Thursday, November 3

Evidence Supports OAG Decision on Identity of Victim 2

Analysis of available evidence proves that A.M.'s statements were full of inconsistencies and that the OAG was on solid ground to state he was not Victim 2.

By Ray Blehar

A.M. will testify at Jerry's Sandusky's Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) hearing this Friday.  Undoubtedly, he will state he was Victim 2 (V2) -- the child in the shower on February 9, 2001.  

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not A.M. was the shower victim from 2001, however, that's not what tomorrow's hearing is about.

Lindsay Claims OAG Knew AM was V2

Arthur Lindsay, counsel for Jerry Sandusky, submitted an amended PCRA on May 4, 2016.   Issue #1 stated that OAG prosecutor Joseph McGettigan’s  reference to “others presently known to God, but not to us” was in reference to V2 and that McGettigan lying because he knew that V2 was A.M.   


Proving what is in someone else's mind is a tall mountain to climb.  

It is even harder to prove when the witness who is supposed to support the claim has provided false and contradictory evidence to investigators.  


Evidence Against Issue #1

1.  McGettigan's statement “presently known to God but not to us” may have been nothing more than a reference to commonly known facts about lack of disclosures by individuals who were victimized. The evidence and research on child sexual victimization that show many victims never come forward to publicly disclose their abuse, especially those who formed a bond with their offender.[1]   

2.  Research also shows that child molesters who abuse children of the same sex offend more frequently and with more children than offenders who molest children of the opposite sex.   A study by Abel[2] of 377 non-incarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that pedophiles abusing victims of the opposite sex on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas pedophiles who molest children of the same sex had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.   According to the trial verdicts, Sandusky falls into the latter category of a same sex molester and McGettigan was on firm ground to state Sandusky had many more victims (i.e. "known only to God") than those that came forward and disclosed during the investigation

3.   Ironically, Sandusky’s PCRA contained considerable evidence revealing that A.M. provided contrived, contradictory, and false statements throughout his interviews with investigators.  

4. While it is expected that victims will first deny abuse when confronted and then may incrementally disclose abuse, the inconsistencies about victimization would be expected.  To be clear, these inconsistencies would be expected and not be considered grounds to doubt A.M.'s credibility.  For informational purposes, a brief summary of A.M.'s statements regarding his victimization follows:

a. September 20, 2011 - no victimization.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 436, 437)

b. November 9, 2011 (Everhart interview) - no victimization.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, Pages 443-445)

c. February 28, 2012 - stated 
he was untruthful in his first interview with police, but didn't provide details. 
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2,  pages 438-440)

d.  March 8, 2012 - disclosed he was 
abused on three trips (outside Pennsylvania) he took with Sandusky.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 441, 442) 

e.  March 16, 2012 - disclosed he was abused on during a trip in the 
car to Erie, Pennsylvania and on 10 occasions in the PSU locker room, but did not provide specifics.  
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, pages 443-449) 

f.   April 3, 2012 - scheduled interview with A.M. did not occur.  Attorney 
Andrew Shubin attempted to provide a written statement alleging specific acts.  Investigators rejected Shubin's statement and ceased contact with A.M. and Shubin.
(Ref. PCRA Exhibits, Volume 2, page 449)


Analysis: While A.M. may indeed be one of Sandusky's victims, Shubin's influence on his versions of events diminished his credibility in the eyes of the investigators.

5. In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Coricelli, A.M. stated that Sandusky called him in 2009 to inform him that an individual from Lock Haven had accused him of "some stuff" he didn't do.  In addition, A.M. stated that Sandusky contacted him in March 2011 and asked him to write a letter of support for him.  A.M. did not write the letter, however, Sandusky sent him one which he read over and signed.  A.M. sent the letter (that he didn't write) to the Centre Daily Times under his signature.


