by Barry Bozeman
 |
| Corbett & Kelly Political Hitmen |
Linda Kelly has nothing to lose and little to gain as a lame duck not seeking re-election. Who knows what deal she made with the devil? It is inconceivable that she fails to know the truth. Perjury charges are never brought on the basis of vague recollections of 10 minute meetings a decade in the past. There is no point in it when years have passed and recollections are muddled. No one makes perjury charges on the basis of statements taken out of context by men who were unaware of what they were dealing with based on years of seeing Jerry Sandusky as a charity founder and foster father.
.
.
We know that none of these men knew much about 1998 except that CYS, DPW, police and the DA concluded JS committed no criminal or sexually inappropriate acts. The FREEHdom Fighters have proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.
.
.
The FREEHdom Fighters and most of you reading this know
Attorney General Linda Kelly is a liar. Her first lie in this affair was her
most damaging. Kelly went before the public on television to announce that Mike
McQueary saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse and that he told Joe
Paterno, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz who told Dr. Spanier. We know that was a
LIE. So Kelly has nothing to lose least of all any “credibility”.
That makes Kelly a world class liar who had done more
damage to Penn State and these men that can be countenanced by fair minded
reasonable people. Kelly used perjury charges against Tim Curley and Gary
Schultz to silence them in public about Mike McQueary's statements giving Mike
free reign to make up anything he wished. Her placement of Curley and Schultz
alongside Sandusky made PSU guilty in the public eye as the BoT gave the media
free reign to believe these men along with Joe Paterno and Dr. Spanier must be
guilty since they were fired without due process.
Is this a blatant election week decision by Attorney
General Linda Kelly as the final pre election act of her pathetic career? What
is the play here? Is there any reason that Kelly would have waited until this
week for this announcement outside of it being her last chance to act as
anything but a lame duck?
If
this turn of events has a political purpose it is in showing she actually
appears to be serious about going through with a trial while her successor will
be saddled with the decision to end it. The Governor and his party can spin
this as a failure by their opponents and that will create a slippery damned if
you do and damned if you don't situation.
"Graham Spanier will evidently be charged with perjury by Attorney General Linda Kelly today. One year after she charged AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz with perjury for their testimony about a 10 minute meeting a decade in the past Linda Kelly has decided to charge Dr. Spanier with the same offense although he never met with McQueary and only knew what Curley and Schultz had to tell him."
New Queen of Mean?
Does this woman have any self respect? A conscience? Has she not done enough damage to good people with her lies and political use of the PA legal system? The State of PA will be far better off with Kelly out of office. Kathleen Kane should charge her with misuse of power, defamation, libel and slander. Kelly has been a disaster for Penn State university.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette takes SportsbyBrooks & SMSS takes it for what it's worth
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette just filed a report that says former Penn State President Graham Spanier will be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the Jerry Sandusky scandal. The Post Gazette is citing multiple sources in their report.
Earlier today, the Twitter account @SPORTSbyBROOKS had the following Tweet, which seems to verify the Post Gazette’s claims.
Although @SPORTSbyBROOKS is fairly controversial, the fact that his information lines up with the Post Gazette seems to solidify the information.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly will announce the charges later today, according to the report.
Spanier, who was forced to resign nearly a year ago, has denied claims that he was aware of any severe sexual misconduct by Sandusky, although emails obtained by the Freeh report seem to indicate otherwise. Spanier has also denied knowing about the 1998 investigation into Sandusky by the Penn State police.
UPDATES:
The Statement of Spanier's Legal Team:
Spanier's legal team released a statement on his behalf following Attorney General Linda Kelly's press conference held at noon in Harrisburg.
UPDATES:
The Statement of Spanier's Legal Team:
Spanier's legal team released a statement on his behalf following Attorney General Linda Kelly's press conference held at noon in Harrisburg.
"Today's Presentment is the latest desperate act by Governor Tom Corbett to cover up and divert attention away from the fact that he failed to warn the Penn State community about the suspicions surrounding Jerry Sandusky, and instead knowingly allowed a child predator to roam free in Pennsylvania. Its timing speaks volumes. These charges are the work of a vindictive and politically motivated Governor working through an un-elected attorney general, Linda Kelly, whom he appointed to do his bidding and who will be a lame duck five days from now.
