Spanier has a book coming out in 09/22

[WHCANole]

Jury foreman calls guilty verdict against Spanier a 'mistake'

www.google.com

Black, 78, said after reflection he believes the jury lost sight of that question in their desire to punish Spanier for the eventual harm to other children caused by what all on the panel agreed was an effort to protect Penn State's brand. "They did that," Black said of Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They were more interested in protecting the brand than in protecting the children."

 

[Obliviax]

Black, 78, said after reflection he believes the jury lost sight of that question in their desire to punish Spanier for the eventual harm to other children caused by what all on the panel agreed was an effort to protect Penn State's brand. "They did that," Black said of Spanier, Curley and Schultz. "They were more interested in protecting the brand than in protecting the children."

so?

 

[WHCANole]

so?

Coverup

 

[Obliviax]

Coverup

"The jury acquitted Spanier of the more serious felony conspiracy (unanimously) and endangerment charges, and downgraded what had been a felony endangerment charge to a (single) misdemeanor."

You should probably read more.

 

[WHCANole]

"The jury acquitted Spanier of the more serious felony conspiracy (unanimously) and endangerment charges, and downgraded what had been a felony endangerment charge to a (single) misdemeanor."

You should probably read more.

What is you point? Didn't he go to jail? Did you read what I just posted?

 

[Obliviax]

What is you point? Didn't he go to jail?

you said there was a conspiracy....again, you were WRONG.

Do you even know what laws are?

 

[WHCANole]

you said there was a conspiracy....again, you were WRONG.

Do you even know what laws are?

Apparently you don't

 

[Obliviax]

Apparently you don't

bottom line.

1. The jury found Spanier innocent of conspiracy.
2. Innocent on all charges except misdemeanor for child endangerment
3. All charges dropped on C/S except for misdemeanor child endangerment.
4. No conspiracy.
5. No grooming could be charged against JS in 1998 AT LEAST because there was no law against grooming
6. There was a large investigation into the 1998 incident and the DA found insufficient cause to charge

After years and years of litigation with unlimited resources, the state got old guys tired of being tortured into confessing to a single misdemeanor and a single conviction on the president.

 

[joeaubie21]

bottom line.

1. The jury found Spanier innocent of conspiracy.
2. Innocent on all charges except misdemeanor for child endangerment
3. All charges dropped on C/S except for misdemeanor child endangerment.
4. No conspiracy.
5. No grooming could be charged against JS in 1998 AT LEAST because there was no law against grooming
6. There was a large investigation into the 1998 incident and the DA found insufficient cause to charge

After years and years of litigation with unlimited resources, the state got old guys tired of being tortured into confessing to a single misdemeanor and a single conviction on the president.

And the tool whackynole continues to obsess with his Penn Live BS.

 

[WHCANole]

bottom line.

1. The jury found Spanier innocent of conspiracy.

But not of covering up to protect PSU image because he wasn't charged with that.

1. Innocent on all charges except misdemeanor for child endangerment

Went to jail for it.

1. All charges dropped on C/S except for misdemeanor child endangerment.

Also went to jail

1. No conspiracy.

The Paterno 3 did indeed coverup for Sandusky. A coverup is not a crime, in and of itself. The jury found there was not a conspiracy. A coverup and a conspiracy are two different things.

§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.

(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."

Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:

"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."

Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the Paterno 3 lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so.

1. No grooming could be charged against JS in 1998 AT LEAST because there was no law against grooming

Nevertheless, it was a telltale sign of pedophilia which the report to Penn State showed. Sandusky could have been barred from bringing and showering alone with any more children. Fiduciary negligence of CSS allowed the resulting scandal.

1. There was a large investigation into the 1998 incident and the DA found insufficient cause to charge

No, unlikely conviction due to the pillar of community that Sandusky was. The police wanted to charge him and the DA (who is elected) did not want to charge a local legend who was unlikely to be convicted. That might cost Gricar his job.

After years and years of litigation with unlimited resources, the state got old guys tired of being tortured into confessing to a single misdemeanor and a single conviction on the president.

And off to jail they went thank goodness the big shots finally got their just due. BTW the kids Sandusky abused got it far worse than these fat cats.

 

[jerot]

Not sure if the term "radical left mental cases" is intended for me since your first response in this thread was a response to me but if it was but if you think calling out a broken system of justice is radical left mental cases you have a bad case of paranoia.
Do you think the way the the Jan 6th folks are being held and treated [whether guilty or not] prior to a trial is what our system was intended to look like. I think you can make a good case the Gitmo detainees have it better.

Not really.

Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.


According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State faculty member who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror 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 the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.

At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."

Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."



In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."

"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"

"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."

"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."

Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."
"Coaches are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.

"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."

In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.

At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeill. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.

According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."

Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.

Sandusky, 76, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.

According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."

But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that Freeh's investigators were hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators; both sets of investigators were also trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.

The records show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers argue that their client's constitutional rights were trampled under the mad rush to save Penn State's storied football program from the NCAA's threat to impose the "death penalty" on the Nittany Lions.

To save Penn State football, the NCAA and Penn State's trustees had worked out a consent decree with voluntary sanctions. The consent decree, which called for the university's unconditional surrender, required that two things happen by the opening of the 2012 college football season to save Penn State football: Jerry Sandusky had to be convicted and the Freeh Report had to be published.

Sandusky was indicted by a grand jury on Nov. 5, 2011, the details of which were leaked to reporter Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.

On Nov. 21, 2011, Penn Stated agreed to hire Freeh.

The railroad was running right on schedule. And Judge John Cleland, who presided over Sandusky's trial, demonstrated time and time again that he was willing to sacrifice Sandusky's constitutional rights to keep the trains running on time.

On Dec. 12, 2011, an off-the-record meeting was held at the Hilton Garden Inn at State College, attended by the trial judge, John Cleland, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and a district magistrate judge. At the off-the-record hotel meeting, Sandusky's lawyers agreed to waive a preliminary hearing where they would have had their only pre-trial chance to question the eight alleged victims who would testify at trial against Sandusky.

