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/
The video of me on the Glenn Beck Show in 2017, which we have been using at the top of the “Framing Paterno” website, was taken down by YouTube (for reasons having nothing to do with content), so now I’m posting my own, slightly longer, version of my summary of the “Penn State” case that I did that day for Glenn. If you are ever trying to explain to people in 2 and a half minutes what really happened here, this is as good as I can possibly do...
in less than 10 minutes on the Morning Show with Bill and Joel, WDUN 550 AM and 102.9 FM [North Georgia NewsTalk].
"It's a mess." It starts with a headline crime in the showers that turned out to be a work of fiction.
Then there's a probe tainted by official misconduct, incompetence and media-induced hysteria. And a board of trustees that breached their fiduciary duty by handing out $118 million to 36 alleged victims without asking any questions, such as, do you have a criminal record?
“Today is February 9th, which is allegedly the key date of the entire “Penn State Scandal.” Of all the work I have done on the case, the most important finding (and my biggest researching mistake because I didn’t follow my instincts to fully investigate this issue earlier) is that the February 9th, 2001 date for the McQueary episode is TOTALLY and fatally wrong (a big thanks to Gary Schultz for his help in this endeavor!). Here is what I posted a year ago, which provides a summary of this fascinating and critical revelation”. JZ
New Proof That December 29, 2000, Not February 9th, 2001, Was the Real Date of the "McQueary Episode"
So February 9th, 2001 is NOT the right date of the McQueary episode. It was December 29th, 2000. Jerry Sandusky, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier all finally agree about this, but, until this post, none of this has been made fully public. The fact that no one in the mainstream news media is even aware of this issue is probably the greatest proof that this entire case has been a result of what is easily the worst case of "Media Malpractice" in modern history.
Here's a podcast I did summarizing all the evidence & what it all really means.
Alexander H. Lindsay Jr. was happy to read the formerly confidential report done by seven Penn State trustees cataloging the many faults and failures of the Louis Freeh Report.
"We agree with the substance of the [trustees'] report" on Freeh, Lindsay said. "But it doesn't go far enough."
Lindsay, a former Butler County assistant district attorney and a former assistant U.S. Attorney under Dick Thornburg, is the long-suffering defense lawyer for Jerry Sandusky. His review of the Freeh Report is far more succinct than the 113-page trustees' review.
"It's total fiction from top to bottom," Lindsay said about the Freeh Report, which the NCAA used as the basis for imposing draconian sanctions on Penn State. Lindsay has the same view of the 2011 grand jury presentment, a report that had to invent a lurid rape in the showers of an imaginary child to brand his client forever as a raging, serial pedophile.
"They're all wrong," Lindsay said about the twin works of fiction issued by Freeh and the attorney general's office still venerated by the media. But in the view of Lindsay, a lone voice in the wilderness, his guy is totally innocent. And, Lindsay will tell you, Jerry and his loyal wife, Dottie, also happen to be "two of the bravest and most courageous people I have ever known."
Ask Lindsay how an innocent man winds up in jail, and he cites the work of "an unholy triangle of forces that push these things ahead [in lurid, high profile media cases] and result in false convictions."
He's talking about the convergence of a hysterical media, overzealous prosecutors, and hungry plaintiff's lawyers. All of this was on vivid display at Penn State, as Lindsay is about to explain.
Letter to the editor | Take another look at Sandusky case
By Joseph R. Stains
Regarding the Feb. 17 column on the Freeh Report controversy.
Louis Freeh’s findings in reports, including the Jerry Sandusky case, are often based on speculation more than evidence.
The (John) Snedden report of 2012 reached vastly different conclusions.
The Sandusky case is under scrutiny – especially the 2001 shower assault. Consider:
• The grand jury dated the incident at March 2002. When the visit to Joe Paterno was confirmed February 2001, reason to re-date it was belatedly sought and sold.
• The eyewitness’ father and doctor interviewed him the night it happened. Both testified that he could not describe seeing any activity – only that he heard slapping sounds. They concluded there was nothing to report. No indictment resulted. Weeks later, Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz questioned him carefully and reached the same conclusion. Ten years later, they were indicted.
• From 2001-2011, the witness socialized with Sandusky and volunteered for his fundraisers.
