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

[pandaczar12]

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.

Which 70s accuser did Bernie corroborate?

1) The one who allegedly was abused in a group shower despite the fact group showers didn't actually happen, he somehow escaped supervision, ventured out on an unfamiliar campus, found Joe and gained an audience, only to be refused justice, so he just didn't say anything to anyone else for 40 years?

2) The one who was on a conference call with Joe likely years before PSU had that technology... and after Joe threatened to call the police, which should have been exactly what they wanted, the alleged victim and his foster parents dropped it for 40 years?

 

[Bob78]

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.

On top of Bernie being in the know, as you point out....

A few years back, Scott Paterno stated that Bernie started harassing Joe and the family in the mid-90s, and they never understood why. I think he said there were harassing phone calls to the house from Bernie, and of course we know (yet somehow investigative journalists don't!) that Bernie was arrested for harassing one of the grandkids at a book signing, iirc.
All that, and with all the times the local businesses had to chase him away for scribbling his manifestos in red ink on newspapers on their property, and we have our star witness to the 70s claim.
Solid as a rock. Because it's not Bernie who has the plethora of mental instability issues, apparently.

They may have to rename the Pulitzer Prize to the Ganim Prize.

 

[nits74]

On top of Bernie being in the know, as you point out....

A few years back, Scott Paterno stated that Bernie started harassing Joe and the family in the mid-90s, and they never understood why. I think he said there were harassing phone calls to the house from Bernie, and of course we know (yet somehow investigative journalists don't!) that Bernie was arrested for harassing one of the grandkids at a book signing, iirc.
All that, and with all the times the local businesses had to chase him away for scribbling his manifestos in red ink on newspapers on their property, and we have our star witness to the 70s claim.
Solid as a rock. Because it's not Bernie who has the plethora of mental instability issues, apparently.

They may have to rename the Pulitzer Prize to the Ganim Prize.

Bob, every time I read this type of stuff it is simply mind boggling. What a country, what a country.

 

[androcles]

...never gonna find the truth...☹️

 

[L.T. Young]

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.

That doesn't apply to Fisher as far as I can tell.

Matt Sandusky is suspect IMO. The way he phrased an answer to Oprah didn't sit well with me.

When asked about people thinking he's lying he referred to "my truth". It struck me as odd coming from him.

 

[L.T. Young]

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.

One quote that in no way states he had no memory of the sex acts before therapy?

Just because you lock something up doesn't mean you have no memory of it. It means you put it in a place that only you can see or touch if you choose to.

I'd imagine you'd have to compartmentalize something like that just to get through it.

As far Matt preventing Jerry from taking the stand, if that's why Jerry didn't testify he should thank Matt.

Jerry would have gotten killed on cross. He couldn't handle Bob Costas asking him a simple question. He'd have faced a ton of questions there are no good answers for.

As far as Stuble, it's all grooming behavior. Uncomfortable moments at 10 and 11 years old aren't hard to bury.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, which is fine.

 

[Obliviax]

That doesn't apply to Fisher as far as I can tell.

Matt Sandusky is suspect IMO. The way he phrased an answer to Oprah didn't sit well with me.

When asked about people thinking he's lying he referred to "my truth". It struck me as odd coming from him.

I agree...but without MM's testimony, I doubt Aaron Fisher's goes very far.

 

[francofan]

That doesn't apply to Fisher as far as I can tell.

Matt Sandusky is suspect IMO. The way he phrased an answer to Oprah didn't sit well with me.

When asked about people thinking he's lying he referred to "my truth". It struck me as odd coming from him.

Thank you for acknowledging that Matt Sandusky's accusations are suspect. On that point we are in total agreement.

The is no question in my mind that Aaron Fisher got assistance in being able to articulate his accusations of CSA from Michael Gillum. Fisher was only able to testify before the grand jury because Gillum was present which is highly irregular. According to the Moulton report, the OAG did not go forward with charging Sandusky based solely on Fisher as the only alleged victim because he was not a strong witness. I am not sure that Fisher's accusations can stand on their own. If Sandusky is able to win a new trial, I believe the verdicts will be based on whether or not the jury finds Fisher's testimony credible.

