| ||||
|
Showing posts with label AG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AG. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30
PS4RS 4/29/2016 Statement: AG Not Pursuing Appeal
Wednesday, January 27
About That Oath
Much like in the case of
the PSU 3, the critical evidence supporting AG Kane's perjury charges
is of questionable origin.
By
Ray Blehar
The PA Corruption Network's Playbook, (December 29, 2015) outlined how corrupt prosecutors use dubious evidence to make cases against targets.
For the PSU 3, it was emails of dubious provenance that provided
the (alleged) evidence of perjury and other crimes.
 |
| Ferman's smoking gun will be undone |
For Pennsylvania
Attorney General (AG) Kane, it was an oath of similarly dubious provenance that
is now being portrayed by the Corruption Network as the smoking gun evidence
against Kane.
Let's rewind the clock and see how that went down.
On August 6, 2015, then
Montgomery County District Attorney, Risa Ferman threw more than her
fair share of admiration toward the investigators and prosecutors -- who regurgitated much
of the evidence from the grand jury --to craft the initial Kane charges.
"The investigators and prosecutors alike, they were meticulous. They were thorough. They were detailed, and this investigation was as comprehensive as any we've ever done."
According to the August charging documents, Kane had allegedly
committed perjury and false swearing regarding four things she stated under
oath (see below).
The evidence supporting
the allegations was mostly based on the testimony of Bruce Beemer, James
Barker, and Adrian King -- all of whom seemingly have motivations to take down
AG Kane.
As is typically the case with prosecutor's documents, evidence in favor of the prosecutor's version of events (e.g., Kane is lying and leaked information to get back at Fina) is included while the evidence against is excluded.
But no matter how much the charging documents talk around the subject of who leaked the grand jury information, the fact is that Ferman admitted she couldn't directly link AG Kane to the documents released.
After that, all the rest is bluster.
 |
| Ferman's investigators and prosecutors weren't as thorough as she said they were |
The Secrecy Oath
On September 17, 2015, Ferman's "meticulous"
gang of investigators made a visit to an undisclosed office in
Strawberry Square and allegedly found an oath that they had not previously found in their other (meticulous and
thorough) forays into the AG's office.
The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official
looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated
and planted after his chemical weapons facility
was bombed.
The allegedly official "SECRECY OATH" document is about as official looking as Saddam Hussein's "Baby Milk Plant" sign that was fabricated and planted after his chemical weapons facility was bombed.
Prior to the stunning discovery of the oath, the
"meticulous" investigative team was seemingly content to use the
grand jury testimony (page 15) of James
Barker to allege Kane lied about not being covered by secrecy regarding the Mondesire grand
jury.
Consistent with Barker's testimony, Kane testified that she had all of those newly hired by her office sign grand jury secrecy oaths for ongoing grand juries but not oaths for prior grand juries.
Six weeks later, the Ferman investigators
got a tip to take another look into they previously searched.
Anonymous tip.
Where have we heard that before?
After finding the oath, King, among others, corroborated the meeting took place and oaths were signed. The actual language in the presentation, however, is deceptive because neither King nor anyone else made any specific reference to signing oaths pertaining to previous grand juries.
 |
| Kane and Shargel: Didn't crumble when faced with dubious evidence about oath |
Part of the Network's playbook is to present
surprise evidence to the unsuspecting targets (and their attorneys), who
believe that their legal adversaries are actually playing by the rules. In that
moment, the network's attorneys hope that the target or his/her legal counsel
believe they have been caught red-handed and opt for a plea deal.
That didn't happen with Kane, just like the "flip" -- that Fina hoped for -- didn't happen in the PSU 3 case.
The 2009 oath is hardly a smoking gun -- it's more like a boomerang.
A boomerang that will eventually come back and
strike Judge Risa Vetri Ferman.
Friday, January 1
Who Are The Leakers, Ms. Ferman?
Among all of the bluster about AG Kathleen Kane's alleged orchestration of a grand jury leak, why didn't the media ask Risa Ferman for the name of the leaker?
By
Ray Blehar
According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.
The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press. At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.
The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.
Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame...
...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent. The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention.
As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules. And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.
About 8 minutes in to Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information. Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.
The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation -- that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.
In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.
"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."
So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?
Nope.
The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"
Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all. It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.
And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?
The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.
Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve. The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript. Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails, were subject to grand jury secrecy rules. The transcript was not.
Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow.
The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.
However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope -- for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press. But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.
Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.
Let's review:
April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.
April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it. Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.
June 6, 2014: Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.
July 25, 2014: An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.
The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself. What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow. And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.
Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.
The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.
Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference
Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!
By
Ray Blehar
According to Montgomery County District Attorney (DA) Risa Ferman and the media, Attorney General (AG) Kathleen Kane has committed the crime of the century by allegedly orchestrating a leak of grand jury information.
The crazy thing about all of this bluster (over Kane) is that information from grand juries and criminal investigations are leaked with regularity to the press. At Ferman's press conference, one (honest) reporter more or less asked Ferman what the big deal was about the leaks.
The fact is that the media rarely, if ever, treats leak cases with any seriousness at all -- unless it involves someone they want to take down.
Pardon me while I reminisce back to the case of CIA employee, Valerie Plame...
...the media was in a lather to see Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney "perp-walked" out of the White House for leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA agent. The media waited in great anticipation for the results of the special investigation and when it happened it was a non-event. Neither Rove nor Cheney were found responsible. The actual leaker, Richard Armitage, was not charged and received little to no media attention.
As it turned out, the investigation ended up charging an underling in Cheney's office named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Like Kane, Libby didn't leak information that was subject to secrecy rules. And, much like Kane, he got caught in a perjury trap and was found guilty of that and lesser charges.
About 8 minutes in to Ferman's press conference, she announced the full list of charges -- which did not allege Kane leaked grand jury information. Instead, Ferman charged her with conspiracy.
