Do 'missing" witnesses in Sandusky case reveal a "Keystone Cover-Up?"

Were the "missing" witnesses at the Sandusky trial part of an effort to ensure no blame fell on DPW, CMHS, and  Second Mile officials?

By

Ray Blehar

Most intelligent observers of the Sandusky case believe that even though Sandusky was guilty of many, if not most, of the crimes he was charged with, something was not quite right about the trial.  

While the outcome was correct and Sandusky is where he belongs as a convicted sex offender, the manner in which the prosecutors and the defense teams went about putting on their cases left many people scratching their heads.  I noted many problems with the Victim 8 presentations - especially that an essential witness, Jay Witherite, didn't testify.  However, Witherite was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to "missing witnesses" in the Sandusky trial.

There were a lot of other witnesses who should have been called to make the case for the prosecution (P), but weren't called.  Similarly, some of the absences on the defense (D) side were equally puzzling.

But when you look at the list as a whole, one could conclude that witness selection was done to ensure that the Department of Public welfare (DPW), Centre County Children and Youth Services (CC CYS) Central Mountain High School (CMHS), and The Second Mile (TSM) got passes.  Also, it didn't look like Joe Amendola was playing his best cards if his hope was to get acquittals on at least some of the charges.

Missing Witnesses

Here's a list of the witnesses that were "no brainers;" we should have definitely heard from them at the trial.

Victim 1:  Dawn Daniels (P)*, Mike Gillum (P)**, Gerald Rosamilia (P), Karen Probst, CMHS (D), Steven Turchetta, CMHS (D)*

Victim 2:  Victim 2 (D), Dr. Jack Raykovitz, TSM (D)**,  Bruce Heim, TSM (D)

Victim 6: Dr. Alycia Chambers (P)**, the victim's mother (P)*/**, Jerry Lauro, DPW (D), John Seasock, CC CYS* (D), John Miller, CC CYS (D)

Victim 8: Jay Witherite (P)*, other janitors (P)

*on prosecutor's witness list

**on defense witness list

Mother's Intuition

In a child sexual abuse prosecution, one of the keys is to win the sympathy of the jury toward the victims.  As I documented in Report 3, prosecutor McGettigan excelled at this by painting the grown men who would testify as "little boys" who were helpless to fight back against the will of the molester.  From the comments of some of the jurors after the case, it was a very successful strategy.

Interestingly, McGettigan rarely used another powerful tool at his disposal to win the sympathy of the jurors:  the testimony of the mothers of the victims 1 and 6.

They were two mothers who reported crimes approximately ten years apart.  Both felt that sick feeling in their stomachs when their sons first mentioned the possibility of abuse. Both had to wait years to get justice.  Neither of them were presented as witnesses.

McGettigan called only the foster mother of Victim 10 and the mother of Victim 9 to testify in this case.  With regard to Victim 10, the purpose of the testimony was to establish that Victim 10 had contact with Sandusky and that the defendant had bought him shoes.  There was no mention of abuse nor did she mention anything that would have garnered sympathy from the jury.  Ironically, Joe Amendola ended up eliciting more damaging testimony from this mother than did McGettigan (and the same happened when he cross-examined Victim 10).

The mother of Victim 9 provided very little in the way of testimony that would have influenced the jury's decision.  The only notable things she mentioned under direct testimony were: picking her son up from Sandusky's home late one night when he was not wearing shoes; and that his underwear was missing from the laundry.  Similarly, Victim 9's mother did not mention anything about her son being abused, with the exception that she told a counselor and a teacher that Sandusky was "touchy feely."

Ironically, Joe Amendola elicited more harmful testimony than did prosecutor McGettigan during his cross-examination.  Rather than let sleeping dogs lie, Amendola brought up the point about missing underwear, to which the mother added that his socks were missing too.

Those were the only two mothers who testified at the trial.   Aaron Fisher's mother (Dawn Daniels) and the mother of Victim 6 were not presented as witnesses.

Both were complaining mothers who triggered investigations of Sandusky and both had compelling stories to tell that would have added credibility to the testimony of their sons.

Dawn Daniels

Dawn Daniels

Press reports and television interviews revealed that Dawn Daniels learned of her son Aaron Fisher's abuse when he was doing a search on the computer for "sex weirdos" and was looking to see if Jerry Sandusky was listed.  Daniels recalled getting a sinking feeling in the pit of her stomach.  Daniels was worried enough that she called his school the next day about it.  That was the day that Fisher broke down and told CMHS officials about his abuse.  According to Daniels, school principal Karen Probst told her to go home and think about it before deciding to report Sandusky.

Daniels went forward with the complaint to Clinton County Children and Youth Services, where Aaron was interviewed by psychologist Mike Gillum.  Daniels, Fisher, and Gillum then had to face a nearly three year battle with the PA OAG to finally get what they believed would be justice against Sandusky.  It is little wonder that McGettigan didn't want Daniels to testify.  Her testimony would have undoubtedly shone the spotlight on the footdragging by CMHS and the police investigators.

Mother of Victim 6

Contrary to popular belief, the mother of Victim 6 did not approve of her son's relationship with Sandusky.  You can find that evidence in Victim 6's trial transcript (page 23) where he stated:

"She - we differed on it, because I thought she was trying to get him in trouble and I became very defensive and would always talk light of him, you know, "Jerry is getting me tickets again." And she just always kept her mouth shut and I could always tell we just knew that we were on different pages."

In fact, sources close to the family revealed that the mother had cut off all one-on-one contact between her son and Jerry Sandusky.  Her son was only allowed to go to games if Jon or Matt Sandusky drove to pick him up and under the condition that there were other boys attending.

There is little doubt in my mind, that what she had to say about the abuse incident and the aftermath (as well as some other evidence not presented at the trial) would have influenced the jury to convict on the indecent assault charge with regard to her son's incident.

Based on the information in the 1998 police report, Schultz's notes from 1998, Victim 6's testimony, Dr. Chambers report, and my phone conversation with Chambers in October 2012, the initial incident was not at all as it has been reported.

As I noted in Report 1, the boys hair was DRY when he arrived home.  He then described his activities with Sandusky, describing how he got to try on Curtis Enis' shoulder pads and helmets.  He was given a pair of Joe Paterno socks, which he actually hugged in front of his mother.  The socks were a prized possession.

He was very upbeat and animated, but then his mood turned.

Next, he looked down at the floor at told his mother:

"..if you're wondering why my hair is wet, it's because we took a shower."

He then turned and ran to his bedroom, slamming the door behind him. Victim 6 testified that he told his mother what happened, then "I took off."

The mother immediately knew something was wrong.

As Dr. Chambers reported, the mother told her that her son had a habit of adding things that bothered him at the end of a conversation.  Also, a young person leaving "clues" that would provoke a discussion about sexual issues is a warning sign of possible sexual abuse.

When the mother later went to the bedroom to check on her son, she asked him some questions but did not press the issue.  However, her worst fears were confirmed when she heard her son in the shower a little while later. 

The next morning, she heard the shower running and realized her son was showering yet again.  At that point, she called Dr. Chambers to inform her of the situation, stating "I'm calling you so you can tell me I'm crazy."

A prosecutor who desired to succeed on an indecent assault charge would have made sure the jury heard this information, particularly the dramatic way in which Victim 6 told his mother about the shower and that he then took one shower after arriving home with Sandusky and another the next morning.  But those stories weren't ever heard by the jury.

This fact of multiple showers was clearly written down in Schultz's note and it can be derived from combining the police report information with the information in Dr. Chambers report.   There is no doubt it happened.

From the July 29, 2013 preliminary hearing testimony of Kimberly Belcher, we know that the prosecutors possessed Schultz's file notes well in advance of the Sandusky trial.  They knew that the notes contained critical information that signs of child sexual abuse were present that could have resulted in another conviction.  However it appears that they made the choice not to go "balls to the wall" to seek full justice for the victim because revealing all the facts would have exposed DPW's failures in 1998. 

More Missing Witnesses for Victim 6

Dr. Alycia Chambers

The prosecutors not only didn't present Dr. Chambers as a witness at the trial, but didn't even bother to identify her as a potential witness during jury selection.

Dr. Chambers had correctly identified Sandusky's "grooming" activities toward Victim 6.  Her report provided a detailed discussion of typical pedophile overtures, such as making promises to him, to have him sit on his lap while they went on-line, and gradually introducing him to touching.   The description of her interview with the boy was equally damning, particularly her description of him being physically anxious at the start and eager to discuss what had happened.  Chambers stated that in other sessions the boy would wander around to room looking for things to play with, but in this case he was "wide-eyed" and sat right down to begin the session.  

Dr. Chambers reported that Victim 6 was visibly anxious and conflicted, repeating:

"I don't think he meant anything by it" and "he's married, so I don't think he meant anything." 

Victim 6 told Dr. Chambers he was uncomfortable and didn't ever want to go through that situation again.  The mother told Dr. Chambers that her son was not sleeping well and was up often through the nights since the incident.

If the goal is to get convictions for all charges, why wouldn't the Commonwealth want this psychologist to testify?  Most likely because Dr. Chambers posed a great risk in revealing that her report was provided not only to the police, but to the Department of Public Welfare and to Centre County CYS (according to my October 2012 discussion with her). 

Ironically, she was listed as one of the defense's potential witnesses during jury selection.  She obviously believed Sandusky to exhibit the behaviors of a pedophile, so why would Amendola even consider her for a defense witness?

Something's not quite right here.

