ADVERTISEMENT

Freeh Resolution

I would simply add that C/S plead guilty with the expectation that there would be no jail time. All that changed, of course, when Tim wouldn't flip on Spanier.
This is correct. Their plea to one misdemeanor charge each was based on a deal (no jail time) that then OAG backed out of because they didn't like the fact that they refused to perjure themselves (i.e. didn't throw Spanier under the bus).
Had they chosen to go to trial they would have been exonerated, just like Spanier was.
 
Oh good lord. 1. Being charged with a crime based on a law that was not in effect at the time is NOT a technicality. Spaniel didn’t skate. He won on the merits, as he should have. 2. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of that same failure to report law. They were not tried and convicted. That could have taken the same route as Spanier, but decided minimal white collar jail time was better than risking their pensions at trial or on appeal. Anyone who understands how prosecutors overcharge and can squeeze people (which you obviously don’t) knows this. Now go home son, and don’t forget your shine box. End of lesson.
I may be wrong, but I think Freeh used the word "concealed" more than once in either his report or in his press conference. Same as cover-up, Hugh.
 
Specifically Lubrano knows that the Freeh Report is a piece of crap and that the BOT should renounce it.
Everyone with half a brain knows this. Problem is it's never going to happen and the same arguments get rehashed here ad-nauseam.
 
Everyone with half a brain knows this. Problem is it's never going to happen and the same arguments get rehashed here ad-nauseam.

I think it will likely happen when Spanier is finally completely exonerated and/or when there are evidentiary hearings for Sandusky’s appeal.
 
Last edited:
Oh good lord. 1. Being charged with a crime based on a law that was not in effect at the time is NOT a technicality. Spaniel didn’t skate. He won on the merits, as he should have. 2. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of that same failure to report law. They were not tried and convicted. That could have taken the same route as Spanier, but decided minimal white collar jail time was better than risking their pensions at trial or on appeal. Anyone who understands how prosecutors overcharge and can squeeze people (which you obviously don’t) knows this. Now go home son, and don’t forget your shine box. End of lesson.
You're not wrong, but they took the deal so it is what it is. We can speculate as to why they plead this way but the true reasons are known only by them and those closest to them. We can speculate what may have happened had they gone to trial but if this scandal has taught us anything it's that the associated jury trial results were unpredictable at best. There is not an asterisk in the history books next to their name. They are, for all intents and purposes, guilty.
 
So I binge watched the Epstein series on Netflix and didn't really follow it before too much. I was surprised to find that Alan Dershowitz was tight with Epstein. Then I remembered I saw this at some point. Like someone here said before, what is the OGBOT hiding?




Investigation By Former FBI Director Louis Freeh Concludes That The Totality Of The Evidence Refutes Allegations Made Against Professor Dershowitz


NEWS PROVIDED BY

Wiley Rein LLP
Apr 08, 2016, 07:57 ET


WASHINGTON, April 8, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Professor Alan M. Dershowitz today issued the following statement regarding the results of the independent investigation conducted by former FBI Director Louis Freeh of sexual misconduct allegations made against Prof. Dershowitz.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

I am gratified by the statement by former federal judge and former FBI Director Louis Freeh set forth below. Following his independent investigation of the sexual misconduct accusations made against me, it concludes that in Judge Freeh's professional opinion, "The totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations made against Professor Dershowitz."

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH

Over the past several months, an independent investigation was conducted, under my supervision, by former senior federal law enforcement officials. We interviewed many witnesses and reviewed thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz. In fact, in several instances, the evidence directly contradicted the accusations made against him.

In my opinion, the totality of the evidence found during the investigation refutes the allegations made against Professor Dershowitz.

Link: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...e-against-professor-dershowitz-300248841.html
Very interesting find.
 
And in steps Ms Kathleen Kane....Yikes.
Let there be no rock unturned....Yikes.
I believe she made many nervous and anxious.

But then she went down too easy. I expected more fight from her. What happened???
 
Anthony, I appreciate your continued efforts. I think the fiduciary angle you took is the one most likely to succeed. Restoring the statue can come after as a separate matter. I can't understate how much I appreciate your tireless efforts and being a voice for us!
 
