Re: Report Findings....."Penn State had "total disregard" for child sex abuse victims"
Aaron Fisher, Victim 1: As a 15-year-old, Aaron Fisher initially said that Jerry Sandusky had hugged him to crack his back, with their clothes on. Over the next three years, with the urging of psychotherapist Mike Gillum, Fisher eventually came to “remember” multiple instances of oral sex. Gillum apparently believed that memories too painful to recall lie buried in the unconscious, causing mental illness of all kinds—among them, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism. “They (abuse victims) just want to numb themselves and push away the unpleasant memories,” Gillum wrote in the book, Silent No More. He sought to “peel back the layers of the onion” of the brain to get to abuse memories. Nor did Aaron Fisher have to tell him anything. Gillum would guess what happened and Fisher only had to nod his head or say Yes. “I was very blunt with him when I asked questions but gave him the ability to answer with a yes or a no, that relieved him of a lot of burden,” Gillum wrote. In the same book, Aaron Fisher recalled: “Mike just kept saying that Jerry was the exact profile of a predator. When it finally sank in, I felt angry.”
Fisher explained that “I was good at pushing it (memories of abuse) all away . . . Once the weekends [with Jerry] were over, I managed to lock it all deep inside my mind somehow. That was how I dealt with it until next time. Mike has explained a lot to me since this all happened. He said that what I was doing is called compartmentalizing. . . . I was in such denial about everything.” Without the three years of therapy with Mike Gillum, it is unlikely that Aaron Fisher would ever have accused Jerry Sandusky of sexual abuse, and the case would never have gone forward.
Of all the many problems in the modern news media, the one which, in my experience, is the most dangerous is that a story’s viability is now FAR more connected to its popularity than its truthfulness. Obviously false stories which appeal to an already established audience (like just about anything you might hear about “Deep State” conspiracies in the pro-Trump media) are easily able to get told, without rebuke, on major outlets, while unpopular truths about even significant stories can easily be completely shunned as if they don’t even exist.
I just had an extraordinary and soul-crushing experience which dramatically proves this sad phenomenon.
Most people who are aware of me know that for most of this decade I have independently investigated, at enormous personal cost, the so-called “Penn State Scandal.” That’s the story in which 100 percent of the media establishment is totally certain that legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State administrators helped cover up the horrible child sex crimes by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
I now literally know more about what really did and did not happen in this case than anyone on the planet, including Sandusky himself. While I have no affiliation with Penn State, and don’t even really like anyone who is directly involved in the saga, I have come to the very firm conclusion, against my own self-interest, that virtually everything the media told us about this case is mostly, if not totally, wrong (and that the real story is WAY more fascinating).
As shocking as that assessment is to people who only know the narrative in which the media became instantly and completely invested when the story first broke in late 2011, the most astonishing element is that it is not even remotely a close call and, if I was ever given the proper platform, in a rational world I now have more than enough evidence to prove it. To be clear, as an ardent anti-conspiracy person, I am NOT alleging any significant conspiracy, but rather that a perfect storm of bizarre circumstances created a domino effect in which all the major players became, mostly unwittingly, invested in a false narrative.
Knowing that the media completely blew it on one of the biggest stories of the decade and not being able to effectively even get that side of the story out to a wide audience (despite two major appearances on the Today Show with Matt Lauer) has been a source of extreme frustration for me. Instead, I have been regularly scorned and mocked by “virtue signaling” media members who know almost nothing of the facts the case. All of this has done significant damage to my life in nearly every way.
Then, last year, it appeared that my version of events may have finally gotten a huge break when Bob Roe became the top editor at Newsweek magazine. Bob had a relationship with a reporter, Ralph Cipriano, with whom I had been working on the Penn State case. Roe also had worked many years ago on the infamous “McMartin Pre-School Sex Abuse” story, which turned out to be a fraud. Consequently, he inherently understood how the media could get a story like this wrong in the middle of a moral panic.
Last fall, Bob commissioned Ralph, who had been leaked just about all of the documents from the $118 million Penn State/Sandusky settlements and the “Freeh Report” investigation, to do a cover story on what might have really happened. Ralph, knowing I had information no one else has, formally agreed to bring me on as his co-writer, and I flew across the country to Philadelphia to examine the extraordinary treasure trove of material.
