Thursday, February 28

Sandusky presser was full of errors

If Jerry Sandusky gets a new trial, he needs to pray that Al Lindsay learns the facts about what really happened at the June 2012 trial and a lot of other information.

By
Ray Blehar

February 28, 2019, 8:20 PM EST, Updated March 1 at 9:35 AM EST

As notpsu.blogspot.com reported three days ago, Sandusky's defense attorney Al Lindsay has a shot at getting a new trial due to Brady violations by prosecutors.   However, if a new trial is granted he needs to avoid repeating the failed arguments and falsehoods that caused him to lose almost every appeal issue in the PCRA.

In short, he needs to learn about who he is defending, what really happened at the trial, and what happened during the Sandusky investigation.  He apparently doesn't know those facts right now --  if he actually believed the remarks he and other panelists made at Monday's press conference.

Jerry Sandusky

FALSE:  Mr. Open Book
Lindsay started off the press conference by talking about the A7 report and that while a lot of it was right, their statements about Jerry Sandusky being a Pillar of the Community offender was clearly wrong.   Lindsay opined that Pillar of the Community offenders are conniving and dishonest people and his client is nothing like that.  He stated Sandusky was an "open book" and "not secretive."

As reported previously, Lindsay took over the case in 2014 and apparently "Mr. Open Book" failed to show him or even inform him about medical records showing he had atrophy of the testicles and low testosterone.   Later in the press conference, Lindsay admitted not knowing much at all about The Second Mile.   It is strange that Mr. Open Book never told Lindsay about his pride and joy.

I am sure there is a lot more that Lindsay doesn't know about his client because if he did, he wouldn't have been handing out Most Hated Man in America to the press in attendance.

FALSE: Mr. Honesty
While Al Lindsay gave no examples of his client's honesty,  an example of his dishonesty was right there in black and white in the pages of Most Hated Man in America.  Jerry told the book's author (on page 343) that he had low testosterone and a low sex drive.  He stated he did not obsess over sex.  But on page 347, Sandusky stated he was having sex with his wife, Dottie, 2-3 times a week up until the time of his arrest. Dottie estimated it was 3-4 times a week in 2001, also mentioning that Jerry's health had declined and "he had a hard time having sex."

Which story is true?  Low testosterone and low sex drive or having sex like a newlywed?

In that same passage on page 347, Sandusky stated that he was "told he was sterile in 1967."  Sandusky was a coach at Juniata College at the time and he and Dottie just a year into their marriage.  In his autobiography, Touched, he wrote (on page 94) that he and Dottie wanted a family and "[t]hings weren't going exactly as planned and, finally, we were given the news that we would not be able to have our own children.  We were told it would just not be possible."   He referred to the news as a "devastating blow."

Given that Jerry and Dottie were married in 1966 and didn't engage in sex before they were married, it is rather improbable that Jerry would be diagnosed as sterile so early.  In those days, a couple who were having difficulty conceiving would have been advised by a doctor to have as much sex (without birth control) as possible for one year.  If nothing happened after that year, then the doctor knew there was an infertility problem, but would not have determined who had the problem.

Interestingly enough, when Dottie testified at Jerry's trial, she claimed that they continued trying to conceive until 1969.  On pages 230 and 231, the transcript states: "In 1969 we had been trying for a while and nothing had happened, and so we had always thought about adopting, so we were lucky." The couple lived in State College at the time.

Consider that the couple moved from Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, to Boston, then to State College.  If this news was as "devastating" as Sandusky claimed, there was no way he (and Dottie) would have forgotten where they were living and what they were doing when it happened. 

Who is telling the truth?  Likely neither, based on the behaviors of child molesters and their spouses.

Finally, Dr. John O'Brien testified that when Sandusky took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test he had biased his responses to reflect himself in the most positive light.  Specifically, the test showed that Sandusky exhibited a high degree of defensiveness to the point that the conclusions of the report were not reliable. 

FALSE:  Sandusky is unlike a Pillar of the Community Offender
Lindsay mischaracterized these offenders as dishonest and conniving people.   In contrast, he said Jerry was honest and like a "big kid."

The fact is that Pillar of the Community offenders are dishonest only about their sexual attraction to children and they are conniving about the means in which they access, groom, and victimize them.   His client fits that description to a tee.  As the evidence shows, Jerry was indeed conniving by using his charity to access children.   Acting like a "big kid" would be an expected behavior of a pedophile and, in fact, was the very behavior used by State College Boy Scout leader and serial child molester Timothy Bagshaw How better to attract kids than to act like one?  Having a variety of toys and games in your basement "fun room" and keeping boys swimming suits in the trunk of your car would also be normal for a pedophile. Lindsay pointed to the fact that Sandusky was out in public with the kids he abused and had his picture taken with them. Again, that fits the profile of a Pillar of the Community offender to a tee.    Clearly, Lindsay needs to do a lot more homework on the subject.


FALSE: No pornography on Jerry's computer means he is not a pedophile
According to the Moulton Report, the search warrant for Sandusky's home and computer wasn't granted until June 2011 -- 30 months after the investigation began.   Certainly, that is ample time for anyone to get rid of pornographic computer files, hard copy pornography, and any other incriminating evidence that might be around.  However, the Moulton Report also revealed that OAG investigators and prosecutors didn't expect to find pornography on the computer search because they knew Jerry wasn't a computer user.  The OAG's December 2010 subpoena requesting all of Jerry's emails from PSU yielded no results.   It is also notable that Sandusky's 1999 PSU retirement request asked for the use of an office and a phone -- but no computer.  Also, according to document forensics experts, Sandusky's retirement request was composed on a typewriter.  Interestingly, not a single victim ever mentioned being shown pornography by Jerry -- confirming that it wasn't part of his modus operandi.  Jerry used The Second Mile as his gateway to children, not internet chat rooms.  According to court records, Jerry didn't even send text messages.  He was clearly a low tech person.

