Frank Parlato
Here is another vignette of prosecutorial misconduct in the Jerry Sandusky case: Victim #8.
We do not know his name. No one does.
All we have for evidence of victim 8 is what a janitor said he heard from another janitor 12 years before the 2012 trial.
Forget the fact that biased Judge John Cleland would allow this horse crap of 12-year-old hearsay into the trial. Just consider the facts:
Penn State janitor Ron Petrosky told the jury at Sandusky’s criminal trial that another Penn State janitor, Jim Calhoun (who did not testify), said he saw someone he did not know licking a boy’s genitals in the locker room during the busy football season.
Petrosky said Calhoun told him he saw this abuse in 2000, but there is no record of Calhoun or anyone reporting it to police.
Petrosky testified he never saw any abuse.
But Petrosky did testify he saw Sandusky exit the Penn State locker room one night with a boy he thought was between 11 and 13. They were carrying athletic bags, apparently worked out in the gym, and had showered afterwards.
Petrosky said their hair was wet. He said good evening, and Sandusky and the boy did not slink away, cower or try to hide, but rather openly acknowledged him.
Janitor Petrosky noted the hallway in the Lasch building is long. Sandusky took the boy’s hand, as the two left the building.
Petrosky said he also saw Sandusky drive through the well-lit parking lot later that evening.
In his hearsay testimony, Petrosky described Calhoun as upset and crying. Petrosky testified Calhoun told him he had seen someone he did not know holding a boy up against the wall and licking him.
Prosecutors Eschbach, Joe McGettigan, and Frank Fina worked hard to put together this hearsay evidence. They spent a lot of time coaching the simple janitor Petrosky and getting their prosecutorial partner, Judge John Cleland, to admit this as evidence.
Did Not Reveal Critical Evidence
While the prosecutors took great pains to make sure the jury made all the right inferences from the testimony of Petrosky, they did not bother to let the jury know that police had interviewed Calhoun, the janitor who allegedly witnessed the abuse.
PA state trooper Robert Yakicic recorded his interview with Jim Calhoun on May 15, 2011 — a year before the trial.
Though the prosecutors knew about the taped interview, they did not want to burden the jury with evidence contradicting the judge and the prosecution’s preferred verdict.
The Interview
On the tape, Trooper Yakicic asked Calhoun, 84 years old and in a wheelchair, what he thought of Sandusky.
Calhoun said he was “a pretty good guy,”
Yakicic asked Calhoun if he recalled the shower incident.
Calhoun said he did and would recognize the abuser if he encountered him.
Was it Sandusky?
Calhoun said, “No, I don’t believe it was.”
Yakicic asked, “You don’t?”
Calhoun said: “I don’t believe it was. I don’t think Sandusky was the person. It wasn’t him. There’s no way. Sandusky never did anything at all that I can see.”
A Lie by Omission
The prosecutors, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Jonelle Eschbach, Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina did one of the two things they do best — lie by omission.
The other thing they are good at is lying.
Relying on Petrosky’s hearsay evidence at a twelve-year remove, the judge’s decision that it was valid evidence and not knowing about the tape, the jury found Sandusky guilty of abusing an unknown, unnamed victim #8.
During his closing, prosecutor McGettigan said victim #8’s identity is “known to God, but not to us.”
But it is possible that even God does not know his identity for the simple reason that this Sandusky “victim” was never born.
This passes for justice in Pennsylvania, where hearsay evidence can be better than direct evidence.
Or, as they say in Pennsylvania, “verdict first, trial afterward.”
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I wish the little boy in the shower would come forward.
Why can’t we have hearsay evidence ? The janitor Petrowski knows what he heard ?
I think I should work for Frank. I have some ideas. You think he would hire me? Matt Sandusky lives 15 minutes away on the bike path.
What some facts bring to bear:
May 1998 Sandusky wrestles to “pin” boy in locker room; kisses his head; “I love you” he says; while showering he gives the boy a bear hug declaring “I’m gonna squeeze your guts out”; then he would lift him high to get “the soap out”; boy departs feeling weird & uncomfortable.