Both of us writing a huge 15-20,000 word story on an extremely complex subject created numerous delays, which made me tremendously nervous because I knew that if something happened to Roe (Newsweek had already been experiencing great turmoil internally), what was likely our one shot at this would be lost forever. By late January, after I took a step back from the process so that it could at least finally get done, we at last had a concrete plan to publish what would be a massive bombshell investigation with tons of new evidence in mid-February. But then, just as I feared, Bob Roe got fired on Feb. 5 for having instigated an examination of Newsweek’s parent company. Certain that our investigation was now dead and with nowhere else to go with a story of this one’s unique characteristics (including the extreme unpopularity of its implications within the news media and the public), Ralph and I were crestfallen.
However, much to our surprise, those who took over for Roe were still very interested in running our story. Despite being extremely skeptical that in the end they would lose their nerve without Roe being in charge, we went forward, effectively once again rewriting much of the massive story for a new editor who was scrutinizing every sentence.
This Friday, HBO will debut a movie called Paterno starring Al Pacino, which, by all accounts, is going to further promote a narrative that I know to be a fairytale. This meant that everyone at Newsweek knew what our news hook was and what the date of publication had to be. We were set for an online release of probably April 2, with the magazine coming out this Thursday.
Things were progressing fairly well, with the new editor on the story, Ross Schneiderman, even expressing remorse separately to both Ralph and me that he had been one of those writers who had jumped on the false narrative back when the story first broke. He also was clearly excited about the voluminous new evidence that we were going to release. But then, about a week before our March 30 deadline, red flags started to emerge.
Most concerning, we were suddenly told that, despite being one of the longest stories in the history of the magazine, we had lost the cover to Vladimir Putin. This telegraphed to me that someone important was afraid of the story, but after I spoke on March 26 with the person in charge of actually printing and distributing the magazine, and he was making arrangements for our story, I thought that we were still in pretty good shape.
But then came the final vetting by Newsweek’s lawyer.
Normally such a legal review, especially on a story which has already been so meticulously vetted and edited by multiple people, is merely a formality. In this case, where our language was purposely as benign and lacking in accusation as we could have possibly imagined, that should have clearly been the case.
However, the lawyer put my co-writer through an inquisition the likes of which he had never seen, this despite Cipriano having done controversial Newsweek cover stories before. It all seemed intended not just to make sure that Newsweek couldn’t get legitimately sued, or to snip a sentence which might somehow be questionable, but instead to create fear about the entire story, and even about me and Ralph ourselves.
After three days of this, it was clear, especially with Bob Roe no longer around, that we were doomed. I urged Ralph to pull the story so that Newsweek couldn’t suddenly claim after five months that there was something wrong with it journalistically. Ralph declined to do that and, sure enough, the next morning, one day before our deadline for publication, the entire story was killed. Any suggestion now that the piece did not meet Newsweek’s editorial standards is directly contradicted by five months of email evidence, including about how I could purchase extra copies of our edition of the magazine, right up until just before our final deadline.”
In most situations, Newsweek would have had at least some concern about news of this leaking and some other major outlet picking up our material. But because of the unique circumstances of the “Penn State Scandal” they know that they would only get praise for having made this decision and, should they choose to trash me personally, such a narrative will be fully embraced by the rest of the members of the Mainstream Media Club.
Of course, none of that means that what Newsweek did was actually right, or that any of this remotely promotes the truth. But I have long ago learned that in life, and especially in the news media, what is right and was is true is not nearly as important as aggressively avoiding all risk, or doing something you know will be seen as unpopular.
If you are interested in more of what really happened here, I did an extensive podcast on it. A spokesperson for Newsweek Media Group gave Mediaite the following statement: Newsweek ultimately decided not to run the story because the reporting did not meet Newsweek’s editorial standards. John Ziegler hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issuesand is documentary filmmaker. You can follow him on Twitter at @ZigManFreud or email him at firstname.lastname@example.org This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
Re: Report Findings....."Penn State had "total disregard" for child sex abuse victims"
JZ #ItStillAmazesMe that Joe Paterno got turned into a pedophile enabler (or worse) by the same media which revered him for decades, just days after he was the key reason Jerry Sandusky was even arrested, & was being praised by the attorney general's office.
Penn State coach Paterno praised for acting appropriately in reporting Jerry Sandusky sex abuse suspicions
Re: Report Findings....."Penn State had "total disregard" for child sex abuse victims"
[h=2]Wednesday, June 13, 2018[/h][FONT="][h=3]A System of Justice 'Systematically Destroyed'[/h]
By Ralph Cipriano for BigTrial.net
Lawrence J. Fox, a Philadelphia lawyer who's a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, is an expert on teaching legal ethics and professional responsibility.
