From the large placards used at the press conference for the Sandusky indictment, to the grand jury presentment, Paterno's firing, and the Sandusky trial, state government officials successfully "anchored" a false narrative that PSU football enabled Sandusky to rape children on the PSU campus for over a decade. This salacious narrative was used by the OAG to deflect attention away from its three year investigation of Sandusky which failed to identify a single victim. My presentation of Friday, as it did in November 2011, destroyed that narrative by using the verdicts and testimony from the Sandusky trial.
“…he saw a naked boy…ten years old…being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky…”
--Grand Jury Presentment
“…remember that little old boy in the shower.”
--Governor Tom Corbett
“…the rapes of these boys occurred in the Lasch Building.”
-- Louis Freeh
“…repeatedly concealed critical facts related to Sandusky’s child
-- Louis Freeh
Locations of the CrimesBased on Verdict Slips 2421 and 2422 of 2011, the locations of the crimes were:
15 counts specific to PSU property
-- Victim 2 – four counts
-- Victim 5 – three counts
-- Victim 6 – three counts
-- Victim 8 – five counts (possible error in admitting hearsay testimony)
30 counts not specific to PSU property (24 occurred off premises)
Of the counts on the PSU campus, the Victim 8 counts are highly questionable and may be overturned on appeal by the Superior Court. However, there is no doubt that the majority of the crimes in this case were not committed on PSU's campus and that 12 of the fifteen counts are for Sandusky showering with minor youth.
Timeline of Crimes ReviewedBecause of the impact and importance of the timelines of the Sandusky crimes, I repeated the information noting that the police failed to identify any of the victims.
•Victim 7 - Abused 1997 in various locations
•Victim 10 – Abused 1997-1999 in various locations.
•Victim 4 - Abused 1998-2000 in various locations.
•Victim 6 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.
•Victim 5 - Single shower incident 1998 at PSU.
•Victim 3 - Abused 2000 at Sandusky home and other locations.
•Victim 8 - Abused PSU shower 2000.
•Victim 2 – Abused PSU shower 2001 - witnessed by McQueary – reported by PSU officials, who
reported it to Second Mile.
Apparent Stop of Abuse for 3 years
•Aaron Fisher – Abused 2005-2008 at Sandusky’s home & CMHS.
•Victim 9 – Abused 2006-2009 at Sandusky’s home
The Sandusky Investigation
To set the stage for the preview of my upcoming Report 3 on the Sandusky investigation and prosecution (expected to be released in May), I provided the following quotes:
“Anyone who sat through that trial knows it was a thorough
investigation. I don’t care what it looks like. I know because I was
there. There was no holding back.”
--OAG Supervisory Agent,
“When you’re not getting breaks, it doesn’t mean you’re not working.”
--OAG Supervisory Agent,
“It was kept very secretive, of course, and people wanted to maintain
-- Agent Anthony Sassano
Mini-Timeline of InvestigationThe timeline in Report 3 is four pages long and includes nearly all the dates for police initial interviews with the victims, their grand jury testimony, and other dates. The significant points on this mini-timeline are that the cops were telling Fisher about other victims from the outset, that the OAG learned of the 1998 investigation in June 2009, and that it took the OAG nineteen months to get the 1998 police report from PSU. Who was "holding back" and who was "keeping secrets?"
Dec 2008 - Troopers Cavanaugh and Akers tell Victim 1 he is not alone ~ Sandusky
had other victims (Trial testimony, June 12, 2012, page 77)
Feb 2009 - Trooper Lear replaced Cavanaugh and Akers
April 2009 - Centre County DA transfers case to OAG
May 2009 - 31st Statewide Investigating Grand Jury begins
June 2009 – Deputy AG Eschbach informed Mike Gillum that OAG was aware of 1998
Sandusky investigation (Silent No More, page 120)
June 2009 - Rossman replaced Lear/told Fisher about other victims (Trial testimony, June 12,
2012, page 77)
Nov 2010 - Anonymous Tip Regarding 2001 incident
Dec 2010 - Interview with Mother of Victim 6, who identifies five victims
Jan 2011 - State Police obtain University Park Police Report of 1998 Sandusky
Investigation (19 months after learning about 1998)
Identifying the VictimsAs reported previously, most of the victims were identified by the mother of Victim 6 (five victims), two others (Fisher & Victim 10) reported themselves, and one more was called in by a school official (Victim 9). Victims 2 and 8 remain unidentified.
