Standing before the podium with his reading glasses perched on his nose in a Really Serious Position, former FBI Director Louis Freeh read the summary of his damning report on what happened at Penn State University. The university, he intoned, was directly responsible for permitting Jerry Sandusky, the former football team defensive coordinator and now a convicted child molester, for preying on young "troubled" boys.
So far, the media response has been lockstep not only in its condemnation for Penn State and the late Joe Paterno, the legendary coach who won more games than any other NCAA Division I football coach in history, but also in its praise for Freeh. (I include links from the New York Times, ESPN, and CBS Sports.)
Not being familiar with the details of the report or the Sandusky case and the role of Penn State officials in trying to hide what they feared was happening, I will ask readers to judge the accuracy and tone of Freeh’s report and make their own assessments. However, before the media and legal world goes on to paint Louis Freeh in the most heroic terms, I would remind readers that probably any one of us could have written that report and made the same damning comments made by Freeh and his underlings. It hardly is heroic to come upon a situation after the fact and to write those things which apparently were obvious in hindsight.
No, I am writing in order to let readers know that this "heroic" Louis Freeh has some serious baggage of his own, baggage that includes covering up murders, whitewashing the most hideous domestic massacre since Wounded Knee, publicly making wrongful accusations, and further turning the Federal Bureau of Investigation into an entity that James Bovard accurately has called, "A Stasi for America." Louis Freeh does not deserve our praise; indeed, he does not even deserve our scorn. Instead, he deserves to be sitting in a cell at the federal Supermax Prison in Colorado, as the crimes he committed during his years at the FBI pale in comparison to anything done by Paterno, whose legacy Freeh has destroyed, or even Sandusky ever did.
Read the rest of the piece here.
Showing posts with label Jerry Sandusky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerry Sandusky. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2012
Saturday, November 12, 2011
My recent LRC article on the Penn State mess
Here is a piece I had on Lew Rockwell's site in which I criticize Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly. I don't expect agreement from readers, but nonetheless I do believe that Kelly has turned this thing into something out of control.
As I see it, there is no chance whatsoever of Sandusky being able to receive a fair trial (which I suspect was part of Kelly's plan), and by seeking questionable indictments and making inflammatory statements, she has made things much worse than they should have been.
As I see it, there is no chance whatsoever of Sandusky being able to receive a fair trial (which I suspect was part of Kelly's plan), and by seeking questionable indictments and making inflammatory statements, she has made things much worse than they should have been.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Jerry Sandusky: Why I believe police have a strong case against him
Last April, I posted about the investigation into retired Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys. Last weekend, the other shoe dropped and police arrested Sandusky and charged him with sexual abuse:
Unfortunately, after the arrests, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly declared that Sandusky was: "a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys." She also declared about the two PSU officials:
Furthermore, as this Wall Street Journal article points out, neither Curly nor Schultz are what the law calls "first responders" to allegations of child molestation. In other words, claiming that they legally were responsible for reporting Sandusky is something that AG Kelly should NOT be saying, given that she actually is supposed to know Pennsylvania state law on these matters. (However, while you and I are legally supposed to know EVERY LAW in EVERY STATE and the federal government, as well as every single regulation, the courts have exempted judges, prosecutors, and the police from that requirement. I'm not kidding. In other words, we already have legalized tyranny.)
That is why Kelly had the men charged with perjury, as she knew she did not have a legal case against them, but she is going to claim they lied to the grand jury. Using those standards, she could have also charged PSU coach Joe Paterno with crimes, but in so doing would have put herself out on a limb, given Paterno's status not only as the winningest college football coach but also as someone known for following the rules.
As I said last April, the status of Penn State football and the status of the coaches at PSU has served as a braking mechanism for investigators, who usually are more likely to be charging ahead, making outrageous statements, and trying to coerce witnesses. They knew they could not do that in this situation and get away with it, which means they probably did a much more effective job than they normally might have done.
The case against Sandusky, as I noted in the title, seems pretty strong. These paragraphs alone tells me that there are more than just rumors:
Was this the proper course of action? All of the articles (and they are legion), including ones here, here, and here, say that Paterno and Curly should have gone to the police immediately.
As noted earlier, the law is unclear. However, I would like to go a step further and say that given what we have seen in the past regarding how police and prosecutors deal with allegations of child molestation, I also would be hesitant to go to the police unless I knew for certain. There are too many instances in this country in which people who have talked to the police either find themselves in legal trouble or are framed by cops and prosecutors.
