Yeah it's all about bond ratings. Put your knee pads back on and get back to Old Main before anyone notices you're missing.
Sandusky Seeks New Trial Based On Fina-Freeh Collusion, Leaks
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
At the very least, Buck was not prepared and had no understanding of why the hearing was being held in the first place.
From the movie “Electraglide in Blue”, “Incompetence is the worst form of corruption.” Harv Poole
Probably not technically. Those hearings aren't recorded (I don't think), so I can't go back to check, but I think she said "The grand jury finished before the Freeh group existed, so there could not have been collusion". If you take that to mean "the grand jury investigation could not have colluded with Freeh" that is correct. But that does not preclude collusion between the prosecutorial team and the Freeh group, post grand jury and pre (during) trial.
Perhaps she was misleading on purpose, perhaps she is just dumb. But that probably isn't perjury.
Not defending her (the entire OAG can pound sand), just providing my two cents.
You are incorrect here.
Even if one believes that Sandusky is 100% guilty, much of what you wrote is wrong.
You wrote: "is singularly responsible for:"
"the end of Paterno’s career"
I guess technically it ended Paterno's career three (four if you count the bowl) games earlier. Recall that he had already told the administration that 2011 would be his last year. So this comment is, at best, misleading.
"the near destruction of PSU football, , and three of Penn State leadership’s team prosecution on criminal charges. Massive financial fines which crippled the university and damaged bond ratings. Not to mention the damage done to the reputation of the university."
There are two components to this where you are wrong. First, Sandusky can be 100% guilty and this scandal have nothing to do with PSU at all, let alone PSU football. The OAG chose to anchor the story to PSU in order to garner more media attention and effectively try the case in the media. IMHO, this is because their case was very weak. Because the media had a field day with an embellished grand jury statement, the trial was essentially decided before it ever got to court. Ask yourself this: of the ten victims, which were the two weakest cases presented in court? The very clear answer are the two cases directly linked to PSU (janitor and McQueary). In the first case, not only was there no victim identified, but there was no witness who testified (because when he was deposed he insisted the man he saw was not Sandusky), only hearsay evidence. In the McQueary episode, we have no victim identified ("known only to God"...lol), no definitive date for when the crime occurred, some inconsistent facts around the sole witnesses account AND documentation that the OAG mispresented what the witness testified to before the GJ. Why include those train wrecks in the prosecutions case, especially if your other victims are relatively strong? Because it allowed the case to the "anchored" to PSU which prevented Sandusky from getting a fair trial due to media sensationalism. So the OAG has at least partial blame for the damage this case did to PSU.
Additionally, even once the case had been successfully (unfairly, perhaps illegally) anchored to PSU, the BOT could have stonewalled. If they had taken the OSU/MSU/UM path of not cooperating with anyone, a lot of what your are listing (damage to football program, damage to reputation, etc) would have been much, much less. So the BOT deserves at least partial blame for what this case did to PSU.
No "singularity" about it.
Not sure where you "came from" but suggest you educate yourself and do some critical thinking before you spout off from your "moral high ground" with this false (and poorly directed) outrage.
Last edited:
Plus I don’t think the attorney is under oath. Could theoretically be an ethics vioLation but not sure how much that would matter. I am in in-house attorney and seldom go to court but when I do it drives me crazy that the outside counsels are consistently representing to the court info that is false - but I believe the majority of the time it’s bc they don’t know the facts well.
The thing she's missing is, only the GJ Judge(Feudale) could waive GJ secrecy. Since the OAG'S office isn't arguing that, obviously Fina and crew received no such waiver from Feudale. It's just bad luck for JS that the Honorable Judge Freeh wasn't aware of the GJ law to stop Fina from leaking his team GJ info
Here is my perspective on JS. I definitely believe that he molested at least a few of these boys. Some made it up when settlements were being handed out. The Lasch shower incident was almost definitely NOT anal rape, but probably did involve improper contact.
Btw. A friend was on the GJ. She talked about how gut wrenching some of the boys testimony was. She also told me that in her opinion based upon their testimony that TC, Schultz and Spanier all knew about jerry. Late in the process the judge found out that she was retired upper mgmt and not just a regular employee of a large health company. He said that if he knew that he would've pushed for her to be the Foreman. She told him she deliberately didn't disclose to avoid being the Foreman.
Also, one of my brothers was involved thru the insurance company that he works for. He mentioned to me that there were also reports of Jerry groping his SM boys in the outdoor pool on campus and showering with them after he was barred from Lasch. I had never heard that reported anywhere before.
Btw. A friend was on the GJ. She talked about how gut wrenching some of the boys testimony was. She also told me that in her opinion based upon their testimony that TC, Schultz and Spanier all knew about jerry. Late in the process the judge found out that she was retired upper mgmt and not just a regular employee of a large health company. He said that if he knew that he would've pushed for her to be the Foreman. She told him she deliberately didn't disclose to avoid being the Foreman.
Also, one of my brothers was involved thru the insurance company that he works for. He mentioned to me that there were also reports of Jerry groping his SM boys in the outdoor pool on campus and showering with them after he was barred from Lasch. I had never heard that reported anywhere before.
Not sure about the rules in PA, but in most jurisdictions your friend that was on the GJ has broken the law. Grand jurors are not allowed to discuss cases until they have been fully adjudicated.
Also "gut wrenching" does not necessarily = true. From what I've heard about the grand juries (recall, there were multiple), they were kind of debacle.
Sandusky could be guilty as sin, but this should have never spilled over to PSU.
