| ||||
|
Showing posts with label Kane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kane. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30
PS4RS 4/29/2016 Statement: AG Not Pursuing Appeal
Wednesday, January 27
About That Oath
Much like in the case of
the PSU 3, the critical evidence supporting AG Kane's perjury charges
is of questionable origin.
By
Ray Blehar
The PA Corruption Network's Playbook, (December 29, 2015) outlined how corrupt prosecutors use dubious evidence to make cases against targets.
For the PSU 3, it was emails of dubious provenance that provided
the (alleged) evidence of perjury and other crimes.
 |
| Ferman's smoking gun will be undone |
For Pennsylvania
Attorney General (AG) Kane, it was an oath of similarly dubious provenance that
is now being portrayed by the Corruption Network as the smoking gun evidence
against Kane.
Let's rewind the clock and see how that went down.
On August 6, 2015, then
Montgomery County District Attorney, Risa Ferman threw more than her
fair share of admiration toward the investigators and prosecutors -- who regurgitated much
of the evidence from the grand jury --to craft the initial Kane charges.
"The investigators and prosecutors alike, they were meticulous. They were thorough. They were detailed, and this investigation was as comprehensive as any we've ever done."
According to the August charging documents, Kane had allegedly
committed perjury and false swearing regarding four things she stated under
oath (see below).
The evidence supporting
the allegations was mostly based on the testimony of Bruce Beemer, James
Barker, and Adrian King -- all of whom seemingly have motivations to take down
AG Kane.
As is typically the case with prosecutor's documents, evidence in favor of the prosecutor's version of events (e.g., Kane is lying and leaked information to get back at Fina) is included while the evidence against is excluded.
But no matter how much the charging documents talk around the subject of who leaked the grand jury information, the fact is that Ferman admitted she couldn't directly link AG Kane to the documents released.
After that, all the rest is bluster.
 |
| Ferman's investigators and prosecutors weren't as thorough as she said they were |
The Secrecy Oath
On September 17, 2015, Ferman's "meticulous"
gang of investigators made a visit to an undisclosed office in
Strawberry Square and allegedly found an oath that they had not previously found in their other (meticulous and
thorough) forays into the AG's office.
The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official
looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated
and planted after his chemical weapons facility
was bombed.
The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated and planted after his chemical weapons facility was bombed.
Prior to the stunning discovery of the oath, the
"meticulous" investigative team was seemingly content to use the
grand jury testimony (page 15) of James
Barker to allege Kane lied about not being covered by secrecy regarding the Mondesire grand
jury.
Consistent with Barker's testimony, Kane testified that she had all of those newly hired by her office sign grand jury secrecy oaths for ongoing grand juries but not oaths for prior grand juries.
Six weeks later, the Ferman investigators
got a tip to take another look into they previously searched.
Anonymous tip.
Where have we heard that before?
After finding the oath, King, among others, corroborated the meeting took place and oaths were signed. The actual language in the presentation, however, is deceptive because neither King nor anyone else made any specific reference to signing oaths pertaining to previous grand juries.
 |
| Kane and Shargel: Didn't crumble when faced with dubious evidence about oath |
Part of the Network's playbook is to present
surprise evidence to the unsuspecting targets (and their attorneys), who
believe that their legal adversaries are actually playing by the rules. In that
moment, the network's attorneys hope that the target or his/her legal counsel
believe they have been caught red-handed and opt for a plea deal.
That didn't happen with Kane, just like the "flip" -- that Fina hoped for -- didn't happen in the PSU 3 case.
The 2009 oath is hardly a smoking gun -- it's more like a boomerang.
A boomerang that will eventually come back and
strike Judge Risa Vetri Ferman.
Friday, January 1
Who Are The Leakers, Ms. Ferman?
Among all of the bluster about AG Kathleen Kane's alleged orchestration of a grand jury leak, why didn't the media ask Risa Ferman for the name of the leaker?
By
Ray Blehar
According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.
The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press. At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.
The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.
Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame...
...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent. The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention.
As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules. And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.
About 8 minutes in to Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information. Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.
The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation -- that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.
In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.
"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."
So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?
Nope.
The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"
Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all. It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.
And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?
The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.
Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve. The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript. Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails, were subject to grand jury secrecy rules. The transcript was not.
Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow.
The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.
However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope -- for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press. But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.
Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.
Let's review:
April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.
April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it. Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.
June 6, 2014: Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.
July 25, 2014: An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.
The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself. What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow. And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.
Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.
The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.
Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference
Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!
By
Ray Blehar
According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.
The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press. At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.
The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.
Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame...
...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent. The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention.
As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules. And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.
About 8 minutes in to Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information. Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.
The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation -- that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.
In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.
"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."
 |
| Ferman: Claims conspiracy is an "act of all," but doesn't charge leaker, co-conspirators. |
So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?
Nope.
 |
| King: Leaked information but wasn't charged |
The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"
Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all. It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.
And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?
The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.
Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve. The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript. Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails, were subject to grand jury secrecy rules. The transcript was not.
Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow.
The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.
However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope -- for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press. But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.
Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.
Let's review:
April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.
April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it. Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.
June 6, 2014: Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.
July 25, 2014: An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.
The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself. What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow. And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.
Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.
The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.
Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference
Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!
Tuesday, November 3
Feudale Email Exposes Beemer, Others
AG First Deputy, Bruce Beemer's claim that Kane's conduct in releasing private emails was unethical seemingly pales in comparison to other potential misconduct in the case of the PSU 3.
By
Ray Blehar
In a memo to top attorneys in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (OAG), Bruce Beemer alleged that AG Kathleen Kane had conducted herself unethically for producing the so-called "private emails" of former (bumbling) grand jury judge, Barry Feudale.
In what should come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this case, Beemer has his own ethical issues regarding his handling of evidence in the cases of the PSU 3 (i.e., Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier).
And what also should come as no surprise, the evidence involves emails.
Spanier Discovery Request
On September 9, 2014, counsel for Spanier joined a motion by the attorneys for Curley and Schultz requesting discovery of emails between Feudale and Fina regarding his removal as grand jury judge AND any correspondence about the Conspiracy of Silence case. See below.
The Commonwealth's response stated it found 545 emails related to the search terms provided by the defendants and that the majority of the emails dealt with case logistics. Only three dealt with matters that were material to the case.
AG Kane told reporters that Feudale mistakenly sent emails to Fina at his old email address in the OAG's office and those emails resided on OAG servers. Feudale's emails were discovered after his removal as a grand jury judge in July of 2013 -- uncovered during the investigation of the Sandusky investigation, conducted by Special Deputy AG, Geoffrey Moulton. The Moulton Report revealed that emails from the OAG accounts were recovered beginning in November 2013 and continuing into March 2014.
In summary, the OAG's attorneys, including Beemer, Laura Ditka, and James Barker deceived the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier regarding the existence of email evidence.
It is extremely rich that Bruce Beemer wrote a memo accusing AG Kathleen Kane of unethical conduct regarding the release of Feudale's so-called "private emails," given his possible misconduct in the PSU 3 case.
Duke Redeaux
Former Durham County, North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for similar misrepresentations to opposing counsel and the court in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Findings:
Violations of the Code of Ethics
"Duke Lacrosse on Steroids" is an apt description of the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence cases because the degree of possible misconduct and the number of players who were likely involved.
Judges, prosecutors, and politicians all have taken part in abusing the so-called system of justice in the Commonwealth.
AG Kathleen Kane, who made good on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation, likely had no idea what Fina, Feudale, Beemer, and others feared her investigation would uncover about their misconduct -- and it wasn't pornography.
Kane and the corrupt are now engaged in a scorched earth policy in which few will be left unscathed.
By
Ray Blehar
In a memo to top attorneys in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office (OAG), Bruce Beemer alleged that AG Kathleen Kane had conducted herself unethically for producing the so-called "private emails" of former (bumbling) grand jury judge, Barry Feudale.
In what should come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this case, Beemer has his own ethical issues regarding his handling of evidence in the cases of the PSU 3 (i.e., Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier).
And what also should come as no surprise, the evidence involves emails.
Spanier Discovery Request
On September 9, 2014, counsel for Spanier joined a motion by the attorneys for Curley and Schultz requesting discovery of emails between Feudale and Fina regarding his removal as grand jury judge AND any correspondence about the Conspiracy of Silence case. See below.