In Tonya Craft's situation, it is absolutely clear that Sandra Lamb and Dewayne Wilson worked hand-in-glove with Tim Deal and Chris Arnt to out-and-out frame Craft, and when those entrusted with enforcing the law are most likely to lie, then one cannot trust ANYONE in law enforcement to do the right thing. Let me repeat my point: Police and prosecutors in this country already have proven beyond a doubt that they are untrustworthy and are willing to frame innocent people, so going to the police about anything is a very risky thing.
For all of the chest beating about what Joe Paterno SHOULD have done, I would say that not one of the journalists or other pundits was in his shoes, and to say that he was "covering up" something this awful is not warranted. I have no idea what happened, and neither do they.
That being said, however, I do believe that the police and prosecutors have a strong case. When I first heard the rumors, I thought it might be a situation of parents and children wanting to extort money from Sandusky and his organization, The Second Mile. The account of the grad student, however, changes my opinion.
How this will turn out, I don't know. Journalists always rush to judgment and they always will. However, if the police and prosecutors have the case against Sandusky they claim, then this will have an inevitable conclusion of finding Sandusky guilty. As for Curly and Schultz, I don't know.
I will add this, however. Given that prosecutors -- and this includes Kelly -- often use witnesses they KNOW are lying (and never charged with perjury), it seems like overkill to me to charge these PSU officials with perjury. Prosecutors are willing to use perjury as a tool to help gain wrongful convictions -- that we know for a fact -- and for them to turn around and use it in this way simply is wrong.
Jerry Sandusky, 67, the Penn State defensive coordinator during two of the team’s national championship years before retiring in 1999, was arrested Saturday on charges of sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period.This is the result of an investigation that has been going on for a long time. Furthermore, the investigators were not making outrageous statements (unlike what we saw in the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Tonya Craft Case, where in both situations, police and prosecutors lied and made up things as they went along), at least while the investigations were occurring.
Two top university officials — Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director — were charged with perjury and failure to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations, as required by state law.
Unfortunately, after the arrests, Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly declared that Sandusky was: "a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys." She also declared about the two PSU officials:
It is also a case about high-ranking university officials who allegedly failed to report the sexual assault of a young boy after the information was brought to their attention, and later made false statements to a grand jury.From what I can tell, the first statement violates the Rules of Conduct of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court, Rule 3.8(e), while the second, with the word "allegedly," does not. The rule states:
...except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.In other words, Jerry Sandusky is CHARGED with the crimes; he has not been convicted, and the AG cannot call him a "predator" outright. (Not that this matters, since as a matter of course, prosecutors rarely are punished for breaking Rules of Conduct from their various states, as they have seized control of the judicial system.)
Furthermore, as this Wall Street Journal article points out, neither Curly nor Schultz are what the law calls "first responders" to allegations of child molestation. In other words, claiming that they legally were responsible for reporting Sandusky is something that AG Kelly should NOT be saying, given that she actually is supposed to know Pennsylvania state law on these matters. (However, while you and I are legally supposed to know EVERY LAW in EVERY STATE and the federal government, as well as every single regulation, the courts have exempted judges, prosecutors, and the police from that requirement. I'm not kidding. In other words, we already have legalized tyranny.)
That is why Kelly had the men charged with perjury, as she knew she did not have a legal case against them, but she is going to claim they lied to the grand jury. Using those standards, she could have also charged PSU coach Joe Paterno with crimes, but in so doing would have put herself out on a limb, given Paterno's status not only as the winningest college football coach but also as someone known for following the rules.
As I said last April, the status of Penn State football and the status of the coaches at PSU has served as a braking mechanism for investigators, who usually are more likely to be charging ahead, making outrageous statements, and trying to coerce witnesses. They knew they could not do that in this situation and get away with it, which means they probably did a much more effective job than they normally might have done.
The case against Sandusky, as I noted in the title, seems pretty strong. These paragraphs alone tells me that there are more than just rumors:
At approximately 9:30 p.m. on March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant entered what should have been an empty football locker room. He was surprised to hear the showers running and noises he thought sounded like sexual activity, according to a Pennsylvania grand jury “finding of fact” released Saturday.This isn't Joal Henke testifying to something he "just remembered this morning" about something that clearly was a lie; this is a graduate assistant who probably had dreams of being a college coach allegedly witnessing something that not only was stunningly awful, but also would have been a potential roadblock to his being able to get a job in coaching ranks, given the expressed prohibitions of "ratting out" other coaches. As the article states, he told Paterno, who then says he told PSU athletic director Curly.
