FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Fina and McGettin, just two honest, hard working career prosecutors. Working to keep the Commonwealth citizenry safe. Once again asserting that no one is a above (their) law.
I'd bet the reason nobody took the leak bait was because one of the people who set the trap (Fina) was the source of the leak. The guy's a sleaze but that doesn't mean he's stupid.
Any OGBOTBOTs out there want to defend one more time the pay everyone move on comatosly approach to fiduciary responsibility exhibited by BOT at a time of crisis. The extremely demonstrable poise with which they approached the situation is definitely a sign of superior leadership and rationality. Come on Fools dive in and defend them!
Too funny, the leaks to the HPN and the NYT prior to November 2011 weren't leaks but from SWIGJ witnesses??? Gee is that why both the HPN and NYT cited "sources close to the investigation" (i.e., OAG and OAG Investigators) and not SWIGJ witnesses in their articles???
One of Fina's problems is that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. How would a GJ witness know anything except what was asked of him? How many witnesses would it take to reveal enough information to coherently write a story? Such BS.
Looks like I may have to amend my Ethics Complaint on Fina to the D Board
If I ever need to disappear, I'm definitely hiring Shubin. He is no doubt the Better Call Saul of State College.
"Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Lindsay acknowledged he had intended to compel the now 29-year-old to testify this week, but his staff was unable to find the accuser. The lawyer said he still hopes to subpoena the man, who received a settlement from Penn State based on his claims, for a later hearing."
"Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Lindsay acknowledged he had intended to compel the now 29-year-old to testify this week, but his staff was unable to find the accuser. The lawyer said he still hopes to subpoena the man, who received a settlement from Penn State based on his claims, for a later hearing."
Can this dude hide forever? Someone at psu knows who is he. Wouldn't psu want to get $3 million back?
I'm not a lawyer but if this witness was represented by Shubin- couldn't they have sent the subpoena to Shubin directly and he would have been required to inform the witness and instruct him to appear?
How did Ganim get the year wrong V1 came forward in her 3/31 article? How did Ganim know the V1's case went from Clinton County to Centre Co. to the OAG's office?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
Last edited:
Obviously one of the witnesses gave Ganim the letter, or at least that's who Fina is trying to pin it on.How did Ganim get the year wrong V1 came forward in her 3/31 article? How did Ganim know the V1's case went from Clinton County to Centre Co. to the OAG's office?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County." http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
McQ said the boy was 8-10 years old so it could not be the accuser; he would've been 14. Yet when they depict the 'rape' they use a stool to make the act appear physically possible (iirc). Regardless, a rape of a 14 year old of average height is much more feasible than a little 10 year old ( Sorry for the visual).
It's like the car dealer who devalues your trade then adds a couple of grand to the price of the trade when they're selling. Whatever serves their purpose.
Obviously the OAG's office had a copy, but so did Bellefonte. I'm with @Adlee73, the leaks could have easily come from Bellefonte.
What? Get the money back? They happily gave it to him. They're more likely to throw a couple million on top to keep him away.
So why would investigators tell V1 and attorney that a Penn State employee witnessed an act between JS and a boy. How many other accusers were told this by investigators?
But Ira did an excellent and thorough job of vetting. Just ask the firm they hired to help broker the settlements.
AM was not deemed credible because he got the year wrong. MM is deemed credible despite getting the year wrong and was the basis for AM using that specific date.
AM deemed not credible because of his drawing of the locker room. Janitor is deemed credible, yet was on tape saying it was not JS. Other janitor deemed credible, but testified to wrong layout of locker room.
Seems AM was deemed not credible because the OAG couldn't use him as a victim.
AM deemed not credible because of his drawing of the locker room. Janitor is deemed credible, yet was on tape saying it was not JS. Other janitor deemed credible, but testified to wrong layout of locker room.
Seems AM was deemed not credible because the OAG couldn't use him as a victim.
He might not have been deemed credible as V2, but they still believe he was abused. Honestly, the best fiction writer could not make this stuff up. Where is Francofan today. I would like to read his summary.
Actually, V4 was over 16 at the time of his Alamo Bowl allegation.