Sorry, but I have to correct your statement.
you need to replace the third word from “human” to “BOT”. They are singularly and solely responsible for all destruction. In fact, the drive most of it.
In Court, AG Seeks To Cover Up Collusion, Leaks, In Sandusky Case
By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net The ethically-challenged state attorney general's office has argued in state Superior Court that a secret...
Quite a statement.....your friends (OGBOT) did as much or more to damage to the reputation of the university and were the driving force behind the destruction of Joe's legacy and convictions of three honorable and loyal administrators.
They did nothing to defend Joe, Graham, Tim or Gary. They hired Freeh and gave him the outline for the document that invited NCAA sanctions. Then they embraced the Consent Agreement without one word in defense of Joe, the football program or anyone as they curled in a collective fetal position, content to act only to deflect scrutiny from their own missteps. Then these misanthropes put the man most likely to be linked to TSM in charge of granting fortunes to every claimant who put out a hand.
Late in the process the judge found out that she was retired upper mgmt and not just a regular employee of a large health company. He said that if he knew that he would've pushed for her to be the Foreman. She told him she deliberately didn't disclose to avoid being the Foreman.
I have been on lots of juries and know that the judge has nothing to do with the selection of the foreman. Ever. So this part, at least, of the story isn’t true.
I have been on lots of juries and know that the judge has nothing to do with the selection of the foreman. Ever. So this part, at least, of the story isn’t true.
Perjury requires testimony under oath (whether it be oral or written). Advocacy, even if inaccurate, is not perjury. If it were, then countless lawyers would be guilty of it every day. Cue well-worn lawyer jokes here....
[QUOTE="
"the near destruction of PSU football, , and three of Penn State leadership’s team prosecution on criminal charges. Massive financial fines which crippled the university and damaged bond ratings. Not to mention the damage done to the reputation of the university."
There are two components to this where you are wrong. First, Sandusky can be 100% guilty and this scandal have nothing to do with PSU at all, let alone PSU football. The OAG chose to media. IMHO, this essentially decided before it ever got to court. Ask yourself this: of the ten victims, which were the directly linked to PSU (janitor and McQueary). In the first case, not only was witness who Sandusky), only hearsay evidence. In the McQueary episode, we have no victim identified ("known only to God"...lol), no definitive date for when the crime occurred, some inconsistent facts around the sole witnesses account AND documentation that the OAG mispresented what the witness testified to before the GJ. Why include those train wrecks in the prosecutions case, especially if your other victims are relatively strong? Because it allowed the case to the "anchored" to PSU which prevented Sandusky from getting a fair trial due to media sensationalism. So the OAG has at least partial blame for the damage this case did to PSU.
Additionally, even once the case had been successfully (unfairly, perhaps illegally) anchored to PSU, the BOT could have stonewalled. If they had taken the OSU/MSU/UM path of not cooperating with anyone, a lot of what your are listing (damage to football program, damage to reputation, etc) would have been much, much less. So the BOT deserves at least partial blame for what this case did to PSU.
No "singularity" about it.
Not sure where you "came from" but suggest you educate yourself and do some critical thinking before you spout off from your "moral high ground" with this false (and poorly directed) outrage.
[/QUOTE]
"the near destruction of PSU football, , and three of Penn State leadership’s team prosecution on criminal charges. Massive financial fines which crippled the university and damaged bond ratings. Not to mention the damage done to the reputation of the university."
There are two components to this where you are wrong. First, Sandusky can be 100% guilty and this scandal have nothing to do with PSU at all, let alone PSU football. The OAG chose to media. IMHO, this essentially decided before it ever got to court. Ask yourself this: of the ten victims, which were the directly linked to PSU (janitor and McQueary). In the first case, not only was witness who Sandusky), only hearsay evidence. In the McQueary episode, we have no victim identified ("known only to God"...lol), no definitive date for when the crime occurred, some inconsistent facts around the sole witnesses account AND documentation that the OAG mispresented what the witness testified to before the GJ. Why include those train wrecks in the prosecutions case, especially if your other victims are relatively strong? Because it allowed the case to the "anchored" to PSU which prevented Sandusky from getting a fair trial due to media sensationalism. So the OAG has at least partial blame for the damage this case did to PSU.
Additionally, even once the case had been successfully (unfairly, perhaps illegally) anchored to PSU, the BOT could have stonewalled. If they had taken the OSU/MSU/UM path of not cooperating with anyone, a lot of what your are listing (damage to football program, damage to reputation, etc) would have been much, much less. So the BOT deserves at least partial blame for what this case did to PSU.
No "singularity" about it.
Not sure where you "came from" but suggest you educate yourself and do some critical thinking before you spout off from your "moral high ground" with this false (and poorly directed) outrage.
[/QUOTE]
As far as I know no one else showered with kids, traveled with them to bowl games, sexually assaulted them, and groomed countless victims. Not Paterno, not Spanier, not Shultz, not Curley, no members of the BOT, no politicians, no law enforcement officers, or anyone else you grotesque pedophile sycophants can conjure up. He is the reason this happened. No one else abused these kids. No one. He is in prison for the rest of his life. Thank God!!! And you idiots debate legal technicalities among the smoldering ruins. You all need mental treatment ASAP!!
Here is a link to the Daily Collegian's coverage of the hearing. I hope to post my detailed notes later today.