For any defense lawyer, this unusual conference led to a decision that was akin to slitting your own throat. But Sandusky's defense lawyers were completely overwhelmed by the task of defending their client against ten different accusers -- two of whom were imaginary boys in the shower -- while confined to a blitzkrieg trial schedule.

On Feb. 29, 2012, Amendola sought a two-month delay for the trial that was denied by Judge Cleland.

On the eve of the Sandusky trial, Amendola and his co-counsel, Karl Rominger, made a motion to withdraw as Sandusky's defense lawyers because, as Amendola told the judge, "We are not prepared to go to trial at this time."

The motion was denied.

In an affidavit, Amendola stated that "no attorney could have effectively represented Mr. Sandusky" given the "time constraints" imposed by Judge Cleland. Amendola stated that in the days and weeks before the Sandusky trial, he was hit with "more than 12,000 pages of discovery."

Those time constraints, Amendola stated, kept two expert forensic psychologists from participating in Sandusky's defense, which would have included reviewing the discovery in the case.

But under Judge Cleland, the Pennsylvania Railroad that Jerry Sandusky was riding on had to stay on schedule. And everybody knew it, including the prosecutors in the AG's office, as well as Freeh's investigators.

In the McChesney diary, on May 10, 2012, she noted in a conference call with Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil, two of Freeh's investigators, that Paw is going to talk to Fina, and that the "judge [is] holding firm on date of trial."

In his affidavit, Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, states that McChesney didn't receive this information from him.

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

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

And "whether, as a result, defendant's right to a fair trial, and the effective assistance of his counsel, were negatively affected or compromised."

They were. Meanwhile, the trains were running on time.
On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty.

On July 12, 2012, the Freeh report was issued.

On July 23, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert and PSU President Rodney Erickson signed a consent decree that imposed sanctions on PSU football program.

Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 6, 2012, the Penn State football team, under new coach Bill O'Brien, gathered at the practice field at University Park for the official start of training camp.

On Sept. 1, l2012, the Nittany Lions played Ohio University at Beaver Stadium in the season opener, lost 24-14, en route to a 8-4 season.

So Penn State football was saved at the expense of Jerry Sandusky's constitutional rig
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers cite a history of leaks on grand jury investigations that deputy attorney general Frank Fina was the lead prosecutor on.

It began with a partial grand jury transcript in the bonus gate investigation that was leaked to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2009.

Next, the indictment of Sandusky was leaked to Sara Ganim in 2011, who was functioning as the press secretary for the AG's office.

Finally, the names of four state legislators who allegedly took bribes from Tyron Ali during an undercover operation -- and the amount of money and gifts that they took -- was leaked to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2014.

According to Sandusky's lawyers, "this form of prosecutorial misconduct" -- leaking -- had become "entrenched and flagrant" in the AG's office. Especially when Frank Fina was in charge of a grand jury investigation.

Fina has previously been disciplined for his overzealous and unprincipled actions in the Penn State investigation.

In February, the state Supreme Court in a 5-1 decision suspended Fina's law license for a year and a day after the state's office of disciplinary counsel found that Fina had improperly obtained grand jury testimony against three former Penn State officials from their own lawyer.

Fina had threatened to indict former Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, unless she became a cooperator in the grand jury against her own clients. To pull that off, the disciplinary board found, Fina had to deceive a grand jury judge about his true intentions when he interviewed Baldwin before the grand jury. And he had to browbeat Baldwin to the point where she was willing to betray the attorney-client privilege by testifying against her clients.

For her misconduct in the grand jury investigation of Penn State, the state Supreme Court gave Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, a public reprimand.


McChesney's diary is replete with constant, ongoing communication between Freeh's investigators and the AG's office while both investigations were up and running.

For example, in her diary McChesney makes reference to a 1998 police report that the Freeh team should not have had access to. The report was an investigation into the first incident involving Sandusky showering with a child, but the investigation had cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing.

In her diary, McChesney doesn't mention how the Freeh Group obtained that police report, but three lines later, McChesney wrote: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

McChesney's diary portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them."

McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for youths.
In her diary, McChesney speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" from the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

In her diary, McChesney is also extremely knowledgable about what the AG was up to during its supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Penn State. She described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."

On March 7, 2012, McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.

On March 30, 2012, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina. Fina, according to Paw, was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."

She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."

In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.

Freeh's investigators also interviewed Baldwin on several occasions.

Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney in her diary as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts."

And the grand jury transcripts on Baldwin weren't the only documents the AG's office was sharing with Freeh's investigators. On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."

In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.

On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain," where Penn State administrators talked about how to handle Sandusky and his habit of showering with children.
McChesney wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."


On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."

McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.

The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."

The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest.

The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno, and the 1998 shower incident.

"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."

On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."

McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."

Both Coyle and Belcher got immunity to testify against Schultz. Meanwhile, there were several leakers on Schultz's supposedly secret file that he was keeping on Sandusky. As McChesney recorded in her diary, "Fina got papers from two different sources."

The cooperation between the attorney general's office and Freeh's investigators went both ways.
When Freeh's investigators, including McChesney, interviewed Penn State counsel Baldwin and learned somebody else in the attorney general's office was leaking her information, they knew they had to tell Fina.

"Paw: didn't tell Fina that Baldwin heard @ the charges before they happened, but will tell him that," McChesney wrote. Baldwin, McChesney added, told Freeh's investigators that "a colleague in the AG's office leaked that Curly, Schultz and Sandusky would be charged," and that Spanier "was stunned."


From the get-go, the prospect of Freeh's investigators working in tandem with the AG's office was laid out in emails circulated among Freeh's investigators.
"If we haven't, we should make certain that we determine the utility of looking into all the same areas of interest raised by the AG in the subpoenas, to ensure that we do not get 'scooped' [borrowing Louie's term used in connection with the recent federal subpoena]," Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for the Freeh Group, wrote his colleagues on Feb. 8, 2012.

