ADVERTISEMENT

The Commonwealth's dubious claims in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

francofan

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2015
2,960
4,805
1
I have finally gotten a chance to read over the Commonwealth’s proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and I am not impressed. The filing is 104 pages and 31 claims are made. The filing was made by Jennifer Buck (I assume that Jennifer Peterson may have just gotten married).

I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the fine points of the law, but I do understand common English and her claims don’t make any sense from a plain English stand point IMO. I realize that in a PCRA the burden is on the defendant and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to reasonable doubt. I also realize that the only evidence that is valid is evidence of counsel’s ineffectiveness, evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and evidence of innocence. I believe the burden of proof is that the defense must show that the evidence demonstrates that is more likely than not that given the facts as they are presently known would result in a different verdict.

The decision of whether or not the PCRA is accepted and a new trial is awarded comes down to the judgement of a judge or a panel of judges in the case of an appeal. There only needs to be 1 issue and the defense has identified 33 compelling issues none of which are specious. In the Commonwealth’s response, I can’t identify even 1 claim that convincingly invalidates any of the defense issues. Professor Wes Oliver of Duquesne Law School has stated that Sandusky’s PCRA is one of the strongest that he has seen. Even if Sandusky were to be guilty of everything that he is accused of, he deserves a new trial because he didn’t get one the first go round. On the other hand, I agree with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there is no credible evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that Sandusky is a pedophile. Based on Snedden’s assessment, Sandusky absolutely deserves a new trial.

The claims that I find are the weakest from the Commonwealth’s perspective are that having Sandusky sit for an interview with Bob Costas was a reasonable and rationale strategy (claim 1), that counsel was not ineffective in connection with Sandusky’s election not to testify after promising the jury that he would (claim 3), that there was no after-discovered evidence that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Struble, and Matt Sandusky underwent repressed memory therapy (claim 10) when there is such evidence in Fisher’s book “Silent No More”, in Struble’s email to Mark Pendergrast, as well as in Matt’s statements to Oprah Winfrey where they all state they recovered memories of abuse after receiving therapy.

Other claims that are weak are that victim statements gleaned from improper and suggestive questioning should not be precluded (claim 11), failing to introduce the tape-recorded statement by janitor Jim Calhoun that he did not witness Sandusky in a shower was not counsel ineffectiveness (claim 12), failing to object to the erroneous character evidence instruction that said guilty when the judge meant not guilty and failing to state that character evidence alone can be a basis for reasonable doubt was not ineffectiveness (claim 17), and failing to introduce the statement Allan Myers made to Curtis Everhart that Sandusky did not ever molest him was not ineffectiveness (claim 18).

In addition, other dubious claims include the ineffectiveness of Amendola in waiving the preliminary hearing and losing the opportunity to question the accusers on their inconsistent statements and have impeachment evidence at trial (claim 27) and failing to interview the victims or witnesses prior to trial (claim 19). Additional dubious claims include failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on government misconduct associated with including a known falsehood that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape (claim 28), and failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on subject matter jurisdiction grounds (claim 29) were not examples of counsel’s ineffectiveness.

The following are the 31 claims, of which 6 are repeat claims, which Buck made:

1. Trial console employed a reasonable and rationale strategy when permitting Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas. (page 3)

2. Counsel was not ineffective by failing to request a mistrial based upon the prosecutors comments during closing arguments. (page 14)

3. Trial counsel was not ineffective in connection with Sandusky’s election not to testify. (page 23)

4. Repeat of claim 3.

5. Repeat of claim 3.

6. Trial counsel was not ineffective in connection with his review of discovery. (page 31)

7. Trial counsel was not ineffective in conjunction with the presentation of Dr. Elliot Atkins. (page 34)

8. The Commonwealth did not violate the dictates of Brady v. Maryland in failing to turn over potential impeachment evidence. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective to raise issue. (page 39)

9. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present expert testimony that called into question of repressed/false memories (page 41)

10. There is no after-discovered evidence that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Struble, and Mathew Sandusky underwent repressed memory therapy. (page 49)

11. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine seeking to preclude the use of the victim’s statement to police because they were gleaned by improper and suggestive police questioning. (page 49)

12. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce a tape-recorded statement by James Calhoun. (page 52)

13. Direct appeal counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that Mr. Calhoun’s hearsay statement was inadmissible as an excited utterance and that Sandusky’s conviction based on this testimony lacked sufficient evidence. (page 54)

14. Repeat of claim 13

15. Direct appeal counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that Sandusky’s federal and state constitutional rights were violated through the admission of the hearsay statements of Mr. Calhoun. (page 59)

16. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present the grand jury testimony of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. (page 61)

17. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s character evidence instruction. (page 68)

18. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to utilize the statements of Allan Myers that Sandusky did not molest him. (page 70)

19. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to interview the victims as well as Mike McQueary, Calhoun, and Petrovsky. (page 70)

20. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a change of venue or venire, for failing to investigate juror bias, and for failing to question jurors specifically about the information they had obtained through media accounts. (page 71)

21. Repeat of claim 20

22. Repeat of claim 20

23. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a collateral appeal from the denial of the pre-trial motion to withdraw. (page 76)

24. Trial counsel was not ineffective in conjunction with remarks made during opening statement to the jury. (page 78)

25. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to improper opinion testimony. (page 79)

26. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument. (page 82)

27. Trial counsel was not ineffective for advising Sandusky to waive his preliminary hearing. (page 86)

28. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on government misconduct. (page 90)

29. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. (page 91

30. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a claim that the Commonwealth failed to abide by the Child Protection Service Law (CPSL). (page 100)

31. Repeat of claim 30

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW.pdf
 
Last edited:
Jennifer Peterson Buck can use the excuse that her laptop got a virus, that she was busy traveling for work, or that she got married; but the real reason that her response was so weak is that Jerry Sandusky was railroaded big time.