Anthony, I appreciate your continued efforts. I think the fiduciary angle you took is the one most likely to succeed. Restoring the statue can come after as a separate matter. I can't understate how much I appreciate your tireless efforts and being a voice for us!

-1

I had high hopes when Lubrano was first elected and he was a disappointment.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: indynittany
In lieu of the massive fines from the NCAA and Big Ten conference, and considering that much larger and insidious sexual abuse took place at Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State without a penny paid by those institutions towards fines, can’t we sue to get our payments back plus damages?
 
I think it will likely happen when Spanier is finally completely exonerated and/or when there are evidentiary hearings for Sandusky’s appeal.

It seems like Sandusky might get traction in his appeal before Spanier is completely exonerated. Sandusky's appeal hearing is on the docket sheet in Superior Court for October 14. Lubrano had an interesting post on the ps4rs Facebook page recently in response to the question of whether Superior Court will give Sandusky's appeal traction or say that there is nothing to see here:

"If they are objective then they will agree with Sandusky’s lawyers. The diary appears to be a treasure trove of information that is damning to the prosecution. Fina and Freeh, through Freeh’s lieutenants, were in constant contact. Grand Jury information was illegally shared be Fina with those folks. I truly hope that Jerry gets another trial. He deserves one because the prosecutorial misconduct in his case was rampant"

If Superior Court agrees with Sandusky's lawyers that will mean they will probably order evidentiary hearings including hearing what Kathleen McChesney has to say about her diary. If that happens, I believe that Sandusky will prevail in his quest for a new trial. If Superior Court rejects Sandusky's appeal, I think Sandusky would be well advised to take his case to the federal courts right away.
 
In lieu of the massive fines from the NCAA and Big Ten conference, and considering that much larger and insidious sexual abuse took place at Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State without a penny paid by those institutions towards fines, can’t we sue to get our payments back plus damages?

I don't believe that Big Ten conference will give Penn State back a penny as long as the Freeh Report is widely thought to be accurate. This is why it is past time for the BOT to repudiate the Freeh Report. I believe Anthony's resolution is the best way to get the conversation started within the BOT of whether or not the Freeh Report is factual. Anthony has said that he doesn't believe there will be any traction for the resolution to be considered by the BOT unless some significant happens like Spanier being completely exonerated or Sandusky getting a new trial. Imho, there is a reasonable chance that the start of something significant happening occurs next week when Superior Court considers Sandusky's latest appeal.
 
-1

I had high hopes when Lubrano was first elected and he was a disappointment.

Why do you think Lubrano has been a disppointment? As you probably realize, the BOT's agenda is controlled by a few power brokers and trying to influence the agenda is an uphill battle for the other members of the BOT. I applaud Anthony for his fight to win access to the Freeh Report source materials and to reform the BOT.
 
Why do you think Lubrano has been a disppointment? As you probably realize, the BOT's agenda is controlled by a few power brokers and trying to influence the agenda is an uphill battle for the other members of the BOT. I applaud Anthony for his fight to win access to the Freeh Report source materials and to reform the BOT.

I get that, but that should not stop the A-9 from speaking up/out once in a while. Instead, they mostly sit silent while everything is rubber-stamped. Also, access to the Freeh Report was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk.

I listen to the BOT meetings. Lubrano did speak up occasionally, like when he praised Lubert's leadership, or that other time when other trustees walked out while he was speaking.

The one time Pope tried to speak up she was told to shut up and shit down....so she did. You don't hear diddly from the others...unless it's election time.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: PSUeng
Tried, but PS4RS has hijacked the alumni elections and I am not close friends with anyone on their board to get the endorsement. I am also not associated with PSU football.
Ahh, but it is one hell of a conundrum the way our BOT is structured and operates. You're an engineer, how would you go about resolving this complex matter? It is so easy to piss and moan. Stop taking the easy path.
 
The slam dunk Freeh source materials revealed nothing but stuff that was already known
 
The slam dunk Freeh source materials revealed nothing but stuff that was already known

I don't believe the McChesney diary was known before the Freeh source materials were revealed. The McChesney diary shows that Fina and the OAG were illegally sharing grand jury information with the Freeh group and the collusion between the "independent" Freeh investigative group and the "independent" OAG investigation.
 