"I think that we are delving into most of the same areas, but I am not sure at all," McNeill wrote.

"I want to make sure that we are comfortable that we have an understanding of all the areas the AG has inquired about in subpoenas [or otherwise if our contacts at the AG have provided us other insights] that we can state when asked -- as we certainly will be -- that we made a conscious, strategic decision as to whether to pursue those same lines of inquiry in some form," McNeill wrote.

Another term for those grand jury "insights" gleaned from our "contacts at the AG" -- leaks.
In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group about the feedback that Fina was getting from the grand jury.

"He [Fina] said that the feedback he received from jurors was that they wanted someone to take a 'fire hose' to Penn State and rinse away the bad that happened there. He [Fina] said that he still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”

The cooperation between the Freeh Group and the AG's office continued to go both ways. On June 26, 2012, Gregory Paw told Fina that the Louie Freeh report would be out by the week of July 13th.
Fina agreed to keep it confidential, and then, according to Paw, "He [Fina] also said that he was willing to sit with us and talk to the extent he can before the report is released if we wished for any feedback," Paw wrote.

 

[Media Fan]

What is you point? Didn't he go to jail? Did you read what I just posted?

Maybe his point is that a misdemeanor is deemed a much less severe crime than a felony.
Should look that up.

 

[roswelllion]

Not really.

Throughout the Freeh investigation, which was the legal basis for the NCAA's unprecedented sanctions imposed against Penn State that included a record $60 million fine, there were "substantial communications" between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators, the motion states. Those communications included a steady stream of leaks to Freeh's investigators emanating from the supposedly secret grand jury probe overseen by former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, a noted bad actor in this case.

The collusion and leaks between the AG's office and the Freeh Group are documented in three sets of confidential records filed under seal by Sandusky's lawyers; all those records, however, were previously disclosed on Big Trial. The records include a private 79-page diary kept by former FBI Special Agent Kathleen McChesney, the co-leader of the Freeh investigation, in 2011 and 2012; a seven-page "Executive Summary of Findings" of a 2017 confidential review of the Freeh Report conducted by seven Penn State trustees; and a 25-page synopsis of the evidence gleaned by the trustees in 2017 after a review of the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report still under judicial seal.

In documents filed Saturday in state Superior Court, Sandusky's lawyers argued in their motion for a new trial that the collusion that existed between the AG and Freeh amounted to a "de facto joint investigation" that not only violated state law regarding grand jury secrecy, but also tainted one of the jurors who convicted Sandusky.