• In 2010, police solicited his testimony. He then could not identify Sandusky in the same space as the youth. In 2011, he placed them in direct contact, but could not verify anything sexual. Rape, described only in the report (leaked to media), was refuted by the witness in an email, unknown to others until after the trial.
• The person self-identified as Victim 2 in the shower went on record in 2011 that Sandusky never abused him. Years later, PSU awarded him damages, though he never specified assault in the incident.
This case begs for fresh review. The unpleasant digging will not end until it happens. Joseph R. Stains
Free Man Beyond The Wall: Episode 229: Examining the Jerry Sandusky Trial w/ John Odermatt
67 Minutes Not Safe for Work Pete invites John Odermatt to the show. John is the host of the podcast "Felony Friday" on the Lions of Liberty podcast network where he exposes injustices in the criminal justice system. John believed for years that Jerry Sandusky was everything he was accused and convicted of. After research, John believes there is enough evidence that a retrial is in order. This evidence provided here is the tip of the iceberg.
"So the PA disciplinary board has determined Sandusky’s prosecutor should be censured for lying to the grand jury judge (this wasn’t the only time he lied to him), a judge who lost his title due to misconduct in the case, in an effort to flip Penn State’s lawyer, who has also been recommended for censure....
But there is no need to question the entire investigation?!! Unreal. " JZ
It took him nine years to get there, but former FBI Director Louis Freeh is right where he always wanted to be. This week, after nine years of trying, Freeh and some of his friends were finally hired as the "go-to investigators" for the scandal-plagued NCAA.
According to a reportfrom CBS Sports yesterday, five employees of the Freeh Group International Solutions were among the 16 independent investigators appointed to the NCAA's new Complex Case Unit.
According to the NCAA, the new unit will be paid to investigate allegations of infractions of "core NCAA values, such as alleged failures to prioritize academics and the well-being of student athletes; the possibility of major penalties; or conduct contrary to the cooperative principles of the existing infractions process."
Freeh, of course, shows up at his new post with plenty of baggage from his notoriously bungled investigation of Penn State, which was the basis for draconian sanctions issued against the university by the NCAA.
A confidential review of Freeh's report, done by seven Penn State trustees and leaked to the media in February, found that the $8.3 million Freeh Report on PSU was tainted by bias, factual mistakes, and faulty opinions dressed up as facts. The trustees also ripped the Freeh Report for its "flawed methodology & conclusions," as well as Freeh himself, for not disclosing a personal conflict of interest, namely that he was using his supposedly independent investigation of Penn State as leverage to get hired as the "go-to investigators" for the NCAA.
Freeh's alleged conflict of interest was laid out in internal emails that the trustees had access to, among the so-called "source materials" for the Freeh Report, thousands of pages of documents that are still confidential due to a judge's order. But the trustees' report publicized some of the revelations in the source materials.
Such as, back on July 7, 2012, a week before the release of the Freeh Report on Penn State, Omar McNeill, a senior investigator for Freeh, wrote to Freeh and one of his partners at the firm. Freeh and his staff apparently saw the Penn State investigation as an opportunity to land a client with deep pockets, and plenty of other scandals to reign in.
"This has opened up an opportunity to have the dialogue with [NCAA President Mark] Emmert about possibly being the go to internal investigator for the NCAA," McNeill wrote. "It appears we have Emmert's attention now."
In response, Freeh wrote back, "Let's try to meet with him and make a deal -- a very good cost contract to be the NCAA's 'go to investigators' -- we can even craft a big discounted rate given the unique importance of such a client. Most likely he will agree to a meeting -- if he does not ask for one first."
It was a ploy that finally paid off this week. But according to the Penn State trustees' report, Freeh had begun casting his eyes on the NCAA as a potential client a few years earlier.
"Freeh's Group began speculating in January of 2010 about ways to get business from the NCAA," the trustees wrote. It began when Freeh noted in writing NCAA President Emmert's comments that he "intends to increase enforcement actions by adding new investigative resources."
It was "an ideal time to launch" a business development plan, Freeh wrote, that would offer the NCAA the services of the Freeh Group for "athletic compliance and investigations."
"Documents outlining their services offer a view into their early perspectives on their investigative approach," the trustees wrote, "including a focus on assessing 'the student-athlete culture' and a comment about 'typical corruption issues which fall into our sweet-spot.'"
