Frank Parlato
At his 2012 criminal trial, seven men testified Jerry Sandusky had abused them when they were boys.
A Pennsylvania jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 counts of abuse. Judge John Cleland sentenced Sandusky to 30-60 years in prison. He has served 12 years, the first six in the Special Housing Unit. Sandusky is 80.
Sandusky was a coach for the Penn State football team. The accusers said they had met him on campus or that Sandusky abused them in the Penn State locker room. The university paid the men from $1.5 million to $20 million, totaling $62 million.
An additional 29 men came forward after the trial. Penn State paid them another $56 million. The average settlement was $3.3 million.
Millions Handed Over Without Questioning
To be eligible for a Penn State payment, a man must have been a member of Sandusky’s charity for at-risk children, the Second Mile, during his childhood.
To file a claim, the claimant, assisted by their attorney, completed an intake form detailing their abuse and the impact it had on their life.
Dr. Barbara Ziv, a forensic psychiatrist hired by Penn State, reviewed the forms and made recommendations to Penn State’s law firm, Feinberg Rozen LLP of Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ziv relied on the intake forms to guide the university in how much they should pay.
Gullible on Steroids
Penn State decided against using private investigators, or to depose anyone. No polygraph tests were used.
In 2016, attorney Kenneth Feinberg explained why Penn State did not challenge the veracity of the men.
“Preventing years of expensive, protracted, and certain litigation will save Penn State millions of dollars, while sparing the victims who brought their cases forward the agony of an extended legal battle,” Feinberg wrote.
Keyed in on Date
The individuals who received the highest amount of money from Penn State were those who reported Sandusky had abused them after February 2001 – the date on which a graduate assistant coach reportedly informed Penn State officials that Sandusky had abused a boy in the showers.
Kajak Tuned in on Date and Picks Up Extra Millions
Michal Kajak said Sandusky had abused him in the sauna of the locker room in the late 1990s. When it became known that Penn State would pay more to men who were abused after 2001, Kajak claimed his abuse took place after 2001.
Kajak and his attorneys probably did not know that Penn State changed its locker room facilities between 1998 and 2001, and no longer had a sauna.
Penn State, seeking to spare Kajak the agony of being challenged as an opportunistic liar, never questioned his revised story and paid Kajak $8.1 million.
No Outcry at the Time
The men who claimed Sandusky abused them provided various times when they were abused, spanning over 40 years. None of the 36 men had reported the abuse to the police, their parents, a friend, or their school when it was happening.
All but the one waited to tell their tale of abuse until after it was widely known that generous Penn State would pay victims money. The seven who testified at the trial were the critical ones. It was not easy to find victims at first.
Fisher Paved the Way to Gravy for All Who Cared to Slurp It
The case started when 15-year-old Aaron Fisher told his mother he wondered if Sandusky might be a sex offender.
Fisher insisted Sandusky never engaged in any sexual behavior with him. However, according to her neighbor, his mother believed there was an excellent opportunity to sue Sandusky and take ownership of his home.
A youth services counselor advised Fisher’s mother to take her son to therapist Michael Gillum. Starting from the first session, Gillum was convinced Sandusky had abused Fisher and he set out to convince Fisher.
Fresh off bankruptcy, Gillum charged the county $64 per hour for therapy for Fisher, and began to see Fisher weekly and sometimes daily.
During the sessions, Fisher initially denied being abused. However, Gillum finally convinced the teen that he was mistaken and claimed he could “peel away the layers of the mind like an onion” to reveal repressed memories of abuse.
Fisher did not verbally express the abuse, so Gillum would infer how Sandusky had abused Fisher. Fisher simply had to indicate “yes” or nod to confirm the sex crime.
Gillum, working with the police and prosecutors, helped Fisher remember instances of Sandusky forcing him to participate in oral sex. Pennsylvania State troopers talked about how it had taken months to coax Fisher.