 

[L.T. Young]

I agree...but without MM's testimony, I doubt Aaron Fisher's goes very far.

Probably true given the length of time it took to charge with MM.

This thing being turned into a political football has done such a great disservice to the central issue, Sandusky's crimes. He's been convicted so there's no other way to put it.

 

[L.T. Young]

Thank you for acknowledging that Matt Sandusky's accusations are suspect. On that point we are in total agreement.

The is no question in my mind that Aaron Fisher got assistance in being able to articulate his accusations of CSA from Michael Gillum. Fisher was only able to testify before the grand jury because Gillum was present which is highly irregular. According to the Moulton report, the OAG did not go forward with charging Sandusky based solely on Fisher as the only alleged victim because he was not a strong witness. I am not sure that Fisher's accusations can stand on their own. If Sandusky is able to win a new trial, I believe the verdicts will be based on whether or not the jury finds Fisher's testimony credible.

At this point Fisher is going to be a strong witness. He goes around the country giving speeches in front of groups of people.

On Matt Sandusky, something just didn't sit right with me the way "my story" came out.

I've heard victims use the phrase before, and believed them. Maybe he's telling the truth and was still trying to own the abuse? I think it's fair to be skeptical though. They're still just allegations and that's a big distinction IMO. I'm sure that sounds silly to some, but that's how our justice system works.

 

[francofan]

The defense and the Commonwealth filed a joint motion for oral arguments yesterday. I wonder what this is about. I would guess this might delay the timing of Judge Foradora's ruling which was scheduled toward the end of October.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY JOINT MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.pdf

 

[PSU_l]

The defense and the Commonwealth filed a joint motion for oral arguments yesterday. I wonder what this is about. I would guess this might delay the timing of Judge Foradora's ruling which was scheduled toward the end of October.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY JOINT MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.pdf

Probably the fact that the response wasn't "docketed" until 4:50 pm on Wednesday, 8/23/2017, when it was clearly due by Court Order on by 5:00 pm Monday, 8/21/2017 (and this despite the granting of an extension by the Judge of the original due date of 5 pm, Friday, 8/18/2017.).

 

[francofan]

Probably the fact that the response wasn't "docketed" until 4:50 pm on Wednesday, 8/23/2017, when it was clearly due by Court Order on by 5:00 pm Monday, 8/21/2017 (and this despite the granting of an extension by the Judge of the original due date of 5 pm, Friday, 8/18/2017.).

You don't need oral arguments for that. I am guessing that relevant new information may have surfaced.

 

[PSU_l]

You don't need oral arguments for that. I am guessing that relevant new information may have surfaced.

francofan, I saw this article regarding the Joint Motion you posted - HIT THE LINK. So when does the Judge issue an Order regarding this matter and set a schedule?

 

[francofan]

francofan, I saw this article regarding the Joint Motion you posted - HIT THE LINK. So when does the Judge issue an Order regarding this matter and set a schedule?

I would expect that Judge Foradora will issue a response to the Joint Motion very soon. I would be very surprised if he denied the motion as Jennifer Peterson Buck of the OAG was party to the motion. I believe that Lindsay and Salemme filed the motion for oral arguments to discuss some particulars in the OAG's response.

 

[Chris92]

The joint motion for oral argument has been denied with no further explanation.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY ORDER DENYING ORAL MOTION.pdf

 

[nits74]

The joint motion for oral argument has been denied with no further explanation.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY ORDER DENYING ORAL MOTION.pdf

What does this mean? Does it favor one side or the other?