"There is no factual basis to support these charges, which may explain why the Attorney General and her staff have steadfastly refused – for a full year – to meet with Dr. Spanier or his lawyers to discuss this matter despite repeated attempts to do so, or to accept Dr. Spanier's offer to appear before the grand jury again to clarify any misconceptions.
"From late 2008 through November of 2011, as Pennsylvania's Attorney General, Tom Corbett clearly knew about the allegations against Jerry Sandusky and yet failed to act. And this failure allowed Sandusky to continue to harm children for nearly three years after he could have and should have been warned, stopped or indicted. The Governor's legally indefensible explanations, repeated by Attorney General Kelly at her news conference today – that he couldn't expose Sandusky for fear of compromising an ongoing grand jury investigation or that he needed more evidence – are patently absurd.
"And so, on the one hand, Corbett had access to detailed allegations about Sandusky's child abuse and, as the chief law enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, allowed it to continue. On the other, Dr. Spanier was not privy to any details about a 1998 investigation that actually exonerated Sandusky and then, in 2001, was told only about an incident characterized as "horseplay".
"Governor Corbett has made no secret of his personal hostility toward Dr. Spanier, as many witnesses will attest. He is now manipulating public officials and resources to settle a personal score.
"Linda Kelly's willingness to continue this farce, on behalf of the politically motivated Governor who appointed her, apparently knows no bounds. She has already been put on notice by both candidates for Attorney General, one of whom will replace her, that they intend to review her investigation thoroughly. For her to deny, as she did a few minutes ago, that politics played no role in these charges being made five days before an election, is patently false.
"Graham Spanier has committed no crime and looks forward to the opportunity to clear his good name and well-earned national reputation for integrity. This Presentment is a politically motivated frame-up of an innocent man. And if these charges ever come to trial, we will prove it. "The people of this Commonwealth, and the next Attorney General, should be outraged by this blatantly political, transparently vindictive, last-minute act of cowardice and desperation."LINK TO ANOTHER KELLY PRESENTMENT
spanier-schultz-curley_presentment-11-1-12.pdf
Tommy has Linda wrapped tight around his fat little finger. An oldy but goody: http://paindependent.com/2011/02/corbett-names-linda-kelly-to-succeed-him-as-attorney-general/
ReplyDeleteDocket sheet is already posted.
ReplyDeletehttp://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.aspx?docketNumber=MJ-12303-CR-0000419-2012
Barry
ReplyDeleteIt was just announced on ESPN that it will be anounced this afternoon.
I plainly don't trust PA AG Kelly since she is a Corbett appointee and ANY action taken by the Corbett administration has an immediate questionability and taint to it. But I do have to point out that Spanier's insistence in 1999 on providing Sandusky with "unprecedented" perks, privileges and monetary bonuses upon his retirement from PS is very troubling indeed. Then PS chancellor now PS Pres. "Fraudney" Erickson agreed to these conditions of Sandusky's retirement, in his usual role as a lay-down for whatever administrative fiat that might occur at Penn State. But at that time several senior PS officials noted the unprecedented and "troubling" nature of the details of Sandusky's retirement package. They clearly pointed out that this type of retirement package had NEVER been awarded to ANY PS employee in the past. And Schultz openly and publicly praised Jerry Sandusky's "good works" after arranging the sale of PS land to Second Mile, just 6 months AFTER McQueary "witnessed" the Lasch Bldg. shower incident between Sandusky and a young minor boy. It is inconceivable to me that Schultz would be praising Sandusky publicly when the PS Police Dept. was at the end or near the end of investigating a highly questionable incident regarding Sandusky's alleged pedophile activities, which fell under the purview of his "Office of Business Affairs."
ReplyDeleteThis is the first I've heard of "unprecedented perks" and "troubling nature of details of" Sandusky's retirement package. What is the source of this information? Even so, it is important to remember, as the press conveniently forgets, the "Saint Jerry" image that Sandusky was cultivating. Sexual predators do it, and they fool a great number of otherwise vigilant people all the time.
DeleteAs for Schultz, I agree, if it is what you are saying, that praising Sandusky would be inconsistent with any investigation of sexually inappropriate behavior. The simplest explanation is that McQueary told nobody anything of a "troubling" nature. It also fits with the fact that McQueary participated in a number of Second Mile proceedings with Sandusky after the shower incident. He didn't witness anything with certainty, and therefore only changed his story when new facts presented themselves. "He who controls the present, controls the past..."
Why aren't people being investigated for making false accusations?
ReplyDeleteTime to put aside the Alumni by-laws. The PennState Alumni Association should bring suit against the BOT and the NCAA. Justice must prevail.
