FC/SIAP: Former OAG Prosecutors testified about V2, grand jury leaks today (link)
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Would you like for me to provide a reference where someone could go to learn the identity of the accusers? I will give a clue, it is in the public record. Would you prefer that I refer to Aaron Fisher as v1, to AM as v2, and to Matt Sandusky as another client of Andrew Shubin? All three of these accusers have come out publicly and it seems to me lose their right to remain unidentified
Since you brought it up, I have a couple of questions for you.
1. What is your opinion of AM? Do you think he is v2? Do you think he has the right to avoid testifying in a court of law concerning what he knows in this case?
2. Do you find Matt Sandusky to be credible? Do you think that his adoptive mother and all 5 of his former brothers and sister in the Sandusky family are liars when they say they don't buy Matt's story that he was repeatedly abused by their father?
3. Do you think that repressed memory therapy is a reliable way to get a possible victim to make truthful allegations of CSA?
Not sure, LL. I think that Lindsay ought to focus on Rominger and whether he leaked anything to NBC as Ziegler would suggest. Say what you will about JZ, but I've read everything on this case, and he seems to have information that could be useful. I don't know what to make of the AM situation. Like everyone has said: either he is V2 or he lied to get a settlement. This whole thing seems to boil down to Shubin in many ways, but I don't know if it is relevant to this particular effort--unfortunately. Throw in the fact that we hope Cleland to be objective, and I am not too optimistic. For the record, I'm not saying I think JS to be innocent. I just think this thing was hurried to trial, and that he did not get a fair trial. For Curley and Schultz to be approaching 5 years and Spanier 4 years, while it took the Sandusky thing 7 months, well....
Actually yes.
Gentlemen, let's start referring to Curley, Schultz and Spanier as (Fkd over) FO1, FO2 and FO3, respectively.
Last edited:
I feel terrible about any of the real victims, but I must admit, if it officially is revealed that the university willingly gave money to non-victims, it's going to cause me great joy.
And JVP as SG01 (Scapegoat).
The above excerpts crack me up. Fina couldn't remember whether or not he attended a meeting held four years ago and apparently that's OK. Yet he charged C/S/S with perjury for basically not remembering details of something which occurred ten years before their grand jury testimony.
Last edited:
The PA OAG is Hydra, the mythological serpent monster. Cut off one of her many heads and two or more grow back.
Last edited:
No it's not necessary at this point. Their names have been stated in open court, AF has written a book for Petes sake. They both have accepted pay outs from PSU.
AM's name was stated multiple times just this past few days by his own lawyer on the stand. So I'm sorry but there is no reason to not say their names.
Especially true when McGettigan and crew claim it proves he never was in the locker-room despite tons of parties that can testify that AM most definitely was in the locker-room during this timeframe (late-1990s and early-2000s), was a favored participant of TSM and spent quite a bit of time with Sandusky!
Perhaps he spent time with JS at the locker-room prior to Lasch (forget what year Lasch opened) as well as at Lasch in the "Friends Fitness Program" and simply confused the locker-rooms given that he was being asked 10 years after the fact.
But the claim by the prosecution that his failure to draw locker-room configuration precisely likely means AM was never in the facility is telling, because it is a provably false conclusion as many of AM's contemporaries can attest - he definitely has been in the locker-room before with JS during his youth, so what if he can draw it or not? Prosecutors conclusion that he had NEVER been in that locker-room during this timeframe is clearly false!
Last edited:
The question of whether AM is V2 or he lied to get a settlement is not an either or. I believe that it is likely that AM is V2 and that he settlement with Penn State was made under false pretensions.
The OAG arguments that AM is not credible because he repeated the OAG/McQueary wrong year the shower incident and was not able to draw a diagram of the Lasch locker room layout are specious IMO. It is the only was that the OAG can avoid admitting that McGettigan lied in his closing arguments when he implied that v2 was known only to God.
