On Monday at 10 a.m., Al Lindsay, Jerry Sandusky's appeals lawyer, will talk to the media about his reaction to the report of seven Penn State trustees on the "flawed methodology and conclusions" of the Louis Freeh Report."Of course we are gratified that somebody in a position of authority has challenged the Freeh Report, which, of course, we believe was flawed in many ways," Lindsay said in a press release. "I must reluctantly state, however, that there is a significant flaw in the A7 Report. The Report accepts as gospel that Jerry Sandusky actually did these things. So much of what is wrong in the Freeh Report and the A7 response, is that we are operating under that paradigm. Of course, it is our position from day one that Jerry Sandusky is absolutely innocent of the charges and was convicted of the various counts only by a very flawed criminal trial."
Also appearing with Lindsay will be John Snedden, a former NCIS special agent who conducted a contemporaneous but previously unknown federal investigation on the Penn State campus for six months in 2012 and found no official cover up.
In the press release, Snedden described previous investigations at Penn State as "politically motivated, agenda-driven, and collusive."
"What does that previously unknown concurrent and independent federal investigation have to say about this whole mess?" Snedden said in the press release. "Monday at 10 a.m. be there."
The press conference will be held at The Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, 1357 East College Avenue, State College PA.
Also appearing at the press conference will be Ralph Cipriano of bigtrial.net. Cipriano will talk about how confidential documents show that the entire board of trustees at Penn State paid out $118 million to 36 alleged victims of Sandusky -- an average of $3.3 million each -- without having those alleged victims questioned by lawyers, forensic psychiatrists or detectives, or subjected to polygraph tests or criminal background checks.
"Easy money," is how Big Trial has described the payouts at Penn State.
Lindsay presently has an appeal before the state Supreme Court on Sandusky's behalf filed under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. "Hopefully, we will be granted a new trial," Lindsay said.
The press conference caps some recent new developments in the so-called Penn State sex scandal. The report done by the trustees on Freeh was recently leaked. The leaking of that report, and perhaps the contents as well, are expected to dominate a meeting of the full board of trustees at Penn State today.
Meanwhile, former Penn State president Graham Spanier, who was the subject of Snedden's investigation, yesterday lost his appeal to the state Supreme Court of his conviction of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. As a result of the appeal, Spanier may be headed to jail to serve a sentence of two months, followed by two months of home confinement.
How the hell can a University President be responsible for unknown individuals? If the state of Pennsylvania can mete out hard time for a political adversary of the former Governor for someone known only to God where the exact circumstances of just what happened are far from clear then what can they do to you and I?
ReplyDeleteWill someone in a position of authority please launch a federal investigation to determine the facts of the case. If they do, I believe they will find:
1. The boy is the shower is not unknown. An objective investigation will identify the boy in the shower as Alan Myers.
2. Alan Myers may or may not have been abused. An objective investigation will determine that Alan Myers was likely not abused.
3. Mike McQueary is not a credible witness. He has given multiple different accounts of what happened. The incident in the Lasch building showers likely happened on December 30, 2000. McQueary complained via email to prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach that she twisted his words in the grand jury presentment. McQueary did not witness an anal rape as McQueary has already testified that he did not see penetration.
4. Graham Spanier was the victim of a political vendetta by Tom Corbett
5. The Penn State Board of Trustees, in a rush to judgment, prematurely fired Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier.
6. The Freeh Report is a propaganda piece that has no basis in the facts of the case
Steve, agree with all your points. It's a real travesty at Penn State. If only the mainstream media had some interest in finding out what really happened.
ReplyDeleteRather than helping the guilty parties continue the cover up.
Do you expect any Inky reporters to have a front row seat at the press conference?
DeleteSue Snyder plans to be there with her ears and eyes covered.
DeleteRalph, good stuff but PLEASE stop referring to this as the Penn State sex scandal. It's about Sandusky. Or The Second Mile. None of this even took place on campus. Please stop.
ReplyDeleteHe said "so called"
DeleteNothing took place anywhere!
DeleteDorothy, I seem to recall some guy named Paterno getting caught up in this, as well as guys named Spanier, Curley & Schultz.
ReplyDeleteSorry, it may have started with Jerry Sandusky, a retired coach, but the MEDIA and the AG and the NCAA and Louie Freeh and the plaintiff's lawyers turned it into the Penn State sex scandal. Didn't the NCAA fine PENN STATE $60 million? Didn't they impose a four-year bowl ban on PENN STATE?
Didn't three top PENN STATE administrators get sentenced to jail over this?
I don't think your argument is with me. If this was a Jerry Sandusky story, it would have never turned into the media sensation that it became.