According to the motion for a new trial, "Juror 0990" was a Penn State faculty member who was interviewed by Freeh's investigators before she was sworn in as a juror 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 the witness," lawyers Philip Lauer and Alexander Lindsay Jr. argue in the 31-page motion filed on Sandusky's behalf.
At jury selection, Joseph Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, had no knowledge "about the degree of collaboration" ongoing between the AG's office and Freeh investigators, Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote. Had he known, Amendola stated in an affidavit quoted in the motion for a new trial, Amendola would have "very likely stricken her for cause, or at a minimum, used one of my preemptory strikes to remove her as a potential juror."
Had he known the AG and Freeh Group were working in tandem, Amendola stated in an affidavit, he would have also quizzed all other potential jurors about any interaction with investigators from the Freeh Group. And he "would have sought discovery of all materials and statements obtained by the Freeh Group regarding the Penn State/Sandusky investigation."
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers describe the hardball tactics employed by Freeh's investigators as detailed in a seven-page June 29, 2018 report from the Penn State trustees who investigated the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. In their report, seven trustees state that "multiple individuals have approached us privately to tell us they were subjected to coercive tactics when interviewed by Freeh's investigators."
"Investigators shouted, were insulting, and demanded that interviewees give them specific information," the seven trustees wrote, such as, "Tell me that Joe Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing kids!"
"Some interviewees were told they could not leave until they provided what the interviewers wanted, even when interviewees protested that this would require them to lie," the trustees wrote. Some individuals were called back by Freeh's investigators for multiple interviews, where the same questions were repeated, and the interviewees were told they were being "uncooperative for refusing to untruthfully agree with interviewers' statements."
"Those employed by university were told their cooperation was a requirement for keeping their jobs," the trustees wrote. And that being labeled "uncooperative" by Freeh's investigators was "perceived as a threat against their employment."
Indeed, the trustees wrote, "one individual indicated that he was fired for failing to tell the interviewers what they wanted to hear."
"Coaches are scared of their jobs," the trustees quoted another interviewee as saying.
"Presumably," Sandusky's lawyers wrote, as a Penn State employee, "Juror number 0990 was subject to this type of coercion."
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers ask the Superior Court for permission to conduct an evidentiary hearing so that Sandusky's lawyers could learn the depth of the collaboration that existed between the AG's office and Freeh's investigators.
At that evidentiary hearing, Sandusky's lawyers wrote, they would seek to depose Freeh, McChesney, and other Freeh investigators that include Gregory Paw and Omar McNeill. Sandusky's lawyers also seek to interview former deputy attorney generals Frank Fina, Jonelle Eshbach and Joseph McGettigan, as well as former AG agents Anthony Sassano and Randy Feathers.
According to the motion, the communications on the part of the AG's office "appear to have included information, and even testimony, from the special investigating grand jury then in session, which communications would be in direct violation of grand jury secrecy rules, and would subject the participants in the Attorney General's office to sanctions."
Sandusky's lawyers are also seeking disclosure of all of the so-called source materials for the Freeh Report. Those records, as previously mentioned, are still under seal in the ongoing cover-up of the scandal behind the Penn State scandal, as led by the stonewalling majority on the Penn State board of trustees.
Sandusky, 76, was re-sentenced on appeal last November to serve 30 to 60 years in prison for sexually abusing ten boys, the same sentence he originally got after he was convicted in 2012 on 45 counts of sex abuse.
According to a Dec. 2, 2011, letter of engagement, Freeh was formally hired by Penn State to "perform an independent, full and complete investigation of the recently publicized allegation of sexual abuse."
But instead of an independent investigation, the confidential documents show that Freeh's investigators were hopelessly intertwined with the AG's criminal investigation, tainting both probes. According to the confidential documents, the AG's office was supplying secret grand jury transcripts and information to Freeh's investigators; both sets of investigators were also trading information on common witnesses and collaborating on strategy.
The records show that former deputy Attorney General Fina was in effect directing the Freeh Group's investigation by telling Freeh's investigators which witnesses they could interview, and when. In return, Freeh's investigators shared what they were learning during their investigation with Fina. And when they were done, Freeh's investigators showed the deputy AG their report before it was made public
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers argue that their client's constitutional rights were trampled under the mad rush to save Penn State's storied football program from the NCAA's threat to impose the "death penalty" on the Nittany Lions.
To save Penn State football, the NCAA and Penn State's trustees had worked out a consent decree with voluntary sanctions. The consent decree, which called for the university's unconditional surrender, required that two things happen by the opening of the 2012 college football season to save Penn State football: Jerry Sandusky had to be convicted and the Freeh Report had to be published.
Sandusky was indicted by a grand jury on Nov. 5, 2011, the details of which were leaked to reporter Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News of Harrisburg.
On Nov. 21, 2011, Penn Stated agreed to hire Freeh.
The railroad was running right on schedule. And Judge John Cleland, who presided over Sandusky's trial, demonstrated time and time again that he was willing to sacrifice Sandusky's constitutional rights to keep the trains running on time.
On Dec. 12, 2011, an off-the-record meeting was held at the Hilton Garden Inn at State College, attended by the trial judge, John Cleland, the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and a district magistrate judge. At the off-the-record hotel meeting, Sandusky's lawyers agreed to waive a preliminary hearing where they would have had their only pre-trial chance to question the eight alleged victims who would testify at trial against Sandusky.
For any defense lawyer, this unusual conference led to a decision that was akin to slitting your own throat. But Sandusky's defense lawyers were completely overwhelmed by the task of defending their client against ten different accusers -- two of whom were imaginary boys in the shower -- while confined to a blitzkrieg trial schedule.
On Feb. 29, 2012, Amendola sought a two-month delay for the trial that was denied by Judge Cleland.
On the eve of the Sandusky trial, Amendola and his co-counsel, Karl Rominger, made a motion to withdraw as Sandusky's defense lawyers because, as Amendola told the judge, "We are not prepared to go to trial at this time."
The motion was denied.
In an affidavit, Amendola stated that "no attorney could have effectively represented Mr. Sandusky" given the "time constraints" imposed by Judge Cleland. Amendola stated that in the days and weeks before the Sandusky trial, he was hit with "more than 12,000 pages of discovery."
Those time constraints, Amendola stated, kept two expert forensic psychologists from participating in Sandusky's defense, which would have included reviewing the discovery in the case.
But under Judge Cleland, the Pennsylvania Railroad that Jerry Sandusky was riding on had to stay on schedule. And everybody knew it, including the prosecutors in the AG's office, as well as Freeh's investigators.
In the McChesney diary, on May 10, 2012, she noted in a conference call with Gregory Paw and Omar McNeil, two of Freeh's investigators, that Paw is going to talk to Fina, and that the "judge [is] holding firm on date of trial."
In his affidavit, Amendola, Sandusky's trial lawyer, states that McChesney didn't receive this information from him.
"An obvious question arises as to whether or not the trial judge was communicating with a member of the Freeh Group, attorneys for the attorney general's office, or anyone else concerning the trial date," Sandusky's appeal lawyers wrote.
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers seek to question Judge Cleland at an evidentiary hearing "to determine whether, and to what extent, collusion between the office of the attorney general, the Freeh investigation and the NCAA had an impact on the trial."
And "whether, as a result, defendant's right to a fair trial, and the effective assistance of his counsel, were negatively affected or compromised."
They were. Meanwhile, the trains were running on time.
On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty.
On July 12, 2012, the Freeh report was issued.
On July 23, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert and PSU President Rodney Erickson signed a consent decree that imposed sanctions on PSU football program.
Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 6, 2012, the Penn State football team, under new coach Bill O'Brien, gathered at the practice field at University Park for the official start of training camp.
On Sept. 1, l2012, the Nittany Lions played Ohio University at Beaver Stadium in the season opener, lost 24-14, en route to a 8-4 season.
So Penn State football was saved at the expense of Jerry Sandusky's constitutional rig
In their motion for a new trial, Sandusky's lawyers cite a history of leaks on grand jury investigations that deputy attorney general Frank Fina was the lead prosecutor on.
It began with a partial grand jury transcript in the bonus gate investigation that was leaked to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2009.
Next, the indictment of Sandusky was leaked to Sara Ganim in 2011, who was functioning as the press secretary for the AG's office.
Finally, the names of four state legislators who allegedly took bribes from Tyron Ali during an undercover operation -- and the amount of money and gifts that they took -- was leaked to The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2014.
According to Sandusky's lawyers, "this form of prosecutorial misconduct" -- leaking -- had become "entrenched and flagrant" in the AG's office. Especially when Frank Fina was in charge of a grand jury investigation.
Fina has previously been disciplined for his overzealous and unprincipled actions in the Penn State investigation.
In February, the state Supreme Court in a 5-1 decision suspended Fina's law license for a year and a day after the state's office of disciplinary counsel found that Fina had improperly obtained grand jury testimony against three former Penn State officials from their own lawyer.

Fina had threatened to indict former Penn State General Counsel Cynthia Baldwin, unless she became a cooperator in the grand jury against her own clients. To pull that off, the disciplinary board found, Fina had to deceive a grand jury judge about his true intentions when he interviewed Baldwin before the grand jury. And he had to browbeat Baldwin to the point where she was willing to betray the attorney-client privilege by testifying against her clients.