First off, Eshbach was very uncomfortable taking these questions. I am guessing that she has been designated to take the fall. My take is that she was conceding that the GJP was not accurate when she said that it was not McQueary's verbatim testimony and thus he did not witness a sexual act. When she said that McQueary testified to what he saw and he saw those acts she is doing her best to try to defend the v2 verdicts. I believe she is trying to defend the indefensible. I believe that it is vital that the issue of the false GJP be completely investigated. I hope that Judge Cleland allows inquiry into this matter and think there is a reasonable chance that he will in his stewardship of Sandusky's PCRA.
Last edited:
Regarding the leaked MS PSP interview to NBC, if you read the trial transcript, there were only 3 copies. The OAG had one, the PSP had one and the defense had one. It wouldn't be hard to wager who leaked it.
Agree on all of your points. For me, what this comes down to: can Cleland be objective? I don't think he can. There needs to be an "A-ha" moment that he has no choice. Though I think there have been many of these, it seems that common sense and logic have been thrown out the window in this case. Too many head-scratching moments for me. When I think something is obvious, it gets spun in a different direction. Bottom line: I will listen and read intently. I just have learned not to get my hopes up.
Well, 16 is still illegal in this country at this time.
But, let's face it, sexual attraction to a 16 yo makes him gay or bi, as opposed to a pedo. And, that is what my position has been all along.
I was talking specifically about a victim who has chosen to remain private. Who is just working to survive at this point. You chose to identify a family member which easily traces back to him. If you're ok with that, nothing I can do. I simply made a request to protect his identify. Just for one moment consider that it might be true - that this young man was sexually abused as a child...it's your post. You're the only one who can decide.
1. I do not know this person. I do not think he is V2 based on what I have read and what I have heard coming out of the PCRA.
2. Yes, I find Matt Sandusky to be credible. It is no surprise that his adoptive family calls him a liar. My biological sister calls me a liar. When child sexual abuse happens intrafamilial, it literally rips apart the family. People are forced to choose sides.
3. RMT is not a factor in this case. It was not used by anyone who testified in the criminal proceeding. It was not used by the defense. The expert the defense called with Elliot Atkins who diagnosed Sandusky with a "histrionic personality disorder." But there were no expert witnesses put on by the defense to argue repressed memory therapy. Therefore your question is moot.
Sorry, but I wasn’t able to write-up my report until now. I had to drive home from Bellefonte and then went to the Pirates game.
Sandusky lawyer Al Lindsay was pleased with the testimony that he was able to get in the record on Tuesday. He was able to ask questions of prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach, Frank Fina, and Joe McGettigan.
Eshbach was first up. She seemed somewhat nervous. She said she drafted the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment that stated that Mike McQueary witnessed a 10 year old in the shower being subjected to anal intercourse. She said that the presentment was edited, but she approved of the final version. She said that is was not verbatim from Mike McQueary, but that Mike McQueary testified what he saw and that he witnessed those acts. Eshbach said that she participated in preparing for the December 2011 Preliminary Hearing for Sandusky, in particular that she attended a meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College that included Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan, Joe Amendola and Eshbach. She didn’t recall details of what transpired. She remembered that they discussed waiving the preliminary hearing and that the prosecution anticipated filing additional charges.
Eshbach said that she was aware of Sara Ganim’s March 30, 2011 article and reviewed it. She said that Ganim may have had sources in the OAG, but she did not know who her sources were. At some point Judge Feudale was approached with concerns about possible Grand Jury leaks. She said that the OAG tried to set up a trap concerning a supposed subpoena of Curley and Schultz, but it didn’t work and there was no public disclosure. She stated that as of March, 2011 the only alleged accuser to testify before the Grand Jury was AF and that v6 didn’t testify before the GJ until June. To the best of her knowledge, she did not believe that Fisher had any knowledge of the 98 incident before March 30. She said that on March 28 that she received a call from v6’s mother that she had received an unwanted text message from Ganim stating the OAG expressed interest in helping V6, but Eshbach did not know who V6's mom was supposed to contact at the OAG. She said that AM was a possible victim who initially denied any victimization. His story wavered and he came forward with Andrew Shubin as his attorney and stated he was a victim and the boy in the shower. She remembered there was some conflict between the OAG and Shubin.