Boy’s mom confronts Sandusky; tells him “contact with genitals” is over the line; to which he says, “I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I wish I were dead.”
Sandusky might have had a wake up call.
June 1998 Sandusky is talked to by Univ. Police & Public Welfare reps where he cops to May’s shower incident; promises to not do it again & is “emotional” while expressing concern of how he may have adversely affected the child.
Again Sandusky might have had a wake up call.
November 2000 in another inappropriate shower scene Sandusky is observed by one janitor; then observed by another janitor “holding hands” with the boy while leaving the same night.
February 2001 in another inappropriate shower scene Sandusky is observed by McQueary.
March 2001 Athletic Director Curley has to tell Sandusky his behavior is “uncomfortable” & “stop” it; also 2nd Mile Exec. meets w/ Sandusky & reiterates Curley’s warning – he is “prohibited” from showers & locker rooms.
Ten years later Sandusky is arrested.
What happened over that ten year period is contested but Sandusky’s conduct is not so easily explained by anything I’ve heard on this platform.
“Justice For Jerry” needs to grow into a movement that the mainstream media can no longer ignore. Mr. Parlato has his teeth clamped onto this injustice. Knowing his doggedly excellent investigative reporting that exposed and brought down the Raniere-MXIVN cult, I suspect the true criminals in the Sandusky case are growing more uneasy by the day.
Hearsay evidence is all that matters in our courts which are for-profit businesses acting under the false representation that they are for and by the people.
It’s simply not true which is why the innocent and often brave reporters are handed lengthy indictments and only hearsay to gain convictions.
With Canada’s new ‘online harms’ bill set to make online hate punishable up to LIFE in prison, is Trudeau C-63 bill about protecting children or about labelling any speech he personally dislikes as hateful
If Donald Trump wins the US presidential election, it will be “a step back” that makes life tough for Canada, PM Trudeau said.
The latter
“It’s just remarkable how many children one man can shower with.” Petrosky says Calhoun’s face was white and his hands were trembling.
PREVIOUS STORY:
One, a foster child, said he was threatened, warned he would never see his family again if he ever told anyone what happened. Another said he stayed quiet because he didn’t want to stop getting tickets to the hottest game in town – Penn State football.
I like the little liar who said he was willing to be ass raped 100 times becuase he wanted to go to football games. It’s a better story than I’ll kill uou and your mother.
So I guess we are asked to believe if a kid liked football enough he would keep his mouth shut. If not Sandusky would kill him and his mother.
They all made millions.
This is a glimpse of the actual deceitful, egregious, and evil ‘workings’ of this travesty that people look at as justice. Repugnant and laughable!
As for the argument which denied an appeal because Calhoun might have developed dementia…..your clear description of the details shows that Calhoun knew who Sandusky was. He had only worked at Penn State for a total of 8 months, only a brief few days after the conversation with Petrovsky where the perpetrator was *a stranger* whose name he didn’t know.
All that matters is, all those years later, he confirms, Sandusky was a friend of his, someone whom he *did* know.
Any attempt to spin Petrovsky’s witness statements into implicating Sandusky based on all sorts of other observations, that he spent time with children etc, meet this final insurmountable barrier: it doesn’t matter what Calhoun may have forgotten in his old age. It is enough that he does remember that he was Sandusky’s friend — and it is on record that the perpetrator was a stranger.
.
This article is mainly accurate. But you forgot one thing these prosecutors do as well or better than lying by omission and lying — which is suborning perjury.
Please make the appropriate correction or I may have to sue.
Victim 8 might be holding out. smart kid never took a dime from PSU.
So if I was Eschbach, Fina or McGettigan I’d be so pissed at this Parlato guy for character assassination that I’d sue him and own the MFer’s house. Oh wait, that line has already been taken by another of the liars in this case. We are going to need a scorecard to keep track of all the liars. When somebody says “well, they can’t all be lying!” Oh yes they are!!!!!
Awesome post. Keep them coming.