Monday, September 18, 2017

State Attorney General's Office Tries To Keep Sandusky Probe Secret

By Ralph Cipriano

What do you do when you screw up royally?

If you're the state Attorney General's office, you try to keep a top secret lid on everything, even if its years after they put Jerry Sandusky in jail.

That's what our A.G.'s office is up to. On June 28th,  Jennifer C. Selber, executive deputy attorney general, wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney D. Brian Simpson in Harrisburg, about all of the files the A.G. turned over to the feds three years ago from the state's grand jury investigation of Sandusky.

Selber's concern was that the U.S. Attorney's office not turn any of the A.G.'s records in response to a long-running FOI battle being waged by Ryan Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter and candidate for Penn State trustee. When Bagwell couldn't get any records out of the state, he filed FOI requests with the U.S. Attorney's office in 2014, and so far has recouped some 1,000 pages of documents.

The A.G.'s office wants to make sure no further documents are released.

"Initially, it must be understood that the investigation of Sandusky PSU and TSM [The Second Mile] was done through two Statewide Investigating Grand Juries," Selber wrote. "As such, all of the materials gathered by the OAG and provided to your Office were subject to grand jury secrecy."

The state attorney general turned over their Sandusky records when they asked the U.S. Attorney's office to investigate Penn State and The Second Mile, Sandusky's defunct charity, for "financial irregularities and possible Clery Act violations" stemming from the state's grand jury probe of Sandusky. The Clery Act mandates transparency when it comes to reporting crime on campus.

The feds closed the investigation in 2014, without any tangible results.

Under Pennsylvania law, the state is allowed to turn over records from an investigation "only if the agency is investigating a crime within its jurisdiction and the person to whom disclosure is made are sworn to grand jury secrecy," Selber wrote. She asked that the records turned over to the feds under an FOI request remain secret and "confidentiality be maintained."

Bagwell says he's determined to see this battle through to the end, "no matter how long it takes."

"There's virtually no public access to records from police investigations in Pennsylvania," Bagel said. "They're not used to the idea of having their investigations scrutinized."

Bagel says if the records are eventually released, they "might reveal some interesting things that suggest the original grand jury presentment should have never been written in the way it was."

As previously reported on this blog, the grand jury report on Sandusky was built around an event that didn't happen, an anal rape of a naked 10-year-old boy by Sandusky, supposedly witnessed by Mike McQueary in the Penn State showers back in 2001.

However, four men who interviewed McQueary said he didn't witness a sexual attack. Even McQueary agrees he never saw an anal rape, as he stated in writing in an email to the state attorney general's office.

A federal official, former Special Agent John Snedden, also investigated the alleged shower rape as part of an investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier. Snedden concluded in a recently declassified 110-page report done in 2012 that McQueary was not a credible witness,  no sex crime was committed at Penn State, and hence, no cover up, since there was nothing to cover up.

During the state attorney general's investigation, a couple of state troopers were caught on a tape recorder lying to an alleged victim of sex abuse about hearing the same story from several other alleged victims, even though it wasn't true.

"Obviously the AG is doing everything it can to make sure that people don't have the opportunity to review the facts versus the presentment," Snedden said.


  1. Screwing up royally is not how I would phrase it, business as usual it more like it, with the added possibility of having people who caught on to the way grand juries really are run asking questions, is now a concern for them.

    Prosecutors use grand juries as tools to bend the rules to benefit their cases, high profile or not, manipulating the facts to obtain an indictment is the desired outcome for the prosecution.

    Gaining an indictment no matter what you have to say or do to get it, no devious method is off the table. Former grand jurors should have to sit through a trial to see if any of the facts resemble what the prosecution feed, to them to see if an indictment was truly warranted.

    Traffic Court would have been a good case in point, many of the prosecution's "facts" were fabricated and never happened, all were invented to show the judges erred in their rulings.

    The prosecution's job is inventing a crime not finding if one even exists, building a case where there is no crime and convincing unsuspecting jurors to indict is what they need to keep secret.

    Grand jurors upon learning the true facts of a case during a trial should be able to rescind their indictment.

  2. Is it just me, or does anyone else notice in this photo, that Josh Shapiro and his goons look a bit like a stereotypical entourage of swarthy third-world wiseguys? And of course, they have their obsequious globalist female there casting her awestruck eyes upon the speaker of such eloquent deception---Josh Shapiro.

    Oh, nice bright Israeli-blue ties boys!

    1. Being that they suborned perjury from V5(whose story that even the jury who convicted JS of abusing a fabricated victim (V8) didn't buy), and got Bocabella to involve himself in a hoax fabricated by Klein, I would say that they all should have that cat who ate the canary grin on their faces. Note to Shapiro: bearing false witness after taking an oath to the almighty is not good, not good at all.

  3. Please stop with the anti-Semetic comments, Truthseeker. You've done it on other sites, too. It undercuts your message.