Ahh, but it is one hell of a conundrum the way our BOT is structured and operates. You're an engineer, how would you go about resolving this complex matter? It is so easy to piss and moan. Stop taking the easy path.

I would speak up for starters. Other than election time, when's the last time you heard anything from anyone other than Lubrano?.....and what was it?
 
The slam dunk Freeh source materials revealed nothing but stuff that was already known

I agree for the most part, but I did learn a few more details after reading the report.

The slam dunk was the legal process to gain access. They were fiduciaries, so it was a no-brainer.
 
I agree for the most part, but I did learn a few more details after reading the report.

The slam dunk was the legal process to gain access. They were fiduciaries, so it was a no-brainer.

Unfortunately, the legal process was anything but a slam dunk. Moreover, we were still precluded from sharing any information publicly.

We clearly learned much more from the effort than we knew prior to the effort.

As for my efforts as a Trustee, I respect your opinion. However, I disagree.
 
Unfortunately, the legal process was anything but a slam dunk. Moreover, we were still precluded from sharing any information publicly.

We clearly learned much more from the effort than we knew prior to the effort.

As for my efforts as a Trustee, I respect your opinion. However, I disagree.

Thank you @lubrano for spearheading the effort to get access to the Freeh Report source materials! I understand that it took significant effort by you personally to win access and that you undertook the financial risk of ensuring the non-trivial legal costs. The BOT contested your efforts to gain access tooth and nail and then after you won, fought against reimbursing you for the legal costs.

Your efforts have paid dividends. The alumni BOT report demonstrates what a farce the Freeh Report is. However, the problem is that at this time most people are unaware of its existence or the significant findings. Gaining access to the source materials has also unearthed the McChesney diary. It should be very interesting to see if Superior Court in their hearing on Sandusky's latest appeal is interested in learning the details of the diary that appears to demonstrate collusion as well as grand jury leaks between the Freeh Group and Frank Fina & the OAG. I understand the proceedings of the Oct. 14 hearing will be livestreamed:

VIDEO ARGUMENTS
Livestream link:
http://www.pacourts.us/SCLivestream

Com.v. Sandusky, G.
VIDEO ARGUMENT
11:00 A.M.
J.A25007/20, No. 610 MDA 2020
 
Last edited:
It seems like Sandusky might get traction in his appeal before Spanier is completely exonerated. Sandusky's appeal hearing is on the docket sheet in Superior Court for October 14. Lubrano had an interesting post on the ps4rs Facebook page recently in response to the question of whether Superior Court will give Sandusky's appeal traction or say that there is nothing to see here:

"If they are objective then they will agree with Sandusky’s lawyers. The diary appears to be a treasure trove of information that is damning to the prosecution. Fina and Freeh, through Freeh’s lieutenants, were in constant contact. Grand Jury information was illegally shared be Fina with those folks. I truly hope that Jerry gets another trial. He deserves one because the prosecutorial misconduct in his case was rampant"

If Superior Court agrees with Sandusky's lawyers that will mean they will probably order evidentiary hearings including hearing what Kathleen McChesney has to say about her diary. If that happens, I believe that Sandusky will prevail in his quest for a new trial. If Superior Court rejects Sandusky's appeal, I think Sandusky would be well advised to take his case to the federal courts right away.
What Superior Court judge (remember they are elected) would want their name attached to an opinion granting the likes of Jerry Sandusky a new trial? Even if Sandusky’s arguments are well taken, the answer is likely “none.”

Furthermore, on what grounds could Sandusky “take his case to the federal courts” after losing on appeal in an intermediate state appellate court?
 
What Superior Court judge (remember they are elected) would want their name attached to an opinion granting the likes of Jerry Sandusky a new trial? Even if Sandusky’s arguments are well taken, the answer is likely “none.”

Furthermore, on what grounds could Sandusky “take his case to the federal courts” after losing on appeal in an intermediate state appellate court?