When he looked in the shower he saw what he estimated to be a 10-year-old boy, hands pressed up against the wall, “being subjected to anal intercourse,” by Jerry Sandusky, then 58 and Penn State’s former defensive coordinator. The grad assistant said both the boy and the coach saw him before he fled to his office where, distraught and stunned, the grad assistant telephoned his father, who instructed his son to flee the building.
Was this the proper course of action? All of the articles (and they are legion), including ones here, here, and here, say that Paterno and Curly should have gone to the police immediately.
As noted earlier, the law is unclear. However, I would like to go a step further and say that given what we have seen in the past regarding how police and prosecutors deal with allegations of child molestation, I also would be hesitant to go to the police unless I knew for certain. There are too many instances in this country in which people who have talked to the police either find themselves in legal trouble or are framed by cops and prosecutors.
In Tonya Craft's situation, it is absolutely clear that Sandra Lamb and Dewayne Wilson worked hand-in-glove with Tim Deal and Chris Arnt to out-and-out frame Craft, and when those entrusted with enforcing the law are most likely to lie, then one cannot trust ANYONE in law enforcement to do the right thing. Let me repeat my point: Police and prosecutors in this country already have proven beyond a doubt that they are untrustworthy and are willing to frame innocent people, so going to the police about anything is a very risky thing.
For all of the chest beating about what Joe Paterno SHOULD have done, I would say that not one of the journalists or other pundits was in his shoes, and to say that he was "covering up" something this awful is not warranted. I have no idea what happened, and neither do they.
That being said, however, I do believe that the police and prosecutors have a strong case. When I first heard the rumors, I thought it might be a situation of parents and children wanting to extort money from Sandusky and his organization, The Second Mile. The account of the grad student, however, changes my opinion.
How this will turn out, I don't know. Journalists always rush to judgment and they always will. However, if the police and prosecutors have the case against Sandusky they claim, then this will have an inevitable conclusion of finding Sandusky guilty. As for Curly and Schultz, I don't know.
I will add this, however. Given that prosecutors -- and this includes Kelly -- often use witnesses they KNOW are lying (and never charged with perjury), it seems like overkill to me to charge these PSU officials with perjury. Prosecutors are willing to use perjury as a tool to help gain wrongful convictions -- that we know for a fact -- and for them to turn around and use it in this way simply is wrong.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The Jerry Sandusky Case: What are the appropriate questions?
With false accusations of sex-related crimes running rampant in our country, it often becomes difficult to ascertain what the truth might be when someone makes an accusation that might be credible -- or could be a lie. It becomes even more difficult when the person accused is well-known and admired.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is reporting that a grand jury there is looking into allegations that Jerry Sandusky, the legendary assistant coach who worked with Joe Paterno at Penn State until retirement in 1999, sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy. Here is what was said on the Huffington Post today:
Let me explain a parallel case, that being the charges against Michael Rasmussen. Like Sandusky, Michael has more than one person making accusations. However, as one looks closely at who is accusing Michael and the context of those accusations, one finds that there absolutely is no evidence except what three people are claiming.
Furthermore, as one examines EACH of the accusations, it is not hard to see that they are questionable, and when the case comes to trial, we will find that the prosecution's "slam dunk" witnesses are going to be stumbling over a lot of facts that will be put in front of them. As I see it, the fact that there are multiple accusers in the end will make the case even weaker as the defense exposes the contacts between them. For example, Apryl has claimed that she had not had any contact with Scott Monroe, another accuser.
However, it will not be difficult for the defense to establish that there was contact and planning between them. When that happens, the defense also will have demonstrated that Apryl committed a felony by making false statements and then lying on top of them. (Prosecutors already have told Apryl that this will be an easy case, and that she will only be on the stand for a short time. So, they have lied to her as well. This should be interesting.)
Likewise, there were multiple accusers in the Tonya Craft case, and they crashed and burned, especially when it became obvious that they had been coached, and when Sandra Lamb's daughter actually recited lines from the movies in which she acted. So, I cannot say that two accusers against Sandusky actually means anything.
I do find it interesting, however, that the police are doing what seems to be a careful investigation, unlike what we saw with Tonya Craft, the Jacobson child, Michael Rasmussen, and James Combs. In those cases, the police decided on the front end that the accused were guilty and that their job was to find a way to hammer square pegs of evidence into the round holes of truth.