The Sandusky Trial

FALSE: McQueary was the key witness
Lindsay referred to McQueary as the "Christmas tree" and the rest of the victims were the ornaments that hung from it.  If that were the case, McQueary would have been among the first to testify.  Not so.  McQueary didn't testify until day two of the trial -- and was the eighth person presented as a witness for the Commonwealth.  Victim 1 was the first witness called on the second day -- followed by Dawn Fisher, Mandy Musser, Cynthia Burns and Jessica Dershem.  Dershem's testimony was likely more important than McQueary's because it confirmed Aaron Fisher's story and it contained inculpatory statements from Sandusky.

Jurors told the media that they found the accounts of Victim 4 and Aaron Fisher to be credible and authentic and their minds were essentially made up before McQueary took the stand.


FALSE: One hour of preparation for McQueary cross-examination
Lindsay stated that defense co-counsel Karl Rominger only had one hour to prepare for his examination of McQueary.   The story was that after Amendola cross-examined Jessica Dershem, he told Rominger to take the next witness (McQueary) and the court recessed for a one hour lunch.  Nope.  Didn't happen.  There was no recess between Dershem and McQueary according to the trial records.  You might think that scenario is even worse, however, the McQueary incident and his many versions of it were so well publicized a that any one of 30,000 PSU alumni following the case could have cross-examined him.

FALSE:  McGettigan's closing argument was focused on McQueary
While Mike McQueary is a reviled and notorious figure in the Sandusky scandal, he was no more important than anyone else in McGettigan's closing argument.  McGettigan's argument was focused on characterizing Amendola's defense as a bunch of conspiracy theories.  McGettigan's discussion of McQueary began on page 136 of the transcript and ended on page 140.  About the same amount of time given by Amendola, who discussed McQueary from  page 75 to  page 80. 

McQueary was more important to the cases of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier than he was to the case of Jerry Sandusky.

FALSE:  McGettigan knew the identity of Victim 2
Lindsay's mention of "known only to God" caused quite a stir from the Sandusky supporters in the room who believe, like Lindsay does, that AM is Victim 2.   Everyone is entitled to their opinions on the matter, however the bottom line is that Lindsay had to prove that Joe McGettigan believed that very same thing.  He failed miserably  because there is not a shred of evidence that Commonwealth believed that AM was Victim 2 at the time of the charges or at the time of the trial. The interview summaries from AM showed he never mentioned showering with Sandusky until after the charges were filed and the grand jury presentment was in the public domain.   The PCRA also contained the very documents that buttress the Commonwealth's argument that it wanted nothing to do with AM and/or attorney Andrew Shubin after Shubin attempted to pass off  a report he concocted as a statement from AM in April 2012.   By the time the trial rolled around,  the defense and the prosecution correctly determined that AM was an unreliable witness. 



MOSTLY FALSE:  The victims lied for money
Defense attorney Joe Amendola tried this strategy at the June 2012 trial and the jurors didn't buy it.  The timeline of the case reveals that just Victim 4 obtained the assistance of a lawyer before talking to the police.   A few others obtained counsel prior to the trial, however, their stories didn't change significantly from the time they spoke with police until the trial.

PSU had not yet rolled out the green carpet to pay all comers until after the trial.  While it is true that quite a few charlatans showed up to get paid by PSU and many of the trial victims exaggerated what happened to them -- and when it happened -- in their civil claims, that all happened after the trial.

I am not a lawyer, therefore I am unsure if the some of the later exaggerated civil claims of the trial victims could be used in a new trial.  If so, then Lindsay could have quite a bit of impeachment evidence.


FALSE:  Victims underwent therapy to recover memories
As reported on Monday by notpsu.blogspot.com, only Victim 7 changed his story significantly between the grand jury and the trial.   While some victims received counseling, there is no evidence (other than Victim 7) that anyone recovered memories.  Even Victim 7's new testimony had no material impact on Sandusky's conviction or sentence. 

FALSE:  Silver convertible story proves Victim 10 lied
The theory that Sandusky never owned a silver convertible is not incontrovertible evidence that Victim 10 lied about Jerry giving him a ride in one.   As the founder and face of The Second Mile, Jerry likely had access to vehicles owned by the charity's board members either personally or at the car dealerships they owned.   Had Lindsay known about The Second Mile, he would have seen the holes in the argument.  There are many ways to impeach Victim 10's testimony, but the silver convertible isn't one of them.

Sandusky Investigation


FALSE:  Grand jury presentment was leaked
This is a very popular misconception likely due to the fact that the presentment was highly inflammatory and that someone in Office of Attorney General was leaking grand jury material. However, Ganim's Friday, November 4, 2011 story was about the Sandusky charges being put on a court website and contained none of the lurid details of the presentment.  The presentment was released by the OAG the next morning and its release was signed off by Judge Rolando Jackson.


FALSE:  Aaron Fisher never met Victim 9
When discussing the "improbable" stories of the victims, Lindsay mentioned that Aaron Fisher had been to Sandusky's house hundreds of times and that Victim 9 was visiting with Sandusky during the same time frame.  Lindsay then falsely claimed that the two never met.  According to the exhibits in the PCRA, Fisher provided the first name of Victim 9 to Clinton County Children and Youth Services the first time he was interviewed.

FALSE: No contemporaneous reports
The 2008-2011 Sandusky investigation began because of a contemporaneous report of sexual abuse from Aaron Fisher.   In addition, the 1998 investigation of Sandusky stemmed from a contemporaneous report of suspected abuse from the mother of Victim 6.   It is notable that Victim 6's allegations against Sandusky didn't change one iota from 1998 to the trial in 2012.

Defending Jerry at a new trial

Even though Sandusky was convicted over six years ago, the media attention to the case has been non-stop given all of the other cases that arose from it.  Getting a fair trial in Pennsylvania will be difficult, but not impossible if the Commonwealth presents the same set of witnesses.  But to put up a strong defense, Lindsay will have to do a deep dive on the Sandusky trial, the Sandusky investigation (Moulton Report), and everything ever written about Jerry Sandusky.