The PSU trustees, however, wound up panning the Freeh Report on Penn State.
"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley or Gary Schultz knew that Sandusky had harmed children," the trustees wrote.
"We found no support for the Freeh Report's conclusion that Penn State's culture was responsible for allowing Sandusky to harm children," the trustees wrote. The Freeh Report, the trustees found, was "rife with investigative and reporting flaws." Freeh's investigators were biased, used "unreliable methods of conducting and analyzing interviews, [and] failed to interview most of the individuals with direct knowledge of the events under investigation."
"Our university paid $8.3 million for an 'independent investigation' that was neither independent nor a fair and though investigation," the trustees concluded.
Alice Pope, a St. John's University professor who is a Penn State trustee, has also publicly voiced concerns about the high degree of "cooperation between the PA Office of Attorney General and Freeh" during their parallel investigations into the Penn State sex abuse scandal.
In an "Executive Summary of Findings" of the internal review of the source materials for the Freeh Report, dated Jan. 8, 2017, Penn State's trustees cited concerns over "interference in Louis Freeh's investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General."
That interference was defined in the executive summary as: "information gathered in the criminal investigations of Penn State officials" that was "improperly (and perhaps illegally) shared with Louis Freeh and his team."
When I askedFreeh, as a private citizen during his Penn State probe, whether he authorized to have access to grand jury secrets, the former FBI director through a spokesperson declined comment.
A spokesperson for the NCAA did not initially respond to a request for comment about how they could hire a long-standing conflict of interest like Free
Malcolm Gladwell’s new book “Talking to Strangers” comes out next week (Sept. 10) and there is a chapter devoted to the Penn State scandal in the book. John Ziegler talked about it in his podcast yesterday, starting around the 25 minute mark.
Ziegler has recently received a copy of the book and states that the book completely exonerates Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier and by extension Joe Paterno. He said that it doesn’t go as far as he would have liked about Jerry Sandusky’s innocence, but it does raise serious questions about the case against Sandusky.
The key finding that Gladwell establishes in that the day of the v2/McQueary incident was Dec. 29, 2000 and that Mike waited until Feb. 10, 2001 before he discussed the incident with Joe Paterno implying that it was not an urgent report of child sexual assault.
Ziegler said that Gladwell was slated to be a guest on his podcast next week.
Jay, in the 7 years since you told me that you STILL did not believe Sandusky ever had sex with a child I’ve been absurdly patient with UR incredibly wussified comments. After what you wrote here, about a book where I’m prominently cited by an author I just interviewed, that ends
Here’s what a fraud Jay is. Here is the sketch of the shower he drew me in his den in September 2012 showing Mike couldn’t have seen anything. He told me that night Jerry was innocent. Jay should not be praised for this BS
“There is no way Joe Paterno even belongs in this conversation. Everyone should agree he was treated shamefully and that his good name needs to be restored.”
“I am ashamed to be part of a society which tried to put Graham Spanier in prison.”
“We were way, way, way, way too quick to come to judgement about the Penn State leadership and on Joe Paterno, and way too quick to think that Mike McQueary’s account is cut and dry when, in fact, it’s not.”
“Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz were the victims of a moral panic. It was crazy.”
“The prosecution behaved egregiously in this case and continues to behave egregiously.”
“The Freeh Report (conducted on the case on behalf of Penn State by former FBI Director Louis Freeh) is a whole other pile of crap.”
The prosecution’s current date (their second official stab at it after originally incorrectly claiming it was March 1, 2002) for the McQueary episode, February 9, 2001, is “bullshit.”
The news media’s total lack of curiosity in the real story of the “boy in the shower,” whom Gladwell correctly identifies in his book as then 13-year old Allan Myers, is “bizarre.”
As for Sandusky’s guilt, Gladwell cautiously says, “I don’t know. The public should know that this is murky… This case is shrouded in doubt.” He adds that in reality it is, “the polar opposite of the Larry Nassar case,” when it has been portrayed by the media as very similar.
In the news media, “There is kind of a group mentality that takes place in these cases, at least in the beginning.”
“My hat is off to you John. I admire what you have done and I encourage others to look at it and reach their own conclusions… I think you are going to live to see at least some measure of vindication.”