Jerry Sandusky’s attorney argues collusion between grand jury, attorney general’s office during virtual hearing Wednesday
The lawyer of former Penn State football defensive coordinator and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky argued Wednesday there was collusion between the grand jury and the attorney general’s office duringwww.collegian.psu.edu
The following are my detailed notes from the Sandusky appeal hearing on Wednesday October 14, 2020 in Superior Court. Please realize that I am not a court reporter and this is not a verbatim transcript although I tried to be as close as possible to what a person actually said.
---------------------
The 3 judge Superior Court panel included Judge Megan McCarthy King, Judge Mary Jane Bowes and Judge Judith Ference Olson. Attorney for Sandusky was Al Lindsay and attorney for the Office of Attorney General (OAG) was Jennifer Buck.
Hearing starts after a 5 minute delay due to technical difficulties by Jennifer Buck, attorney for the OAG. Her video feed wasn’t working so she participated on an audio feed
Sandusky lawyer Al Lindsay has 15 minutes for arguments. He reserves 3 minutes for rebuttal so he has 12 minutes for his initial arguments.
Judge Bowes: Sorry for the delay Mr. Lindsay. You may proceed.
Lindsay: One of the most remarkable things in this case is the response we received from the Commonwealth on our motion to remand the case to Court of Common Pleas to take evidence. The Sandusky legal team came into possession of the diary of Kathleen McChesney, an attorney working on the investigation for the Freeh Group. In the diary there is evidence that the Freeh Group was supposedly doing an independent investigation into wrong doing at Penn State, however it was anything but an independent investigation. It was clear from the diary that there was collaboration with the OAG. We had previously raised the issues of certain leaks and we need to take testimony from those people involved.
Judge Bowes: Can you address the issue that the trial court didn’t feel this issues was addressed in a timely matter because after-discovered evidence needs to be raised as quickly as possible..
Lindsay: On Nov. 4, 2019, we received a copy from a source of the raw diary with nothing else, nothing to show the impact on the trial. We decided that we had to show the impact on the trial. The commonwealth only refers to Nov. 4, but there is a lot more to our filing that just the diary. It is our position that the information that we file, substantially more than just the diary including an affidavit from Joe Amendola and information about a juror that may have been tainted.
Judge Bowes: The point of a timely filing is to preserve judicial resources. Nov. 4 was before your client was resentenced. I am struggling as to why when you were before the trial court that you couldn’t have told the court that you have big issue here.
Lindsay; It is important to understand that had we filed at that time the commonwealth would have said “So what.” The commonwealth works at cross purposes they say we should have filed the raw diary and then they say it wasn’t enough. We need to show that it would have a significant impact at trial. If we would have filed a motion based on the diary on Nov. 4, it would have been dismissed out of hand. There is no correlation between the diary and defendant’s trial and it wouldn’t have shown
Judge Bowes: Was there a reference to the juror in the diary?
Lindsay: No there was not. That was one of the most grievous things. We knew they were running a defacto joint investigation, but how that affected the trial is that. Amendola said he had no idea that the OAG and Freeh were in cahoots. We got a transcript of her voir dire examination. Amendola knew she had been interviewed by Freeh. She was asked by the Judge if that made any difference and whether there were any questions about this investigation. Three times she was asked about this and she answered no. I guess they thought they were separate investigations, but our position is that they were working hand-to-hand and they were one in the same. In Amendola’s affidavit, he says if he had known this that he would have stricken the juror because she had been involved in the investigation. At this stage, we don’t know how many jurors were interviewed by Freeh. We do not know the names of the jurors and we don’t know who he was interviewing and who he was not.
Judge Bowes: Is it your position that they tainted the juror through their examination and interviewing process?
Lindsay: Absolutely, our petition alleges that. A dissident group of BOT members had to sue to get the diary and they were disturbed by the oppressive nature of the interviews. In our petition we suggest that the juror in question told the court in voir dire only about the hierarchy. We much later came in possession of a summary of an interview with an author where she said they were putting words in her mouth and doing things that the dissident BOT members suggested occurred.
Judge Olson: One of things we must consider with respect the after-discovered evidence is whether the newly discovered evidence would likely result is a different verdict. In this case, it this diary and other evidence enough to likely result in a different verdict or is the evidence so overwhelming that it would not result in a different verdict?
Lindsay: One of the disturbing aspects of the diary is how this matter was rushed to trial. There were so many things that went wrong in this trial. The defense received 12,000 pages of discovery a several weeks before the trial and Amendola petitioned the court to withdraw stating that they can’t possible defend effectively and it would be a violation of the rules of professional conduct to proceed and Judge Cleland denied the petition, so they went to trial. Amendola stated that no lawyer could have possibly defended this case with the magnitude of the time limitation put on by the court.
Judge Bowes: Was this issue already raised before the court?
Lindsay: It was. What is important to understand now is based on the diary that the communications between Freeh and the OAG included the timing of the trial and the judge was holding fast on the trial date. The judge’s involvement in the case is very unusual. The judge showed up on an off-the-record meeting the day before the preliminary hearing and he is talking about the trial date. This was in November of 2011 and the Judge was suggesting that this should go to trial in March.
Judge Bowes: Hasn’t that already been before this court?
Lindsay: It has to this extent. It was raised on prior appeal, but it was dismissed on ineffective assistance of counsel because Amendola said “No” in response to the question if he would have done anything differently if he had had more time. Superior Court threw this issue out.
Judge Bowes: You only have a little time left.
Lindsay: The allegations we have raised are new. They are very grave. They deal with the grand jury leaks and abuse. They also deal with the collusion between the OAG and the Freeh people.
