Frank Parlato
This hearing was the single greatest threat to the prosecution’s case and the NCAA’s timeline.
In Pennsylvania, a preliminary hearing gives a defendant the right to review the Commonwealth’s evidence, identify the accusers, and test whether there is sufficient cause to proceed to trial.
Recovered Memories and Shifting Stories
Most of the men who accused Jerry Sandusky did not allege any abuse until years later, after their civil attorneys arranged for therapy involving claims of repressed and recovered memory — a process said to have helped them “remember” abuse long forgotten.
Several accusers gave statements that changed significantly from their initial police interviews to their grand jury and trial testimony. A preliminary hearing would have fixed their accounts under oath and allowed the defense to cross-examine on any later changes.
The Missed Opportunity
The preliminary hearing, set for December 13, 2011, at 9 a.m., was the only proceeding where the defense could have tested these allegations before a jury heard them.
At that hearing, the defense could have identified inconsistencies — including “victims” who the prosecution could not identify or locate (#2 and #8), overlapping accounts that conflicted with one another (#1 Fisher and #9 Paden), alleged locations that did not exist at the time of the claimed events (such as Kajak’s reported “sauna”), and witnesses who initially denied any abuse before later revising their statements during therapy (Simciscko, Struble).
At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel could question the alleged victims about their mental health histories, criminal backgrounds, the number and nature of police and prosecutor interviews, changes in their accounts, exposure to suggestive psychotherapy, and any involvement of civil attorneys pursuing financial claims based on “recovered” memories.
The Daubert Challenge That Never Came
A preliminary hearing could have led to a Daubert challenge — requiring the prosecution to demonstrate that so-called “repressed memory” evidence met scientific standards of reliability. Such a hearing would have addressed whether the theory, widely associated with the “Satanic Panic” era, had been discredited by leading psychological associations, which have found that traumatic events are not forgotten – but just the opposite – they are remembered.
At a Daubert hearing, defense counsel could have called memory experts such as Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, whose research shows that memory is highly malleable and authority figures, including therapists, can shape memories.
The defense could also have subpoenaed the therapists’ notes and methods. If those records revealed leading questions (“Did he touch you here?”), hypnosis, or other suggestive techniques, the court could have ruled the resulting “recovered memories” inadmissible — and the key accusers’ cases might have collapsed as a result.
A Daubert hearing would likely have caused substantial delays — requiring expert scheduling, extensive briefing, and possible interlocutory appeals that could have extended the case for months or even years.
The Hilton Garden Inn Meeting
Hours before the scheduled preliminary hearing, Judge John Cleland convened a special hearing. He did not hold it in court but instead chose a small conference room at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College.
On the evening of December 12, 2011, Judge Cleland met with prosecutors Frank Fina and Joe McGettigan, and defense counsel Joe Amendola. No court reporter was present. Judge Cleland made no official record. Sandusky, the defendant, was not in attendance.
The Bail Bargain
During that meeting, Amendola agreed to waive Sandusky’s right to a preliminary hearing in exchange for the prosecution’s representation that it would not seek an increase in bail.
The threat to raise bail had no real basis. Sandusky was under home confinement, monitored electronically, and presented no credible risk of flight or danger to the community. Any attempt to increase his bail could have been contested before the magistrate and appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
The agreement accomplished one thing: it eliminated the preliminary hearing that could have tested—and potentially undermined—the prosecution’s case.
The Rush to Judgment
During the hotel meeting, Judge Cleland set an expedited trial schedule.
The practical effect was to align the proceedings with Penn State’s institutional interests—avoiding the risk of NCAA sanctions, including the potential “death penalty,” which could have cost the university and the surrounding economy hundreds of millions of dollars.
A drawn-out trial revealing evidentiary weaknesses would have prolonged the scandal into the football season; a rapid conviction served to contain the damage and stabilize the program.
Safeguard Surrendered
By waiving the preliminary hearing, defense counsel relinquished the opportunity to challenge the admissibility of “repressed memory” evidence before trial. As a result, the scientific validity of that theory was never tested in court, and the jury ultimately heard it without challenge.
The Daubert hearing—the mechanism for examining such evidence—was the key safeguard. It was surrendered quietly in that hotel room.
With that single off-the-record decision, the course of the case was set.
Seven Months from Indictment to Trial
From indictment to trial: seven months — an exceptionally rapid pace for a case of this complexity.
The defense repeatedly stated it was unprepared, lacking essential information such as dates, timelines, and the full identities of accusers. Ten days before trial, prosecutors produced approximately 12,000 pages of discovery, much of it unlabeled and disorganized. Judge Cleland denied multiple defense motions for a continuance.