Victim 3 - Agent Sassano testified about the leads that helped investigators find the victims. Sassano stated that Victim 3, who was contacted in July 2011, was found through talking to another potential victim. However, he was one of those identified by the mother of Victim 6 in December 2010. He had several traffic dockets in the magisterial system, so he should have been found rather quickly if the police ran a records check. Instead, it took them seven months to "find" him.
Victim 7 - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 7 was found on a 1995 camper list found after a warrant of Sandusky's office was executed on April 12, 2011. His name was marked with an asterisk. Sassano must be the unluckiest investigator, because had he been in Strawberry Square on April 11, 2011 - he could have found Victim 7 testifying at the grand jury! Victim 7 was interviewed by police in February 2011.
Victim 10 - Agent Sassano testifed that Victim 10's name was marked with an asterisk on a 1998 camper list found in Sandusky's office in April. Victim 10 had a criminal docket from 2007 in the magisterial system and had served a 23 month sentence in SCI-Albion for robbery - released in July 2009. Victim 10 called the hotline in November 2011 after he heard the news of the Sandusky indictment. The police didn't find him.
Victim 9 - Agent Sassano testified that Victim 10's name was on a TSM participant list found in Sandusky's home when the executed the warrant in June 2011. His name was marked with a dash, his phone number was listed, and his mother's name was also listed. His mother had a 2008 criminal docket in the system that contained her address. Despite all of this information,the police did not find this victim. His assistant principal called his name into the police after the grand jury presentment was released.
And despite the obvious facts that Victims 9 and 10 came forward after the presentment, no one in the media - including the CDT - questioned Sassano's story about finding these "leads." Press reports focused- in part- on Sassano's statements that PSU was slow in getting them information about the case.
The inconsistent statements of Sassano and others involved in the investigation will be detailed in my May report.
The Ages of the Victims and Crime LocationsIn the Commonwealth's opening statement, Prosecutor McGettigan described the victims as "little children" who were "weak" and "unaware of the nature of the contact" with Sandusky. He also put the onus on PSU as the only organization who could have done something to stop Sandusky. Again, this was an "anchoring" strategy for the jury and the press - and it worked.
McGettigan followed that up by first calling Victim 4, who related that practically all of the abuse happened to him as a "little kid" (for the record he was 13-16) and it happened in PSU facilities and hotels where the team stayed. The evidence exhibits were dominated by PSU football related photographs. It was also notable that McGettigan coached Victim 4 into saying he was a "little above bellybutton height" on Sandusky -- as a 13 year old. Photographic evidence revealed that he was 5' 6" tall as a 15 year old, meaning he would have had to have grown 18" in two years.
McGettigan repeated this pattern of asking about the size of the victims throughout the trial.
The chart below is an analysis of the ages of the victims and locations of the crimes. It revealed that the most serious crimes were committed against teenagers and those crimes were committed mostly off PSU's campus. (K = knew Sandusky, G = grooming, T = touching, OS = oral sex, and R = anal rape).
As the chart shows, the incidents of anal rape occurred at Sandusky's home, yet after the trial, the media reported and the public believed that Sandusky was raping little children on PSU's campus.
Note that Victim 10 is an "outlier," meaning that he was the only victim to testify to serious abuse crimes without any previous or later contact with Sandusky. Dottie Sandusky testified she had never known Victim 10. (Note: Victim 6 continued contact with Sandusky into 2011).
However, the trial verdicts and media reports are evidence that the OAG's "anchoring" strategy was very effective. And again, Report 3 will further dissect McGettigan's trial tactics.
More Analysis of the Victim 8/Janitor IncidentWhile many consider the Victim 8 incident to be a minor issue, I believe it is the second most important issue in this case. Had the judge ruled that the hearsay testimony of Petrosky was inadmissable, there would have been no grounds to state PSU had a culture problem from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors).
Had the media analyzed this incident with a critical eye, they would have realized that the locations, timeframe, and circumstances of the incident were so inconsistent that getting a conviction on the testimony of Petrosky was close to a miracle.
Between the OAG and the Freeh Report, the location of this crime was three different places.
Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room– Lasch Building (Grand Jury)
East Area Locker Building – Freeh Report, page 63
Lasch – Asst Coaches Locker Room – Freeh Report, page 65
Lasch – Staff Locker Room – Trial testimony of Petrosky
The OAG subpoeanaed the names of the janitors who worked in the East Area Locker Room (EALR). The only logical explanation for this is because the grand jury testimony indicated that there was an obstruction or curtain that would block the bodies and is the Assistant Coaches shower in the EALR. Victim 4 testified to that fact.