ReplyDeleteYour house of cards is falling down all around you Barry. I can't wait for these trials (or plea deals perhaps) to finally bring the facts to light so we can put an end to the "theories" this site produces.
ReplyDeleteThe houses of cards - otherwise known by anyone with the sense to read is the FREEH FICTION. Used here again in a political ploy by Gov. Corbett to fool the insanely gullible like you into supporting his AG candidate so he can escape a Kane led investigation and probable impeachment.
DeleteThis set of charges is yet another lame rehash of the Freeh exhibits and we already know from numerous excellent analysis by SMSS, Eileen Morgan, Judge Tim Lewis, and PS4RS that Freeh is a pile of crap based on fooling the utterly clueless.
Except this is now the actual government bringing charges, with Cynthia Baldwin's testimony locking the screws down on Tim, Gary and Graham.
ReplyDeleteThe "actual government"? Who do you think brought the perjury charges on Curley and Schultz? the fake government?
DeleteAG Linda Kelly is a known LIAR along with Louis Freeh her first presentment charge that Mike McQ "saw a boy being subjected to anal intercourse" and told that to Joe, Tim and Gary. Everyone knows that is a LIE including Mike McQueary. Kelly's Presentments should be called Kelly's Prevarications.
THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT???? you've got to be kidding - no one could possibly be that out of it.
My point was that the Freeh Report which you have dedicated months of your life to debunking is no longer an issue to be attacked, the facts unearthed in it, however, are now part of actual criminal charges.
DeleteDid you read the presentment, Barry? I look forward to your next missive attacking Cynthia Baldwin as she is now another important pillar in the case. Get busy, boys, there is a new person's credibility to be assaulted!
Many people spent the 6 to 8 weeks following the release of the FREEH Fiction debunking it. So NO it requires on further attack since it has been shown beyond all doubt to be a pile of crap. There are no "facts" in it that support this indictment. But even if there were your statement is nonsense.
DeleteWe've been on Cynthia Baldwin for months. She pretended to represent Curley and Schultz at the Grand Jury when it turns out she was not making her presence completely illegal. She thus ruined her limited credibility from her first appearance in this case.
Try reading up on things so you can be better informed. Baldwin's role in this mess has been questioned in the MSM from back in July.
http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/27/3274899/baldwins-role-in-scandal-questioned.html
and
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-27/news/32870429_1_grand-jury-jerry-sandusky-sandusky-investigation
It's tough to get into a discussion like this when you are so uninformed.
Good luck with that take on the situation, Barry!
DeleteWe'll see in court whether these facts you like to dismiss hold up for a jury.
Brian,
DeleteThe most important fact in the entire Freeh Report is in Appendix A of the current grand jury presentment, page 39/59 on your adobe pdf reader. It states:
"Mother concerned something more -- kid took another shower last night & this a.m."
That is proof positive that the child welfare agents KNEW of possible child sexual abuse. Repeated washing is a sign of molestation -- the child feels dirty, so he take multiple showers.
So, how is this a Penn State cover-up? The state and county investigators had this fact in their possession. Schultz's note is a recounting of the interviews of the children -- just the most important facts that got sent to him from Schreffler through Harmon.
The AG has provided the evidence in this presentment to show the state (DPW) screwed up the 1998 investigation.
http://www.notpsu.blogspot.com/2012/08/schultzs-secret-file-could-exonorate-psu.html
Just did a fast read on the latest presentment. Of course they are stacking charges for political purposes but, there is new info. If true. Specifically, Schultz's office assistant's removing files to his house while under subponea. The good news is this is all steering away from JVP. I still want justice for the GUV,BOT,Kelly,Noonan,McQuery,2ndMile etc.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteThe Freeh Report and the Attorney General are about to get destroyed by the real facts and evidence of the case. This will happen in the next two weeks.
BTW, there's no way they can make the perjury charges stick. There is no corroborating witness nor can they prove that Spanier lied under oath about the 1998. Cite 055 PA 055 § 3490.154.
I just read the grand jury presentment in this case and it is a JOKE. All the real facts are omitted. Linda Kelly continues to lie about the precipitating incident of the 1998 case and she perpetuates the falsehood that Curley was given frequent updates.
I will turn this fraudulent document on its head in a matter of weeks.