Update: Given some of the comments below, I ask that readers focus on the last paragraph in particular.  There is an old saying that "insanity" is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  My point is that a different strategy and different arguments need to be used by Al Lindsay if he wants to successfully defend his client at a new trial. 

34 comments:

  1. No contemporaneous reports? How about for the non existent victim 8? Aaron Fisher never meeting victim 9? Well it depends on which timeline you believe of Aaron Fisher's and claims of Victim 9 being locked in Sandusky's basement, they would have had to come across each other once or twice. Regarding porn on computer still interesting they found it on high profile cases such as Jared Fogle, but none here. A lot of the "victims" remained staunch defenders until Penn State made it known they were handing out$60+ million and family members called up asking if they would be lawerying up because they knew their relative was once in the second mile. Id love to see you debate John Ziegler or John Odermmatt on this but then again you were the one who ironically convinced Ziegler of Jerry's innocence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you not read the post?

      As I wrote there were 2 contemporaneous reports and obviously Fisher met Victim 9 because he gave CYS Victim 9's name the FIRST TIME he was interviewed in November 2008.

      Sandusky didn't use computers that's why there was no pornography found on the one in his basement. BTW, Dottie confirmed that Jerry didn't even learn to use email until he was under house arrest in 2011. There were no emails on the PSU system, so I think that pretty much clinches it.

      Don't confuse supporting PSU football with suing the University. It's a nonsequitir.

      Nothing I wrote above can be debated because they are facts.

      Delete
    2. You wouldn't be debating what you wrote, you would be debating the flawed premise of your beliefs in this case ... all of them ? You and Ziegler, anywhere, once and for all and let the chips fall where they fall !!

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comment.

      A debate between John and myself won't change the facts that I wrote in this post.

      John is welcome to write a point by point argument against the facts right here in the comment section.

      Delete
  2. lol oh so the victims didn't and couldn't possibly lie for millions of dollars and lawyers and attorneys couldn't coerce men into lying about monetary gain? But you're so sure Sandusky and lying about everything on his behalf?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, you need to read what I wrote. Here you go:

      "PSU had not yet rolled out the green carpet to pay all comers until after the trial. While it is true that quite a few charlatans showed up to get paid by PSU and many of the trial victims exaggerated what happened to them -- and when it happened -- in their civil claims, that all happened after the trial.

      I am not a lawyer, therefore I am unsure if the some of the later exaggerated civil claims of the trial victims could be used in a new trial. If so, then Lindsay could have quite a bit of impeachment evidence."

      The evidence of Sandusky lying speaks for itself -- if you are a reasonable person.

      Delete
    2. BTW Regarding Sandusky having a sex life, just because he was sterile and had low testosterone doesn't me he couldn't be a lover towards his spouse in a intimate way towards his wife. You also didn't prove or disprove anything about the claim of the silver convertible. You never talked about Victim 10 and the fact the Sandusky's never even knew him. And about victim 9, you never brought up the fact act the claim he made saying he had lunch with Sandusky and Paterno and that Paterno knew he was being abused. You are also part of the PSU crowd that praises Matt Sandusky yet not even question any of his reasons for supporting Jerry even at trial (I know because he was abused is what you will say, even though he asked to be adopted at 18 and fought for and allowed his own children to see the supposive monster see his own kids) And regarding Allan Myers, again, you ironically are the reason why Ziegler believes Sandusky is innocent and had evidence based off emails that show you knowing of Allan's activities in the 2nd mile program as a graduate of the program. This is just part of the reason why your community will always be viewed as protecting football over the welfare of children because you don't start from square 1. That and you go into with a bias source such as Jim Clemente who is going to come up with the claim of Jerry being this pedophile who was a "nice guy offender" by not being objective due to his own abuse.

      Delete
    3. Layton,
      Thanks for your comments.

      The differences of opinion on Jerry's guilt and innocence center stem from those who accept that the criminal justice system works on an guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard (Jerry is guilty) and those who don't accept the system and believe the standard should be absolute proof.

      A reasonable, experienced person would conclude that a 65 year old man with low testosterone and health problems would not be having sex 3-4 times a week. If you ask most married men, they'll tell you they're lucky to have sex 3 times a year!

      Next, the subject of the blogpost is to discuss issues brought up at the press conference. That's why most of the topics in your latest reply were not addressed.

      In 2013, John and I were investigating the possible identity of Victim 2 and I came across a photo of him from my Second Mile files. He was addressing TSM as a ninth grader. I did not have AM's interview from Everhart at the time. In the Everhart interview he claimed to have quit in the 6th grade. Obviously, he was lying to Everhart -- and other details in the interview showed that his story was contrived. He later admitted his mother gave him the story about snapping towels. His drawing of the locker room is convincing evidence he was never there (to a reasonable person). AM didn't appear at the trial, therefore has nothing to do with Jerry's guilt or innocence.


      You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the PSU community, but as far as square one goes, I'm sure I know much more about Jerry Sandusky's criminal behavior than you do. I didn't know of Jim Clemente until 2013, but my mind was made up about Jerry's guilt shortly after reading the trial transcripts in the fall of 2012 -- and his admissions of committing child abuse to CYS.

      Again, a reasonable person would conclude that a man accused of having sex with a boy, who admits to being in bed with a boy, is guilty.

      Delete
    4. In Bed with a boy?? This is not Micheal Jackson who actually slept naked with 9-12 year olds. Wrestling around with a fully clothed teenager does not equal abuse to me. Your arguments are specious and inconsistent with the data. The lies and chicanery by prosecutors alone begs for further investigation. I know what your biases are, and you are certainly allowed to articulate them in your blog, but when the Constitution of the United States gets trampled on as it has in this case, I must vigorously dissent!

      Delete
    5. Gregory,
      Thanks for you comments.

      Again, it is great to live in a country where we get to express our opinions and debate our differences.

      What I wrote are facts. You can interpret them as you wish.

