Sunday, January 25

Bad Faith, Addendum 1: Freeh's Mangling of the Janitor Incident

Many people, like media blowhard Keith Olbermann and disgruntled class action lawyer, Michael Boni , are still clinging to the myth that Louis Freeh's credentials are impeccable and he conducted a legitimate investigation at Penn State.  I suspect few have ever read the full Freeh Report and are unaware of the reports glaring inaccuracies. A prime example is Freeh's mangling of the janitor's testimony, which revealed just how shoddy and lazy his PSU investigation and report really was.  

By
Ray Blehar

At his press conference on July 12, 2012, Louis Freeh called the incident witnessed by the janitor as "the most horrific rape" that was described in the Sandusky case.  

Apparently, the former FBI Director, with impeccable credentials, decided the trial verdicts were irrelevant to his press conference remarks and his report.  

Many who continue to criticize PSU would likely be surprised to learn the most incendiary charge in the case -- that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy -- resulted in a not guilty verdict.   Just as importantly, there was not a single victim who credibly accused Sandusky of attempting to rape them while they were on the campus.  Obviously, if there were no credible allegations of rapes, there weren't any rape convictions.

So how did Freeh come up with his wild claim of a "horrific rape" in the janitor incident?

Simply put, Louis Freeh appears to be a pathological liar (see here also).

Facts didn't matter to Freeh nor his PSU BOT handlers.  The public relations smear of the University, likely by the Core Group of Ken Frazier, Ron Tomalis, Freeh, and Omar McNeil, became a substitute for the facts of the case.  When the McQueary incident resulted in a not guilty verdict, the alternative was to pump up the janitor incident to indict the PSU culture.  Freeh stated that PSU's reverence for football was ingrained from the top (Spanier) to the bottom (the janitors).  

Freeh's PSU investigation's found very little
 and his report is riddled with serious errors.
Freeh was able to sell the janitor incident as proof that PSU had a morally corrupt culture and that the janitors were innocent "victims" who couldn't dare fight back against the system. The media and the public fell for it. 

Few, if any, bothered to fact check Freeh's story.  If they had, they would have found that it didn't stack up against the evidence and especially not the trial testimony of Ronald Petrosky.  Freeh embellished Petrosky's testimony in at least a dozen different places in the report's account on pages 65 and 66.  

Those who believe the Freeh Report was accurate need only look at the diagram below to see how inaccurate it was in reporting the testimony of Petrosky (Janitor B).  




Anyone who sat through the Sandusky trial and heard Petrosky's testimony should have known Freeh had gotten his account of the janitor incident terribly wrong.  As I pointed out in Friday's blog, Freeh used the Sandusky grand jury presentment as his report template and he did very poorly when attempting to edit it after the trial.  This also demonstrates that the contents of a grand jury presentment often do not reflect legitimate evidence that could be presented at a trial.  In  this case, the Pennsylvania OAG wrote a very inaccurate presentment based on shaky evidence.  As a result, it tripped up America's #1 phony investigator for hire.

The first very important error Freeh made was stating that two janitors testified at the trial.  The second janitor (Janitor C), who prosecutors had lined up as the corroborating witness, never did.  Therefore, the entire account that Petrosky gave at the trial was uncorroborated hearsay that may have been improperly admitted under the excited utterance exception.  Judge Cleland overruled Sandusky's appeal on the hearsay testimony by incorrectly stating that a second janitor had testified at the trial and corroborated Petrosky's testimony (p.18).  However, the exception also requires evidence of the crime - and none was presented.

Between Freeh, Cleland, Feudale, Baldwin, and Lunsford,  the competency of judges who have been associated with Sandusky isn't looking too hot.

Next, please point your attention to number 11, where Petrosky says Janitor A (Calhoun) didn't want to report Sandusky because he was afraid "they'll get rid of us all."  This statement doesn't pass the logic test. 


Petrosky testified that Calhoun - a temporary janitor - didn't know who Sandusky was.  So if Calhoun didn't know who Sandusky was, why would he conclude that reporting Sandusky would result in them all being fired?   That makes absolutely no sense (aside from the fact it wasn't testified to by Petrosky!).

Also, Freeh's contention that a culture of reverence for the football program caused PSU employees not to report Sandusky got "stood on its head" by the timeline of the case. 

Just three months after the janitors were paralyzed by their reverence for football (or fear for their jobs), lowly graduate assistant football coach Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky in the showers with a child and reported him to Joe Paterno.  He didn't detour to an assistant to talk it through first.  He went directly to Paterno.   After which he continued as a GA until he was hired as a full-time assistant in 2004.  

Oh, the fear. Oh, the reverence for a retired coach!

Freeh's reasonable conclusions about the janitor incident didn't square with the facts -- and certainly not the testimony provided at the Sandusky trial.  

President Barron's review of the Freeh Report
is unlikely to recognize the report's errors
Those who continue to stand by the accuracy of the Freeh Report simply don't have the knowledge of the case to identify the report's errors.    And without knowledge of the facts of the case (that weren't included in the Freeh Report), reviewing it is rather pointless.  That's why I expect little from President Barron's review.

In the end, those who stood by the Freeh Report (and Freeh) will be embarrassed when it is completely eviscerated in the Paterno v. NCAA lawsuit and in Spanier's defamation suit.
  

Next: Addendum 2: Unintended Financial Consequences of the Sandusky Scandal.




21 comments:

  1. President Barron's review of the Freeh Report
    is unlikely to recognize the report's errors


    It's unlikely Barron is going to find fault with his puppetmasters,

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the competency of the Sandusky judges and Freeh doesn't look too hot. I'd throw in the defense and jury too. Why didn't the defense call Calhoun's family and friends to testify that he never told them about the incident?

    The hearsay testimony of the janitor screams reasonable doubt yet the jury wasn't listening.

    Freeh also blatantly shields the janitors from blame by not even identifying them by name. If the grand jury presentment and testimony is true, they were far more callous than the accused administrators.

    The Korean war veteran janitor saw a specific sex act and reported it only to fellow janitors, who reported to no one. This was not McQueary's vague report that was reported to 4 administrators, a lawyer and the Second Mile CEO and PhD child psychologist, Jack Raykovitz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Calhoun's daughter was listed as a potential prosecution witness, but his two sons were not. Ironically, Amendola listed James Calhoun as a potential witness.

      In the end, we had one person - Petrosky - show up at the trial and say this happened. I believe Petrosky feared losing his job at PSU -- IF HE DIDN'T TESTIFY. The timeline of the investigation doesn't add up in his case either. He obviously didn't read about McQueary on 31 March 2011 -- the thing he said prompted him to call. Then he didn't testify at the grand jury until May -- but many people like Tom Harmon, Raykovitz, Spanier, Matt Sandusky, and Debra Long all testified in April. Why not Petrosky?

      Here's why not. The AG didn't subpoena the janitors names until early May. It's then that they learned of Calhoun and his dementia. A perfect witness. Now all they needed was someone to corroborate the planted story. It's likely PSU threatened Petrosky (and Witherite) with their jobs if they didn't go along with the story.

      Once they got their witness, they drug him in front of the grand jury.

      The bottom line is this incident is a hoax. There may have been janitors who observed Jerry showering with kids, but there is little chance that Sandusky committed overt sexual acts in front of people. That would be akin to a serial murder committing a murder in public.

      There is little chance of becoming a serial murderer or molester if you're stupid enough to do those crimes in front of people.

      Delete
    2. Ray and Tim, I agree that the hearsay testimony of Petrosky screams reasonable doubt and that this entire incident is very suspicious. I find it hard to fathom how the jury did not find reasonable doubt on the janitor counts where their is neither a victim or an eyewitness. If this incident had actually happened, why hasn't the victim stepped forward? I can think of 3 million reasons why they would.

      Delete
  3. Ray, when this is over, I hope you get to write your book about how sports scribblers and sports babblers put their incompetence, lack of curiosity, and arrogance on full display when they embraced the Freeh narrative as revealed in his initial press conference and clung to it despite evidence provided by Freeh himself that it was a steaming pile of expensive manure. Clowns like Olbermann deserve scorn and ridicule to be heaped upon them until they retreat from the public arena. I wonder whether Olbermann and his ilk are willfully ignorant (and, if so, why) or just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack,
      Thanks for the comment. I may write a book or two, and one will contain a chapter or two on the real cowards in this story. The media is full of them as are the so-called victims advocacy groups.

      Sometimes I wonder if the people who are fighting to maintain the false narrative don't have an ulterior motive. That is, they know the system in PA makes it a safe haven for child molesters -- and their interest is to make sure the system stays that way.

      Delete
    2. Certainly is looking that way in the United Kingdom (what a great moniker under which to do whatever the powerful want to do!).

      Delete
  4. Hi Ray,
    Thanks for the great analysis. Not related to this particular post but was curious whether you've been able to track down John Miller from CYS? Were you able to find anything out about him? You've mentioned Lauro is still working for the State and John Seasock is still with Renaissance but I can't find anything out about Miller. Partly because his name is more generic and hard to search...was wondering if you've had any luck?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Ray,
    Thanks for the great analysis. Not related to this particular post but was curious whether you've been able to track down John Miller from CYS? Were you able to find anything out about him? You've mentioned Lauro is still working for the State and John Seasock is still with Renaissance but I can't find anything out about Miller. Partly because his name is more generic and hard to search...was wondering if you've had any luck?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EJ,
      You're welcome. I haven't reached out to Dr. John Miller yet. He is still in Centre County.

      Lauro retired from the state and was working as a consultant....training new caseworkers. God help our kids, because with numbskulls like Lauro doing training, the caseworkers are going to be ill-equipped.

      Seasock is the head of Renaissance.

      Delete
  6. Today's news may help explain how Louis Freeh operates so corruptly with none able to expose him.

    My money's on you guys to find a way to nail him... in memoriam of JVP!

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/01/freeh_probe_emails_off-limits.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ray,

    There have been several inconsistencies with "the janitor's" incident that most people have not picked up on either because they are

    A. Too lazy to actually think this thing through.

    B. They simply want to believe the story because it suits their agenda (like the pigs and
    trolls at pennlive).

    The first problem with the janitor's story is simply the witness "conveniently" developed dementia. How could he ever be cross-examined to either give validity to what he saw or prove that the whole thing was a hoax.

    The second problem, which has been pointed out by you, is the hypocrisy between how the janitor's would have been treated had they reported the incident, and how McQueary was treated for what he saw and reported. The janitor who witnessed the incident was supposed to be a full blown tough guy because he was a war veteran, but then cowered at the prospect of losing his job. However, McQueary did report what he saw and was given a job. Something doesn't add up here.

    The third problem I've had with the whole janitor thing is the hypocrisy and the double standard applied to these men. Let's assume a couple of things here. First off, let's assume somebody from the Office of the Physical Plant (OPP) makes $40,000 per year. Now, let's also assume, just for the sake of assuming, that Spanier, Shultz, Curley, and Paterno did conspire to not report the McQueary incident for fear of bad publicity and because of the negative impact it would have on the football program and all the other student athletes, as well as the local economy. So what we have here is the media making the janitor out to be a martyr and a saint because he didn't want to lose just his $40,000/year job, but the four who supposedly conspired to keep this secret are demonized because they weren't interested in their salaries (all of which greatly exceeded $40,000/year) in as much as they were about keeping football afloat because football supports not just itself, but almost all the other Penn State sports teams, and because the football program is such a major factor in the local economy. Nobody has ever thought to question the motives of any of these men, yet conveniently the janitor is a "victim" and the other four are monsters.

    Oh, and by the way, thanks for a great job in reporting this. After reading this, I never realized the janitor didn't know who Sandusky was, but had to later be identified. That also says something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ab.

      One other point worth mentioning. If Calhoun didn't know who Sandusky was, then why didn't he intervene when he allegedly saw this "stranger" molesting a child.

      Seriously. This story isn't the least bit credible.

      Delete
    2. Freeh's theory that Paterno and the others didn't report Sandusky to police in 2001 to save the football program from bad publicity doesn't make any sense. It would have been positive publicity for Paterno had he called the police in 2001, and Sandusky was convicted.

      The negative publicity would have been on DA Gricar, Penn State police, CYS and DPW for taking no precautions in 1998.

      I suspect CYS and DPW have many failures but they usually find someone else to blame. Just recently, there was the horrific case where an infant had parts of her face chewed off by pet ferrets. The parents were charged with child endangerment but the article said that the parents had "developmental disabilities, 4 other young children in the home and were clients of the county Children and Youth Services. I wonder if they charged the right ones with child endangerment.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the comment, Tim.

      The Governor and his media sycophants had no problem blaming the University Police and Gricar for 1998, but DPW and CYS got a free pass (from Freeh too).

      The ferret case you mention sounds a lot like the Tutko case -- dubiously competent parents caring for disabled children. I have to believe there is some sort of grant scam going on at DPW/CYS.



      Delete
    4. THANK YOU RAY FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK YOU HAVE PUT IN TO THIS MATTER. I DO QUESTION THE GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT. I WOULD THINK THAT IS WHERE THIS WHOLE FIASCO STARTED. I AM ALMOST 60 YEARS OLD AND CAN'T REMEMBER A LIVE TELEVISED PRESS CONFERENCE TO ANNOUNCE THE THE ARREST OF AN ACCUSED SEX OFFENDER. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS JUST AN INDICTMENT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TOO MUCH IN THE PRESENTMENT IS BEING PERCEIVED AS FACT. I BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST SANDUSKY WAS SO WEAK THE AT AG USED THE GJP TO INCITE THE PUBLIC AGAINST JERRY SANDUSKY TO BOLSTER THEIR POSITION. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DELVE INTO THE GJP MORE, THE GJP MIGHT ALSO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE STATE AGENCIES THAT FAILED IN THEIR 1998 INVESTIGATION, AND TO COVER FOR TOM CORBETT WHILE HE WAS AG.

      Delete
    5. Horesee,
      Thanks for your comment. I covered the grand jury presentment flaws in Report 3.

      You can read it here starting on page 29. http://www.march4truth.com/uploads/3/3/1/5/3315120/report_3_sandusky_investigation_revised_4.5.2014.pdf

      Delete
  8. WTF??? 30Jan2015: "News of state Treasurer Rob McCord's immediate resignation on Friday after announcing his intention to plead guilty to federal charges stemming from inappropriate campaign fund-raising behavior..."

    I am barely keeping up, if at all. I've been trying to catch up on Ziegler's efforts. He's certainly shaking some things loose in this story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been too busy to keep up with things.

      Delete
    2. Makes one wonder if McCord's criminal matter had anything to do with the rushed lawsuit settlement.

      Delete
    3. So he's charged with two counts of extortion. Telling potential campaign donors they don't want to get on the wrong side of the state Treasurer. I saw Ira Lubert's name in a Philly.com article about people McCord "worked" with.

      Delete