Ganim didn't get the letter, she heard it straight from Madeira back in February 2009 before he realized his wife's brother who he's quoted in articles saying he barely spoke with was Sandusky's adopted son.How did Ganim get the year wrong V1 came forward in her 3/31 article? How did Ganim know the V1's case went from Clinton County to Centre Co. to the OAG's office?
On 3/31/11, Ganim wrote, "According to five people with knowledge of the case, a grand jury meeting in Harrisburg has been hearing testimony for at least 18 months about the allegation, which was made in 2009 by a 15-year-old from Clinton County." http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
The problem with Ganim's story is V1 came forward in November of 2008, not 2009, as she reported. How could Ganim get the date wrong? Well, I point you to Exhibit B of the Moulton Report(see below), Madeira's letter citing his conflict and handing the case over to the OAG. If you review paragraph 2, it mentions the Clinton Co. DA handing the case over to Centre Co. in February(2009). If you had the below letter in your possession with no actual sources, it's easy to see how you could get the year wrong V1 came forward. So Sara, who gave you the letter?
http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/r-r/188-da-office-sandusky-information-leak
Because Centre County ADA Mark Smith told DA Michael Madiera in Feb 09 & he obviously told the OAG even though he lied to Moulton about Smith not telling him. Fina & Co. had info about 1998 via Madeira via Smith. They told Fisher's therapist Gillum about 1998 not 2001 in June of 09.
All the BS arguments against AM being Victim 2 claimed by FORMER OAG prosecutors & many more are addressed here:
http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/178-v2
http://www.mandys-pages.com/writers-corner/178-v2
Makes alot more sense if he IS Victim 2 & he later lied about the abuse than the other way around.
I believe she had the letter. The Moulton Report makes mention that Madeira received an eight page police report from the PSP in 2009. He certainly would have known V1 came forward in 2008. The letter also makes mention of the phrase "inappropriate contact," a phrase that coincidentally appears in Ganim's article. But, I also believe your analysis could be correct in that Ganim was first tipped off on the investigation by Madeira.
Ganim may've seen the letter in 2011 & according to her account her source didn't mention the date of the report by V1. She definitely didn't see the letter in 2009 or she wouldn't have backed off the case in March when her source called back to talk her off the case. I believe she got some extra info on 98 from Madeira in July 2010 & used it to negotiate with the OAG to get victim names.
Fina saying "reasonable to believe" slays me. Who does that sound like?
The whole thing about setting a trap for a mole is like the Keystone Kops. Whodunnit?
[QUOTE="canuckhal, post: 2167937, member: 10372" Where is Francofan today. I would like to read his summary.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I wasn’t able to write-up my report until now. I had to drive home from Bellefonte and then went to the Pirates game.
Sandusky lawyer Al Lindsay was pleased with the testimony that he was able to get in the record on Tuesday. He was able to ask questions of prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach, Frank Fina, and Joe McGettigan.
Eshbach was first up. She seemed somewhat nervous. She said she drafted the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment that stated that Mike McQueary witnessed a 10 year old in the shower being subjected to anal intercourse. She said that the presentment was edited, but she approved of the final version. She said that is was not verbatim from Mike McQueary, but that Mike McQueary testified what he saw and that he witnessed those acts. Eshbach said that she participated in preparing for the December 2011 Preliminary Hearing for Sandusky, in particular that she attended a meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College that included Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan, Joe Amendola and Eshbach. She didn’t recall details of what transpired. She remembered that they discussed waiving the preliminary hearing and that the prosecution anticipated filing additional charges.
Eshbach said that she was aware of Sara Ganim’s March 30, 2011 article and reviewed it. She said that Ganim may have had sources in the OAG, but she did not know who her sources were. At some point Judge Feudale was approached with concerns about possible Grand Jury leaks. She said that the OAG tried to set up a trap concerning a supposed subpoena of Curley and Schultz, but it didn’t work and there was no public disclosure. She stated that as of March, 2011 the only alleged accuser to testify before the Grand Jury was Aaron Fisher and that v6 didn’t testify before the GJ until June. To the best of her knowledge, she did not believe that Fisher had any knowledge of the 98 incident before March 30. She said that on March 28 that she received a call from v6’s mother that she had received an unwanted text message from Ganim stating the OAG expressed interest in helping V6, but Eshbach did not know who V6's mom was supposed to contact at the OAG. She said that AM was a possible victim who initially denied any victimization. His story wavered and he came forward with Andrew Shubin as his attorney and stated he was a victim and the boy in the shower. She remembered there was some conflict between the OAG and Shubin.