Judge Bowes: Counsel for OAG.
Buck: The fatal flaw in Sandusky’s arguments is that he keeps referring to the word evidence. The evidence is nothing more than speculation about what certain diary entries or emails could be interpreted to mean. At a minimum, he seeks evidentiary hearings. But in order to have evidentiary hearings, there needs to be actual facts that warrant an evidentiary hearing. The hearing is not meant to be a fishing expedition. What we have here is that Sandusky the same way the dissident BOT members where they criticize the Freeh Report are taking the diary entries and certain email communications and interpreting them other than looking at cold hard facts. The only affidavit submitted is Amendola’s and it basically what he could have done or should have done and not any new facts that would warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Judge Olson: Mr. Lindsay argues that the jury was tainted by the Freeh investigation. Isn’t that enough to warrant further development of those facts because if the jury was tainted that is a significant issue that needs to be addressed is it not?
Buck: I would agree if the evidence that was proffered had any impact on Sandusky’s trial. The new evidence that was provided does not speak to any evidence regarding the Sandusky’s trial but only speaks to the case against the administrators. The new evidence does speak to any impact on Sandusky’s trial. Judge Cleland created a very solid record during the initial voir dire. The new evidence which the source is unknown really does nothing to change it because it doesn’t reference the Sandusky investigation in any way.
Judge Bowes: But it does suggest the responses given in by the potential juror are different from what was subsequently revealed in the investigation and by the diary and the emails. Why shouldn’t this be explored at greater length?
Buck: There is only one reference to an interview by a juror. There is no reference in the diary or the emails obtained. The only reference was in an interview which is irrelevant to Sandusky.
Judge Bowes: You can proceed.
Buck: In this issue of the rush to trial, this have been disposed of previously ln regard to the diary entries and the emails, there was only discussion regarding trial dates. With respect to the allegation of improper collusion between the OAG and Freeh and the NCAA somehow operated to deprive Sandusky of a fair trial in some way, communication between the OAG with Freeh and with Judge Cleland does not demonstrate improper collusion that worked to the detriment of Sandusky. The only thing that they can point to and this was highlighted in the post-conviction proceedings and failed was a meeting about scheduling. There is an insinuation that the communications between the OAG and Freeh was improper because it occurred. There are no facts or affidavits that they can point to directly in the diaries or the email exchanges that reveals that there was improper leaking of grand jury information, that were these behind the scenes meetings and communications. It is purely speculation. There is nothing new and nothing improper about discussing trial dates with Judge Cleland. It seems like they have the same narrative as the alumni trustees report. Their narrative was very similar in terms of confabulation and compromising the integrity of the investigation, but there is simply no evidence. With respect to the leaks, in prior post-conviction proceedings, the allegations was made that the grand jury presentment should be quashed because there was improper conduct by the OAG in terms of leaking grand jury information to the media and the public and that claim was rejected. It is similar this time, but the Freeh Investigative team did not exist until after Sandusky was arrested, so there could be no communications between OAG and Freeh that would have tainted or compromised the grand jury investigation. It already had been completed before the Freeh investigation began. They are trying to resurrect the grand jury argument and it doesn’t fit because it occurred before Sandusky was arrested.
Judge Bowes: How is it that the Freeh Group was able to question the potential juror? I need a little more context.
Buck: I am not aware of the Freeh Group questioning any jurors in the Sandusky case. The Freeh report came out shortly after his conviction, so I don’t believe that would be the source of the source of this interview that Mr. Lindsay has included in support of his motion for a new trial based on after discovered evidence.
Judge Bowes: Thank you. Anything else.
Buck: No your honor.
Judge Bowes: The $95,000 restitution. Is it your position that that should be remanded for fuller explanation?
Buck: Yes, there is nothing is the record that explains or justifies that amount. I have attached in my brief a motion in a related civil action in Centre Court with respect to a prior judgment against Sandusky which was nearly $100,000. I am not representing a party in that matter.
Judge Bowes: Thank you counsel.
Lindsay: On the restitution issue, we don’t believe this issue should be remanded, we believe it should be stricken. There is no evidence of what the judge did here. The commonwealth has no idea why it is here. It just should be stricken.
Judge Olson: Didn’t the trial judge say that is should be for costs and fines?
Lindsay: The question is what that amount should be. They had around $1,000 for that and then they tagged Mr. Sandusky with something like $93,000, so we think it should be stricken or vacated. I would like to address something important that was raised by the Attorney General. That is that we had these allegations without specificity. The answer is yes we do because we don’t have subpoena power. This matter should have been referred to a special prosecutor. The issue in the Kane case with is the 35th State-wide Investigative grand jury. When there are colorable allegations that the sanctity of the grand jury proceedings has been breached, those allegations warrant an investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor. In this particular case, there are several colorable allegations. There were sufficient colorable allegations that Judge Feudale appointed a special prosecutor. Those prosecutors according to Feudale said the Attorney General wasn’t cooperating so they didn’t do anything. This particular case, one of the bizarre aspects is that the court accepted the testimony of Frank Fina that they conducted a sting operation because they were well aware that there were leaks coming out of the Attorney General’s office is more evidence of grand jury leaked coming out of the OAG. We raised the allegation of leaks. We petitioned the grand jury judge to appoint a special prosecutor. It was denied. In the course of this investigation, we requested the opportunity to subpoena the reporter Sara Ganim who received the one leak. Judge Cleland indicated that would be appropriate in the event we could show the quashal was a legitimate end of grand jury abuse. So we produced that evidence, most significantly the Curley, Schultz, and Spanier cases.