      I agree that the prosecutors in this case were dishonest about a lot of things, however the discussion here was limited to the topic of the press conference (i.e., McGettigan believed AM was Victim 2).

      From the Constitutional side, I am curious why Amendola and Lindsay did not argue that the Victim 2 and Victim 8 cases should have been thrown out. Sandusky was not afforded the right to confront his accusers in those matters.

      Delete
  3. Can you comment on your remark above about "his admissions of committing child abuse to CYS"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe,
      Thanks for your question.

      Please understand that there is a difference between child abuse and child sexual abuse. Under the law in effect at the time, child abuse included "creating a likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any recent act."

      Next, on January 6, 2009, Jerry, in the presence of his attorney, met with Clinton County CYS for an interview about the allegations of Aaron Fisher. In that interview, he admitted to being in bed with Fisher, blowing raspberries on his stomach (picture that in your head), pulling Fisher on top of him while in bed and keeping him there for 5 to 20 minutes, and rubbing Fisher's back underneath his shirt. When asked if his hands went below Fisher's waist, he stated that he honestly couldn't answer that question.

      Dershem said she was shocked that Sandusky admitted those things because normally a perpetrator denies everything.

      At that point, she determined that those admissions were consistent with the allegations made by Aaron Fisher (with the exception that Jerry denied sex acts, as expected) and that she would indicate Sandusky for child sexual abuse.

      After the interview, CYS filed the CY-48 that indicated sexual assault in January 2009.

      Delete
    2. Ray - Whether you want to believe it or not, Jerry in his interview with Dershem did NOT admit to abusing Fisher. Being in bed with Fisher fully clothed and blowing raspberries is not CSA unless their is sexual intent. You may be convinced that their was sexual intent, but I am not.

      Delete
    3. Steve,
      Thanks for your comment.

      That's not what I wrote. I wrote that he admitted to CHILD ABUSE, not child sexual abuse.


      That is based on the PA Statute.
      https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/LEGIS/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=23&div=00.&chpt=063.&CFID=2

      Delete
  4. Ray – I believe all of the 14 issues that you have raised as facts are in fact your opinions and I disagree with them all.

    1. Mr. Open Book: . I don’t find it all strange that Jerry didn’t tell Lindsay about his medical condition because he apparently didn’t realize the significance it could play in his defense. I also don’t find it strange that Jerry didn’t tell Lindsay a lot about The Second Mile as I am guessing that neither viewed it as central to their defense. By the way, since you have some strong criticism on Pendergrast’s book “The Most Hated Man in America,” I encourage you to submit a review on Amazon. Thus far the customer reviews have been excellent -- 4.7 stars out of 5.0 based on 74 customer reviews.

    2. Mr. Honesty: Low testosterone level and a low sex drive is not inconsistent with sex 2-3 per week with your wife. I disagree with your assertion that having sex 2-3 per week is having sex like a newlywed. I also don’t think it is improbable that he was diagnosed as being sterile in the 1965 timeframe. I don’t think a minor inconsistency (if it is even an inconsistency) of the precise time more than 50 years ago that they learned Jerry was sterile is a case of either Jerry or Dottie not telling the truth.

    3. Jerry is a Pillar of Community Offender: Pillar of Community offenders actually have sex with children, are good at disguising their behavior, and a hallmark is that possess hordes of pornography. There is scant evidence that Jerry had sex with any of the accusers. None of the 36 claimants that Penn State paid settlements to made contemporaneous reports to friends, family, authorities (police, teacher, psychologist, etc.) or provided physical evidence of a sexual assault. Most of the claimants stories changed and gotten worse over time and many sought therapy to help them to visualize their claimed sexual assault. If Jerry was a child molester, he wasn’t very good at disguising his behavior as demonstrated by his response to Costas’ basic question of whether he was sexually attracted to young boys. The fact is that no pornography whatsoever, either in electronic form or in print has ever been found in Sandusky’s possession.

    4. No pornography on Jerry’s computer means Jerry is not a pedophile. I don’t believe anybody has made this assertion, but it is a pretty good indicator. John Snedden has said that of the many cases of CSA that he has investigation, there was always pornography.

    5. McQueary was the key witness: The first witness isn’t necessarily the most important witness. I agree that v4 and v1 were important witnesses. I just think that having a non-accuser witness testifying that they witnessed CSA was huge. If your think that Dershem was more important that McQueary, you are seriously mistaken.

    6. One hour of preparation for McQueary cross-examination: Both Amendola and Rominger testified to this at a PCRA hearing.

    7. McGettigan’s closing arguments focused on McQueary: McGettigan may have brought up other issues, but McQueary’s testimony was a key part of his closing statement.

    8. McGettigan knew the identity of v2: I believe the OAG knew that AM was v2 and there is a lot of evidence that supports this. The OAG interviewed AM on multiple occasions prior to trial. They were likely aware of the letter-to-the-editor that he wrote in support of Jerry and the statement that he gave to Curtis Everhart. His lawyer, Andrew Shubin, told the OAG he was v2. The argument that he didn’t know the layout of the Lasch locker room does not automatically make him not credible. The only reason the OAG didn’t find him credible were because of his statement to Everhart and his LTEs. If AM was shown to be v2, it would be a seriously blow to the OAG’s case. Your argument that AM is not v2 is not credible as if there was someone else, they surely would have surfaced by now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,
      Thanks for your response and for the civil manner in which you conduct yourself. BTW, I saw you on Monday and I couldn't put your name to your face. You should have re-introduced yourself.

      First, nothing I wrote is an "opinion." I have presented facts that refute the statements that were made.

      Conversely, you are offering opinions that really have no basis in fact or reality.

      1. You state that a man who has been accused of anally raping a boy won't tell his attorney that he can't get an erection -- because he doesn't think that is SIGNIFICANT to his defense. If Jerry thought that, then he needs to be in a mental institution -- not jail.