For her misconduct in the grand jury investigation of Penn State, the state Supreme Court gave Baldwin, a former state Supreme Court justice, a public reprimand.


McChesney's diary is replete with constant, ongoing communication between Freeh's investigators and the AG's office while both investigations were up and running.

For example, in her diary McChesney makes reference to a 1998 police report that the Freeh team should not have had access to. The report was an investigation into the first incident involving Sandusky showering with a child, but the investigation had cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing.

In her diary, McChesney doesn't mention how the Freeh Group obtained that police report, but three lines later, McChesney wrote: "Records - IT: Team working with Atty general, will receive in stages."

McChesney's diary portrayed Fina as not only leaking grand jury secrets to the Freeh Group, but also being actively involved in directing the Freeh Group's investigation, to the point of saying if and when they could interview certain witnesses.

McChesney recorded that the Freeh Group was going to notify Fina that they wanted to interview Ronald Schreffler, the investigator from Penn State Police who probed the 1998 shower incident. After he was notified, McChesney wrote, "Fina approved interview with Schreffler."

According to McChesney, members of the Freeh Group "don't want to interfere with their investigations," and that she and her colleagues were being "extremely cautious & running certain interviews by them."

McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group even "asked [Deputy Attorney General] Fina to authorize some interviews." And that the AG's office "asked us to stay away from some people, ex janitors, but can interview" people from the Second Mile, Sandusky's charity for youths.
In her diary, McChesney speculated about the need to have somebody "handle, organize, channel data" from the attorney general's office. GP, she wrote, presumably, Greg Paw, discussed "Piggyback on AG investigation re: docs."

In her diary, McChesney is also extremely knowledgable about what the AG was up to during its supposedly secret grand jury investigation of Penn State. She described the "AG's strategies: may go to new coach to read riot act to [Penn State Associate Athletic Director Fran] Ganter et al."

On March 7, 2012, McChesney wrote that the Freeh Group continued to be in "close communications with AG and USA," as in the U. S. Attorney.

On March 30, 2012, Greg Paw related to McChesney what he learned during a call with Frank Fina. Fina, according to Paw, was "relooking at [Penn State President Graham] Spanier," and that Fina was "not happy with University & cooperation but happy to have 2001 email."

She also knew that the grand jury judge was "not happy with" Penn State Counsel Cynthia Baldwin," specifically "what she [Baldwin] said about representing the university."

In the grand jury proceedings, Baldwin asserted that she had represented the university, and not Penn State President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Penn State Vice-President Gary Schultz. Apparently, the grand jury judge had a problem with that, McChesney wrote.
Freeh's investigators also interviewed Baldwin on several occasions.
Baldwin's grand jury testimony was described by McChesney in her diary as "inconsistent statements." McChesney also noted that "we are getting" copies "of the transcripts."
And the grand jury transcripts on Baldwin weren't the only documents the AG's office was sharing with Freeh's investigators. On April 2, 2012, McChesney recorded being notified by fellow investigator McNeill that "AG documents received re: Curley and Schultz."
In her diary, McChesney continued to log grand jury secrets that not even the defendants in the Penn State case were aware of.
On April 16, 2012, McChesney recorded "next week more grand jury," and that Spanier would be charged. She added that Spanier's lawyer didn't "seem to suspect" that Spanier was going to be arrested. She also recorded that Spanier's lawyer "wants access to his emails," but that Fina did not want Spanier "to see 2001 email chain," where Penn State administrators talked about how to handle Sandusky and his habit of showering with children.
McChesney wrote that the grand jury was meeting on April 25th, and that an indictment of Spanier might come as soon as two days later. She also recorded that Fina "wants to question [people]; then it turns into perjury," which McChesney noted was "not fair to the witness."
On April 19, 2012, Paw "spoke with Fina," and was advised that the deputy attorney general "does not want Spanier or other [defendants] to see documents; next 24 hours are important for case & offered to re-visit over weekend re: sharing documents."
McChesney further recorded that "attys and AG's office staffs are talking & still looking to charge Spanier." Paw, she wrote, was scheduled to meet with Spanier's lawyer tomorrow, and that "Fina said the 4 of them [including Wendell Courtney] are really in the mix." McChesney was presumably referring to Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Courtney, then a Penn State counsel.
The emails from the trio of Penn State administrators, McChesney wrote, would be "released in a [grand jury] presentment and charging documents."
The night before Spanier was arrested, Paw sent an email to his colleagues at the Freeh Group, advising them of the imminent arrest.
The subject of Paw's email: "CLOSE HOLD -- Important."
"PLEASE HOLD VERY CLOSE," Paw wrote his colleagues at the Freeh Group. "[Deputy Attorney General Frank] Fina called tonight to tell me that Spanier is to be arrested tomorrow, and Curley and Schultz re-arrested, on charges of obstruction of justice and related charges . . . Spanier does not know this information yet, and his lawyers will be advised about an hour before the charges are announced tomorrow."
Other members of the state attorney general's office were helpful to Freeh's investigators. McChesney wrote that investigator Sasssano divulged that he brought in the son of Penn State trustee Steve Garban because "he had info re [Jerry Sandusky] in shower." The AG's office also interviewed interim Penn State football coach Tom Bradley about his predecessor, Joe Paterno, and the 1998 shower incident.
"Bradley was more open & closer to the truth," McChesney wrote, "but still holding back."
On April 26, 2012, McChesney noted in her diary that "police investigators have interviewed 44 janitors, 200+ victims." On May 1, 2012, she wrote that Fina told them that "Spanier brings everyone in on Saturday." Fina also told the Freeh Group that he found out from Joan Coble, Schultz's administrative assistant, and her successor, Kim Belcher, that "there was a Sandusky file," and that it supposedly "was sacrosanct and secret."
McChesney recorded that Fina told the Freeh Group that one of Schultz's administrative assistants "got a call on her way to work on Monday from Schultz." She was told she had to surrender keys, presumably to the locked file. "She's emotional," McChesney wrote. " She may have been sleeping w Schultz."
Both Coyle and Belcher got immunity to testify against Schultz. Meanwhile, there were several leakers on Schultz's supposedly secret file that he was keeping on Sandusky. As McChesney recorded in her diary, "Fina got papers from two different sources."
The cooperation between the attorney general's office and Freeh's investigators went both ways.
When Freeh's investigators, including McChesney, interviewed Penn State counsel Baldwin and learned somebody else in the attorney general's office was leaking her information, they knew they had to tell Fina.
"Paw: didn't tell Fina that Baldwin heard @ the charges before they happened, but will tell him that," McChesney wrote. Baldwin, McChesney added, told Freeh's investigators that "a colleague in the AG's office leaked that Curly, Schultz and Sandusky would be charged," and that Spanier "was stunned."
From the get-go, the prospect of Freeh's investigators working in tandem with the AG's office was laid out in emails circulated among Freeh's investigators.
"If we haven't, we should make certain that we determine the utility of looking into all the same areas of interest raised by the AG in the subpoenas, to ensure that we do not get 'scooped' [borrowing Louie's term used in connection with the recent federal subpoena]," Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for the Freeh Group, wrote his colleagues on Feb. 8, 2012.
"I think that we are delving into most of the same areas, but I am not sure at all," McNeill wrote.
"I want to make sure that we are comfortable that we have an understanding of all the areas the AG has inquired about in subpoenas [or otherwise if our contacts at the AG have provided us other insights] that we can state when asked -- as we certainly will be -- that we made a conscious, strategic decision as to whether to pursue those same lines of inquiry in some form," McNeill wrote.
Another term for those grand jury "insights" gleaned from our "contacts at the AG" -- leaks.
In a June 6, 2012 email, written a month before Freeh released his report on Penn State, Paw informed the other members of the Freeh Group about the feedback that Fina was getting from the grand jury.
"He [Fina] said that the feedback he received from jurors was that they wanted someone to take a 'fire hose' to Penn State and rinse away the bad that happened there. He [Fina] said that he still looked forward to a day when Baldwin would be ‘led away in cuffs,’ and he said that day was going to be near for Spanier.”
The cooperation between the Freeh Group and the AG's office continued to go both ways. On June 26, 2012, Gregory Paw told Fina that the Louie Freeh report would be out by the week of July 13th.
Fina agreed to keep it confidential, and then, according to Paw, "He [Fina] also said that he was willing to sit with us and talk to the extent he can before the report is released if we wished for any feedback," Paw wrote.