This certainly won't be a slam dunk. However, I believe there is a good chance that now Frank Fina is a disgraced former OAG prosecutor and the McChesney diary is in the public domain showing collusion between the OAG and Freeh including the illegal leaking of grand jury materials, that Superior Court might be willing to learn whether there had been transgressions in the prosecution or not.

In Sandusky's appeal to Superior Court of the denial of his PCRA petition, Superior Court voted 2-1 against Sandusky. Bigtrial posted the following on that decision:

But on Feb. 5, 2019, state Superior Court Judge Carolyn Nichols wrote a 70-page opinion denying Sandusky a new trial, an opinion she foolishly staked to the credibility of former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.

In her opinion, the Hon. Judge Nichols bought former Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach's argument that she and Fina had set an "internal trap" for the person in their office who was leaking grand jury secrets to reporter Sara Ganim. The gullible Judge Nichols also bought the argument that Fina couldn't have been the leaker because he had previously asked the grand jury judge to investigate those same leaks.

"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," Judge Nichols opined. She didn't mention this in her 70-page opinion, but she's probably also convinced that O.J. Simpson is still out looking for the real killers. That's how laughable Judge Nichols's opinion is right now after Frank Fina has been completely outed as an overzealous and unprincipled prosecutor with a demonstrated track record for leaking grand jury secrets.


There is still a good chance that Superior Court will say there is nothing to see here. If they do, it will be straight to the Federal Courts for Sandusky. I don't think that Superior Court would want to be exposed for their ineptitude that would become obvious if and when the case goes to the federal courts.
 
Furthermore, on what grounds could Sandusky “take his case to the federal courts” after losing on appeal in an intermediate state appellate court?

Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

I believe that Sandusky could take his case to federal court on account of his constitutional rights being violated, in particular on his right to a fair trial.
 
Oh good lord. 1. Being charged with a crime based on a law that was not in effect at the time is NOT a technicality. Spaniel didn’t skate. He won on the merits, as he should have. 2. Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor violation of that same failure to report law. They were not tried and convicted. That could have taken the same route as Spanier, but decided minimal white collar jail time was better than risking their pensions at trial or on appeal. Anyone who understands how prosecutors overcharge and can squeeze people (which you obviously don’t) knows this. Now go home son, and don’t forget your shine box. End of lesson.
But they did plead.
"I can't recall the specifics," Curley said about a meeting he had with former football Coach Joe Paterno to discuss what Mike McQueary heard and saw in his infamous 2001 visit to the Penn State locker room. "I have no recollection of that particular encounter," Curley said about a Sunday morning powwow he and Schultz had at Paterno's house to discuss what McQueary had witnessed in the showers. "I don't recall what his [Paterno's] response was."

About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up." But he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."

About another meeting Curley and Schultz had in President Spanier's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."

Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?

"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.

"No," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.

"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.

Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?

"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the alleged victim.

But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."

Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.

"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.

And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about that boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?

"No, he didn't," Curley said.

Well, what did he say?

"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.

The prosecutor reviewed for the jury's benefit Curley's guilty plea on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. In the guilty plea, Curley admitted that he "prevented or interfered with" the reporting of a case of suspected sex abuse, namely the boy that Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Sandusky.

"You know other kids got hurt" after the McQueary incident, the prosecutor asked Curley.

"That's what I understand," Curley said.

On cross-examination, Spanier's lawyer, Samuel W. Silver, asked Curley about his guilty plea. The defense lawyer specifically wanted to know who was it that Curley prevented or interfered with to keep that person from reporting a suspected case of child sex abuse.

Faced with the chance to finger Spanier, Curley blamed only himself.

"I pleaded guilty because I thought I should have done more," Curley told Silver. "At the end of the day, I felt I should have done more."

Silver, seemingly delighted with that answer, ended his cross-examination after only a couple of minutes.

"I appreciate your candor," Silver told the witness. The prosecutors, however, appeared to have a different opinion of Curley's performance while they glared at him.

The day in Dauphin County Court began with the prosecution calling a couple of witnesses who worked as assistants to Gary Schultz, and used to do his filing.

Joan Cobel recalled how Schultz told her about a manilla folder he was starting with Jerry Sandusky's name on it.