Frank Fina was the next to testify. He seemed comfortable testifying and was at ease. He was first asked about AM. He said that the Pennsylvania State Police first interviewed AM before the Grand Jury Presentment and he didn’t believe that Andrew Shubin was involved at that time. He said that AM said that he had known Jerry Sandusky for some time and he told the trooper than nothing untoward or inappropriate had ever happened with JS. He said that at a later date that the OAG wanted to talk to AM despite what he had initially said, but were not able to find him. Agents became aware of Shubin and contacted him. After McQueary testified in the Preliminary Hearing of Curley and Schultz, Shubin stated that he would make his client available and at some point he did and AM was interviewed on two occasions. His story changed to that he had been sexually assaulted and that it mirrored MM’s testimony. He said that there were a number of concerns including that he got the year wrong (2002 v. 2001) and that his drawing of the Lasch locker room was inaccurate. He said there was an understanding that Shubin was not making AM available. He said that the OAG had to make an evaluation of whether to use AM as a witness. He said that many potential witnesses had profound issues that would make them unusable as a witness and that AM fell into this category. He said there were inconsistencies in his story, but also agreed there were inconsistencies in all the witnesses as they all changed their stories, but that you can parse anyone’s testimony. He said that he didn’t think AF’s inconsistencies were comparable to AM’s inconsistencies.
Fina said that he vaguely remembered the meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before Sandusky’s Preliminary Hearing. He wasn’t sure if he was there in person or via the phone. He wasn’t sure of the exact attendance, thought Sassano might have been there. He said that he thought Judge Cleland might have called the meeting. Some of the topics discussed included waiving the P.H. and bail issues. He said the OAG was interested in having the P.H. waived as it would avoid public disclosure of the identity of the accusers as well as avoid any cross examination of the accusers. In exchange there would be concessions on bail and new charges.
Regarding Grand Jury leaks, he was familiar with Ganim’s March 30, 2011 story. He did not remember Eshbach approaching him about the story. He said that there was another story that concerned him where Dr. Dranov’s Grand Jury testimony was quoted. He said that there is a common misconception that Grand Jury leaks happen all the time. He said that in Pennsylvania, the laws on Grand Jury disclosures are different and that witnesses normally have the right to discuss their Grand Jury testimony publicly. The Commonwealth can only overcome this by ordering witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone. Fina said he was not able to determine if the GJ leak of Dranov’s testimony was illegal. He said he went to Judge Feudale with his concern and Feudale initiated an investigation by Reeder and Brown, but the investigation was stopped. Fina said that he had absolutely no idea of the source of the Grand Jury leaks. Fina further said that the OAG was outraged and upset with the leak and premature disclosure of the November 5 Grand Jury Presentment. He said the OAG gave the District Magistrate a heads up and provided it on Thursday or Friday with the intent of disclosure and issuing an arrest warrant on Monday. Fina said that Linda Kelly was extremely upset and she directed an investigation to find out what happened. The consensus was that someone in the District Justice’s office mistakenly (or not) disclosed it.
Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?” He was first asked about the meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden hotel. He said that Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, and Joe Amendola were all present. He said it was called by mutual agreement. He said that had the P.H. not been waived, they would have moved for an increase in bail. Lindsay read McGettigan’s closing statement and McGettigan said that he absolutely remembered the quotes that were read concerning the 2 boys known to God but not to us. He also said that Sandusky had a wonderful opportunity to identify the boy in the shower and to attempt to exonerate himself in his interview with Bob Costas. McGettigan stated that he knew AM had claimed to be v2 and that AM had been secreted by Shubin and could not be found, and that Shubin was not helpful. He said that he did not believe AM was v2 at trial, and that today he still does not believe AM is v2. The reasons for his belief was that AM was born in 1987 and was not 10 years old in 2001, that he was unable to describe the Lasch locker room layout, that he initially denied any untoward conduct, and that the only information concerning AM came from Shubin.