When defense counsel moved to withdraw, the court denied the request.
A Trial That Couldn’t Wait
Amendola might have said: “Your Honor, my duty is to provide competent representation. We have not had time to investigate witness statements, retain experts, or review the discovery just produced. You have denied every request for time. If that means holding me in contempt, so be it — my duty to my client must come first.”
But Amendola did not say that. He should not have been surprised by the rushed trial. He had agreed to it seven months earlier, in that Hilton Garden Inn conference room.
And so, despite being unprepared—and having created the very conditions for that unpreparedness by agreeing to waive the preliminary hearing and accept a rapid trial schedule—Amendola proceeded to trial.
Jerry Sandusky was convicted and sentenced to 30 to 60 years in state prison.
The trial lasted less than two weeks. It began and ended in June 2012 — just in time for the upcoming football season to proceed without interruption.
With Sandusky convicted, the NCAA deemed the matter resolved, allowing Penn State to continue its program under heavy sanctions and financial penalties.
The Secret Revealed
The Hilton meeting remained undisclosed until 2016, four years after Sandusky’s conviction.
When it finally surfaced, Judge Cleland expressed indignation.
After previously denying every motion for recusal, he ultimately stepped down—stating that he did so “to err on the side of demonstrating fairness,” even as he complained that the defense had “impugned the integrity of the court.”
A Case on Fast Forward
The seven-month span from indictment to trial in the Sandusky case was unprecedented for a case of its scope and complexity.
For comparison:
- Phil Spector (murder): 3 years, 4 months
- Elizabeth Holmes (fraud): 3 years, 3 months
- Casey Anthony (child murder): 2 years, 7 months
- Oklahoma City Bombers (domestic terrorism): ~2 years
- Harvey Weinstein (sexual assault): 1 year, 8 months
- Bill Cosby (sexual assault): 1 year, 6 months
- Jerry Sandusky (sexual abuse): 7 months.
In a single unrecorded meeting, Sandusky forfeited the only hearing that could have examined the reliability of the evidence, exposed potential judicial coordination, and tested the NCAA’s influence behind the scenes.
Justice Behind Closed Doors
Judicial conferences are meant to occur in court, on the record, and subject to public scrutiny. Yet in this case—one followed by hundreds of media outlets from around the world—the pivotal meeting took place in a hotel conference room.
The propriety of that meeting was later raised in one of Sandusky’s appeals. But as appellate history shows, the standard applied to Sandusky’s case was far stricter than what might be expected in a lower-profile prosecution.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Brown chuckled, “He actually said that.”
Brown respects the people of his hometown of Bellefonte, calling the residents “hard-working, law-abiding and responsible.”
Brown said he knew and was good friends with the trial judge in that case, John Cleland, a former district attorney in McKean County.
“I knew John Cleland well. I have respect for him,” he said. “The choice was good.”
He said he knew Cleland “would do things right, and it would be a fair trial.”
On April 15, 2005, Gricar went missing under mysterious circumstances and has not been heard from since. After he had been missing for years with no trace of his whereabouts
Same here watch it
search
Sandusky saw his church burn, I was 5 blocks away at the bowling alley
A fire caused by an electrical problem in the attic destroyed St. Paul’s, 250 E. CollegeAve., in November 1987.
10162638018013217
FyI indeed our hero Joe knew
photo
Frank you could write about me and how the commonwealth tried to rape me. And blame my 6th admendment right. While stoking the fire $ grooming the Duskies pro boner
The Great Rape of 1903
has a connection to this case
He was the best man
article42812820.html
Sandusky On the team:
“Obviously a very disappointing loss. Very disappointing the way we lost at the very end, all three areas need improvement.”
It is my firm belief that NiceGuy is becoming a FAT SLOB (especially now that he’s entered his middle-aged years).
It is my firm belief that NiceGuy is stuffing his face with 60% carbs per day (60% of his calories come in the form of carbs).
For those idiots who don’t know, a LOW FAT diet is a SUPER HIGH CARB diet.
A diet with ‘normal’ (moderate) fat intake is also a HIGH CARB diet.
That’s why older Americans are becoming FAT SLOBS. Every time those poor saps buy “low fat” foods — they’re basically buying HIGH CARB foods.
It is my firm belief that NiceGuy is too CHICKENSHIT to post his true A1C level (from his last health examination).
Your A1C level is a blood sugar measurement which indicates your body’s sensitivity to insulin over the last 3 months (i.e., your body’s ability to burn carbs for energy rather than store them as fat tissue).
Obesity among middle-age and older Americans is largely caused by higher-than-normal A1C levels.
The easiest way to decrease your A1C level is to reduce carb intake.