The press conference was almost over before any reporter asked a question that came close to getting at the identity of the persons or person behind the leaks, however, the question was more like an accusation -- that Kane's head of her security detail, Patrick Reese, was involved in the conspiracy with Kane.
In order to clear the matter up, Ferman responded by giving an explanation of what a conspiracy is.
"If you read through the evidence, it is clear for the evidence we gathered, that while the Attorney General orchestrated and directed the scheme, that she, herself, did not compile the materials and deliver them to Mr. Morrow. So clearly, there were at least one other, perhaps, more individuals involved, and that is the crux of conspiracy. What a conspiracy means, in the most basic terms, is the act of one is the act of all. So all of the people involved in the leak of that information can be responsible."
 |
| Ferman: Claims conspiracy is an "act of all," but doesn't charge leaker, co-conspirators. |
So after hearing Ferman's explanation of a conspiracy, the press naturally asked who else was involved, right?
Nope.
 |
| King: Leaked information but wasn't charged |
The next question was: "If Kane is convicted of these crimes, should she lose her law license?"
Clearly, the media really doesn't care who the leaked grand jury information or that grand jury information was leaked at all. It certainly hasn't spent any time at all demanding answers about James Reeder's investigation into the Sandusky and DeNaples grand jury leaks.
And if leaking grand jury information was such a terrible crime and betrayal of public trust, then why didn't Risa Ferman charge the leaker -- Adrian King?
The evidence in the grand jury presentment clearly shows the grand jury information (i.e., the 2009 memorandum and emails) was provided to Josh Morrow by Adrian King.
Morrow testified that King left a clasped envelope containing a manila folder for him to retrieve. The manila folder's contents included the 2009 memo, two emails, and the Miletto transcript. Under the grand jury act, the 2009 memo, and perhaps the two emails, were subject to grand jury secrecy rules. The transcript was not.
Going backwards in time, King testified that a plain (unmarked) sealed envelope was left on his desk (by someone) and that he took it with him to Philadelphia and provided it to Morrow.
The evidence in the grand jury presentment (paragraph one below) clearly shows that AG Kane did not have the 2009 memo and/or the emails in her possession until 24 July 2014, thus could not have placed it in the unmarked envelope for King.
However, that didn't stop prosecutors from trying to make it look like Kane put in the memo and emails in the "packet" -- not envelope -- for King (paragraph 2) that was eventually released to the press. But the fact is being aware of a document and discussing it does not equal evidence of possession of the document.
Unless you believe in time travel, the grand jury found no evidence that Kane put the 2009 memorandum and emails in the envelope for King.
Let's review:
April 22, 2014: King found a sealed UNMARKED envelope which -- according to sworn testimony -- he believed contained campaign information for Morrow.
April 23, 2014: Morrow received a clasped envelope from King that contained a manila folder -- "packet" -- with the word JOSH written on it. Within that manila folder -- "packet" -- was the 2009 memorandum and emails.
June 6, 2014: Chris Brennan's Philadelphia Daily News article containing information from the 2009 memorandum went to press.
July 25, 2014: An email was sent to AG Kane that included the 2009 memorandum and the emails as attachments.
The timeline of the evidence speaks for itself. What was allegedly left for King was not the same package that King delivered to Morrow. And if King was the only person to possess the packet, then he added the 2009 memorandum and the emails.
Let me go out on a limb here and guess that Adrian King testified under a grant of immunity and that is why he wasn't charged.
The only question that remains is if anyone else from the AG's office conspired to leak this information (to undermine AG Kane) and who they are.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Risa Ferman's "ongoing investigation" to identify those individuals.
Up next: Luckily, Ferman wasn't under oath at her August press conference
Best Wishes for a Happy & Truthful New Year!
Thursday, September 4
Patriot News and PSU settlement atty Rozen trash victim D.F. to protect Corbett
While the Patriot News concludes that Victim D.F. wasn't found credible by PSU's settlement attorneys or Frank Fina, it is more likely the date of his abuse drove the decisions about his "credibility."
By
Ray Blehar
On Wednesday, I wrote about the new D.F. lawsuit and PSU's best chances for fighting it. Today (September 4th, 2014), the Patriot News reported that D.F. was interviewed "years ago" by police and concluded he was not found credible by the prosecution and by PSU settlement attorney Michael Rozen. This shameless trashing of the victim demonstrates that the P-N will stop at nothing to quash any information that shows the foot-dragging by Tom Corbett's AG office put children in danger.
In a familiar maneuver, P-N reporter Charles Thompson cherry picked the statements in the lawsuit to make it appear D.F.s abuse didn't occur during the Sandusky investigation. To wit:
The lawsuit is very clear that D.F. is alleging abuse occurred during the Sandusky investigation:
11. Plaintiff participated in Several programs provided by Defendant-The Second Mile from the years 2004 through 2012.
12. Defendant-Sandusky had recruited, groomed and coerced the Plaintiff throughout the years that Plaintiff attended Defendant-The Second Mile.
Thompson also cited former prosecutor Frank Fina's rebuttal of AG Kathleen Kane's statement that two victims were abused during the Sandusky investigation as likely evidence that new victim, D.F., is one of those victims and isn't credible.
Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan stated (and Fina concurred) that they interviewed someone who they learned of in 2012 who claimed to be abused in 2009, but didn't find him credible.
The more likely reason this victim was not "credible" was because his abuse happened between 2008 and 2012 -- during the Sandusky investigation. As I reported earlier, the prosecutors likely manipulated dates on the Bills in Particulars in order to get specific outcomes in this case. One of those outcomes was to conceal that victims were abused while Sandusky was under investigation.
Once again, the "paper of record" in the Sandusky case is carrying water for former AG Tom Corbett and making an evidentiary leap based on the AG prosecutor's words -- instead of examining the "reality" of the Sandusky case's prosecution.