Malcolm Gladwell: Penn State Leaders ‘Deserve Our Sympathy, Not Our Censure’ After Sandusky Scandal
Carly Weiss | Onward State
By Anthony Colucci 9/11/19 4:01 am
In his new book Talking To Strangers, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell examines the Sandusky sex-abuse scandal and the decision-making by Penn State leadership in response to the initial reports of wrongdoing by the longtime assistant coach.
Gladwell, who’s known for challenging conventional wisdom with provocative claims about everything from first impressions to underdogs, and now to strangers, wrote that the scandal wasn’t as much a cover-up as it was an unfortunate example of people “defaulting to the truth,” one of the phenomena that the book’s based on.
Gladwell referenced psychologist Tim Levine in defining “defaulting to the truth” as the assumption that the people we deal with are honest and are telling the truth. He said this plays a large role in our interactions with strangers and is why Mike McQueary, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz all acted as they did after learning of allegations against Sandusky and failed to act accordingly.
“We default to truth — even when that decision carries terrible risks — because we have no choice,” Gladwell wrote. “Society cannot function otherwise. And in those rare instances where trust ends in betrayal, those victimized by default to truth deserve our sympathy, not our censure.”
Joe Paterno was mentioned only a handful of times in the chapter, the focus of which is more so on the allegations and Spanier’s decision-making. This may be because of the way Gladwell characterized Sandusky as a “stranger” to Spanier and McQueary, as opposed to Paterno, his longtime boss.
Most of the Sandusky chapter is devoted to detailing the complexities of the case and information Penn State leadership based their response on. Although he didn’t claim Jerry Sandusky’s innocence, Gladwell acknowledged conflicting details, changing narratives, and “gray area situations.” He even cited John Ziegler, perhaps the former assistant’s most vocal supporter. However, Gladwell seemed to be more interested in pardoning Spanier than defending Sandusky or invalidating victims claims.
“Do you think that if you were the president of Penn State, confronted with the same set of facts and questions, you would have behaved any differently?” he wrote.
Later, Gladwell added “Does [Spanier] regret not asking one more follow-up question, not quietly asking around? Of course he does. But defaulting to the truth is not a crime. It’s a fundamentally human tendency.”
Gladwell even went as far as to laud Spanier’s leadership while recalling an emotional meeting between him and his senior staff after Schultz and Curley were first charged.
“This is why people liked Graham Spanier,” he wrote. “It’s why he had such a brilliant career at Penn State. It’s why you and I would want to work for him. We want Graham Spanier as our president.”
Gladwell also related the Sandusky scandal to the sex-abuse scandal at Michigan State revolving around Larry Nassar. He compared the Penn State’s leaders’ trust in Sandusky to that of the parents of the gymnasts affected to showcase how pervasive and unavoidable defaulting to the truth is.
“We accept the fact that being a parent requires a fundamental level of trust in the community of people around your child,” Gladwell wrote. “If every coach is assumed to be a pedophile, then no parent would let their child leave the house, and no sane person would ever volunteer to be a coach.”
Jay Paterno, son of Joe and also a former assistant, wrote a reaction to the book last week after being given an advanced copy of it over the summer. He focused on the consequences of not just university leaders “defaulting to the truth,” but also the general public.
“People defaulted the truth about Penn State and Joe Paterno because they believed that powerful institutions always cover up crimes,” he wrote. “The misleading Grand Jury presentment led to a mismatched University response driving a media and society default to misplaced guilt.” https://onwardstate.com/2019/09/11/...pathy-not-our-censure-after-sandusky-scandal/
Two Respected Academics Write Publicly that Malcolm Gladwell Should Have Declared Jerry Sandusky Innocent
Submitted by jzadmin on Mon, 10/14/2019 - 09:37
Two respected members of the academic community have come out in recent days and publicly written that best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell should have declared Jerry Sandusky innocent in his notebook, "Talking to Strangers," which tackles the case in an extensive chapter on the case, and which cites this website.
Here is an extensiveinterview with one of them, Frederick Crews, by John Ziegler. https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbro...ews-fred-crews
Frederick Campbell Crews is an American essayist and literary critic. Professor emeritus of English at the University of California, Berkeley, Crews is the author of numerous books, including The Tragedy ... Wikipedia