FREEH REPORT WAS VERY DILUTE AND OF COURSE THE FAKE PRESS "WENT" WITH THE SENSATIONALISM OF THE IDEA. VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT MATT MILLEN BAD MOUTHED PATERNO. EVERYONE JUMPED ON THE BAND WAGON BEFORE THE TRUE FACTS WERE OUT. LET'S GET THE TRUTH OUT THERE. HOW SUBSTANTIAL CAN FREEH BE GIVEN HIS TRACK RECORD IE.. RUBY RIDGE, WACO????
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that all those kids whose dad is in prison and whose mom is in drug rehab, called each other up and got the same story. They are now millionaires. Imagine that! Pretty good play.
ReplyDeleteRalph,
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Sandusky's lawyer that Sandusky is "absolutely innocent of the charges and was convicted of the various counts only by a very flawed criminal trial?"
What is Snedden's opinion on that?
I didn't cover the trial but it sounds like a circus that was rushed through, with the judge knowing the defense wasn't ready and were so overwhelmed that they had to waive the preliminary hearing, when they would have had a chance to question Sandusky's accusers.
DeleteWaiving a preliminary hearing in a case like this is the definition of insanity. There was an off the record meeting the night before the preliminary hearing attended by both the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, the magistrate and the TRIAL JUDGE, who belatedly admitted being there and taking notes.
A meeting like that really smells.
I don't think there is any evidence that Sandusky is a pedophile, as the stories of the alleged victims, both in the criminal courts and civil courts, are completely unvetted.
In a case where the total accusations span 40 years, not one of 36 alleged victims ever made a contemporaneous report to anyone about being abused. Very unusual.
The whole case smells like a scam to me. I defer to the unholy alliance that Al Lindsay spoke of. When the media is whipping up hysteria, the trustees had already run up the white flag, and the trial lawyers are howling for blood [and cash] that's when the chances are good that someone can be railroaded.
That's what this case smells like to me, a railroad job. What's needed is a complete independent investigation from top to bottom. The AG and Freeh repeatedly broke grand jury secrecy law and colluded during their twin and supposedly independent investigations. That stuff alone taints both investigations.
Throw in lying cops, therapists who used scientifically discredited memory recover therapy to elicit or create suspect testimony through hypnosis or guided imagery and you've got a freaking travesty on your hands. That's where we're at.
IMO it's this simple. John McQueary, Dranov, JoePa, Curley, and Shultz all said that Mike McQueary didn't tell them about sexual assault.
ReplyDeleteBy what logic do we believe John McQueary and Dranov but say that the 3 PSU officials lied?
What also stinks is that if Curley and Schultz were charged because they spoke to Mike McQueary and did not contact the police, then Dranov and John McQueary should have been charged. They did the same thing only within about an hour of the alleged sexual assault when the police might have been able to still collect forensic evidence from the purported crime scene.
DeleteI suspect that Dranov and John McQueary were not charged as a favor to Mike McQueary.
As for what Snedden thinks, maybe somebody will ask him at the press conference.
ReplyDeleteI believe Jerry Sandusky is completely innocent and that these “victims” lied...period. I believe the “victims” knew exactly what they were doing and downright LIED. This case needs to be and deserves to be reinvestigated. The injustice done to all of these ethical men (Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno AND Sandusky) is despicable.
ReplyDeleteYes, read the book Witches, about the Salem which trials. The similarities re profound.
DeleteYou are correct Ralph: There is absolutely no physical evidence that JS abused anyone and tons of evidence that lots of people are lying and that the OAG suborned perjury, including that paragon of grandstanding, Josh (nobody is above the law) Shapiro. The Prince of deception! I wish that I could take the 2500 mile trip to be at the conference because I would turn Mr. Shapiro any which way but loose.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jerry+Sandusky+Admits+Guilt&&view=detail&mid=D4D2B5A82CD051CFF682D4D2B5A82CD051CFF682&&FORM=VRDGAR
ReplyDeleteRalph, did you go to the press conference? I have been waiting for your column on what transpired.
ReplyDeleteI was there; am waiting for video clips to post on this site. Hope to have them very soon.
ReplyDeleteRalph...Did you look at the Cardinal Pell case in Australia? Depressingly similar to the Billy Doe case. Pell was convicted with absolutely no evidence, only the testimony of an altar boy who got caught drinking altar wine, and his story was absurd. Another scheming altar boy.
ReplyDelete"A Melbourne detective admitted in court that an investigation began against Pell in March of 2013 even though there were no criminal complaints against him. Pell's attorney then rightly observed, "It was an operation looking for a crime and a complainant."...H-m-m-m. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime...," Levrentiy Beria, Soviet NKVD.
ReplyDeleteFrom
http://www.themediareport.com/2018/12/31/cardinal-george-pell-case-facts/
http://www.themediareport.com/2018/12/31/cardinal-george-pell-case-facts/