Not only were dates and locations of crimes manipulated in the Sandusky case, but Frank Fina went to the extreme to prosecute two cases with unknown victims. In the case of the janitor incident, he didn't have a victim or an eyewitness or any evidence of crime beyond the hearsay testimony of janitor Ronald Petrosky. Petrosky's testimony was inconsistent on the date, location, and circumstances of the crime. And Fina himself had to pull a fast one - changing the crime scene location during a sidebar - to rebut defense attorney Karl Rominger's argument that if Petrosky's testimony was he could only see legs, then too only could the eye-witness (James Calhoun).
It is hard to imagine any incident could be less credible than the account of the janitor -- but that's what Fina and the PN want you to believe.
By
Ray Blehar
On Wednesday, I wrote about the new D.F. lawsuit and PSU's best chances for fighting it. Today (September 4th, 2014), the Patriot News reported that D.F. was interviewed "years ago" by police and concluded he was not found credible by the prosecution and by PSU settlement attorney Michael Rozen. This shameless trashing of the victim demonstrates that the P-N will stop at nothing to quash any information that shows the foot-dragging by Tom Corbett's AG office put children in danger.
In a familiar maneuver, P-N reporter Charles Thompson cherry picked the statements in the lawsuit to make it appear D.F.s abuse didn't occur during the Sandusky investigation. To wit:
The civil case hinges on two specific incidents, both allegedly occurring when the boy was about 12 years old.
- A shopping outing in 2008 or 2009, during which the former coach allegedly pulled his car over to the side of a road and forced the plaintiff into oral sex.
- A 2008 Penn State home game against Coastal Carolina University. The game was a rout, and the teen said Sandusky left early, took him back to his home, and raped him.
The lawsuit is very clear that D.F. is alleging abuse occurred during the Sandusky investigation:
11. Plaintiff participated in Several programs provided by Defendant-The Second Mile from the years 2004 through 2012.
12. Defendant-Sandusky had recruited, groomed and coerced the Plaintiff throughout the years that Plaintiff attended Defendant-The Second Mile.
Thompson also cited former prosecutor Frank Fina's rebuttal of AG Kathleen Kane's statement that two victims were abused during the Sandusky investigation as likely evidence that new victim, D.F., is one of those victims and isn't credible.
Prosecutor Joseph McGettigan stated (and Fina concurred) that they interviewed someone who they learned of in 2012 who claimed to be abused in 2009, but didn't find him credible.
The more likely reason this victim was not "credible" was because his abuse happened between 2008 and 2012 -- during the Sandusky investigation. As I reported earlier, the prosecutors likely manipulated dates on the Bills in Particulars in order to get specific outcomes in this case. One of those outcomes was to conceal that victims were abused while Sandusky was under investigation.
Once again, the "paper of record" in the Sandusky case is carrying water for former AG Tom Corbett and making an evidentiary leap based on the AG prosecutor's words -- instead of examining the "reality" of the Sandusky case's prosecution.
It is hard to imagine any incident could be less credible than the account of the janitor -- but that's what Fina and the PN want you to believe.
Tuesday, August 26
Does "Plain Language" of the Laws Point to Collusion Between 11/9/11 BOT, Freeh, and the AG?
The "plain language" of the laws reveal the PSU Three were wrongly charged and it was highly likely that the PSU BOT knew it.
By
Ray Blehar
Last Monday, August 18th, I wrote that prosecutor Joe McGettigan told Judge Cleland they were not going to try the case of Curley and Schultz -- with the AG's intention to get one or both to flip and testify against Spanier. That blogpost described the weak evidence against Spanier, specifically the testimony of (duplicitous) Cynthia Baldwin and e-mails of dubious provenance.
However, one of the biggest weaknesses in the case against results from the "plain language" of the laws, two of which which most assuredly didn't apply to Curley, and Schultz on 11/9/11. This fact that was very likely known by the both OAG and the PSU BOT.
The Failure To Report (FTR) child abuse charge (23 Pa. C.S. § 6311) and the Endangering the Welfare of Children charges (18 Pa. C.S. § 4304 A) don't apply because the law requires the abused children to be "under the care" of, or be provided or subject of PSU's " education, training, or control," respectively.
Failure To Report
In the 2001 FTR case, the victim was "unknown," therefore it was impossible for the Commonwealth to claim the "unknown" victim was under the care of, or affiliated with, the PSU Three or PSU at large. The "unknown" child was in the care of Jerry Sandusky, who was not a PSU employee at the time of the incident. The relevant portion of the statute follows (my emphasis added):
Endangering the Welfare of Children
The EWOC charges are unsupported because the Victims 1, 3, 5, and 9, who all were allegedly abused after February 2001, were not provided "education, training, or control" by PSU. The relevant statute follows below. Please note that the grading of the offense is cited in section (b) which is from the description of the offense in section (a).
(a) Offense defined.--
Just days earlier, on November 5, 2001, the 23-page Sandusky grand jury presentment (page 12) cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6311.
Obviously, the other weakness in the citation in the grand jury presentment is that describing Curley and Schultz as school or institution employees is erroneous, according the the definitions of both a "school employee" (employed by a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school) and a student (under age 17) according to 23 Pa. C.S. § 6303. Morever, neither Curley nor Schultz was the "person in charge."
Finally, one day earlier, a 24-page version of the presentment was attached as "Exhibit A" to the Affidavit of Probable Cause (i.e, criminal complaint). That document cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6319 on page 24.
What was the purpose of the AG omitting page 24, which contained a listing of charges for Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz, from the publicly released presentment?
Graham Spanier
As for Graham Spanier, the OAG didn't even bother to provide a citation of the statute in the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment (page 39). Just as in the cases of Curley and Schultz, the OAG charged Spanier for violating § 6319.