The grand jury leaks, the false grand jury presentment, and the suggestive interview techniques by police were not innocent mistakes by the prosecution. It wasn't a reasonable and rational defense strategy to have Jerry sit for an interview with Bob Costas. It was incompetence and not competence on the part of defense counsel to waive the preliminary hearing, promise the jury that Jerry will take the stand and then walk it back, not introduce the statements of Allan Myers and Jim Calhoun at trial, and not make an issue at trial of the debunked science of repressed memory therapy/recovered memories. The trial judge was also biased as evidenced by his steadfast denials of reasonable requests for continuances in a complicated case as well as in his erroneous guilt instructions to the jury.

This is a textbook example of why there are PCRA protections. If Judge Foradora has even the slightest bit of objectivity, he will rule in favor of the defense and order a new trial. We should find out how Foradora will rule within 2 months. I have a good feeling that he will make the right decision.
 
Wow, so basically they should have said:

1. nuh-uh
2. nuh-uh
3. nuh-uh
4. nuh-uh
5. nuh-uh
6. nuh-uh
7. nuh-uh
8. nuh-uh
9. nuh-uh
10. nuh-uh
11. nuh-uh
12. nuh-uh
13. nuh-uh
14. nuh-uh
15. nuh-uh
16. nuh-uh
17. nuh-uh
18. nuh-uh
19. nuh-uh
20. nuh-uh
21. nuh-uh
22. nuh-uh
23. nuh-uh
24. nuh-uh
25. nuh-uh
26. nuh-uh
27. nuh-uh
28. nuh-uh
29. nuh-uh
30. nuh-uh
31. nuh-uh
 
I think we are in a 1% situation with this case. How else can you explain all of the shenaningans?

One explanation is that corruption is so pervasive and endemic in the justice system, including the office of the attorney general, that a genuine investigation and legitimate trial presented an unthinkable risk to those who really control The Commonwealth. Sandusky is likely guilty of some, innocent of other counts......but the outcome was and is predetermined. Those individuals and agencies being protected are still in control. The evidence is the sham of a trial that Graham Spanier got. Judge Bocci's comments after trial were clearly read from a 3x5 card provided to him from the man behind the curtain.
Look at the sewer that is Centre County with SPM a walking, talking, carnival sideshow and her incessant texting and other improprieties?
 
I have finally gotten a chance to read over the Commonwealth’s proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and I am not impressed. The filing is 104 pages and 31 claims are made. The filing was made by Jennifer Buck (I assume that Jennifer Peterson may have just gotten married).

I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the fine points of the law, but I do understand common English and her claims don’t make any sense from a plain English stand point IMO. I realize that in a PCRA the burden is on the defendant and the standard is a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to reasonable doubt. I also realize that the only evidence that is valid is evidence of counsel’s ineffectiveness, evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and evidence of innocence. I believe the burden of proof is that the defense must show that the evidence demonstrates that is more likely than not that given the facts as they are presently known would result in a different verdict.

The decision of whether or not the PCRA is accepted and a new trial is awarded comes down to the judgement of a judge or a panel of judges in the case of an appeal. There only needs to be 1 issue and the defense has identified 33 compelling issues none of which are specious. In the Commonwealth’s response, I can’t identify even 1 claim that convincingly invalidates any of the defense issues. Professor Wes Oliver of Duquesne Law School has stated that Sandusky’s PCRA is one of the strongest that he has seen. Even if Sandusky were to be guilty of everything that he is accused of, he deserves a new trial because he didn’t get one the first go round. On the other hand, I agree with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden that there is no credible evidence that wasn’t subject to manipulation that Sandusky is a pedophile. Based on Snedden’s assessment, Sandusky absolutely deserves a new trial.

The claims that I find are the weakest from the Commonwealth’s perspective are that having Sandusky sit for an interview with Bob Costas was a reasonable and rationale strategy (claim 1), that counsel was not ineffective in connection with Sandusky’s election not to testify after promising the jury that he would (claim 3), that there was no after-discovered evidence that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Struble, and Matt Sandusky underwent repressed memory therapy (claim 10) when there is such evidence in Fisher’s book “Silent No More”, in Struble’s email to Mark Pendergrast, as well as in Matt’s statements to Oprah Winfrey where they all state they recovered memories of abuse after receiving therapy.

Other claims that are weak are that victim statements gleaned from improper and suggestive questioning should not be precluded (claim 11), failing to introduce the tape-recorded statement by janitor Jim Calhoun that he did not witness Sandusky in a shower was not counsel ineffectiveness (claim 12), failing to object to the erroneous character evidence instruction that said guilty when the judge meant not guilty and failing to state that character evidence alone can be a basis for reasonable doubt was not ineffectiveness (claim 17), and failing to introduce the statement Allan Myers made to Curtis Everhart that Sandusky did not ever molest him was not ineffectiveness (claim 18).