Ray,
DeleteIs there any way you can explain how the AG will "get destroyed by the real facts"? I genuinely want to know. You say the Coble quotes are "taken out of context". Does this mean that there is some information that would downplay, or discredit, the claim that Schultz instructed her never to look into the file?
Further, Curley is being indicted for purgery for saying he was unaware of any allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior in 1998. They seem to be laying the groundwork that his references in his 2001 email to the "first incident" were regarding his awareness of the 1998 investigation, which would make him aware of "allegations", wouldn't they?
Don't get me wrong. I believe this is a major misdirection from Second Mile and the ineptitude of the 1998 investigation, but is it possible that there could be a conviction here? Is there a greater burden of proof in trial that I, a layman, am unaware of? Is there any possibility that the AG could convict? This topic has been a source of conflict in my family, with some pro-Corbett members, and I just want to know the relevant facts. Please?
There is no doubt that Curley didn't lie in '98 because the question asked of him was regarding whether he was aware of allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior. He answered no. That is absolutely correct because there were NO allegations of inappropriate SEXUAL behavior.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI see very little new information in the presentment that can be verified by a credible source. Again, look at the statements attributed to Joan Coble - quotes taken out of context.
What is truly amazing is on one hand the AG is using Baldwin as a witness and on the other hand condemning her for not answering the subpoena. Maybe the AG thinks we're all stupid, but the person who has to answer the subpoeana is the Legal Counsel, not the President.
Ray,
DeleteThat was my thought too after reading the presentment. The only significant new information is Baldwin's testimony, but like you state it was her responsibility to comply with the subpoena. Combined with her questionable involvement in Curley, Shultz, and Spanier's grand jury appearances, it appears that she may be out to save her own ass by helping the prosecution. Otherwise the presentment is just a regurgitation of the Freeh report. In fact, every exhibit in the presentment is in the Freeh report.
Ray, Thanks for pointing that out! I hope the attorneys for S/C/S will be nimble enough to attack all this data to put it in the bright light of day come trial time. I want to see Tabula Rasa for all, except you know who!
ReplyDeleteIt continues to amaze me how people who have not followed your investigative reporting can take a 10 min totally unfounded announcement and make it a strike against PSU. I know I have a very biased opinion, as a past PSU grad and football player, but to make negative comments based on the findings of the Freed comic book, poorly informed newscasters(sports) and others (trying to be nice) is beyond my wildest dreams. This announcement is without a doubt one of the most ignorant of them all. Basing anything on the Freed report is totally unfounded and continues to add fuel to the fire against the BoT, Erickson and The NCAA!
ReplyDeleteIMHO, it's critical in this case to separate the questions of actions and motives. It may be that a case can be made regarding the actions of these individuals -- but the motive attributed to them:
ReplyDelete"This case is about three powerful men who held high positions -- three men who used their positions to conceal and cover up for years the activities of a known child predator,"
This kind of inflammatory language obscures the far more likely reason -- that they believed there was no "predator" - just Jerry and his "boundary issues."
based on the profile for this type of offender, in particular the complex behavioral dynamics around them. In this case, this shows up in the means by which these offenders squeak by in these cases...
"Let's be fair to XXX" and "get his side of the story" "handle this informally instead of embarrassing him over a misunderstanding"
This explanation for the alleged actions is far more plausible than that offered by Freeh and the AG.
Is this the same Linda Kelly that praised Central Mountain administrators for "doing the right thing"?
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why this entire Sandusky scandal is focussed directly on PSU? Wasnt Jerry employed by the Second Mile? Wasnt the Second Mile made aware of the shower incident? If this was a conspiracy I would excpect the most recent charges against Spanier are just the tip of the iceberg. Unless Mike McQuery and the Second Mile are charged w/ conspiracy, Im afraid this case has no legs.
I just want to know that there is going to be a light at the end of this tunnel. People's lives and reputations are being ruined and I keep coming back to the question of why there's no discussion of Second Mile and its role in supplying decades of victims. As a PSU grad and a Joe Pa fan, it is hard to watch the University's reputation go through the mud, and to watch Joe Pa's career "marred", but I could accept that if they were truly the culprits here. I could accept it if truly they placed themselves and their careers above the safety of the victims.