And Fox has harsh words for the conduct of former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, the lead prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky case, as well as for Cynthia Baldwin, the former Penn State counsel who represented three top Penn State officials before the grand jury investigating Sandusky. That was before Baldwin flipped, at the behest of Fina, to become a prosecution witness, and testify against her former clients, an act of betrayal that horrified Fox.
"When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed," Fox wrote in a 2013 filing recently unsealed in Dauphin County Common Pleas Court.
Tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Philadelphia, Fox will testify as an expert witness on behalf of the state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board, to make the case that former prosecutor Fina is guilty of professional misconduct. But for those who can't wait for the hearing, Fox's scathing opinions of the actions of Fina and Baldwin are laid out in the recently unsealed filing.
"It is the Commonwealth whose lawyers were fully aware of the conflicts under which Ms. Baldwin was laboring at the time of the grand jury proceeding," Fox wrote, clearly referring to Fina, who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury after she flipped.
Fina was aware that Baldwin had a conflict of interest, Fox wrote, namely her decision to stab in the back her former clients. Yet, Fina and his fellow prosecutors "stood silent," Fox wrote, and "took full advantage of the conflicts" to gather information against those clients.
The prosecutors also "never informed the court of the nature and extent of the conflicts" of interest, Fox wrote. So that the court could fulfill its duty of assuring that the "rights of Messrs. [former Penn State vice president Gary] Schultz and [former Penn State athletic director Tim] Curley to effective representation were not systematically violated in the extreme."
In the unsealed filing, Fox ripped the Commonwealth's defense of Fina's actions.
"The Commonwealth actually asserts that because Messrs. Schultz and Curley were aware that Ms. Baldwin was general counsel for Penn State, they should have understood that they were merely second-class clients, and, as a result, are entitled to no attorney-client privilege whatsoever," Fox wrote.
But the Rules of Professional Conduct do not mention "a watered-down second-class version of clienthood," Fox wrote, but only defines "one form of clienthood." But Baldwin announced to "Schultz and Curley, the court, the grand jury, as well as the Commonwealth's lawyers," Fox wrote, that she represented Schultz and Curley. And as their lawyer, Fox wrote, she was "required, in fact, to represent both of them to the full extent required by her fiduciary duties . . . the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, the Pennsylvania statutory provisions covering the right to counsel before a grand jury" as well as the U.S. Constitution.
But while Baldwin was representing her clients, Fox wrote, "her fingers were crossed behind her back, and she never fully intended to fulfill that obligation, let alone warn them they would not receive the benefit of attorney-client privilege because of their second-class status."
"The law governing the attorney-client privilege in a joint representation is clear," Fox wrote. "There can be no waiver of the privilege unless each client has given his or her informed consent . . . to waive the privilege."
But the record of the case "demonstrates that there never was so much as a telephone call" to let Schultz and Curley know that the Commonwealth was seeking a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, Fox wrote.
By flipping and not telling her former clients she was about to stab them in the back, Baldwin "turns the law of privilege literally upside-down, rendering it a false protection and leaving the clients helpless before the power of the Commonwealth," Fox wrote.
As for Baldwin, Fox wrote, her "sins here are both manifold and manifest. Turning against one's client is the greatest betrayal a lawyer can commit."
"But that is what Ms. Baldwin did here, stripping the clients of any opportunity to object to her misdeeds," Fox wrote. "Either she was subpoenaed to the grand jury or she voluntarily agreed to appear. Either way, she ran right through the red light by, in fact, testifying before the grand jury without notice to her former clients."
"No lawyer is permitted to disclose confidential information without the informed consent of the client," Fox wrote. "As a result of Ms. Baldwin's misconduct, Messrs. Schultz and Curley went six months without being aware of Ms. Baldwin's betrayal, and only learned of her shocking abandonment of her former clients when the new indictment was issued. Ms. Baldwin's conduct in this regard cries out for relief."
Fox labeled Baldwin's conduct as a "blatant betrayal . . . unprecedented in the annals of lawyer representation of clients."
According to the disciplinary board's petition against Fina, it was Fina who set up that blatant betrayal by hoodwinking Judge Barry Feudale, then presiding over the grand jury investigating Sandusky.
On Oct. 22, 2012, Fina and Baldwin appeared before the judge in a conference to discuss Schultz and Curley's claim of attorney-client privilege in light of Baldwin's imminent appearance as a grand jury witness against her former clients.
The petition notes that lawyers for Schultz, Curley, as well as former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was also formerly represented by Baldwin, were not invited to the conference. At the conference, the petition says, Fina told the judge regarding the attorney-client privilege that he intended to "put those matters on hold" until the judge made a decision regarding the privilege, and "we can address that later on."