 

[francofan]

The joint motion for oral argument has been denied with no further explanation.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY ORDER DENYING ORAL MOTION.pdf

It seems to me that Judge Foradora may have already made his decision. If he was still unsure whether or not to grant Sandusky a new trial then I believe he would have granted the motion for oral arguments particularly since the OAG joined Sandusky's defense in the motion. I am inclined to think that he will grant a new trial based on the strength of the PCRA petition and the weakness of the OAG's response, but then again this is Pennsylvania and anything is possible.

 

[Chris92]

What does this mean? Does it favor one side or the other?

Hard to tell, but francofan might be right in that the judge has already made up his mind.

 

[nits74]

It seems to me that Judge Foradora may have already made his decision. If he was still unsure whether or not to grant Sandusky a new trial then I believe he would have granted the motion for oral arguments particularly since the OAG joined Sandusky's defense in the motion. I am inclined to think that he will grant a new trial based on the strength of the PCRA petition and the weakness of the OAG's response, but then again this is Pennsylvania and anything is possible.

Franco, I'll be surprised if that were to happen given the politically toxic atmosphere around this. Even if he thought a new trial were warranted, I doubt he has the fortitude. And if he's already made a decision, why wait another month or more to reveal it?

 

[francofan]

Franco, I'll be surprised if that were to happen given the politically toxic atmosphere around this. Even if he thought a new trial were warranted, I doubt he has the fortitude. And if he's already made a decision, why wait another month or more to reveal it?

I hear you, but I am not so sure. I have been wrong in the past, but it seems to me from attending the PCRA hearings and seeing all of the rulings that Judge Foradora made for the defense that he may buck the trend and make his ruling based on the merits of the case. In addition, if he denies a new trial after denying a motion that was joined by the OAG, I believe he would increase the chances of Sandusky winning a new trial on appeal.

 

[lionville]

I hear you, but I am not so sure. I have been wrong in the past, but it seems to me from attending the PCRA hearings and seeing all of the rulings that Judge Foradora made for the defense that he may buck the trend and make his ruling based on the merits of the case. In addition, if he denies a new trial after denying a motion that was joined by the OAG, I believe he would increase the chances of Sandusky winning a new trial on appeal.

Any other state, maybe. But it's Pennsylvania, and the fix has been in for every case that's gone before a judge in this travesty. Judge Fedora has been told what his ruling is. He has no balls. I bet JS lawyers are already working on an appeal. If not, they should be.

 

[francofan]

Any other state, maybe. But it's Pennsylvania, and the fix has been in for every case that's gone before a judge in this travesty. Judge Fedora has been told what his ruling is. He has no balls. I bet JS lawyers are already working on an appeal. If not, they should be.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes made a favorable ruling in quashing the counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy counts against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. I am pretty sure that Spanier's conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Sandusky's lawyers have been working on their appeal from day 1 of the PCRA hearings. They are very pleased with all the information from the evidentiary hearings that they have been able to get on the record. IMO, the law is on Sandusky's side in his PCRA petition. Judge Foradora could rule either way, but if he rules against a new trial; I like Sandusky's chances on appeal to Superior Court and/or the Pennsylvanis Supreme Court.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...dministrators-thrown-out/stories/201601220218

 

[Courtneywendell]

Judge Fedora has been told what his ruling is. He has no balls. I bet JS lawyers are already working on an appeal. If not, they should be.

And who told Fedora what the ruling will be? The OGBOT? Tom (out of power) Corbett? Disgraced Frank Fina? Who has enough power to fix all these cases? All of them from the beginning?

 

[denniskembala]

And who told Fedora what the ruling will be? The OGBOT? Tom (out of power) Corbett? Disgraced Frank Fina? Who has enough power to fix all these cases? All of them from the beginning?

Get lost you Pitt clown.

 

[Courtneywendell]

Get lost you Pitt clown.

It was a serious question. Who is the man behind the curtain? I read posts about a shadow network running PA on here a lot.

Who is behind it and why? And what is their interest in keeping Sandusky in jail?

Lionville threw it out there. And I'm politely and respectfully asking for more information.