Frank Fina was the next to testify. He seemed comfortable testifying and was at ease. He was first asked about AM. He said that the Pennsylvania State Police first interviewed AM before the Grand Jury Presentment and he didn’t believe that Andrew Shubin was involved at that time. He said that AM said that he had known Jerry Sandusky for some time and he told the trooper than nothing untoward or inappropriate had ever happened with JS. He said that at a later date that the OAG wanted to talk to AM despite what he had initially said, but were not able to find him. Agents became aware of Shubin and contacted him. After McQueary testified in the Preliminary Hearing of Curley and Schultz, Shubin stated that he would make his client available and at some point he did and AM was interviewed on two occasions. His story changed to that he had been sexually assaulted and that it mirrored MM’s testimony. He said that there were a number of concerns including that he got the year wrong (2002 v. 2001) and that his drawing of the Lasch locker room was inaccurate. He said there was an understanding that Shubin was not making AM available. He said that the OAG had to make an evaluation of whether to use AM as a witness. He said that many potential witnesses had profound issues that would make them unusable as a witness and that AM fell into this category. He said there were inconsistencies in his story, but also agreed there were inconsistencies in all the witnesses as they all changed their stories, but that you can parse anyone’s testimony. He said that he didn’t think Aaron Fisher’s inconsistencies were comparable to AM’s inconsistencies.
Fina said that he vaguely remembered the meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before Sandusky’s Preliminary Hearing. He wasn’t sure if he was there in person or via the phone. He wasn’t sure of the exact attendance, thought Sassano might have been there. He said that he thought Judge Cleland might have called the meeting. Some of the topics discussed included waiving the P.H. and bail issues. He said the OAG was interested in having the P.H. waived as it would avoid public disclosure of the identity of the accusers as well as avoid any cross examination of the accusers. In exchange there would be concessions on bail and new charges.
Regarding Grand Jury leaks, he was familiar with Ganim’s March 30, 2011 story. He did not remember Eshbach approaching him about the story. He said that there was another story that concerned him where Dr. Dranov’s Grand Jury testimony was quoted. He said that there is a common misconception that Grand Jury leaks happen all the time. He said that in Pennsylvania, the laws on Grand Jury disclosures are different and that witnesses normally have the right to discuss their Grand Jury testimony publicly. The Commonwealth can only overcome this by ordering witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone. Fina said he was not able to determine if the GJ leak of Dranov’s testimony was illegal. He said he went to Judge Feudale with his concern and Feudale initiated an investigation by Reeder and Brown, but the investigation was stopped. Fina said that he had absolutely no idea of the source of the Grand Jury leaks. Fina further said that the OAG was outraged and upset with the leak and premature disclosure of the November 5 Grand Jury Presentment. He said the OAG gave the District Magistrate a heads up and provided it on Thursday or Friday with the intent of disclosure and issuing an arrest warrant on Monday. Fina said that Linda Kelly was extremely upset and she directed an investigation to find out what happened. The consensus was that someone in the District Justice’s office mistakenly (or not) disclosed it.
Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?” He was first asked about the meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden hotel. He said that Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, and Joe Amendola were all present. He said it was called by mutual agreement. He said that had the P.H. not been waived, they would have moved for an increase in bail. Lindsay read McGettigan’s closing statement and McGettigan said that he absolutely remembered the quotes that were read concerning the 2 boys known to God but not to us. He also said that Sandusky had a wonderful opportunity to identify the boy in the shower and to attempt to exonerate himself in his interview with Bob Costas. McGettigan stated that he knew AM had claimed to be v2 and that AM had been secreted by Shubin and could not be found, and that Shubin was not helpful. He said that he did not believe AM was v2 at trial, and that today he still does not believe AM is v2. The reasons for his belief was that AM was born in 1987 and was not 10 years old in 2001, that he was unable to describe the Lasch locker room layout, that he initially denied any untoward conduct, and that the only information concerning AM came from Shubin.