Cleland ended the hearing with an indication that there would likely be more evidentiary hearings. I believe that at this time, Sandusky’s strongest PCRA issues include the question of who v2 is, the possible OAG involvement in Grand Jury leaks, the decision to have Sandusky do the Costas interview, the decision to waive the Preliminary Hearing, the decision to have Dr. Atkins testify at trial, the decision for Sandusky not to testify at trial, and the use of Repressed Memory Therapy by alleged victims,
Sorry, but I wasn’t able to write-up my report until now. I had to drive home from Bellefonte and then went to the Pirates game.
Sandusky lawyer Al Lindsay was pleased with the testimony that he was able to get in the record on Tuesday. He was able to ask questions of prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach, Frank Fina, and Joe McGettigan.
Eshbach was first up. She seemed somewhat nervous. She said she drafted the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment that stated that Mike McQueary witnessed a 10 year old in the shower being subjected to anal intercourse. She said that the presentment was edited, but she approved of the final version. She said that is was not verbatim from Mike McQueary, but that Mike McQueary testified what he saw and that he witnessed those acts. Eshbach said that she participated in preparing for the December 2011 Preliminary Hearing for Sandusky, in particular that she attended a meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College that included Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan, Joe Amendola and Eshbach. She didn’t recall details of what transpired. She remembered that they discussed waiving the preliminary hearing and that the prosecution anticipated filing additional charges.
Eshbach said that she was aware of Sara Ganim’s March 30, 2011 article and reviewed it. She said that Ganim may have had sources in the OAG, but she did not know who her sources were. At some point Judge Feudale was approached with concerns about possible Grand Jury leaks. She said that the OAG tried to set up a trap concerning a supposed subpoena of Curley and Schultz, but it didn’t work and there was no public disclosure. She stated that as of March, 2011 the only alleged accuser to testify before the Grand Jury was Aaron Fisher and that v6 didn’t testify before the GJ until June. To the best of her knowledge, she did not believe that Fisher had any knowledge of the 98 incident before March 30. She said that on March 28 that she received a call from v6’s mother that she had received an unwanted text message from Ganim stating the OAG expressed interest in helping V6, but Eshbach did not know who V6's mom was supposed to contact at the OAG. She said that AM was a possible victim who initially denied any victimization. His story wavered and he came forward with Andrew Shubin as his attorney and stated he was a victim and the boy in the shower. She remembered there was some conflict between the OAG and Shubin.
Frank Fina was the next to testify. He seemed comfortable testifying and was at ease. He was first asked about AM. He said that the Pennsylvania State Police first interviewed AM before the Grand Jury Presentment and he didn’t believe that Andrew Shubin was involved at that time. He said that AM said that he had known Jerry Sandusky for some time and he told the trooper than nothing untoward or inappropriate had ever happened with JS. He said that at a later date that the OAG wanted to talk to AM despite what he had initially said, but were not able to find him. Agents became aware of Shubin and contacted him. After McQueary testified in the Preliminary Hearing of Curley and Schultz, Shubin stated that he would make his client available and at some point he did and AM was interviewed on two occasions. His story changed to that he had been sexually assaulted and that it mirrored MM’s testimony. He said that there were a number of concerns including that he got the year wrong (2002 v. 2001) and that his drawing of the Lasch locker room was inaccurate. He said there was an understanding that Shubin was not making AM available. He said that the OAG had to make an evaluation of whether to use AM as a witness. He said that many potential witnesses had profound issues that would make them unusable as a witness and that AM fell into this category. He said there were inconsistencies in his story, but also agreed there were inconsistencies in all the witnesses as they all changed their stories, but that you can parse anyone’s testimony. He said that he didn’t think AF’s inconsistencies were comparable to AM’s inconsistencies.
Fina said that he vaguely remembered the meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before Sandusky’s Preliminary Hearing. He wasn’t sure if he was there in person or via the phone. He wasn’t sure of the exact attendance, thought Sassano might have been there. He said that he thought Judge Cleland might have called the meeting. Some of the topics discussed included waiving the P.H. and bail issues. He said the OAG was interested in having the P.H. waived as it would avoid public disclosure of the identity of the accusers as well as avoid any cross examination of the accusers. In exchange there would be concessions on bail and new charges.