 

[Diego Badman]

It was a serious question. Who is the man behind the curtain? I read posts about a shadow network running PA on here a lot.

Who is behind it and why? And what is their interest in keeping Sandusky in jail?

Lionville threw it out there. And I'm politely and respectfully asking for more information.

I don't think there is a man behind the curtain. I think that this is a very toxic issue, and as long as there are still appeals, then it is easy to push that hot potato on to someone else. Judge Foradora may be a very thoughtful, reasonable individual, and, maybe there are merits to granting a new trial, but, he also is human, and the state and national media has been more than willing to keep any false narrative alive. He could grant a new trial, lay out the reasons for the new trial, and be castigated nationally for doing so.

 

[coveydidnt]

I am inclined to think that he will grant a new trial based on the strength of the PCRA petition and the weakness of the OAG's response,

Well the truth is that the OAG response was very very strong, and wishing it weren't doesn't make it so. This will be an obvious slam dunk denial of the PCRA.

 

[PSU_l]

It was a serious question. Who is the man behind the curtain? I read posts about a shadow network running PA on here a lot.

Who is behind it and why? And what is their interest in keeping Sandusky in jail?

Lionville threw it out there. And I'm politely and respectfully asking for more information.

My guess is the Hershey-MontCo GOP Political Junta control many of the corrupt Judges (including Saylor, the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania - take a look at the ridiculous machinations they went through in changing the Retirement Age immediately preceding it being applicable to him, when they allowed his predecessor to be ejected by the rule only 2 years earlier.... And the entire campaign to change the Retirement Age was initiated by GOP MontCo Politicians highly connected to the Zimmerman-Asher Network). BTW, Chief Justice Saylor is the very party who named "Retired Senior Judge" Boccabella to the C/S/S after every single Judge in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas "recused" themselves such that a judge had to be named by the Chief Justice....a rather comical "coincidence" that every single Dauphin County Judge recused themselves when the trial, brought under the V1 DPW-Initiated Investigation under CPSL prescribed that Clinton County should have been the initial venue and Dauphin County NEVER should have been the venue in the first place (it was only named as the venue via Corrupt Corbutt's, another Zimmerman-Asher acolyte [Asher was his campaign manager and Zimmerman his "political Rabbi"], machinations with an unnecessary "SWIGJ" that illegally changed the venue!).

Here are some interesting articles on the topic and Saylor's heavy connections to the Zimmerman-Asher GOP Junta:

• Retired Berks Judge John Boccabella to preside at trial of 3 former Penn State administrators
• http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/chief_justice_thomas_saylor_si.html
• DN editorial: Plan to change retirement age for judges seems shady

Former SWIGJ Judge, Barry Feudale, shady dealings with the Republican Controlled OAG and Corrupt Corbutt is a well known fact as well. Why do all roads of corruption always seem to point to Hershey-MontCo Zimmerman-Asher GOP Syndicate Junta?

 

[nits74]

Well the truth is that the OAG response was very very strong, and wishing it weren't doesn't make it so. This will be an obvious slam dunk denial of the PCRA.

In a nutshell what exactly in the OAG response makes it particularly strong? Serious question, because I'm not a lawyer. Thanks.

 

[francofan]

Well the truth is that the OAG response was very very strong, and wishing it weren't doesn't make it so. This will be an obvious slam dunk denial of the PCRA.

You are welcome to your opinions. Saying that it will be an obvious slam dunk denial of the PCRA doesn't mean that it will be. It seems to me that you wouldn't have any problems with the way that the Salem witch trials were conducted.

 

[Courtneywendell]

But why Sandusky or destroy JVP's reputation? What threat did they pose?

I know all about the shanagins in this state going back to Bud Dwyer. I would not be surprised if that existed here. I agree JVP was unfairly tarnished. But who profits from that?

Are these the same people paying Ganim?

That's why I am trying to get more info

 

[Courtneywendell]

Post #3...? Troll

Have I engaged in any troll behavior? Are new people not allowed here?

I read vague allusions to people in charge and I'm asking to learn more about.

Do I think this is a conspiracy? No. could it be? Yes. That's why I'm asking questions.


A lot of people posted theories that Ganim is being paid by someone. Ok? Who is doing that? Surma hated Joe, but he doesn't have that influence at CNN. And Corbett was put out to pasture. So who?

When the judge blamed JVP when sentencing Curly and Schultz, I read that he was told to force JVP into his speech.

Is it the same forces? Multiple actors? Explain it to me like I'm five. Why does Leroy benefit from this?

 

[coveydidnt]

In a nutshell what exactly in the OAG response makes it particularly strong? Serious question, because I'm not a lawyer. Thanks.

It's the same thing that a wishful, non-lawyer sees & assumes is weak.

For most of the points, the Commonwealth didn't feel the need to provide any real opposition, just simply said that the PCRA failed to prove the point.

If any of the points had merit, the Commonweath would be obligated to provide significant counter-points. Instead, they essentially let the PCRA speak for itself. If you examine other PCRA cases, the lack of a vigorous counter-argument is a strong signal that the PCRA will fail.

There exists tons of case law which governs whether or not an attorney can be deemed incompetent. When you read the PCRA, many of the points will sound like valid claims to a layman, but in fact, the precedents indicate that the bar to prove incompetence is much higher than anything Jerry's team presented.

 

[PSU_l]

But why Sandusky or destroy JVP's reputation? What threat did they pose?

I know all about the shanagins in this state going back to Bud Dwyer. I would not be surprised if that existed here. I agree JVP was unfairly tarnished. But who profits from that?

Are these the same people paying Ganim?

That's why I am trying to get more info

How do they profit raping PSU and use it as an "Indemnification Company" to line their own pockets and the pockets of equally corrupt politically-aligned lawyers as well as using the University as a "fall guy" and "foil" to cover for all the failings of the OAG and State Agencies that led to "the Sandusky Travesty" as you put it??? Do tell, how is "The Pennsylvania State University" responsible for The State of Pennsylvania (and the corrupt lawyers-turned-politicians who run it as well as all of its Direct Agencies including OAG) granting well into double-digit Court-Oredered and Approved Adoptions and Foster-Parenting Arrangements with direct custody of the child-victims to Sandusky's household for over FIVE DECADES??? How is PSU responsible for Sandusky running State-Contracted "Group Homes for Wayward Boys" in the 1970s??? How is PSU responsible for the State of Pennsylvania via the DPW's Clinton County CYS Office providing access to Central Mountain High School to The Second Mile (including the hiring of a full-time "Second Mile Coordinator" at the DPW's Clinton County CYS Office), where under the auspice of this arrangement Sandusky began acting as a Guidance Counsellor and Member of the Football Staff at the CMHS in 2002 (i.e., LONG BEFORE Victim 1, Aaron Fisher's, registered compaint of CSA with DPW in Nov 2008)??? Etc., etc., etc.....ad naseum

The list goes on and on......the notion that "The Pennsylvania State University" is "responsible" for the seminal DPW-Initiated and "Indicated" Report of CSA (or TSM/Sandusky having a 5 DECADE Formal Relationship with the State via not only TSM access, but also Adoptions and Foster-Parenting Placements that TSM did the work on...) is PATENTLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as anyone with even one functioning brain-cell can see. The "connection" to PSU and the subsequent "bait and switch" bull$hit pulled in Corrupt Corbutt's COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY "Statewide Investigating Grand Jury" unjustly and unrighteously shifting responsibility to PSU is equally obvious to all but biggest moral-hypocrites on the face of the GD planet.....the corrupt scumbag "lawyers-turned-politicians" and supposed "public servants" like Corrupt Corbutt and Fake Corman! Go figure!

 

[PSU_l]

Great post PSU_I but courtneywendell is a troll. He's had 3-4 posts. He's just here because he's either paid to monitor the forum or he's here to bust balls. Ignore him.