In addition, other dubious claims include the ineffectiveness of Amendola in waiving the preliminary hearing and losing the opportunity to question the accusers on their inconsistent statements and have impeachment evidence at trial (claim 27) and failing to interview the victims or witnesses prior to trial (claim 19). Additional dubious claims include failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on government misconduct associated with including a known falsehood that Mike McQueary witnessed an anal rape (claim 28), and failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on subject matter jurisdiction grounds (claim 29) were not examples of counsel’s ineffectiveness.

The following are the 31 claims, of which 6 are repeat claims, which Buck made:

1. Trial console employed a reasonable and rationale strategy when permitting Sandusky to be interviewed by Bob Costas. (page 3)

2. Counsel was not ineffective by failing to request a mistrial based upon the prosecutors comments during closing arguments. (page 14)

3. Trial counsel was not ineffective in connection with Sandusky’s election not to testify. (page 23)

4. Repeat of claim 3.

5. Repeat of claim 3.

6. Trial counsel was not ineffective in connection with his review of discovery. (page 31)

7. Trial counsel was not ineffective in conjunction with the presentation of Dr. Elliot Atkins. (page 34)

8. The Commonwealth did not violate the dictates of Brady v. Maryland in failing to turn over potential impeachment evidence. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective to raise issue. (page 39)

9. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present expert testimony that called into question of repressed/false memories (page 41)

10. There is no after-discovered evidence that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Struble, and Mathew Sandusky underwent repressed memory therapy. (page 49)

11. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine seeking to preclude the use of the victim’s statement to police because they were gleaned by improper and suggestive police questioning. (page 49)

12. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to introduce a tape-recorded statement by James Calhoun. (page 52)

13. Direct appeal counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that Mr. Calhoun’s hearsay statement was inadmissible as an excited utterance and that Sandusky’s conviction based on this testimony lacked sufficient evidence. (page 54)

14. Repeat of claim 13

15. Direct appeal counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that Sandusky’s federal and state constitutional rights were violated through the admission of the hearsay statements of Mr. Calhoun. (page 59)

16. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present the grand jury testimony of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. (page 61)

17. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s character evidence instruction. (page 68)

18. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to utilize the statements of Allan Myers that Sandusky did not molest him. (page 70)

19. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to interview the victims as well as Mike McQueary, Calhoun, and Petrovsky. (page 70)

20. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a change of venue or venire, for failing to investigate juror bias, and for failing to question jurors specifically about the information they had obtained through media accounts. (page 71)

21. Repeat of claim 20

22. Repeat of claim 20

23. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a collateral appeal from the denial of the pre-trial motion to withdraw. (page 76)

24. Trial counsel was not ineffective in conjunction with remarks made during opening statement to the jury. (page 78)

25. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to improper opinion testimony. (page 79)

26. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument. (page 82)

27. Trial counsel was not ineffective for advising Sandusky to waive his preliminary hearing. (page 86)

28. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on government misconduct. (page 90)

29. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash the grand jury presentment based on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. (page 91

30. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a claim that the Commonwealth failed to abide by the Child Protection Service Law (CPSL). (page 100)

31. Repeat of claim 30

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW.pdf

I haven't been following along. When is a ruling expected?
 
One explanation is that corruption is so pervasive and endemic in the justice system, including the office of the attorney general, that a genuine investigation and legitimate trial presented an unthinkable risk to those who really control The Commonwealth. Sandusky is likely guilty of some, innocent of other counts......but the outcome was and is predetermined. Those individuals and agencies being protected are still in control. The evidence is the sham of a trial that Graham Spanier got. Judge Bocci's comments after trial were clearly read from a 3x5 card provided to him from the man behind the curtain.
Look at the sewer that is Centre County with SPM a walking, talking, carnival sideshow and her incessant texting and other improprieties?
Judging by who she has lawsuits against, she just might be crazy enough to blow the lid off of everything and name names.
 
OP, you're simply viewing things through lenses of Sandusky's advocates when it comes to RMT. When you discuss the past forgotten details come back. We're not talking about wild or questionable techniques. The defense is going to argue it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

If you want to argue he was denied his right to a fair trial because of the questionable legal tactics employed by the OAG you have a solid argument.

You seem like a genuine person that looks for the best outcome in every situation. We have very different opinions on this matter, and that's okay, I think? It's the way it's supposed to be in a court of law anyway.
 
OP, you're simply viewing things through lenses of Sandusky's advocates when it comes to RMT. When you discuss the past forgotten details come back. We're not talking about wild or questionable techniques. The defense is going to argue it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I agree, I just met with a buddy from college that I hadn't seen in a decade. His recollection helped fill in the gaps of my memory as we reminisced. But it was just details, not major events.
 
OP, you're simply viewing things through lenses of Sandusky's advocates when it comes to RMT. When you discuss the past forgotten details come back. We're not talking about wild or questionable techniques. The defense is going to argue it, but that doesn't mean it's true.

If you want to argue he was denied his right to a fair trial because of the questionable legal tactics employed by the OAG you have a solid argument.

You seem like a genuine person that looks for the best outcome in every situation. We have very different opinions on this matter, and that's okay, I think? It's the way it's supposed to be in a court of law anyway.

I don't disagree with you concerning the questionable legal tactics employed by the OAG.