ReplyDeleteBut every time I have read any article regarding this case, it seems open and shut "guilty", until I look at the evidence. The Freeh Report is an incredible indictment of the University, and I mean "incredible" in the literal sense of "not credible". There's no evidence. The same went for the Sandusky grand jury presentment. The same is true this time. I just want to know that either the courts will bring some new evidence of guilt, or that the AG will be exposed for the fraud it is... and my heart yearns for the latter result. Is any kind of vindication coming? And if so, will there be an end to the farce of the NCAA sanctions? And will the focus finally fall on all the actions Second Mile has been doing to try to relocate their assets?
Are we anywhere near seeing the light at the end of the tunnel?
I find several interesting things about the new GJP:
ReplyDelete(1) Harmon and Schreffler did not testify that they were persuaded or instructed by S/C/S/P to mark the ’98 investigation as an administrative file. Investigative files in PA are not public information. They are inaccessible for the purposes of FOIA. Only a subpoena, and usually a Motion to Compel (i.e. a fight) will get you the investigative file, and you better have a good reason to ask for it. So, it is just as logical that the PD was concerned about internal leaks since Sandusky was cleared. In other words, the PD did not hide the file. They marked it in a different fashion to prevent leaks. If truly unusual, it would be the PD’s fault.
(2) Schultz would have burned the file and maybe kept a copy for himself if there were a cover-up. You don’t tell your assistants to “never look in the Sandusky file” because you want to cover something up. You do that because you don’t want your assistants to be burdened with secrets and be susceptible to leak impulses. It’s no different from an attorney keeping a portion of a client file separate from the eyes of her paralegals, for instance because it contains highly sensitive psychological or medical records, e.g. the client has HIV or something.
(3) It is without a doubt the in-house’s duty to receive subpoenas and instruct record offices on where to look and what to look for. For in-house, your job is to know where the information is and follow whether or not some of the information was destroyed, deep in storage, etc. The solution to the problem of production is not to publicly ridicule the subpoenaed party or parties, but to: (1) file a Motion to Compel with the Court; and/or (2) ask for warrants; and/or (3) AMEND the subpoena. I’m not sure whether the AG did those three steps. If they did not, it’s on them for some of the production of files issues. The same goes for the AG accusing McQuaid Blasko of not producing the file from the billing report in 2001. (1) It’s more than likely confidential so go through the 3 steps above if you really want it; and (2) there may be no file at all. It may have simply been a phone call and some basic internet research.
(4) “There was no delay in seeking out Courtney” shows that Schultz took the matter seriously. What was Schultz advised to do? The AG needs to fight for that file.
(5) It is the in-house’s duty to advise whether independent counsel is necessary. Then the in-house’s job is to determine if the institution will cover any portion of the admin’s outside and separate counsel.
(6) There are conflicting reports about whether the Schultz file on Sandusky was “secret” and withheld from the AG. Schultz did have a duty to produce that file. This depends entirely on whether in-house advised Schultz regarding the subpoena, whether Schultz himself was subpoenaed, and whether Schultz was asked during his testimony whether one existed. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/gary_schultz_didnt_have_secret.html
Schultz, according to that report, has been the only one who has admitted he was aware of the 1998 investigation. Is it possible that he forgot about that file over a decade later?
Schultz should have produced the Sandusky file if he was asked for it pursuant to the subpoena or if advised to do so by counsel before 11/05/11. If he was not personally subpoenaed to produce those documents or not asked to do so, which is entirely possible, it is logical to read the GJP to mean that Schultz asked Belcher for the original documents and asked Belcher to make a copy of it for PSU to produce. In other words, he didn’t destroy the files.
(7) Legally speaking, a criminal attorney or agency attorney needs to explain who was in “care” for Victim 2 in 2001 on the date of the incident. Was it Second Mile or PSU? Case law is undeveloped on this issue as it pertains to the reporting statute.
(8) If Baldwin is to be believed, Paterno appears to have had no participation in the “cover-up”, which would explain why Paterno testified the way he did.
Indeed, "the missing fifth man" is, in my opinion, one very strong and very direct piece of evidence that Freeh was not objective and had the four guilty parties identified before he began.
DeleteUsing the same criteria that Freeh uses for those he accuses (e.g. Paterno "should have known" that, as a coach, he was a Cleary act focal who had to report to the police, not his superior) it is very clear that university park police chief Harmon violated the Cleary act just as egregiously, of not more. As a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) he had far less excuse regarding Cleary than a classic who was never given any training on his responsibilities under the act.