Given the falsity of the charges under § 6311, the AG cited § 6319 for the PSU Three because it does not enumerate who is actually required to report. See below:
§ 6319. Penalties for failure to report or to refer.
"Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and
compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless
and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."
By
Ray Blehar
Last Monday, August 18th, I wrote that prosecutor Joe McGettigan told Judge Cleland they were not going to try the case of Curley and Schultz -- with the AG's intention to get one or both to flip and testify against Spanier. That blogpost described the weak evidence against Spanier, specifically the testimony of (duplicitous) Cynthia Baldwin and e-mails of dubious provenance.
 |
| PSU Three: Plain language of the FTR and EWOC laws don't support charges against them. |
The Failure To Report (FTR) child abuse charge (23 Pa. C.S. § 6311) and the Endangering the Welfare of Children charges (18 Pa. C.S. § 4304 A) don't apply because the law requires the abused children to be "under the care" of, or be provided or subject of PSU's " education, training, or control," respectively.
Failure To Report
In the 2001 FTR case, the victim was "unknown," therefore it was impossible for the Commonwealth to claim the "unknown" victim was under the care of, or affiliated with, the PSU Three or PSU at large. The "unknown" child was in the care of Jerry Sandusky, who was not a PSU employee at the time of the incident. The relevant portion of the statute follows (my emphasis added):
(a) General rule.--A person who, in the course of employment, occupation or
practice of a profession, comes into contact with children shall report or cause a
report to be made or in accordance with section 6313 (relating to reporting
procedure) when the person has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of
medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child under the
care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency,
institution,organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a
victim of child abuse, including child abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator....
Endangering the Welfare of Children
The EWOC charges are unsupported because the Victims 1, 3, 5, and 9, who all were allegedly abused after February 2001, were not provided "education, training, or control" by PSU. The relevant statute follows below. Please note that the grading of the offense is cited in section (b) which is from the description of the offense in section (a).
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.
(2) A person commits an offense if the person, in an official capacity, prevents or interferes with the making of a report of suspected child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to child protective services).
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "person supervising the welfare of a child" means a person other than a parent or guardian that provides care, education, training or control of a child.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. However, where there is a course of conduct of endangering the welfare of a child, the offense constitutes a felony of the third degree. (Dec. 19, 1988, P.L.1275, No.158, eff. 60 days; July 6, 1995, P.L.251, No.31, eff. 60 days; Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1581, No.179, eff. 60 days)
Spanier moved for dismissal based on May 16, 2013 (Note: filing is no longer on Dauphin County web-site) based on the fact that the laws did not apply. His motion was joined by Curley and Schultz. Point 4 of Curley's motion follows:
The AG's Sleight of Hand
AG Linda Kelly obviously knew these laws didn't apply when they filed charges, and in the case of FTR, pulled some sleight of hand on November 7. 2011 when she permitted prosecuting attorney Frank Fina to retroactively apply language from the 2007 statute in the presentment (in violation of the ex post facto clauses of the PA and U.S. Constitutions) and to charge Curley and Schultz for violating 18 Pa. C.S. § 6319 instead of § 6311.Just days earlier, on November 5, 2001, the 23-page Sandusky grand jury presentment (page 12) cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6311.
Sandusky Grand Jury Presentment
Obviously, the other weakness in the citation in the grand jury presentment is that describing Curley and Schultz as school or institution employees is erroneous, according the the definitions of both a "school employee" (employed by a public or private school, intermediate unit or area vocational-technical school) and a student (under age 17) according to 23 Pa. C.S. § 6303. Morever, neither Curley nor Schultz was the "person in charge."
Finally, one day earlier, a 24-page version of the presentment was attached as "Exhibit A" to the Affidavit of Probable Cause (i.e, criminal complaint). That document cited Curley and Schultz for violating 23 Pa. C.S. § 6319 on page 24.
What was the purpose of the AG omitting page 24, which contained a listing of charges for Sandusky, Curley, and Schultz, from the publicly released presentment?
Graham Spanier
As for Graham Spanier, the OAG didn't even bother to provide a citation of the statute in the Conspiracy of Silence grand jury presentment (page 39). Just as in the cases of Curley and Schultz, the OAG charged Spanier for violating § 6319.
Given the falsity of the charges under § 6311, the AG cited § 6319 for the PSU Three because it does not enumerate who is actually required to report. See below:
§ 6319. Penalties for failure to report or to refer.
A person or official required by this chapter to report a case of suspected child abuse or to make a referral to the appropriate authorities who willfully fails to do so commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for the first violation and a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second or subsequent violation. (Nov. 29, 2006, P.L.1581, No.179, eff. 180 days)
The Plain Language of the Law
Graham Spanier's November 6, 2011 statement, for which he was criticized by many for backing Curley and Schultz, was exactly right based on the plain language of the laws you have just read:"Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and
compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless
and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately."
One of the most confounding parts of this entire scandal is that the Penn State Board of Trustees allegedly didn't bother to read the law before they made their decisions on 11/9/11. If this is true, it would be yet another lapse of the Board's fiduciary responsibility under Standing Order IX. (1) (f) 4. which requires members to prepare diligently for each meeting.
 |
| Surma : "We don't know anything..." |
According to Board Co-Chair John Surma, the decision to terminate Paterno and Spanier was based on the members reading of the Sandusky grand jury presentment and related media reports. An excerpt from CNN 11/9/11 press conference transcript follows:
"SURMA: The board deliberative process is, as it implies, a process that requires some time. There was information that we sought, although we don't know anything more about the actual details than the grand jury report and whatever you all write."
 |
| Frazier: Either colossally failed to diligently prepare or was in on the "railroad." |
The lawyers on the board that night included Stephanie Nolan Deviney and Kenneth Frazier, who as General Counsel for Merck famously defended the pharmaceutical giant in the Vioxx case. Frazier, in defending the Freeh Report and dismissing the Paterno report said this:
“In my personal opinion, the Paterno report strains to interpret the 1998 and 2001 emails and other documentation in ways that are at odds with the plain language of those documents,” Frazier said. “The Paterno report is therefore, largely non-responsive or irrelevant.”
