Sunday, August 18

Only Victim Found Not Credible By Jury Is Awarded Settlement

Victim 5 has the dubious distinction of being the only victim in the Sandusky case to level a charge and not be believed.  PSU awarded him millions of dollars.

By
Ray Blehar

Penn State has reached a settlement with the only Sandusky victim the jury found to be not credible.

Victim 5 accused Sandusky of forcing him to touch his genitals and attempting to grope him in a shower.  The jury acquitted Sandusky of the indecent assault charge.

When I wrote Report 3, I was curious why Victim 5 was not believed by a jury who convicted on every other victim's allegations, therefore I attempted to reach juror Joshua Harper to find out about the jury's reasoning.  My calls went unreturned.

As a result, I was left to hypothesize about the lone acquittal of a charge brought forth by a victim and it is likely that Victim 5's story made perfect sense when he was ten years-old, but absolutely no sense as a thirteen year old.

Timeframes and Locations of Crimes Changed, Story Not Credible

Victim 5 testified before the grand jury on June 17, 2011.  In his grand jury testimony (page 17), he stated that the incident occurred in 1998 when he was between the ages of 8 and 10 years old.  He stated he went to shower with Sandusky in the East Area Locker Room.  Once in the shower, he looked back over his shoulder and saw Sandusky had an erection.  He went on to state he did not understand the significance of it at the time but averted his gaze because he was uncomfortable.  Victim 5 then stated Sandusky pinned him against a wall and took his hand and placed it on his erect penis.  The boy then removed his hand and slid out of the shower.

In the Commonwealth’s opening statement, Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan  referred to Victim 5 as a “ten year old boy”  and detailed how he escaped from the shower room (Victim 5 was born on 8/8/1988).

However, during the trial, Victim 5 testified that he was 13 years old at the time of the incident and it occurred in 2001 in the Lasch Building.  In that version of events, Victim 5 stated he had gone into the sauna with Sandusky, where Sandusky exposed himself.  Then they proceeded to the showers, where again he stated he saw Sandusky with an erection but didn't understand the significance of it, and then the same series of events of being forced to touch Sandusky before sliding away.

While I can't be certain why the jury acquitted on the indecent assault charge, I suspect it was because it is not credible for a 13 year-old boy not to understand the significance of an erection.

Victim 5 Testifies At Sandusky Sentencing

Despite the fact that the jury acquitted on the indecent assault charge, Victim 5 appeared at the Sandusky sentencing hearing on October 9, 2012.   During his testimony, he repeated that he was forced to touch Sandusky's erect penis and called the incident a sexual assault.  While normally I would think that allowing testimony about a crime for which a defendant was acquitted would normally be forbidden, the Sandusky case appears to provide the exception to any logical thought on jurisprudence.  In short, Judge Cleland's rulings in this case -  from the admission of the hearsay by the janitors to not striking testimony from two police officers that was clearly perjurious - appeared to be quite unusual.

Non Specific Dates and Course Of Conduct

According to Judge Cleland, child victim's are not held to recall the specific dates because of the time lapse between the abuse and when the victim's eventually disclose.  In the Sandusky trial, all of the counts against known victims, except for Victims 5 and 6, were tried on non-specific or "course-of-conduct" bases.  The Bill of Particulars in this case stated "the child, at the time of the offenses, is unable to provide exact dates and times."


Changes to Bill of Particulars

Victim 6's date was known because there were police records from 1998 stating when the abuse took place.  While no such records existed for Victim 5, the Commonwealth's original Bill of Particulars, furnished on February 21, 2012 stated the crime occurred between 1996 and 2001.   On May 18, 2012, the Commonwealth provided an Amended Bill of Particulars setting the date as August 2001.  See below.






PSU's Hired Guns Ignore Uncertainty of Date

 Michael Rozen, a lawyer brought in by Penn State to work the settlements, said that Victim 5's case was considered to be more serious than others because his abuse occurred in August 2001, months after top school officials were informed by a graduate assistant that he saw Sandusky assaulting a boy in a team shower.
"The pivotal issue from the university's perspective in dealing with the victims is where the incident occurred and when it occurred proximate to the 2001 shower incident," Rozen said.
Victim 5 was awarded millions of dollars despite the fact that the jury didn't believe his story regarding the indecent assault.  
Moreover, it is clear that the Commonwealth started at a very broad time frame of years  for the Victim 5 crimes, but then somehow narrowed the crime down to a single month.  Given that the Commonwealth was attempting to make a case for child endangerment against Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, it appears that the date switch also could have been made to bolster that charge. 
However, none of the facts matter to a PSU administration, who have paid their lawyers hansomely to ensure that the false narrative of the Sandusky scandal continues.