“First, it was, ‘Yeah, (Sandusky) would rub my shoulders;’ then it took repetition and repetition and finally, we got to the point where he [Fisher] would tell us what happened,” State Trooper Joseph Leiter said on a tape.
After two years of therapy, Fisher stated Sandusky had abused him more than 100 times between 2005 and 2008 at Sandusky’s home, car, hotel rooms, Fisher’s school, and on the Penn State campus.
Fisher appeared before a grand jury three times. He cried during the first two appearances. When asked if Sandusky had forced him to have oral sex, Fisher denied it. During his third appearance before the grand jury, Fisher testified by reading a written statement about his alleged abuse.
Penn State paid Fisher $7.5 million.
Need More Victims
It was difficult to find victims.
When the police arrived at the doors of former Second Mile members in search of victims, everyone stated Sandusky did not abuse them.
Prosecutors caught a break when Mike McQueary said he witnessed Sandusky abusing a boy in the Penn State showers about a decade earlier.
The media reported the investigation, and in no uncertain language said Penn State would pay victims. Fast and furious.
Civil lawyers such as Andrew Shubin and Ben Andreozzi approached potential victims of Sandusky and provided assistance in crafting their testimonies to maximize settlements from Penn State. All of this occurred before Sandusky was charged with a crime.
Several young men who initially denied being abused by Sandusky hired lawyers.
To explain the changed stories, the lawyers got the accusers into repressed memory therapy, to help them recover memories of abuse they had forgotten.
Penn State Helped Make Poor Men Into Millionaires
Penn State generously offered to cover the cost of therapy for anyone who said Sandusky abused them, even before Sandusky went to trial. This helped create a presumption of guilt against Sandusky, while also highlighting potential issues with the university’s flawed law school.
Struble Didn’t Doodle
When the police first interviewed him, Dustin Struble denied that Sandusky abused him. Later, he underwent recovered memory therapy. During Sandusky’s trial, Struble testified that Sandusky put his hands down his pants when they were riding in Sandusky’s car. Struble also testified that Sandusky grabbed him, pushed his naked front against his backside, then touched the boy’s nipples and blew on his stomach.
When asked why his story had changed, Struble testified, “That doorway that I had closed has since been reopening more. More things have been coming back and things have changed since that grand jury testimony. Through counseling and different things, I can remember a lot more detail that I had pushed aside than I did at that point.”
Penn State paid Struble $3.25 million.
Struble when he testi-lied
Swisher-Houtz Got Raped and Didn’t Feel a Thing
Brett Swisher-Houtz testified at Sandusky’s trial. Mike Gillum provided therapy to Swisher Houtz so he could remember ever-increasing abuse he had never told anyone and seemed to have forgotten.
On Dec. 4, 2012, lawyers Benjamin D. Andreozzi and Jeffrey Fritz, filed a three-and-a-half-page intake on behalf of the Swisher-Houtz
Swisher-Houtz’s lawyers wrote, “The instances of abuse were so frequent that Mr. Swisher-Houtz cannot be expected to list them here. In summary, Mr. Sandusky forced Mr. Swisher to engage in oral sex on countless occasions and attempted to penetrate his anus.”
Penn State paid him $7.25 million.
Ritmeyer’s Testimony Inconsistencies
One accuser did not require repressed memory therapy. Ryan Ritmeyer responded to a hotline in search of Sandusky victims.
Rittmeyer initially told the police that Jerry Sandusky had done nothing more than grope him in a swimming pool.
Then he changed his story to include attempted oral sex while driving in a silver convertible. He alleged Sandusky threatened him that if he didn’t comply, he would never see his family again.
During his testimony before the grand jury on December 5, 2011, Ritmeyer revised his account. He stated he had seen Sandusky once or twice a month between 1997 and 1999 and alleged that sexual acts, primarily involving oral sex, occurred almost every time they met.
Penn State paid Ritmeyer $5.5 million.
Simciscko Told Whoppers and Knelt in the Green
Jason Michael Simcisko initially denied any inappropriate behavior by Sandusky when interviewed by the PA State Police on July 19, 2011. However, after meeting with lawyer Andrew Shubin, Simcisko’s story changed.