It is obvious to me that the police are being careful because if they are seen trying to railroad someone as prominent as Jerry Sandusky, then they are going to be scrutinized in every other sex-assault case they have investigated. Likewise, prosecutors will come under the kind of scrutiny that the press and others rarely give them if they are seen to try to fabricate evidence against one of the most respected sports figures in Pennsylvania.
Now, I cannot say in this post that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of anything. In the accusation from more than a decade ago, police tried to trick him into making a self-incriminating statement, and their scheme fell apart. (That is why I say that just because someone accused him of sexual assault more than 10 years ago might very well mean absolutely nothing.)
Nor can I say I believe the guy is innocent. I don't know, and right now I have no idea about what the investigation is doing, what people are saying, and if there is evidence beyond the "he said, he said" nature of this case. If a number of other young men come forward and make similar claims -- claims, I might add, that could be demonstrated to be credible -- then things might become much more difficult for Sandusky.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: the law permits sexual-assault-molestation cases to go to trial simply on the word of an accuser. No physical evidence is necessary. (I don't know the details of Pennsylvania law, but when the federal government became involved in this area through the Mondale Act, one of the provisions was that states change their law to eliminate the need for physical evidence or anything else besides an accuser's words. I suspect that Pennsylvania has fallen into line.)
I'm extremely wary of cases that are built upon someone's accusation, and especially someone who would stand to gain money (should a jury convict) through a lawsuit. I would be curious to know if any of the accusing parties have approached Sandusky or the organization he represents to demand money. Maybe that has not happened, but in other cases, we do find money to be a powerful motivator.
I know nothing about Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola. He might be an excellent attorney, someone who is well-versed in these kinds of cases, or he might be a friend who has handled other matters for Sandusky and has been called upon for this case as well. The important thing here is that if Amendola is NOT experienced in dealing with sexual assault accusation cases, or if he is not familiar with the reasons that such cases are very, very different from other kinds of criminal cases, then Sandusky could be in serious trouble, even if he is innocent.
Jerry Sandusky's fame and reputation have served as a check upon the authorities in Pennsylvania to throw together a slipshod case in hopes of scoring a quick and easy victory. Nonetheless, here is a man whose reputation forever is stained, and if he is innocent and the accusations false, may those who accused him be forced to pay dearly. If the accusers are telling the truth, then I would hope the law would deal properly with him. We shall see.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is reporting that a grand jury there is looking into allegations that Jerry Sandusky, the legendary assistant coach who worked with Joe Paterno at Penn State until retirement in 1999, sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy. Here is what was said on the Huffington Post today:
Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State defensive coordinator known for his charitable work helping at-risk children, is being investigated by a state grand jury on allegations he indecently assaulted a teenage boy, a newspaper reported.The Patriot-News also reported this:
Sandusky has not been charged. A grand jury examines accusations to determine if evidence warrants filing charges.
A message left by The Associated Press at a number listed for Sandusky in State College was not immediately returned. His lawyer, Joseph Amendola, said in a statement that Sandusky maintained his innocence and was disappointed the newspaper published a story "prior to any determination by the Attorney General's Office that he did anything inappropriate at all."
"While Jerry has been aware of an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General's Office for many months dating back to 2009, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout this ordeal," Amendola said.
The Patriot-News in Harrisburg reported Thursday that it spoke to five anonymous sources with knowledge of the case who say a grand jury has been meeting in Harrisburg for 18 months to hear allegations made by a 15-year-old boy in 2009.
The paper reported the teen told authorities that there was inappropriate contact over a four-year period.
Two months ago, state police at Rockview in Centre County began calling witnesses to a May 1998 report by Penn State University police detailing an earlier allegation of inappropriate contact against Sandusky by another boy.All of this sounds quite damning, yet as one who is familiar with how the police work in such cases, this information might provide real evidence that Sandusky is a child molester -- or it could be absolutely meaningless. Unfortunately, as I read some of the comments made by readers of the articles, it seems that they have seen absolute proof of his guilt.
According to several sources, that boy, who was 12 at the time, alleged he and Sandusky were showering in the football building on Penn State’s campus when the incident took place.
The boy’s mother told The Patriot-News she was specifically instructed by state police at Rockview not to speak with a reporter. Her name is being withheld by The Patriot-News to protect the identity of her son.
No charges were ever filed against Sandusky.