Anyone who honestly doesn't understand how corruption works is a moron.

......or a morally-hypocritical lawyer attempting obfuscate the issues when it is perfectly transparent what has transpired here as well as who and what is responsible for it (i.e., political and govenrment "public corruption" otherwise known throughout history as "tyranny"). There is a reason why moral-hypocrisy and corruption within government (i.e., "State Actors") is termed "moral hazard" and it's because that is precisely what it is when you grant "sovereign immunity" to thug scumbags (who are really just well-dressed criminals) holding all the powers, authorities & privileges of "The State" including their Capos legally carrying their guns.....

 

[Courtneywendell]

Courtneywendell is probably Silvis. This is something that douche would do.

Why are you so angry at me? Have I said or done anything to piss you off? I'm trying to learn and asking some questions. They may seem basic to you but I'm legitimately trying to learn more.

Have I insulted anyone? Have I trashed anyone's opinion? Have I disagreed with anyone?

Yet you've posted two replies calling me a troll, one calling me a moron and another calling me a douche. Why do I bother you so much?

 

[francofan]

Judge Cleland has written a letter to Judge Foradora that Lindsay and Salamme have made an inaccurate or misleading finding of fact in support of their conclusion of law regarding Sandusky's waiving of his preliminary hearing. If Judge Cleland wanted to stay involved in this case he should not have recused himself. He recused himself because he foolishly was involved and thus became a fact witness in an off-the-record meeting between the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the district magistrate on the eve of Sandusky's preliminary hearing when Sandusky for no good reason gave up his right to a preliminary hearing and lost the opportunity to gather impeachment evidence by cross examining the accusers on their many discrepancies in their accounts.

If Cleland didn't want to recuse himself, he should have played things by the books. IMO, his conduct throughout the entire case has demonstrated his prosecutorial bias. He recused himself for good reasons. When he recused himself from the case, he should have stayed completely out of the way and not interfere with Judge Foradora's duties in any way. He should not have issued his opinion on Nov. 18, 2016 and he should not have written his letter to Judge Foradora on Sept. 1, 2017. I hope that Judge Foradora can look at the case objectively and make his rulings based on the merits on the case. If he does, I believe he has no choice but to grant Sandusky a new trial.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY LETTER TO JUDGE FORADORA.pdf

 

[PSU2UNC]

Judge Cleland has written a letter to Judge Foradora that Lindsay and Salamme have made an inaccurate or misleading finding of fact in support of their conclusion of law regarding Sandusky's waiving of his preliminary hearing. If Judge Cleland wanted to stay involved in this case he should not have recused himself. He recused himself because he foolishly was involved and thus became a fact witness in an off-the-record meeting between the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, and the district magistrate on the eve of Sandusky's preliminary hearing when Sandusky for no good reason gave up his right to a preliminary hearing and lost the opportunity to gather impeachment evidence by cross examining the accusers on their many discrepancies in their accounts.

If Cleland didn't want to recuse himself, he should have played things by the books. IMO, his conduct throughout the entire case has demonstrated his prosecutorial bias. He recused himself for good reasons. When he recused himself from the case, he should have stayed completely out of the way and not interfere with Judge Foradora's duties in any way. He should not have issued his opinion on Nov. 18, 2016 and he should have written his letter to Judge Foradora on Sept. 1, 2017. I hope that Judge Foradora can look at the case objectively and make his rulings based on the merits on the case. If he does, I believe he has no choice but to grant Sandusky a new trial.

http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY LETTER TO JUDGE FORADORA.pdf

The letter doesn't say what the "misleading and inaccurate" statements were. Do we know what he is referring to?

Can any attorneys chime in about if this is common practice (a judge writing to another judge)? Seems super shady to me.

 

[nits74]

Well, the fact that he's allowing this to be in the record seems to indicate that he is not looking at this objectively. This should come as no surprise at all.