Cleland ended the hearing with an indication that there would likely be more evidentiary hearings. I believe that at this time, Sandusky’s strongest PCRA issues include the question of who v2 is, the possible OAG involvement in Grand Jury leaks, the decision to have Sandusky do the Costas interview, the decision to waive the Preliminary Hearing, the decision to have Dr. Atkins testify at trial, the decision for Sandusky not to testify at trial, and the use of Repressed Memory Therapy by alleged victims,[/QUOTE]
"Fina said that he vaguely remembered the meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before Sandusky’s Preliminary Hearing. He wasn’t sure if he was there in person or via the phone. He wasn’t sure of the exact attendance, thought Sassano might have been there. He said that he thought Judge Cleland might have called the meeting. Some of the topics discussed included waiving the P.H. and bail issues."
Is a meeting like this, out of court, called by the judge...ethical?
Sorry, but I wasn’t able to write-up my report until now. I had to drive home from Bellefonte and then went to the Pirates game.
Sandusky lawyer Al Lindsay was pleased with the testimony that he was able to get in the record on Tuesday. He was able to ask questions of prosecutors Jonelle Eshbach, Frank Fina, and Joe McGettigan.
Eshbach was first up. She seemed somewhat nervous. She said she drafted the Nov. 2011 Grand Jury Presentment that stated that Mike McQueary witnessed a 10 year old in the shower being subjected to anal intercourse. She said that the presentment was edited, but she approved of the final version. She said that is was not verbatim from Mike McQueary, but that Mike McQueary testified what he saw and that he witnessed those acts. Eshbach said that she participated in preparing for the December 2011 Preliminary Hearing for Sandusky, in particular that she attended a meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College that included Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan, Joe Amendola and Eshbach. She didn’t recall details of what transpired. She remembered that they discussed waiving the preliminary hearing and that the prosecution anticipated filing additional charges.
Eshbach said that she was aware of Sara Ganim’s March 30, 2011 article and reviewed it. She said that Ganim may have had sources in the OAG, but she did not know who her sources were. At some point Judge Feudale was approached with concerns about possible Grand Jury leaks. She said that the OAG tried to set up a trap concerning a supposed subpoena of Curley and Schultz, but it didn’t work and there was no public disclosure. She stated that as of March, 2011 the only alleged accuser to testify before the Grand Jury was AF and that v6 didn’t testify before the GJ until June. To the best of her knowledge, she did not believe that Fisher had any knowledge of the 98 incident before March 30. She said that on March 28 that she received a call from v6’s mother that she had received an unwanted text message from Ganim stating the OAG expressed interest in helping V6, but Eshbach did not know who V6's mom was supposed to contact at the OAG. She said that AM was a possible victim who initially denied any victimization. His story wavered and he came forward with Andrew Shubin as his attorney and stated he was a victim and the boy in the shower. She remembered there was some conflict between the OAG and Shubin.
Frank Fina was the next to testify. He seemed comfortable testifying and was at ease. He was first asked about AM. He said that the Pennsylvania State Police first interviewed AM before the Grand Jury Presentment and he didn’t believe that Andrew Shubin was involved at that time. He said that AM said that he had known Jerry Sandusky for some time and he told the trooper than nothing untoward or inappropriate had ever happened with JS. He said that at a later date that the OAG wanted to talk to AM despite what he had initially said, but were not able to find him. Agents became aware of Shubin and contacted him. After McQueary testified in the Preliminary Hearing of Curley and Schultz, Shubin stated that he would make his client available and at some point he did and AM was interviewed on two occasions. His story changed to that he had been sexually assaulted and that it mirrored MM’s testimony. He said that there were a number of concerns including that he got the year wrong (2002 v. 2001) and that his drawing of the Lasch locker room was inaccurate. He said there was an understanding that Shubin was not making AM available. He said that the OAG had to make an evaluation of whether to use AM as a witness. He said that many potential witnesses had profound issues that would make them unusable as a witness and that AM fell into this category. He said there were inconsistencies in his story, but also agreed there were inconsistencies in all the witnesses as they all changed their stories, but that you can parse anyone’s testimony. He said that he didn’t think Aaron Fisher’s inconsistencies were comparable to AM’s inconsistencies.
