Frank Parlato
What a cast of characters we have in the wrongful conviction of Jerry Sandusky. All the supposed good guys were the bad guys in this story.
The judges were biased and crooked, the politicians were vengeful and dishonest. The prosecutors were villains riding on a high horse, and the lawyers were incompetent and worse.
The accusers were liars and money-grubbing grifters.
Some board of trustees were shape-shifters seeking to take care of themselves.
And the media was deplorable. The police and the investigator Louis Freeh were abominable liars.
Sandusky Was a Hero
Jerry Sandusky was railroaded into prison by a corrupt combination of perjurers – accusers, prosecutors, a despicable judge, shyster civil lawyers, a vicious governor and a cowardly, malicious, reckless media, and greedy group of Penn State trustees – and others.
Only a few heroes here: Jerry Sandusky, his wife, the three men who were collateral damage – Graham Spanier, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley.
Above them all is Sandusky himself, a great American and a man of unusual strength.
The Sadist and the Coward
But let us meet two villains in the Sandusky case, and how they revealed who they are through their relationship with each other.
So many of these so-called good people showed their true colors through their actions and as interpreted by time. If there is one word that separates the villains from the good ones, the angels, it is the lying.
You who study the Sandusky case will realize that all the villains lied.
They knew they were lying. They may have thought they were justified at the time, because not everyone could be lying about Sandusky. If they lied, the others weren’t lying, so they justified their lies and the money they took from Penn State.
Now let’s talk about two big liars, two villains, both lawyers. One of them was the lawyer for Penn State, Cynthia Baldwin, and the other was the lead prosecutor, the deplorable, despicable man with a rat’s visage, a cockroach’s heart and schemer’s brain, a villain even among villains, a man who would ruin anybody for the pure joy of hurting another human being; Senior Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina.
He and Baldwin had quite a dance of fate. They both ruined each other’s reputations.
The Incompetent Cynthia Baldwin
Cynthia Baldwin had been a judge in Allegheny County for a while. She had also become a Penn State trustee, a non-paying job, but an opportunity to find opportunities for herself. Then, one day, a vacancy came up in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The position is usually elected, but in this case, there were two years left of somebody else’s term.
The governor of PA fills vacancies when they crop up. He wanted to make it a diversity appointment. So, he chose the most safely incompetent appointment he could, and still appear on board with diversity.
So, he cut a deal with Baldwin, where she could fill the two years on the term, boost up her pension, and have the prestige of being on the Supreme Court for a time, even though everyone knew she was nowhere near competent enough to rule on the abstruse and subtle legal points sometimes put before the PA Supreme Court.
So, he made the deal. Baldwin agreed she would only stay for two years, serve the unexpired term, and not run on her own for a term. She could no more be a Supreme Court judge, for example, than a lawyer to represent anybody in a serious capacity.
While she was good at schmoozing, she wasn’t competent as an attorney or judge. Baldwin filled the term, and she saw that she would need some income at the end of the two years.
Baldwin Creates a Job for Herself
While serving as an unpaid member of the Penn State board of trustees, she crafted a clever plan to create a new $300,000 per year position at Penn State, the new general counsel position for the university. Baldwin cleverly figured Penn State could use her incompetence for an extra $300,000 annually.
Baldwin proved her incompetence as a lawyer for Penn State when she lied 80 plus times to the grand jury and threw her innocent clients under the bus in a cowardly act to save herself from indictment. We will tell that story in detail later.
It was part of Fina’s coverup of the wrongful conviction of the innocent Jerry Sandusky to make him look guilty by convicting three other innocent men.
Baldwin displayed the only idea of justice she ever understood — save her capacious ass at all costs, including the truth.
Fina Loses His Law License for Lying
Frank Fina, the above-mentioned psychopathic chief of criminal prosecutions of the office of the attorney general, led the investigation of Jerry Sandusky. Later, Fina lost his law license for a year and a day over his handling of Baldwin as a grand jury witness. He threatened her, and she perjured herself.
Porn Boy Fina
The Philadelphia DA also fired Fina as an Assistant District Attorney before his suspension for his role in Porngate. That is a story for another day. But suffice to say Frank Fina loved to share porn with judges he would appear in front of and lawyers he would oppose, or perhaps to say it more accurately, lawyers he would cut backroom deals with to sell their clients down the river, if not drown them altogether.
Fina was fond of using his official attorney general’s email account to send porn to judges and lawyers, sometimes with an intimidating innuendo or two, but always in good, clean, dirty fun.
Later, when he left the attorney general’s office, he tried to scrub those emails from the attorney general’s computers. But, forensic analysts found them anyway, which Fina always felt was unfair, for he always felt he could use emails against defendants, but no one should use an email of a prosecutor against him.
He had used the tool of an old email taken out of context and Baldwin’s perjury to charge Penn State President Graham Spanier with perjury.
In Fina’s case, there were thousands of emails. Porn was the coin of the realm in Fina’s world while he was busy falsely convicting Jerry Sandusky and others.
Stay tuned for more on the sadist and the coward.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
I’m a great man
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/05/17/kathleen-kane-frank-fina/
Redfin
PENDING ON JUN 3, 2024
8 Hale Dr,Halfmoon, NY 12065
https://www.redfin.com/NY/Halfmoon/8-Hale-Dr-12065/home/92629617
Artvoice lol state_college_mural_artist_to.html
you want us to click on a random, unknown and possibly harmful link?