"Don't look at it," Cobel recalled Schultz advising her about the Sandusky file, which was kept under lock and key.

"He never used that tone of voice before," Cobel conspiratorially told the prosecutor.

Lisa Powers, a former spokesperson for PSU and a speechwriter for Spanier, told the jury how she "kept feeling that something wasn't right" about the Sandusky rumors that reporters were asking her about. She recalled that when she asked another Penn State official about what was really going on with Sandusky, she was told, "The less you know the better."

The implication was that a big sex scandal was brewing at Penn State. Whether the jury buys all this hokum is another matter.

The prosecution, which rested its case today after only two days of testimony, seemed to be playing up the drama in the absence of hard factual evidence against Spanier.

Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, got Powers to tell the jury how Spanier insisted on posting statements from lawyers defending both Curley and Schultz on the university's website after the sex scandal broke.

Then Ditka got Powers to admit that while the university was posting those defenses of Curley and Schultz, it didn't run a statement expressing sympathy for Sandusky's alleged victims.

Ditka also managed to give a speech, in the form of a question, asking Powers if Spanier told her "they did nothing to locate that child that was in that shower with Jerry Sandusky."

To hammer home the plight of the alleged victims in the scandal, the prosecution put "John Doe" on the stand, a 28-year-old known previously at the Sandusky trial as "Victim No. 5."

Judge John Boccabella seemed to cooperate with the theatrics. John Doe was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. And when he came out to testify, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no spectator used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness.
 
But they did plead.
"I can't recall the specifics," Curley said about a meeting he had with former football Coach Joe Paterno to discuss what Mike McQueary heard and saw in his infamous 2001 visit to the Penn State locker room. "I have no recollection of that particular encounter," Curley said about a Sunday morning powwow he and Schultz had at Paterno's house to discuss what McQueary had witnessed in the showers. "I don't recall what his [Paterno's] response was."

About a meeting he and Schultz had with Spanier, Curley said, "We gave Graham a head's up." But he added, "I don't recall what the conversation was."

About another meeting Curley and Schultz had in President Spanier's office, Curley said, "I don't recall any of the conversation."

Well, asked the prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte, wasn't the meeting about what Mike McQueary said he heard and saw in the showers?

"I don't remember the specifics," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he saw Jerry Sandusky doing with that boy in the showers was "sexual in nature," Schulte asked.

"No," Curley said.

Did McQueary say what he witnessed in the shower was horseplay, the prosecutor asked.

"I don't recall Mike saying that," Curley said. "I just walked through what Joe [Paterno] told us" about what McQueary told him about his trip to the locker room.

Well, the frustrated prosecutor asked, did you ever do anything to find out the identity of the boy in the shower with Jerry?

"I did not," Curley said. "I didn't feel like someone who is in danger," he said about the alleged victim.

But when the subject returned again to Curley's talks with Paterno, Curley responded, "I don't recall the specific conversation I had with Joe."

Curley downplayed the problems with Sandusky.

"I thought Jerry had a boundary issue," Curley said about Sandusky's habit of showering with young boys.

And what happened when Curley talked with Sandusky about that boundary issue, the prosecutor asked. Did Sandusky admit guilt?

"No, he didn't," Curley said.

Well, what did he say?

"I don't recall the specifics of the conversation," Curley replied.

The prosecutor reviewed for the jury's benefit Curley's guilty plea on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. In the guilty plea, Curley admitted that he "prevented or interfered with" the reporting of a case of suspected sex abuse, namely the boy that Mike McQueary saw in the showers with Sandusky.

"You know other kids got hurt" after the McQueary incident, the prosecutor asked Curley.

"That's what I understand," Curley said.

On cross-examination, Spanier's lawyer, Samuel W. Silver, asked Curley about his guilty plea. The defense lawyer specifically wanted to know who was it that Curley prevented or interfered with to keep that person from reporting a suspected case of child sex abuse.

Faced with the chance to finger Spanier, Curley blamed only himself.

"I pleaded guilty because I thought I should have done more," Curley told Silver. "At the end of the day, I felt I should have done more."