Fina said that he vaguely remembered the meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn the night before Sandusky’s Preliminary Hearing. He wasn’t sure if he was there in person or via the phone. He wasn’t sure of the exact attendance, thought Sassano might have been there. He said that he thought Judge Cleland might have called the meeting. Some of the topics discussed included waiving the P.H. and bail issues. He said the OAG was interested in having the P.H. waived as it would avoid public disclosure of the identity of the accusers as well as avoid any cross examination of the accusers. In exchange there would be concessions on bail and new charges.
Regarding Grand Jury leaks, he was familiar with Ganim’s March 30, 2011 story. He did not remember Eshbach approaching him about the story. He said that there was another story that concerned him where Dr. Dranov’s Grand Jury testimony was quoted. He said that there is a common misconception that Grand Jury leaks happen all the time. He said that in Pennsylvania, the laws on Grand Jury disclosures are different and that witnesses normally have the right to discuss their Grand Jury testimony publicly. The Commonwealth can only overcome this by ordering witnesses not to discuss their testimony with anyone. Fina said he was not able to determine if the GJ leak of Dranov’s testimony was illegal. He said he went to Judge Feudale with his concern and Feudale initiated an investigation by Reeder and Brown, but the investigation was stopped. Fina said that he had absolutely no idea of the source of the Grand Jury leaks. Fina further said that the OAG was outraged and upset with the leak and premature disclosure of the November 5 Grand Jury Presentment. He said the OAG gave the District Magistrate a heads up and provided it on Thursday or Friday with the intent of disclosure and issuing an arrest warrant on Monday. Fina said that Linda Kelly was extremely upset and she directed an investigation to find out what happened. The consensus was that someone in the District Justice’s office mistakenly (or not) disclosed it.
Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?” He was first asked about the meeting the night before the P.H. at the Hilton Garden hotel. He said that Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, Frank Fina, and Joe Amendola were all present. He said it was called by mutual agreement. He said that had the P.H. not been waived, they would have moved for an increase in bail. Lindsay read McGettigan’s closing statement and McGettigan said that he absolutely remembered the quotes that were read concerning the 2 boys known to God but not to us. He also said that Sandusky had a wonderful opportunity to identify the boy in the shower and to attempt to exonerate himself in his interview with Bob Costas. McGettigan stated that he knew AM had claimed to be v2 and that AM had been secreted by Shubin and could not be found, and that Shubin was not helpful. He said that he did not believe AM was v2 at trial, and that today he still does not believe AM is v2. The reasons for his belief was that AM was born in 1987 and was not 10 years old in 2001, that he was unable to describe the Lasch locker room layout, that he initially denied any untoward conduct, and that the only information concerning AM came from Shubin.
Cleland ended the hearing with an indication that there would likely be more evidentiary hearings. I believe that at this time, Sandusky’s strongest PCRA issues include the question of who v2 is, the possible OAG involvement in Grand Jury leaks, the decision to have Sandusky do the Costas interview, the decision to waive the Preliminary Hearing, the decision to have Dr. Atkins testify at trial, the decision for Sandusky not to testify at trial, and the use of Repressed Memory Therapy by alleged victims,[/QUOTE]
"Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?”"
That right there is a guy just begging to be taken down. May end up being easy, too. He doesn't even look right.
Fina used AM full name in comments to press on the courthouse steps. Maybe Roxine should give him a call. For that matter, Roxine, "John Doe A" aka TW, the client of Jeff Anderson and Marci Hamilton used their full name in a TV interview during the trial, and then took a payout from PSU and signed to not sue Second Mile, even though the John Doe A lawsuit in the Philly courts named TSM and JS as defendants as well as PSU.
Last edited:
You are welcome to you opinions. I just happen to disagree with all of them. I have no problems with calling out accusers who have come publicly regarding what I believe are serious discrepancies in their stories.
Do you think that accusers who make false accusations of CSA should have to account for them? I do.