When it comes to recovered memories/repressed memory therapy, it is clear that a number of the accusers only remember engaging in sexual acts after seeing a therapist. According to the experts, your mind does not bury your recollection of traumatic events and therapists have been able to get patients to recover false memories by the power of suggestion. In the PCRA filing, it documented that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Strubble, and Matt Sandusky have stated that they only unearthed their memories of abuse after seeing therapists. Call it what you want, but I think that those memories are not in anyway reliable. Linda Kelly in her post trial news conference said that many of the victims in the case had buried their memories of abuse.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you concerning the questionable legal tactics employed by the OAG.

When it comes to recovered memories/repressed memory therapy, it is clear that a number of the accusers only remember engaging in sexual acts after seeing a therapist. According to the experts, your mind does not bury your recollection of traumatic events and therapists have been able to get patients to recover false memories by the power of suggestion. In the PCRA filing, it documented that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Strubble, and Matt Sandusky have stated that they only unearthed their memories of abuse after seeing therapists. Call it what you want, but I think that those memories are not in anyway reliable. Linda Kelly in her post trial news conference said that many of the victims in the case had buried their memories of abuse.

I believe that's a situation where we have disagreement between Pendergrast and Ziegler. I think Pendergrast believes false memories were planted in these young men's heads by dubious therapies and that they honestly now believe they were sexually abused. Ziegler, on the other hand, believes these young men know damn well they were not abused but used "recovered memories" as an excuse to why each completely changed his initial testimony. I think either option could be valid depending on which "victim" it was.
 
Last edited:
In the PCRA filing, it documented that Aaron Fisher, Dustin Strubble, and Matt Sandusky have stated that they only unearthed their memories of abuse after seeing therapists. Call it what you want, but I think that those memories are not in anyway reliable. Linda Kelly in her post trial news conference said that many of the victims in the case had buried their memories of abuse.
What you're claiming, or Sandusky's appeal is claiming, isn't possible.

Fisher accused Sandusky of some type of abuse to his mother and principal. That's how they ended up at CYS.

Matt Sandusky accused Sandusky of abuse mid trial. That couldn't possibly happen if he only unearthed memories of abuse after talking to a therapist.

Whether you believe them or not, Matt is pretty suspect, they had to have some memories of abuse in order to accuse him in the first place.

What it documents is a more detailed, accurate, and in depth account of the abuse after working with a therapist. That could simply be them being able to own what happened and talk about the extent of it. You know, what happens during normal therapy.

A 15 year old isn't going to be in a hurry to admit he traded Sandusky's sexual gratification for a father figure's love. Not only is it embarrassing, especially for someone that age, it means he has to admit he was used. That all the caring and concern was conditional on something that caused him so much pain.

This is the norm in cases of sexual abuse. It has nothing to do with RMT or suggestive questioning.

As far as Strubble is concerned, he was the only victim willing to sit down with Pendergast for an interview. Somehow Pendergast didn't even ask him about repressed memories until after their face to face meeting in a follow up phone call.

Judging by what I've seen of his writing I don't have any faith in the context of it matching what he presents.

Here's what you have to know:

This is not a RMT case. These aren't people who underwent some questionable type of therapy and suddenly uncovered vague memories of abuse.

Sandusky has to provide a reasonable defense that wasn't used at trial if he has any chance of getting a new one. They're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.


Finally, in Pendergast's own words:

"During the June 2012 trial, alleged victims gave graphic, disturbing testimony. While much of it had evolved and grown over time, it is not clear that it all stemmed from repressed memories. Barring a new trial for Sandusky, it is difficult to determine what had always been remembered and which memories were created more recently through suggestion."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vtdigg...-pendergrast-jerry-sandusky-may-innocent/amp/

He has no idea what's true. What happens at a new trial when the victims explain they always remembered but buried it to survive? When Fisher details how the shame prevented him from admitting everything that took place before therapy?

Sandusky gets convicted again and you guys will still claim they're all lying for money.

You need to look into the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Look who founded it and why. Hopefully you'll see the truth about Pendergast.
 
What you're claiming, or Sandusky's appeal is claiming, isn't possible.

Fisher accused Sandusky of some type of abuse to his mother and principal. That's how they ended up at CYS.

Matt Sandusky accused Sandusky of abuse mid trial. That couldn't possibly happen if he only unearthed memories of abuse after talking to a therapist.

Whether you believe them or not, Matt is pretty suspect, they had to have some memories of abuse in order to accuse him in the first place.

What it documents is a more detailed, accurate, and in depth account of the abuse after working with a therapist. That could simply be them being able to own what happened and talk about the extent of it. You know, what happens during normal therapy.

A 15 year old isn't going to be in a hurry to admit he traded Sandusky's sexual gratification for a father figure's love. Not only is it embarrassing, especially for someone that age, it means he has to admit he was used. That all the caring and concern was conditional on something that caused him so much pain.

This is the norm in cases of sexual abuse. It has nothing to do with RMT or suggestive questioning.

As far as Strubble is concerned, he was the only victim willing to sit down with Pendergast for an interview. Somehow Pendergast didn't even ask him about repressed memories until after their face to face meeting in a follow up phone call.

Judging by what I've seen of his writing I don't have any faith in the context of it matching what he presents.

Here's what you have to know:

This is not a RMT case. These aren't people who underwent some questionable type of therapy and suddenly uncovered vague memories of abuse.

Sandusky has to provide a reasonable defense that wasn't used at trial if he has any chance of getting a new one. They're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.