Silver, seemingly delighted with that answer, ended his cross-examination after only a couple of minutes.

"I appreciate your candor," Silver told the witness. The prosecutors, however, appeared to have a different opinion of Curley's performance while they glared at him.

The day in Dauphin County Court began with the prosecution calling a couple of witnesses who worked as assistants to Gary Schultz, and used to do his filing.

Joan Cobel recalled how Schultz told her about a manilla folder he was starting with Jerry Sandusky's name on it.

"Don't look at it," Cobel recalled Schultz advising her about the Sandusky file, which was kept under lock and key.

"He never used that tone of voice before," Cobel conspiratorially told the prosecutor.

Lisa Powers, a former spokesperson for PSU and a speechwriter for Spanier, told the jury how she "kept feeling that something wasn't right" about the Sandusky rumors that reporters were asking her about. She recalled that when she asked another Penn State official about what was really going on with Sandusky, she was told, "The less you know the better."

The implication was that a big sex scandal was brewing at Penn State. Whether the jury buys all this hokum is another matter.

The prosecution, which rested its case today after only two days of testimony, seemed to be playing up the drama in the absence of hard factual evidence against Spanier.

Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka, Iron Mike's niece, got Powers to tell the jury how Spanier insisted on posting statements from lawyers defending both Curley and Schultz on the university's website after the sex scandal broke.

Then Ditka got Powers to admit that while the university was posting those defenses of Curley and Schultz, it didn't run a statement expressing sympathy for Sandusky's alleged victims.

Ditka also managed to give a speech, in the form of a question, asking Powers if Spanier told her "they did nothing to locate that child that was in that shower with Jerry Sandusky."

To hammer home the plight of the alleged victims in the scandal, the prosecution put "John Doe" on the stand, a 28-year-old known previously at the Sandusky trial as "Victim No. 5."

Judge John Boccabella seemed to cooperate with the theatrics. John Doe was sworn in as a witness in the judge's chambers. And when he came out to testify, the judge had extra deputies posted around the courtroom, to make sure that no spectator used their cellphone to take photos or video of the celebrity witness.

@jerot - do you think that Ralph Cipriano and bigtrial blog have the best reporting on the Penn State scandal? I do. They had a nice blog post on the Spanier trial on March 22, 2017 entitled "Curley And Schultz Score Points For Defense Before Prosecutors Rest Lame Case Against Former Penn State President Spanier."

 
@jerot - do you think that Ralph Cipriano and bigtrial blog have the best reporting on the Penn State scandal? I do. They had a nice blog post on the Spanier trial on March 22, 2017 entitled "Curley And Schultz Score Points For Defense Before Prosecutors Rest Lame Case Against Former Penn State President Spanier."


I attended Dr Spanier’s trial. I listened to all the testimony including that of Tim and Gary.

Laura Ditka was not pleased with their testimony. They did not corroborate the state’s case. In fact, they weren’t even sure what they had agreed to in terms of
wrongdoing.

I have no doubt that Frank Fina engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. I have no doubt that he leaked Grand Jury information.

Jerry’s due process rights were violated and I believe he should receive another trial.
 
Last edited:
I attended Dr Spanier’s trial. I listened to all the testimony including that of Tim and Gary.

Laura Ditka was not please with their testimony. They did not corroborate the state’s case. In fact, they weren’t even sure what they had agreed to in terms of wrongdoing.

I have no doubt that Frank Fina engages in prosecutorial misconduct. I have no doubt that he leaked Grand Jury information.

Jerry’s due process rights were violated and I believe he should receive another trial.

Thank you Anthony. I know you are a due process person and it is clear to anybody who takes a closer look that Jerry has not received due process in this case.

The case that Frank Fina and the OAG illegally leaked grand jury information to the Freeh investigative group is clear to anyone who has read the McChesney diary. The OAG may claim that it is hearsay, but it is in black and white for everyone to see. If the OAG tries to challenge the authenticity of the McChesney diary, then Superior Court must order evidentiary hearings with Kathleen McChesney as the star witness.

i will be listening to the Superior Court livestream next Wednesday at 11am. I am cautiously optomistic that justice will prevail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT