Feudale appears to confirm OAG wasn't going to prosecute the case against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz and that he is part of the Conspiracy of Silence that endangers children.
By
Ray Blehar
During the Sandusky trial, prosecutor Joseph McGettigan told Judge Cleland that "we're not going to try that case." Feudale's emails shows he also got word that the prosecution of the PSU 3 was unlikely.
As I wrote here, Rod Erickson's notebook confirmed that it was Fina's intention to use the trumped up charges against Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz to get one or both to flip on former PSU President Graham Spanier.
Feudale's email also indicates that he is part of the corrupt network that has chosen to scapegoat PSU officials as a means of covering up for the Commonwealth's culpability for letting a predator roam too long. When Feudale approved the assignment of the 30th State-Wide Investigating Grand Jury to the case, he was advised that Sandusky had assaulted minor males through his "connection" with the charity (Moulton Report, Appendix C).
As the grand jury judge who approved subpoenas and knew the evidence in the case, Feudale obviously understood that it took over two years from the time the police and OAG investigators learned of Sandusky's connection to The Second Mile until he approved subpoenas and warrants to obtain information from the "victim factory."
OVER TWO YEARS! That is the definition of a "slow walk."
If you want to read even more "PATENT POLITICAL BULLSHIT," then read Feudale's feigned concern over the protection of children. Much like Ken Frazier, Louis Freeh, and others, Barry Feudale is attempting to keep the truth buried and using innocent children in the same manner that terrorists use innocent civilians as human shields.
Count him among the not-so-good men who are not only doing nothing, but making sure the system that is supposed to protect Pennsylvania's children remains in shambles.
Media's Priority Is Persecution, Not Child Protection
What is even more breathtaking about this entire matter is that the Pennsylvania media continues to persecute a woman who blew the whistle on individuals who swapped porn when they should have been doing their jobs.Children were sexually abused while the Sandusky investigation dragged on. And children continue to be abused because the media refuses to report the truth about WHO enabled Jerry Sandusky.
The evidence uncovered in the Sandusky case revealed that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) obtained significant evidence that Sandusky engaged in inappropriate conduct at least two children in 1998. Based on Sandusky's admissions (to showering with multiple boys) and the words of Victim #6, DPW representative Jerry Lauro should have "indicated" abuse.
An abuse finding would have definitely kept the "tickle monster" from using the PSU showers and other locations as a tool for "grooming" his child victims. Instead of making the correct decision, DPW's Lauro seemed to only go as far as taking the advice of the 11 1/2 year-old victim when determining what to do about Sandusky.
 |
It was an "inexcusable" decision in a case plagued by "inexplicable" decisions.
According to the 1998 University Park police report, Lauro reviewed the transcript if the Victim #6 intervidw. The transcript also revealed that Sandusky's workouts were little more than a ruse to get children to shower (naked) with him. While an 11 1/2 year-old didn't understand what was going on, a trained investigator had no excuse for not seeing this incident for what it was.
 |
| This evidence was not introduced at the Sandusky trial by lead prosecutor Frank Fina. |
Had Lauro done his job, Sandusky would had been prevented from contacting children from 1998 forward. A criminal prosecution wasn't necessary to ensure children were protected. Losing his clearance to work with children would have put an end to Sandusky's use of The Second Mile as a "victim factory."
It strains credulity that all of the media outlets who have covered this case pretend to be clueless to those facts.
Instead of accurately reporting what transpired, the media has dutifully followed former OAG prosecutor Frank Fina's lead and blamed the failure to roll up Sandusky in 1998 on the University Park police and deceased former District Attorney, Ray Gricar.
The media also created a firestorm about a report of an alleged rape in the PSU showers in 2001 incident at PSU that singled out University officials as the culprits for not reporting, even though the grand jury report revealed that the University alerted Sandusky's "victim factory" to his inappropriate conduct.
The charity was legally bound to report the incident to authorities, but that fact has also been carefully avoided by the media.
Amazingly, in the nearly four years since that story surfaced, the media has avoided anything close to an investigative report on this case.
Feudale's email reveals why -- case against PSU officials was/is a ruse.
The real Conspiracy of Silence that endangered Sandusky's victims and Pennsylvania's children continues.
You knocked it out of the park yet again Ray. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMy head is going to explode. From day 1 nothing made sense. The irony in this saga is almost funny. The web is getting larger and each catch wants due process. The media (papers) are getting called out almost daily on 'errors'. Emails that are not vague and no amount of hand waving can change what they say are coming out in boat loads. Each day the foundation appears to be crumbling. Waiting for the tipping point. I too am a patient man.
ReplyDeleteI do not give out high praise often, do not blindly follow/believe all I read no matter the author, your work is tremendous.
Excellent work, Ray!
ReplyDeleteThank you all for reading the blog and for the kind words.
DeletePatience is a virtue. Thanks for staying engaged.
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." - T. S. Eliot
DeleteJudge Feudale's unethical or illegal actions are not surprising given the widespread corruption/incompetence in the PA justice system. Judge Feudale was clearly too close to prosecutor Frank Fina if he sent Fina emails discussing his criminal plans to release sealed court documents.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the legal requirements when a grand jury judge discovers prosecutors are using his grand jury to trump up charges against innocent defendants?
I find it hard to believe Feudale was the leak in the Sandusky grand jury. I don't think he had any motive unless Fina put him up to it.
There are so many others outside the OAG who knew and who were not bound by grand jury secrecy, especially victim 1's mother. She was upset that the prosecution was dragging their feet and likely would have welcomed publicity to put pressure on the prosecutors.
There were also many who knew Sandusky was accused of child abuse at victim 1's high school when he suddenly disappeared from campus. They may have also seen state troopers on campus to talk to other students and teachers.
Speaking of sham cases, a new legal analysis of PA law concludes that the cases against Sandusky and Curley/Schultz/Spanier are illegal under PA law.
ReplyDeleteIt finds numerous violations of PA law, particularly that the PA Attorney General has no legal authority to investigate reports of child sex abuse. Only DPW or CYS have that legal authority.
http://www.pennlawfumble.info/
Tim, I read that report carefully, but I don't know enough to know if the analyses are sound or not. Was this the sham to which you refer? Or do these analyses point to further problems with the Feudale-Fina-et al handling of the Sandusky allegations?
DeleteYes, if sound, the analysis applies to both cases and includes dozens of legal errors by the OAG, CYS, DPW, state police, and Feudale.
DeleteI'm no lawyer but what I believe the analysis says is that PA law assigns the determination if child abuse occurred only to DPW/CYS. Other law enforcement agencies, such as state police and OAG can only refer allegations of abuse to DPW/CYS for a determination.
In the Sandusky case, the OAG/state police illegally took over that function for all but victim 1. For victim 1, the determination was improperly made by Clinton County CYS. They had a working relationship with Second Mile so they legally could not make the determination.
DPW should have made the determination for victim 1 as they did for victim 6 in 1998 because Centre County CYS had a working relationship with Second Mile. So there never was a legal child abuse finding for any victim. The only legal finding was 1998, and that was unfounded.
Too, PA law required the 1998 PSU police file to have been destroyed as were the CYS/DPW/DA files given that the abuse complaint was unfounded. Nothing in the 1998 police file should have been used against Sandusky. The OAG even has the legal duty to assure such files are destroyed yet they illegally used a file they failed to destroy as evidence against Sandusky.
The Attorney General had no legal finding of child abuse under PA law so had no case against Sandusky. Therefore, the convictions should not stand.
The grand jury was also illegal so all the testimony of Curley, Schultz and Spanier should be thrown out and not used against them. Similarly, all the other charges against those 3 are invalid because there never was a legal determination by DPW that child abuse occurred in 2001.
There are other errors documented but those seem to be the major ones. Essentially, the OAG, CYS, DPW, state police and Feudale repeatedly failed to follow PA law. It's a very damning analysis.
Thank you! The big question, then, is the soundness or strength of the arguments laid out in the report. I've commented to the author that I hope she/he will consider naming themselves and support a forum in which their points could be further examined.
DeleteTim,
DeleteAdmittedly, neither you or I are lawyers, however, I disagree with many of the tenets of your analysis.
1. A child abuse finding was made prior to the OAG investigation. The OAG didn't conduct a child abuse investigation -- it conducted a criminal investigation that resulted in criminal charges (not abuse findings, as you seem to imply above). That investigation, while conducted poorly, was indeed legal.
2. The finding by Clinton County CYS was not illegal or invalid. According to PA CS 6334.1, the police & the county agency are responsible for conducting a joint investigation. That is exactly what transpired. The statute does not address conflicts of interest -- that is outlined in the Public Welfare Code, which is administrative guidance -- not law.
3. The statute for expunging of records applies only to the Department of Public Welfare (the "department") expunging records from the statewide database. It does not apply to police. Statute is below.
§ 6337. Disposition and expunction of unfounded reports and general protective services reports.
(a) General rule.--When a report of suspected child abuse is determined by the appropriate county agency to be an unfounded report, the information concerning that report of suspected child abuse shall be maintained for a period of one year. Following the expiration of one year after the date the report was received by the department, the report shall be expunged from the Statewide database, as soon as possible, but no later than 120 days after the one-year period following the date the report was received by the department, and no information other than that authorized by subsection (b), which shall not include any identifying information on any subject of the report, shall be retained by the department. The expunction shall be mandated and guaranteed by the department.
4. The grand jury was not "illegal" by any means. See #1.
I found the analysis offered by PennLawFumble to generally conflate child abuse investigations and criminal investigation requirements.
Aside from that, the author admitted to being supplied with the information, thus was unfamiliar with many facts of the case. The best example was the author's admission that he/she was told the missing pages of the 1998 police report were not important or relevant. However, those pages were Schreffler's notes on the second sting in which Sandusky admitted "he was wrong" and "he wished he was dead." This is confirmed in the Freeh Report end notes.
Moreover, the author infers that an admission of oral sex by Aaron Fisher was somehow required or needed to legitimize an abuse finding. That is complete nonsense, as the fondling of a child is certainly grounds to protect the child from the alleged perpetrator -- and, if convicted, it is a criminal offense that will land the offender on the Megan's Law web-site of sex offenders.
Part of the webpage title is correct..it is definitely a "Fumble" in terms of the laws and the facts.
Ray - It wasn't my analysis. I was just trying to summarize the analysis on the PennLawFumble website.
DeleteEven if that analysis is 100% correct, I don't think it would make any difference in the Sandusky or Spanier criminal cases because PA judges, police and prosecutors frequently just ignore the law, and the media doesn't hold them accountable. Your blog here often features these justice system abuses and highlights the media bias in the Sandusky scandal.
Point of fact, did CYS/DPW make an official determination that child abuse was indicated or founded for all 10 victims in the Sandusky trial?
Tim,
DeleteSorry I'm late answering, but it has been an exceptionally busy month.
No, CYS did not make an abuse finding for every victim in the Sandusky case, NOR are they required to do so.
Their abuse finding for Victim 1 triggered a broader criminal investigation that found mostly prior victims who were now adults. As such, DPW/CYS would not be involved in providing PROTECTIVE services, which is really what results from an abuse finding.
I think a lot of people were (and still are) confused over the roles of law enforcement and child protection in this case -- and the AG and Patriot News made sure that it stayed a muddled mess.
Thanks, Ray!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, Becky.
Delete