Judge Bowes: I want to focus the arguments related to what is before us. I know this is a complicated matter. It has been subject to numerous appeals. We are all aware of that. What you are talking about now, it that related what you are seeking in relief at this point in time relative to the diary.
Lindsay: Absolutely. I can’t go out and get these individuals to talk with me and give me affidavits and so forth. The commonwealth on one side of their mouth says he should have brought these witnesses in and tell us what they said. I don’t have subpoena power. The whole purpose of this hearing is so that we can bring in the author of this diary and ask her is this legitimate. That is why we asked for this hearing. It should have been conducted by a special investigator, but it has been denied for reasons we find incomprehensible as to why we have not gotten that investigation. I should not be the one doing this. This should be a special prosecutor doing this. Since no one will allow us to have a special prosecutor appointed, we ask for the opportunity to do that, to bring witnesses in and to subpoena them concerning this virtual gushing of grand jury leaks.
Judge Bowes: I believe that a special prosecutor needs to be ordered by a judge.
Lindsay: Yes it does, and we have asked for it in the past. And it has been denied. You should ask me if you thought it was appropriate, why didn’t you go back a third time and ask the grand jury judge. The answer is that if we had done that they would have raised the same argument they raise now that they waited 6 months before you filed this motion so now this thing has been delayed too much. When it comes to this case, any procedural thing they can throw up to keep us from getting to what actually happened here happens. We carefully considered whether we should do this and we felt if we didn’t file this motion now, they would raise the issue of promptness
Judge Bowes: Any other questions.
Other judges: No
Judge Bowes: Thank you very much Mr. Lindsay. We appreciate your advocacy.
Here is a link to Ralph Cipriano's bigtrial blog post on Wednesday's hearing.
bigtrial.net/2020/10/in-court-ag-seeks-to-cover-up-collusion.html
bigtrial.net/2020/10/in-court-ag-seeks-to-cover-up-collusion.html
Freeh and collusion same same.
"We have to take testimony from the individuals involved," such as McChesney, Fina, and Freeh, Lindsay insisted to the judges during a half-hour of oral arguments in the case.
The 79-page diary was written in 2011 and 2012 by former FBI Special Agent McChesney, when she was acting as co-leader of the civil investigation of Penn State being led by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
As an FBI agent, McChesney was a key member of the task force that arrested serial killer Ted Bundy, and was prominently featured on camera last year in a Netflix documentary series, "Conversations With A Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes." After the Bundy case, McChesney rose in the ranks to become the only female FBI agent ever appointed to be the bureau's executive assistant director.
McChesney's 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.
She's also the author of a 2011 book, "Pick Up Your Own Brass: Leadership the FBI Way." In state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers are hoping McChesney's unpublished diary will win a new trial for Sandusky, convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of child sex abuse, and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail.
In McChesney's diary, she not only documents grand jury leaks by Fina, but she also describes the AG's office supplying the Freeh Group with documents and grand jury transcripts. McChesney's diary also documented how 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 had to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, an investigator from Penn State Police who probed a 1998 shower incident involving Sandusky and a young boy that never resulted in criminal charges. After the Freeh Group notified Fina about the requested interview, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."
In court, however, rather than take on those type of allegations, the AG has argued that Sandusky's lawyers did not produce the McChesney diary in a timely fashion, so that Sandusky's motion for a new trial should be dismissed on procedural grounds by the state Superior Court.
Sandusky's lawyers received a copy of the McChesney diary on Nov. 4, 2019, but they didn't bring it up at a Nov. 22, 2019 re-sentencing hearing, the state Attorney General has argued. Nor did Sandusky's lawyers bring up the diary at a Jan. 28th hearing on post-sentence motions. Instead, Sandusky's lawyers waited until May 9, 2020 to file their motion for a new trial, the AG complained.
But Lindsay has argued that in addition to the McChesney diary, Sandusky's defense team on March 10th received a summary of Freeh's interview with one of the jurors at the Sandusky trial, which Sandusky's lawyers contend amounts to jury tampering.
In oral arguments, Lindsay said the procedural objections from the AG's office amount to a "remarkable response" that's an attempt to dodge the real issue involving evidence from a decorated FBI agent that documents corruption in the AG's office.
Lindsay said he waited to notify the court about the McChesney diary because he wanted "to show the impact" the AG's collusion and leaks had on Sandusky's criminal trial.
"We knew they [the AG and Freeh] were running a de facto joint investigation," Lindsay told the court, but he needed to gather more evidence, such as Freeh's interview with one of the jurors, and an affidavit from Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer.
In an affidavit, Sandusky stated that he had no idea of the collusion that was going on between the AG's office and Freeh. And had he known, Amendola would have sought to dismiss the juror from the case. Amendola stated in his affidavit that he would have also sought to question other jurors about whether they were also interviewed by Freeh.
"Is it your position that they [Freeh] may have tainted" one of the jurors, a judge asked.
"Absolutely, our petition alleges that," Lindsay shot back.
In response, Buck argued that an evidentiary hearing required "actual facts that warrant a hearing," she said, and that such a hearing "is not meant to be a fishing expedition."
"What we have at this juncture," Buck argued, was, "they criticize the Freeh report and are taking the diary entries and certain emails and interpreting them, rather than looking at cold hard facts."
Another judge asked if the allegation of a "tainted juror" was enough of an argument to "warrant further development of those facts."