Finally, in Pendergast's own words:

"During the June 2012 trial, alleged victims gave graphic, disturbing testimony. While much of it had evolved and grown over time, it is not clear that it all stemmed from repressed memories. Barring a new trial for Sandusky, it is difficult to determine what had always been remembered and which memories were created more recently through suggestion."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vtdigg...-pendergrast-jerry-sandusky-may-innocent/amp/

He has no idea what's true. What happens at a new trial when the victims explain they always remembered but buried it to survive? When Fisher details how the shame prevented him from admitting everything that took place before therapy?

Sandusky gets convicted again and you guys will still claim they're all lying for money.

You need to look into the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Look who founded it and why. Hopefully you'll see the truth about Pendergast.

The OP reads, in depth, I believe, all docs & articles related to THIS case. He interprets them through a blue & white filter with the hope that somehow if Jerry is cleared, everything is better.

The OP has avoided, as far as I can tell, looking at other PCRAs in PA, to, for example, compare the state's yada yada responses to others. If he did so, he'd see that in virtually every other PCRA, the state's response is also yada yada yada, this claim is just invalid. It is very standard and the bar of proving attorney incompetence is really really high.

Football fans are used to bad calls in a game. They (the OP & his few ) are used to bad calls in a game being overturned by replay (these days), much of the time. They also are used to some bad calls not being overturned, but later being acknowledged due to a misunderstanding of the officials, time constraints during a game, even outright bias maybe. A few times each season there's 2 or 3 games that coulda shoulda woulda gone the other way if the correct call was made. Sometimes this has affected rankings in a major way.

The justice system isn't like that. They (the OP & his followers) don't see it. Probably because they haven't read all the other PCRA filings/casework. In particular, if they want to claim this is one of the very rare cases that wins a new trial, they really ought to have read up on those others that have in the past. They would find that new evidence (a confession by another, a bad cop that planted evidence, new DNA tests) are the reason that of the ~3% of cases that win a new trial through the process get a new trial. None of that is claimed in this case by Jerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L.T. Young
The OP reads, in depth, I believe, all docs & articles related to THIS case. He interprets them through a blue & white filter with the hope that somehow if Jerry is cleared, everything is better.

The OP has avoided, as far as I can tell, looking at other PCRAs in PA, to, for example, compare the state's yada yada responses to others. If he did so, he'd see that in virtually every other PCRA, the state's response is also yada yada yada, this claim is just invalid. It is very standard and the bar of proving attorney incompetence is really really high.

Football fans are used to bad calls in a game. They (the OP & his few ) are used to bad calls in a game being overturned by replay (these days), much of the time. They also are used to some bad calls not being overturned, but later being acknowledged due to a misunderstanding of the officials, time constraints during a game, even outright bias maybe. A few times each season there's 2 or 3 games that coulda shoulda woulda gone the other way if the correct call was made. Sometimes this has affected rankings in a major way.

The justice system isn't like that. They (the OP & his followers) don't see it. Probably because they haven't read all the other PCRA filings/casework. In particular, if they want to claim this is one of the very rare cases that wins a new trial, they really ought to have read up on those others that have in the past. They would find that new evidence (a confession by another, a bad cop that planted evidence, new DNA tests) are the reason that of the ~3% of cases that win a new trial through the process get a new trial. None of that is claimed in this case by Jerry.
all correct, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a new trial. it just means he won't get one.

the legal system is a mess. when the judge, prosecution and press are against you, you are going to be convicted...no ifs ands or buts. if you are a black man with a teardrop tattoo, accused of murder, and prosecution is allowed to be texting the judge good luck with it. My wife does a good deal of defense work and the cases she has to defend are ridiculously nuts. And the judges are 100% in as they are good friends and share the same employer as the DA. Its a travesty.
 
all correct, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a new trial. it just means he won't get one.

the legal system is a mess. when the judge, prosecution and press are against you, you are going to be convicted...no ifs ands or buts. if you are a black man with a teardrop tattoo, accused of murder, and prosecution is allowed to be texting the judge good luck with it. My wife does a good deal of defense work and the cases she has to defend are ridiculously nuts. And the judges are 100% in as they are good friends and share the same employer as the DA. Its a travesty.

They also share the same employer as the Public Defenders, no?
 
They also share the same employer as the Public Defenders, no?
yes and no. they get their money from the same source but PD's are typically paid a fixed amount...and it is a low number. So must just want to process the perp and get onto the next opportunity to make money. They are not full time or salaried employees the way judges and prosecutors are.
 
What you're claiming, or Sandusky's appeal is claiming, isn't possible.

Fisher accused Sandusky of some type of abuse to his mother and principal. That's how they ended up at CYS.

Matt Sandusky accused Sandusky of abuse mid trial. That couldn't possibly happen if he only unearthed memories of abuse after talking to a therapist.

Whether you believe them or not, Matt is pretty suspect, they had to have some memories of abuse in order to accuse him in the first place.

What it documents is a more detailed, accurate, and in depth account of the abuse after working with a therapist. That could simply be them being able to own what happened and talk about the extent of it. You know, what happens during normal therapy.

A 15 year old isn't going to be in a hurry to admit he traded Sandusky's sexual gratification for a father figure's love. Not only is it embarrassing, especially for someone that age, it means he has to admit he was used. That all the caring and concern was conditional on something that caused him so much pain.

This is the norm in cases of sexual abuse. It has nothing to do with RMT or suggestive questioning.