In his grand jury testimony on August 18, 2011, he said Sandusky bear-hugged him in the shower with an erection and touched his genitals on two occasions while staying overnight.
At the trial, Simcisko expanded his story, claiming Sandusky washed his buttocks in the shower, and described Sandusky kissing his shoulders and causing him to have an erection. He testified his new memories came after six coaching sessions with his lawyer.
During his trial testimony, Simcisko stated no oral sex or penetrative acts occurred.
After Sandusky’s conviction, Simcisko’s story changed again. In his “confidential intake form” filed with Penn State, he said
“Sandusky required Mr. Simcisko to shower naked with him in Penn State athletic facilities. In the shower, Sandusky would… press his erect penis against Mr. Simcisko from behind in what Sandusky called a ‘bear hug.’
“Then Sandusky penetrated Mr. Simcisko’s anus with his penis and forced Mr. Simcisko to engage in oral sex with him.”
Penn State paid Simcisko $7.25 million.
When it comes to generosity, combined with gullibility, cowardice, lack of respect for due process and general stupidity, Penn State ranks with the best. Or is it the worst?
To be continued…
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
The psychologist, Barbara Ziv, was also a key witness in the Bill Cosby sexual assault conviction. The conviction was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but not before Bill Cosby had served 3 years in prison. He was 80 years old and legally blind. Ziv has been responsible for hundreds of innocent men going and staying in prison.
We now know, however, that previously undisclosed federal investigation determined that there was no official cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up.
https://www.bigtrial.net/2019/03/will-ethically-challenged-frank-fina.html?m=0
MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019
Will Slippery Frank Fina Beat The Rap Again?
By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net
In oral arguments today before the state Disciplinary Board, Amelia C. Kittredge urged a panel of judges to “simply apply some common sense” and finally reign in former Deputy Attorney General Frank Fina, whom she accurately pegged as an “overzealous prosecutor.”
Kittredge, a lawyer for the state’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, has been stalking the ethically-challenged Fina for a couple of years now. She told the Disciplinary Board that Fina broke “the most revered” and “sacred” legal privilege of them all, the attorney-client privilege, and for that he deserves to be publicly censured.
Fina does have a proven track record of leaking grand jury secrets, trampling on constitutional rights of the accused, and blowing off legal ethics, but for years his brazen conduct been protected in the courts by what some would describe as the old-boys network. But Kittredge pummeled away at Fina today, saying the Disciplinary Board cannot allow Fina to basically use a loophole to “obliterate” a longstanding rule of professional conduct that’s the only defense against an overzealous prosecutor like Fina who seeks to subvert the most basic protection afforded by the criminal justice system, by turning a defendant’s own lawyer into a witness against him.
That’s just what Fina is accused of doing on Oct. 22, 2012, when he told Judge Barry Feudale that he wanted to call Cynthia Baldwin, Penn State’s general counsel, as a witness against three of her clients, but Fina told the judge that he wouldn’t get into any areas of questioning that would violate the attorney-client privilege.
But on Oct. 26, 2012, when Fina questioned Baldwin in front of the grand jury, he “did elicit” what the disciplinary board counsel described as “extensive . . . attorney-client privileged communications as well as “confidential information” pertaining to Baldwin’s three former clients — Penn State president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz, and athletic director Tim Curley.
Fina is accused of breaking Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which states: “A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not, without prior judicial approval, subpoena an attorney to appear before a grand jury or other tribunal investigating criminal activity in circumstances where the prosecutor or other government lawyer seeks to compel the attorney/witness to provide evidence concerning a person who is or has been represented by the attorney/witness.”
According to Kittredge, Fina deliberately misled the judge into not holding a hearing to seek prior approval before getting what he wanted behind closed doors from Baldwin, namely weaponizing the general counsel, and turning her into a witness who testified in secret grand jury proceedings against her own clients.