Buck agreed, but then asserted that even if true as alleged, "the new evidence doesn't change anything."
As in let's keep moving, there's nothing to see here.
But, Lindsay argued, when she was questioned in court by Amendola and the judge, the "responses given by the potential juror seem to be different" than what was subsequently revealed by the investigation," and a summary on the juror's interview with Freeh.
During jury selection on June 6, 2012, Laura Pauley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State who served as a juror in the Sandusky trial, was asked by Amendola what she had previously 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 the interview went much further than that, and also revealed bias by Pauley against Penn State and its handling of the Sandusky case. According to a summary of the April 19, 2011 interview with Freeh's investigators, Pauley stated 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," Pauley told Freeh's investigators, according to their summary of the interview. She also stated 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," the summary states.
When Pauley was questioned by Amendola at the Sandusky trial, "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 this witness," Sandusky's lawyers contended in a brief.
In court, Buck continued to argue that whatever was written in the McChesney diary, "There's certainly no evidence of collusion."
But Lindsay argued that "the whole purpose is of having the hearing is so we can bring in the author of the diary," and "bring in witnesses" who can testify about the collusion, as well as the "virtual gushing of grand jury leaks."
Lindsay also told the judges he was tired of listening to frequent procedural objections from the AG's office.
"When it comes to this case, any procedural thing that they [the AG's office] can throw up that will keep us from getting to what actually happened, happens," Lindsay told the judges.
I can’t imagine having so much free time to waste on advocating for a new trial for a guy that molested kids and nearly destroyed Penn State. In the end, this isn’t about Sandusky anyway. It’s some fantasy that he’ll be found not guilty and St. Joe will not be known for a catastrophic failure. Get a life losers. The season starts in a week for f*cks sake.
For those of you that think a group of us here on this board can’t “let it go” or that we are sick to be “defending a child molester”.
I hope that you are never brought before a court, accused of a heinous crime, and then have your due process rights trampled continually.
As many on this board has stated Jerry Sandusky may very well be guilty. Most arguments here aren’t stating that.
We are saying that is a person in the USA deserves to have a fair trial, no matter what their alleged crime may will be.
Do not come to this board and complain how the Prosecutor lied, or evidence was made up, or that the investigator colluded with an attorney to get an alleged victim to embellish their story. Or to have a victim claim that you were doing something with them during your busiest time of day and busiest time of year and when it would be literally impossible for you to be away from your place of work.
Or just basically I hope that you are lucky enough to at least have a fair trial and not a show circus.
I hope that you are never brought before a court, accused of a heinous crime, and then have your due process rights trampled continually.
As many on this board has stated Jerry Sandusky may very well be guilty. Most arguments here aren’t stating that.
We are saying that is a person in the USA deserves to have a fair trial, no matter what their alleged crime may will be.
Do not come to this board and complain how the Prosecutor lied, or evidence was made up, or that the investigator colluded with an attorney to get an alleged victim to embellish their story. Or to have a victim claim that you were doing something with them during your busiest time of day and busiest time of year and when it would be literally impossible for you to be away from your place of work.
Or just basically I hope that you are lucky enough to at least have a fair trial and not a show circus.
Last edited:
It’s about making a sure a standard of fairness is set for all. Maybe some day you will get accused - maybe even falsely accused - of a crime. You will be whistling a different tune about why equality under the law is important.
Tell me again how this is connected to Penn State and not your Second Mile and maybe I'll start to take your posts as credible. Lay it all out and maybe I'll be on your side.
Like Pavlov's Dogs the bell rings and .....here they come. Listen clown, I have a life, it's been a long one. Thankfully, I've been astute enough to avoid taking advice from misanthropes. I'm a PSU football fan for more than 60 years. I see no correlation between "the season starts in a week" and this discussion. But then, unlike you, I don't sleep in my uniform.
Window lickers see the world entirely as black and white. Its the best they can do. We try to educate them, but they simply don't have the intellect to comprehend the complexity. Your post makes too much sense, but unfortunately, it requires the ability to read and comprehend.
We all need mental treatment? Like the kind Gillum gave Aaron Fisher? Perhaps you should go back to the Panther Lair, Pitter, they have their hands full today.
To all: Please note that this individual, purports to be a PSU fan and suggests that those who believe Sandusky deserves a new trial entertain "some fantasy that he'll be found not guilty and St. Joe will not be known for a catastrophic failure." Now I must ask, what form of Penn State fan says that about Joe Paterno?
I don't need Sandusky to be found not guilty to know that Joe was not a catastrophic failure.
With very few exceptions, posters here are suggesting that Sandusky did not get a fair trial...not that he is innocent. A new and fair trial, should be welcomed as an opportunity to get at the truth. I think there are reasons that the OAG/Corbett led prosecution of Sandusky and the PSU 3 were extralegal. People and or organizations are being protected. I don't think these "PSU Fans" are concerned about anything other than the facts becoming public.
I don't know if Sandusky is guilty or not, but I think Fina, Corbett, Eshbach, etc. have some explaining to do. It should be done under oath.
Fina is a fascinating story.
Hopefully he writes a book someday.
Fina does have a proven track record of leaking, trampling on constitutional rights of the accused, and blowing off legal ethics, but for years his brazen conduct been protected in the courts by what some would describe as the old-boys network. But Kittredge pummeled away at Fina today, saying the Disciplinary Board cannot allow Fina to basically use a loophole to "obliterate" a longstanding rule of professional conduct that's the only defense against an overzealous prosecutor like Fina who seeks to subvert the most basic protection afforded by the criminal justice system, by turning a defendant's own lawyer into a witness against him.