So my question is why do we think this was a "one off". For all we know this could be happenings hundreds of times a year.

 

[WHCANole]

Maybe his point is that a misdemeanor is deemed a much less severe crime than a felony.
Should look that up.

Did they go to jail?

 

[PSUSignore]

And in reality Spanier's attorney was correct but the there was one juror who refused to budge and said somebody has to pay for this regardless of the law and the other jury members gave in, gave Spaniers a guilty verdict on the lowest crime he was being charged for in order not to have to stay the weekend and ultimately have a hung jury. This all from the interview that the head juror gave after the case.

here is a different one....but similar.

Philly.com reported on Thursday that the foreman of the jury that found former Penn State President Graham Spanier guilty on one count of child endangerment said that verdict was a ‘mistake’ and that he that he was conflicted about changing his vote from not guilty.

The foreman, identified by Philly.com as 78-year-old retired truck driver Richard Black, told the site that as deliberations neared their end, he was the last juror holding out with a not guilty vote. Had he not changed his vote, it could have resulted in a mistrial.

Black said he would tell Spanier ‘I’m sorry,’ though the site reports he has ‘made peace’ with the jury’s decision. He told the site that the jury came to its decision through serious deliberations and that they ‘did what they were asked to do.’

Spanier was found guilty of one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of children and acquitted of felony charges of child endangerment and conspiracy. The Dauphin County jury convicted on a misdemeanor and not a felony because it did not find a pattern of conduct in Spanier’s actions.

Spanier, along with former athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz, were charged for their handling of a report by former Penn State assistant Mike McQueary of seeing Jerry Sandusky with a boy in a locker room shower. All three administrators have said they were not told of anything sexual, though Schultz testified they were told McQueary saw Sandusky naked with his arms around the boy.

“I don’t think Graham Spanier knew,” Black told Philly.com. “They did not … make him understand how serious a condition this might be.”

Black said that had Spanier testified he likely would not have changed his vote to guilty. Spanier’s attorney, Sam Silver, did not call any witnesses at the trial.

Curley and Schultz pleaded guilty on March 13 to one count each of misdemeanor child endangerment. As part of their pleas, they testified for the prosecution at Spanier’s trial. Both said they wish they had done more to report Sandusky in 2001. All three face a maximum sentence of five years in prison, though state sentencing guidelines recommend probation to less than a year for first-time offenders.

Earlier this week, another member of the Spanier jury, Victoria Navazio, told the Associated Press that Spanier’s own words in emails among the three administrators in 2001 played a significant role in the conviction.

In those emails, Curley suggested that they tell Sandusky not to bring children to the locker rooms and to seek professional counseling and that they inform the director of Sandusky’s Second Mile charity for at-risk youth. Curley wrote he had become ‘uncomfortable’ with a previously agreed-upon step of informing the Department of Public Welfare.

‘The only downside for us is if the message isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for having not reported it,’ Spanier wrote in reply. ‘But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is a humane and reasonable way to proceed.’

“How else can you take that, other than they knew they should have been reporting it?” Navazio told the AP. “Obviously he knew children were at risk for something. He knew there was a problem.”

Prosecutors argued that by not reporting Sandusky, the administrators allowed him to continue to sexually abuse children for years.

This is exactly why I asked Cletus to cite a source. Nothing in the article pasted by Obli supports what Cletus posted. Cletus claimed the entire jury save one viewed Spanier as not guilty and the one lone juror convinced all of them to change their mind on one count so they could get home for the weekend. Without a source, that's complete BS and I've never read that, anywhere.

What I had seen is what Obli posted. There was one person holding out with a not guilty vote, who changed his mind and maybe regretted it after, but the jury in general overwhelmingly viewed Spanier as guilty on the charge in question.

 

[WHCANole]

So my question is why do we think this was a "one off". For all we know this could be happenings hundreds of times a year.

Maybe it is what the evidence shows us it was.

 

[indynittany]

Did they go to jail?

Yes. The false narrative had to be protected at all costs.

 

[WHCANole]

Yes. The false narrative had to be protected at all costs.

Quite a conspiracy your guys peddle. OAG, NCAA, Media, Courts (including four independent juries), BOT and Freeh. All of these guys out to get Joe and PSU? I feel Area 51.

 

[bourbon n blues]

Quite a conspiracy your guys peddle. OAG, NCAA, Media, Courts (including four independent juries), BOT and Freeh. All of these guys out to get Joe and PSU? I feel Area 51.

They can’t let it go, the college experience has to be special. Universities are like any other large business entity, it’s about the business .
They sell a form of tribalism, kinship and one tribe had to be superior to the others.

 

[WHCANole]

They can’t let it go, the college experience has to be special. Universities are like any other large business entity, it’s about the business .
They sell a form of tribalism, kinship and one tribe had to be superior to the others.

Yes it is fascinating. They are really a cult in many ways. Kind of scary but there it is.

 

[DandyDonII]

But not of covering up to protect PSU image because he wasn't charged with that.

Went to jail for it.

Also went to jail

The Paterno 3 did indeed coverup for Sandusky. A coverup is not a crime, in and of itself. The jury found there was not a conspiracy. A coverup and a conspiracy are two different things.

§ 903. Criminal conspiracy.

(a) Definition of conspiracy.--A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime."

Coverup, which is not a legal term, is:

"1. an attempt to prevent people's discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime."

Spanier, not telling the BOT fully about the 2001 incident, covered up the Paterno 3 lack of action regarding Sandusky. It was not a crime to do so.
Nevertheless, it was a telltale sign of pedophilia which the report to Penn State showed. Sandusky could have been barred from bringing and showering alone with any more children. Fiduciary negligence of CSS allowed the resulting scandal.

No, unlikely conviction due to the pillar of community that Sandusky was. The police wanted to charge him and the DA (who is elected) did not want to charge a local legend who was unlikely to be convicted. That might cost Gricar his job.

And off to jail they went thank goodness the big shots finally got their just due. BTW the kids Sandusky abused got it far worse than these fat cats.

This is how I break the verdict down from a prosecution prospective. It's like charging felony assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder and the jury comes back with a conviction for disturbing the peace instead, yeah, it's a conviction, but considering the magnitude of the crimes charged, it is a loss.

Additionally, as a prosecutor who has had to negotiate witness cooperation agreements with co-defendants, I cannot fathom giving two members of an alleged conspiracy a lowly misdemeanor (dismissing the serious charges) to prosecute a third member of the conspiracy who has equal culpability.

 

[bourbon n blues]

This is how I break the verdict down from a prosecution prospective. It's like charging felony assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder and the jury comes back with a conviction for disturbing the peace instead, yeah, it's a conviction, but considering the magnitude of the crimes charged, it is a loss.

Additionally, as a prosecutor who has had to negotiate witness cooperation agreements with co-defendants, I cannot fathom giving two members of an alleged conspiracy a lowly misdemeanor (dismissing the serious charges) to prosecute a third member of the conspiracy who has equal culpability.

It was a long road is maybe the best way to put it.

 

[Zenophile]

Yes it is fascinating. They are really a cult in many ways. Kind of scary but there it is.

 

[AvgUser]

Yet the clown seeking to “find the truth” with no affiliation with Penn State, obsesses here night and day isn’t a cultists.

 

[marshall23]

Freeh is a sack of shit that traded his name for 8 million dollars. He promised to make every effort to deliver the desired results. No one defends his report. It has no basis in fact. He admitted it when he declared it was his opinion, under oath.
You can decide the honest folks are Corbett, Fina, Ganim and the OGBOT.....or JVP, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier...I decided in about a second.

 

[WHCANole]

This is how I break the verdict down from a prosecution prospective. It's like charging felony assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder and the jury comes back with a conviction for disturbing the peace instead, yeah, it's a conviction, but considering the magnitude of the crimes charged, it is a loss.

I think most prosecutors who obtain convictions and jail time for those they charge consider it a win.

Additionally, as a prosecutor who has had to negotiate witness cooperation agreements with co-defendants, I cannot fathom giving two members of an alleged conspiracy a lowly misdemeanor (dismissing the serious charges) to prosecute a third member of the conspiracy who has equal culpability.

So, based on the judge's comments at sentencing of CSS I think that Curley and Schultz told the OAG a lot about Spanier and even Joe's culpability and then got on the stand and had amnesia in front of their supporters. That's why Curley got the most time. He is the perfect PSU zombie/cultist. Their gambit failed.

 

[WHCANole]

Yet the clown seeking to “find the truth” with no affiliation with Penn State, obsesses here night and day isn’t a cultists.

First, you have no idea of my affiliation with PSU. Second, I am more of a deprogrammer than the cultists you guys are.

 

[WHCANole]

Freeh is a sack of shit that traded his name for 8 million dollars. He promised to make every effort to deliver the desired results. No one defends his report. It has no basis in fact. He admitted it when he declared it was his opinion, under oath.
You can decide the honest folks are Corbett, Fina, Ganim and the OGBOT.....or JVP, Tim Curley, Graham Spanier...I decided in about a second.

CSS are as innocent as the 2020 election was rigged. All 💩.

JVP, CSS are guilty as sin and the evidence shows it. The defense of them relies on conspiracy theories and is a result of the cult like nature of SOME PSU fans. Quit putting money in Ziegler's pocket.

 

[marshall23]

CSS are as innocent as the 2020 election was rigged. All 💩.

JVP, CSS are guilty as sin and the evidence shows it. The defense of them relies on conspiracy theories and is a result of the cult like nature of SOME PSU fans. Quit putting money in Ziegler's pocket.

What % of the $$$ did you pocket?

 

[WHCANole]

What % of the $$$ did you pocket?

Same as you.

 

[marshall23]

Same as you.

While the general public may believe the horseshit , only a specific group would post on a PSU website and try to defend it. It's that simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[roswelllion]

Maybe it is what the evidence shows us it was.

Not clear what you mean? "It is what the evidence shows us it was"
I wasn't referring or am even interested in rehashing the verdicts for the 1,000th time. I am talking about
. Fina being crooked as hell - I think the evidence was clear
. Baldwin - Telling TC and GS she was representing them and then turning against them. -that was clear wasn't it?
. Freeh and AG working together - Is there any dispute about that?
OR
.FBI finding nothing on Nassar - If you don't look you won't see anything
. authorities finding nothing on the tOSU Dr. - see above
OR
. FBI ADMITTING in Sussman trial they knew very early, before DT [inauguration] the Steele Dossier was fake and still spied on DT and hired a special prosecutor.

My point isn't about any particular case. As Obli has stated the poor who get stuck with plea seeking public defenders get screwed the most.. If the FBI is willfully ignorant [Nassar] or so politically tainted [Sussman] or State Supreme Court Justice and asst DA [Baldwin and Fina] are just blatantly crooked where does it end? If these high profile folks are crooked what about Buford Pusser in butthole New York. There was a time when maybe the media was a decent spotlight on the abusers. Not so anymore.
.

 

[DandyDonII]

I think most prosecutors who obtain convictions and jail time for those they charge consider it a win.

So, based on the judge's comments at sentencing of CSS I think that Curley and Schultz told the OAG a lot about Spanier and even Joe's culpability and then got on the stand and had amnesia in front of their supporters. That's why Curley got the most time. He is the perfect PSU zombie/cultist. Their gambit failed.

I can tell you as a prosecutor, the stat may say win, but no prosecutor worth a shit would consider it a win (i say that as a prosecutor). If they do consider it a win, it only means they significantly overcharged it to begin with.

 

[WHCANole]

While the general public may believe the horseshit , only a specific group would post on a PSU website and try to defend it. It's that simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Maybe those interested in the truth. What is your reason? Religion?

 

[WHCANole]

Not clear what you mean? "It is what the evidence shows us it was"
I wasn't referring or am even interested in rehashing the verdicts for the 1,000th time. I am talking about
. Fina being crooked as hell - I think the evidence was clear

Didn't prosecute CSS.

. Baldwin - Telling TC and GS she was representing them and then turning against them. -that was clear wasn't it?

None of what she said was used against CSS as those charges were thrown out.

. Freeh and AG working together - Is there any dispute about that?

No, but the idea that Freeh wrote his report directed by the OAG is silly conspiracy. Plus Freeh said he would work with LE when he first started. A big nothing burger.

OR
.FBI finding nothing on Nassar - If you don't look you won't see anything

Whataboutism

. authorities finding nothing on the tOSU Dr. - see above

See above

OR
. FBI ADMITTING in Sussman trial they knew very early, before DT [inauguration] the Steele Dossier was fake and still spied on DT and hired a special prosecutor.

Irrelevant to CSS or Joe

My point isn't about any particular case. As Obli has stated the poor who get stuck with plea seeking public defenders get screwed the most.. If the FBI is willfully ignorant [Nassar] or so politically tainted [Sussman] or State Supreme Court Justice and asst DA [Baldwin and Fina] are just blatantly crooked where does it end? If these high profile folks are crooked what about Buford Pusser in butthole New York. There was a time when maybe the media was a decent spotlight on the abusers. Not so anymore.

CSS had good attorneys. The FBI was not involved. Baldwin and Fina did not prosecute, testify in court or have any charges related to them not dropped. What is your point?

.

Maybe we should just accept that they are guilty and move on? Learn from it.

 

[WHCANole]

I can tell you as a prosecutor, the stat may say win, but no prosecutor worth a shit would consider it a win (i say that as a prosecutor). If they do consider it a win, it only means they significantly overcharged it to begin with.

I don't know whether you are a prosecutor or not but they obtained convictions and got jail time for those they prosecuted. 100% of all those they charged. In Sandusky's case against a lot of odds. I'd take it.

 

[marshall23]

Maybe those interested in the truth. What is your reason? Religion?

I knew Joe and Tim well enough to laugh at any suggestion they would ever put children at risk.
Once again.....Fat Tom, Slimy Surma (you didn't make my nephew a star), Paul Shuey (my boy was on the bench), porngate Fap Fino......or JVP and Tim.......LOL
$$$$$ money makes people do strange things....especially if you're a lawyer with no character or a poor kid in Lock Haven.
Whose settlement did you share?

 

[marshall23]

I don't know whether you are a prosecutor or not but they obtained convictions and got jail time for those they prosecuted. 100% of all those they charged. In Sandusky's case against a lot of odds. I'd take it.

Against a lot of odds? You are so sad....why its enough to make a janitor cry....
When you float a false GJP.....hide a crucial witness in a cabin and PSP lie under oath (just to name a few)....
the odds are skewed.

 

[marshall23]

Maybe those interested in the truth. What is your reason? Religion?

posting on 2 different PSUFB websites is telling.....the only clown trying to defend the narrative. Paid by the hour or the post?

 

[bison13]

I can tell you as a prosecutor, the stat may say win, but no prosecutor worth a shit would consider it a win (i say that as a prosecutor). If they do consider it a win, it only means they significantly overcharged it to begin with.

Unless you are Marilyn Mosby....