    1. I agree as well, there is no need for those types of comments. Those that seek out this website do it because they are interested in promoting justice, not hatred and injustice.

      We recognize that all lives matter and that everyone deserves to be heard but interjecting prejudice is not moving us forward in our quest for justice.

      We will never all agree on details,facts or policies but we can all agree that there is no place for hatred.

    2. To Anonymous and Anonymous Jr.:

      Gee, I'm flattered that you, Anonymous Sr., have noticed my comments on "other sites". But I'm confused as to how you could infer from my above comment any anti-Semitism? Maybe your inference could just be a symptom of guilt and denial? Oh, just so you don't make the same mistake in the future: It's "Semitic" derived from the word "Semite". I've never heard of a "Semete".

      And Anonymous Jr., my goodness, "hatred" is so strong a word to use concerning my simple observation above, don't you think? But alas, it is sadly true that people who are involved in crimes like to play the race and hatred card. It's a clever way to preclude further scrutiny from those that have observed wrong-doing.

    3. Actually hatred is the exact word I was looking for, simple "observations" need to be corrected when it comes to race and religion . I think you should stick to making comments on the Inkys website as they are accustomed to people who make "observations" that slander race or religion.

      What "crime" are you referring to ?

    4. Anonymous(Sr.,Jr.?),

      So when you look for the word "hatred" to use as an accusation against someone, are you certain that this is the label that should be used to describe them? Because we can easily ascribe hatred to anyone's words that we disagree with. And in doing so, we could be wrong. Many innocent, non-violent people under fascist regimes have been put to death for their beliefs that have been wrongly labeled as hatred.

      And as you state, 'observations need to be corrected', is a dangerous precedent if put into law. "Correcting" observations by law would be fascism. This is why this country, America, has our Constitution---to protect our lawful rights as Americans.

      So as not to label you, I won't call you a fascist. But your desire to "correct" someone's opinions and observations in America is un-Constitutional. You can disagree with my observations, but you are not lawfully allowed to correct them.

      You ask, 'what crime(s) are you referring to?'. I'm referring to Josh Shapiro's un-Constitutional prosecution of innocent people. He is willfully using dictatorial selective prosecution methods when he and Judge Boccabella sentence the wrong people for The Second Mile's crimes. And Governor Wolf is fully supporting this mockery and miscarriage of our American justice system.

    5. I have reread most of your comments on this blog, five have Jewish or Jewish mafia references, I would consider someone who makes a reference to someone's race or religion in a derogatory manner to harbor hatred toward them.

      I do not believe that any one ethnic group of people have any specific hand in the corruption that is plaguing our country.

      Stating that observations/comments is a dangerous precedent to put into law is not what we are talking about , nor did I imply that, I too noticed your references like other reader and felt compelled to voice my opinion. You lose me when you branch off and slander a specific people.

      We seem to agree that innocents are sent to jail for non-existent crimes and that the mainstream media is not helping to point out this outrage, in fact they are promoting the grave injustices we are witnessing daily in our country.

  4. those of us who have followed this miscarriage of justice are aware of the criminality of those that investigated this saga. LEft out of all of this is the role that the Patriot News, and I use that term loosely, E$PN and other media outlets did to railroad Joe and PSU. The cacophony of false news an outraged bloviating left the country with a total misconception of what did and didn't happen in this witch hunt. I also believe Corbutt is as responsible for this miscarriage of justice as anyone involved. This stain will never go away until those that are responsible for all of this are brought into the light of public scrutiny. We've been waiting for 5 years for the truth and we haven't gotten it yet.

  5. What do you do when you are AG like Josh Shapiro is? Do you let screw ups continue screwing up or do you fire the screwups? Josh could have done this by stopping the trial of the three administrators and letting them go free. Bitter disagreements with staff, throw the idiots out of the office and invite the others to leave right now. That is what a man would do. Is Josh man enough to do the right thing or is he a wimp who lets others pull his chain like a dog?

    1. Very well-said! Sadly, there are a lot of wimps like Josh Shapiro and Governor Wolf around these days. They have suspended their conscience for money, plain and simple. And there is a lot of dirty money stolen from the American taxpayers, now available to buy the manhood from any cowardly phony willing to pretend they serve our Constitution.

      So Josh, in your words: "no one is above the law". Does that include you and Governor Wolf?

  6. Another reason the Inky can't print what actually transpires in a courtroom...the people that served on a grand jury would be able to read accurate facts and realize the prosecution lied to them to gain an indictment.

    This is why the Inky covers up for the government/prosecutors to hide the truth from the grand jurors. Manipulating the facts in order to convince citizens doing their civic duty into taking the life and liberty from defendants.

  7. The Attorney should commit full working time and consideration on the act of the law for the Firm and the Attorney might not, without the composed assent of the Firm, Car Accident Attorney San Diego


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.