On September 9, 2014, the Commonwealth responded and clarified that First Deputy Attorney Bruce Beemer was the "lead prosecutor" since the filing of charges on November 1st, 2012. Prior to the filing of charges, Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach was the lead prosecutor on the case and was supervised by Chief Deputy Attorney General Frank G. Fina.
The Spanier filing also revealed the Beemer was instrumental in directing the searches for emails and in responding to requests of the status of the discovery.
The Spanier filing also revealed the Beemer was instrumental in directing the searches for emails and in responding to requests of the status of the discovery.
3/545 = Playing "hide the ball"
 |
| Bruce Beemer: Kept playing"hide the ball?" |
The Commonwealth's response stated it found 545 emails related to the search terms provided by the defendants and that the majority of the emails dealt with case logistics. Only three dealt with matters that were material to the case.
The "material" emails were from December 16 and 17, 2011 and referenced expanded Information Technology (IT) evidence collection to be conducted by the PSU IT staff for hard drives, portable devices, and copies of emails from persons of interest.
When the Spanier defense team stated it "strained credulity" that only three emails were found, the OAG indignantly responded that the case prosecutors had been "forthright, cooperative, and direct" and that it "strained credulity" for them to be accused of playing "hide the ball."
As reported in early 2014, substantial evidence in the case showed that the prosecutors had been playing "hide the ball" all along.
The Feudale emails simply added to the existing mountain of evidence that has been suppressed in the case of the PSU 3.
When the Spanier defense team stated it "strained credulity" that only three emails were found, the OAG indignantly responded that the case prosecutors had been "forthright, cooperative, and direct" and that it "strained credulity" for them to be accused of playing "hide the ball."
As reported in early 2014, substantial evidence in the case showed that the prosecutors had been playing "hide the ball" all along.
The Feudale emails simply added to the existing mountain of evidence that has been suppressed in the case of the PSU 3.
Feudale Email
The July 18, 2013 email from Judge Barry Feudale to the Inky's Craig R. McCoy revealed that his email to Frank Fina regarding his removal as judge contained grand jury information. Given that the email included various rants about AG Kathleen Kane over his removal -- and that Kane had stirred the hornet's nest with the Mouton investigation - there is little doubt it referenced the Sandusky and/or Conspiracy of Silence grand jury. See below.
AG Kane told reporters that Feudale mistakenly sent emails to Fina at his old email address in the OAG's office and those emails resided on OAG servers. Feudale's emails were discovered after his removal as a grand jury judge in July of 2013 -- uncovered during the investigation of the Sandusky investigation, conducted by Special Deputy AG, Geoffrey Moulton. The Moulton Report revealed that emails from the OAG accounts were recovered beginning in November 2013 and continuing into March 2014.
In summary, the OAG's attorneys, including Beemer, Laura Ditka, and James Barker deceived the legal teams of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier regarding the existence of email evidence.
It is extremely rich that Bruce Beemer wrote a memo accusing AG Kathleen Kane of unethical conduct regarding the release of Feudale's so-called "private emails," given his possible misconduct in the PSU 3 case.
Duke Redeaux
Former Durham County, North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for similar misrepresentations to opposing counsel and the court in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Findings:
94. On December 13, 2006, the Duke Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis, detailing their discovery of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and explaining that this evidence had not been included DSI's written report. The motion did not allege any attempt or agreement to conceal the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence or test results. The Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis was addressed by the Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior Court Judge presiding, at a hearing on December 15, 2006.
95. At the December 15 hearing, both in chambers and again in open court, Nifong stated or implied to Judge Smith that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items until he received the December 13 motion and/or was unaware that the results of any DNA testing performed by DSI had been excluded from DSI's written report. Nifong stated to Judge Smith in open court: "The first I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports -- this motion on Wednesday of this week."
96. Nifong's representations that he was unaware of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI's written report, were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel.
Violations of the Code of Ethics
(c) By not providing to the Duke Defendants prior to November 16, 2006, a complete report setting forth the results of all tests and examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:
ii. failed to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request, in violation of former Rule 3.4(d) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct;
(d) By never providing the Duke Defendants on or after November 16, 2006, and prior to his recusal on January 12, 2007, a report setting forth the results of all tests or examinations conducted by DSI, including the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items and including written or recorded memorializations of Dr. Meehan's oral statements, Nifong:
ii. failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew, or reasonably should have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions, in violation of current Rule 3.4(d)(3) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
(e) By falsely representing to the Court and to counsel for the Duke Defendants that he had provided all discoverable material in his possession and that the substance of all Dr. Meehan's oral statements to him concerning the results of all examinations and tests conducted by DSI were included in DSI's written report, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1), made false statements of material fact to a third person in the course of representing a client in violation of Rule 4.1, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
(f) By representing or implying to the Court that he was not aware of the existence on rape kit items of DNA from multiple unidentified males who were not members of the lacrosse team and/or that he was not aware of the exclusion of that evidence from DSI's written report at the beginning of the December 15, 2006, hearing, Nifong made false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
Media Defends Corruption
"Duke Lacrosse on Steroids" is an apt description of the Sandusky and Conspiracy of Silence cases because the degree of possible misconduct and the number of players who were likely involved.
Judges, prosecutors, and politicians all have taken part in abusing the so-called system of justice in the Commonwealth.
AG Kathleen Kane, who made good on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation, likely had no idea what Fina, Feudale, Beemer, and others feared her investigation would uncover about their misconduct -- and it wasn't pornography.
The media, who should be a watch dog to root out corruption, continues to be a lap dog of the corrupt. Instead of recognizing how officers of the court have compromised the system of justice, it has aligned itself with them.
To make an analogy, instead of being against the "crack dealers" who sell drugs to children, it has turned against the "undercover cops" who identified them. As for the children, the media is content to leave them to fend for themselves.
Kane and the corrupt are now engaged in a scorched earth policy in which few will be left unscathed.
Unfortunately, those among the scorched will be every citizen of the Commonwealth who will have the unfortunate circumstance to be abused by this corrupt system of justice.
Wednesday, August 19
Fina Feared Being "Nifonged" By Kane (Part 1)
Attorney General Kane stated the emails in the "porngate" prompted Fina's attack on her, however, Fina also feared that Moulton's investigation could cause him to be disbarred.
At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.
Sound familiar?
In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.
Don't take my word for it, though.
Sandusky trial Judge John Cleland mentioned that the Curley and Schultz charges could have been used as a means to "hamstring the defense" (see page 169). Judge Cleland then went on to caution Fina about using the email evidence and Schultz file for the Sandusky prosecution, stating it might "risk your case against Curley and Schultz."
Unbelievably, prosecutor McGettigan replied, "but we're not going to try that case."
What was going on?
The notes of former PSU President Rod Erickson (below) confirm that on or about January 2012, the OAG was keeping Old Main informed of the ongoing grand jury investigations of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. The amount of information shared by the OAG was far more than current AG Kathleen Kane allegedly shared with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
But the most important fact contained in the notes was that Fina shared his case strategy with Old Main. Specifically, that he "expected" Curley and Schultz "to flip"(on Spanier).
Fina's "flip" strategy is at the root of the misconduct in the Conspiracy of Silence (CoS) case. If the flip had happened, Fina would have made the case against Spanier on the testimony of Curley and/or Schultz -- and very likely, Cynthia Baldwin. Securing a plea deal would have likely ensured that Fina's ethical violations would have remained hidden.
When the flip didn't happen -- and Kane was elected on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation -- Fina looked in the mirror and saw Mike Nifong.
Former DA Mike Nifong was disbarred over the Duke lacrosse case, in which he filed charges based on the inconsistent and unsupported testimony of the key witness, suppressed exculpatory and other relevant evidence, used questionable evidence, and made highly prejudicial statements in the press.
The North Carolina State Bar Committee called the case a "fiasco" and said Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation."
Frank Fina's actions related to the CoS case were remarkably similar to Nifong's, however the stakes in the were much higher in Pennsylvania than they were in North Carolina. Nifong was using the Duke rape allegations to revive his struggling election campaign.
Fina used McQueary's dubious rape story to paint PSU officials as enablers of Sandusky's abuse. The goal, likely set by his boss, Tom Corbett, was to scapegoat Spanier for directing Curley and Schultz not to report the incident. The abuse of grand jury secrecy rules in leaking the presentment (and other evidence) was done to deflect attention away from the Commonwealth's child protective services (and the state police's) failures to protect children from Sandusky. Had the truth gotten out, the Commonwealth (e.g., Centre County CYS) likely would have been facing lawsuits -- not Penn State.