      2. You don't think low testosterone and a low sex drive is inconsistent with having sex 3-4 times a week. Meanwhile the medical records related to Sandusky's low T state that he couldn't get an erection even if he took cialis or viagra. Medical records win.

      3 and 4. A study of ON-LINE offenders, meaning those individuals who used internet chat rooms or solicited minors on line found that a minority possessed pornography. Only 39% of those from chat rooms and 43% of those who solicited on line had caches of pornography. If lack of pornography is common among on-line offenders then it is similarly uncommon among other sex offenders. Next, all 36 claimants were not part of the trial -- only eight were. I have not seen all of their claims, so I can't render opinions about whether or not their stories changed. I am aware, however, that Victim 10's story changed and I've never found him to be credible from day 1.

      5. The jurors disagree with you on McQueary. The link is in the blog.

      6. Obviously, Amendola's and Rominger's recollection of events is obviated by the court records.

      7. McGettigan's closing is memorialized on pages 97 to 156 -- that's 69 pages. Five of them, about halfway through, talk about McQueary. Not much focus on McQueary. Again, McGettigan was busy rebutting everything Amendola said in his closing.

      8. All of the evidence you cited does not prove McGettigan knew AM was Victim 2. Andrew Shubin was determined not to be credible by the OAG (I think you'd agree on that). His opinion that AM is V2 was strictly for financial gain. I will same the same about the rest of the civil attorneys in this case (we probably agree on that). Next, the OAG was convinced by AM's drawing of the locker room that he was never there. It is very compelling, irrefutable evidence. Heck, if I took twelve people from a foreign country who didn't speak English and didn't know anything about this case, sat them in a room, then said that a boy claimed to be in a locker room - and showed them a diagram of it. Then I showed them AM's rendering of it. The vote would be 12-0 that he was never there.

      Delete
    2. Ray,
      My opinion is that you don’t have a complete grasp of the differences between facts, opinions, and inferences. I would just like to make a couple of points in reply to your responses.

      I don’t believe Jerry’s medical condition prevents him from getting an erection.

      Whether you want to admit or not, pornography and child molesters go hand in hand and the fact is that no pornography has ever been found in Sandusky’s possession.

      Jurors sometimes get it wrong. Sandusky was first convicted in the court of public opinion due the false narratives that the OAG spun. The false narratives include that McQueary witnessed an anal rape/sexual assault and this false narrative was a key part of the case presented at trial against Sandusky.

      AM is v2. There is strong evidence to support this assertion including statements by both Sandusky and AM. There have been no other credible claims of anybody else being v2 where there surely would have been if it was somebody else. I don’t believe that AM’s drawing of the Lasch locker room convinced the OAG he was never there. I believe the OAG didn’t want to admit it given AM’s statement to Everhart and his LTEs would have been very damaging to their case.

      It is clear from “Silent No More” that Fisher received enhanced memory therapy from Gillum. Gillum “knew” Fisher had been sexually assaulted even before Fisher did.

      I agree with you that v6’s story is believable and has not changed markedly over time. His testimony makes it clear that he was not sexually assaulted by Sandusky. I don’t believe any of the 35 other claimants that Penn State paid settlements to have stories that are remotely as believable as v6’s story.

      I am glad you have acknowledged that Sandusky did not receive a fair trial, but I vehemently disagree with your opinion that the results would be the same in a re-trial. At the press conference, Al Lindsay, John Snedden, Dick Anderson, and Ralph Cipriano all gave very compelling talks. Imho, they are reasonable people and are all well versed in the facts of the case. They all believe that Jerry was railroaded and so do I. Eventually the truth will become evident. I just hope that is happens before Jerry dies in prison.

      Delete
    3. Steve,
      Thanks for your reply.

      You are entitled to your opinions, but not entitled to your own facts. You also don't understand the difference between reliable evidence and unreliable evidence.

      You "don't believe Jerry's medical condition prevents him from having an erection" is an OPINION. If you read the excerpts of the medical reports that were published, they state he could NOT get an erection even if he used viagra or cialis.

      I am curious why you would argue this point because his failure to be able to achieve an erection would be exculpatory.

      Clearly, the jury being tainted by the grand jury presentment and allegation of McQueary seeing a rape is OPINION -- that is flatly refuted by the FACT that the jury ACQUITTED Jerry of the IDSI charge related to that incident. The jury also voted NOT GUILTY in two other instances where the testimony either didn't fit the crime (V6) or the story wasn't credible (V5).

      You can believe AM is V2 and that is an OPINION. Al Lindsay had to prove that Joe McGettigan believed AM was V2 at the time of the trial and produced NO EVIDENCE to support that. Also, at the PCRA hearing, both McGettigan and Fina testified that the locker room drawing was convincing evidence that he was never there. Again, what you believe or I believe is not relevant -- the issue at hand was if the Commonwealth believed AM was V2. The FACTS were on the Commonwealth's side that he wasn't. Finally, AM and Jerry are not reliable witnesses.

      No doubt, Dick Anderson, Ralph Cipriano, and John Snedden are all nice and reasonable people. That said, they have not done deep dives on the case. Snedden didn't do a background investigation on Jerry Sandusky. Dick Anderson was a co-worker who knew Jerry for a long time, but that is neither here nor there. Larry Nassar had many co-workers who had no idea he was a serial sex offender. Ralph's frame of reference is the Billy Doe case and he had focused on the claims process, which is quite a different matter than the trial.

      Delete
  5. 9. The claimants lied for money: Please make your case that any specific claimant was not a charlatan. The 36 claimants grossed a total of $118 million. That is an average award of 3.3 million per claimant.

    10. Accusers underwent therapy to recover memories: Pendergrast in his book provides evidence that v1, v3, v4, v6, v7, and Matt Sandusky all underwent therapy to help them articulate CSA that they were not able to remember on their own. I suspect that many other claimants also received similar therapy. Repressed memory therapy has been debunked as a reliable way to learn what exactly happened..