According to sources close to the investigation, the boy told police in 1998 that Sandusky had showered with him in a locker room of the Lasch Building — home to the football program — during a tour. The boy claimed Sandusky washed his body during the shower, sources said.
As part of the May 1998 investigation, police had the boy’s mother call Sandusky to her State College home and confront him while they hid in another room, according to sources.
Another boy, now an adult in the armed forces, was named as a witness in the 1998 Penn State police report and has been contacted by state police, his wife confirmed.
Let me explain a parallel case, that being the charges against Michael Rasmussen. Like Sandusky, Michael has more than one person making accusations. However, as one looks closely at who is accusing Michael and the context of those accusations, one finds that there absolutely is no evidence except what three people are claiming.
Furthermore, as one examines EACH of the accusations, it is not hard to see that they are questionable, and when the case comes to trial, we will find that the prosecution's "slam dunk" witnesses are going to be stumbling over a lot of facts that will be put in front of them. As I see it, the fact that there are multiple accusers in the end will make the case even weaker as the defense exposes the contacts between them. For example, Apryl has claimed that she had not had any contact with Scott Monroe, another accuser.
However, it will not be difficult for the defense to establish that there was contact and planning between them. When that happens, the defense also will have demonstrated that Apryl committed a felony by making false statements and then lying on top of them. (Prosecutors already have told Apryl that this will be an easy case, and that she will only be on the stand for a short time. So, they have lied to her as well. This should be interesting.)
Likewise, there were multiple accusers in the Tonya Craft case, and they crashed and burned, especially when it became obvious that they had been coached, and when Sandra Lamb's daughter actually recited lines from the movies in which she acted. So, I cannot say that two accusers against Sandusky actually means anything.
I do find it interesting, however, that the police are doing what seems to be a careful investigation, unlike what we saw with Tonya Craft, the Jacobson child, Michael Rasmussen, and James Combs. In those cases, the police decided on the front end that the accused were guilty and that their job was to find a way to hammer square pegs of evidence into the round holes of truth.
It is obvious to me that the police are being careful because if they are seen trying to railroad someone as prominent as Jerry Sandusky, then they are going to be scrutinized in every other sex-assault case they have investigated. Likewise, prosecutors will come under the kind of scrutiny that the press and others rarely give them if they are seen to try to fabricate evidence against one of the most respected sports figures in Pennsylvania.
Now, I cannot say in this post that Jerry Sandusky is guilty of anything. In the accusation from more than a decade ago, police tried to trick him into making a self-incriminating statement, and their scheme fell apart. (That is why I say that just because someone accused him of sexual assault more than 10 years ago might very well mean absolutely nothing.)
Nor can I say I believe the guy is innocent. I don't know, and right now I have no idea about what the investigation is doing, what people are saying, and if there is evidence beyond the "he said, he said" nature of this case. If a number of other young men come forward and make similar claims -- claims, I might add, that could be demonstrated to be credible -- then things might become much more difficult for Sandusky.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: the law permits sexual-assault-molestation cases to go to trial simply on the word of an accuser. No physical evidence is necessary. (I don't know the details of Pennsylvania law, but when the federal government became involved in this area through the Mondale Act, one of the provisions was that states change their law to eliminate the need for physical evidence or anything else besides an accuser's words. I suspect that Pennsylvania has fallen into line.)
I'm extremely wary of cases that are built upon someone's accusation, and especially someone who would stand to gain money (should a jury convict) through a lawsuit. I would be curious to know if any of the accusing parties have approached Sandusky or the organization he represents to demand money. Maybe that has not happened, but in other cases, we do find money to be a powerful motivator.
I know nothing about Sandusky's attorney, Joseph Amendola. He might be an excellent attorney, someone who is well-versed in these kinds of cases, or he might be a friend who has handled other matters for Sandusky and has been called upon for this case as well. The important thing here is that if Amendola is NOT experienced in dealing with sexual assault accusation cases, or if he is not familiar with the reasons that such cases are very, very different from other kinds of criminal cases, then Sandusky could be in serious trouble, even if he is innocent.
Jerry Sandusky's fame and reputation have served as a check upon the authorities in Pennsylvania to throw together a slipshod case in hopes of scoring a quick and easy victory. Nonetheless, here is a man whose reputation forever is stained, and if he is innocent and the accusations false, may those who accused him be forced to pay dearly. If the accusers are telling the truth, then I would hope the law would deal properly with him. We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