As I noted in my Pittsburgh presentation, the curtain presented a "problem" for the prosecution's case because if Petrosky could not see the bodies, then Calhoun would also be unable to see the bodies, thus could not have witnessed Sandusky performing oral sex on the victim.
Solution: Tell a different story differently at trial -- and that's what happened. McGettigan told Judge Cleland that the janitors (plural) now remembered the incident differently, but that the changes were not significant. .
Time Frames of the Crime
The Commonwealth's and Petrosky's time frames for the Victim 8 crimes follow:
Fall 2000 (Grand Jury)
Thursday or Friday night of an away football game.
Between November 20 and 27, 2000 (Comm. Bill of Particulars, May 2012)
Away game at Ohio State (Petrosky Trial Testimony)
Based on Petrosky's trial testimony none of the dates make sense. While child victims are granted considerable latitude in determining the date of their victimization, adult witnesses are supposed to get it right (especially when there is more than one witness).
The 2000 Season Ended on November 18.
The last game played at HOME on the 18th.
Thanksgiving fell on the Thursday between Nov 20 - 27, 2000.
Thanksgiving fell on the Thursday between Nov 20 - 27, 2000.
Team finished 5-7 – no bowl game practices.
Ohio State game was played on September 23rd.
At the trial, the defense failed to raise the arguments about the dates being wrong, although they did raise it at the appeal.
Circumstances of the Crime
Despite McGettigan's admission that the changes in the testimony were insignificant, the changes were quite significant in almost every respect -- except the details of the crime itself.
Reporting of the Crime by the CDT and Freeh
The Freeh Report and the Centre Daily Times reported the trial testimony in line with the grand jury version and not the actual trial testimony of Petrosky. The Freeh Report made reference to a July 2, 2012 interview (unamed) as its source of the trial testimony. I jokingly opined that Freeh must have interviewed the reporter from the CDT. The accounts are below.
First, both reports incorrectly stated that something was blocking the upper bodies. Next, they stated that Calhoun approached Petrosky, which is opposite of the trial version of Petrosky entering the locker room and encountering Calhoun. Petrosky made no references at trial to Calhoun's military service. Freeh also incorrectly stated that multiple witnesses testified at trial.
However, one of the most critical inconsistencies of Petrosky's testimony was his statement that he called police after reading about the graduate assistant incident in the CDT. Petrosky called the police in March 2011, long before the appearance of the McQueary story in the CDT on November 8, 2011.
I didn't cover this at the event, but it could be quite significant in its bearing on the NCAA sanctions.
Cleland allowed the hearsay testimony, in part, because two janitors would be called to testify, thus providing more than one account of the hearsay making it admissible under Commonwealth v. Barnes. Cleland also ruled that "course of conduct" could be used to lay foundation for admissible hearsay. In other words, Sandusky had allegedly molested boys in the showers, so that laid the foundation as well.
The defense argued that Sandusky should first have to be proven guilty for crimes in the showers to establish the foundation.
The Commonwealth argued the hearsay admission should stand, in part, because Petrosky's testimony was buttressed by the testimony of Jay Witherite -- however, Witherite never testified and Judge Cleland apparently overlooked this fact in his appeal ruling.
Cleland's appeal ruling stated he may have erred on the admission of the hearsay and that superior court would decide it, but for the time being it is a "harmless error" because Sandusky was sentenced concurrently for the crimes. However, this conviction cost PSU $60M in fines, NCAA probation, and its reputation. It is not "harmless" by any stretch of the imagination.
This circus regarding the Victim 8 trial testimony, particularly the change of crime scene and the failure to testify by Witherite, needs to be fully investigated by the Special Prosecutor.
Breaking the Anchor ChainMuch like in the Duke case, incontrovertible evidence must surface that shows that the current narrative of the Sandusky Scandal is indeed false.
Overturning the janitor incident case could be some of that evidence if the Superior Court so rules. Kane's investigation could also negate the janitor incident, which could provide solid ground to approach the NCAA because the NCAA sanctions hinge largely in part on that case.
The second part of breaking the anchor chain is that a new narrative must replace the existing one. Again, the Kane investigation could indeed provide the new narrative and the new Attorney General stated that "no stone will be left unturned."
Those stones are The Second Mile and the PSU Board of Trustees (and I have reports planned for both groups).
Full presentation will be posted in the future at SanduskyReports.com and/or http://emf.intherough.net/pennstate.htm