As far as Strubble is concerned, he was the only victim willing to sit down with Pendergast for an interview. Somehow Pendergast didn't even ask him about repressed memories until after their face to face meeting in a follow up phone call.

Judging by what I've seen of his writing I don't have any faith in the context of it matching what he presents.

Here's what you have to know:

This is not a RMT case. These aren't people who underwent some questionable type of therapy and suddenly uncovered vague memories of abuse.

Sandusky has to provide a reasonable defense that wasn't used at trial if he has any chance of getting a new one. They're throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.


Finally, in Pendergast's own words:

"During the June 2012 trial, alleged victims gave graphic, disturbing testimony. While much of it had evolved and grown over time, it is not clear that it all stemmed from repressed memories. Barring a new trial for Sandusky, it is difficult to determine what had always been remembered and which memories were created more recently through suggestion."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vtdigg...-pendergrast-jerry-sandusky-may-innocent/amp/

He has no idea what's true. What happens at a new trial when the victims explain they always remembered but buried it to survive? When Fisher details how the shame prevented him from admitting everything that took place before therapy?

Sandusky gets convicted again and you guys will still claim they're all lying for money.

You need to look into the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Look who founded it and why. Hopefully you'll see the truth about Pendergast.

When Fisher initially made his accusations he stated to authorities that Sandusky had touch him inappropriately over clothing and had cracked his back a number of times. He did not allege that any sex acts had occurred. However, Michael Gillum believed that sex acts had occurred from the outset. After Fisher had received therapy from Gillum, Fisher amazingly then claimed Sandusky had performed oral sex on him. Fisher admitted in his book, 'Silent No More,' that Gillum had helped him recover memories of these sex acts.

Matt Sandusky testified at the grand jury that his father had never abused him. After his father was arrested, Matt went to court against his ex-wife to allow his father access to his and his ex-wife's children. Matt was going to testify on his father's behalf at his father's trial, then the trial commenced and suddenly Matt flipped and claimed he had been abused when he saw the writing on the wall that his father was likely going to be convicted. In his post-trial interview with Oprah Winfrey, he stated that his therapist helped him to recover the memories of his abuse.

In a post-trial interview, Struble admitted that before he entered into therapy that he had no memories of being abused. He stated that before the allegations of abuse surfaced that he considered Sandusky to be a good friend. He further candidly admitted that his therapist suggested he had repressed memories.

You are entitled to your own opinions. Believe what you what to believe. I think it is absolutely possible that Aaron Fisher, Matt Sandusky, and Dustin Struble all only unearthed allegations of sexual acts after they had received therapy. In fact, I think it is very likely.

Let's see how the PCRA plays out. I don't know how Judge Foradora will rule. I know I am in the minority, but I think there is a good chance that Foradora will consider the PCRA objectively and give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt.

If for whatever reasons he rules against Sandusky, which is entirely possible; I think there would still be a good chance that that ruling would be overturned on appeal as I believe that the law in on Sandusky's side.
 
The OP reads, in depth, I believe, all docs & articles related to THIS case. He interprets them through a blue & white filter with the hope that somehow if Jerry is cleared, everything is better.

The OP has avoided, as far as I can tell, looking at other PCRAs in PA, to, for example, compare the state's yada yada responses to others. If he did so, he'd see that in virtually every other PCRA, the state's response is also yada yada yada, this claim is just invalid. It is very standard and the bar of proving attorney incompetence is really really high.

Football fans are used to bad calls in a game. They (the OP & his few ) are used to bad calls in a game being overturned by replay (these days), much of the time. They also are used to some bad calls not being overturned, but later being acknowledged due to a misunderstanding of the officials, time constraints during a game, even outright bias maybe. A few times each season there's 2 or 3 games that coulda shoulda woulda gone the other way if the correct call was made. Sometimes this has affected rankings in a major way.

The justice system isn't like that. They (the OP & his followers) don't see it. Probably because they haven't read all the other PCRA filings/casework. In particular, if they want to claim this is one of the very rare cases that wins a new trial, they really ought to have read up on those others that have in the past. They would find that new evidence (a confession by another, a bad cop that planted evidence, new DNA tests) are the reason that of the ~3% of cases that win a new trial through the process get a new trial. None of that is claimed in this case by Jerry.

I realize that PCRAs are a long shot, but if there ever was a case for a PCRA to be successful; this case is it. The case contains compelling evidence of ineffectiveness on account of defense counsel and of prosecutorial misconduct. I may not be a scholar on PCRA cases, but Professor Wes Oliver of Duquesne Law School is and he has stated that Sandusky's PCRA petition is one of the strongest PCRAs that he has seen. I think it is in the top 3%.
 
I realize that PCRAs are a long shot, but if there ever was a case for a PCRA to be successful; this case is it. The case contains compelling evidence of ineffectiveness on account of defense counsel and of prosecutorial misconduct. I may not be a scholar on PCRA cases, but Professor Wes Oliver of Duquesne Law School is and he has stated that Sandusky's PCRA petition is one of the strongest PCRAs that he has seen. I think it is in the top 3%.

If you think Wes Oliver read the PCRA in this case I have some oceanfront property in Houston to sell you.
 
When Fisher initially made his accusations he stated to authorities that Sandusky had touch him inappropriately over clothing and had cracked his back a number of times. He did not allege that any sex acts had occurred. However, Michael Gillum believed that sex acts had occurred from the outset. After Fisher had received therapy from Gillum, Fisher amazingly then claimed Sandusky had performed oral sex on him. Fisher admitted in his book, 'Silent No More,' that Gillum had helped him recover memories of these sex acts.

Matt Sandusky testified at the grand jury that his father had never abused him. After his father was arrested, Matt went to court against his ex-wife to allow his father access to his and his ex-wife's children. Matt was going to testify on his father's behalf at his father's trial, then the trial commenced and suddenly Matt flipped and claimed he had been abused when he saw the writing on the wall that his father was likely going to be convicted. In his post-trial interview with Oprah Winfrey, he stated that his therapist helped him to recover the memories of his abuse.

In a post-trial interview, Struble admitted that before he entered into therapy that he had no memories of being abused. He stated that before the allegations of abuse surfaced that he considered Sandusky to be a good friend. He further candidly admitted that his therapist suggested he had repressed memories.

You are entitled to your own opinions. Believe what you what to believe. I think it is absolutely possible that Aaron Fisher, Matt Sandusky, and Dustin Struble all only unearthed allegations of sexual acts after they had received therapy. In fact, I think it is very likely.

Let's see how the PCRA plays out. I don't know how Judge Foradora will rule. I know I am in the minority, but I think there is a good chance that Foradora will consider the PCRA objectively and give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt.

If for whatever reasons he rules against Sandusky, which is entirely possible; I think there would still be a good chance that that ruling would be overturned on appeal as I believe that the law in on Sandusky's side.
Man you're stubborn.

Why are you quoting the appeal rather than Aaron Fisher if he admitted he had no memory of sexual acts before therapy?

I don't really care about Matt Sandusky as he has nothing to do with the case and he's suspect. Point still stands they both accused Sandusky of some type of abuse before therapy.

It's common even in well documented cases of sexual abuse for victims stories to change.

As for Strubble, why didn't Pendergast ask about repressed memories when they met in person? It was the entire reason he was interviewing him.
 
Man you're stubborn.

Why are you quoting the appeal rather than Aaron Fisher if he admitted he had no memory of sexual acts before therapy?

I don't really care about Matt Sandusky as he has nothing to do with the case and he's suspect. Point still stands they both accused Sandusky of some type of abuse before therapy.

It's common even in well documented cases of sexual abuse for victims stories to change.

As for Strubble, why didn't Pendergast ask about repressed memories when they met in person? It was the entire reason he was interviewing him.
Totally agree....its also common that these thoughts can be inadvertently "planted" by the therapist....especially after it is known that deep pockets are involved.
 
Have you read the PCRA in this case @coveydidnt ?

Yes!! And on the surface it is compelling. But I have also read many many others which have concluded. It is clear to me that the claims raised in Jerry's PCRA will fail to meet the standards needed for a new trial.

It is OK with me if we disagree. But I have done that comparison. If you or anyone wants to believe that Jerry's claims have a chance, that's your prerogative ... But ... if you haven't looked at other cases that won & lost then your opinion is questionable.

Either way though, in a couple of months, Judge F will rule, and the one thing you and I will both agree on is that he couldn't possibly care less what your or my analysis reveals. And also could care less about Pendergast, Zig, Oliver on the one side nor the seemingly 99.99% of the media universe on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaJolla Lion
Man you're stubborn.

Why are you quoting the appeal rather than Aaron Fisher if he admitted he had no memory of sexual acts before therapy?

I don't really care about Matt Sandusky as he has nothing to do with the case and he's suspect. Point still stands they both accused Sandusky of some type of abuse before therapy.

It's common even in well documented cases of sexual abuse for victims stories to change.

As for Strubble, why didn't Pendergast ask about repressed memories when they met in person? It was the entire reason he was interviewing him.

I am quoting the PCRA because I believe it is accurate. If it wasn't accurate, the Commonwealth would have challenged the false statements in their filing and then the PCRA would probably be summarily dismissed by Judge Foradora.

You are correct that Matt Sandusky did not testify at trial, but you are wrong to assert that he had nothing to do with the case. If he hadn't flipped, Sandusky would have been able to testify in his own defense. Amendola has stated that he walked back having Sandusky testifying (after promising the jury he would) for fear of Matt Sandusky then being able to testify in rebuttal that he had been abused. As articulated in Sandusky's PCRA, Amendola was wrong and that had Sandusky testified in his own defense it would not have opened the door to permitting Matt Sandusky to have been able to testify as a rebuttal witness.

Have you read Silent No More? I have. If you want quotes from Aaron Fisher and Michael Gillum implying that Fisher had recovered memories, then try these out for size.

"I (Fisher) managed to lock it all deep inside my mind somehow." (page 22)

"I (Gillum) really thought I knew what you (Fisher) must be going through even though you won't tell me. If someone touched you in your private parts, well that's really embarrasing, and hard to talk about because you're probably very scared ... it is my job and to protect you. (pages 64-65)

"I (Gillum) know something terrible happened to you (Fisher). I understand you want it to stop and you want it to stop and you want to get away from him and you're not sure if you want to take it further than that." (page 66)

"[Aaron] was with [Gillum] for a couple of hours before he told [Gillum] that oral sex has occurred. Even then he didn't tell [Gillum] on his own, [Gillum] asked him and he said that it had." (page 67)

Prior to Mr. Fisher's therapy with Gillum, he had never acknowledged any sexual abuse. (pages 72-74)

Dustin Strubble testified at trial "That doorway that I had closed had since been reopening more. More things have been coming back and things have changed since the grand jury testimony through counseling and different things. I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point."