It strains credulity that Frazier never bothered to check "the plain language" of the law when he read the grand jury presentment.
And it also strains credulity that the legal firm, Reed Smith, that was retained by the PSU BOT, didn't check the FTR and perjury laws and realize they didn't apply.
 |
| Deviney: Also failed to
diligently prepare for meeting. |
One can likey conclude that Surma silenced Reed Smith and that Frazier and others in the know also remained silent about the laws during the Board's 11/9/11 deliberations.
As for Stephanie Deviney, instead of doing legal research. made her decision based on emotions. According to the New York Times, Deviney remembered going to the bedroom of her 7-year old son to kiss him good night and she "thought of the mothers of all those boys in the presentment."
Collusion among AG, BOT, and Freeh
The PSU BOT and the PA OAG both had to know the FTR charges didn't apply to Curley and Schultz, and that the perjury charges also couldn't stick based on the uncorroborated testimony of Mike McQueary. The AG's filing of those charges was wrong, as was the BOT's inaction to rebut the charges.
It appears that both parties are using the Sandusky scandal as a deflection. The OAG has put the onus on PSU officials in order to cover-up the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and the actions and in-actions of individuals at The Second Mile.
Similarly, the PSU BOT gladly threw Paterno and the administrators under the bus very likely to deflect attention away from their business relationships with The Second Mile. The Freeh Report, which Frazier called "comprehensive and thorough," made no mention of those relationships either.
It has been truly amazing to see that neither the AG Linda Kelly, the PSU BOT, and Louis Freeh had not a single bad word to say about Sandusky's victim farm. Moreover, the Board put a provision in the Sandusky victim settlements that precluded them from suing the charity, according to settlement attorney Josh Rozen:
"Under the terms of each settlement, the victims have agreed not to sue Penn State or Second Mile [Sandusky's former charity], and cede their right to sue Second Mile to the university, which plans to go to court to try to get the charity's insurer to reimburse the university for some of the claim amount, Rozen said."
Conversely, the PSU BOT has done everything in its power (e.g., the firings, accepting responsibility for the conclusions in the Freeh Report, agreeing to the NCAA Consent Decree and, paying victim settlements) to ensure that Curley and Schultz, then Spanier, would be convicted in the court of public opinion -- before the trials ever take place.
As Joe McGettigan said about the Curley and Schultz trial, "we don't plan to try that case."
And they don't need to.
The court of public opinion, aided by the actions of the OAG, the Board, and the PSU administration, and Louis Freeh, has already convicted them.
Friday, August 30
Tom Harmon: The Untold Story
Gary Schultz's not so "secret file" continues to unravel the false charges of a cover-up by PSU
The history of the 1998 case shows that CYS punted the case to DPW after the first day of the investigation, after "realizing" they had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile. CYS also arranged to bring in John Seasock to perform the evaluation of Victim 6. The police report demonstrates that Detective Schreffler was critical of Seasock's interview and questioned him about his knowledge of the case. (Note: The file also appears to have alterations on the page regarding the fateful psych interview conducted by Seasock.)
Schultz's note makes clear that contacting The Second Mile was not the option selected.
If Courtney determined that the "time clock" started upon McQueary's report to Paterno on 9:00 AM Saturday, February 10th, the deadline for making a report would have been Monday, February 12th at 900 AM. Thus the hypothetical of Schultz directing Harmon to report to CYS on Monday morning would fit the timeline for making the report in the legally required time. It is also entirely logical that Harmon, as the Chief of Police, would be the individual Schultz would direct to initiate a report.
By
Ray Blehar
As I mentioned previously, seasoned analysts sometimes detect missing information -- information that should be found, but is conspicuously missing - that leads to solving a case.
In this propaganda campaign by the Attorney General, omissions and false statements have been the norm from the release of the November 2011 Grand Jury Presentment to the most recent testimony at the preliminary hearing.
The AG's accusation of a PSU cover up to avoid bad publicity or preserve the Penn State brand is held together by a web of lies and omissions, a number of which involve PSU's former police Chief, Tom Harmon.
The AG's accusation of a PSU cover up to avoid bad publicity or preserve the Penn State brand is held together by a web of lies and omissions, a number of which involve PSU's former police Chief, Tom Harmon.
The questions not asked of Harmon (at the preliminary hearings), his apparent false statements, missing witnesses, altered evidence, and the absence of key evidence are all part and parcel of the propaganda campaign. When you put the pieces together, circumstantial evidence points to Tom Harmon as the person who likely reported the 2001 incident to Centre County CYS and blows up the false narrative of a cover-up by the indicted PSU officials.
I suspect the most important lie, among the suspected lies told by Harmon, is that Schultz never told him about the 2001 incident. When you look at the evidence, Harmon's contention that he was never told about the McQueary incident just doesn't hold water.
I suspect the most important lie, among the suspected lies told by Harmon, is that Schultz never told him about the 2001 incident. When you look at the evidence, Harmon's contention that he was never told about the McQueary incident just doesn't hold water.
In short, Harmon - like Cynthia Baldwin - is a very likely a cog in the wheel of the Commonwealth's false narrative that deflects the blame from the state's child protection agencies and instead places it squarely on PSU.
Harmon's Testimony
Here's a recap of Harmon's testimony:
-- On February 12, 2001, Schultz inquired about the 1998 case (via an e-mail that has not been released publicly).
-- Harmon responds via e-mail that the police report is in the imaged files (Freeh Report, Exhibit 5D).