Here are my comments on your responses:
1, The OAG knew who AM was at trial and the only way to cover up for that fact now is to try to discredit his statement to Curtis Everhart regarding the year of the incident and not being to to draw an good enough diagram of the Lasch locker room. I believe the OAG's arguments are specious. I repeat my earlier question, do you think AM has the right to avoid testifying in a court of law concerning what he knows in this case?
2. Your experience has nothing to do regarding the credibility of Matt Sandusky. His credibility (or lack thereof) stands on its own.
3. Calling Elliot Atkins to testify was a clear cause of Joe Amendola's ineffectiveness and supports Sandusky's case for a new trial. Repressed memory therapy is absolutely in play in the PCRA hearing. Here is a link to Sandusky's brief requesting in camera review of any therapist notes for any of the numerous accusers who testified that repressed memory therapy helped them to recall abuse
http://co.centre.pa.us/centreco/media/upload/SANDUSKY BRIEF IN CAMERA REVIEW OF THERAPY NOTES.pdf
Last edited:
I believe she did. I take the best notes I can, but I am definitely not a courtroom stenographer. I don't believe she referred to Spanier as I think she was referring to the trap that happened pre-GJP and I don't believe that Spanier was their focus at that time.
Very good question. I think that we will learn more as time goes on regarding the meeting in December 2011 the day before Sandusky's scheduled preliminary hearing at the Hilton Garden Inn in State College with Frank Fina, Joe McGettigan, Jonelle Eshbach, Judge Cleland, District Magistrate Scott, and Joe Amendola. It seems like there was potential for inappropriate contact and ex parte communications between the judiciary, the state, and defense counsel as well as an interest in a lack of transparency regarding what transpired. Witnesses were repeatedly asked about this matter as Sandusky's 3 days of evidentiary hearings in Bellefonte these past 12 days.
Yes, I was referring to one account that said Spanier, which does not fit the timeline. Basically, Fina and Eschbach were content to use Curley and Schultz as bait then? Why not use Raykovitz?!!!! That would actually make more sense, but wouldn't fit into the "Let's make this all about PSU" agenda.
Last edited:
How do we know she isn't right?
Here's your real battle, one that probably cannot be won, but one that we can all get behind morally unless our heads explode first. (see Judge Smails' post about the Feds getting involved, and how they have been so far. My head is spinning.):
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/when-are-the-feds-going-to-get-involved.137903/https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/when-are-the-feds-going-to-get-involved.137903/
https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/when-are-the-feds-going-to-get-involved.137903/
Just curious, what would it take for you to consider an accuser to not be credible?
[QUOTE="Joe McGettigan was the last prosecutor to testify. He got a little testy with Lindsay’s questioning when he was asked if he minded being asked a question responding with “what if I do mind?”"
That right there is a guy just begging to be taken down. May end up being easy, too. He doesn't even look right.[/QUOTE]
I would love to see McGettigan taken down. After the hearing, I heard Joe ask that a photographer not take a photo of him smoking a cigarette. That was an invitation I couldn't turn down.
That right there is a guy just begging to be taken down. May end up being easy, too. He doesn't even look right.[/QUOTE]
I would love to see McGettigan taken down. After the hearing, I heard Joe ask that a photographer not take a photo of him smoking a cigarette. That was an invitation I couldn't turn down.
I would love to see McGettigan taken down. After the hearing, I heard Joe ask that a photographer not take a photo of him smoking a cigarette. That was an invitation I couldn't turn down.
just so I get it right . . . it was the serial pedophile on trial who thought V2 was credible, and provided the correct date of the incident.
ayup, can't make this crap up
she's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!
wonder what other chat boards she is pasting with her inane requests.
she can't shut down Ziegler's site, bahahahaha. more fail on her part
let me see if I can simplify it for you . . . who the f**k knows?
OAG did not believe his story, but thought there was a V2, but only God knows who it was
then AM did an interview with Amendola's investigator saying Sandusky did nothing
then Shubin became his attorney
then apparently he hid out at a hunting cabin for weeks while Sassano was trying to interview him
then he got $3 million from Penn State
Latest posts
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-