Strubble also testified "Through counseling and through talking about different events through talking about things in my past, different things triggered memories and have had more things come back, and it's changed a lot about what I can remember today and what I could remember because I had everything negative blacked out."

People just don't black things out and then just magically remember horrendous events due to counseling and therapy. If something terrible had happened to someone, they wouldn't have conveniently forgetten about it.

Fisher is the key to case. I suspect he is very concerned about the possibility of having to testify at a retrial. If Sandusky wins a new trial, I believe the result will be based on whether or not the jury believes Aaron Fisher. I think there would be a very good chance that the verdicts would be very different. A lot of people in the Lock Haven area who know Fisher very well have been willing to speak on the record in their own names that they don't believe that he was abused by Jerry Sandusky. These people include aunts, best friends, girlfriends, parents of friends, next door neighbors, and adults who organized the candlelight vigil for Fisher on account of his alleged abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Yes!! And on the surface it is compelling. But I have also read many many others which have concluded. It is clear to me that the claims raised in Jerry's PCRA will fail to meet the standards needed for a new trial.

It is OK with me if we disagree. But I have done that comparison. If you or anyone wants to believe that Jerry's claims have a chance, that's your prerogative ... But ... if you haven't looked at other cases that won & lost then your opinion is questionable.

Either way though, in a couple of months, Judge F will rule, and the one thing you and I will both agree on is that he couldn't possibly care less what your or my analysis reveals. And also could care less about Pendergast, Zig, Oliver on the one side nor the seemingly 99.99% of the media universe on the other.

Please cite the PCRA cases that have won and lost and why that leads you to believe that Sandusky has around a 0.01% chance of winning his PCRA.

Are you a betting man? I am not, but I want some action if you are willing to back up your talk with a little wager.

What is your opinion of NCIS Special Agent John Snedden? Do you think he was derelict in his duties when he recommended renewing Graham Spanier's Top Secret/SCI clearances after his in-depth investigation of the supposed sex scandal at Penn State.

I happen to agree with Snedden and find his opinion credible that there was no sex scandal at Penn State, but rather it was just a political hit job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
Which of the PSU related cases do you believe is the most open and shut?

Since all the trolls have ignored this post, I will respond.

It's a tough call between the victim that doesn't exist that was seen by a janitor with dementia, or the victim who stated multiple times that nothing happened in the shower that night, and every person involved reacted as if nothing ever occurred in the shower. Both victims gave such convincing testimony at trial.... hmmm. I just can't choose!
 
Since all the trolls have ignored this post, I will respond.

It's a tough call between the victim that doesn't exist that was seen by a janitor with dementia, or the victim who stated multiple times that nothing happened in the shower that night, and every person involved reacted as if nothing ever occurred in the shower. Both victims gave such convincing testimony at trial.... hmmm. I just can't choose!

I know it wasn't part of the trial, but obviously 1976 is the most compelling.

:confused:
 
I know it wasn't part of the trial, but obviously 1976 is the most compelling.

:confused:
It's difficult for me to select a favorite among the 70's accusations involving Joe. I'm still surprised he was able to find time for coaching football between all the abuse reports and his obviously diligent work in inventing the conference call.
 
Long before Jerry came along, Matt Sandusky was diagnosed with serious anti-social, psychological problems including sociopathy and pathological lying who was not to be believed regarding anything. The only people who put stock into his fantasies are Joe and Penn State haters, people with problems like Matt, and a few scared jurors who were frightened of being labeled as "enablers".

Matt belongs in care for the rest of his life, not running loose in society.
 
Long before Jerry came along, Matt Sandusky was diagnosed with serious anti-social, psychological problems including sociopathy and pathological lying who was not to be believed regarding anything. The only people who put stock into his fantasies are Joe and Penn State haters, people with problems like Matt, and a few scared jurors who were frightened of being labeled as "enablers".

Matt belongs in care for the rest of his life, not running loose in society.

Matt's body language during the Oprah interview is revealing. I lost count of how many times his eyes wandered while telling a lie.
 
It's difficult for me to select a favorite among the 70's accusations involving Joe. I'm still surprised he was able to find time for coaching football between all the abuse reports and his obviously diligent work in inventing the conference call.

My favorite is the 70's accuser that was corroborated by that paragon of virtue Bernie McCue. It only came to light because of the persistence of ace investigative reporter Sara Ganim. Sara realized that someone doesn't become a pedophile in their fifties and knew if she stayed on the case, she could find an earlier alleged victim that would be willing to come forward. I am surprised that Governer Tom Corbett didn't award her with a medal of commendation to go with her Pulitzer.
 
My favorite is the 70's accuser that was corroborated by that paragon of virtue Bernie McCue. It only came to light because of the persistence of ace investigative reporter Sara Ganim. Sara realized that someone doesn't become a pedophile in their fifties and knew if she stayed on the case, she could find an earlier alleged victim that would be willing to come forward. I am surprised that Governer Tom Corbett didn't award her with a medal of commendation to go with her Pulitzer.

the same Bernie who said he admired Paterno until 2000-whenever

even though he "knew" Joe had ignored the pleas of a victim. A victim Bernie never walked down to the police, either.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT