Pages

Monday, September 11, 2017

CNN Smears Joe Paterno With Old News From Tainted Source

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

On Saturday, when the Nittany Lions were defeating the Pittsburgh Panthers 33-14 to go 2-0 on a promising young football season, Sara Ganim of CNN posted a blast from Penn State's nightmarish past -- a big scoop that supposedly further tarred and feathered the ghost of the late Joe Paterno.

What startling new evidence did Ganim have to attack what was left of Paterno's credibility? A one-page police report about a 16-year-old incident from a tainted source in an investigation marred by blatant police and prosecutorial misconduct. And what did Ganim and CNN do with that police report? She claimed it "bolsters evidence" that Paterno "knew years before Jerry Sandusky's arrest that his longtime assistant might be abusing children."

You had to dig deep into Ganim's intellectually dishonest story to discover what her main new allegation was -- that Paterno supposedly knew about a 1998 incident where Sandusky was accused of hugging a naked 10-year-old boy in the shower. An incident investigated by the Centre County District Attorney's Office at the time and determined to be unfounded.

An incident that happened three years before the infamous 2001 Mike McQueary shower incident, where McQueary, according to the state attorney general's indictment, supposedly saw Sandusky anally raping another 10-year-old boy in the showers. Even though McQueary later admitted what the attorney general wrote wasn't true. And the alleged victim of the most infamous act of child abuse in the history of America never came forward to testify. Despite tons of publicity and a potential multimillion dollar payout.

With the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal, it's getting harder and harder to separate reality from myth. All Ganim has done with her latest effort is to throw a fresh coat of mud on the situation and emphasize the need for independent scrutiny of the tainted investigation of Sandusky, as well as Ganim's central role in it.

The problems with Ganim

Problem No. 1 with Ganim's new story is that the scoop the reporter was peddling directly contradicted one of her previous scoops. Where she claimed that Paterno, who's no longer around to defend himself, knew about a previous allegation of sex abuse regarding Sandusky dating back to 1971.

She also writes in her latest story about the 1998 shower incident as though it's some kind of mystery, even though Ganim, who did not respond to a request for comment, was intimately familiar with all the details.

So when did Joe know that Jerry might be a pedophile, Sara? Was it in 1998? Or was it way back in 1971? Or was it in 1976, with another alleged incident involving a "John Doe 150" that Ganim covered in her Saturday story.

Problem No. 2 with Ganim's latest scoop -- the reporter has an ethical conflict that is undisputed.

At Sandusky's trial, the prosecutors from the state attorney general's office admitted in a legal stipulation that Ganim, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on Sandusky while working for The Patriot News of Harrisburg, had meddled in a supposedly secret grand jury investigation. An investigation that was in danger of expiring if the prosecutors didn't find more alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky.

So how did Ganim meddle? By acting as an agent for the state attorney general's office when she contacted the mother of the naked 10-year old who was allegedly hugged in the shower back in 1998.

Ganim's ethical conflict was laid out in a legal brief filed by Sandusky's lawyers in their arguments for a new trial. In the brief, Sandusky's lawyers wrote that Ganim "approached the mother of accuser 6," Deb McCord, according to the testimony of State Police Corporal Joseph Leiter, and gave the mother the name and phone number for an investigator assigned to the attorney general's office.

Ganim, according to the brief, left this message for McCord:

"Debra, it's Sara from the Patriot. I just want to pass along this agent's name and number. The Attorney General has expressed interest in helping you."

So when Sara Ganim writes another story about Joe Paterno and the Penn State sex scandal, it's not exactly like Bob Woodward opining about Richard Nixon and Watergate. But that didn't prevent Ganim from making a splash with her bogus scoop in gullible mainstream media outlets, such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, by generating a fresh round of headlines asking What did Joe Know and When Did He Know It?

Let's get to Ganim's new evidence and lay out why the source of it is tainted, as well as the product of an investigation marked by blatant police and prosecutorial misconduct.

The one page Pennsylvania state police report from 2011, supposedly obtained from a source, Ganim wrote, is "described here for the first time." The report "lays out an account from whistleblower Mike McQueary," who was telling Paterno about the infamous shower incident from 2001 starring a naked Jerry Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy.

"Paterno allegedly told McQueary in 2001 that the claim against Sandusky 'was the second complaint of this nature he had received," according to the police report, which was written after Sandusky's arrest 10 years later," Ganim wrote.

"Paterno, upon hearing the news, sat back in his chair with a dejected look on his face," the report states, adding that McQueary "said Paterno's eyes appeared to well up with tears."

Nice dramatic touches for a police report. Next, Ganim writes:

"Then he [Paterno] made the comment to McQueary this was the second complaint of this nature he had received about Sandusky," the report states, citing McQueary's recollection."

The police report also noted, Ganim wrote, that Paterno allegedly told McQueary that Dottie Sandusky, Jerry's wife, had told Sue Paterno, Joe's wife, that "Jerry doesn't like girls."

A tainted witness

Let's start with McQueary, who, according to Ganim, is now writing a book about his exploits as the alleged Penn State whistleblower.

As former NCIS Special Agent John Snedden has said, McQueary is not a credible witness. As a special agent for the Federal Investigative Service, Snedden investigated former Penn State President Graham Spanier in 2012, to determine whether his top secret security clearance should be renewed by the federal government. Snedden wrote a recently declassified 110-page report that concluded there was no sex crime at Penn State and no coverup.

Snedden didn't believe McQueary was credible because he told five different versions of what he saw and heard in the Penn State showers, featuring slapping sounds and fleeting glimpses of naked people in the shower. The day he witnessed the shower event, McQueary was repeatedly questioned by his father, a doctor, and a friend of his father's, another doctor, about what happened. McQueary could not definitely say whether he had witnessed a sexual attack or horseplay. And that's why neither of the two doctors, both mandated reporters, ever told the police.

McQueary was also questioned by two Penn State administrators, who came to the same conclusion as the two doctors, that McQueary wasn't sure what he saw or heard in the showers. So they didn't report it to the police either.

"I've never had a rape victim or a witness to a rape tell multiple stories about how it happened," Snedden said in a previous interview with Big Trial, to describe why McQueary wasn't a credible witness. "If it's real it's always been the same thing," Snedden said.

"In my view, the evolution of what we saw as a result of Mike McQueary's interview with the AG's office" was the transformation of a story about rough  horseplay into something sexual, Snedden said.

"I think it would be orchestrated by them," Snedden said about the AG's office, which has never responded to multiple requests for comment.

A tainted investigation and grand jury report

That didn't stop the attorney general's office from running with their exaggerated version of McQueary's story.

The 2011 grand jury report was built around a lie. It claimed that McQueary witnessed a 10-yar-old boy in the showers being subjected to “anal intercourse” by a “naked Jerry Sandusky.” McQueary supposedly told Joe Paterno about it, and two other university officials, but Penn State covered it up, the grand jury report says.

 But McQueary himself was shocked when he read the grand jury report. He emailed the prosecutors, saying they had “twisted” his words. ”I cannot say 1,000 percent sure that it was sodomy,” McQueary wrote. “I did not see insertion.”

The investigation conducted by the state police in the Sandusky case also included stone-cold proof of police misconduct on tape. On April 21, 2011, the state police made the mistake of leaving a tape recorder on, and the machine caught the police deliberately lying to one alleged victim to get him to tell the story they wanted him to tell. 

State Troopers Joseph Leiter and Scott Rossman were interviewing alleged victim Brett Houtz at the police barracks, with Houtz’s attorney Benjamin Andreozzi present. While Houtz took a cigarette break the two troopers continued talking with Houtz’s lawyer. They assumed the tape-recorder was turned off but it wasn't.

In their conversation captured for eternity, the troopers talked about how it took them months to get details of sex attacks out of Aaron Fisher, Victim No. 1 in the Penn State case, and how they’re sure that Houtz was a rape victim too. The troopers then discussed how to get more details of sex abuse out of Houtz.

Attorney Andreozzi had a helpful suggestion: “Can we at some point say to him, ‘Listen, we have interviewed other kids and other kids have told us that there was intercourse and that they have admitted this, you know. Is there anything else you want to tell us.’ ”

“Yep, we do that with all the other kids,” Trooper Leiter said. Sure enough, when Houtz returned, Trooper Leiter told him, “I just want to let you know you are not the first victim we have spoken to.”

The trooper told Houtz about nine adults that they had already talked to and said, “It is amazing. If this was a book, you would have been repeating word for word pretty much what a lot of people have already told us.”

The troopers, however, had only interviewed three alleged victims at that point, and only one – Aaron Fisher – had alleged prolonged abuse. But Houtz didn't know that.

“I don’t want you to feel ashamed because you are a victim in this whole thing,” Trooper Leiter told Houtz. “He [Sandusky] took advantage of you . . . [but] We need you to tell us as graphically as you can what took place as we get through this procedure. I just want you to understand that you are not alone in this. By no means are you alone in this.”

That's what you call coaching a witness, to manufacture testimony.

Reaction to Ganim's latest story

The condemnation of Ganim's most recent story came from many quarters.

"Well CNN published a lie from Sara Ganim," tweeted Scott Paterno, a lawyer who defended his father during the Sandusky scandal. "Sue [Paterno] never said that Dottie [Sandusky] told her anything and this was categorically denied before publication."

"To be clear Sara Ganim and @CNN is using triple hearsay to get clicks and it's false. And enough is enough."

"To my knowledge we were not contacted by Sara Ganim for a response," Dottie Sandusky wrote. "If we had been, I would have told her that this is old news which actually exonerates both Joe and Jerry. The incident in question is the 1998 episode which, according to [Former Penn State Athletic Director] Tim Curley's testimony, Joe knew was fully investigated by the D.A. and determined to be unfounded. I never said that Jerry doesn't like girls and the factual record, including at trial, makes that extremely obvious to anyone not invested in this entire fairy tale."

"On the brighter side, I'm glad to see that Sara and the rest of the news media has seemingly dropped the absurd notion that Joe Paterno was told in the 1970s about abuse that never happened by accusers who made up stories for Penn State money," Dottie Sandusky wrote.

Former Special Agent Snedden called Ganim's scoop "revisionist history."

"The whole thing is absurd," Snedden said about the supposedly new police report from 2011. "It was written ten years after the fact," Snedden said about the 2001 shower incident supposedly witnessed by McQueary, and described to the state police in 2011.

"Police reports are supposed to be contemporaneous," Snedden said. About the 2011 police report concerning the 2001 shower incident, Snedden asked, "How is that contemporaneous?"

The CNN story, Snedden said, is the product of either "trying to either cover your ass or bolster your position. It appears to me that she [Ganim] doesn't even go through the motions of asking if it's accurate."

John Ziegler, a reporter who has covered the Penn State story for years, was even harsher in his assessment of Ganim's work.

"This one [Ganim's new story] is the biggest piece of crap yet," Ziegler said. "Ganim is pretending that we don't know" about the 1998 shower incident, Ziegler said. "If she was at the [Sandusky] trial she would know that what she's reporting is ancient news. It's got cobwebs on it."

Ziegler went at Ganim's work from another angle -- logic.

"This is actually exculpatory," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest scoop.

When McQueary is telling Joe about the 1998 shower incident, which is almost identical to the 2001 shower incident,  Ziegler said, "Joe is immediately flashing back to 1998."

"That tells us that McQueary never said anything [to Paterno] about a sexual assault because Joe already knows that 1998 [the first alleged shower incident] is a nothing burger," Ziegler said. "Had McQueary actually said something about a sexual assault Joe would have never connected it to 1998, because the [Centre County] D.A. had already cleared Sandusky."

Ziegler said he has come to the conclusion that Ganim "was a very ambitious and also very naive or stupid person who got used" by the prosecutors in the Sandusky case to basically "put out a Craig's list ad" for more victims of sexual abuse.

Ziegler said that Ganim's story goes beyond any claims of the prosecutors. Former Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, went on 60 Minutes Sports in 2013 and declared that there was no evidence that Joe Paterno had ever participated in a cover up.

"I did not find that evidence," Fina said on 60 Minutes Sports.

"It does reek of deception," Ziegler said about Ganim's latest effort to prop up the official Penn State story line. "They have to be worried about something," Ziegler said, who devoted a podcast to it. "This story makes me think that even she doubts it."

Mark Pendergrast, an author who has written a book about Jerry Sandusky, The Most Hated Man In America; Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgment, said that McQueary "revised his memory a decade after the Feb. 2001 shower incident, in which he heard slapping sounds but did not see Sandusky and a boy in the shower -- he only fleetingly saw a boy, in the mirror."

McQueary's "memory of his meeting with Paterno in 2001was also subject to revisions and this appears to be more evidence of that," Pendergrast wrote in an email. "In other words, this is Sara Ganim once more raising a non-issue based on Mike McQueary's revised memory, and referring as well to highly questionable anonymous allegations dating back to the 1970s."

The 1970s alleged victims

In May 2016, Ganim reported on CNN that a man who claimed to have been sexually abused by Sandusky at a rest stop after he was picked up as a hitchhiker. The alleged victim also claimed that he was personally ordered by Joe Paterno to keep quiet about the abuse.

"Stop it right now" or "we'll call the authorities," the alleged victim claimed that Paterno had told him on the phone.

The alleged victim told Ganim that he had no doubt it was Paterno on the other end of the line ordering him to keep quiet.

"There was no question in my mind who Joe was," the alleged victim told Ganim. "I've heard that voice a million times. It was Joe Paterno."

Sure it was. Penn State's gullible trustees decided, OK, we'll just take your word for it. So the alleged victim got paid $200,000.

Now we come to the most ridiculous part of our story, namely the man referred to in Ganim's most recent opus as "John Doe 150," an alleged sex abuse victim of Jerry Sandusky's dating back to June 1976.

Another ancient claim of abuse that Joe allegedly knew about.

John Doe 150 was represented in his civil claim by Slade McLaughlin and Paul Lauricella, two Philadelphia lawyers who represented Danny Gallagher AKA "Billy Doe" in his bogus claim against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, where Gallagher collected $5 million.

Gallagher is the lying, scheming altar boy who claimed he was the victim of three separate rapes by a couple of priests and a Catholic school teacher. But then the lead investigator in the case, retired detective Joe Walsh, came forward to say that he caught Gallagher telling one lie after another, and that Gallagher even admitted he "made up stuff." Which led the detective to conclude that all of Gallagher's allegations were false.

In the John Doe 150 case, the alleged victim, who is 56 years old, claimed that back in 1976, when he was 15, he attended a Penn State football summer camp for a week. According to alleged victim, he was taking a shower when 10 other kids when Jerry Sandusky, who had just introduced himself, stopped by. And then, after the other boys left the shower, Sandusky "came up to me and began soaping my back and shoulders."

And then "he stuck his finger in my ass," the alleged victim claimed. Sandusky allegedly apologized, saying he didn't realize he was getting that close.

What allegedly happened next is even more unbelievable.

John Doe 150 claims, at 15 years old, that he had the guts to talk about the incident to an anonymous Penn State football player, who told him that Sandusky "does this with all of his, I guess, boys."

According to John  Doe 150, at 15, he then had the moxie to hunt down Joe Paterno at his Penn State office, and corner him in the hallway. John Doe 150 supposedly told Paterno what just happened with Sandusky. And Paterno supposedly replied, "I don't want to hear about any of that stuff, I have a football season to worry about."

Have you ever heard a more absurd story? A 15-year-old kid molested on the first day he ever met Jerry Sandusky? No grooming? No box of candy or six-pack first?

A 15-year-old kid who has just been victimized who has the nerve to track down and confront a legendary football coach?

Who would believe this crap? Oh that's right, the same lawyers who bought Billy Doe's lies and made $5 million off of it.

Before he collected his $300,000 settlement, John Doe 150 was never questioned by any lawyers or any psychiatrists representing Penn State. The Penn State Board of Trustees just paid John Doe 150 as one of 32 such claimants who collected a total of $93 million.

What an irresponsible expenditure of money. Even the lawyers who were ripping off Penn State had to know it was bogus. Actually, one of them did, and said so.

In 2016, Paul Boni, one of John Doe 150's lawyers, told reporter John Ziegler that he knew of no "direct irrefutable evidence" that Paterno knew about any prior abuse by Sandusky dating back to the 1970s.

"I think you need more than anecdotal evidence or speculative evidence" to attack Paterno, Boni told Ziegler.

So Sara Ganim keeps serving up more fairy tales and asking us to believe them. Only the stories just keep getting crazier.

34 comments:

  1. "They have to be worried about something," Ziegler said, who devoted a podcast to it. "This story makes me think that even she doubts it."

    Exactly. Ganim's career must be in serious trouble if she has to resort to this VERY old twist of facts to grab a headline. What is it, Ms Ganim, "headline or head out" time at CNN??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ganim's article seems to be publicity for Mike McQueary's upcoming book on the "Sandusky drama." She implied as much when she said it was "no accident" the old police report was leaked now that McQueary was writing a book.

      Maybe Ganim was doing a favor for one of her old sources, maybe even McQueary himself. McQueary likely would have been given a copy of his 2011 police interview. Another possibility is that McQueary called in a favor and got one of the Sandusky prosecutors to leak it. Frank Fina has been in the State College area lately defending one of the frat members involved in the hazing death.

      Ganim and McQueary are sort of the same. McQueary is still using Paterno as his meal ticket. Ganim is still using the Sandusky scandal as her meal ticket.

      Delete
  2. As an angry and frustrated Paterno supporter, I can't thank you enough for writing this piece. Joe was a good man, but his reputation and legacy have been trashed by the likes of Ms Ganim and other lazy hacks who would call themselves "reporters." They are liars and opportunists all. They along with the 11/11 members of the Penn State Board of Trustees as well as Rodney Erickson are souless frauds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't the 1971 report also include the strange declaration from "Joe" that this is a great man (Sandusky) who has done great things and you are trying to ruin him or words to that effect which seemed rather unlikely since Sandusky it only been on the staff for 2 years. And at the time had no renowned as a charitable figure in the community. I could be screwing up the two incidents in my mind but I'm pretty sure that's correct

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it was the 1971 accuser who made that mistake but Ganim missed it. He had also told a state trooper friend his story shortly after Sandusky's arrest. The state trooper never reported it to the Attorney General because he found the story too crazy to believe.

      His only corroboration was Bernie McCue, a well-known Paterno critic and State College gadfly. Ganim didn't report that McCue's credibility was suspect. McCue just died Sept 1, so he can't be called to testify.

      Delete
    2. Ya well you should have heard the blowhard Mike Francesa yesterday on the fan talking about this.

      " very sad, very sad" but he also said he didn't have time to get into it. WONDER WHY?

      Delete
    3. The worst I've seen so far is Mike Argento's column that goes off the deep end vilifying Paterno. He compares Paterno to Saint Vladimir, a murderer, rapist and extortionist, who also practiced human sacrifice.

      http://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2017/09/14/new-paterno-revelations-wont-change-any-minds-column/665156001/

      Delete
  4. Of course CNN loves this story.

    They employ enough queers to field an offense on their fantasy team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course a p.o.s. that would make such an offensive comment like you just did would be too cowardly to use your name so people know what type of person you are.

      Delete
  5. Nice to see someone respond intelligently to Ganim's shoddy article, which didn't even include a photo of the 2011 police report.

    CNN's piece seems to be publicity for McQueary's book on the "Sandusky drama." Ganim said it was "no accident" the old police report was leaked now, and strongly implied it was leaked to generate interest in McQueary's book. I've not seen any other reports based on CNN's story even mention McQueary's book.

    What Ganim and everyone else missed is that the Nov. 23, 2011, police report indicates McQueary perjured himself at the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing in Dec. 2011. McQueary was asked by prosecutor Bruce Beemer "What did he [Paterno] tell you?"

    McQueary said nothing about Paterno saying that this "was the second complaint" about Sandusky as he stated in the Nov. 2011 police report.

    Mike McQueary swore "to tell the whole truth" and he clearly did not according to this police report.

    Ganim's article also raises a strong possibility that prosecutors suborned perjury from McQueary. Ganim reported that Sandusky prosecutors didn't want it to come out that Paterno had told McQueary there was previous complaint about Sandusky.

    Why then would prosecutor Beemer ask McQueary in court what Paterno told him in 2001, unless he knew McQueary would not mention Paterno telling him of a previous complaint?

    I think Sandusky's appeal should get McQueary back on the stand and asked if prosecutors told him not to mention Paterno's "second complaint" in his testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm starting to wonder whether this old police report really exists.

      Delete
    2. I'm with you, Ralph.

      See my posts:
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/09/ganim-desperate-to-be-relevant.html

      And...

      https://notpsu.blogspot.com/2017/09/legal-issues-with-ganims-2011-police.html

      Delete
  6. This old police report doesn't make Mike McQueary look good at all for several reasons.

    1. It defies logic that McQueary would not have asked Paterno for details of the previous complaint, either in 2001 or during the 8 years he coached for Paterno.

    2. Paterno telling McQueary there had been a previous complaint should have given McQueary added impetus to call the police in 2001. Indeed, prosecutors made that argument against Curley, Schultz and Spanier.

    3. McQueary only made this "second complaint" allegation after he had read the Sandusky grand jury presentment, which detailed the 1998 child abuse investigation of Sandusky by PSU police. It was obvious that Paterno would have been informed when his top assistant coach was being investigated for child abuse. That makes it plausible that McQueary concocted it or responded to a leading question by the police.

    4. It provides evidence that McQueary perjured himself at the Curley-Schultz preliminary hearing in Dec. 2011. On Nov. 23, 2011, he told police that Paterno told him that 2001 was the "second complaint" about Sandusky. Yet on Dec. 16, 2011, he never mentioned that when prosecutor Beemer asked him "What did he [Paterno] tell you?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. One thing to note is that according to a document from PSU's lawsuit against their insurance company, the 14 Sandusky accusers who were beyond the statute of limitations split $4 million in settlement money. They didn't get a whole lot. That would have included the 1971 and 1976 accusers discussed above as well as Matt Sandusky.

    The insurance company said they wouldn't have paid anything to those 14 accusers because there was no legal liability. That was a $4 million breach in the trustee's fiduciary duty. It was never revealed how much the insurance company eventually paid PSU but it was probably nowhere close to $93 million.

    ReplyDelete
  8. McQueery was labeled and mocked during his failed career at PSU.

    He was after a major financial score and probably played drop the soap regularly.

    His testimony is as flawed as was his career, and he should be hung by his balls with that bitch faux journalist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DA Gricar had no direct part in the 1998 case. An accusation must be "indicated" by DPW for the DA to get involved. Since DWP termed it "unfounded", the law requires the record to be expunged within a given time and any investigative file to be labeled "administrative".

    The legalese is explained pretty well at PennLawFumble. The site itself is sort of a "mystery of the sea". Why would a Monterey, CA. attorney spend so much time writing the analysis, then refuse to answer questions, identify himself, or defend parts of his analysis which were shaky, to say the least?

    It is doubtful that Paterno had any knowledge of the details of the 1998 accusation due to security issues. He had no need to know. He might have heard that an allegation had been made and was determined "unfounded", a relatively common situation for people working with kids, especially troubled kids. Kids make up stories for various reasons. I had this explained to me by an LA county DA when he conned me into helping him on an outing with inner city kids.

    As for McQueary, Matt Sandusky, and most of the "victims", they are just following the scripts given them by the OAG and their attorneys. Nothing at all about memories. Pure simplicity...just follow the script and you'll be rich. The OAG and media have given you a license to lie, so use it. No worry about fraud and perjury...the State of Pennsylvania has your back!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DA Gricar did play an unusual role in the 1998 Sandusky case because he took it over after ADA Karen Arnold had started the case. Arnold normally handled the child abuse cases. Arnold testified at the Sandusky grand jury but never publicly revealed all she knew. She did make a few public comments but referred reporters to her grand jury testimony, which remains secret.

      There was also a state police document that mentioned "extensive disagreements" between Arnold and Gricar over the Sandusky case. Also odd was that the DA's office had no records of the Sandusky case.

      It's too bad Karen Arnold was never called to testify in open court.

      It may be that the Attorney General at the time, Mike Fisher, was informed of the case by Gricar and asked to step in to handle it. Mike Fisher is now a federal judge. I have never heard that he was asked if he knew about the 1998 investigation.

      Delete
    2. Only the child protection agencies have to expunge their files when a child abuse investigation concludes the complaint was unfounded. Penn State police kept their file.

      I don't think there is any requirement that the police file on Sandusky had to be marked administrative. Police Chief Tom Harmon testified he did that on his own.

      The Attorney General blamed it being filed as administrative on their delay in finding it. That is a weak excuse for their poor investigative work. All they would have had to do in March, 2009, was talk to Paterno and Raykovitz, two of Sandusky's bosses. They would have learned about the 1998 and 2001 shower incidents.

      Harmon used to be a neighbor of Sandusky and went to the same church. The logical conclusion was that Harmon was protecting Sandusky from possible public scrutiny by making the file hard to find.

      Delete
  10. Finally! A fact based piece that lays out the absurdity of this saga. From evidence I have read the 1998 incident is even more outrageous. The investigation went to the state AG who had JS evaluated. Dr. Alycia Chambers concluded that JS fit the profile of a likely pedophile. "Counselor" John Seasock report stated that "people don't become pedophiles at age 50" so JS is not one. Word came down to ADA Gricar who "declined to prosecute". UP police had solid evidence that would have nailed JS. Would love to find out how all that went down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never heard a news report that the 1998 "investigation went to the state AG who had JS evaluated."

      I wouldn't be surprised if PA AG Mike Fisher was notified in 1998 when the head of one of the state's biggest children's charities was under investigation for child sexual abuse. The PA OAG has oversight over children's charities.

      It would have been against protocol for DA Ray Gricar to prosecute after PA Dept. of Welfare's Jerry Lauro officially ruled that the abuse allegation against Sandusky was unfounded.

      Delete
  11. I hope Ralph Cipriano will forward this to HBO before they finalize their script.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The real story everyone should investigate is why did the Board of Trustees spend more than a quarter billion dollars of university funds to manage this situation that ultimate led three university administrators of being convicted of a misdemeanor. Tell me that's not the real story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very key part of it but you forgot the part about Sandusky being convicted in a kangaroo court by unethical police and prosecutors and "victims" and their civil lawyers, who knew they would collect millions. There was also the ineptitude of his defense.

      The PSU Board was, and is, clearly clearly inept, and their actions made the situation much, much worse, especially when they fired Paterno and got rid of President Spanier. Most of that Penn State money went to Sandusky victims ($93 million), to child abuse charities and research ($60+ million) to Freeh's faux investigative report ($8 million) and to various lawyers, such as the NCAA monitor and 9-11 settlement expert plus all the lawsuits (easily above $10 million).

      Delete
    2. The stuff you're talking about has been covered on this blog numerous times.

      Delete
  13. Mr. Trump er... Mr. Cipriano, nice! Cancelling me out of this discussion will not, does not, prevent the truth of 2001 from constantly and consistently coming out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Mike, I just got off the phone with the Donald, and he told me to keep silencing you because you're so boring.

      Delete
  14. I noticed Ganim claimed that "McQueary went on to testify, sometimes behind closed doors, in five criminal cases and at least four civil cases related to the Sandusky scandal."

    I only know of 2 criminal cases - Sandusky and Curley-Schultz-Spanier. Even if she counts Curley-Schultz-Spanier as three criminal cases that leaves her one short.

    What would be the 5th criminal case that McQueary testified at?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It seems that Sara never mentioned that summer campers shower in their dorm rooms. Prima facia evidence that Johnny Doe 150 is a lair.

    She also never mentions that the Sandusky's were investigated multiple times for adopting 5 children and placement of 7 foster children. How did all of these child welfare investigators and case workers go wrong? How about the pastor at his church where he took these kids?

    Also, if you look at all the allegations, it is physically impossible in both time and space that they occured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every one of these claims should have been thoroughly investigated. The alleged victims in the Sandusky case are starting to look line a conga line of Billy Does.

      Delete
  16. If you believe Mike McQueary's hearsay that Paterno told him that it was the "second complaint" then that repudiates the unbelievable, uncorroborated and uninvestigated allegations that the 1971 and 1976 accusers complained to Paterno about Sandusky in the 1970s.

    Other evidence has shown that Paterno was informed of the 1998 complaint that was ruled to be unfounded. That makes 1998 the first complaint and 2001 the second.

    ReplyDelete
  17. After reading your articles about what happened in Philly, I went back to the mysterious website Penn Law Fumble to look for the paw marks of former Philly prosecutors (e.g. Frank Fina) and found what is essentially a primer on how to manufacture a case over 4 years and have the media do your bidding.

    The key move was to paint an graphic picture of a child being pinned against a wall. They did this by inventing a faux victim seen by janitors and by the fraudulent presentation. This caused the media outrage and forever biased the case. McQuerry served the dual role of the puppet used to take down Spanier and Paterno.

    It also seemed like they badgered the alleged "victims" into going along with their script. It doesn't seem that repressed memories are a factor at all. After 3 or 4 years, multiple meetings with police, civil attorneys, Gillum, etc. they just decided to say what they were supposed to say and get their payday. The final scripts were probably written by the civil attorneys for the big payouts.

    I'm still scratching my head over why a Monterey, CA. attorney would spend the phenomenal amount of time required for such a detailed analysis complete with extensive references. I submitted several questions to him to clarify or defend some items, but it seems that he has vanished into the ether.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maybe it is just that his email contact page is broken, or maybe he is too busy with his PR business. He still seems to be active in the business.

    Penn Law Fumble gives a good overview of a lot of the evidence. He makes a lot of novel arguments but they are difficult to understand, at least for a nonlawyer like me.

    One of his arguments seemed to be that PA law only required the "person in charge of the school" to report child abuse. That meant McQueary reported to the wrong person, which may have been Spanier or maybe even the chairman of the board.

    The problem with any analysis of PA law is that PA prosecutors/judges often ignore the law and do what they please. We saw that in the Spanier case when they used a retroactive law to convict despite the constitutional ban on retroactive laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      So what do you believe is empowering PA prosecutors/judges to ignore the law? And it would appear that all across the country laws are being ignored by prosecutors at an ever-increasing rate.

      I personally believe the U.S. now has an illegal defacto government in place and we the people haven't been told of the transition. And if we haven't been told, then it was a secret undemocratic transition designed to exclude and deceive the citizenry.

      If all of this corruption in PA is the result of what I'm suggesting, then why are we all just mindlessly continuing to pay taxes to a government that is misrepresenting itself? Because we're simply not getting what we pay for. We don't pay taxes to receive chaos and arbitrary, illegal sentencing of innocent people.

      Delete
    2. The news media doesn't call the corrupt judges/prosecutors on their abuses is the main reason they get away with it.

      Instead of exposing corrupt PA judges and prosecutors, news reporters just help vilify defendants for the prosecution. The news media has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty" and their constitutional duty to expose judicial abuses.

      "Thus the press serves and was designed to serve as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by governmental officials and as a constitutionally chosen means for keeping officials elected by the people responsible to all the people whom they were selected to serve."

      Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice



      Delete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.