What is not on the public record - until now - is that Erickson notes confirm that McQueary gave a "more vivid" description to "Detectives - ten years later" than he did in 2001. The notes also reveal the tortured reasoning by prosecutors to use McQueary's unreliable and unsupported testimony to charge PSU officials.
Lines 1-5: McQueary denied seeing anything sexual to Dr. Dranov.
Lines 6-7: McQueary lied to Dranov and his father about what he saw.
Lines 8-9: Dr. Dranov's, Curley's, and Schultz's stories seem "same."
Lines 10-11: McQueary told different version to Curley and Schultz than he did to Dranov and his father.
Lines 17-21: When questioned "by police.. Detectives - 10 years later," McQueary gave "more vivid" version "than before."
It appears that lead prosecutor Fina was pulling a Nifong when he charged Curley and Schultz with failure to report and perjury and then approved a grand jury presentment that stated McQueary was an "extremely credible" witness.
Fina also had to ignore physical evidence to believe McQueary's story.
There is only one obstruction to the victim could have looked out from behind if McQueary was viewing the incident through the mirror (as shown below) and it is on the "far right" looking out of the shower.
If the victim and Sandusky were positioned in that location, they would have been out of the "line of sight" of McQueary.
Lines 20-21: "kid looked out from behind the obstruction."
Lines 22-23: "Actually far right, other 3 behind" "line of sight"
The former PSU President testified (page 14) that "they were horsing around in the shower. I believe that was the language that was used." When Fina (page 24) asked if it was possible the report was "sexual in nature," Spanier (page 25) responded, "No... what was reported was not a report of any activity that was sexual in nature."
Once again, another individual testified to not being informed of anything sexual being reported about the 2001 incident. For those keeping score at home, that was five people, including Mike's father, who testified that explicit details were not shared by Mike.
Fina would eventually charge three of the five with perjury, even though there was no corroboration of Mike's account.
Conclusion
When Duke accuser Crystal Mangum changed her story and was no longer certain she was raped, Nifong dropped the rape charges.
Conversely, Fina continued to press forward with the perjury and failure to report charges even though detectives believed McQueary gave a more vivid description in 2010 than he did in 2001.
Weighing the evidence so far, it appears that Fina's conduct related to the CoS case was more unethical than Mike Nifong's at Duke. But this is just the beginning of the story.
Next: Part 2: Evidence Suppression
By
Ray Blehar
At her press conference, Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated that she broke no laws and that the court system and subsequent charges were being used as a "stealth weapon" to discredit and silence her.
Sound familiar?
In November 2011, former AG Linda Kelly and her lead prosecutor, Frank Fina used the same tactics to silence and discredit PSU officials Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz -- falsely charging them with failure to report and perjury. Had they not been charged, their accounts of the 2001 incident could have been used to impeach the testimony of Mike McQueary during the Sandusky trial.
Don't take my word for it, though.
Sandusky trial Judge John Cleland mentioned that the Curley and Schultz charges could have been used as a means to "hamstring the defense" (see page 169). Judge Cleland then went on to caution Fina about using the email evidence and Schultz file for the Sandusky prosecution, stating it might "risk your case against Curley and Schultz."
Unbelievably, prosecutor McGettigan replied, "but we're not going to try that case."
What was going on?
The notes of former PSU President Rod Erickson (below) confirm that on or about January 2012, the OAG was keeping Old Main informed of the ongoing grand jury investigations of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier. The amount of information shared by the OAG was far more than current AG Kathleen Kane allegedly shared with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
But the most important fact contained in the notes was that Fina shared his case strategy with Old Main. Specifically, that he "expected" Curley and Schultz "to flip"(on Spanier).
Fina's "flip" strategy is at the root of the misconduct in the Conspiracy of Silence (CoS) case. If the flip had happened, Fina would have made the case against Spanier on the testimony of Curley and/or Schultz -- and very likely, Cynthia Baldwin. Securing a plea deal would have likely ensured that Fina's ethical violations would have remained hidden. When the flip didn't happen -- and Kane was elected on her promise to investigate the Sandusky investigation -- Fina looked in the mirror and saw Mike Nifong.
The PSU Case Is Duke Lacrosse on Steroids
 |
| Fina and Nifong: Mirror misconduct? |
The North Carolina State Bar Committee called the case a "fiasco" and said Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation."
Frank Fina's actions related to the CoS case were remarkably similar to Nifong's, however the stakes in the were much higher in Pennsylvania than they were in North Carolina. Nifong was using the Duke rape allegations to revive his struggling election campaign.
Fina used McQueary's dubious rape story to paint PSU officials as enablers of Sandusky's abuse. The goal, likely set by his boss, Tom Corbett, was to scapegoat Spanier for directing Curley and Schultz not to report the incident. The abuse of grand jury secrecy rules in leaking the presentment (and other evidence) was done to deflect attention away from the Commonwealth's child protective services (and the state police's) failures to protect children from Sandusky. Had the truth gotten out, the Commonwealth (e.g., Centre County CYS) likely would have been facing lawsuits -- not Penn State.
McQueary Gave "More Vivid" Description in 2010
It is a matter of public record that McQueary's testimony and public statements about the 2001 incident have been consistently inconsistent.What is not on the public record - until now - is that Erickson notes confirm that McQueary gave a "more vivid" description to "Detectives - ten years later" than he did in 2001. The notes also reveal the tortured reasoning by prosecutors to use McQueary's unreliable and unsupported testimony to charge PSU officials.
Lines 1-5: McQueary denied seeing anything sexual to Dr. Dranov.
Lines 6-7: McQueary lied to Dranov and his father about what he saw.
Lines 8-9: Dr. Dranov's, Curley's, and Schultz's stories seem "same."
Lines 10-11: McQueary told different version to Curley and Schultz than he did to Dranov and his father.
Lines 17-21: When questioned "by police.. Detectives - 10 years later," McQueary gave "more vivid" version "than before."
It appears that lead prosecutor Fina was pulling a Nifong when he charged Curley and Schultz with failure to report and perjury and then approved a grand jury presentment that stated McQueary was an "extremely credible" witness.
Fina also had to ignore physical evidence to believe McQueary's story.
The Obstruction in the Shower
Based on the description of the incident provided by Dr. Dranov and the physical properties of the locker room, it is highly probable that McQueary did not see Sandusky and the boy while they in the showers. According to the notes, the "kid looked out from behind the obstruction." "Other three behind" refers to the number of shower heads that would be positioned behind the victim.There is only one obstruction to the victim could have looked out from behind if McQueary was viewing the incident through the mirror (as shown below) and it is on the "far right" looking out of the shower.
If the victim and Sandusky were positioned in that location, they would have been out of the "line of sight" of McQueary.
Lines 20-21: "kid looked out from behind the obstruction."
Lines 22-23: "Actually far right, other 3 behind" "line of sight"
While I believe that McQueary heard slapping sounds and saw Sandusky and a minor youth exit the shower, the physical properties of the locker room made it impossible for him to see in and observe contact. I also believe Fina knew that to be the situation, but didn't let that evidence stand in the way of his prosecution of PSU officials. The janitor incident is germane.
Spanier's version
Graham Spanier's grand jury testimony also was the same as Curley and Schultz's -- as it should have been because they informed him of the incident.The former PSU President testified (page 14) that "they were horsing around in the shower. I believe that was the language that was used." When Fina (page 24) asked if it was possible the report was "sexual in nature," Spanier (page 25) responded, "No... what was reported was not a report of any activity that was sexual in nature."
Once again, another individual testified to not being informed of anything sexual being reported about the 2001 incident. For those keeping score at home, that was five people, including Mike's father, who testified that explicit details were not shared by Mike.
Fina would eventually charge three of the five with perjury, even though there was no corroboration of Mike's account.
Conclusion
When Duke accuser Crystal Mangum changed her story and was no longer certain she was raped, Nifong dropped the rape charges.
Conversely, Fina continued to press forward with the perjury and failure to report charges even though detectives believed McQueary gave a more vivid description in 2010 than he did in 2001.
Weighing the evidence so far, it appears that Fina's conduct related to the CoS case was more unethical than Mike Nifong's at Duke. But this is just the beginning of the story.
Next: Part 2: Evidence Suppression
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