6.  Additionally, In his March 16, 2012 interview with Postal Inspection Service Agent M.J. Coricelli, A.M. provided telephone voicemail records that indicated 
Sandusky began calling him on August 31, 2011 – just one day after the Harrisburg Patriot News released a story[3]
 titled, “Investigation of Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State football staffer, is nearing its end, sources say.”   Sandusky left two voice mails on September 7, 2011 – the same day the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) first contacted A.M. in an attempt to interview him.  On September 12, A.M. received another  voicemail[4] from Sandusky advising him to go forward.


7.  A.M. was interviewed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) on September 20, 2010.  In that interview he stated that he joined The Second Mile (TSM) in the 3rd or 4th grade (in 1997 or 1998) and participated in its programs for about five years.   He acknowledged working out and showering with Sandusky but claimed that nothing inappropriate occurred.

8. 
Sandusky contacted A.M on September 21 and 22, 2011 – the two days following A.M.’s initial interview with the PSP. A.M. also played a round of golf with Sandusky, TSM's Bruce Heim, and PSU Trustee Ryan McCombie later that month.



9.  A.M.'s voicemail records revealed that Sandusky contacted him at least seven times from the initial contact in August up until November 3rd -- the day before the charges were filed.  

10.  Approximately one week after Sandusky's final voicemail, investigator Curtis Everhart interviewed A.M. in the law office of Sandusky’s attorney, Joseph Amendola.  

11.  A.M. stated that he and his mother learned that attorney Joseph Amendola wanted to speak with them, which led to the November 9, 2011 interview at Amendola's law office.


12. Early in the interview with Everhart, A.M. stated that he and his mother met with his high school guidance counselor, who recommended he attend The Second Mile.  West Branch High School included grades 
7 - 12.

 
13.    Later in that same interview, A.M. provided a contradictory and false statement alleging that he quit The Second Mile during the sixth grade.






14.  A copy of the charity’s 2001 Annual Report for the year ending August 31, 2001, contains a photograph of AM with the following caption that proved he was involved in the charity while in the ninth grade

"<A.M.>, a ninth grader from Clearfield County, was asked to simply say a few words about his thoughts and feelings regarding The Second Mile to an audience of approximately 350 donors at one of our recent donor events. However, what he said was so much more."

15.  The OAG's Sandusky investigation uncovered records showing A.M. was in The Second Mile from 1996 (or fifth grade) until 2001(or ninth grade).   

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about his participation in TSM's programs in his November 9th interview.  It is highly probable that he was influenced to do so to ensure that The Second Mile would not be ensnared by any crimes arising from the 2001 shower incident. 

16.  After Everhart permitted him to read the Sandusky grand jury report, A.M. made a false statement that the slapping sounds (heard by McQueary) were from him slapping the walls and slapping towels.   A.M. recanted this statement during a March 16, 2012 interview when he told investigators that his mother gave him the story and that he went along with it.

Analysis:  A.M. clearly made a false statement about the source of the sounds heard by McQueary.

17.  A.M. stated he was in the locker room the night of the incident because he heard a locker room door close.   He also stated that he had heard the locker room doors close before, thereby negating that the sound could be the determining factor to prove his presence on the night in question.   



18.   His statement that he did not see McQueary was also compelling evidence that he was not in the locker room on February 9, 2001.  McQueary’s trial testimony of seeing a boy in the locker room was corroborated by the trial testimony of Dr. Jonathan Dranov.  Dranov stated that a boy stuck his head out from the side of the shower and looked at McQueary.  After that, an arm reached out and pulled the boy back. 

19.  A.M.'s statement that Sandusky called or spoke to him that week of the incident and told him that they were seen in the locker room by McQueary is not supported by the evidence.  PSU Athletic Director, Timothy Curley did not tell Sandusky who observed him and A.M. in the showers.   E-mail evidence from the Sandusky investigation revealed that Curley did not speak with Sandusky until about four weeks after the incident (on March 7, 2001).  



20.  A.M.'s drawing of the locker room was the most compelling evidence that he was NOT the person with Sandusky in the Lasch building on February 9, 2001. The drawing simply didn't come close to matching reality. 







Analysis: The diagram reveals that A.M. was never in the Lasch Building Staff Locker Room on February 9, 2001 or any other time.

Conclusion

Sandusky's legal claim that Joe McGettigan believed A.M. to be V2 is not supported by the evidence.  McGettigan had a legitimate evidentiary basis to determine A.M. was not in the shower with Sandusky on February 9, 2001.  










   
[1] Lanning, K.V., Child Molesters:  A Behavioral Analysis, page 75. 
[2] Abel GG, Becker JV, Mittelman M, Cunningham-Rathner J, Rouleau JL, Murphy WD. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. J Interpers Violence. 1987;2:3-25
[3] http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/08/investigation_of_jerry_sandusk.html
[4] http://www.rossfellercasey.com/m/sandusky-voicemails/

13 comments:

  1. It still seems that Sandusky's lawyers should have called victim 2 to testify if only to cast reasonable doubt. I don't remember Sandusky's lawyers testifying that they believed victim 2 was lying so that wasn't a reason for not calling him.

    I don't see that many of the 20 items in your list are evidence that victim 2 is an impostor. How does playing golf with Sandusky make him an impostor?

    The fact that victim 2 could not draw an accurate floorplan of the locker room seems like a red herring. The same test could not be applied to McQueary because he was in that locker room thousands of times. It really isn't a fair test.

    Were all victims asked to draw floorplans where they were abused? If not, then the prosecutors seemed intent on trying to discredit victim 2 because he didn't fit their case.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim,
    Amendola learned that A.M. had changed his story in March 2012 and stated he was victimized by Jerry. That's why he was not a prosecution witness.

    I believe that the round of golf he played with TSM's Bruce Heim and Jerry was the reason behind him lying about quitting TSM in the sixth grade.

    The majority of the evidence shows that A.M.'s statements were influenced by whomever or whatever was influencing him at the time.
    The evidence does not have to prove A.M. was an imposter. All it has to show is that he was an unreliable witness.

    Sandusky's PCRA shows the shower room that was drawn by Victim 5. Other evidence in the case revealed that Victim 6 and BK were asked to draw pictures of the shower. All of their depictions were of acceptable accuracy. Testimony also shows that V4 was able to give an accurate description of the shower room in Old Lasch.

    This evidence proves that the OAG wasn't singling out A.M. in trying to exclude him as a victim by having him make a drawing. Between A.M. and Shubin, the Commmonwealth -- as well as the lawyer for Schultz -- determined he was unreliable.

    Based on all the evidence I've seen, A.M. was cajoled into coming forward by Jerry and saying he was the kid in the locker room in the 2001 incident.

    In summary, I have yet to see or hear of any convincing evidence that places A.M. in the shower on February 9, 2001. Even his insurance claim stated he was not there on that date -- instead stating that he was there on March 1, 2002. Quite honestly, it would have been convincing evidence if he said he heard a locker door slam and then stuck his head around the corner and saw McQueary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So if AM is an impostor than why didn't the real boy from 2001 come forward to collect his millions?

    Why couldn't Second Mile officials, Dottie Sandusky or others identify boys who could have been victim 2?

    Why wasn't Sandusky or Second Mile officials charged with suborning perjury?

    Why wasn't AM charged with perjury or fraud?


    ReplyDelete
  4. Tim,
    How do you know the real Victim #2 didn't collect millions from PSU?

    The settlements are confidential, so it is possible that someone else came forward claiming to be the person.

    Possible, but not likely.

    The more likely scenario is that the actual Victim #2 received a settlement from TSM and signed a non-disclosure agreement over a decade ago. As Katherine Genovese said, "we've had to tell him to back off other kids before."

    Maybe that "back off" order came at a price. Quite a bit of money unaccounted for at TSM.

    If you recall, AM received a pick up truck from one TSM donor. Then he got a check from TSM for $1800 to buy a car. He also got two $500 grants from another TSM donor.

    Once AM had his DUI and hooked up with Shubin, he was done with TSM's "small change" stuff and jumped on the PSU gravy train.


    As I wrote in the post, AM was influenced at every step of the way -- and it's very likely that TSM's Bruce Heim and Jerry both influenced AM to lie about his association with TSM for the purpose of keeping the charity from being charged with FTR and/or endangerment. I imagine some small "donation" may have been involved.


    Please note that no one from Second Mile has been jumping up and down for the last four years to back AM as the shower victim in 2001. I think it's pretty obvious why that hasn't happened.

    Obviously, AM couldn't be charged with perjury because he didn't testify at the trial or at the grand jury. As such, TSM couldn't be charged with suborning perjury either. And AM gave his untruthful statement to a Private Eye, not a cop.

    How can he be charged with fraud? PSU didn't vet the claims and didn't demand evidence that he prove himself to be Victim 2. He and Shubin even stuck with the March 1, 2002 date he gave to Amendola's investigator to get a higher payout!!

    The bottom line here is that AM isn't the least bit credible.

    According to a person who attended today's hearing, here is his impressions of AM...

    "I can say - the strongest impression from the hearing is that AM is a disingenuous rascal who's "core" wouldn't be worth a Nickle

    I won't be able to convey it properly in a post - but if he was asked "what day is it?", his first response would be "I can't recall - I can't remember everything"

    Repeatedly - like 20 times or more - his response to SIMPLE questions (mostly wrt verifying the documentation of his various interviews) was along the lines of:

    "I suppose so if that's what it says.....but I don't recall".......writing that doesn't properly convey the WTF way that he said it




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Victim 2 talked to police and prosecutors so if he lied, even if not under oath, he could charged with something like interfering with a criminal investigation.

      Wouldn't Penn State be obligated by law to notify the Attorney General if someone else came forward claiming to be victim 2?

      If the Attorney General asked about past settlements with Sandusky victims, wouldn't Second Mile officials have to disclose them?

      Bill Cosby and Rick Curl can vouch that confidentiality agreements do not stand up when there is a criminal investigation.

      Delete
    2. Ray: Are you suggesting here that A.M. was somehow complicit in Sandusky's behavior? That Jerry used him as his 'go to boy' whenever he 'got made'? Didn't Jerry provide his name to Curley & Schultz as the child in question back in 2001? It sounds like there were many in TSM that knew something was going on and were active in covering it up (i.e.: giving him cars and grants). It even suggests a level of child prostitution might be involved here since A.M. was taking gifts for his services? How deep does this go?

      Delete
    3. Tim,
      As I said, I don't think it's likely someone else came forward as victim 2 and more likely that the person in the shower that night has signed an NDA.

      The Cosby case is a fiasco and I wouldn't use it as an example of how the law is supposed to work. The Curl case is on the same level. It is interesting that when a high profile individual is involved and prosecutors can garner publicity, that these settlements are ignored.

      The OAG isn't interested in prosecuting TSM. That's why they haven't done the same.

      Delete
    4. Philip,
      I have not seen any legitimate evidence that Jerry provided AMs name to Curley. The fact that Amendola/Sandusky didn't state that they knew the identity of V2 until he came forward and made the statement shows that Jerry was cajoling him and wasn't sure whether or not he'd go as far as to say he was the victim in the McQ incident.

      I agree that there was something untoward going on at TSM. Millions of dollars are missing and there is evidence of embezzlement given that Raykovitz was writing checks from TSM for kids to purchase cars.

      I don't think TSM was set up to be a used car broker!

      Delete
    5. It makes no sense that AM is not Victim 2. Why would he agree to say he was the kid in the shower if he was not? I am sure he is not the brightest individual, but Jerry asking him to lie for him would be Jerry admitting he is guilty. The guy is a former Marine. Not exactly someone likely to fall for this dupe. In addition, since AM did admit he was molested on other occasions, why would Jerry choose him to stand in knowing he may turn on him? Maybe AM was not molested at all, but lied so he could receive settlement money. If that is true, then maybe the narrative that the other victims have to be telling the truth "because no man would ever lie about being molested by another man" would be refuted and the stories of Sandusky's other accusers may fall apart. And why didn't AM, when he turned on Sandusky, admit he never was V2 and that Sandusky forced him to lie. He no longer has any incentive to provide the "nothing happened in the shower on that particular date" story, but he has apparently not retracted it. Finally, if Sandusky really did try to pull off a "switch the kid" caper, he must have been jumping with joy when the prosecution got the date, month, and year of the incident wrong in the grand jury presentment. After all, if the "real V2" did come forward at that point, the dates would not match up, the prosecution may be reluctant to believe him, and Jerry may still be able to get away with saying AM is V2. Instead, it was Jerry Sandusky himself who corrected the prosecution with the correct date month and year of the incident.

      Delete
  5. Really nice analysis, Ray...but the law of restricted choice gives a .8 probability the Allan is V2. A lot of the uncertainty can be explained by the 10 year gap. If you asked me what happened 10 years ago in November, I wouldn't have a clue. Map out the floor plan of a restaurant you ate at 10 years ago. Of course, if you were abused 10 times at that restaurant, as Allan now alleges, I think you should nail it.

    Agreed that anything Shubin touched is tainted. The guy is the epitome of fraud.

    Your analysis puts us into an infinite DO Loop. If Allan is V2, then MM is lying and his association of slapping sounds with sex is a Pavlovian reflection of his extra-marital activities, ELSE Allan is not V2 and MM's association of slapping sounds with sex is a Pavlovian reflection of his extra-marital activities, but leaves us with a vacuous feeling of why the real V2 never showed up to collect his millions.

    From the evidence on the table, It appears that JS and Allan were quite the item at that time, and Allan seemed to be a fixture at Second Mile HQ. No doubt Raycovitz knew who JS's boy was when Curley reported to him. JS even brokered a deal to have Raycovitz sell Allan a car.

    Freeh seemed to fume over C/S/S not putting out a dragnet to find V2, yet gives Raycovitz, the only person with the legal authority to launch such a probe, a pass...as he did with prosecutors who never attempted to identify V2.

    Being that everything now is opinion and speculation..we are in the Twilight Zone!

    Reading the Education Department document, I wanted to ROTHFLMASO that a document from a Federal entity would criticize people for not warning students and faculty that Jerry Sandusky was roaming the campus. Absolutely mind bogling that something like that would be in an official Federal Document! The Sandusky's were vetted multiple times for adoption and placement of foster children by DPW. The investigators found nothing, the case workers found nothing, yet a couple college administrators who met JS maybe once are supposed to warn the world that JS is roaming the campus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gregory,
      Thanks for the kind words and your commentary, which I agree with for the most part.

      There are other possibilities why the real V2 never showed up including that he could be deceased and that he did not want to get involved in the court case. Both are viable alternatives.

      I will eventually right about the DoE Clery Report but haven't gotten all the way through it. We are on the same page that the idea that the campus needed to be warned is just ridiculous. In short, I found the FREEH REPORT to be an affront to higher education and that the CLERY REPORT was EVEN WORSE.

      Delete
    2. Jerry's love for boys seems to be unique. He likes athletes. He chooses a particular boy, and wants to go "steady" with him. Not unlike males in their late teens/early twenties who want to control the relationship and monopolize the life of their significant other. This is totally different from main stream serial pedophiles. Jerry seems to be monogamous in a given time frame. The closest analog I can think of is Micheal Jackson. I note that a female has filed a lawsuit against the Jackson Estate, claiming that she was sexually abused by MJ as a teenager and wants more money than the handsome settlement she got from the Hollywood studio where she was allegedly abused. Evidently, the Neverland Ranch (called a pedophiles dream by Santa Barbara County DA Tom Snedin) was open for twelve year olds of both sexes.

      Delete
    3. One of many, many things I found disturbing about the DOE Clery Report is all the grammatical errors.

      Who authored the report and what is their training and experience?

      I think Sen. Claire Claire McCaskill is right that the Clery Act “doesn’t accomplish squat” and is “a waste of time pushing paper.”

      Delete