-- Harmon also testifed that he knew the file Schultz was asking about was in reference to the Sandusky 1998 child abuse investigation.
-- Harmon testified that he didn't ask why Schultz was inquiring about the file.
-- Harmon testified that he didn't recall Schultz asking for the file and he didn't recall providing it to him.
-- Harmon later testified that if Schultz would have asked him for it, he would have remembered that fact.
-- Harmon testified that Schultz didn't say there was another Sandusky incident in 2001, otherwise Harmon said he would have opened an investigation.
However, the prosecutor never asked if Harmon, himself, had retrieved the file or bothered to look at it.
Nor did they ask him if he ever discussed the contents of the 1998 police report with Schultz. To be fair, the defense team didn't ask those questions either.
Nor did they ask him if he ever discussed the contents of the 1998 police report with Schultz. To be fair, the defense team didn't ask those questions either.
They are interesting questions because Schultz's handwritten note from his personal file says: "reviewed 1998 history."
How did Schultz do it?
Schultz's Review of the 1998 Incident
Schultz could have gotten the 1998 police report from someone else in the University Park police department. That's possible, but not likely, considering that if someone else provided the file, they'd have been identified as a witness in the case to lock down the pejury charge. Schultz was charged with perjury because he claimed he was not aware of the 1998 police report. The charge was made in March 2012 - before Schultz and Belcher turned over the file formerly known as the "secret file." Therefore, that charge was likely made based on the e-mail evidence, which was turned over in March 2011 according to OAG forensics expert Braden Cook. The e-mail Exhibit reveals Harmon informed him of the existence of the police report. Barring the possibility that the OAG already possessed the "secret file," the e-mail is the only evidence of Schultz's knowledge of the 1998 police report that could have substantiated the perjury charge.
Schultz also could have reviewed the 1998 history from his review of the contents of the "secret file." The file contained at least five pages of hand written notes on the 1998 case, including Freeh Report Exhibits 2H (2 pages), 2I (2 pages), and one page that contained five bullet points on the investigation. In addition, Schultz also could have accessed his e-mails from 1998 rather easily. If the e-mails and notes were the 1998 history reviewed by Schultz, then it would mean he testified truthfully about his lack of knowledge of the 1998 police report. This scenario is highly probable, given that the Sandusky file was in a drawer in his office and the e-mails were accessible (the system turnover occurred in 2004).
A third alternative was that Harmon pulled the file and provided the information to Schultz verbally. I find that this is a highly probable scenario, given the evasiveness of the prosecutions questioning, the evidentiary omissions, and behaviors typical of a police officer.
So, let's play this out for a moment in this hypothetical conversation.....
Schultz: Tom, do we have a record of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky?
Harmon: "Regarding the incident in 1998 involving the former coach, I checked and the incident is documented in our imaged archives." (Actual Reponse)
Schultz: Thanks, Tom, I just felt like checking on that today - kind of hit me out of the blue.
Harmon: Anytime, Gary.
Rather implausible, wouldn't you say?
Harmon testified that Schultz rarely involved himself in police investigations and could not recall Schultz asking to review other police files. Schultz also testified that he didn't customarily review police reports. So, this was not a routine question by Schultz and it was something that Harmon recalled from memory. Harmon then testified that to his recollection, Schultz did not ask for the file nor did he provide it to Schultz, and that he (Harmon) wasn't curious about why Schultz asked about it.
But what is the reality here?
Harmon's Inconsistent Behaviors
The reality is that any policeman worth his or her salt would at least ask the reason for the inquiry -- and suspect something was going on with Sandusky again, given Harmon's knowledge of the 1998 case. It is also highly likely that Harmon, who checked the imaged archives for the existence of the file and would have retrieved it, considering that his boss was asking about it.
The other curious (or should I say, false) statement by Harmon is his contention that if Schultz told him Sandusky had showered with a child that it would have caused him to immediately open up an investigation. That statement is incongruent with his behavior in 1998, when a mother came to his police force with an allegation of a sexual assault against Sandusky. Given that Schreffler had opened up an investigation (which Harmon probably would have squelched), Harmon's alternative was to label the file as "administrative information." It's also notable that Harmon thought it important to notify Schultz about Chambers' psychologist's report generating an incident number with DPW. However it is unlikely that Harmon chose to label the file as "administrative information" to avoid the media finding out - rather, he did it to likely protect his fellow church goer and former neighbor, Jerry Sandusky, from public scrutiny.
Harmon's alleged rationale of PSU avoiding bad publicity (not so ironically, the Commonwealth's story of PSU's motive in this case) is also incongruent with his behavior as the Chief of the University Park police, when his police force was arresting PSU football players one after the next from 2000 up until and after the time he retired in 2005. It's quite an impressive record of arrests - 60 over 8 years (according to a June 11, 2008 blogpost on BlackShoeDiaries) and many of those, including the high profile Maurice Humphrey case, occurred on Harmon's watch.
The evidence indicates that Tom Harmon and the University Park police didn't give a whit about bad publicity for PSU or the football program.
The AG's rationale of a cover-up to avoid bad publicity never made sense. Now it makes even less sense when you know the history of Tom Harmon's policing activities.
Detailed Timeline Highlights Facts About 1998, Second Mile
A detailed analysis of the 2001 timeline indicates that Schultz did not remember the 1998 report until after talking with Spanier on the afternoon of February 12, 2001 -- and likely after speaking with Harmon about the 1998 and 2001 cases. Given all of the above, it is likely that Harmon was the person who jogged Schultz's memory about the 1998 case and who was asked by Schultz to report the incident to CYS.
The 2001 Detailed Timeline
Bold italics indicate suspected activity
Times in italics are approximate
Times in italics are approximate
2/9 McQueary witnessed incident in Lasch. Tells his father & Dr. Dranov - and possibly his girlfriend.
2/10 9:00 AM McQueary told Paterno about the incident. (AM)
2/11 9:00 AM Paterno informs Curley and Schultz of incident (AM)
2/11 Schultz consults with Wendell Courtney. Courtney later claimed no knowledge of 1998 incident.
2/12 Schultz phones Harmon and instructs him to contact CYS regarding 2001 incident.
2/12 2:30PM Schultz and Curley meet with Spanier. Spanier was not told about 1998 incident.
2/12 Schultz e-mails Harmon regarding the 1998 case. (Not admitted as evidence)
2/12 4:57PM Harmon replies that the 1998 police file is in the imaged archive.
2/12 Schultz discusses 1998 incident with Harmon.
2/12 Schultz writes note outlining the following:
Met with TMC. Reviewed 1998 history. TMC to meet w/JS on Friday. Option to call DPW.
2/13
2/14
2/15
2/16 Postponed TMC meeting with Sandusky.
2/17
2/18
2/19 Schultz and Curley meet with Mike McQueary
2/20
2/21
2/22 Schultz e-mail to arrange meeting with Curely and Spanier. (Not admitted as evidence.)
2/23 Spanier sends e-mail to confirm meeting. (Not admitted as evidence in preliminary hearing.)
2/24
2/25 Handwritten note from Schultz outlining next steps.
2/25 Spanier meets with Curley at his residence to discuss next steps.
2/26 1:57PM Schultz e-mails Curley
1. Talk to subject ASAP about not using facilities with TSM. 2. Contact TSM. 3. Contact DPW.
2/27 8:10PM Curley e-mails to pitch revised plan. 10:18PM Spanier confirms plan.
2/28 2:13PM Schultz confirms plan.
The (Possible) Schultz/Harmon Discussion
The not so "secret file" states that Schultz "reviewed 1998 history." I suspect that the review by Schultz included his files on the 1998 report, e-mails, and a discussion of the 1998 case (police report) with Harmon.
One of the more interesting facts in the e-mail evidence is a passage on the e-mail (Exhibit 2C) of June 8, 1998 from Schultz to Harmon, which states: "I recall the last time we talked you indicated that there was some aspects of this that you felt you should review with me when we had a chance to talk."
The history of the 1998 case shows that CYS punted the case to DPW after the first day of the investigation, after "realizing" they had a conflict of interest with The Second Mile. CYS also arranged to bring in John Seasock to perform the evaluation of Victim 6. The police report demonstrates that Detective Schreffler was critical of Seasock's interview and questioned him about his knowledge of the case. (Note: The file also appears to have alterations on the page regarding the fateful psych interview conducted by Seasock.)
At the July 2013 preliminary hearing, Harmon revealed that on May 27, 1998, CYS called the University Park police to request that Schreffler not interview Sandusky without DPW's Lauro being present.
Given the above, Schultz may have gotten the impression that CYS was not operating on the up-and-up when dealing with Sandusky and that DPW may need to be called in "as an independent agency concerned w child welfare." Why would Schultz call out DPW's independence in the matter if it wasn't for the fact he had reservations about CYS?
Critical Point On Timeline: Wendell Courtney Consultation
Wendell Courtney's legal review of the incident is the critical point on the timeline that makes the scenario of Harmon as the designated reporter very likely. While we don't know how he advised Schultz, we do know that the law on child abuse reporting requires a report to be made within 48 hours.
A fair reading of the 2001 law would have provided PSU with two options that would have required them to "make or cause a report to be made" of the incident. The first option would be directly reporting the incident to child protection authorities and the second would be to inform The Second Mile (Sandusky's charity) with the expectation that they would file the report.
A fair reading of the 2001 law would have provided PSU with two options that would have required them to "make or cause a report to be made" of the incident. The first option would be directly reporting the incident to child protection authorities and the second would be to inform The Second Mile (Sandusky's charity) with the expectation that they would file the report.
Schultz's note makes clear that contacting The Second Mile was not the option selected.
If Courtney determined that the "time clock" started upon McQueary's report to Paterno on 9:00 AM Saturday, February 10th, the deadline for making a report would have been Monday, February 12th at 900 AM. Thus the hypothetical of Schultz directing Harmon to report to CYS on Monday morning would fit the timeline for making the report in the legally required time. It is also entirely logical that Harmon, as the Chief of Police, would be the individual Schultz would direct to initiate a report.
The option of reporting the incident to The Second Mile didn't arise until February 26th, according to available evidence. It is then logical to conclude, based on the available evidence, that Courtney advised that PSU contact CYS. The contact of DPW referenced on Schultz note was outside the legal time limit, thus was likely a back-up plan (as I alluded to earlier).
Follow up discussions focused on Sandusky's behavior
Note that while there was a legal requirement to report Sandusky (which appears to have been resolved by Monday, February 12th) PSU officials still had to resolve the issue of Sandusky' inappropriate behavior as an emeritus employee. It was clear that Schultz and Curley needed to gather facts from McQueary to know what exactly was observed, assess the situation, and determine further actions.
The evidence in the case indicates that Schultz had a greater sense of urgency about resolving the matter than did Curley, considering his actions to consult Courtney about the incident, his contacts with Harmon, and his management of the situation involving his administrative assistant, Joan Coble.
The 25 February e-mail from Schultz to Curley likely originated because of Coble's "tickler" file. As Coble testified, she put pending actions in the file and reminded Schultz about them at various intervals. The March 7, 2001 e-mail from Coble to Curley would be indicative of her use of the "tickler file" to ensure that Curley closed the loop with Schultz on the matter.
Based on this information, Freeh's conclusion that Curley met with The Second Mile on March 19th would be contradicted by not only the March 7th e-mail, but by Spanier's statement (Exhibit 2J) that Curley had met with Sandusky and The Second Mile within days of their February 26th meeting.
The evidence in the case indicates that Schultz had a greater sense of urgency about resolving the matter than did Curley, considering his actions to consult Courtney about the incident, his contacts with Harmon, and his management of the situation involving his administrative assistant, Joan Coble.
The 25 February e-mail from Schultz to Curley likely originated because of Coble's "tickler" file. As Coble testified, she put pending actions in the file and reminded Schultz about them at various intervals. The March 7, 2001 e-mail from Coble to Curley would be indicative of her use of the "tickler file" to ensure that Curley closed the loop with Schultz on the matter.
Based on this information, Freeh's conclusion that Curley met with The Second Mile on March 19th would be contradicted by not only the March 7th e-mail, but by Spanier's statement (Exhibit 2J) that Curley had met with Sandusky and The Second Mile within days of their February 26th meeting.
Schultz and Courtney Recall PSU Contacted CYS
At the December 16, 2011 Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Gary Schultz made at least six references (starting on page 227) in which he recalled or referenced a report and/or investigation of the 2001 incident by the "the agency" or "the child protection agency" that handled the 1998 investigation. At one point during the questioning, prosecutor Frank Fina lied to Schultz, telling him that the police handled the investigation in its entirety (page 228). Here is the transcript from which it is clear that Schultz believed the incident was turned over to the "child protection agency" and that Frank Fina lied.
Wendell Courtney also recalled that Penn State had contacted CYS in 2001. Page 84 of the Freeh Report states: "..However, I recall that someone (I don't think it was me, since if it was I would have written documentation of the contact) contacted Children and Youth Services to advise of the situation so that they could do whatever they thought was appropriate under the circumstances, while being apprised what PSU's actions were, i.e., advising JS to no longer bring kids to PSU's football locker rooms."
The AG's press release of the Sandusky indictment and grand jury presentment, incorrectly stated that Courtney represented both The Second Mile and Penn State in 1998 and was apprised of the details of that case. Courtney corrected the record, stating he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, a report of a rape in 2002, and did not represent TSM as it's counsel until 2009.
The AG's (Nils Frederikson) response to Courtney's corrections (incredibly) was: "If he wants to engage in semantics, so be it."
TSM confirmed that Courtney was not hired as their legal counsel until 2009.
The AG's press release of the Sandusky indictment and grand jury presentment, incorrectly stated that Courtney represented both The Second Mile and Penn State in 1998 and was apprised of the details of that case. Courtney corrected the record, stating he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, a report of a rape in 2002, and did not represent TSM as it's counsel until 2009.
The AG's (Nils Frederikson) response to Courtney's corrections (incredibly) was: "If he wants to engage in semantics, so be it."
TSM confirmed that Courtney was not hired as their legal counsel until 2009.
In summary, two PSU officials recall a report was made to CYS in 2001. It would be fantastic if PSU could produce a record of this contact and end this entire mess.
Unfortunately, it appears that Chief Harmon, who didn't want to have a crime log report on Sandusky in 1998, would have been the guy to make such documentation of a report to CYS.
Unfortunately, it appears that Chief Harmon, who didn't want to have a crime log report on Sandusky in 1998, would have been the guy to make such documentation of a report to CYS.
It's likely we now know why PSU doesn't have a record of the 2001 report anywhere in its files.
What Would Other Missing "Evidence" and Testimony Prove?
Missing E-Mail Evidence
Why has the Schultz e-mail "request" for the 1998 case information never been released or viewed as evidence? What language does it contain that is so damaging to the state's case that neither the prosecution will introduce it as evidence at proceedings or that Louis Freeh would exclude it from his report?
Did it contain instructions for Harmon to open an investigation or contact child welfare? Did it mention the 2001 incident?
Did it contain instructions for Harmon to open an investigation or contact child welfare? Did it mention the 2001 incident?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Another piece of evidence that should be bolstering the Commonwealth's case (of a failure to report by PSU) is the testimony of a case worker or similar individual from CYS.
But we haven't heard from those people either.
Carol Smith/CYS
The Commonwealth has relied on Agent Anthony Sassano to testify on CYS's behalf in this matter. Sassano stated he contacted Carol Smith, the Director at Centre County CYS, who informed him that she did not recall any report nor have knowledge of a report in 2002 (sic). Sassano stated that Smith recalled the 1998 case, but none after that.
Of course, Carol Smith has quite an incentive to lie, as does anyone else working at CYS who may have decided not to investigate the case. I suspect that's why she nor anyone else at CYS has been called to testify in this matter.
There is little doubt that someone at CYS knows about PSU's 2001 report, but hasn't the courage to step forward and tell the truth.
Jerry Lauro/DPW
Similarly, the Commonwealth has not asked DPW program representative, Jerry Lauro, or anyone else to take the stand to testify to the lack of receipt of a report. I can understand the Commonwealth's reluctance to call Lauro, considering he made statements to the press about never seeing either psychology report in 1998, yet was responsible for arranging one of the interviews. He's not a credible witness.
Agent Anthony Sassano
Interestingly enough, Sassano actually let slip (on page 170) that DPW had records of the report (see below)
At the July 30, 2013, Preliminary Perjury Hearing, Sassano was cross-examined about whether he rechecked for the existence of records regarding the 2001 incident. Originally, Sassano and everyone else (except Sandusky) believed the crime occurred in 2002. Sassano answered that he checked with CYS, but not DPW. Then he incorrectly stated that he did call DPW and they had no report (page 26). Therefore, Sassano has yet to close the door on the issue of the 2001 report still floating around at DPW.
Sassano then made the case that the absence of a police report at the time of the 2001 incident was proof of a failure to report because investigations are always conducted jointly between police and child care caseworkers. Sassano then stated he checked with the University Park police department and they had no report of an investigation in 2001.
And why would they?
The person who would have opened up that investigation (and report) was none other than Tom Harmon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