The actions of Fina and Baldwin were condemned by Lawrence J. Fox, a longtime Philadelphia lawyer who’s a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, who was as an expert witness at Disciplinary Board hearings last June.
“When lawyers feign representation, but in fact abandon their clients, and worse yet, become instrumentalities of the state, aiding the prosecution of their clients, the entire system of justice is systematically destroyed,” Fox wrote.
In a separate action, the state Disciplinary Board has asked the state Supreme Court, which will also have the final say on Fina, to publicly censure Baldwin for abandoning her clients.
When Baldwin testified against her three former clients, according to Kittredge, those clients “astoundingly” were “not present or notified” that they were being sold down the river. Fina’s lawyers, however, have claimed that the three former clients should have known that Baldwin was representing the university as a legal entity, and not the three officials individually.
After the hearings, a three-lawyer Disciplinary Board committee in January issued an opinion recommending that the charges be dismissed against Fina because of a technicality, that Fina’s name was not on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general’s office that summoned Baldwin to the grand jury.
Kittredge told the panel of judges today that the hearing committee had seized on a “non-issue here,” namely the technicality of which prosecutor’s name was on the subpoena issued by the state attorney general’s office.
Former Deputy Attorney General Bruce Beemer signed the subpoena of Baldwin, but it was Fina who questioned Baldwin in the grand jury. According to Kittredge, if the hearing committee’s decision is allowed to stand, the protection afforded by Rule 3.10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct would be “obliterated” by prosecutors as long as they get one of their colleagues to sign their name on a subpoena whenever they’re dragging a lawyer into the grand jury to convince them to testify against their client.
In response, Dennis C. McAndrews, on behalf of Fina, basically did a tap dance routine that involved plenty of feigned outrage and references to the noble crusade Fina was on before he was turning Baldwin into a cooperator. McAndrews referred to Fina’s dogged pursuit of convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, and subsequent pursuit of Penn State officials who allegedly covered up Sandusky’s crimes.
We now know, however, that previously undisclosed federal investigation determined that there was no official cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up.
“This is an extraordinary case,” McAndrews declared. He claimed that no public prosecutor has ever been sanctioned for what Fina is accused of. McAndrews cited five opinions by two judges in the case that covered for Slippery Frank, saying he didn’t do anything wrong.
Fina is a noted escape artist. One of his most famous tricks was when Sandusky’s lawyers went after Fina for numerous leaks in the case that could have only come from the prosecutors. Fina’s defense: he tried to set a trap for the “real leakers,” much like O.J. Simpson’s search for the “real killers,” but couldn’t find them.
The judge, however, bought it, and Frank Fina was off the hook for leaking.
In the disciplinary board case against Fina, McAndrews said, no witnesses and no documents were introduced against Fina.
That’s because for anybody who cares to read it, the court transcripts nail Fina’s ass. But McAndrews kept dancing, and invoking that notorious serial pedophile that Fina was stalking, as well as the enablers of that pedophile.
If Fina was on such an important mission, one of the judges asked, wasn’t that “all the more reason to do everything by the numbers?”
Exactly. Let’s hope this time Fina gets what he so richly deserves.
Someone to finally hold him accountable.
POSTED BY BIGTRIAL.NET AT 4:49 PM
TRIALS: PENN STATE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL
How my dick ended up all over the internet. A true story.exclusive-mike-mcqueary-sent-pictures-his-penis-joe-amendolas-former-fiance-nsfw
oward Stern has a message for all Sandusky supporters:
“I don’t hate the guy [Jerry]. I hate the people who Support him. I think they’re stupid. I do. I’ll be honest with you, I have no respect for you.”
What do you want to tell Howard Stern?
watch
You might hate us but the facts are true but Jerry was ramroded because of Fina who didn’t care about the real facts he deserves a new trial and Frank is going to get that and everyone envolved for not checking the obvious truths that these boys were lying for money and Penn State should be ashamed of themselves for letting that happen.