Lauro, Miller, and Seasock

With the prosecution only having Victim 6 and Detective Schreffler testify to the alleged crimes in that incident, it left the door wide open for Joe Amendola to call in the caseworkers who investigated the incident and concluded no abuse took place.  But Amendola never called DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, who made that decision.  According to the Patriot News, Lauro stated:

“At that time, the information that we had wasn’t sufficient enough to substantiate a case” 

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette quoted Lauro as follows:

"It didn't meet the criteria.  If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."

Amendola also failed to call Centre County CYS caseworker, John Miller, who interviewed Victim 6 (and BK) and who arranged the interview by John Seasock, to testify.  Miller has been a missing person throughout the Sandusky proceedings, with no report of him testifying at the grand jury.  

Amendola also could have presented John Seasock as a defense witness because his report concluded Sandusky was not a pedophile and that he had "boundary issues."  Seasock characterized Sandusky's behavior as normal for a male football coach.  The latest information about his professional credentials reveals that he holds two masters degrees, is a PhD candidate, and is the president of Renaissance Psychology and Counseling, Incorporated.  

It is a mystery why Amendola didn't call these individuals to testify.  

In fact, he did not include Lauro and Miller as potential witnesses during jury selection, yet his list included Dr. Alycia Chambers.  That is truly inexplicable.

More Missing Witnesses for Victim 1

Mike Gillum

Mike Gillum

According to his own book, Silent No More, Aaron Fisher was not a strong witness at the grand jury and read from a prepared script for his last grand jury appearance in April 2011.  Fisher also needed considerable moral support from Mike Gillum in order to testify.  So, it was highly unusual that the prosecutors did not present Gillum - who obtained the disclosures from Fisher - as a witness.  In fact, witness Jessica Dershem never mentioned Gillum as one of the people who assisted Aaron on the day he complained to CYS.

Dershem could not have forgotten about Gillum. He was the next person after her to talk with Fisher, and according to the book, came down to her office to retrieve Aaron.

The bottom line here is that Gillum was an outspoken critic of the footdragging over charging Sandusky and there was no way the Commonwealth wanted the psychologist to express his frustrations with the police, OAG, and Governor Tom Corbett at a highly publicized trial.

Gerald Rosamilia

The Director of Clinton County CYS, Rosamilia, testified at the grand jury and his testimony would have been valuable in establishing that Sandusky had issues with getting too close to children at The Second Mile. According to press reports, when Rosamilia called TSM to inform them that Clinton County CYS was severing its ties with the charity, he was told by Katherine Genovese that they had to sometimes tell Jerry "to back off" some kids.  

If the prosecutors are trying to establish that Sandusky was molesting boys at TSM, this would have been a valuable point of reference.  However, it would have also implied that TSM had received complaints about Sandusky and that their solution was to have him "back off" (and move onto the next kid).

Karen Probst and Steve Turchetta

The school officials at CMHS actually could have been used as witnesses for the defense.  As USAToday reported in October 2013, Probst allegedly called Clinton County CYS in advance of Fisher and Daniels' arrival in an attempt to discourage them from taking the report seriously.  However, as Daniels reported at the outset, Probst had attempted to discourage her from reporting Sandusky because of all the "good" that Jerry did for the community.  Probst did not make it onto Amendola's list of potential witnesses.

Ironically, Steven Turchetta was on the prosecutions list of potential witnesses.  Turchetta testified at the grand jury that he had noticed Sandusky get "clingy" when boys broke off their relationship with him and that Sandusky got into shouting matches with boys.  Turchetta also would take some of the boys out of class so that they could meet with Jerry and said that he refereed some of the shouting matches.  Yet, Turchetta never reported Sandusky's unusual behavior.  

One would think that this would be an area worth probing by the defense.  As we would later watch on ABC, Turchetta refused to be interviewed about his actions in the Fisher case.  

That none of the CMHS officials made it into the courtroom (except wrestling coach Joe Miller) supports the theory that the Commonwealth was protecting all the institutional failures in putting a stop to Sandusky -- with the notable exception of Penn State.

The Victim 8 incident

The most notable missing witness in the Victim 8 incident is janitor Jay Witherite.  According to prosecutor McGettigan, Jay Witherite and Ronald "Buck" Petrosky were both to be presented as witnesses to confirm the hearsay of the eye-witness janitor, James Calhoun.   With no explanation given, Witherite never testified at the trial.

However, Witherite was not the only missing witness, aside from Calhoun, in this case.  

Ronald "Buck" Petrosky

According to the grand jury presentment, Calhoun told the story of what he witnessed to several people on the janitorial staff that night.  Petrosky testified to the grand jury (page 22) that all the employees working that night were relatively new employees, except for Witherite.  Petrosky himself had only been in the job as a Maintenance Worker Utility since July 25, 2000,  having transferred from Student Services to the Office of Physical Plant.  Petrosky also said that Calhoun's fellow employees feared the elderly janitor might suffer a heart attack.  And because they feared for their jobs, that they had Calhoun, who was allegedly there as a temporary employee, report what he saw to Jay Witherite.

It is notable that Louis Freeh mentioned that Witherite met with the staff to discuss the incident, but Freeh did not interview anyone except the "witnesses in Gerald. A. Sandusky's (Sandusky) trial" (Freeh Report, page 65).

So where are all these other janitors who could have served as hearsay witnesses?  Why didn't the prosecution bring in the whole gang to verify the hearsay of Calhoun?  Why did it not call Witherite?

And why haven't any of these nameless individuals come forward to confirm this incident took place in November 2000?

The answer to all the questions is the same.  This incident didn't happen.

The Victim 2 Situation

The most unusual thing about the Sandusky trial was the apparent agreement between prosecutors and the defense attorneys that Victim 2 would remain "unknown." 

According to the Commonwealth, they contacted a person who they believed was Victim 2 in September 2011, however, his version of events in the 2002 (sic) shower incident were not consistent with Mike McQueary's.  Also, according to Tom Farrell, the attorney for Gary Schultz, this individual was interviewed four times and gave inconsistent versions of events four times.  With the exception of Farrell citing an inconsistent diagram of the Lasch locker room, little detail about the level of inconsistencies in this individual's testimony has not been disclosed.

The Victim 2 who won a settlement from Penn State for his abuse gave an interview to a former FBI investigator in November 2011 that conflicted with the account of Mike McQueary.  One of the more significant pieces of information to come out of the interview was that the individual heard a locker slam while he was showering with Sandusky but had no recollection of seeing McQueary (contradicting McQueary's testimony).  The locker slam information was not on the public record until one month later, when McQueary testified to it at the December 2011 preliminary hearing.  This testimony would be quite valuable if the defense would have chosen to present this individual as Victim 2.

However, where this apparently went off the rails is when the legal team of Ross Feller Casey got involved when the alleged Victim 2 sought the representation of Andrew Shubin in an unrelated legal matter.  Shubin apparently directed Victim 2 to Ross Feller Casey, and, at some point, he changed his story from not being abused to being abused.  His legal team would release voice mail messages  from Sandusky in September 2011.  The contents of the voice mails were non-specific, but were painted as Sandusky exerting pressure on the alleged victim.  

Later, defense counselor Joe Amendola stated it was a mistake not to present this individual to rebut McQueary's version of events.

Dr. Jack Raykovitz

Amendola, however, could have called at least two other individuals to rebut McQueary's testimony at the trial -- Dr. Jack Raykovitz and Bruce Heim. 

According to the grand jury presentment, Dr. Raykovitz testified that he was informed by PSU's Tim Curley that nothing happened in the shower that night.  Raykovitz also stated in numerous press reports that he had never gotten a complaint about Sandusky and that he was unaware of any abuse taking place within TSM programs.  

Bruce Heim

The Patriot News interviewed Bruce Heim for a five-part series they ran in August 2012.  In Part 3 of the series, Heim was quoted:

"For five years, I worked out at the football facility, several times a week, and saw Jerry showering with children.  I said I don't think it's relevant.  It happens every day at the YMCA.  I remember the conversation specifically because it seemed like a nonstarter because of what Penn State said went on."

Heim advised Raykovitz not to inform the TSM Board.  

Again, why wouldn't Amendola put these two men, who knew and associated with Sandusky at TSM for over two decades, on the stand as defense witnesses?  Amendola listed Dr. Raykovitz as a potential witness, but did not include Heim or any of the other key members of TSM's Board on his list.  

The only TSM official who testified at the trial was VP for Development, Henry Lesch, who attempted to show that McQueary had participated in TSM golf tournaments after the incident (his testimony was inconclusive).

It is truly remarkable - and highly unusual - that Amendola did not present a single character witness from TSM to testify on Sandusky's behalf.   Again, these were people who worked with Jerry for over two decades and not one was presented to testify.  

It is also highly suspicious that - according to press reports of the ongoing Sandusky investigation - TSM and its programs were never the investigation's target.  That is amazing, if it is true, considering all the victims were plucked from the charity.  

From the Friday, November 11, 2011 article:

Kelly will only say that the investigation is ongoing.  However, Gov. Tom Corbett — who as attorney general began the Sandusky investigation — said Thursday night that the new attorney general will look into what The Second Mile knew.

Apparently, Governor Corbett (on November 10, 2011) assumed that the GOP would retain control of the OAG and whoever worked there would carry out his wishes.

Things didn't work out that way.

New AG Kathleen Kane has agreed to let the Feds handle the TSM investigation and, for the good of Pennsylvanians, they will hopefully blow the lid off the "Keystone Cover-Up."