When the mother of one of Sandusky’s alleged victims emailed him Wednesday morning, asking him to remove Sandusky from the mural, Pilato knew he had to do it. “It saddens me to do this. When I first met Jerry, I thought he was a great man. He fooled me like he fooled everyone.”
He is painting Sandusky out of the mural and painting in an empty chair with a blue ribbon to represent the victims. “I think we need to remember that pedophilia is a sickness and something we have to address as a society,” Pilato said.
Bet Scott Paterno called local artist and asked. I hung with Mike n Mark twins Pilato also with Scott 79/80 school year. We knew Randy Tice from a social gathering on Park Ave that extends along the White golf Coarse over in College Heights. Party in a local house I was there and I remember Scott and one of the twins.
I just arive in USA what is a Sandusky? Good thing?
Try doing a little research.
No worries because if Sandusky is exonerated (Which I DOUBT!) then I will be working to abolish Pennsylvania’s Statute of Limitations regarding Jerry Sandusky’s sordid association with TSM philanthropist Ed Savitz and OTHERS regarding sexual groping & viewing kiddie porn
We always try to help a victim. Matt Sandusky said Jerry will die under Penn State and his football program.
“From where I’m standing, there’s still a lot of uncertainty, there are still a lot of unanswered questions,” Washinton said.
found Jerry Sandusky defense twitter
We got a handle on what happened. Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile. Full stop. Fucking weirdo
Jerry Sandusky never diddled kids at all, right? And Penn State never covered it up or anything? See it happens everywhere and to anyone.
Finally, someone is chasing down direct facts. I feel guilty for not publicizing these important things, Sandusky’s letters to me in 2015 like this one (attached). And no-one can do better than the monumental accomplishments of Ziegler with Habib in the Hindsight series The “With the Benefit of Hindsight…” Podcast Homepage | The Framing of Joe Paterno (framingpaterno.com).
About why in your prev article Amendola agreed to waive the prelim hearing, no-one knew whether someone just saying they have a vague recollection of abuse would constitute proof in the eyes of the jury. You correctly observed that Cleland denying a continuance and rushing the case meant no-one could challenge witness testimony with a Frye hearing. Amendola was overwhelmed by the powerful one-sided reporting by the wire services and big news organizations. With Konstas, Sandusky was literally convicted of being a coach/carer of a sick kid, showering without clothing on in the normal way, and he duly felt shame about it. when asked if he regrets anything he said “I shouldn’t have showered with those kids.”
Amendola did think he needed to court the media and was successful in some ways. For each supposed circumtantial piece of evidence, somewhere else its disproof. All this is lost, though. Trial by media can’t work when the wire services copy snippets without understanding them. The trial should have happened in court, as you described in your last article, with evidentiary hearings.
Just for one example, it was widely reported that Paterno had said in the grand jury, regarding McQueary, that someone had said ‘sexual nature.’ One of the Paterno kids was at the grand jury and wrote an artcle saying Joe was referring to those words which a prosecutor used, who had pulled Joe aside off the record, a minute before he was to testify. The words were the subject heading of like ‘This is what you guys are asking me to deal with.
Instead of each player saying, “I don’t have any particular evidence suggesting he’s guilty,” why did no one stand up and say “He is innocent.” There were huge media productions, the ridiculous Oprah interview of Matt S, the film “Paterno,” the film “Happy Valley”, the production of Aaron, Gillum, and Dawn’s exact words in ‘Silent mno more,’ there were deep detailed investigations like Moulton’s and Sneddon’s. The case was discussed on Daily Show, extensively covered in news snippets.
The recent appeal to Judge Skerda, which she rejected as ‘scattershot’ did have so much material, but the law is like a machine, there is a way things have to be done. Someone has to write a clear appeal maybe based on the letter Jerry S asked for someone to do, and as Forensic Psychiatrist Barden finally did later (after Sadoff, who should have done the work, passed away from old age). Just simply clarify that the facts of the case, agreed on all sides, refer to Sandusky showering with kids in the gym and those where there was a prospect of getting fostered or adopted, put them to bed at night in exactly the same way as any good parent. Then there are brief divergences, which are very very clearly tied to proven causes such as Rossman and Leiter nearly arresting a kid, lying to the kid that others said Sandusky is guilty, and writing down any slightly ambiguous statement as an agreed fact build on later. Whereas appropriate contact is totally consistent, the divergences are clearly and traceably the result of obvious coercion and exaggeration on the part of the interviewers, which wore down the witness to retract their original statement (consistent with all the others).
Whatever are the legal details of it, the jury never learned how the witness statements were cultivated. They saw the smoking gun of the Leiter/Rossman tape recording but not in a context where a Forensic Psychiatrist explains, this is the anatomy of a miscarriage of justice. They never learned of the 600 witness statements saying Sandusky is a father figure who would never abuse anyone. They never learned of the financial motive to lie. When Dottie was challenged on the stand, “If he is lying, why would he lie?” she had to answer “I don’t know.”
Fina and porngate do matter, because they show the mindset of the prosecutors. There is a connection between them admiring bullcrap like Playboy magazine and them misinterpreting Sandusky’s home. One wants to trust the legal system, but Cleland said circumstantial evidence is adequate and can support the ‘excited utterance’ exception regarding hearsay statements which could have been years apart in time. In other words that circumstantial evidence can compound itself accetably. When Cleland replied to Lindsay saying something like “the issue is not a conspiracy the issue is the behaviour of your client,” it was clear that moron Cleland actually was unintelligent enough to think the case had been proven, any appeal was an attempt at a smokescreen. I honestly never believed that could happen.