Penn State's counsel then argued that the judge should make a ruling on the attorney-client privilege first, before Baldwin testified. But Fina told the judge, "We need not address the privilege issue," because "we are not going to ask questions about" the grand jury testimony of Schultz and Curley, "and any preparation for, or follow-up they had" with Baldwin.
Fina asked the judge to keep Baldwin's testimony secret so "We can address this privilege matter at a later date." That prompted the judge to tell Fina to proceed under the assumption that "you're not going to get into any inquiry as to [Baldwin's] representation" of her former clients.
But Fina double-crossed the judge. On Oct. 26, 2012, he questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, and "did elicit" what the disciplinary board described as "extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications between Baldwin and Curley, Schultz, and Spanier" as well as "confidential information" pertaining to the three former clients.
Fina's questioning of Baldwin was "calculated," the disciplinary board wrote, to attack the credibility of Baldwin's three former clients. In the petition, the disciplinary board proceeded to list 73 examples from the grand jury transcript where Fina elicited confidential testimony from Baldwin that violated the attorney-client privilege, according to the petition filed by Paul J. Killion, chief disciplinary counsel, and Amelia C. Kittredge, disciplinary counsel.
The actions of Fina and Baldwin led the state Superior Court to throw out charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy against Schultz, Curley and Spanier.
At a two-hour disciplinary hearing on May 23 in Pittsburgh, Baldwin contended she wasn't guilty of any misconduct. She testified that after she received grand jury subpoenas for Curley and Schultz, she told them, as well as Spanier, that she couldn't be their personal lawyer because she was representing Penn State. Baldwin also asserted that she told the Penn State officials their communication with her wouldn't remain confidential, and that they were free to get outside lawyers to represent them.
"Don't be nervous. Just tell the truth," Baldwin testified that she advised Curley.
Baldwin testified that both Curley and Schultz described a shower incident allegedly witnessed by Mike McQueary back in 2001 involving Sandusky and a naked boy as "horseplay." Baldwin also contended that she asked the Penn State officials if they knew of any documents describing that incident that had been requested by a subpoena from the attorney general's office, and her clients said they didn't know of anything.
Baldwin testified she felt "duped" when months later, a file kept by Schultz documenting the horseplay incident was turned over to investigators.
In court records, Baldwin's former clients tell a different story. They contend that Baldwin did not inform them of the risks of appearing before the grand jury, and that Baldwin knew about the file kept by Schultz on Sandusky.
The former clients also contend that Baldwin turned them into sitting ducks for prosecutors like Fina.
"Ms. Baldwin informed me that the grand jury investigation focused on Jerry Sandusky, not on me or PSU, and that I was being called purely as a witness," Schultz wrote in an affidavit recently unsealed in Dauphin County. "Ms. Baldwin told me that neither I nor PSU were under investigation," Schultz wrote. "She told me that I could have outside counsel, if I wished, but at that point, seeing all the stories [of the Penn State officials] are consistent, she could represent me, Tim Curley and Joe Paterno as well."
Schultz said he told Baldwin he might have a file on Sandusky still in his office, and that it "might help refresh my memory." But Schultz said that Baldwin told him not to "look for or review any materials."
"Ms. Baldwin also told me that PSU and I were not targets of the investigation and that I would be treated as a witness," Schultz wrote. "There never was any discussion of the Fifth Amendment privilege or the risk of self-incrimination."
"I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me during in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was looking out for my interests," Schulz wrote. "Based on he representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."
In his affidavit of Oct. 25, 2012, Schultz wrote that Baldwin only told him he needed a separate lawyer "approximately one week before the charges were filed against me."
In a Jan. 16, 2013 affidavit, Spanier wrote that prior to his grand jury appearance, Baldwin "did not reveal that I had been subpoenaed, and I believed that I was going voluntarily. She did not inform me that Penn State and I were targets of the investigation. As far as I knew, the investigation focused solely on Sandusky."
When Spanier appeared before the grand jury in 2011, "I believed that Ms. Baldwin was representing me during and in connection with the grand jury proceedings and that she was acting in my best interests," Spanier wrote. " Although Ms. Baldwin mentioned that I was entitled to a separate attorney, she did not encourage me to retain one, or explain why I might want one. Based on her representations, I did not believe I needed a separate lawyer."
"On the day of my grand jury testimony, Ms. Baldwin accompanied my swearing in" before the judge, and "stated that she was representing me in connection with my testimony," Spanier wrote. "And I had no reason to think otherwise."