Regarding Grand Jury leaks, he was familiar with Ganim’s March 30, 2011 story. He did not remember Eshbach approaching him about the story. He said that there was another story that concerned him where Dr. Dranov’s Grand Jury testimony was quoted. He said that there is a common misconception that Grand Jury leaks happen all the time. He said that in Pennsylvania, the laws on Grand Jury disclosures are different and that witnesses normally have the right to discuss their Grand Jury testimony publicly. The Commonwealth can only overcome this by ordering witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone. Fina said he was not able to determine if the GJ leak of Dranov’s testimony was illegal. He said he went to Judge Feudale with his concern and Feudale initiated an investigation by Reeder and Brown, but the investigation was stopped. Fina said that he had absolutely no idea of the source of the Grand Jury leaks. Fina further said that the OAG was outraged and upset with the leak and premature disclosure of the November 5 Grand Jury Presentment. He said the OAG gave the District Magistrate a heads up and provided it on Thursday or Friday with the intent of disclosure and issuing an arrest warrant on Monday. Fina said that Linda Kelly was extremely upset and she directed an investigation to find out what happened. The consensus was that someone in the District Justice’s office mistakenly (or not) disclosed it.
Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?” He was first asked about the meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden hotel. He said that Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, and Joe Amendola were all present. He said it was called by mutual agreement. He said that had the P.H. not been waived, they would have moved for an increase in bail. Lindsay read McGettigan’s closing statement and McGettigan said that he absolutely remembered the quotes that were read concerning the 2 boys known to God but not to us. He also said that Sandusky had a wonderful opportunity to identify the boy in the shower and to attempt to exonerate himself in his interview with Bob Costas. McGettigan stated that he knew AM had claimed to be v2 and that AM had been secreted by Shubin and could not be found, and that Shubin was not helpful. He said that he did not believe AM was v2 at trial, and that today he still does not believe AM is v2. The reasons for his belief was that AM was born in 1987 and was not 10 years old in 2001, that he was unable to describe the Lasch locker room layout, that he initially denied any untoward conduct, and that the only information concerning AM came from Shubin.
Cleland ended the hearing with an indication that there would likely be more evidentiary hearings. I believe that at this time, Sandusky’s strongest PCRA issues include the question of who v2 is, the possible OAG involvement in Grand Jury leaks, the decision to have Sandusky do the Costas interview, the decision to waive the Preliminary Hearing, the decision to have Dr. Atkins testify at trial, the decision for Sandusky not to testify at trial, and the use of Repressed Memory Therapy by alleged victims,
Last edited:
FTR - When McQueary made his original statement to police, he stated that he wasn't sure if it was 2001 or 2002. It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution decided to focus on 2002 because that avoided the whole statute of limitations problem.
Does it seem to anybody that this new trial really might happen?
Sandusky attorney Al Lindsay was pleased with the 3 days of evidentiary hearings. He was pleased that Judge Cleland allowed them in the first place and was pleased with all the information that he was allowed to place in the record. He is also pleased that it is likely that there will be additional evidentiary hearings. There should be some additional court filings taking place within the next couple of weeks which should be very interesting. Depending of which way that Cleland eventually rules on the request for a new trial, the losing side is likely to appeal. It seems that the case has legs and will not be over anytime soon.
Ya' think?
FWIW, MM wasn't the only one who questioned the 2002 date. Among the others was JVP, who stated, correctly that he thought it was 2001......and others did as well
I guess it was awfully important for the Fina Boys to make sure they could bastardized the law wrt those Statute of Limitations issues on the prosecution of Sandusky
Wait? Really.....seriously? There were NO SOL issues wrt prosecuting Sandusky!!
Huh? Why then would the Fina Boys just make shit up and lie about the date?
LOL.
I think the statue of limitation issue is a likely reason that the 2002 date was used in the Grand Jury presentment. I don't buy that AM is not credible because he used the OAG/McQueary date in his statement to Everhart. I also don't buy that not being able to draw the layout of the Lasch building locker room more than 10 years after the alleged incident makes him not credible. IMHO, the best way to assess his credibility is to find a way to serve him a subpoena and compel him to testify under oath. I don't believe there are any other credible claims of a different person being v2 and I believe the identity of v2 is critical not only to the case against Sandusky but also to the cases against Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Paterno.