If Howard Stern shows he has researched the facts of the case and a competency to refute them, he might have something to say. Otherwise, his opinion has no weight here.
His track record of using public radio to demean women has far more impact–and he would contribute more to the public by intentionally atoning the damage done in his own venue. Between that and doing bona fide research on a subject he clearly is clueless on, he can be constructively occupied so as to spare us vacuous insults that make him feel good at public expense.
Why one child rape victim was not enough for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
watch
fuck stick
Thank you for your tenacity, Frank. Anyone who actually understands this case and followed JZ KNOWS the entire case is nothing but trash. Keep it up, Frank, you’re doing a great job and Jerry needs all the help in this corrupt state he can get.
It’s like we’re watching a new generation of Founding Fathers assemble before us
Jack Sandusky and Jerry Raykovitz
Block this
Miss you too, Corn holed in the shower?
U,
Thanks for your comments.
It is true their was no DNA or other direct evidence proving that Sandusky had sex with victims. That said, Sandusky’s own admissions of being in bed with boys, rubbing them, blowing raspberries on their stomachs, showering with them, and other inappropriate conduct was, in fact, consistent with victim testimony. As such, the jury had a relatively easy time deciding his guilt. According to the jury foreman, only Victim 10’s testimony was problematic.
I am on record that Victim 10 fabricated his story, as well as on record that the janitor incident was a hoax.
You are correct that the PA government used the name of Joe Paterno and Penn State football to deflect attention away from the underlying issues that enabled Sandusky to perpetrate his crimes.
You are also correct that the FBI — and in this case, Louis Freeh — has often tampered with evidence in order to achieve the desired end result.
Thanks for reading this blog!
You are so wrong if you really knew Jerry Sandusky you would know that he would never hurt another human being especially a child. Frank has got it right and it will be proven.
That reply was from Ray Blehars blog page diary-entries-point-to-2001-email-fraud.html
This is the highest level of disgusting behavior of a Court’s actions. The truth always comes out and they also may get to rot in hell as they deserve.
So miss Sandusky also? Her family is in need flood relief please help.
Still keeping this old saw going, Frank?
Can’t get anyone to green light your video, eh?
It will happen wait and see
Sure it will
I’m blind
I realize these “teens” were young men when they testified but they were victims of the system and none of them benefitted long term. Their money was blown – no one thought to protect it for them- and they exist with extreme guilt of the lies they were convinced to tell and their disloyalty to Sandusky.
These were financially poor, troubled teens, many of limited ability who were isolated from their families and exploited by big shot lawyers with lies and promises- god only knows what they were told.
The ones who benefitted long term are the attorneys, psychologists and political powerhouses.
These young men were used and led down paths they never sought independent of the court sharks and criminal.
Penn State is not an elite university but a breeding ground for corruption.
The 50+ millions giveaway creates and confirms “victims” of an innocent man.
How can Penn State legally do that and where was the oversight? The public assumed there was a legitimate process by which 56 million was distributed to victims.
Are there documents available which show who received funds, the amount paid, and the “evidence” provided to penn state? Who specifically was in charge of making these determinations for penn state? What lawyers were involved?
Is there any news about Allison Mack, what is she currently doing, is she working on any TV series?
Effective use of masks-
When nothing makes sense, it’s corruption. In this case the corruption, collusion and cover-up is vast- and the case was pushed through as quickly as possible to seal the deals.
Thank you for taking this on. Each article brings new information revealing the denial of Justice to Sandusky.
According to former judge Carmine Prestia, neither Paterno, nor anyone else from the football program, ever interfered in criminal investigations or asked that his players received special treatment in the 40 years he was a policeman and judge.
F&R had the same job after 911. Settle claims no questions asked to help hide the real criminals [there were no planes on 911 – it was CGI – and bad CGI at that – the nose of the plane appears outside the other end of the tower. No chance planes take down WTC – it was bombs/missles and controlled demolition. If you disagree, where’s the plane at Shanksville?]
Every time we read the summary, we shake our heads and wonder how in the world, there isn’t a new trial to correct this injustice. Lots of folks would look foolish if there was a new trial, including the current and former governors, prosecutors, judges and Penn State Trustees. Looks like a stacked deck. Doesn’t it?
If by “stacked deck” you mean Sandusky is obviously guilty and will die in prison, you are correct.
?
Admittedly a recent judge ruled that the changes in testimony was because the ‘victims’ had unanamously had said, in their first police interviews, that Sandusky is just innocent out of being too embarrassed to describe the types of abuse they’d actually experienced all those years ago. So you are not alone in saying S is guilty.
Thing is, if you actually choose one thing you think S did and read all the evidence, you understand, well, OK that one didn’t happen but there are all the others.
Only someone obsessive-compulsive enough to read through thousands of pages of evidence actually realizes, wait a minute, this is really clear.
I’m just going to give one example from this article. Parlato blames civil lawyer Andreozzi who represented Victim 4, Brett Swischer-Houtz. And he quotes Andreozzi explaining why Victim 4 didn’t make any specific accusation by saying “Mr. Swisher-Houtz cannot be expected to list them here”.
You see a process where each witness starts out steadfastly saying, nothing happened. This includes kids who were on route to getting fostered or adopted, where the relationship was really close.
The interview where Swisher-Houtz changed his mind and decided to agree that something DID happen — but which he wasn’t willing to divulge yet — was actually tape-recorded.
In the tape recorded interview, they talk about something another kid said (Aaron Fisher, the first ‘victim’). For years, all Fisher would describe, which Sandusky also described, was that when Fisher would sleep over at Jerry and Dottie’s house, Sandusky would come in at bedtime and read stories to him, or talk, and rarely would tickle him and play together. A couple of times during tickling Sandusky had kissed the kid’s stomach. Both Sandusky and Aaron described this the same way, and it is in the Moulton report and many other documents, that this is all agreed, yes this happened.
But in the police interview where they are trying to get Swo-Houtz to agree that something happened, he is saying, no nothing ever happened, they would wrestle at the gym.
So Andreozzi gets the cops (Leiter and Rossman) to explain their tactics, that they are going to tell a kid that other kids were abused. So with the tape recorder still running, they bring swisher-houtz in and say, did he know that that wrestling in dozens of other cases just leads to oral sex.
And around the same time Aaron had been induced to use the term ‘oral sex’ to refer to what he and Sandusky had both already described.
Swisher-Houtz believes that this is talking about violent rape, and he tells his lawyer (who is going to help him become a milliionaire if he agrees that he was abused), Ben Andreozzi, well, I *am* going to testify, not on behalf of anything that did or did not happen to ME, but to prevent any OTHER kids from being raped during wrestling in the way the cops described.
Andreozzi is really honesta and he tells the media, my client is going to testify, not on behalf of anything that happened to HIM, but to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
This is referring to an attack during wresting, which Leiter and Rossman had, lyingly, told Swisher-Houtz when Swisher-Houtz had described fair and innocent wrestling in the gym.
So Swisher-Houtz had not known that Rossman and Leiter were really talking about what Aaron Fisher had described as a true recollection of a tickle and a kiss on the stomach at bedtime — which happened occasionally with all the fostered and adopted Sandusky kids. The fact they convinced Aaron to call it ‘oral sex’ meant they could tell Swisher-Houtz that wrestling with Sandusky ends in oral sex. His lawyer is there and they are ready to make millions if Swisher-Houtz says this event did happen to him too. He would never have been unethical to tell a lie like that except he was being told Sandusky is already going to jail for doing that. So he thinks OK maybe it never happened to me, but it is still ethical to collect my millions because Rossman and Leiter DID say it happened to other kids,that is all on the tape recording too by the way, and so it is ethical to say yeah it happened to me, so that Sandusky would get a sentence keeping him from ever doing it again to anyone else.