That's just what Fina is accused of doing on Oct. 22, 2012, when he told Judge Barry Feudale that he wanted to call Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's general counsel, as a witness against three of her clients, but Fina told the judge that he wouldn't get into any areas of questioning that would violate the attorney-client privilege.
But on Oct. 26, 2012, when Fina questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, he "did elicit" what the disciplinary board counsel described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications as well as "confidential information" pertaining to Baldwin's three former clients -- Penn State president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, and athletic director Tim Curley.
Fina is accused of breaking Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which states: "A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not, without prior judicial approval, subpoena an attorney to appear before a grand jury or other tribunal investigating criminal activity in circumstances where the prosecutor or other government lawyer seeks to compel the attorney/witness to provide evidence concerning a person who is or has been represented by the attorney/witness."
According to Kittredge, Fina deliberately misled the judge into not holding a hearing to seek prior approval before getting what he wanted behind closed doors from Baldwin, namely weaponizing the general counsel, and turning her into a witness who testified in secret grand jury proceedings against her own clients.
The actions of Fina and Baldwin were condemned by Lawrence J. Fox, a longtime Philadelphia lawyer who's a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, who was as an expert witness at Disciplinary Board hearings last June.
"When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed," Fox wrote.
In a separate action, the state Disciplinary Board has asked the state Supreme Court, which will also have the final say on Fina, to publicly censure Baldwin for abandoning her clients.
When Baldwin testified against her three former clients, according to Kittredge, those clients "astoundingly" were "not present or notified" that they were being sold down the river. Fina's lawyers, however, have claimed that the three former clients should have known that Baldwin was representing the university as a legal entity, and not the three officials individually.
After the hearings, a three-lawyer Disciplinary Board committee in January issued an opinion recommending that the charges be dismissed against Fina because of a technicality, that Fina's name was not on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general's office that summoned Baldwin to the grand jury.
Kittredge told the panel of judges today that the hearing committee had seized on a "non-issue here," namely the technicality of which prosecutor's name was on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general's office.
Former Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer signed the subpoena of Baldwin, but it was Fina who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury. According to Kittredge, if the hearing committee's decision is allowed to stand, the protection afforded by Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct would be "obliterated" by prosecutors as long as they get one of their colleagues to sign their name on a subpoena whenever they're dragging a lawyer into the grand jury to convince them to testify against their client.
In response, Dennis C. McAndrews, on behalf of Fina, basically did a tap dance routine that involved plenty of feigned outrage and references to the noble crusade Fina was on before he was turning Baldwin into a cooperator. McAndrews referred to Fina's dogged pursuit of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, and subsequent pursuit of Penn State officials who allegedly covered up Sandusky's crimes.
We now know, however, that previously undisclosed federal investigation determined that there was no cover at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up.
"This is an extraordinary case," McAndrews declared. He claimed that no public prosecutor has ever been sanctioned for what Fina is accused of. McAndrews cited five opinions by two judges in the case that covered for Slippery Frank, saying he didn't do anything wrong.
Fina is a noted escape artist. One of his most famous tricks was when Sandusky's lawyers went after Fina for numerous leaks in the case that could have only come from the prosecutors. Fina's defense: he tried to set a trap for the "real leakers," much like O.J. Simpson's search for the "real killers," but couldn't find them.
The judge, however, bought it, and Frank Fina was off the hook for leaking.
In the disciplinary board case against Fina, McAndrews said, no witnesses and no documents were introduced against Fina.
That's because for anybody who cares to read it, the court transcripts nail Fina's ass. But McAndrews kept dancing, and invoking that notorious serial pedophile that Fina was stalking, as well as the enablers of that pedophile.
If Fina was on such an important mission, one of the judges asked, wasn't that "all the more reason to do everything by the numbers?"
Hopefully he writes a book someday.
Fina does have a proven track record of leaking, trampling on constitutional rights of the accused, and blowing off legal ethics, but for years his brazen conduct been protected in the courts by what some would describe as the old-boys network. But Kittredge pummeled away at Fina today, saying the Disciplinary Board cannot allow Fina to basically use a loophole to "obliterate" a longstanding rule of professional conduct that's the only defense against an overzealous prosecutor like Fina who seeks to subvert the most basic protection afforded by the criminal justice system, by turning a defendant's own lawyer into a witness against him.
That's just what Fina is accused of doing on Oct. 22, 2012, when he told Judge Barry Feudale that he wanted to call Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State's general counsel, as a witness against three of her clients, but Fina told the judge that he wouldn't get into any areas of questioning that would violate the attorney-client privilege.
But on Oct. 26, 2012, when Fina questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, he "did elicit" what the disciplinary board counsel described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications as well as "confidential information" pertaining to Baldwin's three former clients -- Penn State president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, and athletic director Tim Curley.
Fina is accused of breaking Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which states: "A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not, without prior judicial approval, subpoena an attorney to appear before a grand jury or other tribunal investigating criminal activity in circumstances where the prosecutor or other government lawyer seeks to compel the attorney/witness to provide evidence concerning a person who is or has been represented by the attorney/witness."
According to Kittredge, Fina deliberately misled the judge into not holding a hearing to seek prior approval before getting what he wanted behind closed doors from Baldwin, namely weaponizing the general counsel, and turning her into a witness who testified in secret grand jury proceedings against her own clients.