37 comments:

  1. So, let me get this straight. A thirteen year old victim who doesn't understand the significance of an old man's boner lacks credibility, but an 81 yr old man, who likely spent more time in a mens locker room than anyone ever in the history of mankind, yet claims on his dying bed that he "never heard of, of rape and a man", is telling the truth, and clearly was not involved in a cover-up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sandusky JURY FOUND Victim 5 to be not credible. Kane's investigation may tell us more about the circumstances of Victim 5's testimony.

      The grand jury found Paterno to be credible - he was not charged with perjury.

      Delete
  2. More like an 85 year old filled with cyto-toxic drugs and oxycodone trying to make sense of something that he is now incapable of comprehending.
    The prosecuters told the kids that all the bear hugs and rib tickles were Jerry's way of getting his jollies, and if they would juice up their stories, these nice people at Penn State would make them millionaires! Motivation to lie??

    ReplyDelete
  3. So even when there was due process, trial testimony, and jury verdicts regarding Mr 5, the PSU BoT IGNORES these findings and perpetuates the story that PSU is at fault for not stopping Sandusky in Spring 2001??? Unbelievable that this can happen in this country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's amazing. Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts.

      Just three acquittals;
      1) Victim 2, where there was NO VICTIM levying charges.
      2) Victim 6, who testified Sandusky never touched him.
      3) Victim 5, who testified Sandusky touched him and the JURY REJECTED his story

      This jury, who believed the incomprehensible janitor story and the story of Victim 10 (who was unlike anyone else in terms of not having any relationship with JS thru TSM) were believed..but Victim 5 was not.

      In the end, the jury believed he showered with Sandusky and that was all that transpired. For that, PSU paid millions.

      That is a complete lack of fiduciary responsibility.

      Delete
    2. And was this in 1998, BEFORE McQueary's event and PSU's opportunity to intervene? I believe your charts and reports list Mr 5's event as happening in 1998. Please comment on how Mr 5 became assigned a culpable event in 2001.

      Delete
    3. According to the Commonwealth, in May 2012 the date of the offense was narrowed to August 2001. The jury acquitted on the offense, but for reasons that have not been made public. Based on his testimony, I concluded that the circumstances would make 1998 more likely than 2001.

      The Penn State lawyers obviously don't agree, otherwise there would be no crimes on campus to put on the backs of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier after their intervention in Feb/March 2001.

      If this crime didn't occur, then it would mean the Sandusky ban on bringing SM children to the facility was effective -- and PSU can't have that! Not when you fired people for enabling sex abuse on campus.

      Delete
    4. Unbelievable.

      And just to be clear, Mr 5's statement about not knowing the significance of an erection may have been credible when he was 10 (in 1998) but not so when he was 13 (in 2001), correct? And this discrepancy may have contributed to the Sandusky trial jury finding Mr 5 not credible.

      Seems too blatantly simple for whomever is handing out PSU millions to ignore... and to think that PSU-educated professionals will ignore.

      Delete
    5. Just going by my life experience here.....perhaps the lawyers hired by PSU didn't know what an erection was when they were 13. Certainly, the jury could have decided the changes to the location and the year of the crime (uncovered on cross examination) were a little far-fetched. But I know what the clincher was for me.

      Delete
  4. Ray, I just re-read the blog on the chat room exchanges with MM and crew. Is there proof of these chats at this time? If so, wouldn't it be very important to Graham, Gary and Tim? And of course, Joe. It should stop the prosecution in its tracks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they checked the existing chat logs and didn't find anything. However, the investigators may have tracked down individuals who took part in the chat and could bring them in to testify. We'll just have to wait and see on that.

      Delete
  5. How could something so blatantly crooked not get the attention of the main stream media centers in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are invested in the blatantly crooked story that they all wrote about.

      Delete
    2. John Z, this is your cue!!

      Delete
  6. If the Jury found Victim 5 "not credible" why was Sandusky convicted on 3 charges related to Vic 5

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those charges simply mean that the jury believed that Victim 5 showered with Sandusky. Sandusky was charged with those crimes for every Victim he showered with.

      Victim 5 is the ONLY victim to levy an allegation of sexual abuse and not have it believed by the jury. His story about the incident not credible.

      If all the victims could only produce stories about showering with Sandusky, he'd be a free man right now.

      Delete
    2. Ray, is the showering considered part of the "grooming" by Sandusky and the reason he was charged with unlawful contact with minors; corruption of minors; and endangering the welfare of a child in each shower incident, even if abuse did not occur during the shower?
      Because it seems if each showering incident was viewed in a vacuum on a stand alone basis, there would be no charges. But being able to tie them all together, and including additional abuse charges, it seems then they got additional charges by establishing a pattern.

      Delete
    3. Can I see some credible documentation where the jury or judge deemed him "not credible". It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I don't trust anybody on the Internet.

      Delete
    4. Further, you're not charged and convicted on 3 child endangerment charges for "taking a shower" with a kid. If that's all that happened you might see an indecent exposure charge or something but he was convicted on 3 charges relating to the endangerment of the child.

      Delete
    5. Sean,
      Not credible = ACQUITTAL on the charge. How much more basic does it get?

      Count 28: Indecent Assault: NOT GUILTY

      http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY%20VERDICT%20SLIP%20FOR%202422%20OF%202011.pdf

      Got it?

      Delete
    6. Rums,
      Exactly. I will blog on it soon, but Victim 6 as a stand alone investigation in 1998 resulted in no charges. As a pattern is established and sexual intent is shown, then the showering is considered grooming.

      Ken Lanning's work on child molester behavior and Chambers pyschologic report from 1998 both would serve as evidence to disprove V5's story. As grooming involves gradual introduction to sexual experiences, forced touching would be highly unlikely in the first shower incident. No other victim reported that behavior.

      Delete
  7. I think we have a situation here (built on continual mishandling by the BOT) that they now feel that any prolonged lawsuits (arguing that victim #5 is not credible, or Sandusky was found not guilty of pedophilia after MM saw victim #2 in shower) brings the wrath of media and special interest 501c's. The last thing BOT wants and (even the alumni) is more false narratives and headlines like "PSU denies Victim #5 settlement based on testimony". The BOT finds itself behind the "rock and hard place". Now, they did it to themselves, but a hard place just the same. I read the news on Khoury this morning (forced to withdraw from NCAA lawsuit) with sadness. We need to keep voting the BOT (11/9) off the board, but there is too long a time between elections.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ray I read your link. It says Victim 5 had four counts related to him. Guilty on count 29, 30, and 31: endangering the welfare of a minor, corruption of a minor, and unlawful contact with a minor.

    Not guilty on indecent assault.

    This tells me the jury found the Victim VERY credible, convicting on 75% o the charges. This tells me this kid was molested but escaped anal rape. Are you here to say different? Are you telling me Sandusky DID NOT molest this minor child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,
      Sandusky was convicted of Anal Rape in one instance occurring at his home between 2005-2009. He was not even accused of anal rape by any other victim aside from Victim 9.

      You obviously don't know the first thing about the case or the crimes involved.

      Indecent assault is ANY touching of genitals. He testified that he was forced to touch genitals and the jury didn't believe him. PERIOD. End of Story. He's not credible.

      All the jury believed was he showered with Sandusky. That's what those charge mean.

      Delete
    2. No, Sandusky did not MOLEST victim 5.

      If you took a shower in a group setting at the YMCA after swimming and there was an adult male in the shower who didn't touch you, the situation would be similar.

      Again, the victim testified Sandusky cornered him, forcibly touched him, and the put the Victim's hand on his penis. The jury believed NONE of those things.

      Delete
    3. There has been no evidence presented to date that would classify Sandusky as a "serial child rapist." The label is absolutely false based on the trial verdicts.

      There were not instances of rapes on the PSU campus and the majority of Sandusky's crimes occurred off PSU's campus.

      Delete
    4. When you get right down to it, it was an incredibly weak case against Sandusky. Read this: http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/08/were-politics-deciding-factor-in.html

      The Commonwealth was fortunate to get the testimony in on Victims 4 and 8. They didn't have a victim for one set of charges. Victim 1's testimony was unreliable.

      The Victim 8 verdicts will be overturned on appeal.
      http://notpsu.blogspot.com/2013/07/more-than-just-wrong-date-in-janitor.html

      Delete
    5. We have 32 people dating back to AT LEAST the '70's all saying they were molested by Sandusky in some way shape or form. Some might have been raped some maybe not. THIS is a weak case for you? They tell us only 10% report child sex abuse. You think the number of accusers will get smaller?

      I think you're taking good people's hope and faith and taking advantage of it. You're a modern day elixer swindler.

      Delete
    6. The ongoing investigations by Blehar and others are attempting to determine how Penn State Univ became the culprit for Jerry Sandusky's crimes. JS has been found guilty under the laws and judicial procedures of PA. And he is paying for these convictions according to the law.

      The question many have, and not only PSU alumni, is WHY has Penn State Univ been assigned nearly equivalent blame as Sandusky. And how could this occur completely outside the judicial process? Accusations were officially made against PSU administrators, yet with no trial and no jury verdict, PSU is paying mightily for these ALLEGATIONS. Why and how has this happened? All citizens of PA, and the US in general, should be concerned that with no due process, trial, or judicial verdict an enormous penalty of reputation, history, and educational dollars can be charged.

      It's scary.

      Delete
    7. Sean Black,
      32 people "say" they were molested. Where is the proof? PSU isn't asking them to provide it.

      The jury ruled that Victims 5, 6, and 7 weren't molested. No convictions for anything other than grooming charges. Have you heard Matt Sandusky's abuse story -- it's pathetic.

      We also know that there was no Victim 8. So, four of the ten who went to trial weren't molested and one of them didn't even exist!

      You're the one who's gotten swindled. You believed this crap that a lying prosecutor called evidence. And you also believe that the gold diggers showing up at PSU have been abused.

      Delete
    8. Ray 25 victim confidentiality reports have been proposed...with tentative agreements to sign.

      If Penn St's lawyers wanted to go to trial they would.

      If you ever do find the truth, part of those 90% that went unreported, just don't bury it for the sake of your image.

      Delete
    9. If they wanted to go to trial they would??? Not on your life. They could not in any way shape or form handle a trial. The BoT has in every way possible tried to make this whole thing disappear. And the more unbelievable moves they make the farther they get from "moving forward". To pay out money for what JS did when he was not a member of PSU is uncomprehendable.

      Delete
    10. Sean Black,
      Did you just fall off the apple cart.

      Confidentiality agreements in this case should be considered as "legal hush money."

      PSU has turned down 3 gold diggers who weren't credible -- and if PSU paid Victim 5 for his non-abuse in the ONLY incident that was NOT BELIEVED BY A JURY, the bar had to be very low.

      Ever heard of the McMartin Pre-School case? Little Rascals Pre-School? Well, there's your precedences.

      Delete
    11. Why do they need to pay anyone to hush if nothing happened? Looks like you just fell off the apple cart, got back up, chased it down and ran into it again.

      Even if I take what you say as absolute gospel you don't have any explanation for 5 accusers out of 10. You just ignore them. Even you (with your weak argument that 3 convictions were because of a shower) admit only one victim was not to be believed.

      If its so easy to go get free money from Penn St why didn't you or I or millions of other poor people claim they were sexually abused? Nobody wants to admit it even happened to them, let alone make it up. Do I suspect maybe 1 or 2 are looking for a free ride? It could happen, but it's not going to happen with the frequency you need to claim Sandusky didnt do anything.

      You and Ziegler more than anyone else in the world right now are publicly laying the ground work, the foundation, for the next Sandusky.

      Stop grooming us.

      Delete
    12. Ray it occurred to me that you've been telling me something here, but you haven't actually SAID it. Are you telling us that Sandusky is innocent? Are you saying he helped those kids and they all are falsely accusing him? Every one of them?

      Delete
    13. Sean Black, you obviously know very little of this case outside of what the media has told you. You are the type of person certain members of the PSU BOT are relying on to continue pushing the false narrative they created.

      Ray has done a very thorough job of looking at the case for each of the 10 victims from the trial, please review what he has said in detail before you make accusations.

      Penn State has basically opened up the bank vaults to anyone that had contact with Sandusky and were of a certain age during an indetermined period of time. Why would they do this? Because certain people on the PSU BoT and the governor used the Sandusky case as an opportunity to grab power from the school and remove individuals (Spanier and Paterno) that they did not like. So they corrupted the Sandusky investigation to fit their own needs. If you want detail on why and how, please read Ray and John's extensive writings on the matter.

      Delete
  9. On cue, John Ziegler is speaking out about the monies being paid by PSU on behalf of Sandusky's crimes and unproved allegations. John's style is a bit loud for me, but his words are well-supported by the evidence to date. I particularly love his response to the question about PSU BoT doing the sensible thing by paying out and moving on: "That may make sense if it's not your money and the truth doesn't matter!". Exactly.

    His interview link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCrMGzgqwig&feature=youtu.be

    Also, later today (Wednesday), John Z will be doing a similar interview with Kevin Slaten at 5pm eastern time which can be heard at www.TalkStl.com

    ReplyDelete