"Ms. Baldwin sat with me in the grand jury room. I was asked by the OAG attorney whether I was represented by counsel. I responded that I was, and identified Ms. Baldwin. She did not say anything."
"Ms. Baldwin first told me that I should retain a separate attorney on Nov. 8, 2011, after Sandusky, Schultz and Curley had been indicted," Spanier wrote. "At no point did I waive my right to confidentiality in my communications with Mrs. Baldwin or otherwise waive attorney-client privilege."
Tomorrow, it will be Fina's turn to answer charges of misconduct.
In a response to the disciplinary board's charges, Fina's lawyers, Dennis C. McAndrews and Joseph E. McGettigan 3d, contend that Fina "has not violated any rule of conduct" and they request that the board dismiss the charges against him.
In their filing, Fina's lawyers describe their client as "instrumental in convicting the most notorious serial child molester in American history, and in developing evidence that administrators at [Penn State] . . . failed to act in accordance with their legal, professional and/or ethical responsibilities in taking steps to prevent future harm to the children of this Commonwealth by that predator."
The lawyers also assert that Fina did nothing improper before the grand jury. They quote Judge Feudale concluding that "a careful review of the testimony of attorney Baldwin before the grand jury . . . reflects that Baldwin's testimony did not [in this court's review] violate any attorney-client or work product privilege."
Re: Report Findings....."Penn State had "total disregard" for child sex abuse victims"
Welcome to the world of white trash, lying , pond scum, piece of shit "victims"
The man is a 28-year-old military veteran with a record of convictions for minor crimes like retail theft and marijuana possession. He has two children of his own and is seeking to adopt his wife’s children
Standing straight at attention before the judge, his forearms heavily tattooed and his hair buzz-cut short, the man acknowledged that he had been awarded a $1 million payout in addition to the settlement payments, but had blown through that money in 18 months He told the judge that he needed cash from his settlement not only to expand his business, but to help his wife with her salon, and to pay back child support and taxes
running out of money because he paid his ex-wife and several buddies to keep quiet?
From John "Fascinating article here by about how Glenn Neff, one of the "Loch Haven 5" Sandusky accusers who got $35 million total, has apparently blown through his money & asking for the rest now. I spoke to the reporter & the judge made it clear he thought Neff was not a credible witness.'
When it comes to sex abuse, as evidenced in the recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearings over Judge Kavanaugh, the media frequently goes for sensation over substance, hysteria over rational thought.
Another prime case of this type of malpractice occurred at Penn State, where the media for years has refused to re-examine what can only be described as an ongoing legal travesty of epic proportions.
As documented on my blog, the entire investigation at Penn State is contaminated by official misconduct. The headline allegation of the grand jury presentment — the alleged rape of a 10-year-old boy in the showers — is a work of fiction. A couple of decades later, no victim has ever come forward. And the only alleged witness to that alleged event, former Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary, isn’t credible, as determined by a former NCIS special agent who conducted a contemporaneous and previously unknown federal investigation of the so-called sex scandal and alleged coverup.
In the Penn State scandal, the prosecutors were unethical crusaders who broke the law by repeatedly leaking grand jury secrets and trampling on the constitutional rights of the accused, The police were caught on tape deliberately lying to alleged victims. Psychologists in the case relied on scientifically-discredited recovered memory therapy. Former FBI Director Louie Freehconducted an “independent” investigation of the scandal that was marred by factual mistakes and unsubstantiated opinions. And the university’s board of trustees not only are engaged in an ongoing coverup of Freeh’s botched report, but they also failed in their fiduciary duties by failing to do anything to investigate the allegations of 36 alleged victims, who hopped on the gravy trainand collected a total of $118 million. You won’t find any of these facts in the mainstream media, but all of this has been documented on my blog:
In response to a [previous] letter, I also believe Jerry Sandusky is an innocent man. I have followed this travesty since the beginning and have read/followed Mark Pendergrast, Ralph Cipriano, and John Ziegler. These three men have actually investigated this case.
There was an unfounded rush to judgment from the very beginning, which happened immediately after Joe Paterno was fired by the Board of Trustees. This entire case should be TOTALLY investigated from the beginning. There was not one ounce of proof of Mr. Sandusky’s guilt -- not one -- only grown men claiming they were abused when they found out PSU could be sued.
The so-called “victims,” their attorneys, and the psychologists using repressed memory should be ashamed. The men who claim they were sexually abused saw dollar signs. I would easily venture a guess as to what kind of life these “victims” were leading before becoming multimillionaires. Can you? - Sandra C. Lane, Lititz, PA https://www.centredaily.com/