    11. The silver convertible story proves that v10 lied: The entire testimony of v10 makes him a less than credible witness. Even you have acknowledged this. Many people have said that of the 8 trial accusers, v10’s story was the most unbelievable. The silver convertible story is absurd at face value. Please provide any evidence that Jerry had any access to cars from TSM board members or from a car dealership.

    12. Grand Jury presentment was leaked: Sara Ganim was conveniently able to retrieve the supposedly sealed grand jury presentment on November 4. This was clearly not kosher. In addition the grand jury testimony that was leaked to Ganim in March 2011 as well as the grand jury testimony that was leaked in 2012 to Louis Freeh and his investigators was also clearly not kosher. Judge Foradora buying into Fina supposedly doing an investigation into the grand jury presentment leak demonstrating that Fina was not the source of the leak is laughable.

    13. V1 never met v9. In spite of what v1 has said, there is no way that both v1 and v9 accounts can be true in terms of the timeframe and the frequency of the alleged abuse.

    14. No contemporaneous reports: V1 may have made a suggestion that he may have been abused in November 2008, but it took 6 months before he finally alleged oral sex. I don’t find this reporting to be anything close to a contemporaneous report. As I understand it, as told by next door neighbor Josh Fravel, v1 initially told his mother that he found Sandusky a little creepy and his mother got excited and said that because of that they would likely be able to own Sandusky’s house. In v6’s case, yes there was a contemporaneous report of the 1998 shower incident, but it is far from clear that this incident was CSA. V6 has consistently stated that there was no sex involved and it took until 2011 before he thought it may have been grooming. Given that CYS as well as the Centre County DA investigated the incident in 1998 with Sandusky not indicated and no charges filed and that v6 and Sandusky maintained a 13 year friendly relationship with no outward signs of abuse, there is no clear indication that any abuse ever took place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9. Victim 6's story never changed from 1998 through the trial. Sandusky was convicted on 3 counts in that case. You asked for one and I gave you one.

      9. Mark Pendergrast's book erroneously states that Victim 1 underwent RMT for several months to recall being sexually victimized. That is disproven by the CY48 form that was filed in January 2009 stating he was subjected to SEXUAL assault. The book does not assert that V4 underwent RMT. Rather it asserts he was subjected to suggestive questioning. It wrongly asserts V6 underwent RMT based upon the fact that he felt differently about the incident at age 21 than he did as an 11 year old. That is akin to saying a woman who went on a date with Ted Bundy, who thought everything was fine, felt differently about it 10 years later when he was convicted as a mass murderer. Victim 3's story was consistent from the grand jury to the trial. No RMT there. Victim 7, as I wrote, is the lone instance of a recovered memory. Matt Sandusky wasn't part of the trial, but he didn't undergo RMT.

      11. After reviewing his trial testimony just now, I see that he did NOT definitively say it was a silver convertible. He allowed that it might have been a sports vehicle with a moon roof or sun roof.

      12. Nope. Just the charges. Read the story: https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/charges_against_sandusky_remov.html

      13. Aaron Fisher gave V9's name to CYS on November 20, 2008. Check the PCRA exhibits. It's there in black and white.

      14. See #10. Fisher reported being touched over the pants the very first time he was interviewed. On that same day, CYS sent a CY-104 form to the state police asking them to assist in the investigation. CYS would not have done that unless the case involved sexual abuse.

      Delete
  6. I don't believe you offer convincing arguments concerning the question of Sandusky's sex drive and infertility. More evidence, such as medical records, or testimony would be needed to prove deception.

    Sandusky's wife reporting they had sex "3-4 times a week in 2001" does not mean he wasn't sterile or had a low sex drive. Maybe he was just being a good husband and satisfying his wife. Maybe he used Viagra. Sex doesn't mean just sexual intercourse as Bill Clinton found out. Maybe cuddling and kissing for 15 minutes represented sex for them.

    If they were married in 1966 and didn't get a sterility diagnosis until 1967 then maybe they did have lots of sexual intercourse for the first year of their marriage.

    Do we know the exact cause of Sandusky's infertility? Maybe it is easily seen by looking at sperm under a microscope so was an easy diagnosis. A low sperm count or abnormal sperm are easy to detect.

    That they kept trying to have a child after an infertility diagnosis is not uncommon. Couples often just hope they might get pregnant anyway. There have been cases where a couple are told they are infertile, adopt a child and then eventually conceive and have their own child. I personally know of a couple like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comments.

      The medical records that were mentioned in "The Sad Story of Happy Valley" stated Sandusky could not get an erection even if he used Cialis or Viagra. Those records were from the 2006-2008 time frame.

      Dottie and Jerry claimed to be having sex 2-4 times a week in 2011. Something's not right. Note that she also said it "he had a hard time having sex," therefore she was not talking about cuddling.

      Again, the timeline of a diagnosis in 1967 doesn't make sense medically. They would have needed to fail for a full year after consulting a doctor. Jerry did say he had a low sperm count, but he wouldn't have known that until being tested in 1968.

      According to Touched, Jerry wrote: "we accepted what we were told as quickly as possible and didn't hesitate to take the next steps in our healing process. If we couldn't have children on our own, we reasoned the next logical step would be to adopt. So, we began the necessary steps to start our family in a different way. At just about the same time, I was offered an interview at Boston University."

      So there you have it. The adoption process began before they went to Boston.

      Delete
  7. Well, this thread has turned into tabloid fodder. Maybe Jerry discovered what a French Tickler could do to make a woman happy, maybe he had a urologist who had some wonderful devices. The enzyme that degrades nitric oxide was identified around 1999, so it was well after 2000 that they marketed an inhibitor. That does one no good if they cannot get an erection in the first place.
    The usual pornography found pre internet days were Polaroid pictures unless the perp could develop Kodachrome in his own dark room. Very rare to find a perp who didn't have pictures of the objects of his attention.

