No I am calling BS on YOUR claims doofus. You must provide it as stated above
To take a nap. And crushed you underneath him.
Who after he laid down I put him out of his misery.
 

crm114psu

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
912
622
1
Baloney overblown

No it's not. The public doesn't like CSA in any form and that's what MM saw and reported

Overblown. You conspiracy boobs are all the same (JFK and Area 51). You nit pick stuff in the case (Sarah Ganim hasn't written a book so she MUST be lying!, MM said he wore blue but it was red!) and look for unimportant inconsistencies and then scream "CONSPIRACY!" THE GJP later used better words to describe what MM reported. He thought he saw anal sodomy. It was reveled at trial although it may have looked like that he didn't see insertion so they acquitted Sandusky on that charge but convicted him on 4 more regarding Victim 2. This is why you will never change the narrative because you have nothing solid just BS around the edges. LOL
But Schultz was the police.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WHCANole

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
They admitted guilt to try to make the scandal go away. They absolutely WERE rescinded.
Did PSU get the 60 million back? You admitted they did not so they were not rescinded and the other were removed AFTER the bad eggs (CSS and JoePa) were canned and Sen Mitchell reported that they were cooperating. So, you are wrong but won't admit it. LOL Hypocrite!

Your opinion. Most disagree and the facts support that.
They do not
A Major Infraction is a very specific thing. Violating a vague rule about ethical behavior is not a Major Infraction because it isn't listed as such.
It is much worse and that is why PSU got such heavy sanctions. Violating a rule IS an infraction booby.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
These are all insults that you sling because you have no actual facts.
He has the facts, YOU have conspriacies.
It is interesting to note that ZERO new evidence has come out since 2011 that supports the OAG's case, but there is tons of new evidence that refutes it.
Oh yes there is. Victims from the '70s that Paterno knew about as well. PSU paid those too.
I don't want all onlookers thinking that PSU harbored pedophiles (because they didn't).
PSU did harbor a pedophile and paid the price for it. That is the truth.
 

PSU2UNC

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2016
5,840
6,341
1
No by crazy I mean nonsensical. You are a liar.
I'm not. Prove it or STFU.
Do you understand what "independently verifiable" means idiot? You give me information and then I can go to source *I* pick out and verify it. Not some photo shopped screen shot you make up.
Do you understand what PII is and why I'm not giving you that? So unless you can tell me something that you consider independently verifiable that isn't PII, we have a problem. Or you can just admit there is zero reason I would lie about any of this. You don't even need to apologize.
I will not apologize to anyone who lies about their persona and steal valor.
Nor should you. Fortunately for you, I haven't lied about either of those things.
No I am calling BS on YOUR claims doofus. You must provide it as stated above
Right. YOU are making the accusation, therefore YOU have to prove it.
Who after he laid down I put him out of his misery.
Nope, just crushing your spine with my 2 tons of intellect.
 

WHCANole

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2002
1,277
281
1
I think he is a scummy lawyer of some sort.
😂 I bet you've done some time in lockup. That's why you hate the legal system.
He has great disdain for Cipriano for some bizarre reason.
Because he's a hack
The same for Snedden.
Another hack
Frankie Porn Fina would fit that bill. It’s also interesting that the asshat who claims moral superiority is content with his cohort leaking intentionally false and dishonest statements.
Which I've explained is not true. You are just to stupid to understand it.
It’s okay to him because they weren’t reprimanded. So it makes it right 🙄
Why don't you answer that question bozo? Why weren't they disbarred like Fina?