The actions of Fina and Baldwin were condemned by Lawrence J. Fox, a longtime Philadelphia lawyer who's a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, who was as an expert witness at Disciplinary Board hearings last June.
"When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed," Fox wrote.
In a separate action, the state Disciplinary Board has asked the state Supreme Court, which will also have the final say on Fina, to publicly censure Baldwin for abandoning her clients.
When Baldwin testified against her three former clients, according to Kittredge, those clients "astoundingly" were "not present or notified" that they were being sold down the river. Fina's lawyers, however, have claimed that the three former clients should have known that Baldwin was representing the university as a legal entity, and not the three officials individually.
After the hearings, a three-lawyer Disciplinary Board committee in January issued an opinion recommending that the charges be dismissed against Fina because of a technicality, that Fina's name was not on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general's office that summoned Baldwin to the grand jury.
Kittredge told the panel of judges today that the hearing committee had seized on a "non-issue here," namely the technicality of which prosecutor's name was on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general's office.
Former Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer signed the subpoena of Baldwin, but it was Fina who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury. According to Kittredge, if the hearing committee's decision is allowed to stand, the protection afforded by Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct would be "obliterated" by prosecutors as long as they get one of their colleagues to sign their name on a subpoena whenever they're dragging a lawyer into the grand jury to convince them to testify against their client.
In response, Dennis C. McAndrews, on behalf of Fina, basically did a tap dance routine that involved plenty of feigned outrage and references to the noble crusade Fina was on before he was turning Baldwin into a cooperator. McAndrews referred to Fina's dogged pursuit of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, and subsequent pursuit of Penn State officials who allegedly covered up Sandusky's crimes.
We now know, however, that previously undisclosed federal investigation determined that there was no cover at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up.
"This is an extraordinary case," McAndrews declared. He claimed that no public prosecutor has ever been sanctioned for what Fina is accused of. McAndrews cited five opinions by two judges in the case that covered for Slippery Frank, saying he didn't do anything wrong.
Fina is a noted escape artist. One of his most famous tricks was when Sandusky's lawyers went after Fina for numerous leaks in the case that could have only come from the prosecutors. Fina's defense: he tried to set a trap for the "real leakers," much like O.J. Simpson's search for the "real killers," but couldn't find them.
The judge, however, bought it, and Frank Fina was off the hook for leaking.
In the disciplinary board case against Fina, McAndrews said, no witnesses and no documents were introduced against Fina.
That's because for anybody who cares to read it, the court transcripts nail Fina's ass. But McAndrews kept dancing, and invoking that notorious serial pedophile that Fina was stalking, as well as the enablers of that pedophile.
If Fina was on such an important mission, one of the judges asked, wasn't that "all the more reason to do everything by the numbers?"
As well as members of the OGBOT who fell into lockstep with Corbett and threw gasoline on the fire....never once defending the university or its lifelong loyal employees. Why?
Thanks for saying my post makes, because I was fighting to stay awake while typing it out.
The scary thing is that all of the scenarios that I mentioned actually happen. An investigator is on tape collaborating with a lawyer, prosecutors did lie, a victim did claim that in the mid afternoon during football season JS was with him and not in meetings or on the practice field. I didn’t even mention that one of the alleged victims claim he was in a type of car with JS (Silver convertible I believe) that JS never owned. Or the fact that the Defense Attorney Amendola was completely over his head and tried to resign and Cleland wouldn’t let him.
Plus how many times in such a large case do you see the Defense never granted any motions to have more time to prepare. The fact is that Cleland was told to have this case over and done with ASAP. So it wouldn’t be lingering during the next football season. There was no way in hell that that jury wasn’t going to convict. Because they would have to go home and answer to their friends, family, and co workers, how did they let a monster go free.
Simply put, why do you "frame" a guilty man? While virtually everyone acknowledges that Sandusky may be guilty....if you have an IQ over 85, its hard not to wonder why there was so much misconduct and outright lying associated with the case.
Do you think anyone cares how long you’ve been a Penn State fan? Does that mean your opinion matters more?
You people need to move on. Since this all broke, the blame for this has rotated around different people and the only person who had never received any blame by the JoeBots is St Joe. To still be bringing this up is nothing but an embarrassment for the entire fan base. I bet Franklin would appreciate the JoeBots still keeping this alive.
It about ten years, most of the dinosaurs will have died off and this will be a non-issue.
It is absolutely not time to move on.
Do you believe that Sandusky received a fair trial or is that immaterial as far as you are concerned?
I don’t think he does. But let’s call this for what it really is...a desperate attempt to find a way to clear his name. Nobody here honestly cares if Sandusky rots away in jail.
The only people who want us to “move on” are those who are afraid someone will look under their rock and see what was hidden there. Your making fun of Joe shows you to be a rather low form of intelligence. If one sees an injustice they should speak out about it, that is the right thing to do. Many of us here cannot actually help to reverse the wrong but we will continue to cheer on those who carry the fight. Now, back under your rock.
Every child involved was affiliated with TSM....not Penn State. Joe Paterno followed university policy and state statute. Tim Curley reported the shower incident to Jack Raykovitz, head of TSM. Please tell the board why this became a Penn State scandal?
I for one care deeply if Sandusky rots away in jail. I believe that his trial was the epitome of an unfair trial and that he is the victim of an injustice of epic proportion. I believe that he deserves a fair trial and that if he lives long enough to receive one that the verdict will be much different than the first one.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Wrestling Could Penn State be hosting a wrestling dual at Beaver Stadium this fall?- Latest: The Spin Meister