A lower A1C level results in lower fat storage, a stronger immune system, and better overall health.
NiceGuy is gonna wind up looking like a FAT SLOB if he doesn’t take steps now to become healthier.
He’s too chickenshit to rebut anything here. He’s likely too busy stuffing his face with excess carbs right now (probably Boston fish ‘n chips — which is fish breaded with tons of carb-filled batter along with pure-carb french fries).
He’s an unhealthy jagoff, from Beantown.
Have a good day. 🙂
That seed oil is gonna get you. Stop being a one trick pony with your carb obsession. To let it rule your life like this, you must have been one sugared- up, fatty, vitamin D deficient, virgin. I suggest spending less time grandstanding and more time praising the wonders of semaglutide.
Takeaways:
A. Bangcock is a reformed fatty
B. Bangcock is still a virgin and still rarely leaves his mom’s boyfriend’s basement
C. Bangcock fries his eggs in canola oil
D. NiceGuy is a fat slob who chases his monte cristo sandwiches with decanters of port
E. NiceGuy would rather give himself shots in the buttocks than tail Bangcock and have Ozempic face
The Sandusky case is similar to the failed McMartin Preschool hoax and the Salem Wtich trials from the days of yore.
Frank is fighting for true justice here.
It’s sad to think that humanity hasn’t evolved from the silly days of the Salem Witch Trials, but here we are.
Immature mobs still hold sway in today’s world — no different from the Salem Witch Trials.
The reason such hoaxes become part of our justice system is because childish mobs of liberal babies (people like NiceGuy, Nutjob, and Ice-Nine) allow emotions and politics to rule their sense of justice, rather than logic.
Make no mistake, humanity has not evolved much (mentally) from the Salem Witch Trials. Technology has evolved, but not much else.
If I had my way, I’d deport NiceGuy, Nutjob, and Ice-Nine to Uganda or El Salvador for a minimum period of 4 years. I’d also deport their families to Gitmo for a period of 2 years.
Have a good day. 🙂
You keep singing the same song over and over and over.
This isn’t going to get Jer out of jail.
Sending thoughts and prayers!
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
Second Mile kept secrets even from its board, some say
PennLive.com
https://www.pennlive.com › midstate › 2012/08 › second…
Aug 12, 2012 — Charges against Jerry Sandusky have been filed — more than 40 counts of child sex abuse against eight victims. “We were just waiting for it to …
Key details from the Sandusky scandal involving Second Mile staff:
I’m shocked Frank allowed this factual post on his site since it doesn’t support the pro-child-rape PR campaign funded by perverted Penn State athletic supporters.
People also ask
Why did Frank report the kids to CPS?
Frank calls Child Protective Services on his own family after being kicked out of his own house once again. When a CPS worker comes for a visitation at a particularly hectic time, the underage kids are forced into separate foster homes, many being less-than-adequate.
I am not sure what “Frank” you are referring to. But if it is me – just for the record my two children are in their 30s. They do not live with me – for the simple reason that they are adults with careers and homes of their own. I was never kicked out of my house at any time. I do not believe any one ever tried. If they had tried it would have gone very badly for them. There was a time when the US goverment tried to seize my house. They were unsuccessful. I never had any involvement with any CPS worker in my life. What this proves is that you are a liar, presupposing you are referring to me.
I have a question for you: when was the last time you bathed?
LOL. This reminds me of myself responding to blind darts that Bangcock sidearms my way.
Every time I shower my water and turds float past the next house then head to Penn States sewer plant? Was there a body of a missing woman chopped up in it? Hard to shower here man
Why are you being so defensive, Frank?
Oh… you post the comment about yourself so you could the then post a denial and create drama to boost your pitiful website stats.
Come on, man. Post more sex cult material. THAT’s the interesting stuff.
But, I get it, Penn State alums won’t pay you for that content.
Interesting that multiple references to the “2002 incident” show up here. That was one of the first clues that the prosecution did not have their facts right. Mike McQueary testified to the grand jury that the infamous shower episode occurred in March, 2002. It was later discovered that McQueary’s brief meeting with Paterno occurred on Feb. 10, 2001. Whoops.
Based on the unconfirmed assumption that McQueary went to Paterno promptly the morning after the episode, the prosecution quietly changed the presumed date of the “incident” to February 9, 2001, for the trial. The press never picked up on the change and seemed not encouraged to do so.
That date, however, does not match McQueary’s own description of his activities of that night, leading up to his visit to the locker room–deserted campus during a school break, watching football on TV. The date matching that setting precisely is 7 weeks earlier, December 29, 2000.
On the night of the episode, McQueary interviewed Dr. Dranov, a mandated reporter, who asked pointed questions about what he saw. Dranov testified under oath that McQueary claimed to have seen no sexual activity at all.
This leaves us with 4 serious issues of substance:
1) This account is clearly different from the prevailing accusation of rape.
2) McQueary’s sense of urgency reporting the episode to Paterno, if he
waited 7 weeks to mention it.
3) How reliable is McQueary’s memory about any of this? He told Franco
Harris in January 2012 that he saw no sexual activity that night.
4) How damning is the “failure to report” if Dranov testified that there was
nothing to report, and he chose not to do so, and yet was never
challenged; while Paterno was condemned, and other officials were
convicted of crimes for claiming the same thing?
Second Mile personnel might have felt there was inordinate attention; but that falls far short of indictable crimes.
AI Overview
The claim that Second Mile staff had to tell Jerry Sandusky to “back off” certain kids was revealed during the investigation and trials following the discovery of his extensive child sexual abuse. The statement reflects that some people within the charity recognized Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior long before it was publicly reported.
This is a clarification of my other comment…for anyone old enough to remember the news in those days. When Sandusky was on bail, because he didn’t seem like a risk to anyone, it was no national news that a possible predator is living next to a school, and neighbours had videos of him! The videos showed him coming on the front porch, petting a big old dog and going back in. So the national news was on the story, but sort of in an ironic way.
I don’t know why the promise of no increased bail as a good bargaining chip for Joe Amendola, but the notion of his client having a perp walk,and THAT being on the news was probably a main consideration. So the Hilton Garden Inn meeting was maybe like a notion of how do we deal with the publicity here. Also it really seemed clear that a perp walk,and then a preliminary trial —well, an innocent person has a constitutional right not to have their life ruined by a false innuendo. It really does make sense that Sandusky should be allowed to go on with his life and let this be tested fairly in court.
I think that also underlay Judge Cleland’s notion that Sandusky *deserves* a trial with no delay. I really thought that Cleland saw the whole thing as a media anomaly, teething problems of the new internet and social media. Joe and Jerry wanted a *local* jury who would *know the truth* because of talking to everyone, and Joe and Jerry wanted him out of jail so people could come to his house and say what is going on, or TELL him what is going on.
It actually wasn’t fair that he or Dottie needed to attend to any of this nonsense, and as soon as possible have an actual, real, jury trial with an actual, real, jury who would be fair and only convict based on real evidence. Of which there was none because he was a totally innocent guy.
Show me the sex tape. Someone in the media said there was one floating in the Second Mile chain of venue.
There is no sex tape just another faslehood promulgated by certain Penn State trustee.
Due process is for innocent not the guilty. Sandusky was guilty. The judge decided that before the hotel meering. No need to hold a preliminary hearing for a guilty pervert.
It is justice. Too bad if you don’t like it.
Strange comment–unless it’s intended as a parody on itself. Due process is for everyone, to establish innocence or guilt. The remark typically prejudged the case before substantial evidence was ever heard. That is precisely why we got this mess.
Sorry I’m kind of too tired to look up specific details today. I remember Joe Amendola’s decision at the time, it seemed to make sense. Sandusky (and Dottie) were totally mystified by the accusations, which weren’t specific and mainly just included vague but explosive sexual language. And Joe really believed Jerry and Dottie. He also thought any accusers deserve a fair trial. He said, he and Jerry want him to be able to remain out of jail first, because it’s the fair thing, and second, because they wanted to be out there walking around and talking to people and trying to understand *what* *on* *earth* is actually going on.
That seemed more important than a trial, which yes would decide the truth as long as the amount of crazy publicity and weird statements didn’t keep increasing.
I think there really was a notion that the crazy new innuendo and condemnation of all types coming out of the woodwork, the main thing was to get it really carefully analyzed as soon as possibe before more and more and more arrived; and at that time the only discovery Amendola being told, no one is saying any particular thing happened on any particular date, so there is nothing to give you.
That is actually in the trial records. No detailed discovery about when and where or even what event had happened. Also, about the preliminary hearing, if you have a guy who’s gone public and started saying his 4 years with Sandusky was a nightmare but didn’t say why — what will that person say if you put him on the stand. Hasn’t made any specific accusation, maybe it’s best to go directly to trial about how 4 years was a nightmare. rather than have it in the transcript of a preliminary hearing where the person is going to be asked to formulate a false accusation of why it was a nightmare.
Judge Cleland’s job was to make sure the pre trial hearing was forfeited. But who directed Cleland?
The secreted hotel meeting was designed to seal Jerry’s fate and end the case. It was over that day and there’s no way, unless Amendola is completely incompetent, that he wasn’t in on the deal.