    Gillum is another anomaly. He has a patient who is addicted to porn, masterbates in front of friends, has a reputation as a pathological liar, and is evidently having sex with a 15 year old girl, yet he is trying to convince AF that he is being abused by JS. After more than two years it morphs into 100 blow jobs. That boy must have been having 3-4 orgasms a day! It is well documented how easy it is to get someone to believe something happened when it actually didn't. Then you have a mother goading her son to get with the script and collect $$$.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gregory,
      THanks for your comments.

      What you wrote is certainly tabloid material -- especially about Aaron Fisher.

      The facts are quite different, if you are knowledgeable of the law in Pennsylvania and the evidence in this case.

      On November 20, 2008, Clinton County CYS sent a CY-104 to the Pennsylvania State Police requesting their assistance in the Fisher case. This request is sent ONLY if there is a crime involved (either physical or sexual assault). Fisher had not undergone any therapy from Gillum prior to the CY-104 being sent.


      On the CY-48 form used for Clinton CYS' report to DPW (January 2009), the form is clearly marked "SEXUAL ASSAULT." Months and months of therapy didn't occur before this.

      While we're on the subject of tabloid journalism, the idea that Fisher was an unreliable witness was a creation of Sara Ganim and the Patriot News, who was fed that story by the OAG to cover for their pathetic non-investigation of Sandusky from May 2009 to October 2010.


      Delete
    2. Gregory and Steve,
      About pornography...

      In Jerry's case, if he had polaroids or other photos, he had over TWO YEARS to get rid of them because the OAG didn't get a search warrant for his home until June 2011.

      It is also obvious from the evidence in this case that Jerry didn't use computers, so it comes and no surprise there was no pornography found on the computer in his basement. As I wrote, his PSU office didn't have a computer and there were no emails found from Jerry in PSU's system. There were also no emails (or text messages) found between Jerry and the victims. Jerry was a luddite.

      The MINORITY of child molesters of internet based crime possessed pornography according to this 2005 study. Logically possession of pornography by non-internet users would be much lower. http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV81.pdf

      Delete
  8. Jerry grew up in an environment where a lot of guys were running around naked...like the dorms at PSU (and every other college!). Big deal! You've seen one, you've seen them all. Yes, gyms and swimming pools were meet markets for gays back then ( I was propositioned twice at the municipal pool in Oak Ridge, TN), but what does that prove?

    Cornhauling was the use of a corn cob to sodomize someone as part of an all too common hazing ritual. Some folks used it to stimulate the prostate during oral sex. It was allegedly a real turn-on. Many people would use a vaso-dilator such as amyl nitrite to get an enhanced orgasm, in spite of the fact that too much could put you into cardiac arrest. But when did the threat of death ever get into the way of a good orgasm?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Repressed memory therapy may or may not have been involved. More likely suggestion and scripted testimony (say this, and you will get a lot of money). See, for instance, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-mishaps/201001/spilled-punch-hot-air-balloon-rides-and-enhanced-interrogation?amp

    What has impressed me was how Dick Anderson and Gary Gray defended Jerry. They and other coaches worked with Jerry for years and saw NOTHING inappropriate. Nothing! The simple and logical explanation is that they saw nothing because there was nothing. Pure simplicity. Ockam's Razor at its best. The adoption authorities and case workers found nothing.
    Yes..Jerry Sandusky was Peter Pan. That is the way his brain was wired from birth. It is sort of like autism and may even be on the autism spectrum. Psychology is in constant flux because we are always finding a molecular basis for behavior. Conditions that required psychiatric care can now be treated with something like a serotonin uptake inhibitor or L-Dopa. We are learning more about how the in-utero environment affects the way the brain gets wired.

    Timothy Bagshaw was not a "Big Kid". Tim was a gay nerd. Everyone knew he was a gay nerd from when he was age 14. He didn't bother anyone, so nobody bothered him (except for the aquatics staff, aka the waterfront mafia who got on his case a few times). This was 1968-1971. There was the Vietnam War, the summer of love, and a lot of other social unrest going on at the time. Tim's brother was a cool kid. Sad that thing turned out as they did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gregory,
      Thanks again for your comment.

      Unfortunately, it is a sad commentary on the lack of education in America about Pillar of the Community Offenders (and other serial offenders) operate.

      Of course people don't see anything inappropriate. That's because the offender is either an expert at deception (like Jerry and Larry Nassar) or does not commit crimes when they are in sight of other people (Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy).

      Occam's razor is used by people who are too lazy to do dive into the details and actually investigate the cases.


      Delete
  10. Ray - There were news reports shortly after Sandusky's arrest predicting that Penn State could be on the hook for million in damages to Sandusky victims.

    Can Sandusky’s Sexual Abuse Victims Sue Penn State? Nov. 9, 2011
    https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/11/articles/attorney/civil-rights-1/penn-state-sexual-abuse-lawsuit/


    I also thought it was true that most of the victims lawyered-up well before the trial. One victim even had his lawyer with him during a police interview when the tape recorder "malfunctioned" and the troopers were caught trying to coach the witness.

    It certainly seemed obvious long before Sandusky's trial that the victims would be seeking settlements. His conviction seemed a foregone conclusion long before trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,
      Thanks for your comment.

      Most victims had lawyered up prior to the trial, however, only Victim 4 had a lawyer prior to being interviewed by the police. Victim 4 met with his attorney for one hour prior to the police interview and V4 didn't tell him much.

      As the evidence shows, there were very few changes in testimony between the grand jury and the trial. The most significant changes at trial were the date change (1998 to 2001) by Victim 5 and the statement by Victim 7 that Sandusky indecently touched him. The latter did not cause an additional charge.

      In Most Hated Man in America, there is a fuller version of the police interview that shows V4 admitted that Jerry had positioned his private parts on V4's face -- before the interview was stopped for the break. After the break, V4 admitted there was oral sex -- but that's a rather logical admission considering the former.

      Most heterosexual men are reticent to admit that they performed oral sex on another man even if it happened back when they were a child and that it wasn't voluntary (i.e., a minor cannot consent to sex with an adult). Incremental disclosure is common in these cases.