Yet Freeh exhibits for 98 clearly show that he violated the act by miss classifying the investigation and not Including the initial report in his statistics under Cleary (remember, Cleary is about bookkeeping... You must report the fact that a report was made. What happens after that isn't relevant... in this case, the fact that there was no arrest, changes or conviction is irrelevant to the violation of the Cleary act)
In 2001, Harmon is guilty again, using the same logic that Freeh uses for Paterno and the rest. The fact that Schultz asked about the 98 files "should have" caused a professional LEO to follow up. Indeed, they're may well be evidence that he did, just not in this report.even of there is none , a LEO should have followed up. If the 98 incident "should have" raised a red flag for the other four _civilians_, then I don't see how one can argue that this is not even more true for a LEO.
While one might argue that the administration "forced" Harmon, Freeh never mentioned this... which would have been a great bit of "football culture" evidence.
Indeed, Freeh NEVER EVEN QUESTIONED Harmon. Which is even more curious, because Harmon is the one person who could tell us exactly what the administration was told about the outcome of the 98 investigation.
As I said, the missing fifth man, who should be there using the same logic Freeh uses to accuse the other four, demonstrates that he began with the assumption that these for were at fault.
An investigation that begins with the guilty parties identified cannot be called "objective"
A few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. As in-house counsel, Cynthia Baldwin was the person who ordinarily would be responsible for transmitting the subpoena request to pertinent persons within the University and for following up to assure compliance. Therefore, I question whose fault it was that an electronic search was not done and that some persons, e.g., Schultz and the Athletic Department, had responsive documents that were not turned over.
2. Curley and Schultz clearly reasonably believed that Baldwin was their lawyer. She prepared them for questioning, attended the pre-testimony interview and stated on the GJ record that she was representing them. Objectively, she WAS their lawyer.
3. Having been involved in responding to the subpoena, updating Spanier and preparing the witnesses, Baldwin was clearly in command of the facts when she was attending the GJ hearing. Therefore, one has to ask, why didn't she do anything if she believed that Schultz and Curley were perjuring themselves in their GJ testimony. What were her professional and criminal obligations in this regard? At what point did she learn of the 1998 allegations?
4. Yeah, this whole thing was a cover-up. But not a cover-up engineered by three administrators to protect Football. It was a cover-up engendered by Cynthia Baldwin's incompetence. None of this would ever have happened if she had properly responded to the subpoena or, gasp, brought on outside counsel as she obviously should have as soon as the subpoena came in the door.
Baldwin was objectively Spanier's lawyer for the same reason's that you cite in point 2. Doesn't her testimony before the grand jury violate attorney-client privilege?
DeleteFolks, I'm worried that we are losing the focus of the site, the Framing of Joe Paterno.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be little attention to the Grand Jury preentment once again emphasizing that Joe immediately advised his direct supervisor of the incident, plus the new information that SPANIER was concerned about why Joe had his own attorney (thanks to his son's foresight) and what he could be telling the authorities. Not indicative of a bond between conspirators at the highest level as JUDGE FREEH proclaimed.
My point is that even if Shultz, Curly, and Spanier previal in thier criminal case they can't in the court of public opinion. Shultz's notes hang him for not at least (it gags me to agree with Judge FREEH) pursuing administrative remedies, after the 1998 incident and the handling of the 2001 incident adds to it. Even if we all agree that McQuery did not see a rape (and I do) it was clear he saw something really bad and inappropriate. Like it or not. I know the law says Shults could not discuss the 1998 incident, but that is why someone at his level has human resources and counsel to seek guidance and no indication that was done. The three defendents are here and have counsel to represent them, but JOE is gone and Kelly gets to avoid addressing his being slandered and libleled.
We can't lose focus that Corbett and his cronie Noonan, threw Joe under the bus to save themselves. Their arguement that the slow investigation was not political, if true, paints them as Incredibly incompetant Criminal Justice Leaders. When Noonan says he provided his investigator (who confirms it) any resource he wanted, NOONAN is admitting that he is incompetent, for not realizing what his command and control duties were and not inserting himself into oversight of the investigation. He never gave a second thought to another option to Protect the Children during the protracted investigation other than counting on Sandusky to "self police" himself.
I think Corbett, Noonan, Kelly, and Judge Freeh love it when we focus on Shultz, etal because it discredits the site with the general public and they Hate it when we focus on their failures because it discredits them with the public.
Look at the recent Federal government's handling of "Fast and Furious" Not the crime but the faulty and incompetent leadership decisions and they mirror the failures of Corbett and Noonan, except they have no Inspector General to expose them, only sites like this.
Enough ranting for today!