You can put in so many more details, but the point is Andreozzi representeed this guy (now an adult) and he was careful to just tell the media what Swisher-Houtz was saying without trying to distort it or make it believable. He actually says, yeah the kid didn’t put this in writing…and he makes the civil lawyer case… who could expect him to put things like this in writing?
Andreozzi was always like, well, he says it doesn’t matter what did or did not happen to him, he’s going to testify on behalf of others. And Andreozzi was careful to explain on the tape recording during the police interview what was going on. It is not his job to make the defesnse case but he was really really ethical about preserving exculpatory evidence.
I just have no idea why no one was able to collect togehter all the exculpatory evidence into one clear argument.
Frank P can do that. But there is limited space in an article, limited audience interest, limited time in a podcast.
Earlier, I think to some extent, the process of explaining. everything. had basically broken John Ziegler. When all the evidence is out there, when it is all so clear, and a journalist or judge reads three pages and makes a ruling, it is mind-breaking. It is awful.
Extremely well written. Nobody that can make a difference, in the legal world, is going to take the necessary time to understand all the evidence to prove Sandusky was/is innocent. Too much has been invested by some very powerful people in the State government to take another look at the facts. During the last appeal hearing, SANDUSKY’s lawyer had 15 minutes to address the court. How do you make a case in 15 minutes in a hostile environment? Pennsylvania will not do the right thing.
I cannot resist putting in some really infuriating details about this. One is that to protect herself from perjury charges, Dawn Daniels, Aaron’s mom, always said she never knew of any abuse that happened to her son. She had collected a civil suit based on a step parent (non sexually?) abusing one of her daughters, and retained a civil lawyer, Slade Mclaughlin, to get a settlement on behalf of Aaron. For years, she phoned Eshbach at the AG’s office, this is in the Moulton report, asking, did they find ou any information about whether Sandusky is a predator or not. When they would say we have no information about that, she would say that is unacceptable, a parent has a right to know, why can’t you tell me if he is a paedophile or not. Even just before trial, her civil lawyer Slade said on TV “Well, in my 30 years of experience there is no smoke without fire and there sure is a lot of smoke.” But his client for years was the only one generating smoke, pushing and pushing to try to create suspicion.
If we really believe Aaron’s eventually copying from others the lucrative claims of being trapped and repeatedly raped — how is that smoke? How is it that even today his Mom never learned about it? If a serial killer hacked off Aaron’s arms and legs, would his lawyer say “Well, you know, there’s no smoke without fire.” How is Aaron’s eventual claim of being attacked reconcile with his mom and his lawyer not knowing about it? How does it reconcile with HIM not knowing about it, and needing to check online WHETHER Sandusky was a predator or not (this may be in his book Silent no more, it is many places). How can it be that *after* he was attacked, his Mom is just “A mother has a right to know, is Sandusky a predator or not?” How was Aaron and Dawn’s lawyer like “well, no smoke without fire.”
How is it not obvious, from reading Moulton, that Dawn’s persistent pushing and pushing about “Why won’t anyone tell me WHETHER Sandusky is a predator” eventually resulting in a -1800 tip line and internet chat room discussions, second hadn discussions between janitors etc etc all getting transcribed … how is it not obvious that all it took was a kernel of suspicion from a persistent and manipulative individual.
Sandusky is rotting in prison just as he deserves.
He will never be exonerated, because he’s guilty.
He will die in prison.
There is a special place in Hell reserved for him.
And yet all of the evidence in the case says the opposite. You are a sick, sick person.
Sandusky milked the system. ask for more please
If you had demonstrated a digestion of evidence presented here and elsewhere, you might have gained a little credibility. As it is, this remark comes off like one more off-handed piece of drivel mumbled over a neighborhood bar.
There are serious evidentiary concerns raised here. If you can’t take the time to digest them, expect your “contribution’ to be dismissed accordingly.
The Reality is that Pa. is a corrupt judicial system and prosecutors will do anything to get what they want and Penn State is just as bad.
I wish I had done more. Only had been there did that