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 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.  

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.

BOT's Rejection of Freeh Report is Best Way to Fight the new D.F. Lawsuit

Ryan Bagwell's latest find of a lawsuit filed by D.F that reveals that the PSU BOT has set the University up for more payouts -- unless it rejects the Freeh Report

By
Ray Blehar

Bagwell:  Documents obtained thru
Sunshine Fund are exposing the BOT

Ryan Bagwell's latest cache of documents includes not only verification that a Federal investigation related to the Sandusky case is ongoing, but that another Sandusky victim has filed suit against PSU and The Second Mile.  According to a source close to the PA OAG, the number of Sandusky victims is now over 50. 

Translation -- more lawsuits.  

It now appears likely that the PSU BOT was mistaken in its belief that the settlements with 26 victims for $59.7 million would prevent costly litigation and future bad publicity.  

The latest case also could  mean an onslaught of litigation for the co-defendant, The Second Mile charity.  At last check of the charity's 2012 IRS 990 filing, the charity held nearly $4.9 million in assets just one year ago (on August 31, 2013). 

Latest Victim Is More Proof of Bungled Sandusky Investigation

The legal filing states that the latest victim was found by using The Second Mile lists found in Sandusky's home in June 2011.  As I reported in Report 3 (page 22), the investigators failed to follow up on those asterisked names, which included the name, phone number, and mother's first name for Victim 9.   Victim 9 was reported to police by his school's assistant principal after news of the Sandusky charges broke.

Victim D.F.'s family was contacted by police in April 2012 and he was subsequently interviewed at that time.  However, based on statements from AG Kathleen Kane, many of the children on these lists were not interviewed until the Spring of 2013.  Kane said. "I was concerned after I took office and found out that there may be more victims that no one talked to."

This does not bode well for PSU.

Eckel and BOT wrong about lawsuits

Eckel: Disconnected
from reality on lawsuits

At the August 13th, 2014, PSU BOT Conference Call regarding the Corman vs. NCAA lawsuit, trustee Keith Eckel's faulty arguments (starting at 26:30) against challenging the NCAA Consent Decree were based, in part, on the idea that the end was in sight on the NCAA sanctions (i.e., 2016).  Conversely, he saw no end in sight if PSU legally challenged it:

"..the timetable that the Consent Decree encompasses -- we can see the end of that. I do not see the end of that with legal battles."

While it is likely true that the Corman v. NCAA lawsuit could extend beyond 2016 if no settlement is reached, Eckel's rationale to not sue the NCAA in order to avoid legal battles certainly seems disconnected from reality. PSU will be fighting legal battles well past 2016, whether or not it decided to legally challenge the NCAA sanctions.

Lawsuits galore

As the D.F. lawsuit shows, there is no end to the legal battles for PSU regardless of the decision to not sue the NCAA.  As it stands today, PSU is engaged in the Victim 6, Victim 9, Paterno, Et Al v. NCAA, Jay Paterno, Graham Spanier, and Mike McQueary lawsuits as a defendant.  It is also paying for the defenses of Curley, Schultz, and Spanier in the criminal trial -- of which there is no "beginning" in sight.  It is also likely they are going to have to pick up the tab for Cynthia Baldwin in the Schultz vs. Baldwin professional liability case.  Finally, PSU is a plaintiff versus the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association (PMA) Insurance Company, who refused to pay for the victim settlements because abuse and molestation has not been covered in PSU's policy after March 2002.