      There is a "cottage industry" of people who seize on the latter in an effort to try to disprove every serial sex abuse case. Some of those people got involved in the Sandusky case.

      Delete
  11. We are here to torment you, Ray. You are grasping at straws and your arguments flail in the wind. JS wasn't close to being the clever operator you think he was. I want real physical evidence, not statements coerced by suggestion and leading questions. A "cottage industry"?? Do tell. I think that you have entered the Twilight Zone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gregory,
      I don't consider civil discourse to be "torment."

      That said, your comment is a great example of projection.

      In your previous comments you've referenced Occam's Razor (i.e., that the simple solution is most likely true) while diving into discussions of nitrus oxide as a vasodilator in a flailing attempt to explain how Jerry was having sex 2-4 times a week at age 69 -- while allegedly in such poor health he was falling asleep at the wheel.

      Jerry's and Dottie's alleged sex life would be highly unusual even for healthy adults. Here's a humorous dose of common sense about the diminishing frequency of sex in marriage:

      Tri-weekly.
      Try weekly.
      Try weakly.


      The evidence -- and common sense -- defeat every argument you and Steve have made here.

      The Twilight Zone? That would be the ONLY place Jerry could ever be found not guilty.


      The courts in the United States work on an evidence beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

      Jerry admitted to being in bed with a boy who accused him of sexual abuse. Jerry was not coerced in any manner when he made the statement.

      Jurors, operating using the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt standard convicted him of numerous inchoate (intent) crimes based on Jerry's statement.

      Physical evidence of intent/attraction is present in this case. After Jerry was told to cease contacting Aaron Fisher, he attempted to contact him over 50 times by telephone. Police reports show that after Jerry was told to stay away from Victim 6 during the 1998 investigation, he continued to contact the boy. And after he was told not to shower with children, he continued to shower with children.

      Jerry called himself the Great Pretender. He comes across as a dim bulb -- and he has you and many others fooled by that persona. Seemingly people forget that "dim bulb" Jerry designed complex football defenses that befuddled some of the most brilliant opposing coaches. Jerry's mental abilities were not limited to football as his background reveals.

      And, of course, I am right about the "cottage industry" showing up on Jerry's behalf.
      http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=AdvisoryBoardProfiles

      Delete
  12. I am not fooled by Jerry, nor am I of the Jerry is innocent sect. I am trying to make sense of something that makes absolutely no sense. Yes, he was a better strategist than Joe (which isn't saying much), but his schemes were Rip Engel schemes run with superior athletes.

    The way that the prosecution and media poisoned the jury pool ensured that he would not get a fair trial. The jury would have convicted Snoopy of child abuse (he did bite, didn't he?). They did convict him of abusing a fictitious child.

    Phone calls are not evidence of a crime unless they recorded something objectively illegal.

    Your reference concerns a group of memory researchers which hardly amounts to a cottage industry for Jerry. I believe one of them gave expert testimony on recovered memory therapy (which may not even be relevant in this case). Gillum's methods were suspect, as were the aggressive questioning used by detectives. Add civil attorneys, and the lying for money incentive is significant. A good discussion is at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201211/implanting-false-memories. I believe the claims presented to PSU were more than a little enhanced from what was presented at trial. The fraud speaks for itself, but I am supposed to believe that they told the truth all along. Really???

    Now, why did they drag Paterno and the football program into the case via the janitor hoax? They had plenty of fodder for polluting the jury pool and enraging the media, so why go after Joe? It does not make sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gregory,
      There is a lot you don't know about Jerry Sandusky, but eventually will find out at some point in the future. As people are having trouble wrapping their heads around how Jerry could have fooled them, they will finally see how badly he fooled everyone. Again, he was much more intelligent than he appeared and that's because people confuse being articulate with being intelligent.

      While I agree the news coverage would have made it hard to get a fair trial, the jury's acquittal on the Rape charge in the Victim 2 incident goes a long way in showing that the media didn't influence the jury. They also properly acquitted in the case of Victim 6 and Victim 5 (that neither were groped in the locker room). Apparently, because no other victim admitted to being groped the first time they showered with Jerry, the jury didn't believe V5's story (among other discrepancies).

      Jerry made phone calls to Fisher after he was told not to contact him. That's stalking/harassment.

      I didn't say there was a cottage industry for Jerry. I stated there is a cottage industry of expert witnesses who show up at sex abuse trials in an attempt to refute the testimony of witnesses. Gillum's methods were not suspect at all, in fact, they are quite the norm. As for the police methods with Victim 4, the full context of the interview shows that V4 admitted to sexual abuse before he went for a smoke break.


      From what I have read, the claims made to get money out of PSU were outrageously different than the testimony from the trial in most cases. I put that on PSU (Ira Lubert) who actually met with Tom Kline in the case of Victim 5 and the alleged offenses escalated from being groped to being anally raped. Victim 10, who was part of the group of claimants that Shubin sent to the Philly attorneys, also greatly embellished his stories. I don't attribute any of this to false or implanted memories, rather, it is attributed to money grubbing civil attorneys who understood the clients would not be put under oath and could get away with saying anything. BUT, that was not the case at the trial and that's why the testimony was much less dramatic. In some of the incidents, no sexual contact was alleged.

      As notpsu has written all along, this case was about taking down SPANIER. To get that done, Corbett struck a deal with Surma that required Paterno to be smeared. The janitor incident (hoax) was a great study in psychology, as it drove moral outrage at football program (Paterno) while making the public sympathetic to Cahoun, who didn't report the incident. The grand jury presentment also attempted to make McQueary into a sympathetic character. Recall that both Calhoun and McQueary were both said to be visibly "upset" and "shaken" by what they observed. What a pile of crap!

      The AGs in this case and in the Larry Nassar case excused the inactions by first hand witnesses and instead filed charges against 2nd and 3rd parties -- all done for political gain.

      Jerry was/is a pedophile, but he was also a pawn.

      Delete